The Issue Whether Respondent's Leasing Manual HRS M 70-1 is a rule and, if so, is it an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Department's Leasing Manual HRS M 70-1 (Manual) sets out the procedure to be followed when the Department is seeking to lease space of 2,000 square feet or more in privately owned buildings. Within this manual are the forms to be utilized for this purpose and, among other forms, is an Invitation to Bid (ITB) For Existing Facilities packet that contains a Bid Submittal Form (BSF) and, within the BSF is a page entitled Evaluation Criteria. The Department followed the procedure set forth in the manual in advertising for competitive bids on Lease No. 590:2029 for office space in Inverness, Florida service area of District Three and, in doing so, used the ITB For Existing Facilities packet that contained the BSF with the Evaluation Criteria page. The BSF, including the Evaluation Criteria page, is a slightly modified version of the Department of General Services' (DGS) Request For Proposal Submittal Form - BPM 4136, incorporated by reference in Rule 13M-1.015(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, as a suggested format. The Evaluation Criteria page of the Department's BSF contains nine of the eleven evaluation criteria set forth on the evaluation criteria page of the BPM 4136, but does not place any limit on the weight of award factor as does BPM 4136 on two of the same criteria used by the Department. Both the BSF and BPM 4136 are used in bidding for space in existing facilities and, therefore, require a scaled floor plan showing present configuration, with measurements that equate to the net rentable square footage using the Standard Method of Space Measurement. The BSF does not attach a "floor plan for suggested configuration of offices and rooms" as does the BPM 4136 but does provide the number, types and sizes of rooms to be placed in the existing facility. Both forms leave the final configuration of the floor plan to the successful bidder and the lessee. The Department's reasoning for not including a "suggested floor plan" is that this may reduce the number of prospective bidders due to the varied configuration of existing facilities in the bid area. In accordance with the procedure set forth in the Manual an Evaluation Committee (Committee) was appointed to determine, among other things, the award factor (weight) to be placed on the nine evaluation criteria set forth on the Evaluation Criteria page of the BSF. The Committee determined the significance of the nine criteria on the Evaluation page to the Department's needs in regard to Lease No. 590:2029 and awarded a weight factor in accordance with the significance of the criteria. Those criteria most significant to the Department's needs received the highest weight. These award factors were added to the Evaluation page of the BSF at the time the ITB was advertised. The procedure and the forms set forth in the Manual and used by the Department, including the procedure followed by the Evaluation Committee, in putting together the ITB for Lease No. 590:2029 comports substantially with all substantive provisions of Rule 13M-1, Florida Administrative Code, and more specifically Rule 13M-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, adopted by DGS pursuant to Section 255.249(2), Florida Statutes. The differences, such as they are, are not substantial, nor is there any extrinsic or intrinsic divergence from the substance of the rule such as to mislead any potential bidder who sought to address the ITB. The Manual, including the ITB and BSF, sets forth the Department's policy and describes the procedure to be followed by the Department, including each Evaluation Committee selected, and all prospective bidders, in its leasing practices when the Department seeks to lease 2000 square feet of office space or more in privately owned buildings and, although the Manual has been reduced to writing, it has not been promulgated or adopted as a rule.
The Issue The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 8th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue The issues presented for determination are whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s determination that the three applicant-parties were eligible for the allocation of low-income housing tax credits; and its intended decision to award such tax credits to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, are contrary to governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.1/
Findings Of Fact Parties and Process Florida Housing is a public corporation and, for the purposes of these proceedings, is an agency of the State of Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, 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 and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits.3/ Florida Housing is authorized by law to allocate tax credits (and other funding) by means of requests for proposal or other forms of competitive solicitation. On October 6, 2017, Florida Housing published the RFA, starting the competitive application process being challenged in this proceeding. Completed applications were due December 28, 2017.4/ As explained below, all of the non-agency parties (HTG Heron, Channel Side, and Ocean Breeze) in this case applied for funding for a proposed