The Issue Whether the equipment purchase and lease agreement to which Paul Richards and Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., became parties is an "investment contract" and so a security, within the meaning of Section 517.021, Florida Statutes (1985)? If so, whether it was exempt from registration requirements under Section 517.061(11)(a), Florida Statutes (1985)? If not, whether respondent Ogle solicited an offer, or offered or attempted to dispose of any interest in the agreement for value?
Findings Of Fact William Carl Webster had an idea, but no money. In fact, the business he and his wife owned, Cap'n Carl's Seafood Company, was in bankruptcy. No stranger to the seafood business, wholesale or retail, he had been involved for some twelve years. He came to believe he could profit by adopting a technique he noticed purveyors of pizza and milk used: the "impulse freezer," a topless display freezer rolled into the middle of a grocery store aisle to attract customers' attention. The "concept" was to sell frozen seafood wholesale to licensed food retailers. Webster believed it would be a simple matter of establishing the accounts, installing the freezers, and arranging with a reputable Tampa Bay fish house to deliver "custom packed" seafood. Overhead would be minimal, or so Mr. Webster told Barry Louis Harris, with whom he had played baseball in high school, and from whom he borrowed three thousand dollars for the new venture. None of this money was left by the time Mr. Webster dropped in on Jerry Russell Ogle, an account executive in the Fort Walton Beach office of A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., to discuss the ins and outs of going public, in late April of 1984. Mr. Ogle recommended against going public but expressed a willingness to help for a fee. Both Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., and Florida Seafood Brokers, Inc., came into existence on April 24, 1984. Articles of incorporation drawn by Messrs Webster and Harris, with the help of a kit, were filed that day. Jerry Ogle is registered with petitioner as a securities dealer. One of Mr. Ogle's customers, Paul Richards, had been a builder and developer before he moved to Florida from Ohio. As he sold properties in Ohio, he deposited the proceeds in his account at the Fort Walton Beach office of A. G. Edwards & Son. Since Mr. Richards had expressed an interest in investing in a small business, Mr. Ogle thought some of this money might be available for the enterprise on which Messrs Webster and Harris had embarked. Before taking Mr. Richards to lunch at the Harborlight, Mr. Ogle sought and obtained the oral approval of the A. G. Edwards' branch manager to work as a "marketing consultant" for Florida Seafood Centers, Inc. At lunch, he mentioned Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., and gave a "capsule form" account of the business to Mr. Richards. Mr. Richards expressed interest, and Mr. Ogle arranged a second luncheon meeting a week or two later. Messrs Richards, Webster, Harris and Ogle gathered in Mr. Ogle's office, before setting out for lunch at the High Tide. Mr. Ogle told Mr. Richards he thought that Mr. Webster's idea was a good one, but it was Mr. Webster who presented the idea in detail. Although remarking that he might be "digging a hole and throwing money into it," Mr. Richards decided to purchase 25 freezers from Florida Seafood Centers, Inc. On May 23, 1984, he signed an equipment purchase and lease agreement, but negotiations continued and the final agreement was executed on May 24, 1984, in Mr. Ogle's office. At this meeting, Mr. Richards drew a check for $10,000.00 on his A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. Total Assets Account, Mr. Ogle witnessed the equipment lease agreement Messrs Richards and Webster signed, and Mr. Ogle wrote, at the bottom of the agreement, "Rec'd $10,000 5-24-84 JRO." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 Under the equipment purchase and lease agreement, Mr. Richards purchased freezers to lease to Florida Seafood Centers, Inc. In exchange, he was to receive "one half of the net profit of [each] freezer . . . not [to] exceed $800.00 per month for each freezer." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. As per Ogle's suggestion, he was also to get "1 percent of gross sales revenue of Florida Seafood Centers," Id., all payments to begin after a 180-day "grace period." Mr. Richards' only obligation under the parties' agreement was to pay $1,500.00 for each freezer, or $37,500.00 in all. He had the option to choose among available locations, but had no responsibilities for installation or operation of the freezers or for the sale of seafood. His role was that of a passive investor. Mr. Richards was the only person in Florida who invested in this way, although two of the Alabamians who invested also had houses in Florida. Mr. Richards understood he was the initial investor, but knew others would be approached. The equipment purchase and lease agreement was never registered as a security. Mr. Harris took Mr. Richards' $10,000.00 check to a Barnett Bank branch and opened a bank account for Florida Seafood Centers, Inc., by depositing the check less $2,000.00 cash the bank disbursed and Mr. Webster took to cover expenses already incurred. The first check drawn on Florida Seafood Centers, Inc.'s first bank account was for $500.00 in favor of Mr. Ogle, dated May 28, 1984. Mr. Ogle had told Mr. Webster he expected to be paid for his time and Mr. Webster had agreed, before Mr. Richards signed the equipment lease agreement, to pay Mr. Ogle something if he was ever in a position to do so. At the hearing, they testified the payments to Mr. Ogle - $2,000 in cash from the proceeds of Mr. Richards' second and final check to Florida Seafood Brokers, Inc., dated June 4, 1984, in addition to the $500 check - were for his services as a "marketing consultant." Mr. Ogle never told Mr. Richards he had any sort of agreement with Florida Seafood Brokers, Inc. or Mr. Webster, and Mr. Richards was aware of none before investing in the enterprise. Mr. Ogle did know that bankruptcy had befallen Cap'n Carl's Seafood Company. Mr. Richards never received any payments or sales reports. Some freezers were placed in Piggly Wiggly stores in Birmingham, among other places, without, however, Mr. Richards' advice or assistance, as far as the record shows. Such sales of fish as Messrs Webster and Harris made were in amounts too small to make deliveries of custom-packed seafood economic, so they were obliged to repack the seafood themselves, which entailed renting space and bringing it up to health department standards, all at considerable, unanticipated expense. Eventually the business failed.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) should modify permit number 599070329, issued to the City of Boca Raton (City), to allow construction of an approved beach restoration project to commence on May 1, 1988, rather than on June 1, 1988.
Findings Of Fact On November 21, 1986, DER issued number 500970329 to the City for a beach restoration project. Issuance of the permit followed resolution of a dispute between DER and the City of Boca Raton which was the subject of an earlier proceeding before this hearing officer. See, City of Boca Raton, et al., v. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, et al., DOAH Case number 86-0991 (Final Order of Dismissal rendered November 21, 1986). Although the City maintained in this case that the Coral Reef Society and Sierra Club, who are petitioners here, were intervenors in that prior proceeding through an umbrella organization, Save and Protect our Aquatic Resources and Environment (SPARE), no evidence was adduced supporting that contention. In the 1986 proceeding SPARE alleged that it was "a coalition of various environmental and commercial groups with a common interest in the protection of Florida's unique and fragile aquatic resources" (Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene in Case 86-0991, filed September 2, 1986). The groups which made up the coalition were not identified in that prior proceeding or in this one. SPARE filed a voluntary dismissal in the prior proceeding after learning that DER had decided to support issuance of a permit to the City of Boca Raton. After further administrative proceedings at the federal level, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit to the City of Boca Raton for the beach restoration project on or about January 28, 1988. The project, as currently permitted, involves the placement of approximately 980,000 cubic yards of sand, dredged from offshore, onto 1.45 miles of the City of Boca Raton's beachfront. The project will be constructed within and adjacent to two city Spanish River Park and Red Reef Park, and the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. The mean grain size of the dredged sand to be added to the beach is .32 millimeters. The dredged material is 99.6 percent sand and .4 percent silt or clay. The sand to be pumped onto the beach has characteristics almost identical to the current beach sand. As part of the approval process, the City of Boca Raton received a variance from turbidity standards otherwise applicable to Florida Class 3 waters. Turbidity is, to some extent, an unavoidable by-product of beach renourishment dredging. DER approved a mixing zone of 10,000 feet by 1,000 feet in which state water quality standards for turbidity could be violated during the construction period. The City of Boca Raton has also constructed artificial reefs comprised of natural limestone boulders and a protective groin approximately one-half mile south of the project area. Specific Condition Number Three (3) of the DER permit restricts project construction to the months of June, July, and August. In a letter dated February 12, 1988, the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (the Service) requested that the City of Boca Raton seek a modification of its DER permit to allow construction of the project to begin on May 1, 1988. The Service maintained the modification was important to avoid conflict with the peak nesting season of sea turtles, which are protected species. The Service did not make its request to the City to advance the project start date until February 12, 1988, because the Service was under the impression that the City had already requested permission from DER to commence construction sooner. In May of 1987, the City of Boca Raton had requested that the three month construction restriction of Specific Condition Number Three be deleted completely from the permit. When this request was made, the City of Boca Raton had hoped to begin construction of the project in the fall of 1987, and avoid construction during the sea turtle nesting season. DER's hydrographic engineer, Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, opposed this initial request to delete the construction limitation period. Due to delays in the federal permitting process and other logistical problems, the City of Boca Raton withdrew this earlier modification request. In order to meet the concerns of the Service, the City of Boca Raton applied by letter to DER dated February 22, 1988 for the suggested permit modification. Upon review of additional climatological and wave height data and littoral drift calculations from Dr. Robert Dean of the Costal and Oceanographic Engineering Department of the University of Florida College of Engineering, Dr. Echternacht supported a permit modification which would allow the construction period to begin in March, 1988. DER indicated its intention to grant the modification on March 10, 1988, acknowledging the concern of the Service and finding "the proposed modification is not expected to result in any adverse environmental impact or water quality degradation. " American Littoral Society, South Florida Chapter, and the Sierra Club, Florida Chapter, jointly, and the Coral Reef Society, independently, filed virtually identical petitions on March 22, 1988, objecting to DER's proposed approval of the modification request, and each requested a formal administrative proceeding. Those petitions not only questioned the permit modification, but also sought to reopen the issue whether the beach restoration project should be undertaken at all. During a telephone conference hearing on the City of Boca Raton's motion to strike portions of the petitions, held on April 8, 1988, the issue in this proceeding was narrowed to whether DER's proposed approval of the modification, expanding the construction "window" by one month, was proper. The time for objecting to the entire project has passed and the permit modification proceeding cannot be used to reopen the issue whether the beach renourishment now permitted for June, July, and August may go forward. The purpose of the restriction of construction to June, July, and August in Specific Condition Number Three of the permit was to confine construction to the months of minimum wave height. In southeast Florida, the summer months are climatologically the months of minimum average wave height. The amount of sand transported by the coastal littoral system, and consequently, the amount of optical turbidity due to suspension of particulate matter in the water column such as fine sand, is a function of wave height and longshore currents. The lesser the wave height and calmer the sea, the less sand is resuspended and the lower are the turbidity levels. During the months of June, July, and August, the waves propagate from the southeast and the corresponding longshore littoral direction is predominantly to the north. The remainder of the year, the littoral drift is primarily to the south. DER determined that project construction during the period of predominantly northerly littoral transport would better protect Red Reef Rock, a large rock outcropping located to the south of the project area. The Red Reef Rock area supports rich and diverse fish resources as fish are attracted to the rock for feeding and take advantage of the relief the rock outcroppings provide. The City of Boca Raton agreed to construct a groin composed of limestone boulders in order to afford additional protection to Red Reef Rock against the drift of sand to the south. The City is also limited by Specific Condition Number Ten of the permit, which remains in effect, and restricts disposal of material in the southernmost .15 mile portion of the beach to times when the prevailing longshore current is from south to north. Nonetheless, construction during May increases the possibility that some material suspended in the water column as the result of the renourishment will be transported over the Red Reef Rock area. Although project construction during the months of June, July, and August presents the optimum conditions from a water quality perspective, construction during that period conflicts with the height of the sea turtle nesting season. The City of Boca Raton has been monitoring sea turtle nesting activity on the Boca Raton public beaches from Spanish River Boulevard to Palmetto Park Road, a distance of 2.6 miles which encompasses the project area, for the past 11 years. Three species of sea turtles, logger head, green and leatherback turtles have been known to nest on the beaches of Boca Raton within and adjacent to the project area. All three species are protected under state and federal law. Loggerhead sea turtles, by far the most numerous nesters on Boca Raton's beaches, are classified as a threatened species by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Green sea turtles and leatherback sea turtles are classified as endangered species. Compared to the number of nests historically established by loggerhead turtles, green sea turtles are infrequent nesters on Boca Raton's beaches. Leatherback turtles are very rare nesters in this area. Southeast Florida is not a significant nesting habitat for leatherbacks. During the eleven-year monitoring period an average of only 2.4 leatherback sea turtles nested on the beach each year, the largest number nesting in a single year was 7; an average of 8 to 9 green sea turtle nests have been recorded annually in this area. By way of comparison, during the same period an average of 333 loggerhead sea turtle nested in this area. Sea turtle nesting in Boca Raton has historically occurred from April through September. The earliest nest of the year recorded by the City of Boca Raton occurred on April 2, 1987, and was a leatherback. The latest nest of the year occurred on September 13, 1983, and was a loggerhead. Leatherbacks nest early, and green turtles are late to nest. Loggerhead nests commonly begin in May, with the peak nesting period occurring in late June and early July. In light of the facts set out above concerning the likely timing of sea turtle nesting, which also being cognizant of DER's water quality concerns, the Service requested the City of Boca Raton to seek a modification of its DER permit to allow construction to begin on May 1, 1988. This would enable the City of Boca Raton to avoid construction during the peak of the sea turtle nesting season in late June, July, and August. The construction should take about 30 days. In addition to the permit modification request, the Service has recommended several other "reasonable and prudent measures" to avoid possible adverse effects to sea turtle nesting activity during the renourishment of the beach. These include a) tilling the beach to soften the new sand if it becomes compacted over a certain degree, b) relocation of nests is undertaken only by trained persons, c) lighting on the dredge is minimized to reduce any confusion it could cause to turtles attempting to locate the beach for nesting, and d) the addition of dune plants to the project area. The City of Boca Raton has agreed to implement these measures. The Boca Raton beach restoration project will enhance sea turtle nesting activity in the future. Currently, the beach in the project area is critically eroded, posing an immediate threat to successful sea turtle nesting. Nests are at risk of being inundated by sea water or washed away if not found and relocated by City of Boca Raton staff. The project will provide a long-term benefit to sea turtles by providing a wider dry beach area for safer nesting and better nest site selection. The City proved that wave heights, littoral drift, and other climatological conditions in southeast Florida do not vary dramatically, on the average, between the months of May and June. May is a transitional month, and there is net littoral movement south due to cold fronts and northeast winds in the area, along with swells caused by storms out in the Atlantic Ocean. While there is a potential for isolated events in May which could have an adverse impact on Red Reef Rock by causing a shift of newly dredged material south over the reef, the evidence presented by petitioners did not persuade the hearing officer that the risk of such events was unacceptably large when balanced against the value of advancing the construction into May to minimize conflict with the peak nesting season of loggerhead sea turtles. The petitioners' evidence did not quantify the likelihood of storm-related events with enough energy to adversely affect the Red Reef Rock area. The hearing officer is, therefore, more persuaded by Dr. Echternacht's testimony that long-term (i.e., average) data is more useful when assessing safety margins, and the available data gives reasonable assurance that renourishment may take place in May. Consequently, construction commencing during the month of May would not present any adverse water quality or marine resource effects. Petitioners have not persuaded the hearing officer that the subject permit modification would adversely affect water quality to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest. The City has obtained a permit for a mixing zone which will accommodate all the turbidity which is likely to be caused by the beach renourishment. There is insufficient evidence that climatological event in May are likely to cause the turbidity to extend beyond the approved mixing zone.