Findings Of Fact William J. Colello is a registered real estate broker holding license number 0147272 issued by the Board of Real Estate. Colello is the only active firm member for Cindy Realty of Hernando, Inc., a registered corporate broker holding license number 0181975. Sea Pines, Inc., was the developer of Sea Pines Unit Three Addition. Wet Water, Inc., is a water and sewage company regulated by the Public Service Commission of Florida. Sea Pines and Wet Water agreed that the first purchaser of real property in Addition Three to Sea Pines would owe Wet Water $540. This assessment covered the cost of providing the water and sewage service to the subdivision. This was later termed a service availability charge. In addition, the property owner would have to pay water and sewer hook-up charges. The purchaser could elect to pay the assessment in a lump sum or in 100 monthly installments of $5.50. Lot 197 of Sea Pines, Unit Three Addition, the piece of property involved in this dispute, was initially bought in 1974 by J. R. Martinez, who elected to pay the water and sewage assessment in monthly installments. Martinez paid the monthly installments for approximately a year and then ceased making the payments. Colello purchased Lot 197 on June 4, 1975, and sold it on June 16, 1975, to Dennis Garcia, who was Colello's brother-in-law at the time. Colello made no payments on the water and sewage assessment. However, Wet Water billed on the first of each month, and Colello did not own the property when the bill was due. Although the Public Service Commission approved a charge by Wet Water of $5.50 per month for service availability in late 1974, there was no evidence that Colello was aware of the change in position of the Public Service Commission. Wet Water sent bills to Colello from immediately after his purchase of the property in 1975 until December of 1977. Colello denied knowledge of these bills; however, there were no bills sent to Colello after December, 1977, and as a result of a letter sent by Wet Water to Colello in August of 1978, Wet Water learned that Lot 197 had been sold to Garcia. Colello had no knowledge of the bill after December of 1977, and after August, 1978, Wet Water knew that Colello was not the owner of the property. In 1979, although Garcia's sister and Colello had been divorced for a number of years, Garcia listed Lot 197 for sale through Cindy Realty. Pat Bramanti, a salesman for Cindy Realty, sold this property to James and Mildred Mulligan. The sales agreement provided for a warranty deed, a title search and title insurance for the Mulligans. Closing was handled through the title company, and the title search did not reveal any lien against the property. Some months after the closing, the builder retained by Mulligan to construct his house sought to have the water connected and was advised by Wet Water that the water could not be connected until the arrearage of monthly payments had been paid. This amounted to $280.50. Because water was needed to complete the construction, Mulligan paid the arrearage and the hookup fees. The records of Wet Water show that the $280.50 was due from Garcia. It was Wet Water's policy not to file liens against the property of owners who owed Wet Water money, which is why the title search failed to reveal the debt. There was no evidence that Colello knew of this policy. Colello had no personal contact with the Mulligans until after the problem arose over the arrearages. Colello advised Mulligan at the time the problem arose that if the debt did not appear in the records it was not Colello's concern. Mulligan was also advised of the 1974 decision by the Public Service Commission that Wet Water could not make the assessment. There is no evidence that Colello had knowledge of any change in the Public Service Commission's decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Real Estate dismiss its complaint and take no action against the Respondents. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Suite 410, Metropolitan Bank Building 4600 West Cypress Tampa, Florida 33607 Harvey V. Delzer, Esquire Post Office Box 279 Port Richey, Florida 33568 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Board of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Mr. George Szell was presented by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and sworn as a witness. Mr. Szell was qualified and accepted as an expert hydrogeologist employed by the District. Included within Mr. Szell's responsibilities to the District were evaluation of the subject application. An application for consumptive water use permit has been filed in proper form by Pat Nathe Groves, Inc., and admitted into evidence as Exhibit A. The water source is an existing well located on a 134-acre tract in Pasco County within the Withlacoochee Basin, as shown by Exhibit A. The water is to be used for irrigation purposes. The maximum daily withdrawal sought is 432,000 gallons and the average gaily withdrawal sought is 42,608 gallons. Proper notice of this proceeding and application have been given to all persons entitled thereto by statute and rule. No objections to the application have been received by the District. The amount of withdrawal requested is 92.20 percent of the maximum average daily withdrawal allowed by the water crop theory, as set forth in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. Therefore, the requested withdrawal is not violative of the consumptive use test. Pursuant to Mr. Szell's testimony, none of the matters set forth in Subsection 161-2.11(2), (3), and (4) exist so as to require the denial of this permit.
The Issue As stated by the Hearing Officer the issue in this case is whether the District should issue a surface water management permit to Russell E. and Marilyn F. Scott, and Caloosa Television Corporation for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a television signal tower and control building in Southeast Lee County, Florida. There are no significant water resource impacts related to the management of surface water by the proposed project. The harm at issue in this case is the potential for wood storks and other wading to strike the tower and guy wires which are not structures related to management and storage of waters. The parties disagree as to whether the District has jurisdiction to consider the bird impacts related to collisions with the tower and guy wires, and if so, whether the tower and guy wires will have a significant adverse impact on the water resources of the state through a reduction of wood storks, an endangered species, and other wading birds which through feeding on fish remove biomass from such water, thereby maintaining water quality. In determining jurisdiction in this case, the parties disagree on the meaning of "works" and "surface water management system" as used in Chapter 373, F.S. and Rule 40E-4, F.A.C. The petitioners argue that since one set of guy wires will be placed across one end of the cypress wetland located on the subject property, the entire project including the guy wire and tower is a "works" and part of the surface water management system, which is subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. The District and respondent Caloosa Television Corporation contend that the tower and guy wires are not structures related to surface water management and are not "works" nor part of the surface water management system, and therefore, bird mortality, as a result of hitting the tower and guy wires, is not subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. FINDINGS ON EXCEPTIONS At the Governing Board meeting of October 6, 1988, the petitioners waived Findings of Fact exceptions 1 and 2 of Petitioners' Exceptions to Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order. Therefore, Findings