The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent, KaShamba Miller-Anderson, violated section 112.3145(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2016), by willfully failing to file a 2015 CE Form 1, “Statement of Financial Interests”; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently a member of the Riviera Beach City Council. As a member of the Riviera Beach City Council, Respondent served as a “local officer” as defined in section 112.3145(1)(a), throughout the year 2015. Respondent was aware that she was required to file a CE Form 1 every year, including for the year 2015. Financial disclosures are filed in order to allow the public to monitor public officials and employees for any conflicts of interest that may arise. The requirement that financial disclosures be filed is intended to deter corruption and increase the public’s confidence in government. In 2016, Respondent received e-mails at the address kmiller@rivierabch.com. She received regular mail at the address 430 West 28th Street, Riviera Beach, Florida 33404. The CE Form 1, “Statement of Financial Interests,” for calendar year 2015 was required to be filed on or before July 1, 2016. There is a grace period for filing the form that expired on September 1, 2016. After the expiration of the grace period, an automatic fine of $25 per day was imposed for each day the form is late, up to a maximum fine of $1,500. The maximum fine accrued on October 31, 2016. The Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections (Palm Beach SOE) office sent Respondent the original blank 2015 financial disclosure form, along with the requirements for filing the form, before June 1, 2016. She was instructed to file her completed form no later than July 1, 2016. Respondent failed to file her 2015 CE Form 1 by either July 1, 2016, or September 1, 2016. Respondent received notice from the Commission regarding her failure to file her 2015 CE Form 1. On July 31, 2016, the Palm Beach SOE sent a delinquency memorandum to Respondent at 430 West 28th Street, Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 by certified mail. The mail was unclaimed. The July 31, 2016, memorandum included the following statement: Pursuant to State law, please be advised that although you are delinquent in filing Form 1, a grace period is in effect until September 1, 2016. If your form is not received by September 1, 2016, we will be required by law to notify the Commission on Ethics of the delinquency. A fine of $25 for each day late will be imposed, up to the maximum penalty of $1500. In addition, pursuant to enacted legislation, the Commission on Ethics must initiate investigations of delinquent filers in certain circumstances. This can result in you being removed from your public office or employment. Respondent took no action to file her form by September 1, 2016. If she had done so, it would have been considered timely. Commission staff sent Respondent a courtesy letter on September 7, 2016, and advised her that she was accruing a fine of $25 per day for failure to file her 2015 CE Form 1. The Commission also e-mailed Respondent on September 20, 2016, using the e-mail address kmiller@rivierabch.com. Respondent accrued the maximum fine of $1,500 as of October 31, 2016, as authorized by section 112.3145(7)(f), for failing to file her CE Form 1 for the year 2015. On November 4, 2016, the Commission again e-mailed Respondent at the same e-mail address, advising her that the maximum fine had accrued and she still needed to file her 2015 CE Form 1. The November 4, 2016, e-mail attached a blank 2015 CE Form 1 and a form to appeal her fine. Respondent did not avail herself of the opportunity to appeal the fine that had accrued. On February 21, 2017, the Commission sent Respondent a Notice of Assessment of Automatic Fine by certified mail, using the 430 West 28th Street address. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the February 2017 notice. This e-mail also provided the appeal process for contesting the maximum fine. Respondent did not pay the fine at that time because she did not have the funds to do so. She believed, in error, that she now could not file the 2015 CE Form 1 until she paid the fine. Her belief, however misplaced, was sincere. On June 16, 2017, the Commission mailed Respondent a Notification of Issuance of Default Final Order at the 430 West 28th Street address. The Notice was not returned to the Commission as undeliverable. On June 22, 2017, Respondent paid the $1,500 fine. On June 28, 2017, Respondent filed her CE Form 1 for calendar year 2015. Respondent did not have a particularly compelling reason for not timely filing her 2015 CE Form 1. Her position on the city council is a part-time position, for which she is not assigned an assistant. She admitted at hearing that the notice and the form simply got lost on her desk, and she did not make it a priority. However, Respondent claims that while filing her 2015 CE Form 1 was not the priority it should have been, she never intended not to file the form, and she never indicated to anyone that she would not do so. Respondent filed her 2015 CE Form 1 and paid the fine prior to the finding of probable cause in this case. There are some differences between the financial disclosure Respondent filed when she initially ran for office and the one filed for 2015. Those differences however, are not so great as to support an inference or finding that she was attempting to hide something by not filing timely. The term for which Respondent was elected expired on March 21, 2018. She was re-elected for another term which began March 21, 2018.