Findings Of Fact PROCEDURAL MATTERS 12 PROJECT DESIGN 16 ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE 17 Design 17 Construction 21 Maintenance 23 SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND SEPARATION FROM EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES 24 THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL CORRIDORS FROM MIDWAY SUBSTATION TO CORBETT SUBSTATION 29 DESCRIPTION OF THE TCRPC CORRIDORS 29 Land Uses 29 Unusual Uses or Restricted Areas - Cemeteries 32 Water Resources 32 Vegetation 33 Wildlife 33 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF THE TCRPC CORRIDORS 34 Land Use Impacts 34 Impacts on Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Cemeteries 41 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 41 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE TCRPC CORRIDORS 43 Water Resources Impacts 43 Vegetation Impacts 44 Wildlife Impacts 45 THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CORRIDOR FROM CORBETT SUBSTATION TO LEVEE SUBSTATION 45 DESCRIPTION OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR 45 Land Uses 45 Water Resources 48 Vegetation 49 Wildlife 50 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR 51 Land Use Impacts 51 Unique Proposed Uses 52 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 52 Other Consideration - Impacts to Sugar Cane 53 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR 54 Water Resources Impacts 54 Vegetation Impacts 55 Wildlife Impacts 56 DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A FROM MIDWAY SUBSTATION TO CORBETT SUBSTATION 57 DESCRIPTION OF DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A 57 Land Uses 57 Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 58 Water Resources 59 Vegetation 59 Wildlife 59 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A 59 Land Use Impacts 59 Impacts on Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 60 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 61 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A 62 Water Resources Impacts 62 Vegetation Impacts 62 Wildlife Impacts 62 DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A FROM MIDWAY SUBSTATION TO CORBETT SUBSTATION 63 DESCRIPTION OF DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A 63 Land Uses 63 Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 64 Water Resources 65 Vegetation 65 Wildlife 65 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A 65 Land Use Impacts 65 Impacts on Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 66 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 67 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A 67 Water Resources Impacts 67 Vegetation Impacts 67 Wildlife Impacts 68 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 68 CONSISTENCY OF THE TCRPC CORRIDOR WITH LOCAL PLANS 68 St. Lucie County 68 Martin County 68 Palm Beach County 69 CONSISTENCY OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR WITH LOCAL PLANS 69 Palm Beach County 69 Broward County 69 Dade County 70 THE SITE FOR THE CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 71 SYSTEM PLANNING AND ENGINEERING 71 System Planning 71 Engineering 72 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE FOR CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 73 Land Uses 73 Vegetation 74 Wildlife 74 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF THE PROPOSED SITE FOR CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 74 Land Use Impacts 74 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 74 Consistency with Local Comprehensive Plans 75 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SITE FOR CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 75 Vegetation Impacts 75 Wildlife Impacts 75 COSTS FOR THE LEVEE-MIDWAY TRANSMISSION LINE 76 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS 77 Compliance with EMF Rule 77 Lightning 78 Noise 78 Radio and Television Interference 79 NONPROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF AGENCIES 80 Conditions of Certification Agreed to by FPL 80 Supplemental Conditions Agreed to by FPL and SFWMD 83 Conditions of Certification Proposed by SFWMD but Opposed by FPL 85 Conditions of Certification Proposed by GFWFC 87 Local Government Zoning 89 Stipulations for Settlement Entered into by FPL 91
Conclusions Corridors That Remain Certifiable 93 Standing 94 CRITERIA TO EVALUATE CORRIDORS THAT REMAIN CERTIFIABLE 95 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(a), Florida Statutes 96 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(b), Florida Statutes 97 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(c), Florida Statutes 98 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(d), Florida Statutes 100 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(e), Florida Statutes 101 Impacts on the Public 101 Impacts on the Environment 104 Compliance with Section 403.529(4)(a), Florida Statutes 106 Compliance with Section 403.529(4)(c), Florida Statutes 107 CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 108 RECOMMENDATION 109
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order and therein dismiss the parties who failed to make and appearance; ratify the partial Summary Recommended Order; and grant certification for the location of the Levee-Midway Transmission Line in TCRPC Corridor 1 and the SFWMD Corridor and for the construction and maintenance of the transmission line within those corridors as proposed in the application and in accordance with the conditions of certification contained in Appendices C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and K, as modified and recommended on pages 98 and 99 herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1990. * APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER * Appendix to this Recommended Order is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos Alvarez David L. Powell Richard W. Moore Attorneys at Law Hopping Boyd Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street (32301) Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Attorneys for Florida Power and Light Company Richard T. Donelan, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road, Room 654 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Attorney for Department of Environmental Regulation James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Attorney for the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Frances Jauquet John J. Fumero Attorneys at Law South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road (33406) Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Attorneys for South Florida Water Management District 1 Katherine Funchess Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Attorney for Department of Community Affairs Roger G. Saberson, Attorney at Law Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council E. Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Attorney for Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Samuel S. Goren, Attorney at Law Josias & Goren, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 Attorney for South Florida Regional Planning Council Fred W. Van Vonno Assistant County Attorney Martin County 2401 S.E. Monterey Road Stuart, FL 34996 Attorney for Martin County Patrick M. Casey Assistant County Attorney Dade County Metro-Dade Center N.W. 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128-1993 Attorney for Dade County Krista A. Storey Assistant County Attorney St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue, Annex Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Attorney for St. Lucie County Noel M. Pfeffer, Deputy General Counsel Broward County Governmental Center, Suite 423 115 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorney for Broward County Robert P. Banks Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County Governmental Complex, 6th Floor 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorney for Palm Beach County Andrea L. Moore Assistant City Attorney City of Coral Springs 9551 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Attorney for City of Coral Springs Richard L. Doody, Attorney at Law Office of City Attorney City of Tamarac 7525 NW 88th Avenue Tamarac, FL 33321-2401 Attorney for City of Tamarac Steven L. Josias, Attorney at Law Josias & Goren, P.A. Centrust Savings Bank 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Attorneys for Vesta Vestra, Inc. and the City of Parkland Jon M. Henning, City Attorney City of Sunrise 10770 West Oakland Park Boulevard Sunrise, FL 33351 Lisa N. Mulhall, Attorney at Law Burke, Bosselman & Weaver One Lincoln Place 1900 Glades Road, Suite 350 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Attorney for Town of Davie Heather Ruda, Attorney at Law Gibson & Adams, P.A. 303 First Street, Suite 400 (33401) Post Office Box 1629 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-1629 Attorney for Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County Scott Shirley, Attorney at Law Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Attorney for Coral Ridge Properties William L. Hyde, Attorney at Law Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue (32301) Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Co-counsel for Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. Donald R. Hall, Attorney at Law Gustafson, Stephens, Ferris, Forman & Hill, P.A. 540 Northeast Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorney for Silver Lakes Partnership, Hollywood STS Associates, and the William Lyon Company Donna H. Stinson, Attorney at Law Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Attorney for Indian Trail Grove, Limited, Irving Cowan, Savin Groves, Kenneth G. Savage, Robert Povey and Harold Wideman, and Sunny Urban Meadows Landowners Association; Indian Trail Scott Mager, Attorney at Law Mager & Gaffney, P.A. The 110 Tower - 12th Floor 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorney for the Shennandoah Community Association and Jeff Reisburg Water Control District Stephen Covert, Attorney at Law 631 U.S. Highway One, Suite 200 (33408) Post Office Box 14035 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Attorney for Via Tropical Fruits, Inc.; Ronnie Hattaway; Talquin Corp.; Ralph C. Nash and Mikatum Groves J. A. Jurgens, Attorney at Law Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive Suite 1100 (33401) Post Office Drawer E West Palm Beach, FL 33402 Co-counsel for Via Tropical Fruits, Inc.; Ronnie Hattaway; Talquin Corp.; Ralph C. Nash and Mikatum Groves Timothy J. Manor Margaret H. Schreiber Attorneys at Law Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. 215 North Eola Drive (32801) Post Office Box 2809 Oriando, FL 32802-2809 Attorney for The Coca-Cola Company William J. Payne Dale Konigsburg Donna Stinson Attorneys at Law Rinker Materials Corporation 1501 Belvedere Road (33401) Post Office Box 24635 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4635 Attorneys for Rinker Materials Corporation Lawrence N. Ctrtin Samuel J. Morley Attorneys at Law Holland and Knight 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Attorneys for New Hope Sugar Company, Okeelanta Corporation, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Inc., South Bay Growers, Inc. United States Sugar Corporation, S. D. Sugar Corporation, Florida Sugar Cane League Alfred J. Malefatto, Attorney at Law Shapiro & Bregman, P.A. Suite 310, East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive (33401) Post Office Box 20629 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-0629 Attorney for FreBar, Inc.; Sugar Belle Joint Venture and Flor Ag Corporation Mark P. Gagnon Stanley D. Klett, Jr. Attorneys at Law Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan & Hyland, P.A. 