The Issue Do the Respondents operate a food establishment as that term is defined in Section 500.03(1)(j), Florida Statutes? If so, are the Respondents, under the circumstances of this cause, required to obtain a food permit from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) in accordance with Section 500.12, Florida Statutes, in order to continue operating their food establishment located within the premises of International Market World, Inc. (Market World) located at 1052 Highway 92 West, Auburndale, Florida? If the Respondents are required to obtain a food permit from the Department, should the Respondents be required to: (a) purchase a permit for each and every year or partial year of operation since being notified by the Department of such requirement; (b) pay a late fee for their failure to renew a permit that was never issued or; (c) pay an administrative fine for failing to obtained a food permit upon being notified of that requirement by the Department?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: The Department is the agency in the State of Florida responsible for the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder relating to permitting, food safety and the sale of food to the consuming public. Janet M. Robbins and Gerald A. Robbins (Respondents) operate a stall within the confines of a flea market owned and operated by Market World located on Highway 92 West in Auburndale, Polk County, Florida. The Respondents lease the stall from Market World. Respondents receive all proceeds from the sale of items from their stall in Market World. Respondents' business mailing address is listed as 1026 Biltmore Drive, Northwest, Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida 33881. Respondents did not, at any time pertinent to this proceeding, possess an occupational license issued in their name from Polk County, Florida for operating their stall in Market World. Instead, Respondents operated under a blanket occupational license issued to Market World by the Tax Collector of Polk County, Florida in accordance with Polk County Ordinance No. 95-27 which covered all flea market vendors within the confines of Market World. However, had Market World elected not to purchase this blanket occupational license, Respondents would have been required under this ordinance to obtain a Polk County occupational license from the Tax Collector in order to operate their stall in Market World. In accordance with Department of Revenue Rule 12A-1.098, Florida Administrative Code, flea market vendors are required to collect sales tax on their sales but are not required to register with the Department of Revenue in order to remit those taxes. Instead, the rule allows the flea market vendor to remit the taxes collected under the registration of the flea market operator, manager, lessor or owner. Respondents have in the past used this method of remitting the sales tax collected by them to the Department of Revenue. However, the Respondents are presently remitting sales tax directly to the Department of Revenue. On May 6, 1994, Jimmy D. Daugherty, a Department Sanitation and Safety Specialist, visited the Respondents' stall at Market World and observed that Respondents were offering food for sale. Daugherty advised Janet Robbins that a food permit was required to sell food from Respondents' flea market stall. On this same date, Daugherty inspected Respondents' facility and issued a Food Safety Inspection Report and gave the facility an overall rating of good. Also, the report indicated that this was a new firm and that a food permit application was attached. The food permit application had been filled out by Janet Robbins with Daugherty's assistance. Subsequent to filling out the Food Permit Application, Janet Robbins discussed the matter with her husband, Gerald Robbins, who advised the Department that he disputed the requirement that Respondents' establishment must obtain a food permit. While it appears from the record that Respondents' application was submitted to the Department along with Daugherty's Food Safety Inspection Report, there was no evidence that Respondents tendered the proper fee for a permit or that a permit was ever issued to Respondents. On January 17, 1995, the Department issued Notice Number 95R-69185 concerning Respondents' 1995 Food Permit Renewal Notice. The Notice advised Respondents that they had failed to remit their 1995 Food Permit Renewal Fee, the reminder for which had been mailed to them on November 15, 1994. The November 15, 1994, notice was not introduced as evidence. The January 17, 1995, notice also advised Respondents that a late fee of $37.50 would be added if the food permit renewal fee was not paid by January 31, 1995, and that the late fee would be increased to $100.00 if the food permit renewal fee was not paid by February 28, 1995. On February 15, 1995, and again on April 26, 1995, the Department advised Respondents that the 1995 Food Permit Renewal Fee was past due and that an appropriate late fee had been added. In pertinent part, each of the Notices provided: If you dispute your firm type, the State Agency regulating your business, or if you are no longer in business, please indicate on the application (reverse side), sign and return.. . . . Respondents did not respond in writing to the Department disputing any of the matters set forth in the Notices received by them. Instead, Gerald Robbins made telephone calls to Dr. Martha Rose Roberts, Deputy Commissioner, and to Linton Eason in the legal department. These calls were not returned by the Department. On July 26, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Intent To Impose Administrative Fine against Janet Robbins for operating a Food Establishment