development in Palm Beach County. According to the terms of the RFA, only one application for each county was to be funded. Moreover, the RFA’s stated goal was to fund one application wherein the applicant applied and qualified as a non-profit applicant. This non-profit goal did not apply within each of the six counties included in this RFA; one non-profit applicant in any of the six counties could satisfy the non-profit applicant goal for the entire RFA. No challenges were made to the terms or requirements of the RFA. HTG Heron is an applicant to the RFA, requesting an allocation of $1,541,751.00 in competitive tax credits. Its application, assigned number 2018-289C, was deemed eligible for consideration but was not selected for funding under the RFA. Channel Side is also an applicant to the RFA. It is requesting an allocation of $2,100,000.00 in competitive tax credits. Its application, assigned number 2018-278C, was deemed eligible for consideration but was not selected for funding under the RFA. Ocean Breeze is an applicant requesting an allocation of $2,070,000.00 in competitive tax credits. Its application, assigned number 2018-286C, was deemed eligible for consideration and was selected for funding under the RFA, subject to a credit underwriting review process. Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the tax credit program. See § 420.507(48), Fla. Stat. The bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3) are adopted as part of the process for allocating tax credits, except that no bond is required. See Fla. Admin Code R. 67-60.009. A review committee was appointed to evaluate the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the Board). Thirty-three applications for the RFA were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA; Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60; and applicable federal regulations. The review committee found 25 applications eligible and eight applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, seven applications were recommended for funding, including Ocean Breeze. The review committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On March 16, 2018, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the review committee for the RFA. The same day, the applicants to the RFA received notice of the Board’s determinations as to whether the applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and which of the eligible applicants were selected for award of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of a credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” applications to the RFA and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund.5/ Relevant to this proceeding, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding for Palm Beach County to Ocean Breeze, which received the maximum points available. Channel Side and HTG Heron were deemed eligible and scored the maximum number of points, but were not recommended for funding. Each applicant-party timely filed a Notice of Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. RFA The RFA contemplated a structure in which each applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. To determine if an application is eligible for funding, it must meet all of the requirements listed in section 5.A.1, of the RFA. The following eligibility terms and requirements are challenged in this proceeding: The evidence of control of the development site (site control) by Ocean Breeze and Channel Side; and The address of the development site provided by HTG Heron. For scoring the applications, the RFA allows up to a total of 20 points with the following point allocations: Submission of Principal Disclosure form stamped by Corporation as “Pre-Approved” (5 points); Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive (5 points); and Local Government Contribution Points (5 points) or Local Government Area of Opportunity Points (10 points). As explained in pages 66-67 of the RFA, the first step in evaluating the applications is the sorting order. All eligible applications are ranked by first sorting all eligible applications from the highest score to the lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order: First, by the Application’s eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.11.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); [sic] Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.b.(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); [sic] Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); [sic] Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); and [sic] And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. In other words, those competing for the RFA must first submit an application that meets all the eligibility criteria and does not have any significant omissions or errors before it is scored. After scoring, any tiebreakers are determined strictly by the luck of the draw. After applications are filed, but before they are scored, Florida Housing randomly assigned each a lottery number, and the highest scoring applicant with the lower number wins any ties, thus becoming the intended funding recipient. The notice of the intended award does not end the process, and the selection of an applicant for funding does not guarantee distribution of tax credits to that applicant. Florida