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a final order and public report finding that no violation of section 112.3145(8)(c) has been demonstrated. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 7th day of June, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Millie Wells Fulford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (eServed) Melody A. Hadley, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer, Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A. 131 North Gadsden Street (32301) Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) C. Christopher Anderson, III, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (eServed) Virlindia Doss, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (eServed)
The Issue In an order dated January 29, 1992, the State of Florida, Commission on Ethics found probable cause that the Respondent, as a city commissioner of the City of Cottondale, violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by having a contractual relationship with a business entity which was doing business with the city. The issue in this proceeding is whether the violation occurred and, if so, what penalty should be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Leonard Norsworthy served two two-year terms as a city commissioner for the City of Cottondale, a small community in the Florida panhandle. His tenure spanned from 1987 until July 1991. Mr. Norsworthy is sole proprietor of J. & L. Housepainting and Remodeling (J & L), a roofing and remodeling business. He has a State of Florida contractor's license. Sometime in 1990, the City of Cottondale, through its grants coordinator in Tallahassee, sought and obtained Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for various needed public works. The project was advertised, and a bid was awarded to T & A Utilities Contractors, Inc. (T & A), a Lynn Haven, Florida, firm owned by Charles Williams. The total contracted amount of $244,282 included resurfacing two streets, a parking lot, a children's park, 8-inch water lines, and renovations to the city hall. Not all of the work was done immediately, as the city needed to get various permits. Due to changes in the scope of work, additional money became available for other projects, including renovating a public bathroom to make it accessible for handicapped persons. Some of the work was subcontracted by T & A to other firms. Charles Williams did not advertise for bids for the subcontracted work, but obtained proposals. He had obtained proposals from some Panama City firms for the bathroom and city hall renovations because he was not aware of firms closer to Cottondale. "Pete" Hilton was Cottondale's Public Works Director for eight years until he left in October 1992 for medical reasons. He told Charles Williams that he knew someone who could do the work for a good price, and shortly thereafter Leonard Norsworthy called Williams. Mr. Norsworthy's proposal was less than the prices quoted by the Panama City firms, and on June 5, 1991, T & A subcontracted with J & L for the renovation work for a total amount of $8,460. The sum was paid in three releases. The jobs performed by Mr. Norsworthy under the subcontract included redoing the bathroom and a handicap ramp entrance, installing rain gutters, removing a wall and plastering and finishing a wall. At no charge for his labor, Mr. Norsworthy also painted the building. Leonard Norsworthy knew about the city's revitalization contract with T & A because he was a city commissioner at the time. While the city was a party to the contract, the specifications and the background work were handled by the city engineer, who recommended the award to T & A. Leonard Norsworthy admits that he did the work and says, "You live and learn." He concedes that there are others in the area who could have done the work, but believes he gave a good price for the job. He says that work is scarce in the area and you have to take it where you find it. He knew that the law prohibited doing business with one's own agency, but he had no idea that the prohibition extended to subcontracts as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission enter its final order and public report finding that Leonard Norsworthy violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, and recommending a penalty of $300.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of April 1993. MARY CLARK 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 12th day of April 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Willis, Esquire Michael Ingraham, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1502 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Leonard Norsworthy Post Office Box 299 Cottondale, Florida 32431 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue Whether Respondent, US Growth Investment, Inc., discriminated against Petitioners Jimmy and Gelene Stewart,2 on the basis of race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“the Act”), chapter 760, part II, Florida Statutes (2019),3 and, if so, the relief to which Petitioners are entitled.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners did not attend the Zoom Conference hearing or provide any direct evidence to support their claim of discrimination. Respondent’s counsel introduced Respondent’s representative. 