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the permit modification. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of May, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1590 The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioners pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, (1985). Rulings on Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 5. 3-4. Covered in finding of fact 6. 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. 6-7. Covered in finding of fact 8. Rejected because while wave heights are higher in May, there is insufficient evidence that higher wave height would cause turbidity in violation of the mixing zone which has been permitted. Covered in finding of fact 8. 10-11. Rejected as unnecessary. 12-15. Covered in finding of fact 8. 16. To the extent appropriate, covered in finding of fact 9. 17-20. Covered in finding of fact 9. 21-22. Covered in finding of fact 10. 23-24. Rejected because the Hearing Officer accepts the testimony of Mr. Possardt that southeast Florida is not a significant nesting habitat for leatherbacks, and therefore rejects the argument that leatherbacks are entitled to greatest protection. The Boca Raton Beach is a significant habitat for loggerhead turtles, and it is more appropriate to assess the impact of the project based on the predominate species of turtles nesting on the beach, rather than the impact of the project on a species which only rarely nest on this beach and has predominate nesting areas elsewhere. Rulings on Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact Covered in finding of fact 2 and 4. Covered in finding of fact 3. Rejected because the evidence adduced at the hearing did not support findings concerning three systems of hard bottom and rock outcroppings. 4-6. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 8 and 13. Covered in finding of fact 14. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected for lack of evidence. Covered in finding of fact 13 and 14. Covered in finding of fact 10-12 Covered in finding of fact 10-12. 14-20. Rejected as unnecessary because the only evidence submitted pertain to potential violations of water quality standards or adverse affect on habitat of endangered species. Rulings of Respondent Boca Raton's Findings of Fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. 3. Covered in finding of fact 5 and 6. 4. Covered in finding of fact 7. 5. Covered in finding of fact 8. 6. Covered in finding of fact 9. 7. Covered in finding of fact 10. 8. Covered in finding of fact 11 and 12. 9. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 13. Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander Stone Judy Schrafft, President South Florida Director Coral Reef Society American Littoral Society 357 North Lake Way 75 Virginia Beach Drive Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Key Biscayne, Florida 33149 Alfred Malefatto, Esquire Karen Brodeen, Esquire David C. Ashburn, Esquire Department of Environmental Post Office Box 24615 Regulation West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Alan J. Kan, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Penthouse Suite 11088 Biscayne Boulevard Jonathan Shepard, Esquire Miami, Florida 33181 5355 Town Center Road Suite 801 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Department of Environmental Regulation Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire 2600 Blair Stone Road General Counsel Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's wholesale dealer's license should be approved for renewal.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witness and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Henry's Seafood, Inc. was established and began doing business in 1978. From its inception Henry Torres has served as president of the company. Petitioner ceased doing business in May of 1986 when its application to renew its whole sale license to sell salt water products was denied by Respondent. On November 25, 1985, Henry Torres entered a negotiated plea of guilty to knowingly transporting with the intent to sell, offering for sale, and knowingly selling in interstate commerce approximately 120 pounds of undersized spiny lobster tails with a market value in excess of $350.00, knowing that said spiny lobster tails were possessed in violation of law. As a result of the plea, a conviction was entered and Mr. Torres was required to pay a fine in the amount of $10,000. On November 25, 1985, Petitioner, Henry's Seafood, Inc., entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the same charge described in Finding of Fact, paragraph 2. Petitioner was then found guilty and was placed on probation for two years. The negotiated pleas entered by Petitioner were done in the interests of minimizing costs relating to the defense of the criminal actions. Moreover, said pleas were entered with the express understanding that Petitioner would be allowed to continue in business. Additionally, it was the intention of the trial judge in imposing sentence that Petitioner be allowed to continue in business. There was never a factual determination that Petitioner did possess undersized lobster tails. In fact, Petitioner received payment for some of the lobster tails which had been seized. Mr. Torres denied having violated either the Lacy Act or Florida Law. The lobster tails were not the product of Florida but had been caught in waters elsewhere. The lobster tails seized from Henri's were combined with all of the lobsters seized from other business. It was impossible to determine how many, if any, were undersized. When Petitioner applied for the renewal of its license, a disclosure was given as to the conviction described in Findings of Fact, paragraphs 1 and 2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order approving Petitioner's renewal application and placing said license on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2394 Rulings of the Proposed Finding of Fact submitted by Respondent 1. Rejected, outside the scope of evidence Submitted at the final hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Rose, Esquire Suite 303, Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building, Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mr. Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas G. Tomasello, Esquire General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the holder of Oyster Lease NO. 981. The annual rent for the lease has been paid in full as it became due and the lease is currently in full force and effect. No formal action has been brought by DNR to revoke this oyster lease. On June 30, 1988, Petitioner filed a valid and adequate application for a special activity license to use mechanical harvesting implements on this lease. Petitioner furnished or will furnish a bond payable to the Governor of the State of Florida and approved by DNR in the sum of $3,000.00 as required for issuance of a special activity license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order and therein grant the application of W. E. Schoelles for a special activity license to use mechanical harvesting implements on Oyster Lease NO. 981. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 22nd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5989 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Natural Resources The only finding of fact proposed by DNR is rejected as being irrelevant and unsupported by the competent evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold A. McLean Deputy General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Suite 1003 Tallahassee, FL 32399 J. Ben Watkins Attorney at Law 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, FL 32320 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
The Issue As provided in the notice of hearing, the issues for disposition in this proceeding are whether agency statements within a memorandum and notice of Final Executive Order issued by the Department of Environmental Protection on July 5, 1996 are rules subject to sections 120.535 and 120.54, Florida Statutes, and if so whether the statements violate those sections. 