Housing’s representative, Ms. Button, explained at the hearing: Q Okay. What happens once a preliminary agency action from Florida Housing becomes final agency action? A The awardees who are recommended or preliminarily approved for funding, once that becomes final, those applicants are then invited to credit underwriting by Florida Housing. * * * Q Can you provide some general information about credit underwriting? A Credit underwriting is essentially a de novo review of all the information that the applicant has provided in their application to proceed forward with the proposed development. Florida Housing retains their party underwriters who review that information and provide recommendations to Florida Housing. Similarly, the RFA provides that each selected awardee must complete a credit underwriting process before receiving funding or credits. The RFA states on page 68: Notwithstanding an award by the Board pursuant to his RFA, funding will be subject to a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter based on criteria outlined in the credit underwriting provisions in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C. Rule 67-48.0072, in turn, provides in part: Credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding, including the issuance of IRS Forms 8609 for Housing credits. The success of an Applicant in being selected for funding is not an indication that the Applicant will receive a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter or that the Development team’s experience, past performance or financial capacity is satisfactory. Thus, an application might fail in this de novo credit underwriting phase and never receive funding, even though it was “awarded” tax-credit funding as a result of a proceeding such as this one. In that event, page 67 of the RFA provides: 4. Returned Allocation Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the [Review] Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing its Application, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting, or an Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA and/or Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by the Board. Therefore, if an intended applicant (such as Ocean Breeze), was nominally selected for funding at the end of the eligibility and scoring phase, but failed to garner a positive recommendation from the credit underwriting process, the next eligible applicants in the queue (such as HTG Heron and Channel Side) would be awarded the tax credits. As a result, in this consolidated proceeding, the objective of Petitioners is to displace any and all applicants in more favorable positions. Here, Petitioner Channel Side challenges the eligibility of both the Ocean Breeze and HTG Heron applications; and Petitioner HTG Heron challenges the eligibility of Ocean Breeze. Ocean Breeze, in turn, challenges both HTG Heron’s and Channel Side’s eligibility. The specific issues raised as to the three challenged applications will be discussed below. OCEAN BREEZE APPLICATION HTG Heron and Channel Side challenge Ocean Breeze’s eligibility based on the RFA requirements relating to site control. The parties have stipulated, and the undersigned finds, that site control must have been demonstrated as of the application deadline of December 28, 2017. The RFA provides three ways an applicant can demonstrate site control: (1) eligible contract, (2) deed or certificate of title, or (3) lease. Ocean Breeze utilized the first method to satisfy the site control requirement by submitting a document titled “Purchase and Development Agreement” (PDA) as Exhibit 8 to its Application. The PDA included two attachments: the “Legal Description” and a “Reverter Agreement.” Petitioners challenge the enforceability of the PDA on two apparent grounds: (1) it was not executed by the applicant6/; and (2) it was executed before the applicant was properly incorporated to do business within the State of Florida. The RFA, however, does not mention “enforceability” of a contract in its definition for “Eligible Contract.” The requirements for establishing site control though an eligible contract are found on page 30 through 31 of the RFA. Eligible Contract - For purposes of this RFA, an eligible contract is one that has a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018; specifically states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. Any assignment must be signed by the assignor and the assignee. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided, and, if a contract, must contain the following elements of an eligible contract: (a) have a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or contain extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018, and (b) specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. The initial paragraph of the PDA identifies the parties to the PDA as “Boyton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency,” as the “Seller,” and “Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC” as the “Purchaser.” Paragraph 14 of the PDA designates the following for purposes of notices: If to Purchaser: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC Attn: Lewis Swezy 7735 NW 146 Street, Suite 306 Miami Lakes, FL 33016 Under the signature block, however, the PDA states it was executed on behalf