Findings Of Fact Care Together, a business owned by Mildred Sumpter, filed an application for licensure to operate an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) in Jacksonville, Florida, at 2149 West 39th Street. The application was denied by HRS in a letter dated October 10, 1991. The reasons for denial were stated to be: Failure to pay the correct licensure fee in violation of Sections 400.407(4)(a) and 400.411(1), Florida Statutes. Use of a different Social Security number than that used on three previous applications in violation of Section 400.411(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Failure to disclose an arrest in 1986 in violation of Section 400.411(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Mildred Sumpter is not of suitable character and competency to operate an ACLF based on her provision of false information, her financial information showing only $1,000 in liquid assets to cover the needs of ten residents, and her history of financial instability which resulted in her previous license revocation in 1986, all of which constitutes a violation of 400.414(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In the past Sumpter has been licensed for an ACLF at the same location as that at issue here. That license, in the name of Sumpter Westside Care, was held from 1983 to 1986. On all three applications personally prepared and filed by Sumpter for that ACLF, she used a Social Security number of 265-34-6918. On the application Sumpter prepared and filed for Care Together, she used a Social Security number of 265-34-7918. The financial documents related to Sumpter's financial ability to operate an ACLF, contained in Tab 3 of HRS Exhibit 1, establish the following: The only cash assets reported by Sumpter amount to $1,000. The $1,000 in cash assets is inadequate for ten residents. HRS advised Sumpter in writing that a legislative increase in the licensure fee became effective on July 1, 1991. Sumpter failed to submit the additional licensure fee. Sumpter's insurance for the premises issued by Universal Insurance Agency, Inc., was cancelled for nonpayment of premiums effective June 8, 1991. HRS routinely conducts a record search through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement regarding the applicant for any license. In this case, the record search revealed that Sumpter had been arrested for Aggravated Battery on March 1, 1986. Further investigation produced certified copies of the court records showing that Sumpter was adjudicated guilty of the above-cited offense of Aggravated Battery and was sentenced to two days credit for time served and required to pay a fine of $100 and court costs. The application filed by Sumpter for Care Together asks whether the applicant has "ever been arrested for--or convicted of--a crime involving injury to persons . . . (e.g. assault, battery, . . .)?" Sumpter answered "NO" to this question even though the application was sworn to be true and correct and was signed under oath by Sumpter. Sumpter's license to operate under the name of Sumpter Westside Care was revoked by a Final Order adopting a Recommended Order in DOAH Case Nos. 86- 2055 and 86-2103. The revocation was the result of numerous and repeated violations which had occurred at Sumpter's facility, many of which were caused by Sumpter's financial difficulties and financial mismanagement of the facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the application for licensure filed by Mildred Sumpter for Care Together. DONE and ENTERED this 6 day of March, 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 6 day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-7536 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 Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Proposed findings of fact 1-8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 9 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Mildred Sumpter Care Together 2149 West 39th Street Jacksonville, FL 32209 Michael O. Mathis Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32308 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue presented in this proceeding is whether the Amended Petition to Amend the Boundaries of Village Community Development District No. 10 (Amended Petition) satisfies the requirements set forth in chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the local public hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
The Issue The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to establish the District meets the criteria set forth in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. For the Petitioner:
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether the merger of the two districts meets the criteria set forth in chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of chapter 190 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42-1.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation acted illegally, fraudulently, or dishonestly in awarding the subject Request for Proposals. The subissues are whether Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. made a material misrepresentation and, if so, whether that misrepresentation rendered its response to the Request for Proposals non-responsive.