The Issue The issue in the case is whether Albert E. and Renee Warner's application for an Airspace Obstruction Permit should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Charles W. Brammer owns the Tampa North Aero Park, Inc., which is a Florida-licensed public use landing strip surrounded by private home sites. The landing strip is located in Pasco County. Albert E. Warner and Renee Warner own a lot adjoining the Tampa North Aero Park, Inc. The Warners desire to construct and live in a single family home on the lot identified as Lot 123, Quail Hollow Village Subdivision. According to the Warners, the structure will be concrete block with a wood frame roof. The highest peak of the roof will be no more than 30 feet above ground level (98 feet above mean sea level.) Mr. Brammer is essentially concerned that his airport remain licensed for public use, and is wary of encroachments which may alter its licensing status in the future. The location of the proposed construction exceeds certain federally-established standards and triggers regulatory review of the Warner project. In November of 1995, the Warners began the process of obtaining the permits required for construction of the home at the airstrip. The evidence establishes that the Warners have been cooperative and forthcoming in their attempts to meet regulatory requirements related to their proposed construction. The Warners provided all information as requested by the Department. One of the requirements is that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) review the proposal and issue a "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation." On March 27, 1996, the FAA issued the "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation." The document states that an aeronautical study has been completed (study #96-ASO-286_OE) and identifies the location of the proposed residence as approximately 0.14 nautical miles northeast of the Tampa North Aero Park Airport. The FAA determination contained an incorrect latitude and longitude for the location of the proposed construction. The "Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation" sets forth the factors considered by the FAA and concludes as follows: Therefore, it is determined that the proposed structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities and would not be a hazard to air navigation. By letter of July 12, 1996, the Department issued notice of its intent to grant the Warner application for an Airspace Obstruction Permit. The letter states as follows: We have review results of the Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study of your proposed construction. They have issued a determination your construction can be accommodated without a significant adverse impact on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace for Tampa North Aero Park and is thus not a hazard to air navigation. We have been unable to identify any aviation activity not addressed by the Aeronautical Study that would necessitate altering flight operations to accommodate your proposed construction or be otherwise adversely impacted by its height at the location proposed.... The Department's permit contained the same incorrect latitude and longitude for the location of the proposed construction as had been set forth in the FAA determination. A condition of the permit requires the structure to be lighted with a red beacon and marked as an obstruction. At some point after issuing the initial determination, the FAA issued a correction to the determination. There is no date on the correction which identifies the date of issuance. Other than the location, the FAA's correction made no changes to the initial determination. The correction states as follows: This corrects a minor change in the latitude and longitude based on survey data provided regarding actual runway location and which moves proposal 2 feet closer to runway. Because this minor move will not change the results of the determination, a new circularization and determination was not considered necessary. All else remains same as on original determination. The Department has not issued a corrected notice of its intent to issue the Warner permit. Although the permit applicants have provided the information requested by the Department, the evidence fails to establish that the applicants have met the criteria set forth by statute for the issuance of an Airspace Obstruction Permit. The evidence fails to establish that the Department gave adequate consideration to the requirements of Section 333.025, Florida Statutes, in reviewing the permit application filed by the Warners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order denying the Warner application for Airspace Obstruction Permit. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. _ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Charles W. Brammer, Pro Se Tampa North Aero Park 4241 Birdsong Avenue Tampa, Florida 33549 Albert E. Warner, Pro Se Post Office Box 7084 Wesley Chapel, Florida 33543 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact The airport security officers are principally involved in enforcing parking regulations and directing traffic at the airport. Although they carry basically the same equipment as do Orlando City police officers, they wear blue shirts and the Orlando police wear brown shirts. Further, the Orlando police are civil service, and the airport guards are not. There was some testimony that the security officers are not sworn officers, and do not have the peace officer's powers of arrest; however, those so testifying demonstrated less than a full understanding of the meaning of arrest. These security officers are sworn in by the mayor of the city, are issued badges, guns, handcuffs, nightsticks, mace, radios, etc.; and Exhibit 51, General Rules for Airport Security Officers contains a section on arrest and provides that arrests shall be made in the manner provided for peace officers. Accordingly, it seems clear, despite the apparent opinion of the Orlando police department to the contrary, that airport security officers are peace officers within the meaning of the Florida Statutes. Several witnesses testified to numerous interfaces between the security officers and other airport employees such as directing traffic while emergency road, or other, repairs are being made; providing security when a gate must be kept open for repairs; and assisting in turning off valves, placing or removing barricades when emergency conditions require. The Operations Technician exercises certain authority over security officers during emergencies or at nighttime when other supervisory personnel are off duty. The exercise of this authority is normally through the duty security sergeant. Airport security officers stand duties on 8 hour shifts as do Operations Technicians and Communications clerks. No testimony was presented that maintenance personnel stand similar shifts, but, it would be presumed that if not actually on duty during the 24 hour day, certainly some of these employees are on immediate call