without a Food Permit in violation of Section 500.12, Florida Statutes. Respondents requested a formal hearing, and this matter was referred to the Division for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the conduct of a hearing. Respondents moved to dismiss the matter which was unopposed by the Department. A Recommended Order of Dismissal was entered by the Hearing Officer and jurisdiction relinquished to the Department for final agency action. The Department entered an "Order" overruling the Recommended Order of Dismissal and further ordered that the Department intended to issue an immediate cease and desist order and to impose an administrative fine. The matter was again referred to the Division and this hearing ensued. On May 6, 1994, the Respondents were selling food, as defined in Section 500.03(1)(h), Florida Statutes, from their stall in the flea market known as Market World and have continued to sell food from their stall in the flea market since that date. Respondents' establishment within Market World is of a semi-permanent nature. This finding is based on the photographs entered into evidence as Respondents' Exhibits 5 and 6 and the unrebutted testimony of Gerald Robbins that certain pieces of Respondents' equipment located within the Respondents' stall at Market World were bolted to the floor. Several other flea market vendors within Market World have applied for and were issued food permits by the Department after paying the necessary fee. Because flea market vendors can move from one flea market to another, any flea market vendor who is issued a food permit for one location may operate under that same food permit at another flea market location provided the vendor does not operate at two or more flea market operations simultaneously. There was no evidence as to the annual gross food sales generated by Respondents' stall located within Market World. On May 5, 1995, Daugherty visited and inspected Respondents' stall at Market World. The Food Safety Inspection Report submitted by Daugherty for this inspection indicated an overall rating of good as did the report of May 6, 1994. Respondents have not interfered with, or attempted to interfere with, the Department's inspection of their food establishment even though they disagree with the requirement of having to obtain a food permit from the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring the Respondents to obtain a food permit for the partial year of 1994, and for a full year for 1995 and 1996, and assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. It is further recommended that no late fees be assessed for failure to renew a food permit that was never issued. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-1154 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 4 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 17. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 - 4, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 17. Proposed findings of fact 5 and 6 are neither material nor relevant. Proposed finding of fact 7, as stated, is argument rather than a finding of fact. Proposed findings of fact 8 - 10 and 15 are unnecessary as findings of fact. However, they are covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed finding of fact 16 is covered in the Conclusions of Law rather than in the Findings of Fact. The first two sentences of proposed finding of fact 19 are adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 14. The balance of proposed finding of fact 19, as stated, is argument rather than a finding of fact. There was no proposed finding of fact 12 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Gerald A. Robbins Qualified Representative 1026 Biltmore Drive, Northwest Winter Haven, Florida 33881
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Fred Burke, Jr. He was an existing employee of a juvenile detention facility in Jacksonville, Florida in 1978, when Respondent assumed responsibility for operation of the facility. Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent in the position of detention careworker class I, until notified of his demotion and reassignment to other duties on May 25, 1989. Respondent's demotion and reassignment of Petitioner followed Petitioner's refusal to work overtime on two occasions. On each of these occasions, Petitioner cited his cardiac condition as the basis for his refusal. All detention care workers in the facility are subject to mandatory overtime policy requirements which provide that overtime may be required if there is a need for additional supervisory coverage of clients. Prior to taking the demotion and reassignment action, Respondent sought an independent medical evaluation of Petitioner's ability to perform the duties of the position of detention careworker class I. Respondent required Petitioner to report to a family care physician who declined to make a medical judgement regarding Petitioner's health. Instead, the physician suggested that Respondent obtain the opinion of the cardiologist who had treated Petitioner for his heart condition in 1987. On May 4, 1989, that cardiologist offered his opinion as to Petitioner's health. Specifically, the doctor, who had seen Petitioner as recently as February 1989, noted that Petitioner's health deficiencies dictated that he work no more than eight hours per day; that he refrain from strenuous activity; that he not break-up fights; and that he not carry clients out of the facility in the event of fire. The specific work prohibitions noted by the cardiologist are all job tasks that an individual assigned to a detention careworker position, may be expected to perform. Upon the expiration of a required notice period to Petitioner, Respondent