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) entitled Statewide Contamination Assessment/Remediation Services. This RFP sought services for a two-year period pertaining to environmental contamination assessment and remediation for construction projects on a statewide basis. The project was identified as RFP-DOT-92/93-9013. Section 1.1 of the RFP described the services as follows: The State of Florida Department of Transportation requests written proposals from qualified firms to provide assessment and/or remediation services, on an as needed basis, prior to or during the construction phase of a transportation project. (Emphasis in the original.) The extent of the services that will be needed during the term of the contract is undetermined at the time the contract is executed. FDOT awards both a statewide contract and related contracts in the several FDOT districts for these services. Westinghouse is currently the contracting party to FDOT for the statewide contract and for several district contracts. OHM is the contracting party to FDOT for several district contracts. The statewide contract is intended to backup the district contracts, and it is necessary that the proposer be able to provide the services on a statewide basis. Responses to the RFP were required to be submitted to FDOT by June 24, 1993. The RFP required the proposers to meet on June 8, 1993, in a mandatory pre-proposal meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify contractual requirements in an open forum. Westinghouse did not seek any clarification about the nature of the facility capabilities FDOT asked proposers to identify. Nine proposals, including ones from Westinghouse and OHM, were submitted in response to the RFP. All Responses to the RFP were evaluated by an evaluation committee consisting of three FDOT employees. The FDOT evaluation committee consisted of Jon Berry, Patty Wagner, and Winfield Lindeman. Each committee member received a copy of each proposal submitted and the committee members individually scored the proposals. The selection committee evaluated each proposal on its own merits without regard to other proposals. Although the RFP provided for the right to inspect facilities to verify the proposers ability to perform, the selection committee relied on each proposal as submitted and made no independent investigation to confirm the accuracy of any representation made in a proposal. The RFP allotted points for scoring the proposals to be 40 points for the management proposal, 40 points for the technical proposal, and 20 points for the cost proposal. In addition, 5 points could be awarded a disadvantaged business enterprise, for a possible total of 105 points. The selection committee did not review or score the cost proposals which were required to be submitted separately, and the evaluation of the cost proposals was not at issue in this proceeding. The Proposal Tabulation which was posted July 12, 1993, listed Westinghouse receiving the highest score of 97.08 points, and OHM the next highest with a total of 93.23 points. The proposal tabulation indicated that FDOT intended to award the contract to Westinghouse. Section 1.7 of the RFP, entitled Department Reservations and Responsiveness of Proposals, provided, in pertinent part, as follows: General The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received and reserves the right to make an award without further discussions of the proposals submitted. Therefore, the proposals should be submitted initially in the most favorable manner. It is understood that this proposal will become a part of the official file on this matter without obligation to the Department. Responsiveness of Proposals All proposals must be in writing. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal. Proposals found to be non-responsive proposals shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A proposal may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional proposals, incomplete proposals, indefinite or ambiguous proposals, improper or undated signatures. * * * Other Conditions Other conditions which may cause rejection of proposals include evidence of collusion among proposers, obvious lack of experience or expertise to perform the required work, or failure to perform or meet financial obligations on previous contracts . . . Waivers The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other proposers. Minor irregularities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Proposals by giving a proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other proposers. The relevant portion of the RFP for purposes of OHM's protest concerns "facility capabilities." OHM asserts that Westinghouse's Technical Proposal contained a false statement as to its facilities that is tantamount to misconduct and renders Westinghouse's response to the RFP non-responsive. The RFP, on page 10 of the RFP under item 3, "Proposer's Technical Plan" requires, in pertinent part, as follows: This section should be presented to explain the approach, capabilities and means to be used in accomplishing the tasks in the Scope of Services. Any other specific techniques to be used should also be addressed in detail. * * * The Technical Plan must at a minimum address the following: * * * (4) Facility Capabilities Include a description and the location of the proposer's facilities as they currently exist and as they will be employed for the purpose of this work. Explain the justification and benefits of the facility location or proposed location. Realistically calculate the response time from the facility or proposed facility to the furthest area within the region to be served. Westinghouse's Technical Plan provides, at pages 57 through 59, in pertinent part, as follows: The Westinghouse project team will be led by our Tampa office. The Westinghouse Program Manager and all other management and administrative functions will be directed out of Tampa. Project tasks will be performed out of our existing facilities in Tampa, Tallahassee and North Miami, Florida. Additional resources, if needed to support any of the three Florida facilities, are available in our Southern District office located in Atlanta, Georgia. A key advantage of the Westinghouse team is that these are all existing and established facilities, staffed and supplied with personnel, equipment, and materials necessary to fulfill the requirements of this contract. There is a strong working relationship between these