during the period normally regarded as other than normal working hours. Security Officers are paid on a biweekly schedule as are some other airport personnel; most maintenance employees are paid on a weekly basis. The pay scales of security officers and other airport employees proposed to be included in the appropriate bargaining unit are comparable. Some of these employees have a higher pay grade and others a lower pay grade than that of the security officers. There is little, if any, interchange in jobs or duties between security officers and maintenance personnel; nor is there interchange of jobs between electricians and plumbers, for example, within the Maintenance Division. The City and County (Orange) have approved the formation of an airport authority to operate both Herndon Airports and Orlando Jetport, and await legislative approval from the State. When approved and established, the authority will be the public employer for all airport employees. In a separate representation hearing, Laborer's International Union, Local 517, in a proceeding involving so called blue collar workers employed by the City of Orlando, has disclaimed any interest in including airport employees in their proposed unit. Disputes have arisen in the past regarding inspecting and servicing vehicles used by security officers, and the City takes the position that if security officers and maintenance personnel are not in the same bargaining unit a greater likelihood of jurisdictional disputes exists. The City takes the position that having fewer unions with which to bargain will simplify or reduce the problems associated therewith and permit more efficient administration. Such benefit would perhaps be more significant when, and if, the airport authority is created. Concrete facts to support this position could not be presented since there is no history of collective bargaining at the City airports; however, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that reaching bargaining agreements with two unions would be easier than reaching agreements with three.
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether section 330.30(3)(f), Florida Statutes, exempts Petitioner from obtaining the approval of the Department of Transportation prior to using a private heliport site adjacent to his property.
Findings Of Fact The Department is authorized to administer and enforce the rules and requirements for airport sites, including initial airport site approval, registration of private airports, and licensing of public use airports. See § 330.29, Fla. Stat. Petitioner owns a home next to Honeymoon Lake in Brevard County, Florida. Petitioner, an aviation enthusiast, also owns several helicopters. Petitioner currently parks his helicopters at a nearby airport. Petitioner desires to takeoff and land his helicopters at his home. Petitioner built a dock on Honeymoon Lake next to his property. Over the dock, Petitioner constructed a wooden platform to use as his heliport. Petitioner built the platform directly into the submerged lands beneath Honeymoon Lake. The platform is approximately 36 feet long by 32 feet wide. The platform rests on wooden pilings and is raised to about 15 feet above Honeymoon Lake. The platform is connected to the shore by a wooden foot bridge. Petitioner harbors two boats at the dock beneath the platform. Petitioner constructed the heliport for his private, recreational use only. Petitioner wants to use his heliport without applying for approval from the Department. Honeymoon Lake is a private (not State) body of water whose history goes back to a deed issued in the late 18th century. In 1878, President Rutherford B. Hayes, on behalf of the United States government, deeded Honeymoon Lake to the original developer of the area. Honeymoon Lake is approximately 300 feet wide at Petitioner’s property line. The area of the lake where Petitioner’s heliport is located is owned by the Stillwaters Homeowners Association and used as a recreation area. On September 5, 2017, after Petitioner constructed the platform, the Stillwaters Homeowners Association Board of Directors approved Petitioner’s heliport by resolution. Prior to this administrative action, Petitioner applied to the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) for airspace approval to operate his heliport on Honeymoon Lake. On April 13, 2017, the FAA provided Petitioner a favorable Heliport Airspace Analysis Determination in which the FAA did not object to Petitioner’s use of his helicopters in the airspace over Honeymoon Lake. The FAA’s determination included an approved Approach/Departure Path Layout and Agreement with the 45th Space Wing, which operates out of nearby Patrick Air Force Base. Petitioner also represents that the heliport platform does not violate the Brevard County Building Code. In support of this assertion, Petitioner introduced the testimony of Brevard County Code Enforcement Officer Denny Long. In August 2017, after receiving a complaint that Petitioner’s heliport might have been built in violation of Brevard County ordinances, Mr. Long inspected Petitioner’s dock structure. Upon finding that Petitioner had already constructed his platform, Mr. Long could not identify a code provision that he needed to enforce. Therefore, he closed his investigation. Petitioner contends that the Honeymoon Lake area is not taxed by Brevard County. Neither is Brevard County responsible for any improvements thereon.3/ Because his heliport is situated over water and not land, as well as the fact that he will only use the heliport for occasional, private use, Petitioner believes that he is entitled to the exemption under section 330.30(3)(f) from obtaining the Department’s approval prior to landing his helicopters at his heliport. Section 330.30 states, in pertinent part: SITE APPROVALS; REQUIREMENTS, EFFECTIVE PERIOD, REVOCATION.— (a) Except as provided in subsection (3), the owner or lessee of any proposed airport shall, prior to . . . construction or establishment of the proposed airport, obtain approval of the airport site from the department. * * * (3) EXEMPTIONS.