Findings Of Fact On May 25, 1979 NFRH requested a binding letter of determination of a Development of Regional Impact status for a proposed 97-bed addition to the hospital at Gainesville, Florida (Exhibit 1). In this request NFRH suggested that the 97-bed addition was exempted by Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes, from the other provisions of Section 380.06 and included evidence to show that NFRH was constructed prior to 1973 and had thereby obtained a vested status. Petitioner sought to intervene in that proceeding and requested a formal hearing before the BLID issued. This was denied by Respondent. In response to NFRH request for this binding letter of interpretation, Respondent, on 22 June 1979, issued the letter in the format of a final order as prescribed by Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, containing findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order that the proposed addition of 97 beds to NFRH at Gainesville did not have to comply with the review requirements of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, applicable to developments of regional impact. Petitioner has appealed the issuance of this final order to the district court of appeal. This action to challenge the BLID as a rule was then filed.
The Issue Whether Rules 40B-1.702(4); 40B-4.1020(12) and (30); 40B-4.1030; 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c); 40B-4.2030(4); 40B-4.3000(1)(a); 40B-4.3010; 40B-4.3020; 40B-4.3030; 40B- 4.3040; and 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, of the Suwannee River Water Management District, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for reasons described in the Second Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Rules.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. The District is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between the District and the Department (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the work of the district (WOD) impacts. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile. The Challenged Rules The rules or portions thereof which are challenged in this proceeding are as follows: Rule 40B-1.702(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) A works of the district permit under Chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., must be obtained prior to initiating any project as outlined in (3) above within a regulatory floodway as defined by the District. Rule 40B-4.1020(12) and (30), Florida Administrative Code, read as follows: (12) "Floodway" or 'regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river, stream, or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year flood without cumulatively increasing the 100-year flood elevation more than a designated height. Unless otherwise noted, all regulatory floodways in the Suwannee River Water Management District provide for no more then one-foot rise in surface water. * * * (30) "Work of the district" means those projects and works including, but not limited to, structures, impoundments, wells, streams, and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands, which have been officially adopted by the governing board as works of the district. Works of the district officially adopted by the board are adopted by rule in Rule 40B-4.3000 of this chapter. Rule 40B-4.1030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The implementation dates of this chapter are as follows: January 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(a) which requires persons to obtain surfacewater management permits. April 1, 1986 for Rule 40B- 4.1040(1)(b) and Rule 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain works of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; The Aucilla River and its floodway in Jefferson, Madison, or Taylor counties, Florida; The Suwannee River or its floodway in Columbia, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, or Suwannee counties, Florida; or The Withlacoochee River and its floodway in Hamilton or Madison counties, Florida. (c) July 1, 1986 for Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) or 40B-4.3040 which require persons to obtain work of the district development permit if the proposed development is in one of the following areas adopted as a work of the district. The Santa Fe River and its floodway in Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, or Union counties, Florida; or The Suwannee River and its floodway in Dixie, Gilchrist, or Levy counties, Florida. Rule 40B-4.1040(1)(b) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) Permits are required as follows: * * * Works of the district development permit prior to connecting with, placing structures or works in or across, discharging to, or other development within a work of the district. When the need to obtain a works of the district development permit is in conjunction with the requirements for obtaining a surfacewater management permit, application shall be made and shall be considered by the district as part of the request for a surfacewater management permit application. Otherwise, a separate works of the district development permit must be obtained. Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (4) The new surfacewater management systems or individual works shall not facilitate development in a work of the district if such developments will have the potential of reducing floodway conveyance. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3000(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: The governing board is authorized to adopt and prescribe the manner in which persons may connect with or make use of works of the district pursuant to Section 373.085, Florida Statutes. Further, Section 373.019(15) provides that works of the district may include streams and accompanying lands as adopted by the governing board. In order to implement the non-structural flood control policy of the district, the governing board finds it is necessary to prevent any obstruction of the free flow of water of rivers and streams within the district. Therefore, the governing board does hereby adopt the following rivers and their accompanying floodways as works of the district: The Alapaha River and its floodway in Hamilton County, Florida; . . . . Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: A general works of the district development permit may be granted pursuant to the procedures in Rule 40B-1.703 to any person for the development described below: Construction of a structure for single-family residential or agricultural use including the leveling of land for the foundation and associated private water supply, wastewater disposal, and driveway access which is in compliance with all applicable ordinances or rules of local government, state, and federal agencies, and which meets the requirements of this chapter. A general permit issued pursuant to this rule shall be subject to the conditions in Rule 40B-4.3030. Rule 40B-4.3020, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Content of Works of the District Development Permit Applications. Applications for a general work of the district development permit shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-5, "Application for General Work of the District Development Permit," Suwannee River Water Management District, 4-1-86, hereby incorporated by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the applicant or owner; Copies of all permits received from local units of government, state, or federal agencies, specifically a copy of the building or development permit issued by the appropriate unit of local government, including any variances issued thereto, and a copy of the onsite sewage disposal system permit issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under Chapter 10D- 6, Florida Administrative Code; A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon; and Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable documents, which in the applicant's opinion, may support the application. Applications for individual or conceptual approval works of the district development permits shall be filed with the district and shall contain the following: Form 40B-4-4, "Application for Surfacewater Management System Construction, Alteration, Operation, Maintenance, and/or Works of the District Development", Suwannee River Water Management District, 10-1-85, hereby adopted by reference and which contains the following: The applicant's name and complete address including zip code; The owner's name and complete address if applicant is other than the owner; If applicable, the name, complete address, phone number, and contact person of the owner. General project information including: The applicant's project name or identification number; The project location relative to county, section, township, and range, or a metes and bounds description; The total project area in acres; The total land area owned or controlled by the applicant or owner which is contiguous with the project area; A description of the scope of the proposed project including the land uses to be served; A description of the proposed surfacewater management system or work; A description of the water body or area which will receive any proposed discharges from the system; and Anticipated beginning and ending date of construction or alteration. Copies of all permits received from, or applications made to, local units of government, state, or federal agencies. A site plan to scale showing all improvements, work, or works with any conditions or limitations placed thereon. Any supporting calculations, designs, surveys, or applicable legal documents, which in the applicant's opinion, support the application. Copies of engineer or surveyor certifications required by this chapter. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Conditions for Issuance of Works of the District Development Permits. The district will not approve the issuance of separate permits for development in a work of the district for any proposed project that requires a district surfacewater management permit pursuant to Part II of this chapter. For such projects, development in a work of the district may be authorized as part of any surfacewater management permit issued. The district will not approve the issuance of a works of the district development permit for any work, structures, road, or other facilities which have the potential of individually or cumulatively reducing floodway conveyance or increasing water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation, or increasing soil erosion. The district will presume such a facility will not reduce conveyance or increase water-surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation or increase soil erosion if: Roads with public access are constructed and laid out in conformance with the minimum standards of local government. Where roads are not required to be paved, the applicant must provide design specifications for erosion and sediment control. Where roads are required to be paved, swales will generally be considered adequate for erosion and sediment control; Buildings in the floodway are elevated on piles without the use of fill such that the lowest structural member of the first floor of the building is at an elevation at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation; The area below the first floor of elevated buildings is left clear and unobstructed except for the piles or stairways; A permanent elevation monument is established on the property to be developed by a surveyor. The monument shall be adequate to establish land surface and minimum buildup elevations to the nearest 1/100 of a foot; No permanent fill or other obstructions are placed above the natural grade of the ground except for minor obstructions which are less than or equal to 100 square feet of the cross-sectional area of the floodway on any building or other similar structure provided that all such obstruction developed on any single parcel of land after the implementation date of this chapter is considered cumulatively; No activities are proposed which would result in the filling or conversion of wetlands. For any structure placed within a floodway which, because of its proposed design and method of construction, may, in the opinion of the district, result in obstruction of flows or increase in the water surface elevation of the 100-year flood, the district may require as a condition for issuance of a work of the district development permit that an engineer certify that such a structure will not obstruct flows or increase 100-year flood elevations. The following conditions shall apply to all works of the district development permits issued for development on lands subdivided after January 1, 1985: Clearing of land shall be limited [except as provided in (b) and (c) below] to that necessary to remove diseased vegetation, construct structures, associated water supply, wastewater disposal, and private driveway access facilities, and no construction, additions or reconstruction shall occur in the front 75 feet of an area immediately adjacent to a water. Clearing of vegetation within the front 75 feet immediately adjacent to a water shall be limited to that necessary to gain access or remove diseased vegetation. Harvest or regeneration of timber or agricultural crops shall not be limited provided the erosion of disturbed soils can be controlled through the use of appropriate best management practices, the seasonal scheduling of such activities will avoid work during times of high-flood hazard, and the 75 feet immediately adjacent to and including the normally recognized bank of a water is left in its natural state as a buffer strip. As to those lands subdivided prior to January 1, 1985, the governing board shall, in cases of extreme hardship, issue works of the district development permits with exceptions to the conditions listed in Rule 40B-4.3030(4)(a) through (c). The 75-foot setback in paragraphs (a) through (d) above shall be considered a minimum depth for an undisturbed buffer. The limitations on disturbance and clearing within the buffer as set out in paragraphs through (d) above shall apply, and any runoff through the buffer shall be maintained as unchannelized sheet flow. The actual depth of the setback and buffer for any land use other than single-family residential development, agriculture, or forestry shall be calculated in accordance with the methodology in: "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds", U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Engineering Division, Technical Release 55, June 1986; and, "Buffer Zone Study for Suwannee River Water Management District", Dames and Moore, September 8, 1988, such that the post-development composite curve number for any one-acre area within the encroachment line does not exceed; a value of 46 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class A soils; a value of 65 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class B soils; a value of 77 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class C soils; or a value of 82 for areas within the encroachment line with predominantly Class D soils. (emphasis supplied) Rule 40B-4.3040, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Unlawful Use of Works of the District. It shall be unlawful to connect with, place a structure in or across, or otherwise cause development to occur in a work of the district without a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause an unpermitted development to be removed or permitted. It shall be unlawful for any permitted use to violate the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or this chapter, or the limiting conditions of a works of the district development permit. The district may use any remedy available to it under Chapter 120 or 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40B-1, Florida Administrative Code, to cause the unpermitted use to be removed or brought into compliance with Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and this chapter. Damage to works of the district resulting from violations specified in Rule 40B-4.3040(1) and (2) above shall be repaired by the violator to the satisfaction of the district. In lieu of making repairs, the violator may deposit with the district a sufficient sum to insure such repair. Rule 40B-400.103(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: (1) In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter or chapter 40B-4, F.A.C., an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * (h) Will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to s. 373.086. . . . Facts Based Upon the Evidence of Record History of the rules Mr. David Fisk is Assistant Director of the District. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed there for 26 and one-half years. He played a significant role in the rule adoption process of the rules that are the subject of this dispute. As part of that process, the District entered into a consulting contract with an engineering, planning, and consulting firm and consulted with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to conduct what are described as the FEMA flood studies. Additionally, the district commissioned an aerial photography consultant who provided a series of rectified ortho photographs of the entire floodplain of the rivers within the District, and a surveying subcontractor who provided vertical control and survey cross sections and hydrographic surveys of the rivers. The District also worked in conjunction with the United States Geological Survey to accumulate all of the hydrologic record available on flooding. The information was given to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who, operating under FEMA guidelines for conducting flood insurance rate studies, performed the analytical and computer modeling work to identify the flood plains and floodway boundaries. The District used the amassed knowledge of maps, cross sections and surveys that were developed as part of the FEMA flood studies as technical evidence or support for the adoption of the works of the district rules. Following a series of public workshops and public hearings in 1985, the rules were adopted and became effective in 1986. None of the rules were challenged in their proposed state. The District adopted the floodways of the Suwannee, Santa Fe, Alapaha, Aucilla, and Withlacoochee Rivers as works of the district. According to Mr. Fisk, the District adopted the rules pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to the District to adopt district works and Section 373.085, Florida Statutes, which provided authority to regulate activities within those works. The Floodway Line Petitioner hired Mr. John Barnard, a professional