1/ Petitioners pled only a violation of section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and contend that the remedy they seek, a determination of the invalidity of the agency statements, is available without recourse to section 120.535, Florida Statutes. At hearing, the parties, including Petitioners, availed themselves of the opportunity to elicit evidence related to section 120.535, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are shellfishers who harvest and relay in the affected areas in Brevard County, Florida. Intervenor is a resident of Indian River County who utilizes the areas affected by the Department of Environmental Protection (agency, or DEP) statements at issue in this proceeding. The standing of these parties is uncontroverted. Respondent, DEP, is the state agency charged with the administration, supervision, development and conservation of the natural resources of the state, as provided in section 370.013, Florida Statutes. "Saltwater fish" includes shellfish, among others. Section 370.01(2), Florida Statutes. DEP is given the authority in section 370.021, Florida Statutes, to make, adopt, promulgate, amend and repeal all [rules and regulations] necessary or convenient for the carrying out of the duties, obligations, powers, and responsi- bilities conferred on the department or any of its divisions. [Emphasis added] Persons violating any of the rules and regulations adopted under the agency's authority are guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 370.021(2), Florida Statutes, describes penalties for various violations of Chapter 370 or the rules of the agency or any rule of the Marine Fisheries Commission. Section 370.021(3), Florida Statutes, provides that [[r] ules and regulations] shall be admitted as evidence in the courts of the state when accompanied by an affidavit from the secretary of the department certifying that the [rule or regulation has been law- fully adopted, promulgated, and published]; and such affidavit shall be prima facie evidence of proper adoption, promulgation and publication of the rule or regulation. [Emphasis added] Section 370.071(l), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, that DEP ... is authorized to adopt by rule regulations, specifications, and codes relating to sanitary practices for catching, handling, processing, packaging, preserving, canning, smoking, and storing of oysters, clams, mussels, and crabs. Consistent with its specific authority in sections 370.021 and 370.071, DEP has adopted Chapter 62R-7, Florida Administrative Code, "The Comprehensive Shellfish Control Code." Included in the comprehensive code is rule 62R-7.004, Florida Administrative Code, which defines various classifications of harvesting areas, adopts by reference Shellfish Harvesting Area Atlas maps, and describes circumstances for opening or temporarily closing harvesting areas in the event of red tide outbreak or other emergencies or when other criteria are met. Rule 62R-7.005, Florida Administrative Code, also adopts by reference specific maps of growing areas and harvesting areas in the Shellfish Harvesting Area Atlas published by the agency. Rule 62R-7.005, Florida Administrative Code, describes boundaries of classified areas throughout Florida, county by county, and establishes operating procedures. Rule 62R-7.005(29) (j), (k), and (l), Florida Administrative Code, establishes conditionally approved, conditionally restricted and prohibited areas of Body D waters in Brevard County, Florida. The boundaries of each are described in explicit detail; further, temporary closing to shellfishing is provided for when ... five day cumulative rainfall as measured in the immediate vicinity meets or exceeds 2.68 inches. The area will be reopened when bacteriological levels meet standards as described in Rule 62R-7.004 and fecal coliform levels in shellfish return to normal background levels so that consumption of shellfish will not be a hazard to the public health. The history note to Rule 62R-7.005, Florida Administrative Code, reflects that the rule was new on January 4, 1987 and was amended May 21, 1987, August 26, 1987, August 10, 1988, August 31, 1988, October 27, 1977, July 18, 1989, August 30, 1989, November 11, 1990, January 9, 1991, November 5, 1992, May 6, 1993, May 31, 1994 and May l, 1995. Body D is a shellfish harvesting area located in the Indian River, south of the State Road 528 bridge and north of the State Road 518 bridge, in Brevard County. DEP conducted a sanitary survey of Body D pursuant to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual and released its findings in a document dated June 13, 1996. The first sentence of the document, in a narrative introducing the detailed survey procedures and results, states: Reclassification of the Body D Shellfish Harvesting Area in Brevard County is proposed for the harvest of oysters, clams and mussels [through amendment to 62R-7.005 (29)], the Comprehensive Shellfish Control Code. [Respondent's exhibit no. 5, emphasis added] The narrative summarizes the proposed classification changes, by total acreage, and projects an adverse economic impact due to increased closures. The narrative further states that the current classification of Body D is based on a comprehensive survey conducted in 1988. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program, of which Florida is a voluntary member, requires that a complete survey be conducted at least every twelve years, with updates annually and triennially (every three years). On July 5, 1996, DEP issued a Notice of Final Executive Order with an attached detailed description of the boundaries of conditionally approved, conditionally restricted and prohibited areas within Body D, "Effective August l, 1996." The attachment to the notice describes the management procedures governing temporary closings. Also attached to the notice was a map of the new classifications boundaries. The notice states that "[t]he order will remain in effect until administrative procedures are completed to amend rule 62R-7.005, Florida Administrative Code." DEP also issued on July 5, 1996 a memorandum to "Interested Parties," describing the reclassification of Body D for harvest of shellfish as follows: Effective August l, 1996, the Department of Environmental Protection reclassified Body D for the harvest of oysters, clams, and mussels. Body D is located in the Indian River, south of State Road 528 Bridge and north of the State Road 518 Bridge. A public workshop was conducted March 22, 1996 in Melbourne to get input on the proposed reclassification. The reclassification will increase the Conditionally Approved area by 404 acres, increase the Conditionally Restricted area by 6,075 acres, and increase the Prohibited area by 1,979 acres. Also, 9,116 acres were classified that were Unclassified; portions of this area were used for relay activities. Currently, the Conditionally Approved and Conditionally Restricted areas close when five-day cumulative rainfall measured at the DEP Rockledge Gauge exceeds 2.68 inches. Beginning August 1, 1996, the Conditionally Approved management plan will temporarily close when two-day cumulative rainfall measured at the Rockledge Waste Water Treat- ment Plant exceeds 0.44 inches, and the Conditionally Restricted management plan will temporarily close when two-day cumulative rainfall measured at the Rock- ledge Waste Water Treatment Plant exceeds 1.29 inches. The estimated number of days per month that the Conditionally Approved area will be closed will increase from a range 0 to 8 days and an average of 0.8 days per month to a range of 0 to 21 days and an average 8.2 days per month. The estimated number of days per month that the Conditionally Restricted area will be closed will increase from a range 0 to 8 days and an average of 0.8 days per month to a range of 0 to 15 days and an average 2.9 days per month. Maps are available that illustrate the shellfish harvesting area classifications at the DEP shellfish office in Palm Bay. The mailing address of this office is 250 Grassland Road, SE, Room 149, Palm Bay, Florida 32909. You may call your local DEP Marine Patrol Office or the DEP Shellfish Office at 407/984-4890 to the open/closed status of the area for shellfishing. (Petitioners' exhibit no. 2) As described in the Notice of Final Executive Order and the memorandum, the reclassification substantially altered the classification descriptions and the management practices found in rule 62R-7.005(29), Florida Administrative Code. The reclassifications were not adopted as a rule amendment pursuant to section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Instead, on September 20, 1996 DEP published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 22, number 38, page 5397, that it proposed repealing rule 62R-7.005, Florida Administrative Code, in its entirety, and amending rules 62R-7.001 and 62-7.004, Florida Administrative Code: * * * PURPOSE, EFFECT AND SUMMARY: This amendment proposes to repeal a rule containing references to shellfish harvesting area maps, the detailed verbal descriptions of shellfish harvesting areas classification boundaries, and criteria for temporary closure, reopening, and monitoring of shellfish harvesting areas. The rule proposed for repeal is 62R-7.005 because it was identified as procedural. An address and telephone number were provided in 62R-7.004 where the information currently contained in 62R-7.005 will continue to be made available to the public. This approach provides for reclassifications through the Governor's delegation of authority to the Division of Marine Resources. Repeal of the rule is in accor- dance with Governor Chiles' rule reduction initiative. The Department will continue to conduct public workshops and hearings and incorporate pubic input that is consistent with maximizing the harvest of shellfish and protection of public health. Additionally, this amendment proposes to update a 1993 version with a 1995 version of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations, Part I and Part II, that is incorporated by reference. SPECIFIC AUTHORITY: 370.021(l), 370.071(l) FS. LAW IMPLEMENTED: 370.071 FS. DEP has closed harvesting areas in the past without following the section 120.54, Florida Statutes, amendment procedures. The record in this proceeding does not reflect whether those changes or closures were on a temporary or emergency basis as provided within rules 62R-7.004 and 7.005, Florida Administrative Code. DEP has never opened up new, previously unclassified, areas for harvesting without a formal rule amendment and has not been challenged in the past. DEP concedes that the regulatory content of the Final Executive Order supersedes rule 62R-7.005(29) (j), (k), and (l), Florida Administrative Code: Q. I want to clarify one aspect of your testimony, Mr. Heil, because I think you suggested that if a hypothetical individual were to go into Body D today and to harvest shellfish pursuant to a classification contained in Rule 67R-7.005, that is to say his conduct would have been lawful under the standard contained in that administrative rule, but his conduct is in discord or isn't in compliance with the standard for Body Water D contained in the final executive order which is the subject of this dispute today. Am I correct that it was your view that that person would be subject to present criminal