Findings Of Fact Jaime Fernandez was transferred in 1977 to Clearwater Traffic Engineering Department as an electrician's helper from the Clearwater Pollution Control Department. Prior to coming to Water Pollution Control, Respondent had been a CETA employee in the Parks Department from which he was fired for incompetence (Respondent's testimony). Although the exact situation was not made clear to the Hearing Officer, it appeared that Respondent appealed his firing from the Parks Department alleging some type of discrimination, and, following a hearing, the City was required to reemploy him. At all times here relevant, Respondent was an employee in the Classified Civil Service of Clearwater. Respondent testified that the evaluations he received at Water Pollution Control were satisfactory overall, and the request for a transfer was initiated by him. As an electrician's helper, Respondent was one of six or seven electrician's helpers. When he was subsequently transferred to the position of ET helper, he was the only ET helper in the Traffic Engineering Department. With a larger number of electrician's helpers it was easier to assign trench digging, painting and other similar menial jobs to Respondent without detracting from the overall efficiency of the Department than it was when Respondent became the only ET helper in a group with two ET's. Respondent served as an electrician's helper in the Traffic Engineering Department for approximately two years before he was transferred to the position of ET helper. During these two years as an electrician's helper, Respondent failed to get a satisfactory overall evaluation and never received a merit pay increase. He was transferred to the electronics shop as an ET helper in late 1979. In the six months follow-up review of Respondent's unsatisfactory evaluation report dated 2-9-80, the Director of the Traffic Engineering Department recommended Fernandez be terminated for incompetence. This recommendation was rejected by the Personnel Department because of insufficient documentation of the events giving rise to the recommendation. On August 25, 1978, Respondent was given a letter of reprimand following an accident involving a truck, driven by Respondent, and a building in which Respondent's inattention contributed to the accident (Exhibit 6). On April 14, 1980, Respondent was suspended from duty without pay for three days on charges of incompetence and inefficiency in his work product, errors in daily time cards and other reports, and continuous performance evaluations indicating improvement needed. On the instant charges the evidence was unrebutted that during the period August 1, 1980, through March 15, 1981, 19 errors were made by Respondent on the time sheets he submitted. Twenty-seven other employees in the same Department fill out time sheets and, during the same period, the next highest number of errors was eight. Most of the employees made only one or two errors in completing their time sheets. During the period February 2, 1981 to February 5, 1981, Respondent was given a work order to construct and install back boards in two transit controllers (Exhibit 1). Included in the work order was a drawing showing how the panel was to be connected and detailed instructions on how the work was to be performed. Despite close supervision, Respondent failed to follow the instructions, cut the wires longer than the maximum three feet lengths as shown on the work order, installed grounding bar in the wrong location, and did not properly lace the harness. This work order was within the capability of a reasonably qualified ET helper to complete in twenty hours. Respondent took forty-seven hours to accomplish this work and made numerous errors which had to be corrected by others. During a period in mid-February; 1981, Respondent was assigned a detector to repair. Repair of this equipment was also within the capability of a reasonably qualified ET helper in about four hours. After working on this detector for twenty-one hours, Respondent was still unable to repair it. It was given to an electronics technician who repaired the detector in approximately one hour. Respondent, in work order 136, was given an LT 169 load pack to repair. Test equipment is set up in the petitioner's shop for trouble shooting this equipment. After testing this load pack, Respondent replaced the part he thought defective but, when tested by someone else, the equipment was still inoperative. The part replaced by Respondent was the part most frequently found defective in this load pack. In this instance, this part was not the cause of the equipment being in operative. This was a routine work order that a reasonably qualified ET helper should have been able to complete. Respondent has been counselled and evaluated numerous times by different supervisors in the Traffic Engineering Department for the past three years and has yet to be assigned a satisfactory evaluation. No other employee has been retained in a position with the City of Clearwater for such an extended period with unsatisfactory evaluations. Respondent testified that he has completed a two-year course in electronics at Pinellas County Vocational School and has one year of college. Accordingly, he deemed himself better qualified as an ET helper than as an electrician's helper. He felt he should have been disciplined for incompetency as an electrician's helper during the two years he worked in that Division, rather than as an ET helper in which position he has worked for approximately one year. Respondent's testimony, that he was denied earned leave or pay for this leave when he was dismissed, was not rebutted. However, the City of Clearwater's regulations relating to leave were not presented to the Hearing Officer, and without access to these regulations, Respondent's claim cannot be resolved.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be disciplined, to include a three day suspension without pay, because of the misconduct alleged in the Notification of Suspension issued herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, William T. Mooney, worked as a laboratory technician for the City of Clearwater's Public Works/Water Pollution Control Division. On April 15, 1993, Doreen Spano, the City's utility lab supervisor, held a meeting of her division personnel at which she identified Iracema Drysdale as the lead worker and, in order to clarify any misconceptions among lab workers as to work deadlines, presented a policy letter for the lab, entitled "New Work Schedule". The schedule set guidelines and deadlines for the daily workload. The memorandum contains inconsistent statements, however. For example, while Ms. Spano indicated both in the memo and at hearing that the instructions therein are merely guidelines, she also used such imperatives as "must" and "will" in the memo. Specifically, the memorandum indicates the daily plant BOD must be in the incubator by 12:00 PM, and the daily plant bacteria must be in the incubator by 12:30 PM. Respondent has worked in this City laboratory for approximately 14 years. During this time he has developed a method of accomplishing his tasks which is described by Ms. Drysdale as less than efficient. She indicates he frequently misses his time deadlines and works at his own pace. Respondent, on the other hand, claims he has always completed his tasks according to the Standard Methods Manual, but, due to the time the samples are received in the lab, could not accomplish both the BOD and the bacteria procedures within the guidelines set in that manual and the Environmental Protection Agency standards manual. Either one or both would be late. This controversy, much of which was made by both sides, is, in reality, only peripherally related to the issue in controversy here which is whether Respondent was insubordinate or not on September 9, 1993. Both Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent signed the memorandum in question here indicating their receipt and understanding of the directions contained therein. Thereafter, on September 9, 1993, Ms. Drysdale entered the lab shortly before the lunch period to find the bacteria procedure not done and Respondent working on the BOD procedure. It appears that the bacteria sample was taken at 6:00 AM on this day and, under EPA guidelines, had to be preserved in the incubator within six hours or the results of the procedure would be invalid and not eligible for reporting to the EPA. When Ms. Drysdale asked Respondent why he was doing the BOD when the bacteria procedure had not been accomplished, he indicated that Ms. Spano's memorandum required the BOD to be done by 12:00 noon and the bacteria not until 12:30 PM. He considered this a directive and indicated he would complete his work consistent therewith. Again, there is a contradiction in the testimony as to the nature of the conversation between Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent. Ms. Drysdale asserts that about noon on the day in question, she suggested to Respondent that he start the bacteria procedure first and then do the BOD procedure. Respondent refused