civil engineer, with extensive environmental permitting experience, to look at the floodway and floodplain issues associated with Petitioner's site and project. Mr. Barnard conducted an engineering study entitled, "Floodplain Evaluation." It was Mr. Barnard's opinion that FEMA's determination of the floodway line was less than precise. Mr. Barnard used FEMA's data regarding the base flood elevation but manually changed the encroachment factor resulting in his placement of the floodway line in a different location than determined by FEMA. Mr. Barnard acknowledged that different engineers using different encroachment factors would reach different conclusions.1/ Respondent's expert in hydrology and hydraulic engineering, Brett Cunningham, noted that the definition of floodway in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is essentially the same definition that used is in the FEMA regulations and which also is commonly used across the country in environmental rules and regulations. Mr. Barnard also acknowledged that the District's definition of "floodway", as found in Rule 40B-4.1020(12), Florida Administrative Code, is fairly commonly used by environmental regulatory agencies. Moreover, it was Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the Alapaha River is a stream or watercourse within the meaning of the rule and its floodway an accompanying land. In Mr. Cunningham's opinion, the FEMA flood insurance studies are widely used across the country for a variety of reasons and are typically relied upon by hydrologists and engineers to locate floodways. The definition of "works of the district" in Rule 40B-1020(30), Florida Administrative Code, is taken directly from the language found in Section 373.019(23), Florida Statutes. The statutory definition includes express references to streams and other watercourses, together with the appurtenant facilities and accompanying lands. Petitioner alleges that the phrase "will not cause adverse impact to a work of the SRWMD" as found in Rule 40B- 400.103(1)(h) is not clear because it does not identify what specific adverse impacts are being reviewed. While Petitioner's expert, Mr. Price, was not clear as to what the phrase means, Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase and noted that "adverse impact" is a phrase which is very commonplace in the rules and regulations of environmental agencies and is attributed a commonsense definition. The expert engineers differed in their opinions as to the meaning of the term "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" as used in Rule 40B-4.2030(4), Florida Administrative Code. According to Petitioner's expert engineer, Mr. Barnard, "potential for reducing floodway conveyance" is not a specific term that is open to interpretation as an engineer, and that he cannot quantify what constitutes "potential." Respondent's expert, Mr. Cunningham, understood the meaning of the phrase to be any increase in floodway conveyance. It was his opinion that there was nothing about that phrase to cause confusion. Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, addresses conditions for issuance of works of the district development permits. Petitioner's expert Mr. Price testified that there is no quantification to what constitutes an "increase in soil erosion" as referenced in subsection (2) and linked the reference of soil erosion to a 100-year flood event referenced in the same subsection. Mr. Cunningham was of the opinion that there is no need to quantify an increase in soil erosion in the rule. He noted that soil erosion is used in a common sense manner and that attempting to put a numerical limit on it is not practical and "it's not something that's done anywhere throughout the country. It's just not something that lends itself to easy quantification like flood stages do". Mr. Cunningham's opinion that the words and phrases which Petitioner asserts are vague are words of common usage and understanding to persons in the field is the more persuasive testimony. This opinion is also consistent with statutory construction used by courts which will be addressed in the conclusions of law.
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Austin is the owner of real property located at 1580 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Heslin is the owner of real property located at 1530 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Lighthouse is the applicant for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit for structures and activities proposed to occur on property located adjacent to Austin’s property. Heslin’s property is located within 500 feet of the proposed project site. The property for which the CCCL permit is sought is located landward of the mean high water line (MHWL). On January 31, 2006, the Department gave notice of issuance of a CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The proposed permit authorizes activities 228 feet seaward of the CCCL, specifically, the construction of a subdivision roadway/cul-de- sac including asphalt and limerock foundation, excavation of soil, filling of soil, ornamental street lights, stormwater management swales, below grade utilities, and dune enhancement plantings. Lighthouse obtained a subdivision plat for the site from Gulf County, Florida, on June 28, 2005, which includes 12 platted lots seaward of the CCCL, each approximately one quarter acre in size. When issuing the CCCL permit, the Department did not consider the platted subdivision that will be serviced by the permitted roadway project. Austin filed a petition challenging the issuance of the CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The challenge is styled Gloria Austin v. Lighthouse Walk, LLC and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 06-1186 (hereafter “the Permit Challenge”), and is pending before Judge Alexander. Heslin sought and was granted leave to intervene in the Permit Challenge. Paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (Petition) in the Permit Challenge state as follows: 6. The proposed subdivision that is intended to be built by Lighthouse, will result in incompatible high density residential development seaward of the costal control line and seaward of the Petitioners’ homes. The incompatible and inappropriate nature of this subdivision will greatly increase the danger of Petitioners’ homes being damages by storm driven debris in the event of a major storm event such as a hurricane occurring in this area. * * * The area in question on Cape San Blas is presently developed in very low density single family home sites. The proposed development would create high density development seaward of the coastal construction control line for which construction is totally unnecessary and could easily be greatly minimized. The parcel in question could accommodate a residential subdivision without encroaching seaward of the present coastal construction and control line. In light of the above, it is clear the project violates Rule 62B- 33.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. * * * 18. The proposed permit would create a high density subdivision which would create a multitude of small single family lots on this site. By granting the permit for this site development, the Department is condoning the intended construction of a multitude of single family residences which are totally inappropriate for the beach dune system in this area. The combined effect of the construction of single family residences on the proposed plat seaward of the coastal construction control line will maximize impacts to the beach dune system, not minimize the impact as required by the Department’s rules in Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code. Lighthouse moved to dismiss the Petition in the Permit Challenge, to strike certain allegations, and for an Order in limine in that case. The Department filed a memorandum of law in support of Lighthouse’s motion, stating, in part: Contrary to Petitioner’s argument in paragraph 2(b), the Department’s rule contains a standard for determination of “cumulative effects.” Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., provides that “[I]n assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell.” The Department’s rules also contain a regulatory definition of “impacts” (not “cumulative impacts” as argued by the Petitioner). Therefore, consideration of future applications not yet pending with the Department is outside the scope of the Department’s permitting jurisdiction under the rule. Contrary to the arguments made by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) and (d) construction of a “residential subdivision” is not a foregone conclusion. First, in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., it states that “[e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision; therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Second, use by an applicant of the single family home general permit authorized by Section 161.053(19), F.S., and existing in Rule 62B-34.070, F.A.C., is not governed by the principle that a general permit is authorized without additional agency action. The concept of a general permit adopted by rule exists in many different permitting programs of the Department. The different permitting programs are created and governed by their organic statutes, and only those statutes (and rules promulgated under them) should be looked to for the legal principles that apply in the permitting program. (See paragraph 4. above). The case law cited by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) of her response refers to general permits established under Chapter 403, F.S., specifically authorized by Section 408.814, F.S. Section 403.814(1) provides for use of a general permit 30 days after giving notice to the department “without any agency action by the department.” See § 403.814(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). No similar provision appears in Section 161.053(19), F.S. In addition, Section 403.814, F.S. provides for administrative review of the use of a general permit where the Department publishes or requires the applicant to publish notice of its intent to use a general permit. See § 403.814(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); Hamilton County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 587 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and City of Jacksonville v. Department of Environmental Protection, 24 F.A.L.R. 938 (Fla. DEP 2001). By Order dated May 23, 2006, Judge Alexander struck paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition in the Permit Challenge, holding, in part: Second, the Motion to Strike is granted in part, and paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 are stricken. The Motion to Strike paragraphs 9 and 19 is denied since paragraph 9 simply tracks the language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), and neither paragraph makes specific reference to impacts from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Although paragraphs 5 and 13 refer to alleged impacts to “wildlife habitat,” “drainage,” and “wind and water borne missiles during a storm,” which might arguably include matters unrelated to this action, the granting of the Motion in Limine below precludes Petitioner from introducing evidence regarding impacts to habitat other than sea turtles, the stormwater exemption, and wind and water borne missiles caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Finally, the Motion in Limine is granted, and Petitioner (and Intervenor) shall be precluded from introducing evidence in support of allegations relating to cumulative impacts caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, debris and wind and water borne missiles from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, the exemption of swales from stormwater discharge permit requirements, and any habitat impacts unrelated to sea turtles. See § 161.053, Fla. Stat. (2005); Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.005, 62B-33.007, and 62-25.030(1)(c). Petitioners have alleged in this case that Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Lighthouse has disputed that allegation in its Motion for Summary Final Order, which is fully supported by the Department. Section 161.053(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was first adopted by the Legislature in 1983. The statute was amended without any substantive changes to its text in 1987. Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2005),2 currently states in pertinent part: Except in those areas where local zoning and building codes have been established pursuant to subsection (4), a permit to alter, excavate, or construct on property seaward of established coastal construction control lines may be granted by the department as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location as described in subsection (1) upon receipt of an application from a property and/or riparian owner and upon the consideration of facts and circumstances, including: * * * 3. Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 1996 as follows: (3) After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: (a) Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other activities proposed within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. * * * (7) An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site, however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. An exception to this policy may be made with regard to those activities undertaken pursuant to Subsections 16B-33.005(3)(d) and 16B- 33.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 2000, as follows: After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: * * * Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) currently appears as set forth in the preceding paragraph, but without the underlining. One of the provisions in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases states that the Department shall: [d]eny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. It was amended on August 27, 2000. The other provision in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases is the requirement that: [e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. Rule 62B-33.005 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the statute. Rule 62B-41.002 was first developed on August 23, 1992, as part of the newly enacted Rule Chapter 16B-41, which was later designated as Rule Chapter 62B-41. Rule 62B-41.002(28), first developed in 1992, is the precursor to Rules 62B-41.002(19)(a) and (b), which were added on October 23, 2001. Rule 62B-41.002 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.041, Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-41.002(19)(b) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.041(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the Statute. The current language of Section 161.041(2), Florida Statutes, was adopted by the Legislature in 1987, as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location upon receipt of an application from a property or riparian owner and upon consideration of facts and circumstances, including: Adequate engineering data concerning inlet and shoreline stability and storm tides related to shoreline topography; Design features of the proposed structures or activities; and Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system or coastal inlet, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-41.002(19) was amended to its current form in 2001, as follows: Renumbered as (19) * * * “Adverse Impacts” are those impacts to the active portion of the coastal system resulting from coastal construction. Such impacts are caused by coastal construction which has a reasonable potential of causing a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system. The active portion of the coastal system extends offshore to the seaward limit of sediment transport and includes ebb tidal shoals and offshore bars. "Cumulative Impacts" are impacts resulting from the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell individual coastal construction which, if permitted as a general practice on other coastal properties in the same general area, or if added to the adverse impacts from existing coastal construction are expected to result in an adverse impact. The scope of the "cumulative impact" review under the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program is described in the “Basis of Review” used by the South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management. Under the “Basis of Review,” cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities, would result in a violation of state water quality standards or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The cumulative impact evaluation is conducted using an assumption that reasonably expected future applications with like impacts will be sought, thus necessitating equitable distribution of acceptable impacts among future applications. In reviewing impacts of a current ERP project application, the agency will review impacts from pending projects and extrapolate from those impacts to see what impacts future projects could contribute, using objective criteria, such as comprehensive plans, plats on file with local governments, or applicable land use restrictions and regulations. Tony McNeal, the administrator of the Department’s CCCL permitting program, acknowledged in his deposition testimony that the last sentence of Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) “is a way of saying that the Department is not going to be bound by its prior actions in similar cases.” However, he also explained that the sentence does not allow the Department to act inconsistently because the Department “consistently applies the same rules” to each project that comes before it and “[t]he only thing that changes are the facts surrounding the project.”