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 900 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Attorneys for A. Duda and Sons, Inc. Leigh A. Williams, Attorney at Law Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike, P.A. 1855 S. Kanner Way (34994) Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, FL 34995 Attorney for VBQ, Inc.; Beach Brooks as Trustee and Individually Darrell White, Attorney at Law McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building (32301) Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, FL 32316-2174 Attorney for Allapattah Properties Partnership Michael K. Spotts, Attorney at Law Brennan, Hayskar, Jefferson & Gorman, P.A. 519 South Indian River Drive (34954) Post Office Box 3779 Fort Pierce, FL 34948 Attorney for Reuben Carlton Honorable Bob Martinez Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Eric Simon, Attorney at Law Borkson, Simon & Noskowitz 1500 N.W. 49th Street, Suite 401 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Attorney for Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. Mary M. Viator, Attorney at Law Caldwell & Pacetti Post Office Box 2775 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Attorney for Indian Trail Water Control District Robert D. Miller, Attorney at Law 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Tower A, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Sugar Belle Joint Venture and Flor-Ag Corporation Joseph M. Norton Transmission Line Siting Coordinator Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Tim Murphy Anita Tallarico Attorneys at Law South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Attorneys for South Florida Regional Planning Council Kerri L. Barsh, Attorney at Law 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Attorney for Graham Companies Donald S. Rosenberg, Attorney at Law 2600 AmeriFirst Building One S. E. Third Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Attorney for Black Island Partnership Robert E. Ferris, Trustee 540 Northeast Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Paul H. Amundsen James C. Hauser Attorneys at Law Blank, Hauser & Amundsen 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Attorney for D.L. Scotto & Company; Indian River Citrus League Frank H. Fee, III, Attorney at Law Fee, Bryan & Koblegard, P.A. Post Office Box 1000 Fort Pierce, FL 34954 Attorney for North St. Lucie River Water Control District Thomas E. Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 David Swafford, Executive Director Florida Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0875
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The proposed transmission line corridor is for the purpose of connecting a 230 kV line from the City of Tallahassee's existing system to the Georgia Power Transmission grid. The southern terminus of the corridor is in Leon County where the City's 230 kV line running north from the Hopkins' Power Plant makes a right angle turn toward the east, following Interstate Highway 10 (Section 13, Range 1 West, Township 1 North). The northern terminus of the corridor is that point where it ties to the Georgia system in Gadsden County, Florida, just south of the Florida State line in close proximity to the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and SR 157 (Section 90, Range 1 West, Township 3 North, north of the Watson line). The corridor generally follows a center line conjunct with the Range 1 West range line, except that approximately 2.75 miles north of its southern terminus the corridor bends approximately 25 degrees to the east for a distance of approximately one-half mile before turning north for approximately 1.4 miles at which point the corridor turns west approximately 25 degrees for a distance of approximately 1.2 miles, and then turns east approximately 35 degrees for approximately 8 miles before once again turning north. The corridor encompasses several major highways, including Interstate Highway 10 and U.S. Highway 27. It also encompasses part of the Ochlocknee River, the Gadsden County, Florida landfill, part of the Tallahassee Commercial Airport, and part of the Ochlocknee Wildlife Management Area and Lake Talquin State Recreation Area. Just north of the rest stop on Interstate Highway 10, the corridor includes an area known as Riverwood Acres, a non-platted subdivision. The center line of the corridor bisects the subdivision. From its southern origin north, for approximately the first one mile of the corridor, the width of the corridor is approximately 9/16 mile. Thereafter the width of the corridor is approximately 1/2 mile. The location of the corridor is depicted in Figures 2-3, 2-6A, 2-6B, and 2-6C of the application. There being no more definitive a description of the location of the corridor than that shown in the maps comprising figures 2-6A, B, and C of the application, it is found as a matter of fact that those figures define the parameters of the proposed corridor. The length of the corridor is approximately 15 miles. The purpose of the corridor is to provide a 100 foot right-of-way for a 230 kV transmission line constructed upon H-frame wood poles, with an approximate span of 600 feet. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 403.537, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), the Florida Public Service Commission, by order dated March 31, 1981, found that: The construction of the proposed transmission line will enhance electric system reliability and integrity. The proposed transmission line will improve the availability of low-cost electric energy within the State of Florida. The point at which the City of Tallahassee proposes to connect to the construction of Georgia Power Company, and the point at which it proposes to connect to its own system, are the appropriate starting and ending points of the line. The Public Service Commission then concluded that the proposed transmission line is needed. Approximately 11.0 miles of the corridor's center line traverses land that is wooded and undeveloped. The remainder of the corridor center line, 3.9 miles, crosses land that reflects some type of human development or use. That includes land that is currently agricultural, in improved pasture, or simply open, cleared land. Although no residences lie within the corridor's center line, houses do lie elsewhere within the corridor. Several houses are located near the southern end of the corridor just north of Interstate Highway 10 in the area referred to as Riverwood Acres. Several houses are located near the Gadsden County Sanitary Landfill, and scattered houses are located in the corridor to the west of the Concord and to the south of the Darsey communities. Immediately beyond the eastern corridor boundary, but not within the corridor, is a developing neighborhood located in Township 1 north, Range 1 West, Section In that area residential property boundaries abut the eastern corridor boundary. Because of the objection by homeowners in the Riverwood Acres area, the width of the corridor has been slightly extended along the western and eastern boundaries so that the right-of-way may be placed with least impact upon the homes in that area. Approximately 0.05 acres of agricultural land will be directly disturbed by placement of transmission structures. It is expected that agricultural land can continue to be farmed between transmission structures. Where possible, existing road crossings or roads adjacent to the right-of-way will be utilized for maintenance and construction purposes. Where necessary, new access roads will be developed, but only to the extent needed for construction and maintenance of the line. The only major water body crossed by the proposed corridor is the Ochlocknee River. Impacts to the river should be negligible since the line structures on each side of the river will be physically located away from the river banks, and the lines and structures spanning the river will be situated well above the ordinary high water mark as defined by the United States Corps of Engineers. The uncontradicted evidence presented indicates that other streams or small water bodies crossed by the corridor will not be adversely impacted. Similarly, the uncontradicted evidence established that the two wetland areas to be crossed by the corridor center line will not be adversely impacted. A 230 kV transmission line is not considered an extra high voltage transmission line. Lines at 345 kV or larger are considered extra high voltage lines. The uncontradicted evidence establishes that there will be no significant noise impacts from the proposed transmission line operation. Except as otherwise noticed in the Findings of Fact herein, the uncontradicted evidence established that the proposed transmission line, if constructed along a right-of-way in the proposed corridor, pursuant to the conditions of certification, would have no significant adverse effect on the environment. Its impact on the environment will be minimal. Although none of the parties to this proceeding posed any objection to the proposed transmission line corridor and the transmission line to be constructed therein, three members of the public gave testimony in opposition to the site certification at the final certification hearing. The three persons were all residents of Riverwood Acres and were generally expressing the concerns of the neighborhood. Their sincere concern is evidenced by the excellent quality of their presentation. They expressed their opinion that their land value would be diminished by the construction of a transmission line adjacent or over their property. While it is difficult to consider the construction of such a transmission line as an enhancement to the property, as established by the testimony of their property will be diminished by the construction of the transmission line. These public witnesses also expressed a concern for the aesthetic damage to their neighborhood by the construction of this transmission line. It is found as a matter of fact that should the transmission line be constructed over or adjacent to these residential owners in Riverwood Acres, the aesthetic value of their environment would be diminished by the visual impact of the transmission line. Finally, these public witnesses expressed their concern and belief that the effects of the electric and magnetic fields generated by the transmission line would effect the health and welfare of the residents of the neighborhood. However, as established by the testimony of two witnesses expert in the areas of electrical engineering, radiation biology, and biophysics, the electric and magnetic field forces encountered in the vicinity of the transmission line at ground level will have essentially no biological effect, and will be no stronger than similar forces encountered in the normal course of modern daily life. These members of the public presented a thoughtful, well conceived proposed alternative routing which would take the proposed transmission line around their residential neighborhood. However, the evidence presented in this proceeding does not establish that the existence of the alternative proposed by these members of the public by itself indicates that the corridor for which site certification has been requested, will not produce minimal adverse effects on the environment, public health, safety and welfare. The Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Veterans and Community Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Northwest Florida Water Management District have all recommended that the proposed transmission line corridor will have minimal, if any, adverse effects on the environment and public health, safety and welfare. Those agencies have recommended no reason why the site should not be certified subject to the conditions proposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation, which conditions are attached to this Recommended Order. Notice of the final certification hearing was published on May 13, 1981, in the Tallahassee Democrat, a daily newspaper published at Tallahassee, in Leon County, Florida.