—The provisions of this section do not apply to: * * * (f) Any body of water used for the takeoff and landing of aircraft, including any land, building, structure, or any other contrivance that facilitates private use or intended private use. Petitioner asserts that the exemption described in section 330.30(3)(f) extends to a “building, structure or any other contrivance” that is constructed on, or over, a body of water. Therefore, since his landing site is situated over water, Petitioner argues that his heliport should be considered a “structure . . . that facilitates private use” of a “body of water for the takeoff and landing of aircraft” which qualifies him for an exemption from Department approval. Although Petitioner does not believe that he needed to apply to the Department for approval of his proposed landing site, he did so at the FAA’s suggestion. Around April 2017, Petitioner contacted the Department inquiring about the process to obtain an airport license or registration for his heliport. On September 25, 2017, however, the Department denied Petitioner’s application as incomplete. Pursuant to section 330.30(1)(a), the Department instructed Petitioner to produce written assurances from the local government zoning authority (Brevard County) that the proposed heliport was a compatible land use for the location and complied with local zoning requirements. In response, instead of supplementing his application, Petitioner asserted to the Department that his heliport was exempt from registration under section 330.30(3)(f) because it was located in a private body of water. On April 6, 2018, the Department issued Petitioner a formal “Letter of Prohibition.” The Letter of Prohibition notified Petitioner that he was not authorized to operate his helicopter from his dock/heliport without first registering his heliport with the Department and obtaining an Airport Site Approval Order. The Letter of Prohibition further stated that Petitioner’s heliport did not meet the exception from site approval and registration requirements in section 330.30(3)(f). The Department expressed that the exception only applied to “a body of water used for the takeoff and landing of aircraft.” The exception did not apply to the platform Petitioner desired to use as his landing site. Petitioner challenges the Letter of Prohibition in this administrative hearing. The Department, through Alice Lammert and Dave Roberts, asserts that Petitioner must register his private-use heliport before he may use it to takeoff or land his helicopters. Ms. Lammert and Mr. Roberts testified that the Department has consistently interpreted section 330.30(3)(f) to pertain to actual bodies of water, e.g., waters used by seaplanes or other floatable aircraft. Both Ms. Lammert and Mr. Roberts commented that Petitioner is not seeking to takeoff or land his helicopters on Honeymoon Lake. Petitioner intends to use a platform, situated 15 feet above Honeymoon Lake, on which to land his helicopters. Ms. Lammert and Mr. Roberts expressed that Petitioner’s construction of his heliport over water does not change the fact that his heliport is a fixed wooden structure and not a “body of water.” Consequently, Petitioner must obtain Department approval prior to using the platform for his helicopters. Ms. Lammert and Mr. Roberts added that if Petitioner’s helicopters were equipped with pontoons and landed directly on the surface of Honeymoon Lake, his “landing site” would qualify for the exemption set forth in section 330.30(3)(f). Ms. Lammert and Mr. Roberts further explained that the Department is responsible for ensuring that aircraft operating in Florida takeoff and land in safe, controlled areas. Through section 330.30, the Department is tasked to inspect all potential airport sites to make sure that the landing zones do not pose a danger to any aircraft (or helicopter) that might use them. Safety is the Department’s primary focus when approving private airport/heliport registrations. For example, as Ms. Lammert explained, the Department would inspect Petitioner’s heliport to ensure that the platform is sturdy enough and wide enough to bear the weight of Petitioner’s helicopters. The Department might also determine whether the platform should be equipped with a safety net. Regarding Petitioner’s argument that the Department should consider his heliport a “structure . . . that facilitates private use” of a body of water, Mr. Roberts understands the exemption under section 330.30(3)(f) to include docks that are used for persons disembarking from a seaplane or other floatable aircraft. The exemption, however, does not apply if the dock, itself, serves as the landing site. Regarding Petitioner’s reference to the FAA analysis determination, Mr. Roberts explained that while the FAA has authority to approve the use of the airspace over Honeymoon Lake, the authority to approve the landing site remains with the Department. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, Petitioner did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his heliport qualifies for an exemption under section 330.30(3)(f). Accordingly, prior to his use of his heliport to takeoff or land his helicopters, he must apply for site approval from the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from Department approval under section 330.30(3)(f) prior to the use of his wooden platform as a heliport. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2018.
The Issue As described in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation Petitioners are challenging the Respondent's (SJRWMD) solicitation process with regard to the "Invitation to submit an Offer to Purchase property known as the Zellwin Airstrip." Petitioners seek to set aside the award of purchase to Intervenors and to have the solicitation process re-advertised. The issue for resolution is whether Petitioners are entitled to that relief.
Findings Of Fact In 1996 the Florida Legislature mandated that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) attempt to purchase farms on the north shore of Lake Apopka as part of a long-term restoration and reclamation project. Petitioners, Rex Shepherd and Dale Harper, are pilots and owners of an aerial advertising business, American Outdoor Aerial Advertising. In early 1998 the business was operating out of Crakes field, a small airstrip owned by Kent Crakes as part of Crakes' North Lake Apopka farm. Petitioners' business owned airplanes and banners which it flew for its advertising clients such as Sears and GEICO. Sometime in early 1998 it became obvious that Petitioners would need to move their operation to another field. There were break-ins at the hanger, and the airstrip was beginning to flood as a result of the reclamation project. Kent Crakes referred Rex Shepherd to Leonard Freeman, the individual with SJRWMD who was involved with land acquisition in the area. Around March or early April 1998 Petitioners commenced discussions with Mr. Freeman regarding their use of the farm airstrip at Zellwin Farms, also part of the SJRWMD Lake Apopka farms acquisition program. Mr. Freeman was the SJRWMD point of contact for the Zellwin Farms acquisition. By early 1998, the property was already under contract and was scheduled to close some time around June 1998. Mr. Freeman and the Petitioners met at the Zellwin Farms airstrip in June 1998, and Petitioners determined the property would be suitable for their operation. Eager to accommodate Petitioners because of their predicament and also in anticipation of the SJRWMD's eventual sale of the Zellwin parcel, Mr. Freeman gave permission for Petitioners to store their equipment on the site and gave them a key. Because Zellwin Farms was beyond what SJRWMD considered to be the lake's historic shoreline, the SJRWMD knew that it would need to dispose of its 1400 acres as surplus, in whole or part. Mr. Freeman's desire was to find a way to dispose of the property as the best thing for the SJRWMD. Thus, because of the Petitioners' immediate interest