of Fact exceptions 1 and 2 are rejected. The petitioners' exceptions 1, 2, and 3 to Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order are rejected as set forth in the District's Response To Exceptions Filed by Petitioners filed on September 27, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit B and made part of this Final Order. The Governing Board accepts the exceptions filed by the District and the respondent, Caloosa Television Corporation, as set forth herein under Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 14, 1987, Caloosa filed Application Number 09147- B, for a surface water management permit, with the District. This application was for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a 1249 foot high television transmission tower and control building in southeast Lee County, Florida. The proposed location of Caloosa's project is approximately one mile north of the boundary of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, which is owned and operated by Audubon, and specifically, approximately two and one-half miles north of a wood stork colony located within the Sanctuary. This rookery is the largest rookery of wood stork, a federally endangered wading bird, in the United States. The project site is 60 acres in size, and approximately square in shape. It is improved agricultural land, with a circular cypress wetland of about 5.5 acres located near the center of the site. Extending outward from the cypress wetland are two ditches, one running due east and the other due west. The existing surface water flow varies with the seasons and intensity of storm events. During dry seasons, the rainfall runoff flows into the cypress wetland and percolates into the ground. However, during wet seasons, water builds up in the cypress wetland and flows into the two ditches. In larger storm events, the project site is entirely under water, and sheet flows occur to the southwest. The proposed project should have a negligible impact on the existing surface water system since the total impervious area will only be approximately one acre, or 1.7 percent of the total project area of 60 acres. The project consists of a radio tower and guy wires, a 3150 square foot control building, fill pad and parking area, guy wire anchor slabs, and approximately 1650 feet of lime rock road with an equalizer culvert to maintain existing flow. Three sets of six guy wires will extend from the 1249 foot high tower and connect to the ground at anchor slabs located near the edge of the project site. The entire project is located outside of the limits of the existing wetland, but one set of guy wires does cross the western edge of the cypress wetland. Caloosa proposes to use the tower as a "community tower" which will be capable of supporting more than one transmitting antennae. In addition to Caloosa's antennae, the tower will be able to support up to five commercial radio stations and up to sixty two-way communication antennae. Caloosa has had contacts from several commercial radio stations and governmental agencies which have expressed interest in co-locating their antennae on Caloosa's tower. After review of this application, District staff advised Caloosa, on November 23, 1987, that it was recommending approval of the application since it was felt that any impact from the project on wood storks would not result from the construction and operation of this project. At hearing, the District supported the issuance of this permit, but urged that the tower and guy wires are not a part of the surface water management system over which the District has any permitting jurisdiction. Audubon timely filed its request for a hearing on the District's intent to issue this permit, and at hearing opposed the issuance of this permit to Caloosa, urging that the tower and guy wires were an integral part of the surface water management system, and therefore subject to the District's permitting jurisdiction. The wood stork and other wading birds are an important link in the biological and ecological chain. They are the main mechanism for removing certain species of fish from ponds, lakes and waters of the state. If there is no predation by wading birds, then an increase in the biomass of the water system would be expected, water quality would decrease, and fish kills would result. Ponds that receive biomass reduction by wading birds have a reduction in fish biomass of approximately 75%, with no loss in species, while ponds that do not receive wading bird predation lose almost all individual aquatic animals through reduced water quality resulting from retention of up to 94% of the biomass from dead fish. The reduction in biomass is in direct proportion to the number of birds feeding in a pond, and therefore a 5% reduction in birds will result in a 5% lessening of the biomass reduction. Water quality will be reduced by a lowering of oxygen levels in such waters due to the excessive retention of nutrient laden biomass. During the nesting season, wood storks feed in various ponds and wetland areas that surround the rookery. Their primary feeding areas are within ten miles of the rookery. The proximity of these sites allow the birds to make several flights per day between the colony and the feeding site, and to do so with less energy expended than with feeding sites that are farther away. Caloosa's project site is located between the rookery and a primary feeding area to the north that is within ten miles of the rookery. The proximity of this feeding area allows the birds to fly low, at tree top level, to the site, without the use of thermal updrafts that they use to attain altitudes of up to 5000 feet when traveling greater distances. Thus, if the tower is built, it would be likely that wood storks would fly in the direction of, and at the height of, the tower to reach this primary feeding area. However, it was not established how many such birds actually feed in this nearby area, or how many fish are in these ponds and wetlands. The wood stork colony at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary has been experiencing a decline in productivity from approximately 6000 nesting pairs in 1960 and 1966, there has been a steady decline in the number of nesting pairs in the colony, and in 1987, there were no nesting pairs in the colony. During 1988, 750 nesting pairs have been observed. The steady decline in the wood stork colony population is the result of already existing developmental pressures and changes in drainage patterns which have adversely affected the birds' feeding habitats. For nesting to be successful, two adult birds are required per nest during the nesting season, which usually occurs from November to March. This allows one adult bird to be away from the nest obtaining food while the other adult keeps the nest warm and safe from predators. If a nest is left unattended through the loss of one adult bird, it is likely that the entire nest will be lost since the fledglings are very vulnerable throughout the nesting season to predators and changes in temperature. There are usually two or three fledglings per nest. For this reason, the loss of five adult birds per year, for example, results in a total loss to the colony of between ten to fifteen fledglings. This loss compounds each year, as birds lost one year are not available to reproduce in following years. Generally, transmission towers can pose a hazard to birds due to the potential for collisions. Illuminating such towers at night does not decrease this danger since the birds are simply attracted to lights. Strobe lighting has also been tried, but it appears that birds ignore, or are not deterred, by strobes. In this case, Caloosa has agreed to accept conditions placed upon the approval of this project