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts relevant to the issue presented for determination are found: Customers who testified at the hearing and those who adopted the testimony of others had three major complaints as to the quality of water and sewer service received from the petitioner. These included the inconsistency of the quality of the water, billing procedures and practices, and plant and system management. The quality of the water which petitioner provides to its customers has not been consistent. While quality has greatly improved since November of 1980, the water does, on occasion, appear rusty, muddy or yellowish and does, on occasion, discolor laundry and ice cubes. No evidence was offered as to the frequency of such occasions. Some customers have received a bill for a vacant lot upon which there was no sewer connection or water meter. Another customer was billed at the wrong address after notifying the petitioner of a change in address. A customer who spent some eighteen months in Michigan continued to receive bills in full service amounts after he had requested that his water be disconnected. His correspondence on this problem was not responded to by Petitioner. Petitioner's main office is located in Orlando, approximately one hour away from Inverness. When major breakdowns in the water and sewer system occur, a crew can be dispatched from the Orlando area. Petitioner purchased the subject water and sewer operation in June of 1978. At that time the condition of the mechanical and electrical aspects of the operation was poor and the water was high in iron content, thus causing the water to have an almost constant rusty appearance. Petitioner installed a chemical called "aquamag" to hold the iron in suspension. Aquamag does not, however, remove the iron from the water, and petitioner is presently engaged in research concerning the possibility of a new water supply. It is possible that petitioner could have a new well in operation by June of 1981. Neither the water system nor the sewer system of petitioner are currently under any citations from local or state officials or agencies. Prior to November of 1980, petitioner employed three or four operators who were not able to provide the customers with the best quality of water possible. A new operator was employed in November of 1980 and service and the quality of water has greatly improved since that time. This operator is capable of handling routine operations. If major breakdowns occur, petitioner's mechanics and electricians in Orlando can be radio dispatched to the system for any type of repairs. Petitioner's Orlando office has had a toll-free 800 number for the convenience of customers for the past eight months to one year. The number is displayed at some of petitioner's plants, but is not presently printed on the bills which the customers receive. At the time of the hearing, the customer bills were being restructured to include the petitioner's toll-free number. Prior to the acquisition of the water and sewer system by the petitioner, the former owners had approval in their tariffs filed with the Public Service Commission to charge fees for vacant lots. Such charges were dropped in May of 1979, and the bills which the customers are presently receiving containing such a charge are actually past due bills from a time prior to May of 1979. During the 1979 test year, the annual average of customers served by petitioner was 166 for water service and 130 for sewer service. At the time of the hearing, petitioner estimates approximately 235 lots for water service and 159 or 160 active sewer service customers.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the quality of service provided by petitioner to its customers in Citrus County be found to be satisfactory and that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner as a result of the quality of its service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 16th day of April. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Florida public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe Cresse, Chairman Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether the prerequisites of Section 154.314, Florida Statutes, have been met. That section governs withholding of funds due to the county under revenue sharing or tax-sharing in order to forward said funds to a regional referral hospital to compensate the hospital for services rendered to an out-of-county indigent patient. Specifically, the parties stipulated and agreed that all prerequisites had been met except whether Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center exhausted its administrative and legal remedies, as provided in Chapter 120, prior to certifying to the Comptroller's Office the amount due from Suwannee County. Suwannee County presented the testimony of Frank C. Davis and had one exhibit admitted in evidence. The Department of Banking and Finance (Department) had one exhibit admitted into evidence. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center (TMRMC) had six exhibits admitted into evidence. The Department waived the filing of a proposed order. Suwannee County and TMRMC submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of act in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact TMRMC is a regional referral hospital located in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. From May 15, 1985, to July 2, 1985, TMRMC provided medical care to Doris M. Cherry. The total bill for these services was $68,182.75. On July 10, 1985, TMRMC wrote to Suwannee County and requested reimbursement in the amount of $3,827.83 for the treatment rendered to Doris M. Cherry. This amount represented the maximum reimbursement which can be sought under Section 154.306, Florida Statutes. Reimbursement is limited to payment for 12 days of services at the per diem reimbursement rate currently in effect for the regional referral hospital under the medical assistance program to the needy under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. On July 23, 1985, Suwannee County, through its county coordinator, Frank C. Davis, refused TMRMC's request for payment and disputed whether the patient was entitled to the benefits under Chapter 154, Part IV. The letter from Suwannee County did not advise TMRMC of its right to request a formal hearing pursuant to Chapter 120 and it did not provide a point of entry as required in Rule 28-5.111(1), Florida Administrative Code. On December 20, 1985, TMRMC wrote to Suwannee County requesting an administrative proceeding to determine the issues and liability of Suwannee County to TMRMC for the claimed services. TMRMC also filed a formal Request for Hearing. TMRMC requested that the matter be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a hearing to be conducted according to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Suwannee County failed to take any action on TMRMC's Request for Hearing. In an abundance of caution, TMRMC again wrote to Suwannee County on January 17, 1986, pointing out that no response had been received to the Request for Hearing and again requesting a hearing. TMRMC attached a copy of the Request for Hearing to this letter. As evidenced by the return receipt, the Board of County Commissioners received this letter on January 22, 1986. Suwannee County neither granted nor denied TMRMC's Request for Hearing. Instead, Suwannee County chose to ignore the request. The February 4, 1986, meeting of the Suwannee County Board of Commissioners shows that the Board voted unanimously to wait before responding to the request. No response was ever made. Suwannee county did not give written notice to TMRMC of their decision to ignore the request for hearing. TMRMC took no judicial action by mandamus or certiorari to enforce its right to a hearing. Further, TMRMC did not petition the District Court of Appeal for review of this matter. After waiting several months for a response from Suwannee County, on August 13, 1986, TMRMC certified to the Division of Accounting and Auditing, Comptroller's Office, the sum of $3,827.83 to be withheld from revenue-sharing or tax- sharing funds allocated to Suwannee County. The Department of Banking and Finance sent Its Notice of Intent to Withhold Funds to the Board of County Commissioners of Suwannee County on August 29, 1986. It was only in response to this action by the Comptroller's Office, acting through the Department of Banking and Finance, that Suwannee County requested a formal hearing. By its Request for Formal Hearing, Suwannee County attempted to raise and litigate the eligibility of Doris M. Cherry to the benefits of Chapter 154, Part IV. However, it is undisputed that these disputed issues the fact cannot be litigated in this proceeding because this hearing is limited in scope to determine only, if the prerequisites of Section 154.314, Florida Statutes, have been satisfied. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, et al., v. Lewis, 399 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order determining that all prerequisites to Section 154.314, Florida Statutes, had been met and forward the amount certified to the Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center from the revenue-sharing or tax-sharing funds due to Suwannee County. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3901 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Suwannee County Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, and 4 are rejected as unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 11 is rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed findings of fact: 2(11); 5(1); 6(2); 7(3); 8(4); 9(5); 10(6); 12(9); and 13(10). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, TMC Proposed finding of fact 8 is rejected as being argumentative and conclusory. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(3); 2(4); 3(4); 4(4); 5(5 and 6); 6(7); 7(8); 9(10); and 10(9). COPIES FURNISHED: Walter W. Wood, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jesse F. Suber, Esquire Post Office Box 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ernest A. Sellers, Esquire James W. Prevatt, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 8 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Emergency Rule 10CER89-21 and an amendment of Rule 10C-7.0482, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The Parties and The Petitioners' Standing. The Petitioners, Hillhaven, United, Diversicare, HCRA, Americare and Waverly, are providers of long-term care services to elderly and disabled persons including Medicaid recipients. (S.F. 1). Petitioners have standing to raise their respective claims in this matter. (S.F. 38). The Department is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid program. (S.F. 3). The Federal Medicaid Program. General. Title XIX of the Social Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1396-1396s, and commonly referred to as the Medicaid Act, is a cooperative federal-state program. Under the Medicaid program, the federal government provides matching funds to states to help them provide their needy residents with necessary medical services. (S.F. 1). State Participation in the Program. State participation in the Medicaid program is not mandatory. A state which opts to participate, however, must submit to the Health Care Financing Administration (hereinafter referred to as "HCFA") of the Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter referred to as "HHS") a "state plan for medical assistance" which meets all relevant federal requirements. 42 U.S.C. 1396a. (S.F. 2). Once HCFA approves a state's plan, that state is entitled to federal financial participation (hereinafter referred to as "FFP"), which means that HHS pays the state a certain percentage of amounts expended under the plan. 42 U.S.C. 1396b. The state must then administer the program in accordance with federal law, regulations and the approved state plan. 42 U.S.C. 1396c. (S.F. 2). Each state that participates in the Medicaid program must designate an agency to implement the Medicaid program in that state. 42 U.S.C. 1396(a)(5) and 42 C.F.R. 431.10. The state agency designated is not allowed to delegate its authority to administer or supervise the state plan. 42 C.F.R. 431.10(e). Amendment of a State Medicaid Plan. The mechanism for amending a state's Medicaid plan is set forth in 42 C.F.R. 447.256(c) and 430.20. (S.F. 10). In pertinent part, 42 C.F.R. 447.256(c), provides: A state plan amendment that is approved will become effective no earlier than the first day of the calendar quarter in which an approvable amendment is submitted in accordance with [42 C.F.R.] 430.20 and 447.253. In pertinent part, 42 C.F.R. 20(b)(2), provides that "[f]or a plan amendment that changes the State's payment method and standards, the [effective date] rules of [42 C.F.R.] 447.256 apply." The requirements for public notice of a proposed amendment to a state's Medicaid plan are set forth in 42 C.F.R. 447.205. (S.F. 11). The notice, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. 447.205(c), must include: Describe the proposed change in methods and standards; Give an estimate of any expected increase or decrease in annual aggregate expenditures; Explain why the agency is changing its methods and standards; Identify a local agency in each county (such as the social services agency or health department) where copies of the proposed changes are available for public review; Give an address where written comments may be sent and reviewed by the public; and If there are public hearings, give the location, date and time for hearings or tell how this information may be obtained. One of the requirements for federal approval of an amendment to a state plan is the requirement that the state provide payment rates in compliance with the "Boren Amendment", 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(13), and make findings and submit assurances to HCFA that: The Medicaid agency pays for . . . long-term care facility services through the use of rates that are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs that must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated providers to provide services in conformity with applicable State and Federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards. 42 C.F.R. 447.253(b)(1). The Medicaid Program in Florida. Florida's Participation. Florida participates in the Medicaid program pursuant to Section 409.266, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Florida Medicaid Plan"). (S.F. 3). The Department is the agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Plan. The Florida Medicaid Plan authorizes payments for nursing home services provided to eligible individuals in accordance with Medicaid regulations. (S.F. 3). Adoption and Approval of a Medicaid Plan. The Florida Medicaid Plan as revised January 1, 1988, was submitted by the Department to HCFA in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 1396A. The Department provided assurances to HCFA that Medicaid reimbursement rates under the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan were reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities. See 42 U.S.C. 1396(a)(13)(A). (S.F. 4). HCFA approved the January 1, 1988, Florida Medicaid Plan effective January 1, 1988. (S.F. 4). The Florida Medicaid Plan. Under the January 1, 1988, Florida Medicaid Plan, long-term care providers such as the Petitioners are reimbursed under a prospective reimbursement methodology. Rates are set in advance of the rate semester based on historical cost data trended forward for inflation with no retroactive adjustment to account for actual costs for a cost reporting period (as opposed to actual reimbursement for the same period). (S.F. 5). Florida long-term care providers are divided into four classes based on geographic location and size. (S.F. 5). Each provider's rate consists of four components: (1) the property cost component; (2) the operating cost component; (3) the patient care cost component; and (4) a return on equity or use allowance. (S.F. 5). Reimbursement ceilings for patient care and operating cost components are established for each of the four classes. Ceilings are effective semiannually on January 1 and July 1. A statewide ceiling for the property cost component applies to providers who are reimbursed on the basis of depreciation and interest. Section 4B of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. (S.F. 6). Providers that do not receive depreciation and interest for their property costs are reimbursed under the Fair Rental Value Systems (hereinafter referred to as "FRVS"). Under FRVS, reimbursement is based on the acquisition costs of a capital asset including capital additions and improvements subsequent to acquisition. These acquisition costs are indexed forward to October 1, 1985 by a portion of the rate of increase in the Dodge Construction Index. Id. Subsection V.E.I.a. (S.F. 7). The January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan also requires that the FRVS component of a provider's rate be adjusted semiannually using the change in the Dodge Index for the most recent six month period published prior to the rate semester. Id. Subsection V.E.I.a. The January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan requires semiannual inflationary adjustments, to become effective on July 1 and January 1 of each year. (S.F. 8). The January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan established Petitioners' Medicaid rates during the period January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989. (S.F. 9). The Legislature's Appropriation of Funds for Medicaid. The appropriation for Florida's fiscal year 1989-1990 from the Florida Legislature included funds to reimburse Medicaid long-term care facility providers for the fiscal year July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 in accordance with the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. (S.F. 12). Florida's Budget Cuts and The Department's Response. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990, Florida experienced a shortfall in general revenue collections, and then-Governor Bob Martinez certified that a deficit would occur in the Florida state budget. (S.F. 13). In order to deal with the budget deficit, the Department was asked to provide cost containment alternatives to the Administration Commission (consisting of the Governor and the cabinet) which the Department did. (S.F. 13). Among the alternatives recommended by the Department was an amendment to the current Florida Medicaid Plan which would maintain Medicaid reimbursement rates for long-term care facilities at their December 31, 1989 level. This alternative was advocated by the Department as the most appropriate and fair of all the alternatives presented by the Department. (S.F. 13). In effect, the Department suggested that the Florida Medicaid Plan be amended to eliminate those provisions of the Florida Medicaid Plan providing for semiannual adjustments to the Medicaid reimbursement rate. Exhibit 2 is a true, correct and complete copy of an Impact Statement prepared by the Department and submitted to the Administration Commission concerning the proposed rate freeze that was accepted by the Administration Commission. This document was not submitted to HCFA. (S.F. 13). In the Impact Statement provided to the Administration Commission on November 21, 1989, the Department concluded that Florida nursing homes would receive 4% less than their anticipated costs due to the proposed freeze: Nursing Home Care ($13,131,931 GR) - This