in relocating their business, Mr. Freeman began negotiating with them for their purchase of the airstrip and related buildings. In September 1998, Mr. Freeman met again with Petitioners at the airstrip and discussed a specific proposal. Petitioners talked about offering $250,000 under a lease-purchase arrangement, and sent a letter dated September 10, 1998, to Mr. Freeman with that offer. Mr. Freeman later suggested that since the appraised value was $275,000, an offer in that amount would be easier to get approved. Mr. Freeman did not have the authority to obligate the SJRWMD to sell the property and Petitioners understood that. Still, Petitioners felt they were negotiating in good faith with staff who could make a strong recommendation to the board. Petitioners believed in early October that they had a hand-shake deal subject to further discussions regarding specific terms. They knew that a competitive solicitation might be an option for the SJRWMD but they also believed that they would be given an opportunity to meet another third party's offer. This belief was based not on some specific agreement for a "right of first refusal," but rather on Mr. Freeman's good-natured assurances that they would work it all out. Mr. Freeman requested that the SJRWMD special counsel develop a draft contract based on Petitioners' offer. The offer would then need to be signed by Petitioners and approved by Mr. Freeman's supervisor before going to the SJRWMD governing board. The counsel never finished the draft and it was never given to Mr. Freeman or the Petitioners. By the end of October 1998, Robert Christianson, Mr. Freeman's supervisor and director of the SJRWMD Department of Operations and Land Resources, learned that Petitioners were flying in and out of the Zellwin airstrip and using it for their business base of operations. This activity was beyond the storage permission that Mr. Freeman had granted. (Even that permission was beyond his individual authority.) Mr. Freeman and Mr. Christianson met with Petitioners on October 27, 1998, to work out a license agreement for their use of the airstrip. Such an agreement was necessary to protect the parties' respective interests and to cover the SJRWMD for any liability in the landlord/tenant relationship. The result of that meeting was a written license agreement for Petitioners to use, maintain, and provide protection for the property for a period from October 30, 1998, to April 30, 1999, subject to revocation with advance notice. Petitioners used the airstrip property under that agreement and made improvements, mostly cleaning up the facility so it could be used. At the October meeting it became obvious to Petitioners that the informal negotiations for their purchase were terminated and that the SJRWMD was going to solicit competitive offers for the purchase. This concerned the Petitioners and they felt let- down by Mr. Freeman. Still, they concentrated on getting the license agreement worked out. Rex Shepherd's account of the October meeting was that Mr. Christianson was very clear about the fact that the SJRWMD had to go for competitive bid, that they were bound by a board and rules and regulations even though both he and Mr. Freeman would like for Petitioners to have the airport, and that they should be able to work it out. At the end of the meeting, and as they were leaving the trailer, Mr. Shepherd commented to Mr. Freeman that he really did not want to lose the airport and wanted to be apprised of what was going on so that if there were a higher bid, he could have the opportunity to match it, or if it were too high, that they would have 30 or 60 days to vacate the property. According to Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Freeman simply responded, "We'll work all that out, don't worry about it." On November 11, 1998, the SJRWMD governing board voted to surplus the Zellwin Farms property with direction to the staff that the sale be widely advertised in the aviation community and not be a sole source deal. Consistent with the board's direction and pursuant to Section 373.089(3), Florida Statutes, the SJRWMD advertised a "Notice of Intention to Sell" the airstrip property in the Orlando Sentinel for three consecutive weeks, November 9, 16, and 23, 1998. The notice identifies the airstrip property as an "Approximately 47-acre agricultural airport facility, 2,200'? square feet asphalt runway, 5,250 ? square feet metal hanger, 2,048 ? storage square feet building, well and septic tank at a location of northwest Orange County, Florida, Sections 20 and 29, T-20-S, R-27-E, on Jones Avenue, 1 ? mile west of U.S. Highway 441, Zellwood." The Notice of Intention to Sell states that "[a]ll interested persons are invited to submit an offer to the District for purchase of said lands. Contact the District . . . and request an Airport Sales Package." Both the Airport Sales Package and the Notice of Intention to Sell state that the airport property will be sold for the highest price obtainable. The sales package states that full cash offers to be paid at closing will be given first consideration and that 10 percent of the purchase price must be paid when the offeror was notified that it was successful. The sales package also states that any person adversely affected by an offer solicitation shall file a Notice of Protest, in writing, prior to the date on which the offers are to be received, and shall file a formal written protest within ten (10) days after filing the Notice of protest pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-1.801. * * * Failure to timely file a notice of protest or failure to timely file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (SJRWMD Ex. 3). Both the Notice of Intention to Sell and the sales package require that sealed "offers for purchase" be submitted to the SJRWMD prior to 2:00 p.m. on December 4, 1998, the advertised time for opening of the offers. Nothing in the Notice or sales package reserves a right of first refusal for any person. Instead, both plainly state "no offer will be accepted after the date and hour specified for submittal of offers." (SJRWMD Exhibits 1 and 3) Although Petitioners did not see the newspaper notice, they had knowledge that the SJRWMD advertised the sale of the airstrip property through a competitive solicitation process in the newspaper. They had been clearly informed of need for the competitive process by Mr. Christianson at the October meeting and they were present when a pre-solicitation meeting/inspection took place at the airstrip in November prior to the offers being accepted by the SJRWMD. Intervenors requested a sales package from the SJRWMD on November 30, 1998, and December 2, 1998. Petitioners requested and received a sales package prior to the opening of the offers to purchase. The sales packages were not available to the public until December 2, 1998, the same day Petitioners received their package. Mr. Freeman told Petitioners they needed to submit their bid. Although the sales package stated that facsimile offers would not be accepted by