The Issue The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. To promote affordable housing in Florida, Florida Housing offers a variety of programs to distribute housing credits. (Housing credits, also known as tax credits, are a dollar-for-dollar offset of federal income tax liability.) One of these programs is the State Apartment Incentive Loan program (“SAIL”), which provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers. SAIL funds are available each year to support the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low- income individuals and families. See § 420.5087, Fla. Stat. Additional sources of financial assistance include the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond program (“MMRB”) and non- competitive housing credits. Florida Housing administers the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funds, nontaxable revenue bonds, and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation. Florida Housing initiates the competitive application process by issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). The Request for Application at issue in this matter is RFA 2017-108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments to Be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt Bond Financing and Non-Competitive Housing Credits.” Florida Housing issued RFA 2017-108 on August 31, 2017. Applications were due by October 12, 2017.6/ The purpose of RFA 2017-108 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing intends to award approximately $87,000,000 for proposed developments serving elderly and family demographic groups in small, medium, and large counties. RFA 2017-108 allocates $46,279,600 to large counties, $32,308,400 to medium counties, and $8,732,000 to small counties. RFA 2017-108 established goals to fund: Two Elderly, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; Three Family, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; One Elderly, new construction Application located in a Medium County; and Two Family, new construction Applications located in Medium Counties. Thirty-eight developers submitted applications in response to RFA 2017-108. Of these applicants, Florida Housing found 28 eligible for funding, including all Petitioners and Intervenors in this matter. Florida Housing received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2017-108, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67- 48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. RFA 2017-108 provided that applicants were scored based on certain demographic and geographic funding tests. Florida Housing sorted applications from the highest scoring to the lowest. Only applications that met all the eligibility requirements were eligible for funding and considered for selection. Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to review and score each application. On November 15, 2017, the Review Committee announced its scores at a public meeting and recommended which projects should be awarded funding. On December 8, 2017, the Review Committee presented its recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors for final agency action. The Board of Directors subsequently approved the Review Committee’s recommendations and announced its intention to award funding to 16 applicants. As a preliminary matter, prior to the final hearing, Florida Housing agreed to the following reassessments in the scoring and selection of the applications for funding under RFA 2017-108: SP Lake and Osprey Pointe: In the selection process, Florida Housing erroneously determined that SP Lake was eligible to meet the funding goal for the “Family” demographic for the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. (SP Lake specifically applied for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Consequently, Florida Housing should have selected Osprey Pointe to meet the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. Osprey Pointe proposed to construct affordable housing in Pasco County, Florida. Florida Housing represents that Osprey Pointe is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (While Osprey Pointe replaces SP Lake in the funding selection for the “Family” demographic, SP Lake remains eligible for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Sierra Bay and Northside II: In the scoring process, Florida Housing erroneously awarded Sierra Bay proximity points for Transit Services. Upon further review, Sierra Bay should have received zero proximity points. Consequently, Sierra Bay’s application is ineligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. By operation of the provisions of RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing should have selected Northside II (the next highest ranked, eligible applicant) for funding to meet the Elderly, Large County, New Construction Goal. Florida Housing represents that Northside II is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. Harbour Springs: Florida Housing initially deemed Harbour Springs eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108 and selected it to meet the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal. However, because Harbour Springs and Woodland Grove are owned by the same entity and applied using the same development site, under rule 67-48.004(1), Harbour Springs is ineligible for funding. (Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove for funding for the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal, is not affected by this determination.) The sole disputed issue of material fact concerns Liberty Square’s challenge to Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Liberty Square and Woodland Grove applied to serve the same demographic population under RFA 2017-108. If Liberty Square successfully challenges Woodland Grove’s application, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, will be selected for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal instead of Woodland Grove. (At the hearing on December 8, 2017, Florida Housing’s Board of Directors awarded Woodland Grove $7,600,000 in funding.) The focus of Liberty Square’s challenge is the information Woodland Grove provided in response to RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d., entitled “Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.” Liberty Square argues that Woodland Grove’s application is ineligible because its Development Location Point, as well as the locations of its Community Services and Transit Services, are inaccurate. Therefore, Woodland Grove should have received zero “Proximity” points which would have disqualified its application for funding. RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d(1), states, in pertinent part: All Applicants must provide a Development Location Point stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. RFA 2017-108 set forth scoring considerations based on latitude/longitude coordinates in Section Four, A.5.e, entitled “Proximity.” Section Four, A.5.e, states, in pertinent part: The Application may earn proximity points based on the distance between the Development Location Point and the Bus or Rail Transit Service . . . and the Community Services stated in Exhibit A. Proximity points will not be applied to the total score. Proximity points will only be used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference ” In other words, the Development Location Point identified the specific location of an applicant’s proposed housing site.7/ Applicants earned “proximity points” based on the distance between its Development Location Point and selected Transit and Community Services. Florida Housing also used the Development Location Point to determine whether an application satisfied the Mandatory Distance Requirement under RFA 2017-108, Section Four A.5.f. To be eligible for funding, all applications had to qualify for the Mandatory Distance Requirement. The response section to Section Four, A.5.d., is found in Exhibit A, section 5, which required each applicant to submit information regarding the “Location of proposed Development.” Section 5 specifically requested: County; Address of Development Site; Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites?; Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Proximity; Mandatory Distance Requirement; and Limited Development Area. Section 5.d. (Latitude and Longitude Coordinates) was subdivided into: (1) Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place In its application, Woodland Grove responded in section 5.a-d as follows: County: Miami-Dade Address of Development Site: NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032. Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites? No. Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 25.518647 Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 80.418583 In plotting geographic coordinates, a “-” (negative) sign in front of the longitude indicates a location in the western hemisphere (i.e., west of the Prime Meridian, which is aligned with the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England). A longitude without a “-” sign places the coordinate in the eastern hemisphere. (Similarly, a latitude with a negative value is south of the equator. A latitude without a “-” sign refers to a coordinate in the northern hemisphere.) As shown above, the longitude coordinate Woodland Grove listed in section 5.d(1) did not include a “-” sign. Consequently, instead of providing a coordinate for a site in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Woodland Grove entered a Development Location Point located on the direct opposite side of the planet (apparently, in India). At the final hearing, Florida Housing (and Woodland Grove) explained that, except for the lack of the “-” sign, the longitude Woodland Grove recorded would have fallen directly on the address it listed as its development site in section 5.b., i.e., the “NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032.” In addition to the longitude in section 5.d., Woodland Grove did not include a “-” sign before the longitude coordinates for its Transit Services in section 5.e(2)(b) or for any of the three Community Services provided in section 5.e(3). Again, without a “-” sign, the longitude for each of these services placed them in the eastern hemisphere (India) instead of the western hemisphere (Miami-Dade County). In its protest, Liberty Square contends that, because Woodland Grove’s application listed a Development Location Point in India, Florida Housing should have awarded Woodland Grove zero proximity points under Section Four, A.5.e. Consequently, Woodland Grove’s application failed to meet minimum proximity eligibility requirements and is ineligible for funding. Therefore, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, should be awarded funding for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108.8/ Liberty Square asserts that a correct Development Location Point is critical because it serves as the beginning point for assigning proximity scores. Waiving an errant Development Location Point makes the proximity scoring meaningless. Consequently, any such waiver by Florida Housing is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to competition. At the final hearing, Woodland Grove claimed that it inadvertently failed to include the “-” sign before the longitude points. To support its position, Woodland Grove expressed that, on the face of its application, it was obviously applying for funding for a project located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, not India. In at least five places in its application, Woodland Grove specified that its proposed development would be located in Miami-Dade County. Moreover, several attachments to Woodland Grove’s application specifically reference a development site in Florida. Woodland Grove attached a purchase agreement for property located in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 8). To satisfy the Ability to Proceed requirements in RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove included several attachments which all list a Miami-Dade address (Attachments 9-14). Further, Woodland Grove submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form executed on behalf of the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which committed Miami-Dade County to contribute $1,000,000.00 to Woodland Grove’s proposed Development (Attachment 15). Finally, to qualify for a basis boost under RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove presented a letter from Miami-Dade County’s Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, which also referenced the address of the proposed development in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 16). In light of this information, Woodland Grove argues that its application, taken as a whole, clearly communicated that Woodland Grove intended to build affordable housing in Miami-Dade County. Nowhere in its application, did Woodland Grove reference a project in India other than the longitude coordinates which failed to include “-” signs. Accordingly, Florida Housing was legally authorized to waive Woodland Grove’s mistake as a “harmless error.” Thus, Florida Housing properly selected the Woodland Grove’s development for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Florida Housing advocates for Woodland Grove’s selection to meet the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017- 108. Florida Housing considers the omission of the “-” signs before the longitude coordinates a “Minor Irregularity” under rule 67-60.002(6). Therefore, Florida Housing properly acted within its legal authority to waive, and then correct, Woodland Grove’s faulty longitude coordinates when scoring its application. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s current Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees the Request for Applications process; although, she did not personally participate in the review, scoring, or selection decisions for RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button initially explained the process by which Florida Housing selected the 16 developments for funding under RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee participants based on the staff member’s experience, preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a backup reviewer to separately score each application. The Review Committee members independently evaluated and scored their assigned portions of the applications based on various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns or questions arose regarding an applicant’s responses, the scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing’s supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final determination as to each application. Ms. Button further explained that applicants occasionally make errors in their applications. However, not all errors render an application ineligible. Florida Housing is authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities.” As delineated in RFA 2017-108, Section Three, A.2.C., Florida Housing may waive “Minor Irregularities” when the errors do not provide a competitive advantage or adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 60.002(6) and 67-60.008. Such was the case regarding Woodland Grove’s application. Heather Green, the Florida Housing staff member who scored the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, waived the inaccurate longitude coordinates as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green then reviewed Woodland Grove’s application as if the proposed development was located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Florida Housing assigned Ms. Green, a Multifamily Loans Manager, as the lead scorer for the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, which included the Development Location Point listed in Exhibit A, section 5.d. Ms. Green has worked for Florida Housing since 2003 and has scored proximity points for Request for Applications for over ten years. At the final hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of Ms. Green. In her deposition, Ms. Green testified that she is fully aware that, to be located in the western hemisphere (i.e., Miami-Dade County), a longitude coordinate should be marked with a negative sign or a “W.” Despite this, Ms. Green felt that the longitude coordinates Woodland Grove used without negative signs, particularly its Development Location Point, were clearly typos or unintentional mistakes. Therefore, Ms. Green waived the lack of a negative sign in front of the longitude coordinates in section 5.d. and section 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green understood that she was authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities” by rule under the Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green felt comfortable waiving the inaccurate longitude coordinates because everywhere else in Woodland Grove’s application specifically showed that its proposed housing development was located in Miami-Dade County, not India. Accordingly, when scoring Woodland Grove’s application, Ms. Green corrected the longitude entries by including a negative sign when she plotted the coordinates with her mapping software. Ms. Green then determined that, when a “-” was inserted before the longitude, the coordinate lined up with the address Woodland Grove listed for the Development Location Point. Therefore, Woodland Grove received proximity points and was eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (See RFA 2017-108, Section Five.A.1.) However, Ms. Green acknowledged that if she had scored the application just as it was presented, Woodland Grove would not have met the required qualifications for eligibility. Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing fully accepted Ms. Green’s decision to waive the missing negative signs in Woodland Grove’s response to section 5.d. and 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Button opined that Woodland Grove’s failure to place a “-” mark before the longitude was clearly an unintentional mistake. Ms. Button further commented that Florida Housing did not believe that scoring Woodland Grove’s development as if located in the western hemisphere (instead of India), provided Woodland Grove a competitive advantage. Because it was evident on the face of the application that Woodland Grove desired to develop a housing site in Miami-Dade County, Ms. Green’s decision to overlook the missing “-” sign did not award Woodland Grove additional points or grant Woodland Grove an advantage over other applicants. Neither did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. However, Ms. Button also conceded that if Ms. Green had scored the application without adding the “-” sign, Woodland Grove would have received zero proximity points. This result would have rendered Woodland Grove’s application ineligible for funding. Ms. Button also pointed out that Ms. Green waived the omission of “-” signs in two other applications as “Minor Irregularities.” Both Springhill Apartments, LLC, and Harbour Springs failed to include negative signs in front of their longitude coordinates. As with Woodland Grove, Ms. Green considered the development sites in those applications as if they were located in Miami-Dade County (i.e., in the western hemisphere). Ms. Green also waived a mistake in the Avery Commons application as a “Minor Irregularity.” The longitude coordinate for the Avery Commons Development Location Point (section 5.d(1)) was blank. However, Ms. Green determined that Avery Commons had placed the longitude in the blank reserved for Scattered Sites coordinates (section 5.d(2)). When scoring Avery Commons’ application, Ms. Green considered the coordinate in the appropriate section. According to Ms. Button, Florida Housing felt that this variation did not provide Avery Commons a competitive advantage. Nor did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Finally, Ms. Button explained that the application Florida Housing used for RFA 2017-108 was a relatively new format. In previous Request For Applications, Florida Housing required applicants to submit a Surveyor Certification Form. On the (now obsolete) Surveyor Certification Form, Florida Housing prefilled in an “N” in front of all the latitude coordinates and a “W” in front of all the longitude coordinates. However, the application used in RFA 2017-108 did not place an “N” or “W” before the Development Location Point coordinates. Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, Liberty Square did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision to award funding to Woodland Grove for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Florida Housing was within its legal authority to waive, then correct, the missing “-” sign in Woodland Grove’s application as “Minor Irregularity.” Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to select Woodland Grove for funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017-108.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protest by Liberty Square. It is further recommended that Florida Housing Finance Corporation rescind the intended awards to Sierra Bay, SP Lake, and Harbour Springs, and instead designate Northside II, Osprey Pointe, and Pembroke Tower Apartments as the recipients of funding under RFA 2017-108.10/ DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 19th day of April, 2018.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a Final Order and therein: Dismiss Counts III-XIX of the Administrative Complaint. Suspend the license of Keith Allen Miller for 90 days and impose a fine of $2,000 based upon Counts I and XX of the Administrative Complaint. Suspend the license of Keith Miller Realty Company for 90 days and impose a fine of $2,000 based upon Counts II and XXI of the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Hadley, Esquire 827 Deltona Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Harold Huff, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Lake Waldena Resort is a mobile home park as defined by Section 723.003(6), Florida Statutes. It is located at Route 4, Box 300, Silver Springs, Florida 32688. The mobile home park is subject to regulation pursuant to Section 723.002(1), Florida Statutes. That law is administered by the Petitioner. All Respondents are mobile home park owners as defined by Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes. The Hilgemans are park owners and have been at all relevant times for this dispute. At the times relevant to the inquiry Pat Montgomery was the park operator, which equates to park owner under the terms of the statute. Pat Montgomery concluded her affiliation with Lake Waldena Resort in May 1989. Pat Montgomery, as the park operator, who had been employed by Donald L. Hilgeman, collected the rent from the mobile homeowners who had lots within the park. She attended any problems that the mobile homeowners confronted her with. She ordered supplies for the operation of the mobile home park. She sold mobile homes for use in the park and ordered them for sale. She was involved with the provision of carports and screen rooms associated with mobile homes in the park. She was responsible for the payroll and basically everything that transpired in the day-to- day operations in the mobile home park. The Hilgemans had limited affiliation with the park. Mr. Hilgeman was involved with doing physical labor at the park and was Montgomery's employer. On July 26, 1988, a notice of lot rental increase was mailed to all tenants in the Lake Waldena Resort Mobile Home Park. This notice was provided in accordance with Rule 7D-32.002(1), Florida Administrative Code. The basis for this increase was associated with the economic pressures on the park owner brought about by increases in real estate taxes, insurance costs, sanitation fees, other fees payable to the Petitioner, and wage increases. An exemplar of the form notice which had been sent out to each mobile home owner may be seen in Respondents' Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. All notices were dispatched by U.S. Mail. As contemplated by Rule 7D-32.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, official notice was considered to have been made within five days of July 26, 1988, which corresponded to July 31, 1988. A meeting within 30 days of the provision of notice as described in Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, would equate to August 30, 1988. The proposed lot increase was from $78 to $88. At the time of notification of the lot increase Lloyd Carter was the vice president of the homeowners' association at Lake Waldena Resort. He was residing in the mobile home park. Gordon Gibson was the president of the homeowner's association who, at the moment of the lot increase, was residing in Minden, Ontario, Canada. Mr. Carter picked up a copy of the notice of lot rental increase from the office at the mobile home park shortly after the notice had been prepared on July 26, 1988. He then called Mr. Gibson in Canada and explained the particulars of that notice. At that time, Mr. Carter stated no concerns to Mr. Gibson about the notice of lot rental increase. He merely informed Mr. Gibson of the pendency of the lot rental increase. Under ordinary circumstances the' expected time for delivery of mail dispatched from the United States to Canada was in the neighborhood of five to seven days; however, in August 1988, the Canadians were undergoing a postal strike which delayed matters. Nonetheless, Mr. Gibson received his copy of the notice