effectuated the reassignment of Petitioner to the position of cashier in the food stamp office. The position requires no overtime work and is less stressful. Petitioner is generally permitted to sit in the course of performing his duties. Following his reassignment, Petitioner continued to enjoy his same salary, although the cashier position occupied a lower pay grade than his previous position. Two other employees were alleged by Petitioner to have received favored treatment from Respondent. These employees, both female, did receive evaluations for the period ending in 1989 which indicated that their work performance exceeded required standards. While the evaluations made the other two employees eligible for merit incentive pay increases, neither employee ever received such an increase or any other pecuniary benefit. Petitioner, whose evaluation reflects that he achieved required work standards, did not receive disparate treatment from that accorded the two female employees by Respondent. As established by the Final Order of the PERC Commission in Case No. CS-89-166, Respondent's transfer to the position of food stamp cashier was warranted, comported with procedural requirements and served a legitimate governmental interest. Respondent does not have a work practice which discriminates with regard to compensation, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of an employee's sex or handicap. Further, Petitioner has not been subjected to such discrimination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5278 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-18. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner's proposed finding consisted of nine unnumbered paragraphs. Those paragraphs have been numbered one through nine, respectively, and are addressed as follows: 1.-7. Adopted in substance. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Further, one female employee had always been employed in the "lighter duty" situation of the control room. The other female employee was placed in a telephone receptionist position. Notably, no creditable evidence was presented that either of these employees refused to work overtime, or that they were not put on the "bubble list." COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Travis, Jr., Esq. 16 North Adams Street Quincy, FL 32351 Scott D. Leemis, Esq. Assistant District Legal Counsel P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact On December 27, 1976, Petitioner entered into an Assumption Agreement and Release of Seller, a copy of which is appended to this recommended order as Exhibit "A". The agreement contains, in writing, the obligation of Flagler Hospital, Inc., to pay Petitioner the sum of $238,464,52. The document is not a renewal of an existing obligation. On April 25, 1977, Respondent gave Petitioner notice that a penalty and interest under Section 201.08, Florida Statutes, had been assessed against it in the amount of $729.42 because the agreement constituted a note or written obligation to pay money. The agreement was executed in the State of Florida. No documentary stamp taxes have been paid regarding the agreement. The mathematical computation of the tax, penalty and interest is correct. The agreement represents the assumption of an existing debt between Petitioner and Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc., by Flagler Hospital, Inc. The original debt is evidenced by a note and mortgage dated February 11, 1976. Documentary stamp taxes in the amount of $360.00 were paid as to the original note. No additional indebtedness was created by the agreement, but the agreement releases the original obligor, Inter-Medic Health Centers, Inc., from liability.
The Issue The primary issue in this disciplinary proceeding is whether Respondent, which operates a restaurant where alcoholic beverages are served pursuant to a license issued by Petitioner, continued to sell alcohol after the service of full course meals had stopped, in violation of the statutes governing holders of beverage licenses. If Petitioner proves the alleged violation, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Respondent Barrett Enterprises, Inc. ("Barrett"), d/b/a Stuart Grill & Ale ("Stuart Grill"), has held a Special Restaurant License (an "SRX license"), which authorizes the licensee to sell alcoholic beverages secondary to the service of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Consequently, Barrett is subject to the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the "Division"). Barrett employs approximately 50 people to work at Stuart Grill, which is an establishment located in Martin County, Florida. Stuart Grill grosses nearly $2 million annually on food sales. In 2007, Barrett collected and remitted roughly $100,000 in sales tax on revenue from its food service operation. It sells 60,000 pounds, more or less, of chicken wings each year. In short, Stuart Grill is a bona fide restaurant.2 On two occasions——once on September 20, 2007, and again on October 19, 2007——four agents of the Division visited Stuart Grill late in the evening, around 11:00 p.m. They were conducting an investigation to determine whether "full course meals" (a term of art that will be discussed below) were available at all times when the restaurant was serving alcoholic beverages. (One of the conditions of holding an SRX license is that the licensee must make full course meals available while selling alcohol.) The two investigative visits followed the same pattern. Each time, the agents seated themselves at a booth in the main dining room, which was not crowded. The waitress (a different one each time) informed the agents that the kitchen was closed and, therefore, that they would need to order from