the SJRWMD, Leonard Freeman informed Petitioners that they could fax their Offer to Purchase. The SJRWMD did accept a facsimile offer to purchase from Petitioners on December 4, 1998, at 1:07 p.m. Offers to purchase were opened by the SJRWMD at 2:10 p.m. on December 4, 1998. Petitioners submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $275,000, where Petitioners would pay $1,500.00 per month for 60 months ($90,000 with $72,000 applied toward principal) with a balance of $203,000 cash to be paid at the end of the 60-month term. Intervenors submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $310,000, where Intervenors would put 10 percent down ($31,000 earnest money deposit) at award of Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the balance of $279,000 cash would be paid at closing on or before May 1, 1999. Petitioners' offer to purchase was not the highest offer; it did not provide for cash at closing; and it did not meet the requirement of 10 percent to be paid upon notification. Staff recommended to the SJRWMD board that it award the purchase of the airstrip property to the highest offeror, Intervenors. The governing board approved staff's recommendation at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 9, 1998. On December 9, 1998, Petitioners filed a Notice of Protest. On December 18, 1998, Petitioners filed a copy of their Formal Bid Protest with the SJRWMD. Petitioners never grasped the implications of the competitive solicitation process until after the offers were opened and the award was made to Intervenors. Even if Petitioners had seen the newspaper notice and had received the sales package sooner, they still would not have protested because they understood that their "agreement" was outside of the process. That is, they mistakenly perceived that after the offers were in they could negotiate further to exceed the high offer. Chagrined, and genuinely regretful of the misunderstanding, Mr. Freeman had to tell Petitioners that further negotiations were foreclosed after the offers were opened. Mr. Freeman's earlier assurances to Petitioners were the result of an excess of bonhomie rather than any deception. He wanted them to have the airport and he wanted to work out the sale of surplus property. Petitioners were aware that he did not have the authority to bind his agency to an agreement. Mr. Freeman never specifically told Petitioners they had a right of first refusal; they wanted that advantage and surmised agreement from Mr. Freeman's and Mr. Christianson's vague counsel to not worry and that it would all be worked out. The SJRWMD devised a competitive process for disposition of the Zellwin airstrip that was consistent with its statute and with the direction of its governing board. Intervenors responded with an offer that met all the published requirements. Petitioners did not, and any culpability of SJRWMD's staff for Petitioners' misunderstanding is not so egregious as to require that the process begin again. Petitioners occupied the property, used it, and made improvements to enhance their use. This, however, was in reliance on their license to use the property and not on some certainty that they would ultimately be able to own the property. As Petitioners testified at hearing, they were disappointed that the SJRWMD decided to solicit competitive proposals; they knew that it was possible someone would offer more than they could match. (Harper, Transcript pages 117-120).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the SJRWMD enter its final order denying Petitioners' request to reject all bids and re-advertise the sale. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 24th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 John W. Williams, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Clayton D. Simmons, Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Colbert, Whigham And Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Stanley Dollen 1230 Kelso Boulevard Windermere, Florida 34786 Herbert Clark 5416 Trimble Park Road Mt. Dora, Florida 32757
Findings Of Fact The site of the proposed airport (known as "Bean Patch Airport") is a triangular-shaped tract adjacent to the extension of Berryhill Read in Santa Rosa County. Mapoles purchased the property after a favorable preliminary inspection report by DOT engineer, Hobby Grice. Mapoles then filed applications for approval with DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The proposed runway is oriented generally east to west (080/2600). Runway length is approximately 2,200 feet. However, the effective length allowing for the required 15-feet glide path clearance over a road near the east end is 1,900 feet for west landing. Without removal of trees on the west approach, the effective runway length for west landing would further be reduced to 1,400 feet. Effective length of the east runway is 2,200 feet. Runway width is 100 feet. Petitioners have measured the proposed runway and contend that the correct length is 2,037 feet. This was not shown to be an accurate measurement of the runway as it is currently planned. Even if correct, however, it appears that Mapoles could still obtain the 1,800 feet required by Section 14-60.07, FAC, provided the trees are removed on the west approach. The proposed runway is not level and has a low spot which fills with water during periods of heavy rain. Mapoles has commenced grading the area, but it was not demonstrated that this has corrected the drainage problem. Although there is no requirement that a private, grass runway be level, Petitioners correctly point out that standing water or mud on a runway constitutes a safety hazard. Petitioners contend that an east/west oriented runway is undesirable. They argue that prevailing winds from the north in winter and the south in summer would create crosswind conditions for takeoffs and landings. However, velocity is under seven knots most of the time, and would not materially affect landing or takeoff safety. Further, users of the airport are trained in dealing with various wind conditions and would presumably avoid landing or taking off during periods when there is a crosswind hazard. Petitioners point out that several private and military airfields are located in the general area. In addition, the Commander of Training Air Wing 5 (U.S. Navy) is opposed to the Bean Patch Airport due to the projected reopening of Wallace Field, also in the vicinity. However, the FAA received no request from the Navy regarding Wallace Field and granted its approval for the proposed airport with certain restrictions. These conditions have been incorporated in the site approval order. Further, there was no evidence to indicate that Bean Patch Airport traffic or traffic patterns would pose any hazard to air safety. Petitioners contend that nearby gas and power lines also pose threats to safety. The gas line is located on the side of a road separated from the runway by the homesites discussed below, and thus does not present a safety hazard. The power line is located to the side of the runway