proposal will not allow nursing home per diem rates to increase based on their projected cost increases. The Medicaid Program will be reimbursing nursing homes 4.0% less than their anticipated costs. This price level reduction will impact on 489 participating nursing homes. There is no basis upon which to project the impact this will have on our clients [sic] ability to access those services of the quality of care received. This was the only analysis conducted by the Department prior to January 1, 1990, of Florida nursing home anticipated costs compared to the rates nursing homes would receive under the proposed rate freeze. On November 21, 1989, the Administration Commission, under the procedure outlined in Section 216.221, Florida Statutes, accepted the Department's proposal effective December 1, 1989 and reduced the Department's budget accordingly. (S.F. 13). The budget reductions ordered by the Administration Commission were taken from the Department's general revenue appropriation effective January 1, 1990, through mandatory reserves, or a holdback, of appropriations. The impact on the Department was that it had less authority to spend funds. The rate freeze approved by the Administration Commission allowed changes in rates due to licensure rating changes pursuant to Section V.D. of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. (S.F. 13). A letter from the Department to nursing home administrators in Florida, including the Petitioners, dated January 29, 1990, was sent to Florida facilities affected by the rate freeze. The Department stated in the January 29, 1990, letter (exhibit 5), that the rate freeze would remain in effect until monies were appropriated by the Florida Legislature to recalculate new rates and ceilings. (S.F. 17). Promulgation of Rules Implementing the Rate Freeze. In order to effectuate the freeze, the Department caused to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on December 22, 1989, notice of Emergency Rule 10CER89-21 (10C-7.0482) (hereinafter referred to as the "Emergency Rule"). See exhibit 3. (S.F. 14). The Emergency Rule amended the Department's rules by providing that Florida Medicaid reimbursement would be in accordance with the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan as revised January 1, 1990. See exhibit 4. (S.F. 14). The January 1, 1990 modifications to the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan were attached to the notice of the Emergency Rule and were incorporated therein. (S.F. 14). The effect of the Emergency Rule was to eliminate the provisions of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan providing for recalculation of reimbursement rates, which recalculation would have included an inflationary adjustment, for the Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990. The Emergency Rule had the effect of maintaining the Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates at the level in effect on December 31, 1989, excluding changes based on licensure rating reclassifications. The Emergency Rule did not limit the rate freeze to the period prior to June 30, 1990, and did not specify the date or approximate date on which the rate freeze would end. (S.F. 14). Emergency rules, however, are only effective for ninety days in Florida. Although the public notice of the Emergency Rule did not specify the anticipated increase or decrease in annual expenditures, notice of the general impact of the Emergency Rule was provided. On February 2, 1990, the Department caused to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly notice of an amendment to Rule 10C-7.0482, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Permanent Rule"). See exhibit 6. (S.F. 15). The Permanent Rule eliminated the recalculation of reimbursement rates, which recalculation would have included an inflationary adjustment for Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990. The Permanent Rule maintained the Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates at the level in effect on December 31, 1989, excluding changes based on licensure rating reclassifications. (S.F. 15). The Permanent Rule did not limit the rate freeze to the period prior to June 30, 1990 or specify the date or approximate date on which the rate freeze would end. The "purpose and effect" section of the Permanent Rule stated that the rate freeze would be in effect until sufficient funds were appropriated by the Legislature to recalculate rates and ceilings for Medicaid providers. (S.F. 15). By letter date March 15, 1990 (exhibit 8), a "Notice of Change" was filed by the Department with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. The Notice of Change modified the effective date of the Permanent Rule from March 22, 1990 to March 26, 1990. The Notice of Change was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 23, 1990. Exhibit 27. (S.F. 19). No other public notices, or emergency or permanent rules, were published by the Department subsequent to February 2, 1990, which would have affected the Petitioners' Medicaid rates for the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990. (S.F. 16). There are no documents which indicate that the Department enacted the Emergency Rule or the Permanent Rule for reasons other than those stated in the public notices for the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule and the January 29, 1990, letter. (S.F. 18). The Department enacted the Emergency and Permanent Rules solely due to the budgetary cuts ordered by the Administration Commission. The preamble to the Emergency Rule stated "[b]ased on a recent decision made by the Governor and Florida Cabinet, Medicaid rates were frozen at the December 31, 1989 levels for all providers of these institutions." The preamble to the Emergency Rule also stated that "a shortfall in general revenue requires the state to reduce or eliminate payment for needed services to medicaid recipients." Neither the preamble to the Emergency Rule nor the Permanent Rule indicated that Florida nursing homes had received excess reimbursement in relation to their costs under the 1988 Medicaid Plan. There was, however, no Florida law which required any other reason for the Emergency Rule or the Permanent Rule be provided by the Department. In a previous filing in this matter, the Department stated: "[i]n response to a shortfall in general revenue collections. . . , the Administration Commission (composed of the Governor and the cabinet) ordered the Department to "freeze" rates at the December 31, 1989 level. The amendment was made effective by [the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule]." See also Florida Nursing Home Association v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR at 667 ("The Emergency Rule simply carries out the reductions ordered by the Administration Commission on November 21, 1989"). On January 29, 1990, Gary J. Clarke, Assistant Secretary for Medicaid of the Department, wrote to Nursing Home Administrators, including Petitioners, and stated that the rate freeze was enacted due to a decision made by the Administration Commission: Due to a projected general revenue deficit of $280 million for the State of Florida for fiscal year ending June 30, 1990, the Administration Commission met on November 21, 1989, to determine the appropriate budget reductions for all state programs. In order to reduce the Medicaid budget for its portion of the [DHRS] required reductions, yet avoid gross disruption of services, the Commission required that Medicaid reimbursement rates and ceilings for nursing home providers be frozen at their December 31, 1989 levels, beginning with the new rate Semester on January 1, 1990. . . There are no documents which include a representation contrary to the above quoted portion of the January 29, 1990 letter that the Department enacted the Emergency Rule or Permanent Rule for reasons other than the budgetary cuts ordered by the Administration Commission. The January 29, 1990 letter from the Department also indicated that the length of the rate freeze was indefinite: This policy shall remain in effect until such time that monies are appropriated by the Florida legislature to recalculate new rates and ceilings. Impact of the Emergency Rule and Permanent Rule on the Petitioners. The Petitioners received an inflationary adjustment in their Medicaid per diem rates on July 1, 1989 in accordance with the terms of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. The Petitioners did not receive an inflationary adjustment in their per diem rates which would have been due on January 1, 1990 under the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan for the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990. Instead, Petitioners' rates calculated effective January 1, 1990 used the same cost reports and inflation adjustment that had already been included in their July 1, 1989 rates. (S.F. 36). The fact that the Petitioners did not receive an inflationary adjustment in their per diem rates for the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990, was because the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule eliminated the rate increase provisions of the January 1, 1988 Florida Medicaid Plan. Notification to HCFA of the Rate Freeze. On March 30, 1990, HCFA received a letter dated March 22, 1990, from the Secretary of the Department submitting for consideration "a Title XIX state plan amendment to our state plan." (S.F. 20). The Secretary of the Department stated the following in the letter: This amendment TN 90-8 revises the plan by freezing the reimbursement rates and ceilings of all nursing home providers at the rates of reimbursement for services rendered on December 31, 1989. . . . . The assurances required by 42 CFR 447.253 and proof of public notice are attached. Exhibit 9. Attached to the Secretary's March 22, 1990, letter was a letter dated March 29, 1990, which along with State Plan Amendment Transmittal Number ("TN") 90-08 and proof of public notice, constituted all the documentation submitted by the Department to HCFA prior to July 1, 1990 concerning the rate freeze. (S.F. 20). TN 90-08, as submitted by the Department to HCFA on March 29, 1990, proposed to modify the Florida Medicaid Plan, as the Department had provided for in the Emergency Rule and the Permanent Rule, to eliminate the recalculation of rates, which recalculation would have included an inflationary adjustment for Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990. TN 90-08 proposed to maintain the Petitioners' per diem Medicaid rates at the level in effect on December 31, 1989, excluding changes based on licensure rating reclassifications. TN 90-08, as submitted on March 29, 1990, did 12not limit the rate freeze to the period prior to June 30, 1990. (S.F. 21). In the March 29, 1990 letter to HCFA, the Department referenced a telephone survey in which it had compared Florida Medicaid per diem rates to the per diem rates paid to long-term care facilities along the state borders between Florida and Georgia, and Florida and Alabama, under the Georgia and Alabama Medicaid programs. The Department estimated that this telephone survey was performed during the time period December, 1989 through February, 1990. In conducting the Georgia and Alabama telephone survey, the Department did not determine whether Georgia's or Alabama's long-term care facilities per diem rates were reasonable and adequate to cover the costs of efficiently and economically operating Georgia or Alabama facilities, and the Department did not determine whether Georgia or Alabama Medicaid programs covered the same or similar costs as the Florida Medicaid program. A copy of the survey materials was submitted as exhibit 10. Exhibit 10 was not provided to HCFA. (S.F. 22). In the March 29, 1990 letter, the Department referenced an analysis in which it stated that it had compared the increase in an inflationary index from 1989 to 1990 to the increase in the Medicaid rates paid to Florida long-term care facilities from 1989 to 1990. This analysis was performed during the period January, February, or March 1990. These materials were not submitted to HCFA. (S.F.23). The Georgia and Alabama telephone survey, the inflation analysis, and that portion of the data in Exhibit 15 generated prior to March 29, 1990 by the Department relating to Florida long-term care facility historical costs and prospective per diem rates were the only reports, surveys, analyses or studies performed by the Department (as of March 29, 1990) to support its assurances to HCFA that its rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990 were reasonable and adequate to cover the costs of efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards. (S.F.23). TN 90-08 was submitted to HCFA during the calendar quarter to which the Florida Medicaid Plan amendment was to be effective. TN 90-08 was reviewed by HCFA and a memorandum dated April 30, 1990, was written and circulated within HCFA concerning the proposed amendment. The memorandum indicates what the proposed amendment proposes, states that the review was conducted in accordance with Federal requirements and lists the assurances the State had given. The memorandum concludes, however, that "[a]fter review of the State's assurances and related information, HCFA does not yet have a reasonable basis upon which to accept the State's assurance that the proposed rates meet the 'reasonable and adequate' statutory standard of section 1902(a)(13)(A) of the Social Security Act " By letter dated May 9, 1990, HCFA notified the Department that: . . . we find that we cannot approve [the Plan amendment] as submitted. We are exercising our rights under section 1915(f) of the Social Security Act to request additional information and clarification as discussed below: . . . . Although HCFA did not deny or reject the Florida Medicaid Plan amendment submitted by the Department in the May 9, 1990, letter, HCFA did indicate that it could not approve the proposed amendment as submitted. It was recognized in the May 9, 1990, HCFA letter, as it was in the April 30, 1990, memorandum that a state may use budgetary considerations as one factor in establishing the rates to be paid providers as long as the rates are reasonable and adequate. It was also recognized in the May 9, 1990, HCFA letter that "the fact that rates in surrounding States are comparable to Florida's rates provides no justification whatsoever that its rates are reasonable and adequate. Rather, the HRS must compare its proposed rates with the costs that Florida facilities must incur in providing care and services." In the May 9, 1990, HCFA letter it is noted that the Department noted in its March 29, 1990, letter that rates are to be recalculated for the period beginning July 1, 1990, but that inconsistent language is included elsewhere in its proposal. Therefore, HCFA recommended that the Plan amendment be revised to limit the freeze to the six month period beginning January 1, 1990. The May 9, 1990, HCFA letter indicates that processing of the amendment would cease until the additional information and clarification were provided to HCFA. It is readily apparent from HCFA's April 30, 1990, memorandum and its letter of May 9, 1990, that HCFA was well aware of the requirements for amending a state Medicaid plan and the requirements that states must meet in setting Medicaid rates. The April 30, 1990, memorandum and the May 9, 1990, letter indicate that the original proposal submitted by the Department did not meet those requirements without further information being provided. HCFA did not, however, reject the Department's proposal or make any determination as to whether the proposed freeze was appropriate. HCFA merely indicated that more information was necessary and gave the Department an opportunity to provide it. On May 20, 1991, the Department submitted a letter to HCFA in response to the May 9, 1990, HCFA letter limiting the rate freeze to the six month period prior to July 1, 1990, and submitted a revised TN 90-08 to HCFA which included this change. Exhibit 18. (S.F. 30). In the May 20, 1991, Department letter the Department also referenced a second inflationary analysis. This inflationary analysis was performed by the Department in March or April, 1991. The inflationary analysis along with data generated by the Department relating to Florida long-term care facility historical costs and prospective per diem rates (exhibit 15) were the only reports, surveys, analyses or studies performed by the Department to support its May 20, 1991 assurances to HCFA that its rates for the period beginning January 1, 1990 were reasonable and adequate to cover the costs of efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable State and Federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards. Exhibit 19 is a true, correct and complete copy of the written materials prepared by the Department in performing the inflationary analysis referenced in the May 20, 1991 letter. These documents were not submitted to HCFA. (S.F. 31). HCFA'S Approval of the Plan Amendment. By letter dated July 2, 1991, HCFA notified the Department that the Florida Medicaid Plan amendment TN 90-08 was approved with an effective date of March 26, 1990. By letter dated September 16, 1991, the Department advised HCFA that, as stated in the March 29, 1990, letter, the originally requested effective date of March 26, 1990, was an inadvertent error. It was pointed out that the correct effective date was January 1, 1990. By letter dated October 3, 1991, HCFA notified the Department that HCFA had approved the amendment to the Florida Medicaid Plan effective January 1, 1990. Elimination of the Rate Freeze. Effective July 1, 1990 the Florida Medicaid Plan was amended to remove the language of the Emergency Rule and Permanent Rule added effective January 1, 1990 which froze rates to their December 31, 1989 level. (S.F. 37). On August 7, 1991, HCFA approved the subsequent amendment, TN 90-13, with an effective date of July 1, 1990. This subsequent Florida Medicaid Plan amendment calculated the July 1, 1990 long-term care facility Medicaid reimbursement rates using the same inflation adjustment which would have been used on July 1, 1990 had the January 1, 1990 amendment never been implemented. No reimbursement relative to the January 1, 1990 amendment, however, was made retroactively to long-term care facilities for the period January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990. (S.F. 37).
The Issue At issue is whether respondent's motion for summary recommended order should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint filed in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of April 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1990.