and on August 4, 1988, he wrote Mr. Hilgeman. A copy of that correspondence may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. Mr. Gibson informed Mr. Hilgeman in that correspondence that he wished to have a meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The meeting would be attended by a committee of not more than four persons under the direction of Mr. Carter. He asked that the meeting be held at a convenient time prior to August 26, 1988. The basis for Mr. Gibson's action in which he requested a meeting with the park owner was through the process of discussion with his board of directors in independent conversations in which it was decided that a meeting was desired. A meeting to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase was not held before August 26, 1988, or before August 30, 1988. When Mr. Gibson sent his August 4, 1988 correspondence he was aware of the problems of the postal strike in Canada and the delay that this might promote in the receipt of his letter by the park owner. He had not instructed Mr. Carter to make any contact with the park owner prior to the park owner's receipt of the correspondence which outlined the fact of Mr. Carter's duties as chairman of the committee. The return receipt correspondence from Gibson to Hilgeman dated August 4, 1988, was received by, Pat Montgomery in mid August 1988. By correspondence of August 22, 1988, addressed from Mr. Hilgeman to Mr. Gibson, a copy of which may be seen as Respondents' Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman demanded of Mr. Gibson that he confirm that a majority of the Lake Waldena residents had in fact selected Mr. Gibson to represent them. Reference is made in that letter to section 723.078(2)(b), Florida Statutes, having to do with the requirements for bylaws in homeowners' associations. This request of Mr. Gibson is not a prerogative of Mr. Hilgeman as park owner in dealing with the issue of the conduct of the meeting. Nor is it available to Mr. Hilgeman to remind Mr. Gibson that he had to comply Section 723.037(1), Florida Statutes or Section 723.076(1), Florida Statutes. To the extent that those provisions have any relevance to the homeowners' association, the former pertains to standing to challenge increases in such things as the lot rental amount through the homeowners' association, something that the park owner is not called upon to advise the homeowners' association about. This question of standing does not enter in to the matter of the ability to represent mobile home owners at a meeting pursuant to Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes, for purposes of discussing the lot rental increase. Likewise, the latter statutory reference that describes the idea of incorporation of a homeowners' association and the need to notify the park owner is not associated with the meeting to discuss the purposes of the lot rental increase. On the other hand, when Mr. Hilgeman referred to Rules 7D-32.003(1) and 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Code, those are provisions which have some significance in considering the matter of a meeting to discuss a lot rental increase. Rule 7D-32.004(2), Florida Administrative Codes, states: If requested to do so by the park owner or subdivision developer, the committee shall certify that it has been selected as described Rule 7D-32.003, Florida Administrative Code. The certification shall include a certificate of all members of the committee attesting to its proper formation under the statute in these rules. Significantly, that provision does not describe the relationship of such a request to the obligation of the park owner to meet within 30 days of notice of lot rental increase as contemplated by Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. None of the principals, given the statutory scheme and rules that were designed to effectuate the purposes of the statute, could have reasonably understood on what terms the park owner was entitled to make this request taking into account the complications of corresponding back and forth between the United States and Canada in the midst of a mail strike, the consequence of which made it unlikely that the meeting would take place on or before August 30, 1988. In the conclusions of law a discussion is made of the effect of the request for certification and whether it tolls the time for conducting the informational session to discuss the reasons for the lot rental increase. The envelope for the August 22, 1988 correspondence was stamped in the United States on August 23, 1988, in Bradenton, Florida. It also bears a date of August 29, 1988, which is seen as a part of the verification of receipt of that letter in Canada. Mr. Gibson received the Hilgeman correspondence of August 22, 1988 on August 29, 1988. Mr. Carter also received a copy of the August 22, 1988 correspondence by Mr. Hilgeman and had a discussion with Mr. Hilgeman about that letter sometime around August 23 or August 24, 1988. That conversation took place in the mobile home park. This did not lead to the resolution of the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman to the homeowners' association. It was left to Mr. Gibson to take care of the response to the request for certification. In the conversation being described, between Hilgeman and Carter, Carter made it known that he intended to complain to the Petitioner about the park owner not meeting with the homeowners' committee within 30 days of notice. A complaint was made as may be seen in a copy of that complaint which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. That complaint was sent out on August 26, 1988. The basis for the homeowners' association complaining to the Petitioner was related to their concern that they preserve their right to have the meeting even if it transpired beyond the 30 days contemplated in the statute. Notwithstanding the complaint's existence, Mr. Gibson went forward with his attempts to try to satisfy Mr. Hilgeman concerning certification and did so with the assistance of Victor Davis a member of the board of directors of the homeowners' association. Mr. Gibson's attitude about this was to the effect that the request by Mr. Hilgeman was a legitimate request that should be complied with. A discussion had also been held between Carter and Hilgeman on August 18, 1988, in which Mr. Hilgeman gave advance notice of the fact that he needed several questions answered and that there would be a delay in the meeting. The indication was made that a letter would be sent to Mr. Gibson to have those questions answered. That eventuated in the August 22, 1988 correspondence from Hilgeman to Gibson. Upon making these matters known to Mr. Carter on August 18, 1988, Mr. Carter's only remark was that this would be "fine." On September 9, 1988, a letter was written from Ralph B. Murray, Jr., Specialist Enforcement Section, Bureau of Mobile Homes within the Petitioner's department which was sent to Mr. Hilgeman reminding him of the necessity to respond to allegations that had been made by the Lake Waldena Resort Homeowners' Association concerning the claim that Mr. Hilgeman had refused to meet with those mobile homeowners in the statutorily prescribed time as announced at Section 723.037(3), Florida Statutes. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 9, admitted into evidence. On September 13, 1988, by correspondence, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence, Mr. Hilgeman offered his reply. He tells Mr. Murray that he is not sure whether the homeowners' association is legitimate and that they had not responded to his August 22, 1988 correspondence to Mr. Gibson which he enclosed in his letter to Mr. Murray. He spoke of delays in the mailing time for mail coming from Canada. He makes mention of the fact of having informed Mr. Carter that the manager, who was Ms. Montgomery was on vacation and would not return until August 30, 1988. In fact, Ms. Montgomery was not available to meet with the homeowners' association in the period August 18 through August 30, 1988. This would not have relieved Mr. Hilgeman of the necessity to meet with the homeowners' association on or before August 30, 1988, had they complied with his request for certification prior to that date. They did not. Compliance with the certification process was achieved by correspondence of September 12, 1988 from Gibson to Hilgeman in which he sets out the explanation of certification of the credentials of the homeowners' association to form a committee and meet with the park owner. That was received by the park owner on September 19, 1988, in the person of Pat Montgomery. A copy of this correspondence and the certification of receipt may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. After receipt of the information concerning the certification of the homeowners' association committee, Mr. Hilgeman sent a letter to Mr. Carter on September 29, 1988, to establish a meeting. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 13 admitted into evidence. It outlines the fact that Mr. Hilgeman is sufficiently satisfied concerning the certification to have the meeting and offers a meeting prior to October 4, 1988 or after October 9, 1988, and invites Mr. Carter to consult with Pat Montgomery to establish a mutually convenient time for the meeting. A meeting was held between Mr. Murray and Mr. Hilgeman in October, 1988, in which a discussion ensued concerning whether or not Mr. Hilgeman himself would meet with the homeowners' committee. Mr. Hilgeman held firm in his attitude that his manager Pat Montgomery would be available to meet with the homeowners' committee, but that Mr. Hilgeman would not be meeting with them. As explained in the correspondence of October 14, 1988, addressed from Mr. Carter to Mr. Murray, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 14 admitted into evidence, contact was made between Carter and Montgomery and Carter was told on October 11, 1988 that a meeting would be held at 10:00 a.m. on October 14, 1988, between Montgomery and the committee. She was told by Carter that this meeting would not be acceptable unless Mr. Hilgeman was in attendance. Based upon conversations with Mr. Murray, the homeowners' association had been persuaded that it was only appropriate to meet with Mr. Hilgeman. Consequently, by this logic it was not appropriate to meet with Ms. Montgomery. A copy of this correspondence of August 14, 1988 was made available to Mr. Hilgeman. On June 7, 1989, the Petitioner brought an action against the Respondent and he sought a formal hearing which was conducted on February 22, 1990. Prior to that hearing the homeowners did have their meeting with Mr. Hilgeman on November 14, 1989, in which they were made aware of the reasons for the lot rental increase. The homeowners accepted the explanation and the idea of the increase and do not desire to pursue the present complaint against the Respondents. When Mr. Hilgeman sought certification of the credentials of the committee assigned by the homeowners association he was acting in good faith. In addition, he was entitled to look to Pat Montgomery as park operator and by consequence park owner under the definition of Section 723.003(7), Florida Statutes, to speak for him in the course of the meeting to discuss the lot rental increase. The misconception of the committee of mobile home owners concerning the necessity to meet with Mr. Hilgeman and not with his park operator, as fostered by the remarks of Mr. Murray, who lead those mobile homeowners to believe that they could only meet with Mr. Hilgeman, caused a delay in arranging the meeting. Mr. Hilgeman should not be hold accountable for that delay.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered that dismisses these actions against the Respondents. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 18th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-4100 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1-9 are subordinate to facts found. Although Paragraph 10 is an accurate portrayal of the meeting of August 24, 1988 between Mr. Carter and Mr. Hilgeman, it should be stated that any meeting to discuss lot rental increase was contingent upon the response to the certification request made by Mr. Hilgeman and replied to by Mr. Gibson on a date beyond the 30 day period. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 13, whatever Mr. Hilgeman perceptions would be about the role of Ms. Montgomery, whether she was considered to be the same as an attorney representing or in some other capacity, in law she was a park owner and entitled to act in behalf of the park owners at the meeting. Concerning Paragraph 14, the effect of failing to respond to the request for certification within the 30 day period was tantamount to a waiver or agreement to meet at a time later. Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 16, to the extent this paragraph suggests that the length of the meeting or breadth of detail in the explanation made by Mr. Hilgeman was inadequate, that idea is rejected in that sufficient explanation was given to comply with the requirements of law. The comments in Paragraph 17 are not relevant. The accommodation that was made between counsel was not a necessary arrangement to mitigate the circumstance in an instance where Respondent Donald L. Hilgeman had violated Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. This meeting was beneficial to the homeowners and park owners alike, but came at this late date based upon the failure of the homeowners to meet with Pat Montgomery over a year earlier. Respondents' Facts Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution to the dispute. Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of those two sentences that come before the last sentence in that paragraph. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and all sentences save the last of Paragraph 6 are subordinate to facts found. That sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 7 through 11 with the exception of the second sentence in Paragraph 11 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is misleading in that it intimates that Mr. Carter was derelict in his duties to make contact with Mr. Hilgeman to establish a meeting; however, the contacts that were made were in accordance with the expectations of Mr. Hilgeman and Mr. Gibson who were controlling the timing of that meeting. Paragraphs 14 through 16 with the exception of the last sentence to Paragraph 16 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence to Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the last sentence which is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraph 21 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and is an inaccurate portrayal of the requirements of law as to gaining the approval of the majority of homeowners before representing them in the course of a meeting to discuss lot rental increases. Paragraphs 22 through 25 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 David D. Eastman, Esquire Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Susan C. Marvin Pamela Leslie Assistants General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL, 32399-1007
Conclusions DOAH No. 14-248 ACHA No. 2013006534 DOAH No. 14-528 ACHA No. 2013007612 DOAH No. 14-521 ACHA No. 2013010196 Having reviewed the Administrative Complaints and Notices of Intent to Deny, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over Senior Care Group, Inc. d/b/a Lakeshore Villas Health Care Center pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaints and Notices of Intent to Deny and Election of Rights forms to Senior Care Group, Inc. d/b/a Lakeshore Villas Health Care Center. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights forms advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Notice of Intent to Deny is superseded by this Agreement. 3. Senior Care Group, Inc. d/b/a Lakeshore Villas Health Care Center shall pay the Agency $25,500.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4. Conditional licensure status is imposed on Senior Care Group, Inc. d/b/a Lakeshore Villas Health Care Center beginning on April 12, 2013. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 23 day of [Ma toh , 2014. Dg Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this 3/ day of nr. ‘A ; , 2014. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Thomas J. Walsh II | Anna G. Small, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Allen Dell, P.A. Agency for Health Care Administration 202 South Rome Avenue (Electronic Mail) Tampa, Florida 33606 (U.S. Mail) Linzie F. Bogan Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) | aA DECOY 7] Certified Article Number 7256 9008 Will see W925 SENDERS RECORD FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION aaa Better Health Care for all Floridians SEA ORETARY. EK May 22, 2013 ADMINISTRATOR minty RECERVED LAKESHORE VILLAS HEALTH CARE CENTER C!LIFY INTAKE UnpLICENSE NUMBER: 1282096 16002 LAKESHORE VILLA DR we FILE NUMBER: 62921 TAMPA, FL 33613 MAY & 2043 CASE #: 2013005471 Agency for Health NOTICE 6f INFENTIO.DENY Dear Ms. Johnson: It is the decision of this Agency that Lakeshore Villas Health Care Center’s license renewal application for a nursing home be DENIED. The specific basis for the Agency’s decision is based on the following grounds: e Pursuant to section 400.121(3)(d), F.S., the Agency shall revoke or deny a nursing home license for two class I deficiencies arising from separate surveys within a 30 month period. Lakeshore Villas Health Care Center was cited for Class I deficiencies on October 13, 2011 and November 14, 2012. e = Section 408.815(1), F.S., states that in addition to the grounds provided in authorizing statutes, grounds that may be used by the agency for denying and revoking a license or change of ownership application include any of the following actions by a controlling interest: (a) a violation of this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules; and (d) a demonstrated pattern of deficient performance. EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. Agengy for Y Adminjstray J U/c- Berdard E. Hudson, Manager Long Term Care Unit ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 EXHIBIT 1 Visit AHCA online at ahca.myflorida.com 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#33 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION RE: LAKESHORE VILLAS HEALTH CARE CENTER CASE NUMBER: 2013005471 ELECTION OF RIGHTS This Election of Rights form is attached to a proposed Notice of Intent to Deny of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). The title may be Notice of Intent to Impose a Fine, Administrative Complaint, or some other notice of intended action by AHCA. An Election of Rights must be returned by mail or by fax within twenty-one (21) days of the day you receive the attached Notice of Intent to Impose_a Fine, Administrative Complaint or any other proposed action by AHCA. If an Election of Rights with your selected option is not received by AHCA within twenty- one (21) days from the date you received this notice of proposed action, you will have given up your right to contest the Agency’s proposed action and a final order will be issued. (Please reply using this Election of Rights form unless you, your attorney or your representative prefer to reply according to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (2006) and Rule 28, Florida Administrative Code.) Please return your ELECTION OF RIGHTS to: Agency for Health Care Administration Attention: Agency Clerk 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Phone: (850) 412-3630 Fax: (850) 921-0158 PLEASE SELECT ONLY 1 OF THESE 3 OPTIONS: OPTION ONE (1) ____ I admit to the allegations of facts and law contained in the Notice of Intent to Impose a Fine, Administrative Complaint, or other notice of intended action by AHCA and I waive my right to object and have a hearing. I understand that by giving up my right to a hearing, a final order will be issued that adopts the proposed agency action and imposes the proposed penalty, fine or action. OPTION TWO (2) I admit to the allegations of facts and law contained in the Notice of Intent to Impose a Fine, Administrative Complaint, or other proposed action by AHCA, but I wish to be heard at an informal proceeding (pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes) where I may submit testimony and written evidence to the Agency to show that the proposed administrative action is too severe or that the fine should be reduced. OPTION THREE (3)_____——‘I_ dispute the allegations of facts and law contained in the Notice of Intent to Impose a Fine, Administrative Complaint, or other proposed action by AHCA, and I request a formal hearing (pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes) before an Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. PLEASE NOTE: Choosing OPTION THREE (3), by itself, is NOT sufficient to obtain a formal hearing. You also must file a written petition in order to obtain a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. It must be received by the Agency Clerk at the address above within twenty-one (21) days of your receipt of this proposed administrative action. The request for formal hearing must conform to the requirements of Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that it contain: 1. Your name, address, and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of your representative or lawyer, if any. 2. The file number of the proposed action. 3. A statement of when you received notice of the Agency’s proposed action. 4. Astatement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, you must state that there are none. Mediation under Section 120.573, Florida Statutes, may be available in this matter if the Agency agrees. License type: Nursing Home License number: 1282096 Applicant Name: SENJOR CARE GROUP INC. d/b/a LAKESHORE VILLAS HEALTH CARE CENTER Contact person: Name Title Address: Street and number City Zip Code Telephone No. Fax No. Email (optional) Lhereby certify that I am duly authorized to submit this Notice of Election of Rights to the Agency for Health Care Administration on behalf of the licensee referred to above. Signed: Date: Print Name: Title: FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION RICK SCOTT GOVERNOR July 8, 2013 LAKESHORE VILLAS HEALTH CARE CENTER 16002 LAKESHORE VILLA DR . TAMPA, FL 33613 Dear Administrator: ELIZABETH DUDEK SECRETARY RECEIVED GENERAL COUNSEL JUL 12 2013 Agency for Health Care Administration The attached license with Certificate #18248 is being issued for the operation of your facility. Please review it thoroughly to ensure that all information is correct and consistent with your records. If errors or omissions are noted, please make corrections on a copy and mail to: Agency for Health Care Administration Long Term Care Section, Mail Stop #33 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Issued for status change to Conditional. Sincerely, Sracey Weathewpoon for Kathy Munn Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Health Quality Assurance Enclosure ce: Medicaid Contract Management 2727 Mahan Drive, MS#33 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at ahca.myflorida.com CERTIFICATE #: 18248 LICENSE #: SNF1282096 State of Florida AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF HEALTH QUALITY ASSURANCE NURSING HOME CONDITIONAL This is to confirm that SENIOR CARE GROUP, INC. has:complied with the rules and regulations adopted by the State of Florida, Agency For Health Care Administration, authorized in Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and as the licensee is authorized to ; : operate the following: LAKESHORE VILLAS HEALTH CARE CENTER 16002 LAKESHORE VILLA DR TAMPA, FL 33613 TOTAL: 179 BEDS STATUS CHANGE EFFECTIVE DATE: 06/04/2013 : EXPIRATION DATE: 06/29/2013
The Issue Whether the Petitioner proved the elements necessary to demonstrate that she was subject to an unlawful employment practice as a result of Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau, maintaining a sexually-hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau (BCFB or Respondent). She worked for the BCFB from December 15, 2006 until January 1, 2012. The BCFB is an organization created to work for and provide support to farmers in Bradford County. The BCFB has its office in Starke, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, James Gaskins was the President of the BCFB Board of Directors. He served in that capacity as an unpaid volunteer. The alleged actions of Mr. Gaskins towards the Petitioner form the basis for her claim of employment discrimination. Section 760.10(1), provides that: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual?s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. To limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or adversely affect any individual?s status as an employee, because of such individual?s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. Section 760.02(7) defines "employer" as follows: „Employer? means any person employing 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person. The threshold issue in this proceeding is whether the BCFB had the requisite number of employees to bring it under the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 as Petitioner?s “employer.” If Petitioner fails in her proof of that issue, any discussion of acts that may have constituted sexual harassment or resulted in the creation of a sexually- hostile work environment become superfluous and unnecessary. Facts Regarding the BCFB