by the Lee County Board of Zoning and Adjustments on March 16, 1987, which include placement of aircraft warning balls on the guy wires and the tower itself, habitat improvement including the creation of a wetland and a wildlife through way, if necessary, and commencement of a monitoring system to identify any problems with wood stork mortality as soon as possible. A very extensive study of bird kills and transmission towers was conducted over a thirty year period involving the WCTV tower in Tallahassee, Florida. The WCTV tower was found to kill 3.9 wading birds per year on average. Based in part upon this data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that wood stork collisions with the tower will not result in significant mortality, and an "incidental take" of five wood storks per year should result. This is a level of mortality which is noteworthy, since any loss to an endangered species is significant, but is clearly below that which would cause jeopardy to the species. Although Audubon correctly pointed out that the conditions present in the WCTV study do not exactly match those present in this case, such as the fact that there are almost three times as many wading birds in the area of the Caloosa tower as were in the area of the WCTV tower, as well as the differences in the geographical relationship of the tower to nearby wading bird colonies and feeding areas, nevertheless, the WCTV study is relevant and should be considered by the District since it is the most exhaustive study of its kind ever conducted. Caloosa presented evidence of a study it conducted over approximately a one month period in May and June, 1988, of a comparable existing radio tower, the WHEW tower, located near the subject property to the east. Although substantial wood stork and other wading bird activity was observed around the WHEW tower, there were no collisions of wood storks with this 1010 foot high tower. While not a scientific study in the strictest sense, and although it was not conducted for as extensive a period as the WCTV study, nevertheless, the District should consider the WHEW study conducted by Caloosa since it involves a comparable tower in close proximity to the subject property, and the person who conducted the study for Caloosa and who testified at hearing, Robert E. Gatton, appeared particularly credible. The Federal Communications Commission has approved the location of Caloosa's tower. I5. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has recommended that the proposed location for Caloosa's tower be changed to an alternate site which would present a less serious obstacle to the Corkscrew wood stork nesting colony and other wading birds. This recommendation is based on the policy that the mortality of even one wood stork is too much and may present a danger to the population of the wood stork rookery. It was not shown, however, that a basis in fact exists for concluding that the loss of five or fewer wood storks per year would present such a danger. The Commission's recommendation is also based upon a concern that transmission towers will proliferate in the area, and thereby further interfere with the flight paths of wood storks and other wading birds to their feeding locations. However, the fact that Caloosa is seeking to construct a "community tower" to be shared with several governmental agencies, as well as broadcasting stations, will actually serve to decrease this potential proliferation. While there is a potential for wood storks or other wading birds in the area to be killed or injured by striking Caloosa's tower or the guy wires while in flight, the extent of this danger is speculative, but would not appear to exceed five wood storks per year. Under these circumstances, there would not be a significant threat to the population, or continued viability, of the Corkscrew rookery. It has not been shown, by the evidence in this record, that any loss of wood storks and other wading birds caused by this project will result in fish kills through a significant reduction of predation and the resulting failure to remove accumulated biomass in ponds and waters in the area. It was not demonstrated that a fish kill will, or is even likely, to occur. While the loss of five wood storks would result in a certain amount of biomass not being removed from the area's wetlands, nothing in the record suggests that this amount will have an adverse impact on the state's water resources or will otherwise be significant. Therefore, any relationship between the tower proposed by Caloosa and impacts associated with biomass accumulation is purely speculative and de minimis. Fish kills occur naturally as water levels in seasonal marshes and ponds lower in the dry season. The water quality impact of such kills is relatively short-lived, lasting up to two months or until the next wet season begins, at which time water quality parameters return to normal. The evidence produced at hearing does not establish that the project and its surface water management system will have any significant or measurable effect on drainage of surface water runoff from the subject property, or on adjacent properties. The drainage system proposed by Caloosa will utilize the existing ditches and the natural cypress pond on the property. It was established that the post-construction effect of the project on drainage would be insignificant. There are, therefore, no drainage impacts associated with this project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the District enter a Final Order approving Caloosa's application for surface water management permit number 09147-B, subject to the conditions, agreed to by Caloosa, which were imposed by the Lee County Board of Zoning and Adjustment in its approval of this proposed development. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 29th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5578 Rulings on Audubon's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3. 2-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as a summation of testimony. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 7-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 9-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 12-15. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 12, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Rejected in Finding of Fact 13, and otherwise as simply a summation of the testimony and argument on the evidence. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 22-23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15-17. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rulings on Caloosa's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted In Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise Rejected as a conclusion of law and as simply a summation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 9-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 15-16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and as cumulative. Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding-of Fact I. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 15. Rejected as irrelevant. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 18-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 James K. Sturgis, Esquire Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 John R. Wodraska Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 =================================================================