of the “Purchaser” by “OCEAN BREEZE APARTMENTS LLC By Ocean Breeze East GP LLC” and signed by Lewis Swezy, “Title: Authorized Member” on December 8, 2017. “Ocean Breeze East, GP, LLC” does not exist and never has in Florida. The parties admit that this entity was not in existence on December 8, 2017, and was never subsequently formed. Ocean Breeze admits the identification of “Ocean Breeze East, GP, LLC” was in error. The PDA was executed on behalf of the “Seller” by BBCRA and signed by Steven B. Grant, “Title: Chair” on December 15, 2017. Paragraph 4 of the PDA indicates that its effective date is the date when the last party signed the PDA; in this case being the date the BBCRA executed the document--December 15, 2017. The Reverter Agreement is executed by the “Purchaser” “Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC” and signed by Lewis Swezy, “Title: Manager of Manager,” on December 12, 2017. The Reverter Agreement is executed by the “Seller,” BBCRA, and signed by Steven B. Grant, “Title: Chairman” on December 15, 2017. Mr. Swezy testified Ocean Breeze complied with all the terms of the PDA, including submitting an initial $25,000 deposit within two days of full execution of the PDA and a second deposit within 30 days. The Articles of Organization for Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC were filed on December 19, 2017, and effective December 14, 2017. Rachael Grice, Florida Housing Multifamily Programs Manager, scored the site control portion for this RFA based on the information in the application. Mrs. Grice found that Ocean Breeze met the RFA requirements for site control. It is unnecessary, and beyond the scope of the undersigned’s jurisdiction, to make a factual or legal determination as to the enforceability of the PDA. The RFA does not mention enforceability or validity as requirements for an “Eligible Contract” for site control purposes. There is no dispute that on its face, the PDA with the Reverter Agreement satisfied the RFA’s requirements for an “Eligible Contract” listed on page 30 and 31. In fact, as of the date of the application deadline the following was true: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, was listed as the applicant for the RFA. Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, was listed as the “Purchaser” on the PDA. Mr. Swezy had signature authority to bind Ocean Breeze and was listed on the Ocean Breeze application as the “Authorized Representative.” Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, and Mr. Swezy were identified in the notice provision in the PDA. The Reverter Agreement, which was signed after the PDA, correctly identified the applicant entity as Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC. Effective December 14, 2017, Ocean Breeze was incorporated. The PDA was fully executed on December 15, 2017. HTG Heron and Channel Side have not established that the PDA was fatally flawed or that Florida Housing erred in accepting the PDA as an “eligible contract” satisfying the RFA’s site control requirement. Even if the PDA contained errors by listing “Ocean Breeze East GP, LLC” in the signature block or was prematurely signed before Ocean Breeze was effectively incorporated, the evidence at the hearing established that it was a minor irregularity waivable by Florida Housing, and that Florida Housing would have waived any such errors. If the PDA is ultimately determined to be unenforceable and site control is not established at the credit underwriting stage, Petitioners would be next in line to be selected to receive the tax credits under the terms of the RFA. The preponderance of the evidence established that Ocean Breeze’s application is eligible for funding, it received the proper scoring, and should be the intended award for Palm Beach County. HTG HERON APPLICATION Channel Side and Ocean Breeze challenge the eligibility of the HTG Heron application because they claim it fails to satisfy the RFA eligibility requirement to provide a correct address of the proposed development site. Page 18 of the RFA requires in relevant part: Indicate (1) the address number, street name, and name of city, and/or (2) the street name, closest designated intersection, and either name of city or unincorporated area of county. Ms. Button testified the purpose of the address requirement in the RFA is to allow parties, including Florida Housing, to know where the proposed development will be built and to ensure the property has access to utility and other services. In that vein, the RFA does not require the street identified in an application to be a publicly maintained street. In its application, HTG Heron provided the address of the proposed development as “W 17th Ct., W 17th Ct. and North Congress Ave., Riviera Beach,” along with latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the development location. Ryan McKinless, Multifamily Programs Senior Analyst for Florida Housing, scored the development address section for this RFA. Mr. McKinless found that HTG Heron met the requirements in the RFA for providing an address of the proposed development. Here, Channel Side and Ocean Breeze argue Florida Housing erred in accepting the “W. 17th Ct.” address provided by HTG Heron because the address does not exist. They point to the site sketch submitted by HTG Heron in support