the "Late Nite Menu," which was provided. The Late Nite Menu contained a limited number of items, namely: mozzarella sticks, beer battered "veggies" (mushrooms or onion rings), chicken strips, dolphin bites, conch fritters, fried critters (clam strips or grouper strips), fried calamari, smoked fish dip, and chicken wings. Each time, an agent tried to order a hamburger and was told that hamburgers were not available. Both times, the agents ordered (and were served) chicken wings, a couple of sodas, and beer.3 Neither visit lasted more than roughly half an hour. Dean Barrett, one of the restaurant's owners, testified credibly that the Late Nite Menu which was given to the agents was actually a bar menu; patrons in the main dining room should not have been instructed that they could order only from the Late Nite Menu, as apparently happened when the Division's agents went to Stuart Grill in September and October 2007. The undersigned accepts Mr. Barrett's testimony in this regard as truthful and finds that the waitresses (neither of whom was identified) who served the agents did not act in accordance with their employer's directives on those occasions. Regardless of that, however, the evidence fails to establish that "full course meals" were not available. As will be seen below, the term "full course meal" is defined for this purpose as a meal consisting of a salad or vegetable, an entrée, a beverage, and bread. When the Late Nite Menu is reviewed with this definition in mind, the factual determination is inescapable that the agents could have ordered such entrées as chicken strips, chicken wings, or fried calamari. They also could have ordered a vegetable ("beer battered veggies") from the Late Nite Menu. Half of the items (entrée and vegetable) constituting a "full course meal," in other words, appeared on the face of the Late Nite Menu. No beverages were listed in the Late Nite Menu. The agents, however, ordered (and were served) sodas and beer. The evidence thus establishes that non-menu items were, in fact, available when the agents visited. Moreover, it is found, the "beverage" requirement for a "full course meal" plainly was met. The only item needed to complete a "full course meal" is bread.4 There is no direct evidence that bread was not available. Perhaps it might be inferred, based on the absence of an obvious bread item on the Late Nite Menu, that no bread could be had. The undersigned declines to draw such an inference, however, because (as found above) other non-menu items were available upon request. Nor would the "fact" that the "kitchen was closed" (which it was not) be a sufficient basis for the undersigned to infer that bread was unavailable. Without more evidence than was adduced in this case, there is not a sufficiently convincing reason for the undersigned to infer that some slices of bread or a few rolls, for example, could not have been found in the restaurant, were a patron to have requested bread with his order of, say, chicken strips (entrée), onion rings (vegetable), and a soda (beverage). The problem with the Division's case, at bottom, is that the agents did not do enough to establish, affirmatively, the negative proposition that the Division must prove, i.e. that a full course meal was not available.5 Because it was (or should have been) clear to the agents that a vegetable, entrée, and beverage were available, they should have asked, specifically, for bread. They did not. The only off-menu item which the agents requested (other than drinks) was a hamburger. The evidence being insufficient to prove that a "full course meal" could not be had on the occasions in question, it must be concluded, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Barrett is not guilty of serving alcohol without simultaneously making full course meals available, as charged in the Administrative Action [Complaint].
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order finding Barrett not guilty of the instant charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 2008.
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are stated in the counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint for each case: Whether Falcon Catering Service No. 7 (hereinafter "Falcon 7") and Falcon Catering Service No. 8 (hereinafter "Falcon 8") failed to maintain the proper protection and temperature requirements for food sold from their mobile site in violation of the federal Food and Drug Administration Food Code ("Food Code"). In the Prehearing Stipulation filed in this matter, each Respondent generally admitted to the violations in the Administrative Complaints, but suggested that mitigating factors should absolve them of the charges or greatly reduce any administrative fine imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food establishments in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all such establishments comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Respondents Falcon 7 and Falcon 8 are licensed mobile food dispensing vehicles. Falcon 7 has license No. MFD5852560, which was initially issued on April 23, 2005; Falcon 8 has license No. MFD5852642, which was issued on October 19, 2005. Each of the Respondents serves meals and snacks to, inter alia, laborers at construction sites. On or about March 13, 2009, the Division conducted a food service inspection on Falcon 7. At that time, the food truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. One of the Food Code violations found by the inspector was Item 53b. That citation meant there was no validation of employee training on the truck. A follow-up inspection was deemed to be required. On April 10, 2009, a follow-up inspection was conducted by the Division. At that time, Item 