Recommendation Having reviewed the record of this proceeding, and based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that certification, pursuant to the Transmission Lines Siting Act, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), be GRANTED to the City of Tallahassee for the transmission line corridor and the construction of the subject transmission lines as proposed in the application as amended and the evidence admitted to the record. It is further RECOMMENDED that certification be made subject to the Conditions of Certification attached hereto and the further condition pursuant to the requirement in Section 403.531(3), Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), that the City of Tallahassee shall be required to seek any necessary interests in state lands, the title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, from the Board prior to engaging in any activity on or affecting such lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis F. Hubener, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Veteran and Community Affairs Room 204, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Sexton, Esquire Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas Stowell, Esquire Northwest Florida Water Management District Route 1, Box 3100 Havana, Florida 32333 Kenneth Gilleland, Esquire Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Williams, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3300 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida Ted Steinmeyer, Esquire Leon County Attorney Leon County Courthouse, Room 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Shaw Curry, Esquire Gadsden County Attorney Post Office Box 469 Quincy, Florida 32351 Barrett Johnson, Esquire c/o Mahoney, Hadlow & Adams Post Office Box 471 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James R. Brindell, Esquire Post Office Box 3103 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (Representing Riverwood Acres Neighborhood Association)
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the facts involved in this rule challenge. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a large corporation operating throughout the United States. It engages in the business of manufacturing electrical components and in constructing, installing and servicing electrical control systems and other phases of electrical contracting work. As its name implies, Johnson Controls' primary emphasis in the electrical field is in selling, installing, and maintaining systems for fire, security, heating, air conditioning, and energy consumption controls. Johnson Controls is presently licensed to do electrical contracting work by 23 counties and municipalities in Florida and in 49 of the 50 states. Winfred Allen Infinger holds a B. E. degree in Technology and Construction, a journeyman electrician's license in Pinellas County, and is fully qualified by training and experience to be the qualifying agent of Johnson Controls in this application. In its letter of May 8, 1979 denying petitioner's application, Respondent, through its executive director, stated the following grounds: Your application failed to meet the qualification as that of a Florida licensed electrical contractor (468.181(5)) whose services are unlimited in the Electrical Field. The review of your application reflects that Johnson Controls, Inc., is a specialty contractor and presently Florida Statutes, Chapter 468, Part VII does not provide for licensure of specialty contractors.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner is MCI Telecommunications Corporation, whose business address is Suite 400, 400 Perimeter Center Terrace NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30346. The Respondent is State of Florida, Department of General Service, whose address is 614 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida. The Intervenors are Microtel, Inc., whose address is 7100 West Camino Real, Suite 311, Boca Raton, Florida 33433, and United States Transmission Systems, whose business address is 320 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. MCI, Microtel, AT&T, Southland, and USTS are all interexchange carriers authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to provide, among other things, interstate WATS. MCI, AT&T, Southland, and Microtel are all interexchange carriers certified by the Florida Public Service Commission to provide, among other things, intermachine trunks and intrastate WATS. The interexchange carriers who participated in the November 5, 1987, negotiations were not advised prior to 9:00 a.m. on that day that the negotiations would consist of three rounds of price quotations with the prices quoted and each round being posted immediately on the board for review by the other carriers. The posting by the Division of Purchasing between 3:00 p.m. on November 2, 1987, and 3:00 p.m. on November 5, 1987, of a draft memorandum from William Monroe to Glenn Mayne was not a bid tabulation. The State of Florida provides a communications system to state agencies, local governments, and public school districts through the SUNCOM Network. The SUNCOM Network consists of switches, access lines, and transmission facilities such as Intermachine Trunks, Interstate WATS, and Intrastate WATS. On the SUNCOM Network, long distance calls from one SUNCOM user to another SUNCOM user are completed on IMTs. Intrastate WATS facilities are used to place in-state long distance calls from a SUNCOM user to a party not a member of the SUNCOM Network. Interstate WATS facilities are used to complete out-of-state long distance calls. The Division of Communications desired to migrate the data users of the SUNCON Network from an analog environment to a digital environment. In order to do that, there had to be changes to the SUNCOM switching facilities and changes to the transmission facilities. In 1984, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued for the switches. As a result of the RFP, the network went from 5 to 11 switches on December 1, 1986. The Division of Communications decided to utilize digital transmission facilities for both IMTs and Interstate WATS facilities on the newly configured network. In 1985, the Division of Communications negotiated a contract with MCI for the provision of the Interstate WATS. MCI made no protest to being awarded the contract by negotiation. AT&T was selected to provide the IMTs. The selection of AT&T and MCI was an interim measure to give the Division of Communications time to evaluate the transmission facilities for changes after the new network had stabilized. At the time of the final hearing, AT&T was the current provider for the IMTs and Intrastate WATS and MCI was the current provider for the Interstate WATS. On March 1, 1987, the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing sent a letter to seventeen suppliers of transmission facilities. The letter advised the suppliers that the Division of Communications was beginning an evaluation process to determine the viability of replacing some or all of the SUNCOM Network completion facilities with different suppliers. The suppliers were advised that a potential supplier did not have to service all routes or provide all facilities in order to be considered. Suppliers were requested to provide information concerning their transmission facilities. It was contemplated that the transmission facilities would be tested for approximately 90 days, during which time there would be consideration of reliability, maintainability, cost, and billing. The evaluation process also contemplated consideration of corporate viability and status, network typology, and references from existing customers similar in size to the State of Florida. The suppliers were cautioned that their participation in the evaluation process did not guarantee a contract and that it was possible that the evaluation process might not result in any contract. The suppliers were also advised that any contract would be negotiated. The March 18, 1987, letter is a request for information and was so considered by the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing. By April 9, 1987, the Department of General Services had received ten responses to the March 18, 1987, letter. A five member evaluation team was formed to review the April 9 responses from the suppliers, conduct the oral presentations, conduct the 90-day test and make recommendations. The evaluation committee was comprised of five employees of the Division of Communications. Division of Purchasing personnel did not actively participate on the evaluation committee because they wanted to remain impartial in the event the Division of Purchasing would later have to decide what method of procurement to use. Each potential supplier was scheduled for an oral presentation in late April or early May of 1987. Additional information about the proposals was obtained at those presentations. The suppliers were asked during oral presentation if their prices were open for negotiation. Ed Martinez of MCI said that MCI was open for negotiation. Of the carriers that survived the technical evaluation process, MCI had submitted the lowest price for all of the solicited telecommunications facilities and services. An in-service test of the ten suppliers was conducted from July 10 to September 30, 1987. One supplier, Lightnet, disconnected its transmission facility prior to the end of the test period. Robert Davis, chairman of the evaluation committee, used a numerical rating scheme to assist in evaluating the suppliers. The numerical point system was used as a way to make the evaluation process more objective. Additionally, when the evaluation was begun, the evaluation committee did not know whether contracts would be awarded through a formal acquisition process or through negotiation. The committee thought that an orderly ranking of the participants based on a rating scheme would be beneficial to Mr. Mayne in determining the method of acquisition. Mr. Mayne was unaware that a numerical point system was being used to evaluate the responses until he read the report prepared by the evaluation committee. On October 16, 1987, the evaluation committee issued the "Report on Alternate Suppliers for SUNCOM Network Transmission Facilities." The report outlined the evaluation process, presented the findings of the committee in the areas of pricing, billing, reliability-maintainability, corporate viability and general compliance by the suppliers, and made recommendations based on their findings. The evaluation committee concluded that, based on the prices submitted by the suppliers, it was possible for the state to reduce the cost of the operation of the network by over $368,000 per month. In considering the corporate viability of a supplier, the evaluation committee did not intend to conduct an indepth financial analysis. The evaluation committee wanted to determine whether the suppliers would have the ability to survive in a competitive environment for the contract period of three years. Both DGS' staff and MCI's financial analysis expert agreed that ITT, MCI, Microtel, AT&T and Southland were in a position to maintain their corporate viability for the contract period. The evaluation committee recognized that there was an opportunity to further reduce the cost of the network transmission facilities. The committee recommended that the IMTs, Interstate WATS and Intrastate WATS not be provided by one supplier. It was also recommended that Sprint, Digital Signal, and Lightnet be eliminated from further consideration. The report did not recommend specific suppliers. The committee recognized that if the point evaluation were used that the ranking would change as the result of further negotiations. They felt that if a decision was made not to use the point evaluation, then low cost would determine the suppliers. The report was presented to Glenn Mayne for his consideration. Based on his review of the report, Mr. Mayne determined that the State was currently paying far too much money for the transmission facilities; the State desired to have more than one supplier for the transmission facilities; and there was a group of potential alternate suppliers who could supply the State with transmission facilities which would be acceptable for the SUNCOM Network. As soon as Mr. Mayne became aware of the enormous potential savings to the State (and probably because of that awareness) things began to happen very quickly. A copy of the evaluation report was given to Bill Monroe. Mr. Mayne and Mr. Monroe discussed the report and Mr. Mayne expressed some concerns relating to the Division of Communications' need to migrate data signals to the network. Monroe asked that those concerns be put in writing. Mr. Mayne complied by memorandum dated October 28, 1987, in which he expressed his concerns relating to the discontinuance of Telpak and the Division of Communications' plans to migrate data to the voice network. The desire to address these concerns in the negotiations was due primarily to an AT&T proposal submitted in the late summer or early fall of 1987, which addressed these concerns. The Department had made no effort to obtain proposals similar to AT&T's from the other suppliers prior to requesting authority to negotiate from the Division of Purchasing. The Division of Purchasing deemed the October 28 memorandum to be the Division of Communications' formal request for the authority to negotiate. Mr. Monroe authorized the Division of Communications to negotiate contracts for the transmission facilities and services for the SUNCOM Network. The authorization to negotiate was granted because the providing of transmission facilities and services was a regulated portion of the telephone industry; the participants were limited to those which met Florida Public Service Commission guidelines for facility based operations; an indepth evaluation of the suppliers had been performed; and the delay incident to using any other procurement method would result in a substantial monetary loss to the State. The most significant factor in the decision to negotiate was the monetary loss which would result from delay. The authorization memorandum recommended that the negotiation be handled as a joint venture between the Division of Communications and the Division of Purchasing, and that the Division of Purchasing