as an “Employer” At all times relevant to this proceeding, the BCFB had two paid employees. Ms. Griffith was the office manager and bookkeeper. Ms. Linzy was a part-time secretary and receptionist, although she worked full-time when Ms. Griffith was out. Ms. Linzy retired in October, 2012. In addition to the foregoing employees, the BCFB has a five-member board of directors. Although Mr. Gaskins, who was a member of the Board, served as an unpaid volunteer, there was no evidence as to whether the remaining members were paid for their services. For purposes of this Recommended Order, it will be presumed that they were. Based solely on the number of its employees, BCFB is not an “employer” as defined by section 760.10. Therefore, in order to prove the threshold element of her claim for relief, Petitioner must establish that employees of other entities should be imputed to the BCFB due to integrated activities or common control of BCFB?s operations or employees. Petitioner presented evidence of the relationship between the BCFB, the Florida Farm Bureau, and the Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company (FFBIC) to establish the requisite integration or common control necessary to impute their employees to the BCFB. Florida Farm Bureau The Florida Farm Bureau has more than 15 employees. The Florida Farm Bureau has a mission similar to that of the BCFB of providing goods, services, and other assistance to farmers, though on a state-wide basis. Each county in Florida has an independent county farm bureau. The Florida Farm Bureau has no common corporate identity with the BCFB. The BCFB is incorporated as a legal entity unto itself. The Florida Farm Bureau and the BCFB have no common officers, directors, or employees. The Florida Farm Bureau does not share or comingle bank accounts with the BCFB. The BCFB maintains its own finances, and has a bank account with the Capital City Bank Group. The Florida Farm Bureau has no operational control over the BCFB. The BCFB Board of Directors makes all employment decisions for the BCFB, has exclusive authority to hire and fire employees of the BCFB, and has exclusive control over the pay and the terms and conditions of BCFB employees. Employees of the BCFB are paid by the BCFB, and not by the Florida Farm Bureau. The Florida Farm Bureau has the telephone numbers of all of the county farm bureaus, and can transfer calls received by the Florida Farm Bureau to any of the county farm bureaus. Other than that, as stated by Ms. Linzy, the county farm bureaus “are all on their own.” Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company The Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company is affiliated with the Florida Farm Bureau. The nature and extent of the relationship between those entities was not established. The relationship between those two entities does not affect their relationship, or lack thereof, with the BCFB. Petitioner introduced no evidence as to the FFBIC?s total number of employees. The FFBIC has no common officers or directors with the BCFB, nor do they share or comingle bank accounts. Brent Huber and Travis McAllister are insurance agents authorized to transact business on behalf of the FFBIC. They are self-employed independent contractors. Mr. Huber does business as “Brent Huber, Inc.” Neither Mr. Huber nor Mr. McAllister is an employee of the FFBIC. Mr. Huber is not employed by the BCFB, and does not perform duties on behalf of the BCFB. The evidence suggests that Mr. McAllister?s status, vis-à-vis the BCFB, is the same as that of Mr. Huber. Local FFBIC agents are selected by the FFBIC. Given the close relationship with local farmers/customers, the FFBIC selection of a local agent must be ratified by the county farm bureau in the county in which the agent is to transact business. Once ratified, an FFBIC agent cannot be terminated by the county farm bureaus. Mr. Huber and Mr. McAllister, having been appointed to transact business in Bradford County as agents of the FFBIC, maintain an office at the BCFB office in Starke. There being only four persons in the office, the relationship among them was friendly and informal. Mr. Huber described the group as “tight-knit” and “like a family.” Mr. Huber had no supervisory control over Petitioner or her work schedule. Due to the small size of the BCFB office, and limited number of persons to staff the office, Ms. Griffith?s absences would cause problems for the office as a whole. However, Mr. Huber never evaluated Ms. Griffith?s performance and never disciplined Ms. Griffith. The FFBIC provided sexual harassment, employment discrimination, workers? compensation, and minimum wage informational signs that were placed in the BCFB office break room. Those signs were “shared” between the Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company and the BCFB. Thus, the BCFB did not maintain a separate set of signs. The BCFB office has a single telephone number, and calls are routed internally. If Mr. Huber was out of the office, Petitioner or Ms. Linzy would take messages for him. If Mr. Huber was alone in the office, he would answer the telephone. Petitioner or Ms. Linzy would occasionally make appointments for Mr. Huber, and assist him when clients visited the office. Mr. Huber did not pay Petitioner or Ms. Linzy for those services. At some point, Mr. Huber and Ms. Griffith determined that it would be mutually advantageous if Ms. Griffith were allowed to speak with FFBIC customers about insurance when Mr. Huber was out of the office. To facilitate that arrangement, Ms. Griffith, at Mr. Huber?s suggestion, obtained a license as a customer service representative, which allowed her to sell policies under Mr. Huber?s insurance agent license. The customer service representative license was not a requirement of Ms. Griffith?s position with the BCFB. Ms. Griffith would sell insurance policies only when Mr. Huber was out of the office. Mr. Huber compensated Ms. Griffith for writing insurance policies through “Brent Huber, Inc.” Ms. Griffith continued to be paid as a full-time employee of the BCFB because she thought the BCFB “would be OK with it.”
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations that, based upon Petitioner's failure to meet her burden of proof to establish that Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau, is an “employer” as defined in section 760.02(7), the Employment Complaint of Discrimination be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. Suite 100 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jamison Jessup 557 Noremac Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Sections 475.25(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the alleged statutory violations, Respondent was a registered real estate broker, Certificate No. 0074222, and an officer and active firm member of Roberts and Gilman, Inc., a registered corporate broker, located in Orlando, Florida. Respondent currently is a registered real estate broker under the referenced certificate of registration. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2) On April 16, 1973, Respondent and Roberts and Gilman, Inc. entered into an exclusive right of sale contract, using a standard form contract of the Orlando Winter Park Multiple Listing Service, Inc. Ralph Rogers executed the document as listing salesman for the firm. The sole purpose for this agreement was to place the property in the multiple listing service. Under this agreement, Respondent listed property that he owned in Seminole County for sale at a price of $50,000.00 for a period of six months terminating October 16, 1973. Paragraph 5 of the agreement provided that Respondent, as owner of the property, agreed to pay the realtor a commission of 10 percent of the sales price for the property. Paragraph 8 of the agreement provided that the realtor or any cooperating realtor or other authorized escrow agent was authorized to accept and hold any deposits received in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, and that if such deposit was forfeited by the prospective purchaser, the realtor could retain 1/2 of the such deposit but not exceeding the total amount of its commission. The property in question had been the subject of a prior listing with Respondent's firm in which Rogers had also been the listing salesman. One offer from a potential purchaser had been made on the property in the amount of $47,500 and at that time Respondent informed Rogers, who was the listing and selling salesman, that in view of the lower purchase price, he