53b was cited as a repeat offense. Also, Item 8a was cited. Item 8a refers to protection of food from contaminants and keeping food at an acceptable temperature. Notes by the inspector indicate that a further violation of Item 8a occurred because customers were allowed to serve themselves directly from food containers, and there was no fan in operation during the serving of food. On May 28, 2009, another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted. At that time, the food truck was located at 12720 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. Item 8a was again cited as a deficiency. The inspector's notes indicate that food was not properly protected from contamination and that customers were being served "buffet style" from the back of the truck. The inspector noted that this was a repeat violation. A follow-up or "call-back" inspection was conducted on December 3, 2009, at which time the temperature in Orlando was unusually cold. The food truck was at the same address on Orange Blossom Trail as noted in the prior inspection. Falcon 7 was again found to have been serving food buffet style from the back of the food truck. An Item 8a violation was again noted by the inspector. Another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted on January 19, 2010, another very cold day in Orlando. At that time, the food truck was located at the same site as the last two inspections. The inspector cited the food truck for an Item 8a violation again, stating that the food was not being protected from contaminants. Dust was flying up on the back of the truck to exposed food items. An inspection of Falcon 8 was conducted on August 25, 2009, while the truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. An Item 8a violation was noted by the inspector, who found that displayed food was not properly protected from contaminants. The food truck was located under an Interstate 4 overpass and was open to flying debris. The inspector noted that customers were being served buffet style and that there was no protection of food from contamination by the customers. A follow-up inspection for Falcon 8 was conducted on August 27, 2009, at 9:12 a.m., while the food truck was located at the same site. Another Item 8a violation was cited at that time. The violation notes indicate essentially the same situation that had been cited in the initial inspection two days earlier. Less than one hour after the follow-up inspection, another inspection was conducted on Falcon 8 at the same location as the prior two inspections. There were no Item 8a citations issued during this inspection, but the food truck was found to have no water available for hand washing. The food truck employee was using a hand sanitizer to clean her hands. Respondents do not dispute the facts set forth above. However, Respondents provided mitigating facts for consideration in the assessment of any penalty that might be imposed. Those mitigating factors are as follows: The food trucks were serving an inordinately large number of workers during the dates of the inspections. The City of Orlando was constructing its new basketball arena, and there were numerous laborers involved in the project. In order to serve the workers, it was necessary for the food trucks to put their food out on tables, rather than ladle the food directly from the food warmers in the food truck. In fact, the shelves in the food trucks are so narrow that dipping food out of the warmers would be impossible. Due to the cold weather in Orlando during this time, it was impossible to keep the food at acceptable temperature levels for very long. The large number of workers washing their hands at the food trucks caused the trucks to run out of water much more quickly than normal. When the water ran out, the employees took care to sanitize their hands as well as possible. Ms. Falcon testified that the inspector's testimony concerning use of tables to serve food was erroneous. However, Sabrina Falcon was not present during the inspections, and her contradictory testimony is not reliable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine of $500.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 7, in DOAH Case No. 10-10925; and a fine of $750.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 8, in DOAH Case No. 10-10930. All fines should be paid within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Sabrina Falcon Falcon Catering Service 642 Mendoza Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Megan Demartini, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is in the land development business. Petitioner sold residential lots to various purchasers and contracted through a sister corporation to construct homes on the lots. At the time the lots were conveyed no improvements had been made. Petitioner placed documentary tax stamps and documentary surtax stamps upon the deeds reflecting the consideration for the deeds as the price of the lots. Respondent contends that stamps should have been placed on the deeds reflecting the consideration as the price of the lots plus improvements. Accordingly Respondent is proposing to assess additional stamp taxes, surtaxes, penalties and interest upon the Petitioner in the total amount of $13,002.10. The pleadings, answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admissions establish that unless Rule 12A-4.13(22), Florida Administrative Code is invalid, Petitioner is liable for the taxes Respondent proposes to assess. The transactions which form the basis of the proposed assessment are package deals within the meaning of the Rule.