prosecution for that act? A. If the area in question from harvest was previously allowed in the classification effective August 1st by the July 5th memorandum was not now allowed for harvest, then that person would be subject to arrest by the Florida Marine Patrol. Q. And prosecution and conviction? A. Correct. (Transcript, pp. 131-2) The National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP), of which Florida is a voluntary member, is a consortium of federal officials (including the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and National Marine Fisheries), state officials from state shellfish control agencies, and members of the shellfish industry. DEP contends that its participation in the NSSP and obligation to comply with the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations (the manual) precludes compliance with section 120.54, Florida Statutes, rulemaking requirements. Florida has been criticized for moving too slowly in reclassifying areas, but the record in this proceeding does not establish that delay is because of rulemaking requirements. The manual is adopted as a rule by reference in rule 62R-7.001(5), Florida Administrative Code. The manual provides, in pertinent part: (Both the 1993 version currently adopted and the 1995 version proposed for adoption are precisely the same in this regard.) Public Health Explanation The NSSP gone [sic] beyond the original objective set forth in the 1925 Conference of insuring that shellfish shipped interstate would not be the cause of communicable disease. In the 1940's paralytic shellfish poison became a matter of public health concern and steps were taken to protect the public against this hazard. In 1957 it was recognized that shell- fish might concentrate certain radionuclides and that a radiation surveillance activity might become a necessary addition to the established procedures. In the 1960's and 1970's it became apparent that shellfish have the ability to concentrate poisons and deleterious substances such as metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons, etc. to potentially unsafe levels. To ensure the safety of shellfish, the State must supervise the growing, harvesting, relaying and transportation of shellfish. It is also important that shellfish be protected against contamination. [If State supervision is to be effective, the activity must be supported by legal authority. This authority may be either a specific law or a regulation]. The success with which the State is able to regulate the several components of the shellfish industry provides a measure of the adequacy of the statutory authority. [The unique nature of shellfish as a food also makes it necessary for the State shell- fish control agency to have authority to take immediate emergency action without recourse to lengthy administrative procedures, to halt harvesting and processing of shell- fish]. This authority should include placing restrictions on harvesting on the basis of a potential as well as an actual public health hazard. As examples, a State may find it necessary to close a shellfish growing area following a breakdown of a wastewater treat- ment plant or the unexpected finding of marine toxin(s), or when a growing area is implicated in confirmed illness. [Periodic revisions of State shellfish laws or regulations may be necessary to cope with new public health hazards and to reflect new knowledge]. Examples of changes or develop- ments which have called for revision of State laws include: (1) the increased used of pleasure boats with the resulting probability of contamination of shellfish growing areas with fresh untreated fecal material, (2) the conditionally approved area concept resulting from the construction of wastewater treatment facilities, (3) the effect of non-point source pollution, and (4) the ability of shellfish to concentrate certain radionuclides and hazardous chemicals. Experience has demonstrated that all actual and potential shellfish growing waters of the State must be classified by their sanitary suitability for shellfish harvesting. Harvesting should be permitted only from those areas which have been found by sanitary survey to meet the criteria of this Manual. Harvesting should accordingly be specifically prohibited from areas which do not meet the criteria, or which have not been surveyed, or which have outdated survey information. [Respondent's exhibit no. 4, pp. A2 and A3, emphasis added] CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to section 120.535, Florida Statutes. Standing of all parties has been established by stipulation. Petitioners allege that the Final Executive Order issued by the agency on July 5, 1996 is a rule that has not been promulgated by the procedures in section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and is therefore invalid. At the time that the Petitioners filed their challenge, the agency action was proposed to take effect on August 1st; thus, Petitioners invoked section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, which provides: Any substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of any proposed rule on the ground that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Pursuant to section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, a proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority when the agency has materially failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The agency readily admits that it has not promulgated the material styled Final Executive Order as a rule. Nor has it commenced rulemaking proceedings to adopt the material. On the contrary, it has commenced proceedings to repeal all of rule 62R-7.005, Florida Administrative Code, including the portion which conflicts with the Final Executive Order. The agency claims foremost that the material in the Final Executive Order is not a rule; but that if it is a rule, the agency is entitled to the section 120.535, Florida Statutes, defense that rulemaking is simply not practicable. This latter argument is based, at least partially, on the insistence by federal members of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference that the agency improve its procedures. It is appropriate to consider this case under section 120.535, Florida Statutes. In Christo v. State Department of Banking and Finance, 649 So.2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the court determined that section 120.535, Florida Statutes, was the exclusive mechanism for challenging an agency's failure to promulgate rules. The case cited by Petitioners, Matthews v. Weinberg, 645 So.2d 487 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1994) Rev. denied (654 So.2d 919 (Fla. 1995), arose under substantially different procedural circumstances (an appeal from a circuit court decision in an injunctive proceeding) and does not establish authority for section 120.54 or 120.56 challenges to agency statements based on their non- promulgation as rules. Without citing section 120.535, Florida Statutes, Petitioners' petition still included the three allegations required by subsection 120.535(2)(a), Florida Statutes: that Petitioners are substantially affected by the statement; that the statement constitutes a rule under section 120.52(16); and that the agency has not adopted the statement by the rulemaking procedure provided in section 120.54. The parties had ample notice that the hearing was to be conducted pursuant to section 120.535, and testimony and evidence was presented with regard to the defenses available to an agency. Because section 120.535, Florida Statutes, in general, and more specifically in this proceeding, permits the consideration of factual matters presented by the agency, Petitioners' motion for summary final order is DENIED. Petitioners, however, still prevail in their challenge to the Final Executive Order. Section 120.535(1), Florida Statutes, provides: 120.535 Rulemaking required.- Rulemaking is not a matter of agency discretion. Each agency statement defined as a rule under s. 120.52(16) shall be adopted by the rulemaking procedure provided by s. 120.54 as soon as feasible and practicable. Rulemaking shall be presumed feasible and practicable to the extent provided by this subsection unless one of the factors provided by this subsection is applicable. Rulemaking shall be presumed feasible unless the agency proves that: The agency has not had sufficient time to acquire the knowledge and experience reasonably necessary to address a statement by rulemaking; or Related matters are not sufficiently resolved to enable the agency to address a statement by rulemaking; or The agency is currently using the rule- making procedure expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules which address the statement. Rulemaking shall be presumed practi- cable to the extent necessary to provide fair notice to affected persons of relevant agency procedures and applicable principles, criteria, or standards for agency decisions unless the agency proves that: Detail or precision in the establishment of principles, criteria, or standards for agency decisions is not reasonable under the circumstances; or The particular questions addressed are of such a narrow scope that more specific resolution of the matter is impractical out- side of an adjudication to determine the substantial interests of a party based on individual circumstances. The material contained in the Final Executive Order is a rule, defined in section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, as follows: (16) "Rule" means each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any require- ment or solicits any information not specifi- cally required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of a rule. It does not matter how the agency seeks to characterize its statement. Amos v. Department of HRS, 444 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Proper characterization of a statement