of its application which references a “W. 17th Street” (not “W. 17th Ct.”) and has “W. 17th Street” intersecting with “Congress Avenue Extension,” (not “N. Congress Ave.”). In support of this position that “W. 17th Ct.” does not exist, Ocean Breeze and Channel Side also rely on a 1975 plat and a 1999 City of Rivera Beach Ordinance. The sketches attached to HTG Heron’s application each contain the disclaimer “NOT A SURVEY.” Although the sketches contain a reference to an abandonment relating to “W. 17th Ct.,” the 1999 Ordinance describing the abandonment relied on by Channel Side and Ocean Breeze was not submitted to Florida Housing. Regardless, this plat and ordinance information was not required by the RFA nor was it considered by Florida Housing in determining whether to accept the address submitted by HTG Heron for eligibility determination purposes. There was no evidence at the hearing that the “W. 17th Court” address misled Florida Housing (or anyone else) or caused confusion as to the location of HTG Heron’s proposed development. To the contrary, other information in the application supports accepting the provided address. The “Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval for Multifamily Developments” form executed by the City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations” form executed by the City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Verification of Availability of Infrastructure- Electricity” form executed by an Associate Engineer from Florida Power and Light affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Verification of Availability of Infrastructure” form for water and sewer services executed by a Utilities Engineer from City of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Verification of Availability of Infrastructure- Roads” form executed by a City Engineer from the City of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Local Government Verification of Contribution- Grant” form executed by the Interim City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The acting director of the City of Riviera Beach, Department of Community Development confirms by letter that the property at the “2003 W. 17th Court (adjacent to North Congress Avenue)” address is located with a “Qualified Census Tract for 2017 and 2018” and attaches a diagram of that tract. Documentation from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s website lists the address location as “2003 W. 17th Ct.” Given that the purpose of providing an address was fulfilled and there was no ambiguity as to the actual location of the HTG Heron’s development site, Channel Side and Ocean Breeze failed to prove that Florida Housing erred in accepting HTG Heron’s address for the purposes of eligibility. At the hearing, HTG Heron also submitted a certified copy of a 2017 map from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s Office for range 43, township 42, which includes the area of the proposed development in HTG Heron’s application, and indicates there is a “W. 17th Ct.” that intersects with “N. Congress Avenue.” There was a preponderance of evidence establishing HTG Heron’s designation in its application of “W 17th Ct., W 17th Ct. and North Congress Ave., Riviera Beach” was not an error, and that HTG Heron’s application is eligible for funding. CHANNEL SIDE APPLICATION7/ To satisfy the Site Control requirements Channel Side submitted a Purchase and Sale Agreement that lists among the sellers an entity named “MWCP, Inc., f/k/a Blueprint Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation whose post office address is 248 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, NJ (‘Blueprint’)” in the initial paragraph. MWCP, Inc. (MWCP) did not exist in Florida when the Purchase and Sale Agreement was executed. The parties stipulated that the reference in the Channel Side site control documents to MWCP was erroneous and that the owner of the property for the Channel Side’s proposed development as of the application deadline was a Delaware corporation known as Blueprint Properties, Inc., which has never operated as, or been corporately related to, MWCP. Rachel Grice, Florida Housing Multifamily Programs Manager, scored the Site control portion of this RFA based on the information in the Application. Mrs. Grice found that Channel Side met the RFA requirements for Site control. The RFA does not require the listing of related names of any corporations other than the applicant or developer. Thus, the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement does not seem to affect Channel Side’s satisfaction of any requirement of the RFA. The error is insignificant and immaterial. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Channel Side received a competitive advantage by identifying “MWCP, Inc. f/k/a Blueprint Properties, Inc.” instead of simply “Blueprint Properties” as the seller. The slight error conferred no competitive advantage on Channel Side; its application received no more points than it was entitled to by reason of the mistake. Ms. Button reasonably testified that had Florida Housing known about the mistaken listing of MWCP as the seller, it would have waived the error as a minor irregularity. The applicant-parties failed to prove that Channel Side’s application reflecting the “wrong corporate entity” as the seller was an error affecting eligibility of Channel Side’s application, or that Florida Housing erred in accepting the Purchase and Sale Agreement as proof of site control. The mistake was, at worst, a minor, inconsequential error that was waivable. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, Channel Side’s application is eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, enter a final order consistent with its initial decisions: (1) finding the applications of Ocean Breeze, HTG Heron, and Channel Side eligible for funding; (2) awarding the RFA Palm Beach County funding for the Ocean Breeze proposed development; and (3) dismissing the formal written protests of HTG Heron and Channel Side. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 29th day of June, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department or Respondent), should pay Petitioner, Gulf Coast Development Service, Inc.'s (Petitioner or Gulf Coast Development), attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ for initiating Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case No. 13-0798.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts set forth in this paragraph: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Petitioner, a Florida corporation, was engaged in the Florida construction industry on February 12, 2013. On February 12, 2013, Leida Perez, workers' compensation compliance investigator for the Department (Investigator Perez), commenced an investigation at 577 Gulfshore Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34102 (job site), to determine whether the individuals performing construction industry work at the job site were compliant with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Quang Dinh is the owner and corporate officer of Gulf Coast Development. The Department issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Petitioner on February 12, 2013. The Department served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Petitioner on February 12, 2013. The calculations and the methodology applied by the Department's penalty auditor in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that was issued to Petitioner by the Department on February 27, 2013, and revoked on May 3, 2013, are not in dispute. Petitioner does not owe any Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Department. Bob Simat, drywall supervisor for Advantage Plastering and Finish Carpentry, contacted Gilberto Zepeda directly to perform the drywall operations at the job site. Mr. Simat was under the impression that Mr. Zepeda and his brother both worked for Gulf Coast Development. Discovery in this matter concluded on April 29, 2013, when the Department received check images from Petitioner's bank account. The Department issued and served an Order Releasing Stop-Work Order (Revocation) to Petitioner on May 3, 2013. Petitioner is a bona fide "small business" and incurred legal fees and costs for this action. The Department revoked the February 12, 2013, Stop-Work Order, and, therefore, Petitioner is the prevailing party in the underlying action within the meaning of section 57.111(3)(c). On February 12, 2013, when Investigator Perez arrived at the job site, she observed Gilberto and Enrique Zepeda (Zepedas) performing drywall finishing work. Upon inquiry, the Zepedas informed Investigator Perez that they were performing the drywall finishing work for their employer, Gulf Coast Development, and provided her with Quang Dinh's cellular phone number. As previously noted, Investigator Perez is an investigator with the Department's Division of Workers' Compensation. When Investigator Perez arrived at the job site on February 12, 2013, a representative from the Department's Division of Insurance Fraud (Fraud Unit) was also present. In the presence of Investigator Perez, the representative from the Fraud Unit received from the Zepedas the same information that they provided to Investigator Perez regarding their employment status with Gulf Coast Development. While meeting with Investigator Perez and the representative from the Fraud Unit, the Zepedas memorialized their verbal statements by each executing an affidavit, and affirmatively stating therein that they were employed by Petitioner. Soon after receiving Mr. Dinh's phone number from the Zepedas, Investigator Perez phoned Mr. Dinh. When Mr. Dinh answered his phone, Investigator Perez identified herself and explained that she was with the Zepeda brothers. During the conversation with Mr. Dinh, Investigator Perez asked whom he used for workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Dinh replied "I am working on it," and the phone was disconnected. Investigator Perez immediately placed a second call to Mr. Dinh, and it was during this conversation that Mr. Dinh agreed to meet her at the job site. After speaking with Mr. Dinh, Investigator Perez contacted Advantage Plastering, a contractor at the job site, who informed her that they had hired Petitioner to perform the drywall finishing work. Following her conversation with the representative from Advantage Plastering, Investigator Perez, through the use of her mobile personal computer, searched the Department of State, Division of Corporations', website database (Sunbiz) for information on Gulf Coast Development. The information