The Issue Whether, under section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, Petitioner, Garber Housing Resorts, LLC ("Garber"), is entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees incurred because of responding to three specific pleadings filed by Respondent, Glenda Q. Mahaney ("Mahaney"), and if so, the amount of such reasonable attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact On March 27, 2019, DEP issued an SRCO after reviewing a limited groundwater assessment dated May 9, 2018, which included a recommendation for risk management option level one. DEP's SRCO stated that the prior conditional SRCO was being replaced because the limited groundwater assessment "demonstrates that conditions on the property have changed and improved such that the [conditional SRCO] is no longer appropriate.” Mahaney's May 13, 2019, petition and Garber's May 23, 2019, motion to dismiss were referred to DOAH on June 25, 2019, and assigned Case No. 19-3429. Garber's petition was 77 pages, 654 paragraphs, and contained 56 pages of attachments. 2 The Office Depot email suggested that an email was sent on January 4, 2020, but without the documents attached. The email address to which the document was allegedly sent was "AskDOAH," which is not a proper method for filing pleadings. The November 6, 2019, Notice from DOAH opening this fees case explained that "Parties not represented may file electronically through eALJ, facsimile, or mail. CHOOSE ONE METHOD of filing for each document." On July 18, 2019, Mahaney's petition was dismissed with leave to amend as legally insufficient under Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.201(2). The petition also contained irrelevant allegations that were not cognizable in an environmental administrative proceeding. Mahaney was allowed ten days to file an amended petition that "shall comply with the requirements of rule 28-106.201(2) and shall not contain the irrelevant and immaterial allegations discussed in this Order." On August 1, 2019, DEP received from Mahaney a document titled "Petitioner's 7-25-2019 Amended 5-9-2019 Petition for Hearing Regarding SRCO Dated Dated [sic] 3-27-2019 for Lamont Garber and/or Garber Housing Resorts, Inc., and Motion for Summary Proceedings Regarding Issues Admitted by FDEP and/or Motion to Immediately Revoke SRCO or Motion to Abate Proceedings Until Such Time as Petitioner's Property is Tested" ("amended petition"). DEP forwarded Mahaney's amended petition to DOAH on August 5, 2019. The amended petition was 69 pages, 690 paragraphs, and contained 59 pages of attachments. Garber had already filed, on August 2, 2019, its motion to dismiss the amended petition. On August 13, 2019, Mahaney filed her response to Garber's motion to dismiss the amended petition. A Recommended Order of Dismissal was issued on August 19, 2019, finding that the amended petition remained legally insufficient. The amended petition still contained irrelevant allegations concerning issues outside the subject matter of the SRCO. Those issues included a property boundary dispute, trespass and nuisance claims, alleged violations of pollution laws, alleged non-compliance with local land use regulations, flooding issues, and stormwater runoff issues. DEP issued its Final Order on November 1, 2019. Attached to the Final Order provided to DOAH were Mahaney's exceptions and Garber's responses to exceptions that had been timely filed with DEP. The Final Order denied each of Mahaney's exceptions, adopted the Recommended Order of Dismissal, and approved the SRCO. Mahaney is opposed to Garber's plan to develop the property that is the subject of DEP's SRCO. It was clear from Mahaney's testimony and her history of challenging remediation actions taken by Garber and prior property owners, that her primary purpose for bringing the underlying proceeding was her concern for potential contamination of her well and property. In addition, she was concerned that the SRCO did not "certify the entire [Garber] property as clean." Because of Mahaney's stated belief that DEP has not done its job over the years with regard to Garber's property and her property, she had challenged the prior conditional SRCO, and then the replacement SRCO. In addition, Mahaney testified that additional remediation occurred on Garber's property in February 2019, approximately a month before DEP issued the SRCO. She obtained a letter that was from the remediation company to Mr. Lamont Garber describing the remediation activities. Through reasonable inquiry, she learned that the letter was not in DEP's possession at the time of issuing the SRCO. The circumstances surrounding Mahaney's filing of her petition, amended petition, and exceptions show that her pleadings were not filed for an improper purpose. Garber's expert on reasonable attorney's fees reviewed the invoices of legal fees and the filings in the underlying proceeding. He testified that the time spent and legal fees incurred by Garber responding to Mahaney's pleadings and litigating entitlement to fees, were reasonable.3 Mahaney did not present an expert to dispute his testimony. 3 Garber's Composite Exhibit No. 1 consisted of nine invoices for legal services and three prebilling reports dated through January 21, 2020, which was the date of the final hearing. One invoice and one prebilling report addressed a separate matter titled "Maitland Rezone." One invoice did not separate Mahaney's petition from a separate petition filed by Corinne Garrett. The time spent on the underlying proceeding and this fees case reflected in the other seven invoices and two prebilling reports, total $16,621.00.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1986, Radar Corporation, owned by Ronald Ross, bought the assets of United Water Consultants, Inc., and continued the business of selling water purifiers under the fictitious name, United Water Consultants. As part of the agreement to purchase the United Water Consultants' assets, Ross, who had no experience in the business, insisted that the seller arrange to have an experienced manager agree to stay on and work for Radar at least until either Ross was able to learn the business adequately or could hire another suitable manager. The seller recommended, and Radar hired as manager, a man named Robert Gillette, who had about 30 years experience in the business. One of the first orders of business for Radar and Gillette was to hire staff, including telephone solicitors, the heart of the business. Among-those Gillette hired were the petitioners--Leisha F. Fickes, Petitioner in Case No. 87-2605, hired in early June, 1986; Marian C. Norz, Petitioner in Case No. 86- 2606, hired in late May, 1986; and Eileen A. Warner, Petitioner in Case No. 86- 2607, hired approximately May 20, 1986. Fickes, Norz and Warner (like all other United Water Consultants personnel) signed agreements shortly after they began work stating that they were independent contractors. But the main purpose of those agreements, as Gillette explained to them, was to help justify Radar's failure to take federal income tax withholding and social security out of their pay checks. Functionally, the petitioners had the attributes of employees. They were under the close supervision, direction and control of Gillette in the day-to-day details of their work. They were paid a salary based on an hourly wage, plus commissions on telephone solicitations that resulted in sales. Soon after the petitioners began work, Gillette began making advances towards them. At first, Gillette was not too bold and some of his advances were innocent enough to be in public. He would do things like come up behind one of them and gently massage her shoulders and neck. This type touching was not entirely unwelcome, especially to someone who had been sitting in one place making telephone calls for some length of time. But very quickly, Gillette began to subject the petitioners to coarse and unwelcomed sexual advances in private. On one occasion, Gillette came in the room where Fickes was working and, after massaging her shoulders, began to try to kiss her