participate in development of the criteria for final selection of a supplier. Mr. Mayne discussed the method of negotiations to be used with Mr. Monroe and his staff. Based on his past experience with one-on-one negotiations, Mr. Mayne felt it would be fairer to put up everyone's prices on the board so that all suppliers could see each others prices. Mr. Mayne suggested that there be two verbal rounds of pricing and a final round in writing. Mr. Monroe concurred with Mr. Mayne's suggestion. It was felt this method of negotiations would result in better pricing for the State; could be done quickly and easily; and would reduce the chance of one supplier being favored over another. The intended decision of the Division of Purchasing to authorize the negotiation was posted in the Division of Purchasing beginning November 2, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. The posting was in the form of a post-dated, unsigned memorandum from the Division of Purchasing Director to the Division of Communications Director. Stamped at the bottom of the draft memorandum was the language required by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, indicating that the failure to file a timely protest would constitute a waiver of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, proceedings. In large letters at the top of this posting was the word DRAFT. Each of the ten suppliers was notified that the Division of Purchasing had authorized negotiations and that this decision would be posted beginning November 2 through November 5, 1987. On November 2, 1987, Cherrie McClellan, a purchasing specialist for the Division of Purchasing, called MCI's Ed Martinez to advise him that the authorization for the Division of Communications to negotiate for the procurement of the SUNCOM Network alternate suppliers would be posted from 3:00 p.m. November 2, 1987 to 3:00 p.m. November 5, 1987. Ms. McClellan was unable to reach Mr. Martinez and left the message on his recording machine. On November 3, 1987, Mr. Martinez called Ms. McClellan to confirm the message. She told him that the posting was for the authority for the Division of Communications to negotiate and she assumed that the Division of Communications would be contacting him. In giving the telephone notification to MCI, the Division of Purchasing did not specifically advise MCI that its failure to file a timely protest of the Division of Purchasing's decision would waive MCI's rights to proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. On November 3, Mr. Martinez also called John Fain, a purchasing specialist supervisor with the Division of Purchasing. Mr. Fain advised Mr. Martinez that the Division of Purchasing had received a request for authority to negotiate from the Division of Communications, final negotiation could not begin until after the conclusion of the posting at 3:00 p.m. on November 5, 1987, and he did not know if there would be another posting. On November 2, 1987, Mohammed Amirzadeh Asl, an electrical engineer with the Division of Communications, called Ed Martinez between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.; invited him to the negotiations on November 5; told him to bring his best prices for IMT routes and personnel who could make a decision; advised him he would have access during the negotiations to a phone but he had to use his credit card for any calls; and told him that DGS would be faxing him additional information concerning the negotiations. Mr. Amirzadeh also advised the other suppliers on November 2 of the negotiations and told them the same thing he had told Mr. Martinez. Mr. Martinez called Mr. Amirzadeh on November 3 and 4 with questions concerning the negotiations. On November 4, DGS faxed a memorandum to the suppliers concerning the criteria for the negotiations and the prices which had been quoted thus far to the Division of Communications. The memorandum advised the suppliers that preliminary discussions would start at 9:00 a.m. on November 5 at the Division of Communications and official negotiations would not start until 3:00 p.m. When Mr. Martinez, the MCI representative, came to the negotiations, he expected the Department to negotiate first with MCI to attempt to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement for the solicited telecommunications facilities and services, and he expected the Department to negotiate with other suppliers only if the negotiations with MCI were unsuccessful. These expectations were based on MCI's status as one of the incumbent suppliers, on the fact that the Department appeared to very satisfied with MCI's performance, and on the fact that MCI had submitted the lowest price proposals for all of the solicited telecommunications facilities and services in its April 9, 1987, submittal. These expectations were unwarranted. The negotiations began at 9:00 a.m. on November 5,1987. Glenn Mayne started out the negotiations by discussing the criteria which had been faxed to the suppliers on November 4. The suppliers were also given copies of the evaluation committee report. The suppliers were advised that there would be three rounds of negotiations The first two rounds would be preliminary. The last round of negotiation was to take place prior to 5:00 p.m. There were some assumptions that the suppliers were given to use in presenting their prices. The suppliers' prices were to be for one T-1 on each route, and the costs were to include access charges. Additionally, if there was any difference between the quoted and actual access charges the difference would be the responsibility of the supplier. The format used by the Division of Communications for the negotiations on November 5, 1987, was not normally used by the Department. The first round of pricing was at 11:00 a.m. Each supplier gave its price orally and as the price was given it was written on a board in the room. An objection was raised by one of the suppliers that the method used could give the last supplier an advantage because he would have seen all of the other suppliers' prices prior to giving his price. The second round was scheduled for 2:00 p.m. The method of receiving prices was changed to accommodate the objections at the first round. In the second round each participant wrote his prices on a piece of paper, all the papers were picked up, the papers opened, and the prices were written on the board. Between the second and third rounds, each supplier was given an opportunity to meet with Mr. Mayne and his staff. Mr. Martinez met with Mr. Mayne and his staff at 3:00 p.m. During the meeting, Mr. Mayne advised Mr. Martinez that DGS would like two separate fibers for each T-1 route for IMTs. The price for IMTs given by Microtel was approximately $9.50 per mile month. The corresponding price for MCI was around $15 or $16 per mile month. Mr. Mayne advised Mr. Martinez that, in order for MCI to be considered for a portion of the IMTs, MCI's price needed to be around $10 per mile month. Mr. Mayne did not reference access charges when he discussed the $10 per mile month. One of the assumptions of the pricing for the negotiations was that all prices would include access charges. During the meeting, Mr. Mayne told Mr. Martinez that MCI's price for IMTs was almost twice as much as the other suppliers. Additionally during the 3:00 p.m. meeting between Mr. Mayne and Mr. Martinez, Mr. Mayne explained to Mr. Martinez that the suppliers would reconvene at 4:00 p.m. and report their final responses and the last round of pricing would be before 5:00 p.m. Notwithstanding the clear explanation of when the suppliers would have their last opportunity to give their final prices, Mr. Martinez was apparently confused because he thought (albeit erroneously) that he would have another opportunity to offer a price after the third round. Because he thought that as an incumbent supplier MCI would have another opportunity to offer a price after all of the other suppliers had given their final prices, Mr. Martinez made a judgment call not to offer MCI's best price during the third round of the negotiations. The best price that Mr. Martinez was authorized to offer on the interstate WATS was slightly higher than the best price actually offered by another supplier. Mr. Martinez appears to be the only one who was confused about the finality of the third round of negotiations. It would not have been fair to the other suppliers to have afforded MCI an opportunity to submit further prices after the third round. No one from the Department of General Services advised Mr. Martinez that he would be given an opportunity to present further pricing after the other suppliers had given their best and final prices. The suppliers reconvened at 4:00 p.m. A supplier inquired whether the prices could be given before 5:00 p.m. Mr. Mayne asked the other suppliers whether they were ready and no one objected to giving the prices before 5:00 p.m. Mr. Mayne emphasized the third round was the last round. The suppliers gave their final prices at 4:19 p.m. The suppliers were asked to sign the sheets which contained their prices for the last round. Microtel submitted the lowest price for IMTs at $8.89 per mile. MCI's price for the IMTs was $12.52 per mile. ITT submitted the lowest price for Interstate WATS facilities at $.1249 per minute. MCI submitted $.1285 per minute for the Interstate WATS facilities. MCI submitted the lowest price for Intrastate WATS facilities at $.1133 per minute. Microtel submitted $.1139 per minute for the Intrastate WATS facilities. At the conclusion of the final round of pricing, AT&T indicated that they had additional pricing which was contained in a proposal submitted to Mr. Mayne in late summer or early fall of 1987. Mr. Mayne thought that AT&T had submitted its final prices during the last round and he advised AT&T that he would not consider the prices that were not contained on the sheets submitted by AT&T during the last round. John Fain, representative for the Division of Purchasing at the negotiations, also stated that prices not placed on the board could not be accepted. Mr. Mayne advised the suppliers at the end of the negotiations that the Division of Communications would try to reach a decision by the close of business on November 6. At the end of negotiations on November 5, 1987, the Division of Communications returned to AT&T its proposal which had formed part of the basis for the Division of Communications' request for authority to negotiate after AT&T claimed pricing information contained in that proposal was proprietary. At the beginning of the negotiation session on November 5, Mr. Mayne was satisfied that each of the participants could provide the solicited transmission facilities and services. Since the AT&T proposal would not be considered, Mr. Mayne determined that the contract should be awarded based on lowest cost for each of the transmission facilities. Prior to acting on this determination, Mr. Mayne discussed the matter with the Division of Purchasing. The Division of Purchasing concurred in the decision to award on the basis of lowest cost. The contract awards were based on low price and not the total points assigned to the providers based upon the numeric rating system used by the evaluation committee in the evaluation report. Mr. Amirzadeh telephoned Mr. Martinez on November 6, 1987, to inform MCI that the Department intended to award the Intrastate WATS facilities to MCI. Mr. Martinez advised Mr. Amirzadeh that the prices submitted by MCI were package prices. MCI later contacted the Department and advised the Department that the MCI price for Intrastate WATS was a package price. MCI withdrew its offering for Intrastate WATS. On being advised that MCI was withdrawing its offer for the Intrastate WATS facilities, the Department decided to award the Intrastate WATS facilities to the next lowest provider, which was Microtel. On November 10, 1987, the Department issued Communications Service Authorizations (CSAs) to Microtel for the Intrastate WATS facilities and IMTs, and to ITT for the Interstate WATS facilities. These CSAs are the only contracts to be executed by the State of Florida for the solicited telecommunications services and facilities. The CSAs were signed by the Division of Communications. By contracting with Microtel for IMTs, Mr. Mayne estimated there would be a cost savings of $216,000 per month. The cost savings associated with contracting with Microtel for the Intrastate WATS is approximately $98,000 a month. It is estimated the State will save approximately $105,000 per month by contracting with ITT for Interstate WATS. MCI filed a notice of intent to protest the contract awards on November 12, 1987. MCI filed its formal written protest on November 23, 1987. In acquiring these transmission facilities the Department is leasing spaces on the supplier's fiber optic cable. The spaces within the cable are analogous to time envelopes, which may carry information or no information, being shot down the fiber optic cable. The Department leases the spaces in multiples of T-1s. A T-1 represents 1.544 million spaces per second. When the Department leases a T-1, the Department has a dedicated physical connection and the information that will be contained in the spaces or time envelopes will always appear in the same space and in the same time. The Department leases the fiber facilities on a 24-hour-a-day basis, because it is more economical than leasing for shorter periods of time. While the space is being leased to the State, no other customer of the transmission facilities supplier can use that space. The functions of the facilities can also be described as follows. The interstate WATS service, the intrastate WATS service, and the IMT service for which the Department contracted, involve the receipt by the carrier of an originating call from a SUNCOM switch and the transmission of that call over the carrier's owned or leased facilities, including access facilities leased by the carrier from the local exchange company, to its destination either outside or inside the State of Florida or to another SUNCOM switch. In addition to the lease of spaces, the Department will be acquiring maintenance and billing services and, in the case of the WATS facilities, it will also be procuring management reports concerning the location of calls. For the facilities used to provide