depends on the effect of the statement, not on the agency's appellation. Thus, the fact that DEP adopted similar statements as rules, then disavowed the necessity for such procedural refinements is immaterial. In twenty-plus years of experience under the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the distinction between rule and order has been immutable. An agency statement is a rule if it purports in and of itself to create certain rights and adversely affect others, or serves by its own effect to create rights, or to require compliance, or otherwise to have the direct and consistent effect of law. Balsam v. Dept. of HRS, 452 So.2d 976, 977-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) The agency statement contained in the Final Executive Order is generally applicable. Anyone intending to harvest shellfish within the many thousands of acres of water described in Body D is subject to the classifications. Anyone failing to comply is subject to criminal prosecution. The statement implements, interprets or prescribes law or policy: it establishes where, and under what conditions, shellfish may be taken; it establishes rainfall standards which affect temporary closings; it plainly, as stated in its counterpart rule 62R-7.005, implements section 370.071, Florida Statutes; it also implements rule 62R-7.004, Florida Administrative Code, and the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations, which is, itself, a rule. Significantly, the statement does not fall within one of the exceptions described in section 120.52(16)(a)-(g), Florida Statutes. It most closely resembles the specific exception provided in section 120.52(16)(d), Florida Statutes, for agency action which alters established annual harvest limits for saltwater fishing. This latter statutory exception underscores the notion that the legislature intended to otherwise include such statements within the definition of a rule. Since the statement at issue is found to be a rule, the agency is entitled to prove that rulemaking was not feasible and practicable. The circumstances surrounding the issuance of the Final Executive Order and the testimony of the agency's witness establish that rulemaking is both feasible and practicable. As provided in the document describing the comprehensive survey of Body D, Brevard County, Florida, the survey was conducted over many months and culminated in the survey report and in the reclassifications and changes in procedure described in the Final Executive Order. Prior to issuance of the Final Executive Order, the agency conducted a workshop. The agency had ample time to acquire knowledge and experience reasonably necessary to address its statement by rulemaking. The specificity of the text reflects that related matters have been sufficiently resolved to enable the agency to address the statement by rulemaking. Indeed, the agency has, in the past, addressed such statements by rulemaking and, for the present, still has such rules in effect. At the time of hearing, the agency had not proceeded with rulemaking procedures addressing the statement, although the text of the Final Executive Order disclosed an intention to so proceed. In the material filed post-hearing and officially recognized upon the request of the Intervenor and agency, the agency "addressed the statement" by announcing its intent to repeal the whole of rule 62R-7.005, Florida Administrative Code, including, of course, the subsection which is substantially amended in the Final Executive Order. The principles, criteria or standards for agency decision based on the Final Executive Order are detailed and precise and are established by agency fiat, rather than through an adjudicative process in which the substantial interests of a party are determined based on individual circumstances. Evidence in this proceeding establishes that the agency plainly intends to rely on the Final Executive Order as its basis for enforcement and prosecution and does not intend to develop on a case by case basis the standards it has already created. Nothing in the record of this proceeding supports the argument by the agency that its Final Executive Order is legally compelled by a higher federal authority or that the shellfish industry in Florida is jeopardized by rulemaking requirements. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations supports, rather than discourages, the adoption of regulations. (See paragraph 17, above). Throughout Chapter 370, Florida Statutes, are references to regulations. (See, paragraphs 3 and 4, above.) Section 370.103, Florida Statutes, authorizes the agency to enter into cooperative agreements with the Federal Government, but also includes this manifest intent: When differences between state and federal laws occur, state laws shall take precedence. None contests the need for the agency to act promptly under certain circumstances to meet the exigencies of a reasonable enforcement program. According to the record in this proceeding, the Final Executive Order was not developed under such compulsion. Existing rules, the manual and even the Administrative Procedures Act provide for emergency responses to threats to public health, safety and welfare. Those are the procedures which the agency must employ. The "impressive arsenal" of remedies in the Administrative Procedures Act, acknowledged in State, ex rel. Department of General Services v. Willis, 344 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) exists for the benefit of agencies as well as citizens at large.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes,1/ by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation, as alleged in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers' compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees. Respondent is a Florida, for-profit corporation, incorporated on June 16, 1995, with its principal office located at 821 Southeast Highway 19, Crystal River, Florida 34429. Since incorporation, Respondent has been continuously engaged in business as a scuba diving tour and retail shop. In August 2014, Department Compliance Officer Dale Russell (Investigator Russell) commenced an investigation to determine whether Respondent employed more than three employees; and, if so, whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees. The investigation of American Pro Diving was not instituted because of any public referral or reported injury. Rather, Investigator Russell was alerted to American Pro Diving based on "data mining." Data mining is conducted by the Department by comparing information in its computer system's workers' compensation insurance coverage database with reports provided by businesses to the Florida Department of Revenue in the form of Re- employment Assistance Tax reports known as "UCT-6s." UCT-6 information on American Pro Diving during the pertinent time period indicated that Respondent was paying unemployment insurance tax for 12 to 18 workers. The Department's database revealed that Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage. On August 11, 2014, Investigator Russell visited American Pro Diving in Crystal River, Florida. On that day, Respondent's owner, Ron Goodenow, was not present or available. Mike Perry was at Respondent's service desk. Investigator Russell introduced himself to Mr. Perry and informed him that he was looking into whether employers were providing workers' compensation. Investigator Russell left his card and asked Mr. Perry to tell Respondent's owner to contact him. During his investigation, Investigator Russell discovered that, in addition to paying unemployment taxes, Respondent was making W-4 withholdings for all those working at American Pro Diving, instead of issuing Form 1099s and having workers pay their own taxes and withholdings as is typical for independent contractors. On August 13, 2014, Investigator Russell spoke to Mr. Ron Goodenow, on the telephone. Mr. Goodenow informed Investigator Russell that Respondent had no employees because all of those working at American Pro Diving were independent contractors. Mr. Goodenow explained to Investigator Russell that because of the business model, workers' compensation insurance was not available to dive shops. During the telephone conversation, Investigator Russell warned Mr. Goodenow that the Department would issue a stop-work order and shut down Respondent's operations if Respondent was out of compliance with the workers' compensation laws. Investigator Russell provided Mr. Goodenow with the name of the Florida Joint Underwriters Association and some companies that provided workers' compensation coverage. Investigator Russell also suggested, as an alternative to obtaining workers' compensation coverage, that Respondent use an employee leasing company. Investigator Russell further suggested that Mr. Goodenow exempt himself from the requirements of workers’ compensation and designate three other people as employees. Investigator Russell recommended that Respondent stop paying UCT-6 unemployment taxes on the rest of the people, stop paying their withholding taxes, and transition to a Form 1099 method of payment. He also suggested that American Pro Diving enter into signed contracts with its independent contractors. In response to warnings and suggestions that he had received from Investigator Russell, Mr. Goodenow acquired an exemption from workers’ compensation for himself on September 18, 2014,3/ and contacted the Florida Joint Underwriters Association to inquire about workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Goodenow also retained Michael Dean, Esquire, as legal counsel for American Pro Diving.4/ According to Investigator Russell, during a conversation with Mr. Dean after Mr. Goodenow had advised that Mr. Dean was Respondent's counsel and spokesperson, Mr. Dean admitted that American Pro Diving employed, not as independent contractors, but as employees, Ron Goodenow, Sarah