offices. We will therefore not incur the costs and logistical problems often associated with the start-up of new facilities. These existing facility locations are shown in Figure 3-3. The following paragraphs describe Westinghouse facilities in Tampa, Tallahassee, North Miami, and Atlanta. The following paragraphs discuss our current resources within our three Florida facilities, as well as our plans to further increase the resources within these facilities. In addition to these resources, Westinghouse offers specialized assistance to the Department from our vast corporate resources. Our corporate structure allows and encourages the Florida offices to access specific expertise within Westinghouse for problem solving on a particular site. We welcome the Department's review of our facilities. * * * North Miami. Florida Resources. The Westinghouse North Miami Facility is a relatively new facility located at 16221 N.W. 57th Street in North Miami, Florida. The office phone number is (305) 620-0530. The facility has approximately 3000 square feet of office area and 5,000 square feet of warehouse area which will be stocked to accomplish the work within the South Florida area. The facility has a small storage area for equipment. Equipment not able to be stored at this office location is stored on the project site or at subcontracted storage facilities. The office currently has managerial personnel and future plans for this office include procuring additional personnel in the technical and construction field service categories. Depending on future work under District Contracts, additional managerial capabilities may be supplemented to this office. Westinghouse anticipates maintaining a staff of eight to twelve individuals within this office. Figure 3-3 entitled "Westinghouse Contract Facility Locations" depicts a Westinghouse satellite office in Tallahassee, a Westinghouse satellite office in North Miami, a Westinghouse contract management office in Tampa, and a Westinghouse regional office in Atlanta. Appendix C of the Westinghouse response provided information pertaining to jobs that Westinghouse had performed. While Appendix C does not discuss the location of office facilities, the information contained in Appendix C establishes that Westinghouse had the ability to satisfactorily provide services to FDOT in South Florida. OHM contended that the response by Westinghouse relative to the North Miami facility was a misrepresentation in that there was no Westinghouse office in North Miami at the time the response was submitted. On June 24, 1993, the date the response to the RFP was submitted, Westinghouse did not have a functioning Westinghouse facility at 16221 NW 57th Avenue, North Miami, Florida. Westinghouse did not physically occupy or use the facility at the NW 57th Avenue address on June 24, 1993. The telephone service that had been secured for the NW 57th Avenue facilities forwarded calls to Westinghouse's Tampa office. Any mail sent to Westinghouse at the NW 57th Avenue facility on or before June 24, 1993, would have been returned to the sender. On the date it submitted its response to the RFP, Westinghouse had an existing South Florida facility located in Miramar, Broward County, Florida. This office was part of the facilities leased by Precision Laboratory, a company with which Westinghouse worked to develop business. The Westinghouse office it shared with Precision Laboratory in Miramar was a temporary facility that was used by Westinghouse to perform contamination assessment and remediation services for FDOT until Westinghouse could relocate to its permanent facility. The Westinghouse South Florida temporary office in Miramar included a receptionist and lobby area, storage space, and a separate office. The facility had telephones and access to a fax machine and a copy machine. In February, 1993, Westinghouse hired Russell Libera to serve as head of its professional staff in South Florida. Westinghouse began occupying its temporary facilities in March, 1993. Westinghouse was actively performing assessment and remediation services in South Florida between February 1993 and the date the response to the RFP was submitted. Marjorie Bixby is the FDOT's Environmental Manager and the District Contamination Impact Coordinator for District Six, which is Dade and Monroe County. By contract entered into February 9, 1993, FDOT District Six contracted with Westinghouse to provide environmental remediation services upon request by FDOT for the district. Ms. Bixby manages this contract for FDOT. Westinghouse had satisfactorily performed services under the District Six contract between February 1993 and the date the response to the RFP was submitted. Ms. Bixby was able to contact Mr. Libera through his pager phone number or by telephoning Westinghouse's temporary facility in Miramar. Westinghouse had a staffed and functioning office in South Florida at all times pertinent to this proceeding. Except for the location of the office, which will be addressed below, the description of the facilities and the capabilities of Westinghouse's South Florida facilities were fairly stated by Westinghouse's response to the RFP. Luke Frantz, Westinghouse's Florida Branch Manager, was responsible for the writing and submission of Westinghouse's proposal. Mr. Frantz wanted Westinghouse's proposal to induce FDOT to award the statewide contract to Westinghouse. At the time he wrote the narrative, Mr. Frantz believed Westinghouse had an agreement to lease said property. Mr. Frantz' responsibilities as Westinghouse's Florida Branch Manager did not include the acquisition of real estate or finalization of real estate documents on behalf of Westinghouse. In October 1992, Mr. Frantz identified the need for a permanent South Florida facility for Westinghouse, and began a search for a permanent location. Because of the impact of Hurricane