6 The parties sent email communications to the undersigned’s judicial assistant regarding possible dates for a hearing, but failed to timely file the status report with the requested information. 7 Petitioners requested a 60-day continuance. The length of the actual continuance: 74 days. Further, no attorney entered a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Petitioners. 8 The tenth day after the hearing fell on a weekend; thus, the PROs were to be filed on the next business day, Monday, June 7, 2021.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioners in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Jimmy Stewart Box 700 7862 West Irlo Bronson Highway Kissimmee, Florida 34747 Richard W. Withers, Esquire Ward & Ketchersid, P.A. 1241 Airport Road, Suite H Destin, Florida 32541 Gelene Stewart Box 700 7862 West Irlo Bronson Highway Kissimmee, Florida 34747 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Attn: Ronda L. Bryan, Agency Clerk, 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 92, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 and a second copy, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Florida Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Certified U.S. Mail to Oasis Cafe at Key Biscayne, c/o Carlos Flores, 19 Harbor Drive, Miami, Florida 33149; by regular U.S. Mail to the Honorable Darren A. Schwartz, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 3060; and by hand delivery to Marc Drexler, Chief Attorney, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulations, 1940 North Monroe Styeet, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202, this |@¥day of Yezember , 2013. msn For the Division of Hotels and Restaurants 7196 4008 G11) 4516 1240 | SENDERS, RECORD
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Emil Danciu (Danciu), served as Mayor of the City of Boca Raton (City) from March 1987 until March 1993. During the time that Danciu served as Mayor, the Mayor was a voting member of the City Council and acted with authority equal to that of the other council members. The Boca Raton Community Development Agency (CRA) is an agency established to revitalize and redevelop the downtown area of Boca Raton. The CRA is governed by a five member board of commissioners which, as of February 4, 1991, includes the five members of the Boca Raton City Council. As Mayor, Danciu was also a member of the CRA Board of Commissioners. In April, 1992, the majority of the members of the CRA voted to accept a proposal from Crocker Mizner Park III, LTD. (Crocker) to lease and construct a department store on property located in Mizner Park which had been designated for cultural use in the community redevelopment plan. Danciu, as Mayor and as a member of the board of the CRA, objected to the proposed lease to Crocker. Danciu felt that the CRA's action to enter into the lease was in violation of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, because the community redevelopment plan had not been modified as required by Chapter 163. Danciu went to see Robert Sweetapple, an attorney, concerning the actions to lease land to Crocker. Mr. Sweetapple agreed with Danciu's analysis. Danciu advised Mr. Sweetapple that he wanted a lawsuit filed so that the circuit court could determine the legality of the actions relating to the lease. Mr. Sweetapple agreed to represent Danciu in the matter and filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgement and Injunction against the City and the CRA in April, 1992. The suit was filed on Danciu's behalf as the Mayor of the City and as a member of the CRA. Neither the City Council nor the CRA took action by resolution, ordinance, vote, or any other means to request that Danciu file the lawsuit. On April 16, 1992, a special meeting of the CRA was held concerning Mizner Park. The CRA voted to employ legal counsel to defend the CRA against the lawsuit filed by Danciu. On April 16, 1992, a special meeting of the Boca Raton City Council was held concerning the lawsuit that had been filed by Danciu. The City Council voted to retain an attorney to represent the City in the lawsuit. Separate attorneys were hired for the CRA and for the City in the defense of the lawsuit filed by Danciu. The City and the CRA filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit, challenging Danciu's authority to sue in his official capacity. After Mr. Sweetapple filed the lawsuit, he went on vacation. While he was on vacation, Danciu and the City and the CRA were able to negotiate a settlement of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was settled prior to a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. On his return from vacation, Mr. Sweetapple drafted the settlement agreement. At the April 28, 1992 meeting of the City Council, where the settlement offer was accepted, the issue of attorney's fees was discussed. The City had incurred approximately $1,600 in fees and the CRA had incurred approximately $12,500. Mr. Crocker offered to pay the $12,500 incurred by the CRA and the $1,600 incurred by the City. His offer was accepted. On April 30, 1992, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice based on the stipulation of the parties. The parties were to bear their own costs and attorney's fees. Mr. Sweetapple's legal services relating to the lawsuit was valued at $700. On October 19, 1992, Danciu filed a Quarterly Gift Disclosure, Form 9, with the Florida Department of State, reporting Mr. Sweetapple's legal services as a gift. Although Danciu did not originally intend to file such a disclosure, he made the filing after the City Attorney advised him to do so. The City has no system for registration or designation of lobbyists. In 1989 the CRA instituted an eminent domain action against James Batmasian. Mr. Sweetapple was retained as Mr. Batmasian's attorney. Mr. Sweetapple's representation of Mr. Batmasian included advancing his client's position at a meeting, and in telephone conversations, with City Council member Albert Travasos. Mr. Sweetapple also appeared before the CRA on behalf of Mr. Batmasian within the twelve months preceding the filing of the Petition for Declaratory Judgement and Injunction which is the subject of the instant Complaint. The City negotiated a settlement with Mr. Sweetapple regarding the fees to be paid him in the eminent domain suit involving Mr. Batmasian.