interstate WATS service, intrastate WATS service, and IMT service, the State of Florida will not have physical access to, the ability to monitor traffic over, maintenance or repair responsibility for, or rights to use particular components of those facilities. This applies to both the carriers' facilities and the access facilities leased by the carrier from local exchange companies to connect the SUNCOM switches and the carriers' facilities. For the facilities used to provide interstate WATS service, intrastate WATS service, and IMT service, the long distance carrier will have the responsibility for maintenance and repair of those facilities, the right to replace or upgrade those facilities in a fashion transparent to the State, and the right to determine the physical path through those facilities over which information from the State of Florida would be transmitted. This applies to both the carrier's facilities and the access facilities leased by the carrier from the local exchange companies to connect the SUNCOM switches to the facilities. The Department interprets Rule Chapter 13C-2, Florida Administrative Code, to apply to the acquisition of nonregulated communications equipment. The forms referred to in Rule 13C-2.008 are forms which State agencies use in requesting approval from the Division of Communications for the purchase or lease of nonregulated communications services or equipment. Rule Chapter 13C-1, Florida Administrative Code, has been interpreted by the Department to deal with a regulated environment. The procurement at issue in this proceeding is in a regulated environment. The criteria and procedures described in Chapter 13C-2, Florida Administrative Code, were not used in this procurement of the solicited telecommunications facilities and services. The negotiation process itself was negotiated in a fair and equitable manner. Each supplier was advised at the beginning of the negotiation session that there would be three rounds of pricing. There has been no claim by MCI that any of the suppliers had knowledge prior to 9:00 a.m. on November 5, 1987, of the actual negotiation process that would be used. When an objection was made by one of the suppliers to the method of accepting pricing in round one, the method of accepting prices was changed so that no supplier would have an advantage over another. It was made clear that the third round was the last round in which the suppliers could submit their best and final offers. The Department did not consider offers which were not submitted during the third round. The Department attempted to provide competition in the negotiation process by having the suppliers compete against each other in the pricing rounds. No supplier was treated more favorably than another. MCI was never told that it would be awarded the contracts. MCI made no protest or objection to the negotiation process prior to or on November 5, 1987.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5338BID The following are my specific ruling on all of the findings of fact proposed by all of the parties. Findings proposed by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: All generally accepted, but some details have been omitted as either subordinate or unnecessary. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15: Accepted. Paragraph 16: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19: Accepted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23 and 24: Accepted. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 26 and 27: Accepted. Paragraph 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 29: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 30: Rejected a subordinate and unnecessary Paragraphs 31 and 32: Accepted: Paragraph 33: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39: Accepted. Paragraphs 40 and 41: Rejected because the analogies fail. Paragraph 42: Accepted. Paragraph 43: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Findings proposed by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9 and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18: Accepted. Paragraph 19: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44: Accepted. Paragraph 45: First sentence accepted. The remainder is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 46: First four sentences accepted. Last sentence is a conclusion of law. Paragraphs 47 and 48: Accepted. Findings proposed by the Intervenors: Paragraph 1: Rejected as statement of position rather than proposed finding. Paragraph 2 and 3: Accepted. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10: Some of the details proposed in these paragraphs have been included, but most are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, details. Paragraphs 12 add 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 16 and 17: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24: Some of the details proposed in these paragraphs have been included, but most have been rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraphs 25, 26 and 27: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 28: Accepted. Paragraph 29, 30, 31 and 32: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38: Accepted. Paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 50 and 51: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 52 and 53: Accepted. Paragraph 54: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 55: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 56: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 57, 58 and 59: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 60 and 61: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Kirkland, Esquire Sandra D. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Richard D. Melson, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Patrick K. Wiggins, Esquire Wings Solcum Benton, Esquire Ranson & Wiggins 325 West Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 1657 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.
Findings Of Fact Notice of Hearing Applicant published sufficient notices of the October 29, 1992, land use hearing in The Tampa Tribune (Hillsborough County) on September 12, 1992, and in The Ledger (Polk County) on September 13, 1992. Notice of the land use hearing was also posted at the site on September 14, 1992. On September 18, 1992, DER mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the public notice for the land use hearing for the proposed project to Polk County Development Services. Copies were mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Central Florida Regional Planning Council and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. On October 21, 1992, DER issued a news release concerning the proposed project and the land use and zoning hearing to appropriate media selected by DER. The notice for the land use hearing published in the September 25, 1992, Florida Administrative Weekly was not published at least 45 days prior to the public hearing on the land use hearing as required by Section 17- 17.151(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code. On October 27, 1992, Applicant filed a motion for alteration of the 45-day time limit for notice of publication in the Florida Administrative Weekly. During the hearing, the Hearing Officer granted Applicant's motion and approved of the late notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly. On November 4, 1992, the Hearing Officer entered a written order confirming her prior oral order. Stipulation Applicant and Polk County entered into a stipulation concerning the proposed project's compliance with Polk County's zoning and land use regulations. This stipulation was admitted as Exhibit 4. The stipulation reflects Polk County's agreement that the proposed site of the Polk Power Station and transmission line corridors, which are subject to Conditional Use Permit number 92-05, are consistent and in compliance with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan and Polk County zoning ordinance number 83-2 and subsequent amendments (hereinafter The Polk County Zoning Ordinance). Site Identification Process In identifying the location of the Polk Power Station, Applicant received public guidance from a public power plant siting task force composed of environmentalists, educators, and business people. Over half the task force membership was composed of environmentalists. The task force selected a professional environmental consulting firm to assist in conducting the studies necessary to complete the siting project. A six county study area was initially selected for evaluation by the task force, which then commenced a multi-phase screening process. First, preliminary study areas were identified and reviewed and some areas were rejected. In phase two, the remaining preliminary areas were subjected to an environmental, engineering, and economic review which narrowed the list to fifteen candidate sites. In phase three, the task force reviewed these fifteen sites in greater detail, then narrowed the list to six "prime siting areas" and received input concerning these six areas from the public and various governmental agencies including DER and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Upon completion of the third phase, the task force narrowed the field to three preferred sites, all of which were located in southwestern Polk County on land that had been mined for phosphate. The task force determined that each of these sites was essentially indistinguishable and left the selection of the final site to Tampa Electric Company. Project Site Description Design and Construction Applicant proposes to construct and operate a power plant and affiliated components including two transmission lines. The total generating capacity at the site will be approximately 1150 megawatts. The plant will commence operation in two stages. The first stage will be construction of a nominal 260-megawatt integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) demonstration project developed by Applicant and supported in part by the United States Department of Energy under the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration program. The IGCC facility is scheduled to be brought on-line in two phases. The first phase of the IGCC project will begin commercial operation in July, 1995, and will consist of a simple cycle combustion turbine. During this first year of operation, the combustion turbine will burn low sulfur number two fuel oil. In July, 1996, the remaining facilities consisting of the heat recovery steam generator, steam turbine, and coal gasification facilities will be added and integrated to complete the nominal 260-megawatt IGCC unit. After integration of these facilities, the IGCC unit will be fueled by coal-derived gas which is produced in the coal gasification facilities, with low sulfur number two fuel oil as the backup fuel. The second stage of the project will be the addition of two nominal 220-megawatt combined cycle facilities and six 75- megawatt nominal combustion turbines. These facilities are proposed to be fueled by natural gas as the primary fuel, with low sulfur number two fuel oil as the backup fuel. Associated with the Polk Power Station electrical generating plant will be a coal handling facility, a rail loop, water treatment and storage facilities, fuel oil storage and handling facilities, storm water management ponds, transmission lines and substations, and a cooling reservoir located southeast of the plant site. The cooling reservoir will be used to cool the steam from the heat recovery steam generator so that water can be reused in the system. Location of Site The proposed site for the Polk Power Station consists of 4,348 acres. The site is located in southwestern Polk County approximately 10.4 miles northwest of Bowling Green in Hardee County. Within Polk County, the nearest municipality is Fort Meade, approximately 10.8 miles to the east of the proposed site. Within Hillsborough County, the nearest municipality is Plant City located approximately 19.2 miles to the northwest. Within Manatee County, Bradenton is located approximately 34.8 miles to the southwest. The unincorporated community of Bradley Junction is located approximately 4.4 miles to the north of the generating facility. The Polk Power Station site is bisected by State Road 37, which divides the project into two tracts, the eastern tract and the western tract. The eastern tract will contain the proposed generating facility and cooling reservoir. The western tract will be reclaimed into a series of wetlands and uplands for a natural habitat area. Existing Land Uses The eastern tract is bordered to the north by County Road 630 and bordered to the east by the existing Hardee-Pebbledale 230 Ft. Green Road, and a CSX Railroad line. The eastern tract is bordered to the south by clay settling areas. The western tract is bordered to the south by State Road 674 and bordered to the west by the Hillsborough/Polk County line. The western tract is bordered to the north by Albritton and Bethlehem Roads. The western tract of the proposed site is currently undergoing active phosphate mining operations. Most of the western tract will be mined. The eastern tract has also been subject to phosphate mining operations. Portions of the eastern tract have not and will not be mined and will be the location for the proposed generating facility. The eastern tract contains three lakes of significant size, all created from phosphate mining activities. Adjacent land uses for the western tract include reclaimed phosphate mining lands, citrus groves, scattered residences, pasture lands, inactive clay settling ponds, undeveloped lands, an inactive phosphate chemical processing plant and cooling pond, and an active clay settling pond. Land uses adjacent to the eastern tract include pasture land, a citrus grove, one single family residence, active and inactive clay settling ponds, and an agricultural test tract operated by Polk County and the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Transmission Line Corridors Description Design and Construction The proposed transmission lines will transport bulk power at the 230- kV level from the Polk Power Station substation to the existing Tampa Electric Company grid system. Two types of transmission line structures are planned for the Polk Power Station. The first, the