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Charles L. Harriss, was the owner and operator of a food service establishment known as Mister Donut located at 5567 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida. Respondent holds license control number 21-1041-R issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), and is subject to that agency's regulatory jurisdiction. Mister Donut is a retail bakery outlet that sells donuts, coffee and other similar items. On the afternoon of July 9, 1986, a Collier County environmental health specialist conducted a routine inspection of respondent's establishment to determine if prescribed health and safety standards were being maintained. The inspection was made in the presence of an employee of respondent. The specialist found respondent to have violated various food service rules promulgated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in twenty- five respects. All but two, which respondent has conceded are correct, are in dispute. After an informal conference failed to resolve the matter, this proceeding ensued. The Donut Shop is one of three retail bakery outlets owned by Harriss. Besides the store in question, he operates a second outlet in Naples and one in Miami. There is no baking or cooking done on the premises of the establishment, although some "finishing" of products (such as adding sugar or filling) occurs. Donuts are delivered to the establishment from Harriss' other Naples store at 5:30 a.m. each morning, and from noon to 3:00 p.m. on an as-needed basis. The finishing of the product generally takes place shortly after it is delivered. There are three work shifts for employees: 6:00 a.m. -- 12:00 noon; 12:00 -- 6:00 p.m.; and 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The floors are to be mopped and the area cleaned at the end of each shift. The busiest time of the day is between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. The store is located in a shopping center. Although the specialist's qualifications to conduct a competent inspection were challenged by Harriss during the witness' testimony, it is found he has the experience, education and training necessary to adequately perform his job. In conjunction with his inspection, the specialist filled out a food service inspection report identifying each violation detected. This report has been received into evidence as petitioner's exhibit number 2. In addition, the specialist categorized violations as either being major or minor. When the inspection was made, the specialist was accompanied by a food services coordinator who also made her own inspection as a cross- check on the specialist's work. Her report has been received into evidence as petitioner's exhibit number 5. The violations are identified on the report by number. For ease in discussing the numerous violations, reference to the number on the report will be made in the findings hereinafter. Violation 02 -- Drawers containing food components (candy toppings) were not labeled as required by Rule 10D- 13.24(9), Florida Administrative Code. The drawers were also soiled with food particles. Violation 03 -- Food (soup) was not being maintained at proper temperature (140 degrees) as required by Rule 10D-13.24(2), Florida Administrative Code. Violation 04 -- Although petitioner charged Harriss with having no "indicating thermometer" on the food warmer, it was established that the warmer had low, medium and high settings. This constitutes substantial compliance with Rule 10D-13.24(2), Florida Administrative Code. Violation 05 -- Harriss has been cited with violating Rule 10D- 13.24(8), Florida Administrative Code, for failure to have conspicuous thermometers in or on his refrigerator and the food warmer. However, the more persuasive evidence is that a thermometer was hung on the top left side of the refrigerator while the food warmer had low, medium and high settings. This satisfies the foregoing rule. Violation 08 -- During the course of the inspection, donuts and rolls were found in uncovered or non- encased display areas. This is contrary to Rule 10D-13.24(1), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that such food be in a glassed case or otherwise covered in some manner. Violation 09 -- An employee was observed scooping ice into a cup without an ice scoop. This resulted in the employee's hand coming into contact with the ice in violation of Rule 10D-13.24(8), Florida Administrative Code. Violation 10 -- In conjunction with the prior violation, no ice scoop was seen or used. Rule 10D-13.24(10), Florida Administrative Code, requires that food be served in a manner that will minimize contamination. Violation 12 -- The specialist observed respondent's employee with food particles and sugar on her hands. Rule 10D-13.25(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires that employees wash their hands as often as necessary to remove soil and contamination. Violation 13 -- Employees are required to wear hair nets or hair spray to keep hair from getting into food. Although no hair net was worn by the employee, the employee used an effective hair restraint (hair spray) so as to comply with the rule. Violation 14 -- As noted earlier, a proper utensil for serving ice was not being used or displayed. This is in contravention of Rule 10D-13.24(8), Florida Administrative Code. Violation 15 -- It was established that non-food contact surfaces were covered with frosting and powdered sugar. Rule 10D-13.26(4)(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires that such surfaces be cleaned at such intervals as is necessary to keep them in a clean and sanitary condition. Violation 17 -- Chemical test kits are required by Rule 10D- 13.26(5)(a)2.d., Florida Administrative Code, for the purpose of accurately measuring solutions used for sanitization purposes. Although a kit was not seen by the