because he believed he had to follow the new work schedule prepared by Ms. Spano. Ms. Drysdale then told him to do the bacteria procedure first and she would assume the responsibility. Respondent still refused and, raising his voice to her, completed the BOD procedure. When he finished that, he did the bacteria procedure but by that time, the sample was too old and had to be discarded. Respondent's recounting of the incident is somewhat different. He claims he was approached by Ms. Drysdale who asked him why he did the bacteria procedure after the BOD procedure. When he pointed out the dictates of the memorandum, she claimed to know nothing about it even though her signature, along with that of Respondent and Mr. Olson, appears on the bottom thereof. Nonetheless, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale said she would check on it. After lunch, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale came back with the Standard Methods book. When he showed her the new work rules, he claims, she admitted she was aware that Ms. Spano had written them. When he asked her what Ms. Spano had said about the situation, she allegedly replied, "Why don't you do it the way I say and if Doreen (Ms. Spano) asks, I'll take the responsibility." Respondent was upset because, he contends, things like this always happen. Respondent, in subsequent testimony, denied ever getting a direct order from Ms. Drysdale or that she indicated she would assume responsibility. On balance, while there is little doubt in Ms. Drysdale's testimony as to what happened, Respondent tells two different stories regarding the conversation. At one point he claims she asked him why he didn't do it her way and that if he did, she'd assume responsibility. At another, he claims she merely asked why he was doing the procedures as he was and made no mention of assuming responsibility. It is clear that Ms. Drysdale wanted the bacteria procedure done first, and while she might not have couched her request in directory language, there can be little doubt she communicated her desires to Respondent, albeit in a perhaps more gentle manner. In any case, she was Respondent's supervisor and he knew it. She wanted the work done as she indicated and her request, made under the authority she had to get the work done as she desired, had the force and effect of a direct order which Respondent disobeyed at his peril. Ms. Spano indicated she discussed not only the appointment of Ms. Drysdale as lead worker at the April 15, 1993 meeting, but also the six hour requirement for specimens. Respondent denies this, but it is found he knew exactly what the requirements were. He claims he has been doing things the way the memorandum calls for ever since it was promulgated and this is not inconsistent with his current position on doing the BOD procedure first. When this incident took place, Mr. Reckenwald, the superintendent of the water and pollution control division, and the overall supervisor of the laboratory operation in question, received a recommendation for discipline, primarily because of Respondent's failure to follow orders. In addition, however, the incident created a problem for the City which has to report to the EPA and other federal agencies. Because of this report requirement, it is imperative the work be done properly. If it is not done properly, the work is worthless and may result in sanction action against the city by federal regulatory agencies. Not the least of concerns, also, is the public health consideration since effluent, the source of samples for both BOD and bacteria procedures, is discharged into the public waterways. On the basis of the above, a recommendations was made that Respondent receive a three day suspension. This is consistent with disciplinary guidelines contained in the City's Guidelines For Disciplinary Action. Respondent appealed the action to the City Manager who reviewed his submittal but nonetheless upheld the disciplinary action proposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the City of Clearwater take final action in this matter to consist of suspension of the Respondent without pay for three days and imposition of 40 disciplinary action points. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 24th day of May, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 William T. Mooney 1433 Laura Street Clearwater, Florida 34615 Michael J. Wright City Manager City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida, should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard d/b/a The Hubbard Association, was licensed to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 006634 on August 17, 1962. Certificate of authorization number EB0003297 was issued to the firm, The Hubbard Association, Inc., on September 25, 1981. In March 1986, Respondent prepared a set of plans for the proposed City of Macclenny Wastewater Treatment Works Improvement Program, Sewage Treatment Facility ("Macclenny project"), and one volume of "Contract Documents and Specifications" ("specifications"), which were submitted to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants (Bureau) on or about April 24, 1986. All wastewater treatment plans designs must go to the DER for approval prior to construction, and if a public entity wants grant funding for its wastewater treatment facility, the project must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau (now called Bureau of Local Government and Waste Water Financial Assistance) which administers State grant programs for wastewater treatment facilities. The Bureau reviews grant project plans and specifications to ensure that they: (a) comply with administrative requirements of the grants programs; (b) comply with minimum Federal and/or State technical standards for wastewater facilities; (c) are suitable for bidding; and (d) present a constructible project. The plans for the Macclenny project depict an existing treatment facility, a new clarifier to improve the removal of solids (an expansion of about 130,000 gallons per day in treatment capacity), and a new effluent pumping station to pump to an overland flow field (field) through a force main pipeline to spray risers. The risers would spray the water laterally across the field. Water would collect in a central collection ditch, and run through a final chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge in Turkey Creek. A new agricultural building for equipment storage, and a new holding pond, which is an off-line pond for storage of inadequately treated water, are also depicted. The field in the Macclenny project is roughly 24 acres and is located in a large area between the chlorine contact chamber and the holding pond. The field in this system has 5 cells. A cell is an area of land that can be independently controlled to allow loading/resting cycles in the treatment process. Each cell in a given field should be as near equal in size as possible to provide for equal treatment of the wastewater during the loading/resting cycles. Loading/resting cycles allows a cell within the field to "rest" (no effluent being pumped on to that cell) so maintenance mowing or harvesting can be accomplished and to "load" the other cells to revitalize the bacteria that renews the treatment process. "Load" means to apply the effluent or treated wastewater from the existing facility to the field. Generally, forty percent of the field would be loaded with wastewater at any one time. On December 9, 1985, the Bureau had a predesign conference with Respondent in Macclenny to discuss design items. No plans or specifications for the Macclenny project had been submitted at that time, nor were they submitted at this conference. On February 18, 1986, an in-progress design review was held at Macclenny, with the Bureau staff available to answer Respondent's questions. On March 5, 1986, another in-progress design review meeting was held in Macclenny, with the Bureau staff present, at which time the plans were "fifty percent" (50%) complete. The unsigned and unsealed plans were given to the Bureau for a preliminary review. On March 25, 1986, the Bureau issued a few preliminary comments on the 50% completed plans and specifications. The purpose of the 50% complete review is to help the design engineer complete his plans and specifications. On March 31, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the Bureau a set of plans for the proposed Macclenny project. Respondent's transmittal letter, which the Bureau received with the plans on April 11, 1986, stated that "completed plans" were being transmitted. On April 21, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the bureau an additional set of the same plans for the Macclenny project, which Respondent again referred to as "completed plans" on his transmittal letter form which were received by Bureau on April 24, 1986. This transmittal also included specifications, a design data check list, design calculations, cost estimate, and plan of operation. The plans in this submittal are referred to as "the plans." It was Respondent's understanding that signing and sealing a set of