Andrew, office and storage space in South Florida was at a premium. Dale Carpenter, who is the nationwide manager of equipment and facilities for Westinghouse out of its Atlanta, Georgia office, was advised by Mr. Frantz and Westinghouse's Southern District Manager on April 15, 1993, of the need to locate a facility in the central or northern part of Dade County or the southern part of Broward County, Florida. Mr. Carpenter assumed responsibility for locating a permanent office, and Mr. Frantz had no further involvement with the leasing of the specific building at 57th Avenue. Mr. Carpenter flew to Miami in late April 1993 and located, in conjunction with a Westinghouse approved realtor, a facility that was suitable for Westinghouse's permanent office. The day after Mr. Carpenter returned to Atlanta from Miami in late April, the desired property in South Florida was no longer available. Mr. Carpenter returned to Florida in late May, 1993, after Westinghouse's local realtor advised him of another suitable piece of property at 16221 N.W. 57th Avenue, Miami, Florida. During the May visit, both Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Libera viewed the property. At that time, Mr. Carpenter decided to rent the property and asked the landlord to send the appropriate documents to him. The lease proposal was faxed by the landlord to Mr. Carpenter in Atlanta on May 25, 1993. According to Westinghouse procedures, the lease document was forwarded to the Westinghouse realty department in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for legal and environmental review. The Westinghouse realty department identified as major issues in the lease agreement that had been submitted by the landlord the holdover terms, the security deposit requirements, and the environmental provisions. On June 9, 1993, Mr. Carpenter formally notified the landlord of Westinghouse's intent to lease the property 16221 N.W. 57th Avenue, Miami. The letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Please accept this letter as a "Letter of Intent" for the rental of your property located at 16221 N.W. 57th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The lease agreement and amendments are in our Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania office being reviewed by our realty and legal departments. I expect this review to be completed yet [sic] this week. Provided there are no major issues to be resolved as a result of this review, I expect to be able to have the lease signed no later than the first of next week. I have also enclosed a check in the amount equal to the first months rent as a deposit on the facility. I thank you for your time and understanding concerning this matter and look forward to a long relationship. The check enclosed in Mr. Carpenter's letter was in the amount of $1,535.10 and was dated June 9, 1993. Mr. Carpenter testified that there have been no instances where Westinghouse has issued a letter of intent to lease real estate and not followed through by actually entering into a lease. Details of the lease document were handled by the realty office in Pittsburgh. On June 22,1993, Mr. Carpenter was advised by the Westinghouse realty office the lease document had been fully accepted and was ready for signature. The formal lease agreement was executed by the parties after June 26, 1993, the date the response to the RFP was submitted. Mr. Carpenter testified that while the lease was approved by Westinghouse's realty office June 22, 1993, it sat unsigned in his Atlanta office for several days while he was traveling. The required Westinghouse signatory, Mr. Fernandez, was on vacation during this time period, further delaying the execution of the document. The Westinghouse signatures on the lease document were affixed on or about July 9, 1993. On July 15, 1993, the executed lease was mailed to the landlord, who thereafter executed the lease. Westinghouse assumed occupancy of the premises on August 1, 1993. Mr. Carpenter considered that Westinghouse had an agreement to lease the property as of June 9, 1993, when Westinghouse sent its letter of intent and check to the Lessor. Mr. Frantz inquired and received information concerning the status of the 57th Avenue property from Mr. Carpenter before Mr. Frantz completed the response to the RFP. Mr. Carpenter told Mr. Frantz that the lease of the 57th Avenue property was a "done deal." Mr. Frantz certified that the Westinghouse proposal was fair, complete, and without fraud or collusion. Mr. Frantz understood that the RFP required information as to how Westinghouse proposed to perform the contract for the next two years, using existing and/or proposed facilities. The evidence in this proceeding fails to establish that there was any intent on the part of Mr. Frantz or any other Westinghouse employee to mislead FDOT as to its capabilities or to secure an unfair advantage over any other proposer. When Mr. Frantz wrote the proposal narrative, he believed that the acquisition of the 57th Avenue office had been consummated. Further indicators of Mr. Frantz' intent or knowledge concerning the status of the 57th Avenue property include independent administrative steps taken to set up the 57th Avenue office in early June. Mr. Frantz instructed Susan Aragon, the office coordinator for Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. in Tampa, Florida, to make sure that the North 57th Avenue office had adequate administrative support. In early June, Ms. Aragon was assigned by Mr. Frantz to obtain telephone service for the 57th Avenue facility. Ms. Aragon ordered telephone lines from Southern Bell on or before June 11, 1993, for the 57th Avenue office. Telephone bills indicate the telephone line (305)620-0530 acquired by Ms. Aragon for the 57th Avenue facility began service June 24, 1993. Mr. Frantz instructed Ms. Aragon to order new letterhead