specialist, there was such a testing kit on the first shelf near the three compartment sink on respondent's premises. Violation 20 -- The specialist could not recall the nature of this violation. Violation 21 -- According to Rule 10D-13.26(4)(d), Florida Administrative Code, soiled cloths and sponges must be stored in a sanitizing solution between uses. The specialist found several soiled cloths in a sink. However, since these were just temporarily placed in the sink for rinsing before being placed in a linen bag for laundry service, no violation occurred. Violation 22 -- The drawer containing candy topping was not clean. Rule 10D-13.26(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that food contact surfaces be cleaned at least once a day. Since the inspection occurred in the afternoon, and prior to the end of the day, it was not shown that respondent failed to clean this area that day. Violation 23 -- The interior of non-food contact areas such as cabinets, shelves, refrigerator and sides of equipment were observed to have food particles on them, and were not clean. This was in violation of Rule 10D- 13.26(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that non-food contact surfaces of equipment be cleaned, and kept in a sanitary condition. Violation 24 -- Various utensils in drawers were not clean. Rule 10D- 13.26(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that all kitchenware be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized after each use. Violation 25 -- The specialist found respondent storing food (toppings) in single service articles (paper cups). However, the applicable rule (10D-13.26(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code) simply provides that such articles be used "only once". There was no indication that these articles were used more than one time, and consequently no violation of the rule occurred. Violation 31 -- It was established that a three compartment sink was not readily accessible since a trash can blocked access to the sink, and dirty linens were in the sink itself. No pertinent rule was cited by petitioner as governing the accessibility of sinks. Violation 32 -- No hand soap was found in any sink. This controverted the requirements of Rule 10D-13.27(6), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that each establishment be provided with hand cleansing soap. Violation 33 -- The specialist observed the trash can in front of the sink to be uncovered. This was a violation of Rule 10D-13.27(7), Florida Administrative Code, which requires such receptacles to be kept covered with tight fitting lids. Violation 34 -- There is a dumpster directly behind respondent's store which was found to be unclosed, and with overflow trash on the ground. However, this dumpster is shared by other shopping center tenants, and is the responsibility of the center rather than respondent. Violation 35 -- The specialist detected ants in the food preparation area. Although respondent has a monthly pest control service, the presence of such insects violated Rule 10D-13.27(8), Florida Administrative Code, which requires effective control measures against rodents, flies, roaches and other vermin. Violation 36 -- The floors in the food preparation area were observed to be littered with food particles. This is in contravention of Rule 10D- 13.28(1), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that floor surfaces in rooms where food is prepared to be "clean". Violation 37 -- The walls in the food preparation area were "splattered" with food and toppings. In addition, certain equipment attached to the walls had toppings, frosting and glazing covering them. This was in violation of Rule 10D- 13.29(2), Florida Administrative Code, which requires such walls and equipment to be kept clean. Violations 38 and 41 -- Respondent has not disputed these violations, and it is found that these violations occurred. Violation 42 -- The specialist found the outside area of the premises to be littered with cigarette butts, paper and other debris. However, this is a common problem throughout the entire shopping center, and fault cannot be attributed to respondent for this condition. Violation 44 -- As previously noted in violation 21, soiled linens were observed in a sink. However, they were placed there only temporarily for rinsing before being stored in a linen bag. Therefore, there was no rule violation. Violation 45 -- The fire extinguisher on respondent's premises did not have a current inspection tag. While this may violate some regulation, the rule relied upon by the specialist (10D-13.28(2), Florida Administrative Code) is not applicable. Violation 46 -- An exit light was observed to have been burned out. Again, the same rule relied upon by the specialist is inapplicable. Violation 47 -- It was alleged that respondent used extension cords in the food preparation area. However, the specialist could not recall which appliance used such a cord. Respondent's testimony that no such cords were used is more persuasive, and it is found that no extension cords were used by Harriss. Violation 53 -- When the inspection was made, there was no employee on the premises with a valid food management certification. Such a certification is required by Rule 10D-13.25(2), Florida Administrative Code. After the inspection was completed, the specialist reviewed the inspection report with one of respondents employees. It was the specialist's opinion that the above cited violations rendered the establishment unsafe for the public. A second inspection was simultaneously conducted by a food service coordinator. Her findings tend to corroborate the same violations noted by the specialist. Reference to her specific findings is accordingly not