neck. On another occasion, Gillette loaned Fickes $20 and implied she could pay him back with sexual favors. Later, he began to take opportunities to drop pens and similar articles down her blouse and offer to retrieve them himself. One day Gillette came up behind Warner after posting recent sales and began to rub her breasts, saying "see what I got for you?" Warner pushed him away, and he angrily stormed out of the office. On one Friday, Gillette offered Warner $20 for oral sex and asked her to think about it. On Monday, Gillette followed up his offer and, when Warner declined the offer, said he thought she probably did it for her husband for free. Later, to punish Warner for her refusal to give him sexual favors, Gillette began to give her customer lists for solicitation bearing the names of people who recently had declined to buy a water purifier, and Warner's commissions dropped. When Warner complained, Gillette hold her, "you do for me, and I'll do for you." When Norz asked Gillette for higher commissions, Gillette also told her that he would get her more money in return for sexual favors. He also told her, when she refused his requests that they go out socially together, that he did not know why she was married to an "old man." As Gillette's conduct worsened, all three of the petitioners separately went directly to Ross to complain. Ross said he would look into the allegations and "take care of it." In fact, Ross did nothing. Although most of Gillette's coarser sexual advances were made in private, Norz once observed Gillette rubbing Warner's shoulders as he closed the door of the room they were in, and Warner once observed Gillette drop an article down Fickes' blouse. As they talked with one another, the petitioners began to realize the extent of Gillette's conduct and decided to approach Ross together to see if they could be more persuasive. On July 11, 1986, the petitioners met Ross in the parking lot as he came in to work and demanded to speak to him. They reiterated the facts and demanded that Ross fire Gillette or move him out of the telephone room or they would quit. Ross asked them to come back after lunch. Meanwhile, Ross confronted Gillette for the first time, and Gillette denied the allegations. Gillette demanded a direct confrontation with the petitioners, thinking they would back down. At the meeting after lunch, the petitioners re-asserted their allegations, and Gillette angrily stormed out of the room, expressing an ultimatum that it looked like it would have to be him or them. Ross, whose business would be seriously adversely affected by the departure of Gillette, his manager, told the petitioners that he would have to discuss the situation with his "colleagues" and would get back with them. They told him that they were anxious to hear from him because they (especially Warner and Fickes) needed the work but that they would no longer work under Gillette. When the petitioners did not hear from Ross, Fickes telephoned him and was told that they all had been fired, allegedly because a customer list had turned up missing. (If true, the petitioners had nothing to do with it.) Later, Ross would maintain that the petitioners voluntarily quit on July 11, 1986. Fickes and Warner earned approximately $220 per week and Norz earned approximately $195 per week at United Water Consultants. Norz made no real effort to mitigate damages by seeking other employment after July 11, 1986. Warner and Fickes, both of whom were pregnant, were unable to find other employment before the birth of their babies in August and November, 1986, respectively. Warner took about six weeks off after childbirth and worked three different jobs from late October, 1986, through July, 1987, each of which paid her approximately $140 per week. Fickes did not return to work until March, 1987, when she began earning approximately $170 per week at a restaurant. /1 At least from the time Radar took over the United Water Consultants business through at least December, 1986, at least five employees worked for the business each and every week. Radar operates the United Water Consultants business out of an address located in Largo, a municipality in Pinellas County other than the City of Clearwater.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Community Relations Board of the City of Clearwater, acting as the Commission that administers Pinellas County Ordinance 84-10, codified under Chapter 17.5 of the Pinellas County Code, enter a final order: Holding the respondents, Radar Corporation and United Water Consultants, guilty of having violated Section 2-17.5-3, Pinellas County Code, by discriminating against the petitioners, Leisha F. Fickes, Marian C. Norz and Eileen A. Warner, in employment on the basis of sex; and Ordering the respondents, Radar Corporation and United Water Consultants, jointly and severally, to pay to Leisha F. Fickes $7,740 and to Eileen A. Warner $5,880 as actual damages RECOMMENDED this 6th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSON 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 6th day of November, 1987.
Findings Of Fact In December, 1993, Suwannee Farms, through one of its partners, Robert Wight, applied to the Department of Environmental Protection for a wastewater treatment facility permit to be constructed on part of its property in Suwannee County, Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection requested clarification or amendment of the initial application. Suwannee Farms amended its initial application and the Department determined that the applicant had provided reasonable assurances of compliance with Florida Statutes and the Department's rules and regulations. The permittee listed on the initial application is Robert Wight. Suwannee Farms is a partnership consisting of Robert Wight and Joseph Hall. The permit is to be issued in the name of Suwannee Farms. Issuance in the name of the partnership is within the scope of the Department of Environmental Protection's authority. On January 25, 1994, the Department issued its Intent to Issue the permit. The intent to issue provided in part: Pursuant to Section 403.815, F.S. and DER Rule 17-103-150, Florida Administrative Code, you (the applicant) are required to publish at your own expense the enclosed Notice of Intent to Issue Permit. The Notice shall be published one time only within 30 days, in the legal ad section of a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected. For the purpose of this rule, "publication in a news- paper of general circulation in the area affected" means publication in a newspaper meeting the requirements of Sections 50.011 and 50.031, F.S., in the county where the activity is to take place. Where there is more than one newspaper of general circulation in the county, the newspaper used must be one with significant circulation in the area that may be affected by the permit. If you are uncertain that a newspaper meets these require- ments, please contact the Department at the address or telephone number listed below. The applicant shall provide proof of publication to the Department, at Northeast District Office, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite B-200, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7577, within seven (7) days of the publication. Failure to publish the notice and provide proof of publication within the allotted time may result in the denial of the permit. The Notice Of Intent to Issue was published in the Gainesville Sun on February 5, 1994. Proof of publication was timely filed with the Department. The Gainesville Sun is a daily newspaper printed in Alachua County, Florida. The paper is available for purchase by the general public in Suwannee County, Florida and is sold to the general public at newspaper racks. Additionally, the