engineering drawings signified a legal obligation that if someone takes the plans and builds a project it will work. Respondent's signature and seal are on the first sheet of the set of plans which was in the April 1986 submittal but not on the specifications. The plans were prepared, signed, sealed and submitted to the Bureau for review by Respondent. Respondent did not place any conditional language or qualification on the plans or write a letter advising the Bureau that the plans were not complete. It was Respondent's understanding that the Bureau would not review a set of plans unless they were signed and sealed, notwithstanding the completeness of the plans. Respondent did not consider the plans as completed, notwithstanding that he had signed, sealed and submitted them to Petitioner as "completed". It was Respondent's understanding that the plans were being submitted for review only, not complete for construction. An engineer may get answers from the Bureau without submitting plans that are signed and sealed as completed, such as the predesign conference or 50% review that occurred in this case. The Bureau considers plans that are signed, sealed and submitted as "completed" for review to be 100% complete and ready to bid. The Bureau considered the plans and specifications which Respondent submitted on April 24, 1986 as being final, complete plans and specifications for final review by the Bureau. The Bureau reviewed the plans assuming them to be complete and followed normal procedures for reviewing a complete set of plans and specifications. On June 19, 1989, the Bureau issued 52 written comments based on its review of the plans and specifications it had received in the April 24, 1986 submittal from Respondent. The plans and specifications were submitted to the Department of General Services (DGS) by the Bureau for a review and opinion because the Bureau was concerned about the structural design. DGS responded to this request through Jim Berkstresser, P.E. on June 25, 1986. By cover letter dated July 18, 1989, Respondent filed written responses to the Bureau's 52 comments. The Bureau did not approve Respondent's plans and specifications for the Macclenny project submitted on April 24, 1986. On September 5, 1986, Respondent resubmitted plans in response to the Bureau's 52 comments. These plans had the same configuration as the April submittal regarding the overland flow treatment. On September 29, 1986, Respondent met with David Wolfe to discuss the field configuration for the proposed overland flow system and other outstanding issues related to the revised contract documents. The principal concerns were non- uniform flow and significant erosion potential. Respondent's plans did not follow accepted design criteria. At this meeting field configurations were discussed, as well as guidelines to be followed in design of the overland flow field, and a general field layout were developed. Respondent submitted another set of plans which the Bureau received on October 30, 1986, and that set was approved and stamped accepted by DER-BWMG on December 22, 1986. All sheets in the approved set are dated August 20, 1986, with the exception of the cover sheet on which Respondent failed to date his seal and signature, and sheets G-6 and G-7 which are dated October 24, 1986. Respondent signed and sealed the cover sheet and sheet G-7 of the approved set of plans, but did not seal any other sheets in the approved set of plans. A signature and seal on a set of plans indicates that the plans were prepared by, or under the direct supervision of the person signing and sealing them, and that the plans are complete and depict a project that will perform its intended function. A signature and seal on a set of plans means the engineer assures that the design is his design and that the plans and specifications are ready to be bid for construction. The design should contain criteria and information significant to ensure the project will work. Sheet flow is the primary treatment mode in an overland flow system. Sheet flow is where a thin layer of water is induced to flow in a very controlled atmosphere across a length of land that is functioning very similarly to a trickling filter. The acceptable range of slope of an overland flow system is 2% to 8% with the best results obtained in the lower range because of a longer "residence time". "Residence time" is the amount time the wastewater is on the field for treatment. The slopes must be even and uniform to maintain a constant velocity so as to minimize the potential for erosion and to maintain a constant depth of water throughout the filed so as to maximize the treatment. Cross slopes should be minimized and topographic lines should be as close to parallel as possible on the field. The plans for the Macclenny project shows: (a) slopes ranging from less than 2% up to 6%; (b) multiple compound slopes across the field and; (c) topographic lines that are not parallel. The specifications for the field do not set out the acceptable tolerances on the slopes or the acceptable level of compaction of the field for the contractor who is to construct the field and; therefore, lacks control over the final product. Contours in an overland flow field are important, and while it is desirable for them to be on 1-foot intervals, contours at intervals of 2 feet are acceptable provided the plans and specifications address what happens between the contours. Respondent's plans and specifications show contours at intervals of 2 feet but do not address what happens between the contours. The plans of the facilities that were approved prior to the submittal of any plans by Respondent called for a 2- 3 week loading/resting cycle. The standard practice is to have all cells within an overland flow field to be of equal size so that the area to be loaded at any given period of time is the same size. The cells in the overland flow field in the Macclenny project as depicted by the plans are not of equal size, and if operated on a 2-3 week loading/resting cycle would not provide a consistent amount of treatment and thereby result in varying levels of treatment of the effluent. It is standard practice to provide performance specifications for seeding the field with the primary grass cover and for overseeding when necessary to prevent wind and water erosion. There were no performance specifications in the plans and specifications on the Macclenny project submitted by the Respondent. Agricultural equipment is an integral part of the overland flow field system and has a direct bearing on whether the system will function over the long run. Specifications for agricultural equipment are necessary to determine if the system will work properly. There were no specifications for agricultural equipment submitted by the Respondent in the plans. It is standard practice to furnish spray nozzle specifications, such as nozzle size, degree of fanning, characteristics under varying pressures and how much water will be discharged by the nozzle, in a set of plans and specifications for an overland flow field. Respondent's specifications for the Macclenny project did not contain the necessary specifications for the spray nozzles. Compacting is a standard practice, and it is standard practice to show compaction requirements on plans or specifications. The usual practice is to investigate the soil and specify compaction, usually based on a foundation report by a geo-technical engineer, showing the safe beading capacity of the soil in what condition, with recommendations for compaction. The Respondent's specifications do not call for compaction of the soil under the clarifier slab. However, the Respondent's specifications do call for compaction in the holding pond and situations where an area is over-excavated and backfilled. Should the area under the clarifier slab be over- excavated and backfilled, then compaction is covered in the specifications but compaction would not be covered unless this occurs. Therefore, since the weight of the slab is carried by the soil beneath it, specifications for compaction should have been included in Respondent's specifications for any situation. Changes in temperature causes concrete to expand or contract which may result in cracking. Placement of a concrete slab may result in the slab bending which may result in cracking. Therefore, reinforcing a concrete slab is required to maintain the slab's integrity. The thickness of a concrete slab will determine the distribution of the reinforcing so that cracking is minimized. The clarifier slab in the Macclenny project is depicted as being 12 inches thick and shows number 6 bar reinforcing on 6 inch centers in the top of the slab but no reinforcing in the bottom of the slab. Failure to require reinforcing in the bottom of the slab could result in the slab cracking due to significant changes in temperature and soft spots in the soil beneath the slab. Failure to place reinforcing in the bottom as well as in the top of the slab is not in accordance with standards of the code of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), revised in 