extension and is not a direct hazard to flight. However, the traffic patterns ultimately adopted should avoid passing over this power line, if possible. Other potential problems raised by Petitioners concern the lack of immediately available emergency services. However, these services are available in nearby communities and Mapoles should make an early determination as to which fire department and ambulance service to contact in the event of an emergency. Mapoles intends to use the airport for personal pleasure and business. He also plans to sell 14 homesites on the tract and would include the right to utilize the airport with property ownership. He has proposed limiting transient aircraft at the field to a maximum of eight. Petitioners argue that Mapoles' proposed use of this airport will destroy the residential character of their community. They are further concerned with Mapoles stunt flying and his practice of landing on state roads, both of which they regard as reckless. The latter problem, if it exists, relates to Mapoles licensing as a pilot and not as an airport owner. The residential character of the community may well be changed by the airport. However, there are no applicable zoning restrictions and most of the anticipated problems (human and animal health, distraction of automobile drivers) are highly speculative. The concern for children playing on the runway is valid, and such activity has already been observed. Petitioners appropriately recommend installation of a fence if the airport is authorized.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Department of Transportation enter a final order amending Site Approval Order No. 81-04, by adding the following conditions: Site preparations will include provisions for adequate drainage of the runway. Approval by the Department of Transportation is required prior to licensing. Fencing of the runway, taxiway and aircraft parking area will be accomplished prior to licensing. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary M. Callaway, Esquire Post Office Box 3697 Pensacola, Florida 32506 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T. Sol Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 605 Milton, Florida 32570 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REEVES, et al., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-371 H. BYRD MAPOLES and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner owes tax, penalty, and interest under Section 212.05(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes,1/ for an aircraft that it allegedly purchased and used in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a national banking and trust company headquartered in Utah. It does not have any operations or personnel in Florida. Petitioner routinely serves as “owner trustee” for non- U.S. citizens who want to register aircraft with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Petitioner charges a fee (typically $4,000) to set up the trust, as well as an annual fee (typically $2,000) for its services as “owner trustee.” Petitioner holds legal title to the aircraft in its capacity as “owner trustee” because the FAA regulations do not allow non-U.S. citizens to register aircraft. Petitioner does not have any operational control over the aircraft even though it holds legal title. The tax assessment at issue in this case relates to a Cessna Citation 650 jet, tail number N385EM (hereafter “the aircraft”), which Petitioner holds legal title to as “owner trustee” pursuant to a Trust Agreement dated April 28, 2007. The trustor and beneficiary under the Trust Agreement is MAW.ZC, LLC, which is a Delaware limited liability company, controlled by a non-U.S. citizen, Nelson Ceballos. The sole purpose of the trust was to “ensure the eligibility of the Aircraft for United States registration with the [FAA].” The aircraft was purchased from Southern Jet Center (SJC) in Sanford, Florida, on May 3, 2007, for $3.74 million. The “purchaser” identified on the Bill of Sale was “Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, NA as Owner Trustee under Trust Agreement dated 4/28/07.” MAW.ZC, LLC, was not mentioned on the Bill of Sale. Petitioner’s witness, Jon Croasman, testified that MAW.ZC, LLC, negotiated the purchase of the aircraft with SJC, and then assigned the purchase right to Petitioner as “owner trustee” so that the aircraft would not lose its tail number and it would be easier to register the aircraft with the FAA. The record does not contain a written purchase agreement between MAW.ZC, LLC, and SJC or a written assignment of the purchase right from MAW.ZC, LLC, to Petitioner. According to Mr. Croasman, SJC was “kind of an unsophisticated seller” and it did not require these documents. Mr. Croasman was the only witness with personal knowledge of the events surrounding the purchase of the aircraft who testified at the final hearing. His testimony was logical and persuasive and is accepted as credible despite the absence of corroborating documentation. Petitioner did not pay anything to SJC for the purchase of the aircraft. The entire $3.74 million purchase price was paid by MAW.ZC, LLC. Petitioner was the purchaser of the aircraft in name only. The real purchaser was MAW.ZC, LLC. On May 4, 2007, Petitioner filed an application to register the aircraft with the FAA. The applicant listed on the application form was “Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as Owner Trustee under a Trust Agreement dated as of 4/28/07.” On the same day, the FAA issued a certificate of registration for the aircraft. The certificate was issued to “Wells Fargo Bank Northwest NA Trustee.” Registration of an aircraft with the FAA has no bearing on its ownership. Indeed, the official registration document for the aircraft issued by the FAA states: “This certificate is issued for registration purposes only and is not a certificate of title. The Federal Aviation Administration does not determine rights of ownership as between private parties.” On May 7, 2007, Petitioner filed with the Department an Affidavit for Exemption of Aircraft Sold for Removal from the State of Florida by a Nonresident Purchaser (hereafter “the Removal Affidavit”). The affidavit identified the purchaser of the aircraft as “Wells Fargo bank Northwest, NA, not in its individual capacity but solely as Owner Trustee for MAW.ZC, LLC.” The aircraft remained in Florida undergoing repairs at SJC from the date of purchase until July 2, 2007, when it was flown to Venezuela where it was based. It is undisputed that the aircraft left Florida within 20 days after the initial repairs were completed and, therefore, the sale was exempt from the sales tax. The Department informed Petitioner in a letter dated July 13, 2007, that the aircraft could not be brought back into Florida for a period of six months without its becoming subject to Florida’s use tax. Petitioner forwarded this letter to Mr. Ceballos, since he and MAW.ZC, LLC, were responsible for the operation of the aircraft. Petitioner did not exercise any control over the operation