found on Sunbiz showed that Petitioner had been an active Florida corporation since May 9, 2007, that 27614 Imperial Shore Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, was the company's principal address, and that Quang Dinh was president of the corporation. Next, Investigator Perez checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for information on proof of coverage and exemptions for Petitioner. CCAS revealed that Petitioner did not have any active coverage, but did have an exemption for Mr. Dinh. An exemption is a method by which a particular corporate officer can become exempt from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage, as authorized by section 440.05, Florida Statutes. When Mr. Dinh arrived at the job site, Investigator Perez again asked him about the company's current workers' compensation coverage, to which Mr. Dinh again replied, "I am working on it." Mr. Dinh then gave Investigator Perez a folder containing a blank application for workers' compensation insurance coverage. Based on her interviews with the Zepedas, Advantage Plastering, and Mr. Dinh, along with the information obtained from Sunbiz and CCAS, Investigator Perez determined that the Zepeda brothers were employed by Petitioner and that the Zepedas were not covered by workers' compensation insurance coverage. Given this information, Investigator Perez issued Petitioner a Stop-Work Order. Mr. Dinh testified that when he arrived at the job site, he informed Investigator Perez that the Zepedas were not his employees. Even if Mr. Dinh informed Investigator Perez that the Zepedas were not employees of Gulf Coast Development, his assertion was insufficient to negate the verbal and sworn statements given to Investigator Perez by the Zepedas and, moreover, conflicted with his previous statements to Investigator Perez that he was "working on" getting workers' compensation coverage for the Zepedas. In March 2013, the Zepedas recanted their earlier statements that they were employed by Gulf Coast Development. On May 3, 2013, Respondent issued an Order Releasing Stop-Work Order (Revocation). The facts uncovered in Investigator Perez's investigation on February 12, 2013, provided the Department with a reasonable basis to issue the Stop-Work Order to Petitioner.
The Issue At issue was whether Petitioner should be granted a permit from the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to excavate material in front of the Petitioner's seawall in Naples Bay, Collier County, Florida. The Petitioner owns a residential homesite lot in the Royal Harbor Subdivision in Naples, Florida. Royal Harbor is a waterfront oriented residential community devoted to single family residences; each residence either has waterfront' on Naples Bay or through a network of interior canals which provide navigational access to Naples Bay. All lots are bordered by concrete seawalls. The Concrete seawall bordering the Petitioner's property does not Immediately abut the water, but has an amounts of earth between the seawall and the water's edge, somewhat resembling a beach. It is this earth the Petitioner wishes to remove so that he may have his seawall abut the water which would facilitate the launching of a vessel from his property. Presently, it does not appear that the Petitioner could keep a boat at his property without building a lengthy dock from his seawall into Naples Bay. The Department of Environmental Regulation opposes the application in that it claims the excavation of this material would destroy an oyster bar which exists in front of the Petitioner's property and would eliminate an ecologically significant area. From the exhibits presented at the hearing and after consideration of the testimony, it appears that in the entire Royal Harbor development only the Petitioner's property lacks having the bay waters abut the seawall. The Petitioner's property is approximately one quarter mile from the channel in Naples Bay which is a low energy water body. That is to say, wave action does not become extremely forceful in this area because of the protected nature of the waterway. The Department of Environmental Regulation in part opposes the permit because they state to remove the berm from in front of the seawall would expose the seawall to direct wave energy which would cause turbidity within the waters. No direct evidence was presented that wee the seawalls in Naples Bay are in direct contact with the water that this ill fact does cause increased turbidity and therefore this testimony is rejected by this Hearing Officer as being merely speculative. On the other hand, the Petitioner made no showing that the project would actually be in the public interest except to show that the area in question was a relatively small area. Witnesses for the Department of Environmental Regulation stated that were this berm removed and the area converted to a shallow submerged bay bottom, oysters and marine vegetation would eventually propagate here, particularly if the bottom was excavated with a smooth contour. It is difficult to imagine after listening to all the testimony in this case how the granting of this permit would have a measurable environmental Impact. It would appear to this Hearing Officer that there could be some benefit to water quality from the granting of this permit by somewhat restoring