H-frame structure, consists of two vertical poles with an out-of-ground height of approximately 65 feet. The vertical poles are connected by a cross-arm assembly. The cross-arm assembly holds the porcelain insulators and the conductors for the transmission system. One overhead ground wire is attached to the top of each vertical pole. The single pole structure may be constructed in two configurations: single circuit or double circuit. These configurations are identical except that the single circuit configuration has one set of conductors, insulators, and ground wires, whereas the double circuit configuration has two sets. The typical out-of- ground height for the single pole structure is 96 feet. Location of Corridors There are two transmission line corridors associated with the proposed Polk Power Station, which are referred to as the eastern and northern corridors. The eastern corridor exits a substation located on the project site in a northeast direction to a point where the corridor meets the existing Hardee- Pebbledale 230-kV line, located along the western edge of Fort Green Road, with the point of intersection being located approximately 1400 feet south of County Road 630. The eastern corridor will be 400 feet wide and is approximately one mile long. The northern corridor commences from an onsite substation and runs in a westerly direction onsite until it meets State Road 37. This onsite portion of the northern corridor will be 400 feet wide and approximately three quarters of a mile long. At the point where the northern corridor meets State Road 37, the corridor turns northeast and continues in that direction parallel to State Road 37 to a point south of Bradley Junction, where it turns to the northwest, and then to the north, crossing Doc Durrance Road. At this point, the northern corridor meets the existing Mines Pebbledale 230-kV transmission line. The width of the northern corridor along State Road 37 is one-half mile and the width in the northwestern segment is one mile. The total offsite length of the northern corridor is approximately 5.2 miles. Existing Land Uses The eastern corridor is located exclusively on land that previously has been mined for phosphate. The onsite portion of the northern corridor also crosses only land previously mined for phosphate. The northern corridor east of State Road 37 and north of County Road 630 encounters undeveloped land, a citrus grove, an abandoned gasoline service station, phosphate mining lands, a wetland, scattered residences, and unclaimed phosphate mining lands. Land uses within the northern corridor west of State Road 37 include inactive clay settling areas, mixed forested areas and scattered citrus groves, wetland areas, phosphate mining lands, scattered residences, and a clay settling pond. Existing land uses within the northwestern segment of the northern corridor include reclaimed agricultural lands, a reclaimed lake, and a clay settling area. Consistency With Applicable Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance The Polk Power Station site and associated electrical transmission line corridors are located exclusively in Polk County. Therefore, the land use plan and zoning ordinances applicable to the Polk Power Station and associated components and transmission lines are those adopted by Polk County. Conditional Use Permit On January 24, 1992, Applicant filed with Polk County a conditional use permit application for the Polk Power Station. Supplemental information for that application was submitted by Applicant on February 12, 1992. The project was reviewed at an impact review meeting on March 16, 1992. The Polk County Zoning Advisory Board recommended approval of a conditional use permit for the project on May 13, 1992. On June 2, 1992, the Polk County Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved Applicant's conditional use permit application and on June 18, 1992, Conditional Use Permit number 92-05 was issued. Polk County Land Use Plan The land use plan that governs the Polk Power Station site and associated transmission line corridors is the Polk County Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Polk County Board of County Commissioners on April 19, 1991. The future land use element of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan allows for the development of certified electric power generation facilities (i.e., generation facilities and ancillary facilities required to be certified pursuant to the PPSA) in the phosphate mining (PM) future land use category if the proposed facility is reviewed and approved by Polk County through a conditional use permit. The Polk County Comprehensive Plan also contains specific objectives and policies which are used in determining the appropriateness of a location for a certified electric power generating facility. These include locational, environmental, development approval, and adjacent development criteria contained in the future land use element. Also, general policies and objectives relating to design and operational features for developments within Polk County are contained in the future land use, conservation, economic, traffic circulation, and infrastructure elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Electric transmission lines are permitted as specialized uses in all future land use categories in Polk County, subject to County approval. Polk County has stipulated that the site of the proposed Polk Power Station and associated transmission line corridors, which are subject to the conditions contained in Conditional Use Permit number 92-05, are in compliance and consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. The power plant site is in compliance and consistent with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. This determination is based on the fact that the Polk Power Station, a facility required to undergo certification review pursuant to the PPSA, is a certified electric power generating facility to be located within the PM future land use category. Electric power generating facilities such as the Polk Power Station are allowed in the PM future land use category if the County grants its approval in the form of a conditional use permit. Here, Conditional Use Permit number 92-05 has been issued by the County approving the Polk Power Station site. Furthermore, the proposed Polk Power Station site complies with the locational, environmental, development approval, and adjacent development criteria of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan applicable to certified electric power generating facilities as well as with the general policies for developments contained in the future land use, conservation, economic, infrastructure and traffic circulation elements of the Plan. With respect to the Polk Power Station transmission line corridors, the eastern transmission corridor and onsite portions of the northern corridor are located within the PM future land use category. The offsite portion of the northern corridor is located primarily within the PM future land use category with a small area in the southern portion of this corridor located in the agricultural/residential-rural category. Because transmission lines are permitted uses within all future land use categories, subject to Polk County approval, and County approval was issued for the Polk Power Station transmission line corridors in the form of Conditional Use Permit number 92-05, the Polk Power Station transmission line corridors are in compliance with the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. Polk County Zoning Ordinance Power stations are Class III Essential Services in Polk County, which are allowed conditional uses in the Rural Conservation (RC) zoning district. Electric transmission lines are Class I Essential Services under the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. Class I Essential Services are permitted uses in all zoning districts located within the transmission line corridors. Polk County has stipulated that the proposed site for the Polk Power Station and the associated transmission line corridors, which are subject to Conditional Use Permit number 92-05, are consistent and in compliance with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Polk Power Station site is in compliance and consistent with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. This determination is based on the fact that Polk Power Station site is located exclusively within the RC zoning district, and Class III Essential Services, which include the Polk Power Station generating facility, are allowed conditional uses within the RC district subject to County approval in the form of a conditional use permit. Since Conditional Use Permit number 92-05 was issued to the Applicant for the Polk Power Station site, the site is consistent with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. With respect to the Polk Power Station transmission line corridors, the entire eastern transmission line corridor and the onsite portion of the northern transmission line corridor lie within the RC zoning district. The offsite portion of the northern corridor is located predominately within the RC district with a small area within the Regional Commercial (C-3), Single Family Mixed residential (SF-1M), and Residence (R-1) zoning districts. Because transmission lines such as those associated with the proposed project are Class I Essential Services permitted in all Polk County zoning districts, it must be concluded that the Polk P ower Station transmission line corridors are consistent with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Siting Board enter a Final Order finding that the proposed site of the Polk Power Station and associated facilities, including the site of the corridors for the directly associated transmission lines, are consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4896EPP The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Applicant and DER 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-27(1-27). COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence N. Curtin Attorney at Law Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Representing Applicant Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Representing DER Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Office of Siting Coordination Division of Air Resources Mgmt. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Lucky T. Osho Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Representing DCA Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson, Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Representing DNR Vernon Whittier Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0491 Representing DOT James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Martin D. Hernandez Richard Tschantz Assistant General Counsels Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899 Representing SFWMD Julia Greene, Executive Director Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Representing Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council R. Douglas Leonard, Executive Director Central Florida Regional Planning Council 490 East Davidson Post Office Box 2089 Bartow, FL 33830 Representing CFRPC John J. Dingfelder Attorney at Law Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, FL 33601-1110 Representing Hillsborough County Mark Carpanini Attorney at Law Office of County Attorney Post Office Box 60 Bartow, FL 33830-0060 Representing Polk County Sara M. Fotopulos Chief Counsel Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1900 Ninth Avenue Tampa, FL 33605 Representing EPCHC Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is the permittee in this matter. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 persons, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. ITID is an independent water control special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957 and whose boundaries lie within the County. Portions of the transmission line to be constructed by the County will cross easements and roads, and pass under canals, owned by ITID. Petitioners Joseph Acqualotta, Michael D'Ordine, Ann Hawkins, and Lisa Lander all live in areas in close proximity to the proposed transmission line. Lander lives adjacent to the proposed route of the line along 40th Street North, while Acqualotta, D'Ordine, and Hawkins live adjacent to the proposed route along 140th Avenue North. Acqualotta, Hawkins (but not D'Ordine, who resides with Hawkins), and Lander own the property where they reside. Petitioners Troy and Tracey Lee (Case No. 05-2979), Lisa Gabler (Case No. 05- 2980), and Anthony and Veronica Daly (Case No. 05-2982) did not appear at the final hearing. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida authorized to administer the provisions of Part I of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing domestic wastewater collection/ transmission permits under Section 403.087, Florida Statutes (2004).1 Background On December 15, 2004, the County filed its application with the Department for an individual permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system (Transmission Line). The Transmission Line is one element of the County's Northern Region Utilities Improvement Project (Project) and will be approximately 41,050 feet long and comprised of approximately 32,350 linear feet of 20-inch force main and 18,700 linear feet of 30-inch force main (or nearly ten miles in length). A primary purpose of the Project is to provide water and wastewater service to the Village, a 1,900 acre parcel located in the unincorporated part of the County several miles west of the Florida Turnpike, south of State Road 710, and north of the Villages of Wellington and Royal Palm Beach. The Village will be the home of the Scripps Project and Campus. The Transmission Line will run from the southeastern corner of the Village south to Northlake Boulevard, then east to 140th Avenue North, then south along that roadway to 40th Street North, where it turns east until it interconnects with existing facilities. The wastewater will be collected in a regional pump station on the Scripps Project site, where it will be pumped through the Transmission Line to the East Central Plant, which will be the primary treatment facility. The East Central Plant is owned and operated by the City of West Palm Beach (City), but the County owns between forty and forty-five percent of the treatment capacity. Because the wastewater system is interconnected, the wastewater could also be treated at the County's Southern Regional Plant. Ultimately, the flow from the Scripps Project will be one or two million gallons per day. The Transmission Line is the only way that wastewater can be handled at the Scripps Project. A preliminary analysis by the Department and the South Florida Water Management District determined that on-site treatment was not feasible because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The Scripps Project will include residential units, commercial entities, and institutional uses, such as medical clinics. Besides serving these customers, the Transmission Line will also serve other customers in the area. The County has already signed agreements with the Beeline Community Development District (which lies a few miles northwest of the Village) and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (which lies several miles south-southeast of the Village). At the time of the hearing, the County anticipated that it would also sign an agreement with Seacoast Utility Authority (whose service area is located just southeast of the Village) to transport wastewater through the Transmission Line. All of the treatment facilities have sufficient existing capacity to treat the estimated amount of domestic wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project and the other users that will discharge to the Line. The County commenced construction of the Transmission Line in May 2005 when the Department issued the Permit. On August 2, 2005, the County published the Department's Notice to issue the Permit, and once the Petitions were filed, the County stopped construction pending the outcome of this hearing. Approximately seventy percent of the Transmission Line is now completed. The Permit does not allow the Transmission Line to be used until it is pressure tested and certified complete. Upon completion, the County must receive an Approval to Place a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System into Operation from the Department. Such approval is given only after the County has given reasonable assurance that adequate transmission, treatment, and disposal is available in accordance with Department standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.700. On August 15, 2005, Petitions challenging the issuance of the Permit were filed by ITID and the individual Petitioners. ITID contends that the Transmission Line will convey not only domestic wastewater, but also industrial waste; that the County did not comply with all applicable technical standards and criteria required under the Department's rules; that the Project will be located on ITID's right-of-way, on which the County has no right to occupy; that the Project will be located within seventy-five feet from private drinking wells and does not provide an equivalent level of reliability and public health protection; and that the pipe material and pressure design is inappropriate for the Transmission Line's requirements. The individual Petitioners (who filed identical Petitions) are mainly concerned about the location of the Transmission Line in relation to their private drinking wells and property, the possibility of the pipe bursting or leaking once it becomes operational, and the restoration of their property to its original condition after construction is completed. As to the property claims by all Petitioners, the County plans to place the Transmission Line in property that it either owns or has an easement, in property that it is in the process of condemning, or in a public right of way. While the County acknowledges that it has already placed, and intends to place other portions of, the Transmission Line in easements that ITID says it has the exclusive right to use and for which a permit from ITID is required, the County alleges that it also has the right to use those easements without an ITID permit. The dispute between the County and ITID is the subject of a circuit court proceeding in Palm Beach County, and neither the Department nor DOAH has the authority to decide property interests. Petitioners' Objections Domestic wastewater and pretreatment The wastewater that will be generated by the Scripps Project is considered domestic wastewater; it will not include industrial wastewater. Waste that is industrial or non- domestic must be pretreated to protect the wastewater plant, collection system, and the health of system workers and the general public. The Department administers a pretreatment program through which it requires a public wastewater utility to police the entities that discharge to their wastewater plants. A central part of the pretreatment program is the local ordinance that gives legal authority to the utility to permit, inspect, and take enforcement action against industrial users who are part of the pretreatment program. The utility files an annual report with an industrial user survey, and the Department periodically inspects and audits local pretreatment programs to ensure they are being operated as intended. The system is not failsafe but is designed to ensure that potentially harmful wastes are rendered harmless before discharge. For example, the utility has the authority to immediately shut water off if a harmful discharge is occurring. Both the County and the City have pretreatment programs approved by the Department. The City has an ordinance that allows it to enforce the pretreatment standards for all entities that discharge to its wastewater system. The County Water Utilities Department has a written pretreatment manual, and the County has zoning restrictions on the discharge of harmful material to the wastewater system. It has also entered into an interlocal agreement under which it agrees to enforce the City ordinance. The County provides wastewater treatment to industrial, educational, and medical facilities, and it has never experienced a discharge from any of these facilities that has caused adverse health or environmental impacts. The County pretreatment program for the Southern Regional Facility was approved in 1997. The City pretreatment program for the East Central Regional Facility was approved in 1980. The Scripps Project must apply for a permit from the County and provide a baseline monitoring report, data on its flow, and information on the flow frequency and raw materials. Medical waste from the Scripps Project will be pretreated to render it safe before it is discharged into the Transmission Line. Transmission Line Design The Transmission Line was designed in accordance with the technical standards and criteria for wastewater transmission lines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 604.300(5). That rule incorporates by reference a set of standards commonly known as the Ten State Standards, which contain several of the standards used in the design of this project. These standards are recommended, but are not mandatory, and a professional engineer should exercise his or her professional judgment in applying them in any particular case. The Transmission Line also meets the design standards promulgated by the America Water Works Association (AWWA). Specifically, the County used the AWWA C-905 design standard for sizing the polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, pipe used in the project. The County has received written certification from the manufacturer that the PVC pipe meets the standards in AWWA C-905. The Transmission Line is designed with stub-outs, which will allow for future connections without an interruption of service, and inline isolation valves, which allow the line to be shut down for maintenance. The Use of PVC Pipe There is no standard regulating the selection of PVC pipe material in the Department's rules. Instead, the Department relies on the certification of the applicant and the engineer's seal that the force main will be constructed to accepted engineering standards. The only specification applicable to the Transmission Line is the Ten State Standard, adopted and incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.300(5)(g). That document contains a general requirement that the material selected have a pressure rating sufficient to handle anticipated pressures in wastewater transmission lines. The Transmission Line will be constructed with PVC piping with a thickness of Dimension Ratio (DR) 32.5, which is the ratio of the outside diameter of the pipe to its thickness. Higher ratios mean thinner-walled pipes. This is not the first time the County has used 32.5 PVC piping for one of its projects, and other local governments in the State have used 32.5 or thinner pipe. The County is typically conservative in requiring thicker-walled pipe, because most transmission lines are built by developers, and the County is unable to design the entire line or control or inspect its installation. The specifications for wastewater transmission lines built in the County call for the use of DR 25 pipe. On this project, however, the County determined that thicker- walled pipe would have been an over-design of the system because the County controls the pump stations and oversees the installation; therefore, the Director of the Water Utilities Department has waived that requirement. The County considers the use of DR 32.5 PVC to be conservative. Although this pipe will be thinner than what is typically used in the County, it satisfies the Department's requirements. The Department has permitted many miles of similar PVC force mains in South Florida, and none have failed. PVC has benefits over other transmission line material, such as ductile iron. For example, PVC is more corrosion resistant. Wastewater generates hydrogen sulfide as it decomposes, which can form highly corrosive sulfuric acid. Some of the older transmission lines in the County that were made of ductile iron have corroded. PVC also has a superior ability to absorb surges, such as cyclical surges, than ductile iron. It is easier to install, and its interior flow characteristics are smoother than ductile iron or pre-stressed concrete pipe. Mr. Farabee, a professional engineer who testified on behalf of ITID, recommended a DR 14 pipe, which is thicker- walled than the DR 32.5 pipe used by the County. While he opined that the DR 32.5 pipe was too thin for the project, he could not definitively state that it would not pass the 150 per square inch (psi) pressure test. He also opined that the pipe is undersized because it will be unable to withstand the surge pressures during cleaning. The witness further testified that the pipe would be subject to much higher pressures than 150 psi, and therefore it was impossible to know whether the pipe would fail. In his opinion, this means the Department did not have reasonable assurance for the project. The County consulted with the Unibell PVC Pipe Association (Unibell) in the planning of this project. Unibell is a trade association that provides technical support for PVC pipe manufacturers. Robert Walker, a registered professional engineer and Unibell's executive director who testified on behalf of the County, disagreed with Mr. Farabee's conclusions concerning the adequacy of the PVC pipe in this project. The AWWA C-905 standard uses a safety factor of two, which means the pipes are tested at pressures that are at least twice their stated design strength. Mr. Walker explained the different standards that apply to PVC pipe. DR 32.5 pipe, which is used in this project, has a minimum interior pressure rating of 125 pounds per square psi. Each pipe section is tested before it is shipped at 250 psi, and the minimum burst pressure for the material is in excess of 400 psi. The pipe also meets a 1000- hour test at 270 psi. In light of these standards and testing, the pipe will pass the two-hour 150 psi test required by the Department. Mr. Farabee expressed some concern that the PVC pipe would be more prone to breakage than ductile iron or thicker PVC. However, the PVC pipe standards provide that the pipe can be flattened at sixty percent without splitting, cracking, or breaking. At shallow depths on dirt roads, ovalation, which occurs when PVC is flattened through pressure, will initially occur, but over time the soil around the pipe will become compacted and result in re-rounding of the pipe. The joints are three times stiffer than the body of the pipe, which will protect the joint from excessive ovalation and leaking, and the use of mechanical restrained joints will further strengthen the joints. There has been no joint leakage in Florida due to deflection of the joints. Finally, there have been no failures of PVC pipe caused by three-feet of fill, which is the depth to which the Transmission Line pipe will be buried. To further protect the pipe, the County optimized its pumping system to avoid cyclical surges by using variable frequency drive pumps that gradually increase and decrease speed rather than just turning on or off. In addition, the pump stations are fed by two power lines that come from different directions and emergency generators, which should lessen the chances of harmful surging. Testing the Installation The anticipated pressures in the Transmission Line will likely be about 50 psi. After installation, the Line will be pressure tested at 150 psi for two hours, which is sufficient to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that the Line will hold pressure and will not leak. Also, the County contract inspectors are on the construction site daily. If problems with the installation arise later, the County has committed to promptly fix the problem, even if it means digging up the line. During the hearing, ITID asserted that the Uniform Policies and Procedure Manual standards, which the County has adopted for use by developers when constructing wastewater transmission lines, should be applied to the County as well. This standard, which requires pressure testing to 200 psi for PVC pipes larger than 24 inches, has not been adopted by the Department and is not an applicable Department permitting standard. Even if it did apply, the Transmission Line would meet this criterion because it is designed to withstand 270 psi for at least 1,000 hours. Mr. Farabee believed that the entire Transmission Line would be