stationery to reflect a Westinghouse office at 16221 N.W. 57th Avenue, Miami, Florida. A purchase order for that stationery was signed by Mr. Frantz on June 11, 1993. The description of the North Miami, Florida, facility by Westinghouse in its June 24, 1993, proposal is a reasonable and fair description of Westinghouse's resources at the time the proposal was submitted to FDOT. Westinghouse also submitted a proposal to FDOT District IV in response to a request for proposal for environmental and remediation services in that district. The District IV RFP gave proposers scoring preference if they had a facility in either Dade, Broward, or Palm Beach Counties. Mr. Frantz was responsible for the preparation and submission of the Westinghouse proposal for the District IV RFP and inserted essentially the identical information as to its facility capabilities as was contained in the response to the subject RFP. Westinghouse was awarded the District IV contract. OHM argues that Westinghouse waited until after it had been awarded the subject contract and the District IV contract before going forward with the lease of the NW 57th Avenue facility and thereby received a competitive advantage over its other proposers. That argument, and the inferences that underlie the argument, are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and are rejected. The record is clear that Westinghouse was in transition between a temporary location and a permanent location for its South Florida facilities. It is also clear that Westinghouse was committed to securing permanent facilities in South Florida and that it intended to go forward with the lease of the permanent facilities even if it had not been selected for the subject contract. The Westinghouse office at 57th Avenue is currently in operation and was in operation prior to August 1, 1993. Six Westinghouse professional staff are working out of the 57th Avenue office. Contrary to the representations made in its proposal, Westinghouse incurred expenses with the start-up of its NW 57th Avenue facility. These operational expenses were not significant and were not shown to have any impact on Westinghouse's ability to perform the contract. There was no showing that the representation that there would be no start-up costs for the NW 57th Avenue facility provided Westinghouse with a competitive advantage over the other proposers. The location of the Westinghouse facility was not important to the members of the evaluation team because the key issue and grading criteria was the proposer's ability to perform the services statewide. Immediate response to the contract is not contemplated because services are performed only after funding can be secured by FDOT for the requested services. The funding process typically takes a week or more, which gives the provider adequate time to prepare to perform the services. Westinghouse clearly demonstrated in its response to the RFP and at the formal hearing that it had the facilities to perform the subject services throughout the state, including in South Florida. The location of field offices, such as the North 57th Avenue facilities, were not important to the evaluators. A field services office, such as the 57th Avenue Westinghouse facility, is a facility from which various field activities can be conducted. The field office is used as a base of operation. A field office may, from time to time, be unoccupied and telephone calls to the field office forwarded to the company's main office. The staffing of a field office varies depending on the work that has to be done. Each evaluator testified he or she independently scored the proposals and was not influenced in the evaluation process by anyone. There was no evidence that the evaluation committee members or any other participant in the bidding process acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation, enter a final order which dismisses the bid protest filed by Petitioner, OHM Remediation Services Corporation, and which awards the subject contract to Intervenor, Westinghouse Remediation Services, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4776BID The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 22, and 23 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the first three sentences of paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the last sentence of paragraph 9 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are rejected to the extent that the proposed findings are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 17 and 19 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 20 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the remainder of paragraph 20 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 21 are either adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 29, 30, 31, and 32 pertain to matters that occurred after the posting of the evaluations and are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 33, 34, 35, and 36 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1 and 2 are adopted by the Recommended Order as findings of fact and are incorporated as preliminary matters. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 22 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10, 15, 20, 21, and 23 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 17, 18, and 19 are subordinate to the findings made. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Intervenor (paragraphs 9-106 of its Proposed Recommended Order.) The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 28, 29, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 79, 80, 91, 92, and 93 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 31, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, and 96 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 30 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. Mrs. Bixby's deposition testimony is unclear as to whether these 17 tasks were performed before the submission of the response to the RFP. As reflected by the findings made, it is clear from Appendix C to the response and from Ms. Bixby's testimony that Westinghouse had satisfactorily performed services District VI prior to the submission of its response to the RFP. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 36, and 37 are corroborative of findings made, but they are unnecessary as separate findings of fact. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 97, 98, and 99, are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 are rejected as being irrelevant to any matter that is properly at issue in this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: George N. Meros, Jr., Esquire Michael E. Riley, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk, & Caldwell, P.A. Post Office Box 10507 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Paul Sexton,ESquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Betty J. Steffens, ESquire H. Darrell, White, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Agreed Upon "Facts" and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order letting stand the City's denial of the RTC's request for an additional two-year extension of the buildout date of the Bakery Centre. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of December, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1993.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition for Establishment of the Villages of Westport Community Development District (Petition), dated September 4, 2003. The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' application for licensure of a group home should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact West Coast Family Services, Inc. (West Coast), is a newly formed not-for-profit corporation, established primarily for the purpose of establishing group homes for underprivileged children. Its corporate officers are Paul Bell, James Crowe, and Barbara Walker. There are five members on the corporate board of directors. West Coast was formed in 2006. Its address is 8463 Park Boulevard, Seminole, Florida, which is where the group home at issue in this proceeding (the "Facility") is to be established. Paul Bell is a corporate officer of West Coast, is the proposed operations officer for the Facility, and is the person primarily responsible for preparing the licensure application. Bell was also the key witness for Petitioners during its case in chief at final hearing.1 James Crowe is Bell's partner and anticipates working at the Facility as a counselor, direct care worker, and owner. His wife, Donna Crowe, is also an officer of West Coast and may become an employee of the Facility. DCF is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring group homes for children in the State of Florida. The Suncoast Region of DCF was responsible for the application at issue. When Bell first contacted DCF about opening a group home for children, he was given information about the licensure application procedures in a letter. Due to an error in the address, the letter was re-sent to Bell some two months later. Bell prepared the licensure application package in accordance with the instructions, to the best of his ability, and submitted it to DCF. Both parties agree there is a need for a group home in Pinellas County. By letter dated October 9, 2006, DCF notified Bell that several items needed to complete the application were still outstanding. (There is some dispute as to whether West Coast received some correspondence from DCF due to an incorrect zip code on the letters. Bell testified at final hearing that he knew what information was missing from his application based on face to face meetings with DCF personnel; so, whether he received the letters or not is not extremely pertinent.) After the October 9, 2006, letter, Bell submitted additional documentation to DCF in an attempt to complete the application. Letters outlining omissions were sent to Bell by DCF on October 9, October 24, October 25, and November 2, 2006. The latter correspondence was hand-delivered to Bell at the DCF offices, although Bell denied receiving it by hand. The DCF witness' testimony as to this fact was more credible. Finally, not being satisfied with the materials submitted by West Coast, DCF issued a denial letter outlining 23 items in the application which fell short of licensure requirements. Those items form the basis for West Coast's challenge and will be addressed individually below. The items (in italics) and West Coast's responses are as follows: Item 1 -- West Coast did not provide terms of office for members of its governing body. West Coast ultimately provided a comprehensive list of the governing body, the terms for each member, and a statement that each member was annually renewed unless otherwise noted. Item 2 -- The dining area at the Facility was inadequate. West Coast did not have a sufficient number of dining room chairs at the Facility during the final inspection by DCF. The single dining area designated for seating six children was quite small. However, there are two separate dining areas and an additional seating area at a breakfast bar. Chairs for the Facility could be quickly obtained; but, at no time during the inspection of the Facility were the chairs on site. Item 3 -- Emergency telephone numbers were not posted at the Facility. The emergency numbers were admitted into evidence, and Bell's testimony that they have now been posted at the Facility is credible. Item 4 -- Unsafe transportation, as evidenced by a lack of insurance and registration for Bell's auto and an expired driver's license. Although not provided at the time of the application, Bell was able to produce a valid driver's license, insurance card, and registration at the time of final