Sun is available to residents of Suwannee County, including the area of the proposed project, through subscription and delivery via newspaper carrier "tubes." The Gainesville Sun is the only newspaper of general circulation delivered on a daily basis to homes in the area affected by the proposed permit. The Gainesville Sun contains national, state and local news stories, including local events in Suwannee County. Additionally, the Sun contains a legal ad section. The information in the Sun is of a public character and of interest and value to the residents of Suwannee County.dd The Sun has been published for more than a year in both Alachua and Suwannee Counties. At least twenty-five percent of the words in the Sun are in the English language and is entered as second class mail at the post office. There is no question that the Gainesville Sun meets the legal requirements of the Department for publication of Notices of Intent to Issue Permits in Suwannee County. Therefore, publication of the Intent to Issue Permit for the proposed wastewater facility involved in this case was appropriate. Through discovery and after an order compelling such answers, the Petitioner listed her objections to the issuance of the permit generally as noncompliance with nitrate level regulations, noncompliance with fencing regulations, noncompliance with set-back regulations and noncompliance with excessive noise and odor regulations. The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the proposed wastewater treatment facility and land application meet the requirements of Florida Statutes and the Department's rules in the areas specified by the Petitioner as well as other areas of the statutes and rules. Suffice it to say that Petitioner offered no evidence which even remotely demonstrated that the Suwannee Farms permit did not meet these requirements or in some way failed to reasonably assure the Department that the requirements for a wastewater treatment permit with rapid rate land application would be met. Indeed, the only evidence in this case demonstrated that the technology proposed for the wastewater plant and rapid rate land application has been in use for a long time and has historically either met or exceeded the Department's requirements for nitrates (not to exceed 12 milligrams per liter), noise, odor and fecal coliform. There was no evidence submitted that would cause one to conclude that the technology for this facility would not perform as it has in the past at other locations. The plans of the facility clearly show adequate fencing and that the percolation ponds will be set-back at least 500 feet from any wells and at least 100 feet from any property line. Both fencing and pond location meet the requirements of Florida Statutes and Departmental rule. Given these facts, Petitioner has shown its entitlement to a construction permit for its proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order granting the application of Suwannee Farms for a wastewater treatment facility and rapid land application permit. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 4th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2800 1. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen C. Bullock P. O. Box 447 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Assistant General Counsel D E P 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Frederick L. Koberlein P. O. Drawer 2349 Lake City, FL 32056-2349 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary D E P 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel D E P 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s performance under its lawn care service contract with the Department of Management Services was deficient, and, if so, whether the amounts deducted by the Department from the monthly payments made to Petitioner under the contract were reasonable and appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner provides lawn care services to residential and commercial properties in the central Florida area. Andre Smith is Petitioner’s owner and president. In November 2004, the Department entered into a contract with Petitioner for lawn care services at nine Department buildings. The contract was awarded to Petitioner through a competitive procurement process in which Petitioner was the low bidder. The contract number was ITN No. 26-991- 490-Z. Petitioner was to be paid a total of $7,384.92 per month under the contract. Each of the nine buildings was apportioned a specific amount of the total price in the contract. The scope of work under the contract generally included lawn care services, open field mowing, and irrigation system maintenance. The lawn care services required under the contract included mowing, edging, weed control, fertilizing, watering, shrub and tree pruning, mulching, and clean-up. The contract specified the frequency that the services were to be performed. Mowing was to be done weekly between April and November, and every two weeks between December and March; hedges and shrubs were to be trimmed at least monthly unless more frequent trimming was required for aesthetic reasons; and mulching was to be done in March and September. The contract required Petitioner to take soil samples at the beginning of the contract and annually thereafter. The results of the soil samples were to be used to determine whether Petitioner needed to apply iron, lime, or other minerals to the lawns. The contract required Petitioner to inspect each building’s irrigation system at the beginning of the contract, and required Petitioner to provide a report to the building manager regarding any repair work needed on the system. Petitioner was also required to check the irrigation system on every visit to ensure that it was operating properly. The contract required Petitioner to apply pre-emergent weed control and fertilizer. The weed control was to be applied in the spring and the fall, and the fertilizer was to be applied three times during the year on an agreed upon schedule. The mulching required by the contract was to be done in March and September. The mulch was to be maintained at a depth of four inches throughout the year. The contract required Petitioner to use cypress mulch. The day-to-day operation of the buildings subject to the contract was the responsibility of on-site building managers, not the Department staff in Tallahassee. The building managers were responsible for the direct oversight of Petitioner’s work under the contract, and they were also responsible for reviewing and evaluating Petitioner’s performance. Petitioner began providing services under the contract in December 2004. Petitioner received full payment from the Department for the services that it provided from December 2004 through March 2005, even though several of the building managers were not satisfied with Petitioner’s performance under the contract during that period. Several of the building managers spoke with Mr. Smith regarding their concerns with Petitioner’s performance under the contract. They also documented Petitioner’s performance deficiencies on the monthly summary report forms that the contract required Petitioner to submit in order to obtain payment. Starting in April 2005, the building managers were required to fill out evaluation forms in addition to the monthly summary report forms. The impetus for the creation and use of the evaluation forms was Petitioner’s continuing unsatisfactory performance under the contract. The building managers used the evaluation forms to rate Petitioner’s performance as “good,” “fair,” or “poor” on the 20 categories of service that Petitioner was required to perform under the contract. Each service was assigned an equal weight -- e.g., one twentieth or five percent of the contract -- and