1983, and is a structural weakness. The chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 is like a rectangular concrete box beneath the earth where the earth is within a few inches of the top of the walls. The walls are vertically reinforced with number 4 bars on 12 inch centers placed in the center of the 8 inch thick wall. When the tank is empty the reinforcing bars will be approximately 160 per cent overstressed from the active pressure of the earth. Additional reinforcing is needed in the walls to meet ACI standards. There are deficiencies in the vertical wall reinforcing of the chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 of the Plans. On sheets 5-3, 5-4 and 5-7 of the plans, reinforcement through the construction joints is incorrectly detailed to assure that cracking of the concrete will not occur. Construction joints occur between different pours of concrete, such as where the walls meet the top of the bottom slab. The concrete bottom of the holding pond as detailed in sheet 5-8 of the Plans is large enough to require expansion joints to prevent cracking as the slab expands and contracts due to changes in the weather, yet no expansion joints are shown for the slab as detailed on sheet 5-8 of the plans. Neither the collection ditches nor the spray riser bases as detailed on the plans show any reinforcing to maintain the integrity of the concrete. While this is not a major structural weakness, it indicates a failure to comply with standard structural engineering practices. Although the plans call for relocation of an existing drainage ditch, the Respondent failed to consult DER regarding the permitting of such drainage ditch. A detention time of 30 minutes is required to properly disinfect wastewater and is-basic knowledge for all civil engineers, yet the plans called for only a fifteen minute detention time. It is standard engineering practice to provide flood level elevations on the site plans. Respondent failed to provide flood level elevations for the Macclenny facility site plans. The plans failed to: (a) provide elevations for high water alarm and pump off settings; (b) provide specifications for flume liner on sheet M-4; (c) show how to close an existing outlet on the chlorine contact chamber; (d) show where an effluent pump station was to be located; (e) show pressure relief valve locations and; (f) indicate quantities for purpose of contract bidding. The specifications list equipment and work items, such as pumping equipment, grit storage tank, case-out assembly, telescoping valve, air diffusers, portable pump, hose and couplings, that are inapplicable to the Macclenny project. There are inconsistencies in the plans and specifications, such as: (a) the plans showing one clarifier while the specifications call for two clarifiers, (b) the plans showing a 150 pound chlorine cylinder as opposed to a 1-ton chlorine cylinder in the specifications and; (c) the plans showing the clarifier with a 38-foot diameter while the specifications calls for a clarifier with a 40-foot diameter. Respondent was negligent in submitting incomplete plans to the Bureau as "completed plans" and in failing to utilize due care and failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles, with regard to the content of those plans which he submitted as "completed plans".
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and suspend from the practice of engineering for a period of thirty (30) days, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0096 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as not being necessary to the conclusions reached in this Recommended Order. 3.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively, but modified. 13. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 14.-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, respectively, but modified. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or subordinate or unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18 but modified. 22.-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27, respectively, but modified. 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18, but modified. 35-37. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29, but modified. 39.-40. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate, but see Findings of Fact 37 and 38. 41.-5O. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28, 32, 29 (28-31), 29, 29, 32, 30, 32 and 32, respectively, but modified. 51. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 52.-53. Adopted in Findings of Fact (28-33) and 32, respectively, but modified. 54.-55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. Adapted in Finding of Fact 55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 58.-62. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 28-33. 63.-66. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 34-36. 67.-72. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 37. 73.-74. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 38. 75.-76. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 39. 77.-79. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 13-15 and 28-39. 80.-82 Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 40- 41. 83.-90. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 42 and 43. 91.-96. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 44 and 45. 97.-104. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 46. 105.-107. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 47. 108.-109. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 110.-115. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 55. 116.-117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49 and 50. 18. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 120.-124. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 125. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 126.-127. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 13-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 except last sentence that is rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant. Rejected as being a restatement of Administrative Complaint and not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 15 and 19. Rejected as being a restatement of John Sowerby's testimony and not a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 15, 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 6. Restatement of David Wolfe's testimony COPIES FURNISHED: Rex Smith Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire 1020 D. Lafayette Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 L. Thomas Hubbard, pro se THA Building 3110 Spring Glen Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was discriminated against based upon his age, in the manner addressed by Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the City of Leesburg at times pertinent hereto. He was employed as a waste water operator trainee, commencing employment on or about June 5, 2000. The Respondent is a city government and unit of local government which operates two waste water plants. At times material to this proceeding the Respondent was employed and assigned to the "Canal Street Plant." The Petitioner was required to perform several job functions in his capacity as a waste water operator (trainee). Respondent's Exhibit Nine, in evidence, provides a job description for the Petitioner's employment positions which include the following: Record all flows; constantly survey charts and meter readings; repair leaking waste water pipes; perform building maintenance chores; maintain vigilance over all the department facilities and log or report any unusual situations; take oral and written instructions and carry them out in a quick and responsible manner; load and unload lawn cutting equipment, and cut and trim grass at utility plant sites; make repairs and/or replace parts on plant equipment; and repair leaks and other operations as directed. That job description also required a trainee to have knowledge of the functions and mechanics of pumps and other waste water plant equipment, knowledge of the occupational hazards and safety measures required in plant operations; to have an ability to detect faulty operating characteristics in equipment and to institute remedial action. The trainee is also required to be able to read meters, chart accurately and to adjust procedures to meet plant volume requirements. He must have an ability to understand and follow oral and written instructions. The Respondent's personnel policies and procedures manual (manual), in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Eight, states at Policy No. 600.2(13) that "poor performance" is a violation of policy sufficient to initiate discipline. Poor performance is described in that section as a failure to perform assigned duties according to prescribed dimensions and standards on the individualized performance plan. Policy No. 600.2 provides for progressive discipline ranging from a verbal warning, to a written warning, a one-to-three day suspension, a four-to-five day suspension, or termination. Thus the discipline for violation