would only pay a $2,500.00 commission to Rogers instead of the normal sum of $2,750 representing 55 percent of the 10 percent commission due on a fifty thousand dollar sale. However, this sale was not consummated. (Testimony of Rogers, Roberts, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) On May 7, 1973, Rufus C. Ellis and Gloria B. Ellis, his wife, executed a Contract For Sale and Purchase of Respondent's property for the sum of $47,500.00. The contract was executed by Respondent as seller on May 8, 1973. It reflected that on that date an earnest money deposit of $5,000.00 in the form of a check to "Larry S. Roberts" was received by Thomas O. Ward, Sr., as of Rufus Ellis, to be held in escrow. Ward was a registered salesman for Roberts and Gilman, Inc. The contract further provided in Special Clause G thereof that in the event of a default by the buyer, the deposit could be retained by or for the account of seller, and in Special Clause P it was stated that if the buyer defaulted and he deposit were retained, the amount of the deposit would be divided equally between the realtor and the seller. There was a further clause that the seller acknowledged the employment of "Realtor " and agreed to pay the realtor a commission in accordance with the "commission agreement." However, no realtor was named in this or any other provision of the contract. (Testimony of Ward, Petitioner's Exhibit 4). It was the understanding of Ellis, Respondent, and Ward that the transaction was a personal one of Respondent and unconnected with the firm of Roberts and Gilman, Inc. because Respondent was selling his own property. In addition to the deposit, Ellis made further payment of $5,000.00 to Respondent by check, dated August 1, 1973, as "part payment" on the property. This payment was made because Ellis intended to assume a $10,000.00 loan that Respondent had borrowed on the property. To accomplish this, Respondent deeded the property to Ellis. Subsequently, Ellis suffered financial reverses and found that he could not complete payment of the purchase price. Respondent agreed to and did pay to Ellis $2,500.00 of the $10,000.00 received from him, and Ellis reconveyed the property to the Respondent. At that time, Respondent agreed to pay commissions to the salesmen. Neither of Ellis' two $5,000.00 checks to Respondent had been placed in an escrow account and Respondent previously had used the $10,000.00 to pay other personal obligations. (Testimony of Ellis, Ward, Roberts; Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5). At the time Ward had presented Ellis' contract to Respondent, the latter had agreed to pay Ward and Rogers a commission of $2,500.00 divided equally between them. Both salesmen were satisfied with this amount. When Respondent failed to receive the full purchase price of the property, he reaffirmed his agreement to pay each salesman $1,250.00, although neither he nor Ward believed that he was legally obligated to do so because of failure of the transaction. On the same day that Respondent and Ellis had met to discuss the disposition of the $10,000.00 paid by Ellis, Rogers asked Respondent for his share of the commission and Respondent told him that he would pay it in a few days. During ensuing months, on various occasions when Rogers asked for his commission payment, Roberts made various promises to pay, conditioned upon his receipt of funds from future sales. Such sales were not shown to have materialized. Several times when Rogers was in Respondent's office and asked for his money, Respondent told him that he did not have it. During this period, Respondent had suffered severe financial problems and was no longer drawing a salary from his firm. In February or March, 1974, Respondent paid Ward $1,250.00 for his share of the commission which was obtained from the cash value of an insurance policy. He did not pay Rogers, however, until after Rogers had filed civil suit and obtained final judgment for the commission in the County Court of Orange County, Florida on February 4, 1976. (Testimony of Roberts, Rogers, Ward, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That the allegations against Respondent Lawrence S. Roberts be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J.R. Parkinson, Esquire Associate Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Benjamin T. Shuman, Esquire 1319 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804
The Issue The information-gathering hearing was convened for the purpose of determining the impact of Lake County’s Order denying a rezoning application (“Rezoning”) for the Lake Nellie Crossing Planned Unit Development, Lake County Case No. RZ-20-39-23 (“PUD”), whether the denial of the rezoning application was unreasonable or unfairly burdened the real property subject to Petitioner’s rezoning application, and whether some modification of Petitioner’s proposed use of the property or adjustment to the denial of the rezoning application could be reached.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire Thu Pham, Esquire Akerman LLP 420 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, Florida 32801 For Respondent: David Langley, Esquire Lake County Attorney’s Office 315 West Main Street Tavares, Florida 32778 A number of non-party participants appeared at the Zoom conference and were permitted to offer documents and testimony pursuant to limitations established in the November 4, 2021, Notice of Hearing Before a Special Magistrate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Stipulated Findings, the Findings Adduced at Hearing, and the Public Comment, the undersigned concludes that the proposed Rezoning satisfies the requirements of the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, that there is no reason related to transportation safety to deny the Rezoning, and that the denial of the Rezoning, under the circumstances presented here, is unreasonable or unfairly burdens use of the Property. Therefore, it is recommended that the Lake County Board of County Commissioners approve the application for the Lake Nellie Crossing Planned Unit Development, Lake County Case No. RZ-20-39-23, subject to the conditions previously agreed upon by Lake Nellie, and the following: Stormwater facilities shall be vegetated with native species where possible. Sidewalks shall be constructed within the Project and along the Project’s frontage on Lakeshore Drive and Royal Vista Avenue. In addition to the left turn lane for southbound traffic, Lake Nellie and Lake County shall examine the feasibility of a right turn deceleration lane into the Project for northbound traffic on Lakeshore Drive. If determined to advance safety on Lakeshore Drive, the right turn lane shall meet Florida Department of Transportation specifications for design and length for a 40 MPH road. Land necessary for the construction of a right turn deceleration lane shall not be deducted from the open space calculation qualifying Lake Nellie for 102 units under the one dwelling unit per acre/50 percent open space requirement. If Lake County determines in the future that a roundabout at the entrance to the Project would facilitate traffic flow and enhance safety, Lake Nellie, or its successor homeowners’ association or maintenance entity, shall donate land within its ownership and control to Lake County for use as right- of-way for the roundabout. That donation shall not be deducted from the open space calculation qualifying Lake Nellie for 102 units under the one dwelling unit per acre/50 percent open space requirement. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2022, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Special Magistrate 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 2022. COPIES FURNISHED: Melanie N. Marsh, Esquire Lake County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 7800 Tavares, Florida 32778 Thu Pham, Esquire Akerman LLP 420 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, Florida 32801 David Langley, Esquire Lake County Attorney Office 315 West Main Street Tavares, Florida 32778 Jennifer Barker, Interim County Manager Lake County, Florida 315 West Main Street Tavares, Florida 32778 Cecelia Bonifay, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt 420 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, Florida 32801 Nicole Blumenauer, Esquire Lake County Attorney's Office 315 West Main Street Tavares, Florida 32778 Sean M. Parks, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Lake County, Florida 315 West Main Street Tavares, Florida 32778