of the aircraft after its purchase. In April 2007, prior to the purchase of the aircraft, Petitioner and MAW.ZC, LLC, entered into an Aircraft Operating Agreement. This agreement was executed in conjunction with the Trust Agreement in anticipation of the purchase of the aircraft. The Aircraft Operating Agreement gave MAW.ZC, LLC, “an exclusive right to possess, use and operate the Aircraft.” The agreement required MAW.ZC, LLC, to pay all costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the aircraft. And, with respect to the operation of the aircraft, the agreement required only that MAW.ZC, LLC, cause the Aircraft to be operated by competent personnel in accordance with the manufacturer’s manuals and FAA and other government regulations. On June 15, 2007, Petitioner authorized Captain Alexander Nunez to pilot the aircraft “wherever necessary and specifically including but not limited to Venezuelan air space.” Petitioner interprets the Trust Agreement and the Aircraft Operating Agreement to preclude it from exercising any control over the operation of the aircraft even though Section 9.01(a) of the Trust Agreement gives Petitioner “absolute and complete discretion” in connection with matters involving the ownership and operation of the aircraft so as to protect the interests of the United States. According to Mr. Croasman, the language in Section 9.01 is required verbatim by the FAA for the sole purpose of ensuring that Petitioner, as “owner trustee,” will be able to operate the aircraft without violating its obligations under the Trust Agreement in the unlikely event that the U.S. government needs to use the aircraft for some reason.2/ And, as Mr. Croasman pointed out, Section 9.01(a) requires Petitioner to “exercise this discretion in all matters involving ownership and operation of the Aircraft by the Owner Trustee with due regard for the interests of the Trustor.” The Trust Agreement and the Aircraft Operating Agreement provided that MAW.ZC, LLC, was responsible for keeping records concerning the use of the aircraft. MAW.ZC, LLC, was also responsible for paying any taxes or expenses related to purchase or use of the aircraft. The aircraft crashed in Venezuela on February 18, 2008, killing Mr. Ceballos, Captain Nunez, and the copilot. The original flight records for the aircraft were destroyed in the crash, and no copies of those records were presented at the final hearing. No witness with personal knowledge regarding the operation of the aircraft was presented at the final hearing. The only evidence presented concerning the operation of the aircraft was flight data obtained from two Internet sources, FlightAware and fboweb.com. The FlightAware data was obtained by Department staff as part of their monitoring of the aircraft’s operation during the six-month period after its initial departure from Florida. The fboweb.com data was provided to the Department by David McDonald, the attorney for MAW.ZC, LLC, and Mr. Ceballos, who was acting as Petitioner’s authorized representative during the investigation and protest phase of this case. There is no evidence that Mr. McDonald had any personal knowledge of the information contained in the fboweb.com data, and he did not present it to the Department as his understanding of the aircraft’s operation. Indeed, the letter by which Mr. McDonald transmitted the fboweb.com data to the Department stated that he was “having trouble trying to decipher the information provided by fboweb.com” and that he was providing it to the Department because it appeared to be inconsistent with the FlightAware data conveyed to him by the Department staff. Mr. McDonald never expressly contested the assertion by the Department staff that the aircraft returned to Florida within the six months after it initial departure. His failure to do so was not, under the circumstances, an admission or acquiescence to the Department’s position that the aircraft did return to Florida within that period. Indeed, he informed the Department staff on several occasions that he had not been able to obtain information concerning the aircraft’s operation because the aircraft’s flight records were destroyed in the crash. No credible evidence was presented as to what the FlightAware or fboweb.com services are, or how they obtain the flight data included in their records. For example, when asked to explain her “understanding of what Flight Aware is,” the Department witness used to introduce the data testified only that “[i]t’s a service that the Department subscribes to to track the flights for the aircraft.” The FlightAware data indicates that the aircraft made eleven flights into Florida between September 2007 and January 2008: Flight Date Destination 1 9/22/07 from Arturo Michelena International Airport (Arturo) in Venezuela to Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport, and then to Simon Bolívar International Airport in Venezuela by way of Ft. Lauderdale Executive Airport on the same day 2 9/29/07 from Arturo to Hollywood International Airport (FLL), and then to Simon Bolivar International Airport the following day 3 10/1/07 from Arturo to FLL, and then back to Arturo the same day 4 10/4/07 from Arturo to FLL, then to Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB) the following day, with a return to Arturo by way of FLL and Nassau International Airport on October 14 5 10/15/07 from Arturo to FLL, then to SFB on the same day 6 12/16/07 from Arturo to FLL, then to SFB the same day, with a return to Arturo on December 20 7 12/21/07 from Arturo to FLL, and then back to Arturo on the same day 8 12/23/07 from Arturo to FLL, and then back to Arturo on the same day 9 1/3/08 from Punta Cara International Airport to FLL, then to SFB on the same day, with a return to Arturo by way of FLL on January 6 10 1/10/08 from Arturo to FLL, and then back to Arturo on January 12 11 1/13/08 from Arturo to FLL, and then back to Arturo on the same day The fboweb.com data is, as Mr. McDonald noted, difficult to decipher. However, it appears to include most, if not all, of the flights that were listed in the FlightAware data. The fboweb.com data also lists flights on September 8- 9, 2007, between Arturo, FLL, and SFB. Those flights were not listed in the FlightAware data. No findings can be made as to whether the aircraft was indeed in Florida on the dates reflected in the FlightAware or fboweb.com data because that data is uncorroborated hearsay. Even if the FlightAware and fboweb.com data could be relied upon to establish that the aircraft was in Florida on the dates referenced above, only the September 8-9 flights listed in the fboweb.com data and the first eight flights listed in the FlightAware data would be relevant. The other three flights listed in the FlightAware data -– 1/3/08, 1/10/08, and 1/13/08 - – occurred more than six months after the aircraft’s initial departure from Florida on July 2, 2007. Mr. McDonald was able to locate and provide to the Department repair invoices related to only four of the nine relevant flights listed in the FlightAware and