hearing. However, there are other individuals who will be transporting children to and from the Facility. Although currently designated as volunteers rather than staff, there is evidence that the individuals are licensed to drive and have undergone background screening. Bell's driving record, which included citations for driving with a suspended license, an expired license, and no current tag, is a legitimate concern by DCF. Item 5 -- Authorized menus for six months must be provided. West Coast initially provided a menu for one week, hand-written and extremely generic in nature, in response to the Department's request. West Coast later provided menus for one month's operation at the Facility. The menus were not signed or approved by a certified dietician. The application did not address whether the menus were meant for both staff and children. Although there was a stated intent by West Coast to participate in the Florida Department of Education food program, no such participation currently exists. West Coast did not retain menus for a six-month period because the Facility had not been open for six months. Item 6 -- Emergency policies and procedures were deficient. West Coast initially submitted a hand-written policy entitled "Transportation." It is scant in content and does not address how emergency situations will be handled other than that staff will respond and transport as necessary. As Bell testified at final hearing, in an emergency situation, "I would call 911, sir." A revised policy was later submitted which designates which staff and/or volunteers may be available or on call, but the policy still provides no specific guidance concerning how emergency care will be provided. The policy includes names of persons currently identified as "volunteers" rather than staff. Item 7 -- Inadequate temporary isolation room. West Coast initially designated a room that appeared to be part of the normal ingress and egress for the home. When that room was rejected by DCF, a room in the rear of the Facility was designated. However, by the time the new room was selected, DCF had already denied the application. Therefore, no further inspection of the Facility was made to determine if the designated isolation room would be proper. Based on Bell's description of the room, it appears to meet the requirements for an isolation area. However, the room does contain a stove and refrigerator, raising concerns about contamination by an infected child. A schematic was submitted to show the location of the new isolation room, but it is questionable in nature.2 Item 8 -- Absence of linkages and cooperative agreements with community agencies. West Coast presented letters from two community agencies expressing an interest in working with the Facility. Neither letter was a final agreement, nor did they address costs, kinds of services or other provisions. Rather, the letters and statements indicate a willingness on the part of West Coast to develop such agreements in the future. Item 9 -- Incident Reporting Procedures are deficient. The application contained an incident reporting policy accompanied by an incident report form. The policy and form appear generally relevant to incident reporting issues; however, they appear to be generic forms, some of them addressing an organization other than West Coast. The policy statement refers to forms and other policies which are not attached. It mentions regional personnel, but no mention of a regional hierarchy for West Coast appears in the record. It appears to be a policy copied from some other agency, but without the requisite tie-in to or adoption by West Coast. Item 10 -- Child abuse and neglect statements by staff are missing. West Coast went to great lengths to explain that it currently has no staff. However, Bell, Crowe, and several "volunteers"3 were identified as potential staff for the Facility. Bell signed a statement indicating he had read and understood child abuse and neglect laws. There is no indication whatsoever as to which laws he read or whether the statutes were responsive to the cited rule. No other staff member signed a statement. Item 11 -- Absence of community activities and services. West Coast submitted the aforementioned letters of interest from two community groups. It also provided some additional information about what those groups do. Although its policy statement says West Coast has made arrangements with local groups, there was no credible evidence that such arrangements have been made. Item 12 -- Inadequate or incomplete recreation, leisure activities, and work experience. The scant information provided by West Coast indicates an intention to involve the children in activities. The Facility obviously does not yet have any children living there; so, it is impossible to generate a totally accurate plan of activities. However, the schedules lack substance. They do not indicate an understanding of the need for specific, understandable guidelines which can be read and followed by staff. Item 13 -- Insufficient discipline, control and punishment policies. The policies submitted by West Coast do address these issues. They do not, however, explain or provide sufficient guidance for either children or staff. Rather, they are broad, general policies which need further development. Item 14 -- Staff qualifications. West Coast provided letters of recommendation, copies of college diplomas, and related information for Bell and Crowe. No such information was presented for other staff because no other staff has been hired. There is no way to ascertain whether the people West Coast intends to hire will fulfill the requirements of the rule. The information on Bell and Crowe was deficient in that it did not include employment confirmation and did not include a personnel file as required by rule. Item 15 -- Staffing Requirements. The staffing schedule initially