necessary. Aside from his own testimony, Respondent presented the testimony of the employee who was present when the inspection occurred, and his local manager. Except where noted above, they did not credibly contradict the testimony of the two inspectors. At the same time, Harriss pointed out that by the very nature of the donut business, it is impossible to keep crumbs and other food particles off the floor and other areas. He has been in the business for twenty-three years, and has no prior violations. He contended the specialist was "nit-picking", and that most of the violations are minor in nature. He also asserted that he has made all reasonable efforts to correct the problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be found guilty of the eighteen violations cited in conclusion of law number 2, and that he pay a $1000 civil fine within thirty days after the date of Final Order. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1986.
Findings Of Fact In time sequence, the following transactions took place: a. Petitioner, Myron Friedman, executed a contract with Willow Industries, Inc., a New York corporation, on August 14, 1973, for the purchase of properties located in Manatee County, Florida. Conquistador Estates, Inc., a Florida corporation, for profit, was incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida on September 25, 1973. Petitioner, Myron Friedman, borrowed $650,000 from Franklin National Bank of Long Island, New York, on October 29, 1973. Mr. Friedman executed a personal note to the Florida National Bank on October 29, 1973. Myron Friedman made a loan to Conquistador Estates, Inc. in the amount of $400,000 to purchase the Manatee County property on October 30, 1973. Conquistador Estates, Inc. purchased the properties described in the contract from Willow Industries, Inc. to Myron Friedman on October 30, 1973. Conquistador Estates, Inc. executed a mortgage to Myron Friedman in the amount of $400,000 on October 30, 1973, in exchange for the herein before mentioned loan of $400,000 on October 29, 1973. Myron Friedman assigned the herein before mentioned mortgage to Franklin National Bank as security for the personal loan of $650,000 on October 30, 1973. Conquistador Estates, Inc. deeded the properties acquired by it from Willow Industries, Inc. to Myron Friedman on May 28, 1974. Additional facts: The notes and the mortgage herein described are still in existence. Conquistador Estates, Inc. is still a viable corporation although it owns no property and Myron Friedman is the sole stockholder. There were no payments made to Petitioner, Myron Friedman, as required by the terms of the promissory note of Conquistador Estates, Inc. to Myron Friedman. In an Audit of documents recorded in the office of the Circuit Clerk in and for Manatee County, Florida, Respondent, Department of Revenue, determined that insufficient documentary stamps and documentary surtax stamps were affixed to the warranty deed dated May 28, 1974, between Conquistador Estates, Inc. and Petitioner, Myron Friedman, an individual. Subsequent to the audit, the Respondent issued a "Proposed Notice of Assessment of Tax and Penalty Under Chapter 201, Florida Statutes, documentary surtax in the amount of $439.45, pursuant to Section 201.021, Florida Statutes, and penalties in the amount of $1,639.14 pursuant to Section 201.17, Florida Statutes. Attached to the said notice was "Schedule A," an explanation of the basis for the demand for additional documentary stamp tax and documentary surtax. It explained that the warranty deed to Petitioner, Myron Friedman, individually, from Conquistador Estates, Inc., satisfied the existing mortgage and which rendered the mortgage unenforceable as to the original mortgagor, Conquistador Estates, Inc., and cited Department of Administration Rule 12A-4.13(2) Florida Administrative Code. "Defaulting Mortgagor: Where a mortgagor, in full or partial satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness, conveys the mortgaged premises to the mortgagee, documentary stamp taxes are due on the transaction." Petitioner, Myron Friedman, contends: That Conquistador Estates, Inc. was just a nominee used for the purpose of securing a mortgage loan; That he is the sole owner of the corporation; That there was no conveyance in full or partial satisfaction of the mortgage since he is the sole owner of the corporation, and he is the grantee and that, therefore, no documentary stamp tax or surtax or penalty is due; That the mortgage itself is assigned and is still in existence. The Respondent contends: That the clear wording of statute, Section 201.02(1), F.S., controls the transaction which was a conveyance by warranty deed; That because the corporation, Conquistador Estates, Inc. has no assets and made no payments to Petitioner, the conveyance by warranty deed was in full satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness and canceled the written obligation of the corporation to pay $400,000, the unpaid portion of the obligation secured by the mortgage. The Respondent further contends that the partial indebtness of the corporation itself to Petitioner was canceled.
Recommendation Assess the documentary stamp and the documentary surtax against Petitioner, Myron Friedman. Do not assess penalties for failure to pay tax required, inasmuch as it is apparent that the taxes which were paid were paid in good faith and that the taxes which were due and owing were not paid because of a misunderstanding of the requirements of Chapter 201, F.S. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Carr, Esquire Post Office Box 3798 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Patricia Turner, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