if all 20 services were not applicable to a particular building, the weight assigned to each service was adjusted accordingly. The evaluation form was developed by Kris Parks, who was the contract administrator for Petitioner’s contract. Ms. Parks developed the form on her own. She did not get the input of the building managers in developing the form, and Mr. Smith was not consulted regarding the development of the form. The evaluation forms were used by Ms. Parks in conjunction with the monthly summary report forms in order to reduce the payments made to Petitioner under the contract. Each service for which Petitioner was given a “poor” rating by a building manager resulted in a five percent deduction in the amount paid to Petitioner. Typically, a “poor” rating reflected work that was not performed at all by Petitioner, rather than work that was performed unsatisfactorily. In some situations, a smaller deduction was made if the comments on the evaluation form or the monthly summary report form reflected partial performance despite the “poor” rating. For example, if Petitioner received a “poor” rating for mowing, but the comments reflected that Petitioner provided services twice during the month rather than the required four times, the deduction was 2.5 percent rather than five percent. The reduction of payments under the contract for unsatisfactory performance or unperformed work is specifically authorized by Section 3.13 of the contract. Section 3.13 of the contract states that the monthly summary report form “will be used by [the building managers] to track performance of services, in order to determine a proportional deduction in payment for services that are not performed as agreed” in the contract. It does not mention any other form. The contract does not define “proportional deduction” and it does not include the methodology to be used in calculating the deduction. The contract is silent on those issues. Petitioner’s contract with the Department was amended in May 2005 to reduce the number of buildings that Petitioner served from nine to three. The three remaining buildings were the ones closest to Petitioner’s business location in Lakeland, i.e., the Hargrett and Trammel Buildings in Tampa and the Peterson Building in Lakeland. The reduction in the scope of the contract was the result of Petitioner’s continuing unsatisfactory performance under the contract, and it reflected the Department’s well- founded view that Petitioner was not able to handle all nine buildings. The Department staff was trying to help Mr. Smith by allowing Petitioner to retain a portion of the contract rather than canceling the contract altogether based upon Petitioner’s poor performance. The invoices submitted by Petitioner for April 2005 through July 2005 were as follows: $7,384.92 (April); $7,384.92 (May); $1,938.64 (June); and $1,938.64 (July). The April and May invoices were based upon the nine buildings served by Petitioner in those months. The June and July invoices were based upon the three buildings served by Petitioner in those months. The Department did not pay the invoices for April 2005 through July 2005 in full. It paid Petitioner $2,451.782 for April (33.2 percent of the invoice), $835.82 for May (11.6 percent), $453.393 for June (23.4 percent), and $904.66 for July (46.7 percent). The amounts deducted -- $4,933.14 for April; $6,531.10 for May; $1,485.25 for June; and $1,033.98 for July -- were based upon the Department’s determination that Petitioner failed to perform certain work under the contract. The amounts deducted were calculated by Ms. Parks using the information provided to her by the building managers on the evaluation forms, as described above. The letters by which the Department informed Petitioner of the payment reductions advised Petitioner that it “may have the right to an administrative hearing regarding this matter, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.” The letters explained what Petitioner was required to do to request a hearing and advised Petitioner that the "[f]ailure to timely request a hearing will be deemed a waiver of [the] right to a hearing." Petitioner timely filed letters challenging the deductions for April, June, and July 2005. The total deductions for those months were $7,452.37. Petitioner did not file anything challenging the deduction for May 2005. Therefore, the $6,531.10 deduction for that month is not at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner is not entitled to the full amount billed to the Department for April, June, and July 2005 because all of the services required under the contract were not performed during those months. Mr. Smith conceded this point in his testimony at the final hearing.4 Mr. Smith contended at the hearing that the amounts deducted by the Department were not reasonable in light of the services that Petitioner did provide. However, Mr. Smith did not identify what he would consider to be a reasonable deduction for the work that Petitioner admittedly did not perform. Petitioner routinely failed to provide mowing services at each of the buildings at the intervals required under the contract. For example, Petitioner only mowed one time during the month of June 2005 at the Hargrett and Trammel Buildings, rather than the four times required under the contract. Petitioner did not put down mulch at any of the buildings in March 2005, as required by the contract. When the building managers asked Mr. Smith about the mulch, he told them that he would get to it. Mr. Smith testified that he was told by the Department staff in Tallahassee that the mulch could be put down in any month so long as it was done twice a year. That uncorroborated, self-serving testimony was not persuasive. Petitioner put down mulch at some, but not all of the buildings in April and May 2005. The mulch that Petitioner put down did not cover all of the areas requiring mulch and it was not put down at the required four-inch depth. At the Trammel Building, for example, the mulch put down by Petitioner was less than half of that required by the contract. No mulch was ever put down at the Hurston Building in Orlando or the Grizzle Building in Largo. Petitioner’s performance was often deficient in regards to trimming and clean-up of debris. For example, on one occasion at the Trammel Building, Petitioner left more than 60 bags of leaves in and around the building’s dumpster; at the Hargrett building, there were overhanging tree limbs that went untrimmed for an extended period; and Petitioner routinely failed to do trimming at the Grizzle Building, although he did a good job picking up debris at that building. The services provided by Petitioner at the Trammel Building got so bad that the building manager had to hire another company at a cost of approximately $1,800 to clean up the site so that it would be presentable for an event in the vicinity of the building that was attended by a U.S. Senator and other dignitaries. The building managers were never given the results of the soil samples that Petitioner was required to take at the beginning of the contract even though they repeatedly requested that information. When Mr. Smith was asked about the soil samples by the building managers, he told them that he would get them done. Mr. Smith claimed at the hearing that he sent the results of the soil samples to the Department staff in Tallahassee, although he could not recall whom specifically he sent the results to, and he offered no documentation to corroborate his testimony on this issue. Petitioner’s testimony regarding the soil samples was not persuasive. The Department’s witnesses credibly testified that they never received the results of the soil samples from Petitioner. Indeed, the evidence was not persuasive that Petitioner ever