of that policy is a range of appropriate actions from verbal warning to termination. On or about July 11, 2001, the Petitioner was the subject of a corrective action performance evaluation by his supervisor, Bob Mirabella. Mr. Mirabella, the Respondent's Operations Supervisor, accorded the Petitioner a grade of zero in several categories of work performance. Those are deficiencies indicating the Petitioner's lack of understanding of basic concepts related to his job position, including failure to following instructions, difficulty making simple decisions, difficulty or failure in following standard procedures, and a poor attitude. Overall his evaluation shows a rating of the Petitioner's performance as "unacceptable." That corrective action evaluation also contains a section that the Petitioner and his supervisor must initial, indicating that the Petitioner had reviewed the evaluation and that the performance deficiencies had been communicated to him. Mr. Mirabella advised the Petitioner of corrective measures to take and that any continued failure to meet expectations might result in termination. Mr. Mirabella created a type-written plan of improvement for the Petitioner with remedial activities, objectives, and developmental activities. Under the Respondent's consistent policy, the action plan would have been reviewed in 60 days, September 11, 2001, in order to determine that the Petitioner was meeting those expectations. On August 13, 2001, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for failure to perform duties assigned to him on July 23, 25, and August 9, 2001. These were duties that were in accordance with the prescribed dimensions and standards of the individual performance plan for the Petitioner. The written reprimand, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Two, included a description of the Petitioner's failure to perform duties including lawn maintenance, and again cited his argumentative attitude. On August 29, 2001, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension from duties for failure to perform assigned duties according to prescribed dimensions and standards as set forth in the individual performance plan. The disciplinary action form, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Three, specifically referred to the Petitioner's failure to perform lawn maintenance duties, failure to follow established rules and policies, and failure to take appropriate action to correct a leaking pump. It was also noted that the Petitioner was making coffee and watching television instead of performing assigned duties. Mr. Mirabella created a performance evaluation summary in preparation for the Petitioner's September 11, 2001, 60-day review of the initial, unsatisfactory evaluation of July 11, 2001. The summary showed a continuation of the Petitioner's difficulties and problems both in understanding his job and in dealing with other people in the course of his duties. The summary cited an incident where the Petitioner was abrasive, including swearing, toward other employees. It was Mr. Mirabella's intention to give the Petitioner a written reprimand regarding the swearing incident. However, due to the emergency nature of the events occurring on September 12, 2001, at the waste water plant, the written reprimand was not completed prior to the beginning of the investigation that ultimately led to the Petitioner's termination. The Petitioner made no major progress in correcting any of the problems outlined in the action plan that constituted part of the July 11, 2001, evaluation. On or about September 12, 2001, it was determined that there was a near overflow of sewage at the Canal Street Plant. Scott Moss, the employee who worked on the morning shift on September 13, 2001, discovered the problem and took corrective action immediately. Mr. Mirabella learned of the problem and reported it to the Respondent's Director of Environmental Services, Susanna Littell. Upon learning of the potential overflow occurrence, Ms. Littell began an investigation to determine when the overflow problem occurred. She gathered plant flow information and took measurements of the tanks. Employing engineering calculations, based upon the flow rates at the plant, Ms. Littell was able to determine that the problem had occurred on the Petitioner's shift. The Petitioner was the only employee on duty at the time the problem occurred. Ms. Littell consulted two outside engineers (non-city employees) to review her calculations. Those engineers found that her calculations were accurate. According to Ms. Littell, the waste water employees on duty at the plant should have observed the valve positions or otherwise noticed a problem in the plant that needed remediation. This was a regular part of their assigned duties, including the Petitioner. Mr. Mirabella determined a number of valves had been changed, which had caused the "aereation bay" to begin to fill with waste water. The aereation bay almost overflowed, which would have caused a serious environmental hazard and damage. It would have caused irreparable harm to the credibility of the waste water department, and could have engendered a minimum of $10,000.00 dollars in fines imposed by the Department of Environmental Protection. The importance of preventing these types of situations has been emphasized to employees who worked at the waste water plant, including the Petitioner. Because of the Petitioner's failure to notice the obvious serious problem occurring at the plant on his shift, and his failure to take corrective action, he was cited for negligence in performing his assigned duties in violation of the Respondent's policy. The employee who worked as his counter- part on the shift immediately after the Petitioner's, Elmer Wagner, was also cited for negligence in performing his duties because of his failure to notice the problem and to take corrective action. Mr. Wagner at the time in question was 67 years of age. The information obtained during Ms. Littell's investigation was forwarded to Ms. Jakki Cunningham-Perry, the Respondent's Director of Human Resources, in order for her to determine the appropriate disciplinary action to take. Ms. Cunningham-Perry performed an investigation of the September 12, 2001, incident. She spoke to several individuals, including, but not limited to, Mr. Mirabella, Ms. Littell, Jim Richards, who was one of the engineers consulted by Ms. Littell, as well as the Petitioner. She thereafter deliberated and prepared a written memorandum setting forth her investigative findings. Ms. Cunningham-Perry concluded that the closing of the valves occurred during the Petitioner's shift. She also concluded that Mr. Wagner should have noticed the change in the pump flow and valves during his shift. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Wagner were cited for failure to perform assigned duties in violation of city policy 600.0(13), as a result of the investigation performed by Ms. Cummingham-Perry. She reviewed the personnel history of both the Petitioner and Mr. Wagner in order to determine the appropriate levels of discipline. The Petitioner's prior history included the special corrective action evaluation of July 11, 2001, indicating unacceptable performance; the August 13, 2001, written reprimand for violation of policy 600.2(13); and the suspension for violation of that same policy. In light of the past performance of the Petitioner, as well as the September 12, 2001, incident, Ms. Cunningham-Perry recommended that he be terminated. On November 30, 2001, the Petitioner was terminated from his employment with the Respondent. The Petitioner's last day on the payroll with the Respondent was December 6, 2001. Mr. Wagner is older than the Petitioner and has had an exemplary performance record with the Respondent City. He never had any disciplinary problems on his record for 15 years of his employment with the Respondent. Because of his theretofore spotless employment disciplinary record, he was given a written reprimand as a result of his negligent performance of job duties on September 12, 2001. No evidence was adduced indicating that the Respondent treated any employees over the age of 40, including the Petitioner, any differently than employees under the age of 40. During the relevant time period the Respondent had approximately 22 employees in the waste water department. Fifteen of those 22 employees were over the age of 40. The Petitioner actually produced no evidence in his case establishing his date of birth or age. There is no evidence that the Petitioner's age was considered or was a factor in his termination decision. The decision to terminate him was based solely on his failure to perform assigned duties and his prior performance record. Moreover, the Petitioner adduced no evidence to show that he was replaced or otherwise lost his position to a younger individual. The individual who became a waste water trainee after the Petitioner's termination was Scott Moss. Mr. Moss is currently employed as Waste Water Operator with the Respondent. There is no doubt that Mr. Moss is a significantly younger individual, purported to have been in his late 20's when the incident in question occurred. The Petitioner, however, produced no evidence regarding Mr. Moss' date of birth or his age in relationship to the Petitioner's. He also produced no evidence to show that he was actually replaced by Mr. Moss. Mr. Moss had been hired on or about January 29, 2001, nearly one year prior to the date of the Petitioner's termination. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Moss were working at the Canal Street Plant in similar capacities and duties, at the time the Petitioner was terminated. Mr. Moss, therefore, just continued to work there and ultimately was elevated, through his adequate performance, to the position of Waste Water Operator. It was not established that he was hired simply to replace the Petitioner when the Petitioner was terminated. Further, the Petitioner did not adduce sufficient, persuasive evidence to show that he was actually qualified to perform the job. His prior performance had been unacceptable since at least July 11, 2001, and likely before that time. The Petitioner repeatedly failed to comprehend and perform assigned duties of a Waste Water Operator Trainee on multiple occasions. This was despite efforts by the Respondent to help the Petitioner correct his deficiencies. Accordingly, it has not been established that the Petitioner was "qualified" for the position of Waste Water Operator Trainee.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael George 25131 Southeast 167th Place Umatilla, Florida 32784 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed, P.A. Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water requested in the application should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application 7500137 seeks an average daily withdrawal of 2.4 million gallons of water with maximum daily withdrawal not more than 2.88 million gallons from an existing well in order to process phosphate and reclaim land. This is an existing use for mining operations located southwest of Lakeland, Florida, on land consisting of 1531 acres. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to wit: The Lakeland Ledger, on November 11 & 18, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. The application and affidavit of publication were admitted into evidence without objection as Composite Exhibit 1, together with correspondence from James R. Brown, Vice President, Dagus Engineers, Inc., dated November 19, 1975 to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. No objections were received by the Water Management District as to the application. Mr. George Szell, hydrologist of the Water Management District testified that the application met the conditions for a consumptive use permit as set forth in Chapter 16J-2.11, Florida Administrative Code, except that the quantity of water requested to be withdrawn is 41.06 per cent over the maximum average daily withdrawal permitted under the water crop theory as set forth in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. However, the Water Management District witness recommended waiver of that provision since the mining operations will be concluded in several years and thereafter the water table and hydrologic conditions will return to normal. The Water District staff recommended approval of the application with the condition that a meter be installed on the well and that the applicant be required to take monthly readings thereof and submit quarterly reports of the readings to the District. The applicant's representative agreed to these conditions at the hearing.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500137 submitted by Poseidon Mines, Inc., for a consumptive water use permit be granted on the condition that a meter be installed on the applicant's well and that monthly readings be taken and submitted quarterly by the applicant to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It is further recommended that the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Rule 16J-2.11(5), for good cause, grant an exception to the provisions of Rule 16J-2.11(3), as being consistent with the public interest. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J.T. Ahern, Staff Attorney Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Poseidon Mines, Inc. P.O. Box 5172 Bartow, Florida
The Issue Whether the rules promulgated by the Department of Environmental Regulation require the Respondent to employ the services of a state certified water system operator to operate the water systems at the two business locations involved in these proceedings.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was responsible for the operation of two water systems. One water system is located on Highway 92 West, Winter Haven, Polk County. The other water system is located on State Road 37 South, Mulberry, Polk County. The restaurant and bar business operated at the Winter Haven location is known as the Rainbow Club. Customers eat food and drink beverages prepared with water from the on site water system. The system serves at least twenty- five individuals daily, at least sixty days out of the year. The convenience store business operated in Mulberry serves ice tea, juices, and coffee to customers which is prepared with water from the on site water system. The system serves at least twenty-five individuals daily, at least sixty days out of the year. During the recent past, the Respondent retained a certified operator to meet the state requirements. He was not satisfied with the operator for the following reasons: (1) He had to show the man how to chlorinate the water. (2) The operator took the required chlorine samples from water that had not been chlorinated. (3) Visits were not made to the site as scheduled. (4) The pump at one of the establishments was harmed by the certified operator. (5) The expense of four hundred dollars a month for the testing of three sites operated by the Respondent was too much money. The Respondent wants to be able to chlorinate the water and maintain the systems himself. He has professional experience regulating the chemical balance of water in swimming pools. The samples he turned into the lab himself were good. The Respondent also wants to keep the old well next to the convenience store in Mulberry. He disagrees with the Department's request that he abandon the well because he needs it for an adjoining piece of property. This well is used for lawns, not for the convenience store business. The Department is amenable to the Respondent maintaining his own systems if he is certified to do so. The next examination is scheduled for November 1990.
The Issue The issues to be adjudicated in this proceeding concern whether Conrock Utility Company's application for a water certificate in Hernando County meets the requirements of Sections 367.041 and 367.051, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, whether it should be granted.
Findings Of Fact 1. Applications and notices of intent to apply for a water certificate for a particular service area are required to be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation in the service area involved. In this proceeding, an affidavit was introduced from the "Sun Coast News," to the effect that Conrock had caused to be published in that newspaper its notice of intent to apply for the water certificate. That newspaper is published on Wednesdays and Saturdays in New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida. Conrock's proposed service area, or territory, is in that portion of Hernando County lying east of the City of Brooksville. This newspaper is a free publication and states on the front page that it is circulated in Pasco and Hernando Counties. There is some testimony to the effect that the newspaper is only circulated in that portion of Hernando County lying westward of Brooksville near the Pasco County border, which is an area removed from Conrock's proposed service territory. No evidence was presented to the effect that that newspaper actually circulates in Conrock's proposed service territory. 