Naples Bay to its original condition. Testimony was received that the entire Royal Harbor development was man-made and the removal of this fill would, in some slight degree, remove fill material that had been previously placed within the waters of Naples Bay. Testimony was also received from Mr. Thomas Provenzano, District Supervisor of the Department of Environmental Regulation, that in his opinion it would be environmentally acceptable for the Petitioner to excavate this berm from within five (5) feet of the concrete seawall. This appears to be a reasonable disposition of this dispute. Whatever destructive force the waves of Naples Bay might have on an exposed vertical seawall would be minimized by leaving a five (5) foot berm seaward of that wall and would in no way interfere with the Petitioner's intended use of his land; reasonable navigational access to Naples Bay. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: The application be granted with the proviso that the Petitioner leave a five (5) foot berm between Naples Bay and his vertical seawall. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Carole Haughey, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2552 Executive Center Circle, E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald T. Frank, Esquire Suite A, U.S. Home Building 3174 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33940 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION LYNN A. LUNDSTROM, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 76-1555 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Richard K. Stander is the owner of Tom's Harbor Key located in the Florida Keys between Duck Key and Grassy Key. Petitioner seeks a permit to construct a private, non-income producing fishing camp for personal acquaintances and guests. The construction includes a wood dock 80 feet long by six feet wide with nine finger piers two feet wide and 15 feet long running from this dock to provide boat slips, and 1350 linear feet of elevated walkway six feet wide running from the dock area across the mangrove area to seven cottages to be constructed on the upland area of Tom's Harbor Key. Piling across the mangrove area will be implanted by hand auger or water-jetted in. If jetted, appropriate turbidity screens will be used. The pilings for the dock will be driven or implanted with a mechanical auger. The Department of Natural Resources reviewed the application and determined that since the proposed project is a private, non-income producing facility, a lease [from DNR] is not presently required. (Exhibit 3) The submerged lands where the dock and boat slips are to be constructed contain patchy turtle grass growth on an open sandy bottom. (Exhibit 4) Construction of the dock and finger pier boat slips as proposed will have no adverse impact on the flora or fauna in the area. The proposed walkway will cover approximately 2400 square feet (0.06A) of wetlands consisting primarily of red and black mangroves. Constructing this walkway over these wetlands will have no adverse effect on the plants other than the pruning which will be needed to keep the walkway clear. The proposed caretaker's house will be built over the wetlands area and it, like the walkway, will be elevated and will have no adverse effect on the plant or animal life. The cottages will be built on the upland area, and they, too, will be built on pilings with the bottom of the structures some ten feet above mean sea level. Petitioner proposes to use dry toilets in these cottages and remove all wastes to the mainland. Accordingly, no waste will be discharged into the waters adjacent to Tom's Harbor Key. Intervenor contends the proposed project is commercial in nature rather than private but presented no evidence to support this contention. Objections to Intervenor's attempts to infer error in the DNR determination made in Exhibit 3 were sustained as not relevant to the issue before this tribunal. Intervenor also inferred that the application was false because Petitioner stated in the application that the pilings would be implanted using a hand auger or water jet, while at the hearing it was learned the dock piling would be driven or implanted with a mechanical auger. This difference was satisfactorily explained by the testimony of the individual who prepared the application. Moreover, the harm to the environment by implanting the dock pilings by driving or mechanical auger would be less than if these pilings were jetted. It is Intervenor's position that because Petitioner erred in stating in the application how the pilings were to be implanted perhaps he erred in other parts of the application, and therefore the application should be returned to Petitioner for resubmission. Tom's Harbor Key is a pristine area accessible only by water. The wetlands adjacent to this site consist of flourishing mangrove forests, and the area is highly productive. Those opposing the permit applied for are residents of Duck Key, a larger key adjacent to Tom's Harbor which is accessible by land, and which, before its development and occupancy, was also a pristine wetland habitat. Although these witnesses opined that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the marine habitat and on the birds at the site, no factual evidence to support those conclusions was presented.