Huggett, James Corbin Straub, Maria Ellis, and Michael Strmiska. A related e-mail dated September 22, 2014, from Mr. Dean's legal assistant stated: Mr. Russell, In response to your telephone conference with Mr. Dean this morning, here is the status of the employees you requested: Sarah Huggett-See attached documents. James Corbin Straub-Shop Staff, part-time-on an "as needed basis" only. Maria Ellis-Shop Staff. Michael Strmiska-Shop Staff. Stephanie Perry-our daughter-helps mom with payroll only for extra pocket money. (Does not have to do payroll as Michele usually does it.) Attached to the e-mail was a "Captains License Receipt.pdf; Sarah Huggett-TWIC Card.pdf." Rather than finding that Mr. Dean's discussions and his legal assistant's follow-up e-mail amount to admissions that American Pro Diving had employees required to be covered by workers' compensation insurance, it is found that they amount to nothing more than settlement discussions and negotiations.5/ This finding is based upon the fact that, at the time, American Pro Diving was trying to react to Investigator Russell's warnings, as well as upon the content of e-mail attachments, which are consistent with Mr. Goodenow's unwavering assertion that those working with American Pro Diving were independent contractors. In the meantime, Mr. Goodenow's attempt to acquire workers’ compensation coverage was being frustrated. In response to his inquiry, the Florida Joint Underwriters Association suggested that Respondent be issued a class code for oil-spill cleanup workers, as opposed to a code that would reflect American Pro Diving's operations. Mr. Goodenow contacted Investigator Russell by telephone on September 26, 2014, and explained his frustration. During the conversation Mr. Goodenow reiterated his position that American Pro Diving did not have employees. After conferring with his supervisors, Investigator Russell called Mr. Goodenow back and informed him that if Respondent did not come into compliance, a stop-work order would be issued. Thereafter, without interviewing any of the "employees" purportedly identified by Mr. Dean, other than Mr. Goodenow, on October 1, 2014, the Department issued the Stop-Work Order against Respondent. It was served on October 15, 2015. Prior to service of the Stop-Work Order, on October 2, 2014, Respondent submitted workers' compensation application information to Investigator Russell with the assistance of its new legal counsel, Kristian Dunn. Although the Department introduced the submission and argued that it was an admission by Respondent that it had employees, it is found that the submission is nothing more than another attempt at settlement. See Endnote 4, below. The Department entered the Revocation on October 20, 2014, releasing the Stop-Work Order “effective back to the date of issuance.” A related Department memo dated October 20, 2014, signed by Investigator Russell and his supervisor, explained, "SWO [Stop-Work Order] was served after the employer obtained his exemption which brought the total number of employees to under four." On November 18, 2014, the Department issued the Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent in the amount of $35,429.50, without an accompanying stop-work order. The amount of the assessment was based on imputed payroll during an alleged penalty period from October 2, 2012, through October 1, 2014, for alleged employees Ron Goodenow, Sarah Huggett, James Corbin Straub, Maria Ellis, and Michael Strmiska. There is no evidence that any of the alleged employees, other than Ron Goodenow, were interviewed prior to the issuance of the Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department's Order of Penalty Assessment was amended at the beginning of the hearing upon the granting of the Department's Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment, filed June 5, 2015, just one week before the final hearing. The Department's Amended Order of Penalty Assessment reduced the Order of Penalty Assessment from $35,429.50, which was based on imputed payroll, to $3,581.96, based upon actual payroll information. The penalty period under the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is from December 5, 2013, through October 1, 2014. Nicholas Thomas, penalty auditor for the Department, calculated the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent based on the Department's allegation that Ron Goodenow, Mariah Ellis, James Corbin Straub, Michelle Goodenow, and Michael Strmiska were Respondent's employees. In the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, Mr. Thomas used the payroll information in Respondent's bank records and Department of Revenue UCT-6 employment tax reports to calculate the payroll for Respondent's alleged employees. Mr. Thomas explained that, although he had the tax reports for over five months, the delay in calculating the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was because Respondent's bank records, alone, had been determined insufficient, and he was initially unsure whether he could use tax report information to assist in the calculation of actual payroll. Upon determining that he could use the tax reports, Mr. Thomas then applied the premium rate associated with retail shop operations to Respondent's payroll to determine the amounts that Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation insurance premiums for the alleged employees had Respondent secured coverage during the penalty period. As it was alleged that Respondent did not secure required workers' compensation coverage for the named employees, Mr. Thomas doubled this amount, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)l., Florida Statutes, to arrive at the penalty of $3,581.96. In his testimony, Mr. Thomas admitted that a person having their UCT-6 taxes paid by a company does not automatically make that person an employee of that company. Although Mr. Thomas had made an assumption that one of the payments in Respondent's records indicated that it had paid for one of its worker’s Coast Guard certifications, at the final hearing, he admitted that the records provided by American Pro Diving did not prove that any certifications or equipment for the alleged employees was ever bought by Respondent. Mr. Thomas accurately explained that for a non- construction entity, a business with three or less employees is not required to obtain workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Thomas also correctly stated that independent contractors are not considered employees for purposes of workers’ compensation, and that such persons should not be listed on a penalty worksheet. Mr. Thomas obtained the names of the five alleged employees for the penalty calculation from Investigator Russell. Mr. Thomas did not know whether the persons he listed on the penalty worksheet had been interviewed by Investigator Russell. Although Mr. Thomas spoke to Investigator Russell's supervisor, he never spoke to Investigator Russell about the people named on the penalty worksheet. And, other than Mr. Goodenow, Mr. Thomas did not know whether the other four people listed on the penalty worksheet were independent contractors or employees. In conducting the investigation, Investigator Russell did not follow the Department's training procedures which direct its investigators to interview all alleged independent contractors. It is clear that Mr. Goodenow told Investigator Russell that all workers at American Pro Diving were independent contractors. Other than his interview of Mr. Goodenow, however, Investigator Russell did not interview any of the alleged employees listed on the penalty worksheet. In contrast, with the exception of Ron Goodenow, all of those workers at American Pro Diving interviewed by Investigator Russell were determined to be independent contractors or otherwise excluded from the penalty worksheet. According to the testimony of Kathleen Petracco, a 10- year employee of the Department, who also worked in its Bureau of Enforcement for the Division of Workers’ Compensation, it is improper and against Department procedure to assume the status of a worker by looking only at UCT-6 forms and the W-4 applications without interviewing the workers to hear how the workers describe themselves. That testimony is credited. Although there were up to 18 workers at American Pro Diving who had their UCT-6 taxes paid by Respondent, only the five listed on the penalty worksheet were deemed employees. And, for those ultimately determined to be independent contractors or otherwise absent from the penalty worksheet, Investigator Russell advised that his supervisors, not him, made the determination. He did not know the basis of that determination. During his investigation, the only person Investigator Russell observed working at the shop was Mike Perry, but Mike Perry was not classified as an employee or listed on the penalty worksheet. Investigator Russell attempted to explain the decision of who to list on the penalty worksheet by referencing information he had seen on Respondent's website, which describes the various backgrounds and talents of those working at American Pro Diving. It is found, however, that the website information was insufficient to establish whether those workers were employees when compared to the actual testimony and other evidence adduced at the final hearing. Respondent's owner, Goodenow, gave credible testimony regarding his dive shop's business model and its dependence on independent contractors. Mr. Goodenow bought the dive shop 15 years ago. Since that time, he has been its president and only officer. Before he bought it, Mr. Goodenow was an independent contractor for the previous owners of the dive shop, not an employee. As now-owner and president, Mr. Goodenow was an employee of American Pro Diving prior to receiving his exemption. American Pro Diving’s business depends on tourists in the Crystal River area for recreational diving