pressure tested after the construction was complete, which would require digging up sections of the pipe to install bulkheads. However, this assessment of the County's testing program is incorrect. Leisha Pica, Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department, developed the schedule for the project, helped develop the phasing of the work and budget, and oversaw the technical aspects. She stated that the County has successfully tested approximately fifty percent of the line that was already installed at 150 psi for two hours and not a single section of the line failed the test. Compaction The County has stringent backfilling and compaction requirements, which are sufficient to ensure the pipe will be properly installed and that there will be adequate compaction of the fill material. The County plans and specifications provide that compaction must be to ninety-five percent of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards for non-paved surfaces and one hundred percent of AASHTO standards for paved surfaces. Even ITID's expert agreed that the compaction specifications are sufficient. Mr. Farabee contended, however, that even though the standards are stringent, the County cannot properly test the installation for compliance with the standards. Mr. Farabee believed that testing of the backfill would be done after all of the construction was complete. In that case, he did not see how the testing could be done without digging many holes to check for the density of the backfill. These assumptions, however, are incorrect. The evidence shows that a total of two hundred sixty-four compaction tests have already been done on the portion of the Transmission Line that was completed. No part of the installation failed the tests. The County has an inspector who observes the installation and pressure tests. The compaction was tested at every driveway and major roadway, as well as every five hundred feet along the route. While Lander and D'Ordine pointed out at hearing that no compaction tests have been performed on the dirt roads which run adjacent to their property and on which construction has taken place, the Department requires that, before the work is certified as complete, non-paved roads must be compacted in accordance with AASHTO standards in order to assure that there is adequate compaction of the fill material. The Sufficiency of the Application When an application for an individual transmission/ collection line permit is filed with the Department, the applicant certifies that the design of the pipeline complies with the Department's standards. However, not all of the details of the construction will be included in the permit application. The Department relies on the design engineer to certify that the materials used are appropriate. The application form is also signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. All plans submitted by the County, including the original, modifications, and final version, were certified by professional engineers registered in the State of Florida. After receiving the application, the Department requested additional information before issuing the permit, and the County provided all requested information. The original construction plans that were submitted with the application were changed in response to the Department's requests for additional information. The Permit issued by the Department indicates the Transmission Line would be constructed with ductile iron pipe, but this was a typographical error. ITID maintains that all of the technical specifications for the project must be included in the application, and because no separate engineering report was prepared by the County with the application, the County did not meet that standard. While the County did not submit an engineering report, it did submit sufficient data to provide reasonable assurance that the project will comply will all applicable rules of the Department. As a part of its application package, the County submitted construction plans, which contain the specifications required by the Department. Also, the general notes included in the construction drawings specify the use of restrained joints where appropriate, the selection of pipe material, the pressure testing of the Transmission Line, and other engineering requirements. In addition, the plans contain numerous other conditions, which are also specifications sufficient to fulfill the Department's requirements. Finally, further explanation and clarification of the technical aspects of the application was given by the County at the final hearing. At the same time, the Department engineer who oversaw the permitting of this project, testified that a detailed engineering report was not necessary. This engineer has extensive experience in permitting transmission lines for the Department and has worked on over five hundred permits for wastewater transmission and collection systems. The undersigned has accepted his testimony that in a relatively straightforward permit such as this, the application and attachments themselves can function as a sufficient engineering evaluation. This is especially true here since the County is seeking only approval of a pipeline project, which would not authorize the receipt of wastewater flow unless other wastewater facilities are permitted. Impacts on Public and Private Drinking Water Wells As part of the design of the Transmission Line, the County located public and private drinking water wells in the area of the line. County personnel walked the route of the Transmission Line and looked for private wells and researched the site plans for all of the properties along the route. No public wells were found within one-hundred feet of the Transmission Line route, but they did find seventeen private wells that are within seventy-five feet of the line. None of the Petitioners have private wells that are within seventy- five feet of the line. While Petitioners D'Ordine and Hawkins initially contended that the well on Hawkins' property was within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, at hearing Mr. D'Ordine admitted that he "misread the plans and referred to the wrong property." In order to protect the private drinking water wells, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-604.400(1)(b) requires that the County provide an extra level of protection for the wells that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The County will provide that extra level of protection by installing restrained joints that will restrain the joints between the pipe sections. The restrained joints are epoxy-coated mechanical devices that reduce the tendency for the pipes to separate under pressure. The County has used these restrained joints on its potable water and wastewater lines in other areas of the County and has never experienced problems with the devices. The restrained joints will provide reliable protection of the private wells within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line. The Department is unaware of any instances where restrained joints have failed in South Florida. If more wells are discovered that are within seventy-five feet of the Transmission Line, then the County will excavate the Line and install restrained joints. Minimum Separation Distances The County has complied with all applicable pipe separation requirements in the installation of the Transmission Line. More specifically, it is not closer than six feet horizontally from any water main and does not intersect or cross any reclaimed water lines. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(1)(a). It will be at least twelve inches below any water main or culvert that it crosses. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-555.314(2)(a). Finally, it will be a minimum of twelve inches below any culverts that it crosses. (However, the Department has no separation requirement for culverts crossed by the Transmission Line.) h. The M-Canal Crossing The Transmission Line must cross the M-canal, which runs in an east-west direction approximately midway between 40th Street North and Northlake Boulevard. The original design called for the Transmission Line to cross above the water, but the City and the Department suggested that it be located below the canal to eliminate the chance that the pipe could leak wastewater into the canal. In response to that suggestion, the County redesigned the crossing so that a 24- inch high density polyethylene pipe in a 48-inch casing will be installed fifteen feet below the design bottom of the canal. The polyethylene is fusion-welded, which eliminates joints, and is isolated with a valve on either side of the canal. Appropriate warning signs will be installed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)2.-5. The depth of the subaqueous line and the use of the slip line, or casing, exceeds the Department's minimum standards. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.400(2)(k)1. i. Flushing Protocol Section 48.1 of the Ten State Standard recommends that wastewater transmission lines maintain a velocity of two feet per second. When the Transmission Line becomes operational, it will not have sufficient flow to flush (or clean) accumulated solids from the lines at the recommended two feet per second velocities. (Sufficient flow will not occur until other customers connect to the Transmission Line during the first one to three years of operation.) Accumulated solids produce gases and odors that could create a problem at the treatment plant and might leak out of the manhole covers. To address this potential problem, Specific Condition 9 of the Permit requires the County to flush the lines periodically. Pursuant to that Condition, the County plans to flush the Transmission Line with additional water which will raise the velocity to three or four feet per second, so that the accumulated solids will be flushed. The water will be supplied by large portable tanks that will be temporarily set up at several locations along the Line. During the purging of the Line, sewage will collect in the pump stations until the purge is finished. There is sufficient capacity in the pump stations to contain the wastewater. In addition, the County will use a cleansing tool known as a pig, which is like a foam bullet that scrapes the sides of the pipe as it is pushed through the line. This protocol will be sufficient to keep the Line clean. ITID asserts that the County's plan for flushing is inadequate, because it does not provide enough water for long enough to flush both the 20-inch and 30-inch lines. Mr. Farabee calculated that the County would need almost twice the proposed volume, or almost six million gallons, to adequately flush the lines. ITID's analysis of the flushing protocol is flawed, however, because it assumes a constant flow in all segments of the pipe, which is not practical. In order to maintain the flushing velocity of three feet per second, the County will introduce water into the Transmission Line at three separate locations, resulting in a more constant flow velocity throughout the Transmission Line. In this way, it can maintain the proper velocity as the lines transition from a 20-inch to 30-inch to 36-inch pipe. The County has flushed other lines in the past using this protocol and has had no problems. This flushing protocol would only be in effect from one to three years. The County estimates that the necessary volumes to maintain a two-feet-per-second velocity in the 20- inch line would be reached in about one year. The 30-inch line should have sufficient flows sometime in 2008. These estimates are based on the signed agreements the County has with other utilities in the area to take their flows into the Transmission Line. Because of these safeguards, the Transmission Line will not accumulate solids that will cause undesirable impacts while flow is less than two feet per second. Other Requirements The construction and operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the release or disposal of sewage or residuals without providing proper treatment. It will not violate the odor prohibition in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.400(2)(a). It will not result in a cross- connection as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 550.200. The construction or operation of the Transmission Line will not result in the introduction of stormwater into the Line, and its operation will not result in the acceptance of non-domestic wastewater that has not been properly pretreated. If constructed and permitted, the Transmission Line will be operated so as to provide uninterrupted service and will be maintained so as to function as intended. The record drawings will be available at the Department's district office and to the County operation and maintenance personnel. Finally, concerns by the individual Petitioners that the County may not restore their property to its original condition after construction is completed are beyond the scope of this proceeding. At the hearing, however, the Deputy Director of the Water Utilities Department represented that the County would cooperate with the individual property owners to assure that these concerns are fully addressed. Reasonable Assurance The County has provided the Department with reasonable assurance, based on plans, test results, installation of equipment, and other information that the construction and installation of the Transmission Line will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of the Department's standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying all Petitions and issuing Permit No. 0048923-017-DWC. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2005.
The Issue Whether the proposed site falls within an "improved commercial or residential area?"
Findings Of Fact Salter seeks a permit to erect a sign on the north side of Interstate Highway 10 about .15 mile west of State Road 291 in Escambia County. The proposed site is outside the city limits of Pensacola in an unzoned area of Escambia County. In the vicinity of the proposed site, commercial and/or industrial facilities are so situated that, if the facility owned and operated by Energy Services of Pensacola, a gas utility owned by a local governmental entity, is also deemed commercial or industrial, a permit should be issued. The parties stipulated to the foregoing facts.