took the soil samples required by the contract. The print-outs presented at the final hearing, Exhibit DMS-11, do not have any identifying information that would corroborate Mr. Smith’s testimony that the samples described in the print- outs were from the buildings that were the subject of the contract.5 Moreover, the print-outs are dated March 8, 2005, which is more than four months after the samples were supposed to have been taken by Petitioner, and several of the soil samples had pH levels outside of the range set forth in the contract. Mr. Smith testified that Petitioner applied fertilizer and pre-emergent weed control at each of the buildings, as required by the contract. That uncorroborated, self-serving testimony was not persuasive. The more persuasive evidence establishes that Petitioner did not apply fertilizer or pre-emergent weed control. On this issue, the building managers credibly testified that they were never advised by Mr. Smith that the fertilizer or pre-emergent weed control was being applied, even though those services were to supposed be performed pursuant to a schedule agreed upon with the building managers; the building managers credibly testified that they did not observe any signs that fertilizer had been applied, such as the greening of the grass; and fertilizer could not have been applied at the Hurston Building without killing all of the grass because the fertilizer needs to be watered into the lawn, and the sprinkler system at the building was not working at the time. Petitioner failed to perform the required inspection of the irrigation system at several of the buildings, including the Hurston Building, at the beginning of the contract in order to determine whether any repairs needed to be done. The system at the Hurston Building did not work for an extended period of time, which caused large sections of grass around the building to die from a lack of water. The performance deficiencies described above were cited on the monthly summary report forms and the evaluation forms completed by the building managers, which in turn were used by Ms. Parks to calculate the amount deducted from the monthly payments made to Petitioner under the contract. Petitioner was responsible for the costs of the mulch, fertilizer, and pre-emergent weed control required under the contract. The money that Petitioner “saved” by not providing those services likely exceeds the amounts deducted by the Department pursuant to Section 3.13 of the contract. For example, the mulch purchased by Petitioner for the Trammell Building cost approximately $2,250, and that was only half of the mulch needed for that building alone. Petitioner is no longer providing lawn care services to the Department under the contract. The contract was revoked based upon Petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance. The revocation of the contract, which occurred at some point prior to August 2005, is not at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a final order rejecting Petitioner’s challenge to the payment reductions made by the Department for the months of April, June, and July 2005. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd of November, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing; the following facts relevant to the issue presented for determination are found: The prime complaint heard from petitioner's customers who testified at the hearing was the objectionable odor of the water received in their homes. The water was described as smelling like chlorine or like sewer, swamp or sulphur water. Such an objectionable odor affects the water's taste, and several customers testified that they were compelled to use filters to make the water bearable to drink. Another witness testified that the water tasted like quinine. Other complaints regarding the quality of water provided by petitioner to its customers included the presence of debris, such as sand, silt or dirt, in the water, the staining of white sinks by the water and inadequate water pressure. Complaints with regard to the service provided by petitioner to its customers were also voiced. These complaints included interruptions in water service without prior notice, the presence of air in the water lines and the necessity of making long-distance telephone calls to Orlando when inquiring about their bills. One customer testified that even though he had paid for a temporary disconnection of his water when he was away from his residence, he was still billed a minimum charge for service. Several customers testified that petitioner's office personnel failed to timely or adequately respond to their complaints or inquiries regarding their bills. Charles Sweat, the vice president of operations for petitioner's fifty- one systems in eight counties, visits each of the systems at least once a month. At the time that petitioner took over the operation of the Intercession City water system in 1977, the system was under citation by the Department of Environmental Regulation for inadequate chlorination of the water. The Department of Environmental Regulation does have a minimum requirement as to the amount of chlorine which must be added to the water. Petitioner corrected this deficiency and the citation was removed. Neither of the two water systems involved in this proceeding - Intercession City and Tropical Park - are presently under citation by any state or local regulatory agency. Analyses of monthly laboratory samples of water from the Intercession City and the Tropical Park systems indicate that the water quality will meet the Department of Environmental Regulation's secondary drinking water standards which went into effect on January 13, 1981. Petitioner now provides a toll-free telephone number which Osceola County customers may use to call Orlando. Notice of this toll-free number was included in the water bills sent to customers in September or October of 1980. A log is maintained by petitioner of all interruptions of water service. On one occasion occurring on March 3, 1980, there was a water outage. The outage was caused by low temperatures freezing the pressure switch at a time when it was at a high pressure level. When there was no pressure, the switch, being frozen, was incapable of sending an on-signal to the pump. It was necessary for petitioner to use torches to thaw out the pipes to make the system work properly. Cold weather sufficient to cause such an effect rarely occurs in Florida. On January 16, 1981, there was an interruption in service caused by the county cutting a water line. Another interruption of service occurred on January 18, 1981. This was caused by the malfunction of an air release valve which releases excess air from the pressure tank. Air was eventually caused to go into the distribution system and consequently into the homes of the customers. Petitioner's personnel have been instructed to watch this type of situation more carefully and more often. Petitioner's vice president of operations was not aware of recent complaints from customers concerning air problems, but testified that he would immediately and personally follow up on the problem.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the quality of water service provided by petitioner to its customers in Osceola County be found to be satisfactory and that no adverse consequences be imposed upon the petitioner in its application for a rate increase as a result of the quality of its service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R.M.C. Rose Myers, Kaplan, Levinson, Kenin and Richards Suite 103, 1020 Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Shreve Public Counsel Room 4 - Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Robert Christ Legal Department Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