tours. The tours, in turn, are dependent on the seasons, the weather, and manatee availability. As usual and customary for American Pro Diving and other dive tour businesses in the industry, Respondent utilizes individual independent contractors, as opposed to employees, in order to remain profitable and competitive. With the use of independent contractors, labor costs remain flexible and can adapt to seasonal and weather fluctuations which impact the number of tourists. In addition, the dive industry traditionally has been populated by individuals that prefer to be independent contractors because of the increased independence, mobility, and schedule flexibility. The independent contractors utilized by American Pro Diving provide their own gear and are responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of their educational and professional credentials. None of the workers at American Pro Diving have fixed employment schedules, there are no hourly wages, and everyone is paid based on tasks they undertake, such as participating in dive tours, handling boats, or cleaning the pool utilized for instruction. In addition, the workers’ pay is dependent on the number of customers on a boat, commissions from gear sold, tips received from customers, or the numbers of videos sold to the tourists. Under Coast Guard regulations, vessel captains are ultimately responsible for their passengers. All captains working with American Pro Diving carry, and personally pay for, insurance to cover that potential liability. In fact, all of the workers at American Pro Diving carry their own liability insurance, with the exception Mr. Straub and Mr. Strmiska, who are teenagers without requisite experience. America Pro Diving is insured for up to $2,000,000 for the building and $2,000,000 for the business to cover its customers and independent contractors. The coverage is specifically designed to cover independent contractors and customers, not employees. All of those working at American Pro Diving, with the exception of Mr. Straub and Mr. Strmiska, possess Transportation Worker Identification Cards (TWIC) issued by the Department of Homeland Security. Those workers paid for the card application, background check, and renewal. No portion of the expense was paid by Respondent. Mr. Goodenow gave those working at American Pro Diving the option of receiving payments using the W-4 tax form method whereby Respondent took out withholdings, as opposed to the form 1099 method. For convenience, all of the workers initially chose the W-4 method. The reason that Respondent also paid unemployment taxes, evidenced by UCT-6 reports for the workers, was because Respondent’s accountant advised Mr. Goodenow to do so to be consistent with the W-4 form withholdings. During the investigation in this case, however, Respondent began using the form 1099 method of payment and stopped making withholdings. Ms. Michelle Goodenow is Mr. Goodenow’s wife. Although married to Mr. Goodenow, she is not an owner or officer of American Pro Diving and shares no financial accounts with Respondent or her husband. Ms. Goodenow is a licensed captain who maintains her own gear and pays for her own insurance, TWIC card, dive certifications, captain’s credentials and training costs. She also developed a school outreach program and makes school presentations to bring in school groups to American Pro Diving for tours. The amount of her pay is not by hourly wage or salary, but based upon the amount of business she brings to American Pro Diving. She makes no money if no customers are booked and could suffer a financial loss if any of the equipment is damaged. She receives no sick leave or vacation. She is free to take her business to another dive shop if she chooses. Ms. Goodenow chose to have her taxes withheld by Respondent via the W-4 method out of convenience, not because she considered herself to be an employee. She has always viewed herself as an independent contractor and never considered herself to be an employee. The Department excluded all other licensed captains from its list of Respondent’s alleged employees. The evidence otherwise demonstrates that Ms. Goodenow is not an employee of American Pro Diving, but rather, is an independent contractor. Michael Strmiska is Mr. and Mrs. Goodenow’s son. There is no evidence that he has ever had an ownership interest in American Pro Diving. He was 17 years old at the time of Investigator Russell’s investigation and 18 years old at the final hearing. He possesses his own open-water diving credentials and equipment for work. Mr. Strmiska works at American Pro Diving in “tour support.” Tour support encompasses a variety of tasks from helping customers with gear, helping tour operators with boat handling and summer snorkel camps, and loading and unloading the boats. While helping gear-up customers, he also sells gear and receives commissions for sales over $1,500. He has never received any hourly wage for the tasks he completed at American Pro Diving. A good portion of the money Mr. Strmiska made at American Pro Diving was through conducting snorkel camps in the summer with young children. If he did not have any attendees, he would make no money. If the attendees were few in number, his profits were less, because he was responsible for the cost of setting up the camp, gas for the trucks, and potential for damage to the equipment for which he was responsible. Like the others working at American Pro Diving, Mr. Strmiska never had a set schedule and would call in for available work. He has always viewed himself as an independent contractor due to the fact that he could work as much or as little as he wanted. His skill and training are not entry level. The money that he made was variable, depending on the number of customers going on trips or purchasing gear. He also had the option of accruing extra money on a per-task basis, as opposed to hourly, by completing extra tasks, such as cleaning the boats, washing the trucks, and cleaning the indoor pool area. The evidence showed that Mr. Strmiska was an independent contractor. Maria Ellis is a 28-year-old female, divemaster- certified videographer for American Pro Diving tours. Although not a licensed boat captain at the time of the investigation, she was working to get her hours to become a licensed captain. While receiving tips from customers for her work as a boat mate, the majority of her income was derived from sales of DVDs to customers from her videography. If she failed to execute a high-quality product, her sales would suffer. Although she had her own video equipment when she moved to Crystal River to work with American Pro Diving, she used Respondent’s camera to film the dive shop’s customers because it was compatible with the DVD copier at the dive shop. She was responsible for any damage to the equipment. Ms. Ellis brought her own particular videographer skills to American Pro Diving that she acquired on her own through hours of practice, personal expense, and trial and error. Ms. Ellis was otherwise responsible for her own gear, liability insurance, dive certifications, dive equipment, and was never paid by an hourly wage. Other than tips and payments as a mate on a per-capita basis, she made no money if no videos were sold and could suffer a financial loss if any of the equipment was broken. In order to work a tour, Ms. Ellis would call into American Pro Diving to see if work was available. Although Ms. Ellis chose to have her taxes withheld under the W-4 method for convenience, she always considered herself a sole proprietor, independent contractor, with her office at her home. The facts support this conclusion. James Corben Straub, who was at all pertinent times a teenager, was the only one listed on the Department’s penalty calculation sheet, other than Mr. Goodenow, who testified at the final hearing that he considered himself an employee, as opposed to an independent contractor. His testimony was different than his deposition testimony, wherein, in response to a question of whether he was an independent contractor, he testified that it could go either way. Mr. Straub testified that he changed his opinion about whether he was an independent contractor after doing some research and considering the fact that he had been required to sign a non-compete agreement with American Pro Diving.6/ During the time that he worked at American Pro Diving, Mr. Straub was never paid an hourly wage and was not on a work schedule, but rather found out whether there was work to be done by calling in. In fact, Mr. Straub was infrequently at American Pro Diving because of his involvement with the Four-H Club. While working at American Pro Diving, Mr. Straub’s pay was based on a task-by-task basis, even if the tasks took longer on some days than others. His tasks and opportunities at American Pro Diving were similar to those of Mr. Strmiska. Like Mr. Strmiska and other independent contractors at American Pro Diving, Mr. Straub could potentially suffer a loss from damaging a vehicle or equipment under his charge. Mr. Straub admitted that he chose to be paid on a W-4 tax withholding basis for convenience, instead of having to fill out a quarterly report, if paid under the Form 1099 method. He never received traditional benefits associated with employees. When he attempted to renegotiate with Mr. Goodenow for an employee-type position with traditional benefits, he was unsuccessful. Mr. Straub may not have considered himself an independent contractor when he testified at trial, but his work schedule, responsibilities and expectations were much the same as other independent contractors working at American Pro Diving.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evidence of record, candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, dismissing the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 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 7th day of October, 2015.