filed by West Coast as part of the application indicates two persons on day shift and one person on the second and third shift, Monday through Friday. For weekends, there would be one person on first shift, two on second shift, and one person on third shift. A supplemental "Staffing Requirements" policy was submitted. It designates which potential staff members would be on call, but still fails to adequately demonstrate that sufficient trained staff will be available on all shifts. Inasmuch as no specific persons have been hired, there is no way to ascertain whether the anticipated staff is qualified, certified in first aid, or otherwise able to perform its duties. West Coast expresses its intent to take some children out for movies on weekends. However, it does not address how the two groups (those at home versus those who go out) will be supervised at the appropriate ratio. Item 16 -- Inadequate budget for facility and insufficient funds to operate. The budget submitted by West Coast in its application addresses four categories: Rent, Utilities, Food and Salary. The total monthly budget was initially estimated at $3,500, although the Board of Directors included in the application a statement that a budget of $3,000 per month would be sufficient. The proposed budget is about one-half of the typical budgets for most six-bed facilities licensed by the state. The budget does not include funds for entertainment, maintenance, supplies, payroll taxes, transportation, or other costs associated with running a group home. West Coast then submitted a supplemental budget estimating $8,000 per month in expenses. That budget addressed the same four categories mentioned in the original budget, but increased the amounts for each category. The new budget still failed to address all the ancillary costs of operations. West Coast failed to establish an understanding of the costs of operating a group home. West Coast did provide some evidence of potential funds for operating over a six-month period. The saving account of Mrs. Crowe was designated for use by West Coast. The unanswered question at final hearing was whether that account is dedicated solely for the Facility or whether the funds can be used for other purposes. A third party pledged his home as collateral, but that source of funds is not liquid in nature nor was there any non-hearsay evidence concerning outstanding debt on the property. Another person pledged her state retirement funds as collateral, but there was no credible, non-hearsay evidence that such funds were liquid and available. Item 17 -- Admission Application. West Coast submitted an admissions package that minimally met all the requirements of the rule. Item 18 -- Orientation of children. The policies and procedures submitted by West Coast, while not extremely substantive in nature, appear to meet the minimum requirements of the rule. Item 19 -- Failure to meet Food Service requirements. The menu submitted by West Coast was not approved by a registered dietician. West Coast did not designate who would be in charge of overall management of food services, but did express its intent to participate in the Department of Education's Food and Nutrition Management Program, an acceptable alternative. As of the date of the final hearing, no such arrangements had been made with that program. Item 20 -- Health Care Plan is deficient. West Coast provided a supplement to the application outlining a health care policy in an effort to meet the rule requirements. There is an absence of trained health personnel on staff, but that is due to the fact that West Coast has not yet hired any staff. One of the owners, Bell, is trained in CPR, but no other persons could fill the role at this time. The health care plan includes visits to doctors, dentists, and eye-care professionals, but does not indicate how the children will be transported and supervised during those visits. Mrs. Crowe is listed as a nurse on staff who will evaluate the children regularly, but she has not been hired as an employee. Item 21 -- Lack of sufficiently trained personnel. Because it has not yet hired any staff, West Coast has not established written policies for recruitment, retention and effective performance of qualified personnel. It is impossible to determine whether there is an understanding of this requirement due to the lack of information supplied by West Coast. The sparse information submitted with the application does not satisfy the rule requirements.4 Item 22 -- Job Functions and Staff Qualifications fail to satisfy requirements. The staffing information submitted by West Coast is woefully deficient in content and completeness. There is no evidence that any staff have been hired or that proposed staff meet the requirements of the rule. Educational records for Bell and Crowe indicated training for those individuals. However, there is no correlation between their educational backgrounds and their proposed positions with the Facility. Item 23 -- Staff Development. West Coast provided a policy that minimally met the requirements of the rule. DCF reviewed and processed the application in a manner consistent with its policies and procedures. There were several meetings between the applicant and the state to discuss deficiencies in the application.5 Despite numerous opportunities to do so, West Coast was not able to adequately respond to the state's requests for additional support.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying the application for licensure of a group home to West Coast. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 2007.
The Issue At issue in this case is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) should grant the Petition to Amend the Boundary of the Villages of Westport Community Development District (CDD, or District) filed on December 23, 2005 (Petition), as amended and supplemented.