2. Rules 25-30.030(2)(f), 25-30.035(3)(f) and 25-30.035(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code, require that the utility provide evidence that it owns the land where the treatment facilities are to be located or provide a copy of an agreement providing authority for the continuous use of the land involved in the utility operations and that a system map of the proposed lines and facilities be filed with the Commission. It was not established that Conrock owns or has a written lease for the land where the water facilities are proposed to be located. No actual lease has been executed providing for long-term continuous use of the land. It is true, however, that a verbal agreement exists with the Williams family members and/or the Williams Family Trust, who own the land upon which the facilities would be located, authorizing the use of the land for the proposed operations and facilities. That unrebutted evidence does establish, therefore, that Conrock has authorization to use the land where the water facilities, including the wells, are, or will be located. Although there is no extant written agreement, as yet, providing for the continuous use of the land involved, Conrock did establish that such an agreement can be consummated in the near future based on the verbal agreement it already has. Conrock did place into evidence a territorial map of the proposed service area. It did not, however, provide a system map or otherwise provide concrete evidence of where distribution lines and other facilities would be located for its proposed system. It submitted instead a "planning study" directed to the question of whether a water utility is needed for the proposed territorial area. It submitted no design specifications for the proposed system into evidence however. Conrock has not filed any tariff rate schedules for any water service it might conduct, if granted a certificate. Concerning the question of the need for the proposed water service, it was established by Conrock that 900 acres of the proposed service territory are mainly owned by the Sumner A. Williams Family Trust (Family Trust). Additionally, some small tracts are owned by S. A. Williams Corporation, a related family corporation. The majority of the 900-acre tract is zoned agricultural and the S.A.W. Corporation operates a construction/demolition landfill on that property. There is no evidence that it contemplates a real estate development on that 900-acre tract or other tracts in the area which could be served by the proposed water utility. Neither is Conrock attempting entry into the utility business in order to supply water to a development of the above-named corporation or any related party, person or entity. The proposed service area is rural in nature. The majority of people living in the area live on tracts of land ranging from 1 to 200 acres in size. The people living in the proposed territory either have individual wells or currently receive water service from the City of Brooksville or from Hernando County. Both of those entities serve small subdivisions, or portions thereof, lying wholly or in part in the proposed service territory of Conrock. Conrock has not received any requests for water services from residents in the proposed service territory. There is some evidence that discussions to that effect may have occurred with an entity known as TBF Properties, lying generally to the north of the proposed service territory. TBF Properties apparently contemplates a real estate development on land it owns, which also encompasses part of the Williams family property; some of which lies within the proposed service territory. Plans for TBF's residential construction development are not established in the evidence in this case however. There is no evidence which shows when or on what schedule the construction of that development might occur, nor whether it would actually seek service from Conrock if that entity was granted a water certificate. TBF Properties is the only entity or person in Conrock's proposed service territory that has expressed any interest to the City of Brooksville concerning receiving water service from the city. There have been no requests to the county for water service in the proposed service territory, except by Budget Inn, a motel development. The proposed service area includes a number of small subdivisions. These subdivisions are Mundon Hill Farms, Eastside Estates, Cooper Terrace, Country Oak Estates, Chris Morris Trailer Park, Potterfield Sunny Acres, Gunderman Mobile Home Park, and Country Side Estates. Mundon Hill Farms is an undeveloped subdivision. Eastside Estates and Cooper Terrace have limited development and the Country Oak Estates consist of only three homes. The Chris Morris Trailer Park has a small number of mobile homes but is not of a high density. Potterfield Sunny Acres has six to eight homes. Gunderman Mobile Home Park is a minor development. The Country Side Estates development has its own independent water system. Some subdivisions in Conrock's proposed service area already receive water service from the city or the county. Conrock was incorporated in the past year and as yet has not had any active business operations. It currently has no employees. Mark Williams, the President of Conrock, manages the construction/demolition landfill operation owned by the S.A.W. Corporation. The landfill business is the most closely related business endeavor to a water utility business in the experience of Mr. Williams, Conrock's president. If Conrock were granted a water certificate, either Ms. Donna Martin or Mr. Charles DeLamater would be the operations manager. Neither of these persons possesses any license or training authorizing him or her to operate a water utility system. No evidence was presented as to Ms. Martin's qualifications to operate a water utility system. Mr. DeLamater manages a ranch at the present time and also works in a management capacity in the landfill operation for the Williams family. There is no evidence that he has received any training in the operation of a water utility. It is true, however, that the representatives of the engineering and consulting firm retained by Conrock, who testified in this case, do possess extensive water and sewer design and operation expertise. The evidence does not reflect that those entities or persons would be retained to help operate the utility, but Conrock established that it will promptly retain operating personnel of adequate training and experience to operate the water system should the certificate be granted. Conrock has not established what type of system it would install should the certificate be granted, but a number of alternatives were examined and treated in its feasibility study (in evidence). One alternative involves the use of well fields alone, without treatment, storage or transmission lines. In this connection, the feasibility study contains some indication that the water quality available in the existing wells is such that no water treatment is necessary. In any event, Conrock has not established of record in this case what type of facilities it proposes to install in order to operate its proposed water service. Further, that feasibility study, designed to show a need for the proposed water service, is based upon the actual population, density and occupancies in the homes and subdivisions of the proposed service territory, even though those current residents and occupants have independent water supplies at the present time, either through private wells or through service provided by the City of Brooksville or Hernando County. Thus, the feasibility study itself does not establish that the proposed service is actually needed. Concerning the issue of the proposed facility's financial ability to install and provide the service, it was shown that Conrock stock is jointly held between the Williams family and the S.A.W. Corporation. The Conrock Corporation itself has no assets. The president of Conrock owns 100 shares of the utility corporation, but has not yet committed any personal funds to the venture. No efforts, as yet, have been made to obtain bonds, loans or grants. In fact, the first phase of the proposed project, which is expected to cost approximately $400,000, can be provided in cash from funds presently held by the Williams Family Trust and the S.A.W. Corporation. The various system alternatives proposed in Conrock's feasibility study, in evidence, range in cost from $728,200 to $5,963,100. Conrock has no assets and therefore no financial statement as yet. The financial statements of Mr. and Mrs. Sumner A. Williams, the parents of Conrock's president, include approximately $3,069,907. This is the corpus of the family trust mentioned above, and with other assets, amount to a net worth for those individuals of approximately 5.8 million dollars. Mr. Williams, Conrock's president, has an income interest in the family trust. The financial statements of the S.A.W. Corporation indicate it has a net worth of $1,588,739. The Family Trust financial statement shows a net worth of $3,069,907 of which $1,444,165 consists of stock in the S.A.W. Corporation. The Family Trust owns 90.9 percent of the S.A.W. Corporation stock. It is thus a close-held corporation, not publicly traded and thus has no value independent of the corporation's actual assets. In spite of the fact that Conrock, itself, the corporate applicant herein, does not have assets or net worth directly establishing its own financial responsibility and feasibility, in terms of constructing and operating the proposed water service, the testimony of Mr. Williams, its president, was unrefuted and does establish that sufficient funds from family members and the trust are available to adequately accomplish the proposed project. Concerning the issue of competition with or duplication of other systems, it was established that the City of Brooksville currently provides water service to the Wesleyan Village, a subdivision within the Conrock proposed service territory. The City has a major transmission line running from its corporate limits out to the Wesleyan Village. The Wesleyan