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order and public report be entered finding that Emil Danciu violated Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes, and that a civil penalty of $1000 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2641EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 11: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 14-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: The first three sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 17-19: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 20: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 21-25: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 26-27: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 28: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 29-30: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 31: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 32: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 33: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 34-35: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 36-40: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 41: Rejected as constituting argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent did not designate which portion of the proposed recommended order constituted findings of fact or conclusions of law; thus, I cannot address Respondent's findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss, Esquire Advocate For the Florida Commission on Ethics Alexander Building, Suite 208 Koger Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Jeff Brown, Esquire Sanctuary Centre, Suite D300 4800 North Federal Highway Post Office Box 3004 Boca Raton, Florida 33431-5178 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, Esquire General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Conclusions This cause is before the Department of Community Affairs on an Order Closing File, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A. On December 22, 2010, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find the City of Boca Raton’s 10-1 ER amendment to its comprehensive plan, compliance” as that Florida Statutes. On January 10, Robert Dukate, Dale Filed March adopted by Ordinance Number 5144, “in term is defined by Section 163.3184 (1) (b), 2011, Save Boca Raton Green Space, LLC, Raymond, Michael Vergona, and Charles Helton 15, 2011 12:21 PM Division of Administrative Hearings FINAL ORDER No. DCA11-GM-046 (Petitioners) filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The case was assigned DOAH case number 11-0166GM. On January 19, 2011, the Department filed a Response to the Initial Order indicating that the Petition was not filed with the Department’s Agency Clerk, was unable to perform its review pursuant to Section 120.569(2), Florida Statutes, and did not waive its right to the timely filing of the Petition. By filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice on March 9, 2011, Petitioners requested that their petition for hearing be dismissed. There are no other Petitioners in this case, and, therefore, no disputed issues remain to be resolved. The Florida Supreme Court held that “[a] case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist.” Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1991). A moot case generally will be dismissed. Id.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1)®) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE a RV IOCE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished by U.S. Mail to each of the persons listed below on this ve day of March, 2011. wt | cy Clér. Paula Ford, Agen Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 3 of 5 FINAL ORDER No. By U.S. Mail The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building -1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Barry Silver, Esq. Attorney for Save Boca Raton Green Space, LLC 1200 S. Rogers Circle # B Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Robert Dukate 5351 NW 3rd Terrace Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Charles Helton 4540 NW 5° avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Michael Vergona 4007 NW 5°" avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Dale Raymond 4121 NW 5™" Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Diana Grub Frieser City Attorney City of Boca Raton 201 West Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Jamie Alan Cole Daniel L. Abbott Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L Counsel for City of Boca Raton 200 East Broward Blvd. Suite 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 0f 5 DCA11-GM-046 FINAL ORDER No. DCA11-GM-046 By Hand Delivery Richard E. Shine Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 5 of 5