Village is receiving adequate water service at the present time, although there is some evidence that water pressure is not adequate for full fire flows. The City also has another water main running from US 41 down Crum Road, which is in the proposed service territory of Conrock. By agreement with Hernando County, a so-called "interlocal agreement," the City of Brooksville is authorized to provide water and sewer utility service in a 5-mile radius in Hernando County around the incorporated area of Brooksville. This 5-mile radius includes much of the proposed service territory of Conrock. The City of Brooksville comprehensive plan, approved by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, contains an established policy discouraging "urban sprawl" or "leap frogging"; the placing of developments including separate, privately owned water utilities in predominantly rural areas. It, instead, favors the installation of subdivision developments in areas which can be served by existing, more centralized, publicly owned water and sewer utilities such as the City of Brooksville or Hernando County. Thus, the installation of the separate, privately owned system in a rural area of the county would serve to encourage urbanization away from area contiguous to the municipality of Brooksville which is served, and legally authorized to be served, by the City of Brooksville. Such a project would be in derogation of the provisions of the approved comprehensive land use plan. Further, Conrock's proposed system would be in partial competition with and duplication of the city and county water systems in the proposed service territory. The county provides some water service through its water and sewer district system to some of the subdivisions and residents in the proposed service territory of Conrock and much of Conrock's territory, as mentioned above, lies within the 5-mile radius urban services area of Brooksville, authorized to be served by the city and county interlocal agreement. Such interlocal agreements, including this one, are contemplated and authorized by the comprehensive plan approved by the Department of Community Affairs and the city/county agreement involved in this proceeding was adopted in 1978 in accordance with certain federal grant mandates in Title 201 of the Federal Safe Water Drinking Act. In terms of present physical competition and duplication, Conrock's proposed system would likely involve the running of water lines parallel to and in duplication of the county's lines within the same subdivision.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that the application of Conrock Utilities Corporation for a water certificate authorizing it to operate a water utility in Hernando County, Florida, as more particularly described herein, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of January 1990. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Hearing this 24th day of January 1990. APPENDIX Petitioners, City of Brooksville, Hernando County, and Hernando County Water and Sewer District's proposed findings of fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in itself materially dispositive. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not in itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not in itself materially dispositive. Accepted, but not in itself materially dispositive. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Copies furnished to: William B. Eppley, Esquire Post Office Box 1478 Brooksville, Florida 34605 Peyton B. Hyslop, Esquire 10 North Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 34601 James F. Pingel, Jr., Esquire South Ashley Drive Suite 1400, Ashley Tower Post Office 1050 Tampa, Florida 33601 David C. Schwartz, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0855 Steve Tribble, Director Records and Recording Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 David Swafford Executive Director Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Susan Clark, General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1982, Petitioner filed with Respondent a dredge and fill permit application to remove gates and wing-walls from a double-lock canal system presently installed at the Palmetto Point Subdivision in Lee County, Florida, adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River. On January 6, 1983, Respondent sent a "completeness summary" to Petitioner, along with a letter advising Petitioner that its permit application was incomplete, and requesting additional information. Petitioner responded to the January 6, 1983, completeness summary by submitting additional information to Respondent on or about February 23, 1983. On March 21, 1983, Respondent sent a second completeness summary requesting further additional information from Petitioner. By letter dated May 18, 1983, Petitioner's attorney advised Respondent that submission of additional requested hydrographic information and water quality data was not justified. The letter further advised that Petitioner intended to rely on the information already submitted, and requested, pursuant to Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes, that Respondent begin processing the permit application. The letter further indicated that petitioner was submitting under separate cover a request that Respondent apply the "moderating provisions" of Rule 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code, to the application. The aforementioned rule is entitled "Mixing Zones: Surface Waters." Also on May 18, 1983, Petitioner's counsel sent another letter to Respondent requesting the aforementioned "Mixing Zone." The letter requested the "maximum mixing zone" allowed under the applicable Provisions of Rule 17- 4.244, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner had not requested a mixing zone be applied to the permit application prior to the request contained in its May 18, 1983, letter. By letter dated June 17, 1983 Respondent, in response to Petitioner's May 18, 1983, letters, advised that: The additional information [which] was received on May 19, 1983, was reviewed; however, the items listed on the attached sheet remain incomplete. Evaluation of your proposed project will continue to be delayed until we receive all requested information. Respondent's June 17, 1983, letter included a completeness summary, which asked for additional information, including the following requests concerning mixing zones: Your request for a mixing zone is applicable pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-4.244(6). Please provide a map indicating the outermost radius of the mixing zone (no more than 150 meters) and the period of time required. The completeness summary acknowledged Petitioner's refusal to supply additional information concerning hydrographic data and water quality information, and indicated that Respondent would evaluate the project accordingly. By letter dated August 29, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had been 73 days since notification of the incompleteness of the permit application with regard to the mixing zone request. This letter requested Petitioner to advise Respondent if it wished to withdraw the application, request additional time, or discuss questions regarding the application. The Petitioner did not respond to this communication. On September 9, 1983, Petitioner's attorney forwarded a letter to Respondent requesting a default permit pursuant to Sections 120.60(2) and 403.0876, Florida Statutes. Until this letter, other than a prior oral communication on September 2, 1983, notifying Respondent that the default request was forthcoming, Petitioner had not contacted Respondent concerning the permit application since its May 18, 1983, letters. On October 13, 1983, Respondent advised Petitioner by letter that the mixing zone request constituted a revision of the application and that the information received to evaluate the mixing zone request was incomplete. Petitioner was also advised that since the additional information requested had not been received, the application remained incomplete and Petitioner was not entitled to a default permit. Whether or not a mixing zone is applied to a permit application is significant because it determines where state water quality standards must be met, either adjacent to the proposed project, or up to 150 meters away from the project location. Under Rule 17-4.244(6), Florida Administrative Code, the 150 meter radius is measured from the point of generation of turbidity or pollution. Since the two locks to be removed were 80 feet apart, it was unclear whether Petitioner intended the point of generation for measuring the radius of the mixing zone to be the northern lock, the southern lock, or some other point. It is equally unclear whether Petitioner intended the mixing zone to extend south into the canal as well as north into the Caloosahatchee River. Petitioner never contacted Respondent to clarify the dimensions of the mixing zone being sought, even after Respondent requested a map indicating the outermost limits of the mixing zone in the June 17, 1983, completeness summary.