fboweb.com data – - 9/8/07, 10/4/07, 10/15/07, and 12/16/07. On each of those occasions, there is documentation showing that the aircraft underwent repairs at SJC in Sanford. There is no evidence that the aircraft underwent repairs in connection with the other five flights listed in the FlightAware data -– 9/22/07, 9/29/07, 10/1/07, 12/21/07, and 12/23/07. Mr. McDonald provided an invoice for a part that was purchased for the aircraft at FLL on September 29, 2007, but there is no evidence that the part was installed in Florida on that trip. No sales or use tax was paid on the aircraft by Petitioner or any other entity or person to Florida or to any other state or country. Petitioner does not dispute the amount of the tax, penalty, or interest calculated by the Department in the Notice of Reconsideration. The tax is $224,400, which is six percent of the sales price of the aircraft; the penalty is $224,400, which is 100 percent of the tax as required by Section 212.05(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes; and interest is accruing at a rate of $67.44 per day, with $27,273.10 of interest having accrued through the date of the Notice of Reconsideration. These amounts were assessed against Petitioner in its capacity as “owner trustee,” not its individual capacity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order rescinding the assessment at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2009.
The Issue Is it in the public interest to place Petitioners, Paradies Shops, Inc. and Paradies Midfield Corporation (Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield) on the State of Florida Convicted Vendor List maintained by Respondent State of Florida Department of Management Services (the Department)? Section 287.133, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact The corporate headquarters of Paradies Shops is located at 5950 Fulton Industrial Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30336. Paradies Shops is conducting business with several Florida public entities in the form of airport retail concession contracts. Paradies Shops owns 65 percent of Paradies Midfield. Paradies Shops owns 75 percent of Paradies-Ft. Lauderdale. Paradies-Jacksonville, Paradies-Sarasota and Paradies-Daytona Beach are all Sub-Chapter S corporations, for tax purposes; therefore, Paradies Shops does not own any stock in these three corporations. The Paradies family and Richard Dickson own, on an individual basis, 75% to 85% of the Sub- Chapter S affiliates. The remaining stock is owned by the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) partners of Paradies Shops in these ventures. Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield do not operate through divisions. Paradies Midfield has one subsidiary, Paradies Country Stores, Inc. All of the corporate addresses for other Paradies Companies, in addition to Paradies Shops, are at 5950 Fulton Industrial Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30336. The subsidiaries, affiliates, limited liability companies and Florida leases of Paradies are as follows: Subsidiaries Paradies-Chicago, Inc. Paradies-Fort Lauderdale, Inc. Paradies-Hartford, Inc. Paradies-Louisville, Inc. Paradies Midfield Corporation Paradies Pugh, Inc. PAS Group, Inc. Affiliates Mercaro Gifts-TPS, Inc. Paradies-Concessions II-Arch, Inc. Paradies-Dayton, Inc. Paradies-Huntsville, Inc. Paradies-Jacksonville, Inc. Paradies-Knoxville, Inc. Paradies-LaGuardia, Inc. Paradies-Metro Ventures, Inc. Paradies-Orange Co., Inc. Paradies-Sarasota, Inc. Paradies-South, Inc. Paradies-Toronto, Inc. Paradies-Daytona Beach, Inc. Paradies-Vancouver, Inc. PGA Tour Licensing Limited Liability Companies Paradies & Associates, L.L.C. Paradies-Colorado Springs, L.L.C. Paradies-Madison, L.L.C. Paradies-Desert House, L.L.C. Paradies-Phoenix, L.L.C. Current Florida Leases Company Name Paradies Southwest Florida Intl. Lee County Port Ft. Myers, Florida Authority Paradies Palm Beach Intl. Airport Palm Beach West Palm Beach, FL County Paradies Tallahassee Regional Airport City of Tallahassee, Florida Tallahassee Paradies Orlando Intl. Airport Greater Orlando Orlando, Florida Aviation Authority Paradies Ft. Lauderdale Intl. Airport Broward County Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Paradies Jacksonville Intl. Airport Jacksonville Port Authority Paradies Sarasota/Bradenton Intl. Sarasota-Manatee Sarasota, Florida Airport Authority Paradies Daytona Beach Intl. Airport County of Volusia Daytona Beach, Florida The following constitutes the Florida business registrations for Paradies, to include the company name and the Florida registration number: Company Florida Registration # Parent Paradies, Inc. 826058 Subsidiaries Paradies-Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. M11773 Sub-S Affiliates Paradies-Jacksonville, Inc. P30174 Paradies-Sarasota, Inc. P27093 Paradies-Daytona Beach, Inc. F92000000397 Pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), the Department is responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases involved with persons or affiliates that it has reason to believe have been convicted of a public entity crime. This responsibility is as a means to maintain a list of the names and addresses of those persons or affiliates who have been disqualified from the public contracting and purchasing process engaged in with Florida public entities subject to that statute. Daniel M. Paradies, Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield, were charged with public entity crimes as defined within subsection 287.133(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp). That case was tried before a jury in January, 1994 (U.S. v. Ira Jackson, et al., Case No. 1:93:CR-310, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.) On January 22, 1994 the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On April 15, 1994, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, entered judgments of conviction for 83 counts of mail fraud against Daniel M. Paradies, Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield, for violations of Sections 1341 and 1346 of Title 18, United States Code. Daniel M. Paradies was also convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit bribery in violation of Section 371 of Title 18, United States Code. These judgments and convictions of Daniel M. Paradies, Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield constituted convictions for public entity crimes as defined within Subsections 287.133(1)(g) and 287.133(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.). Further information concerning the judgments of conviction may be found in Exhibits M, N, O and P to the joint stipulation of facts by the parties. The nature and details of the public entity crimes for which judgments of conviction were entered against Daniel M. Paradies, Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield may be found in Exhibit P to the stipulation by the parties. As well, that exhibit speaks to the culpability of the persons or affiliates proposed to be placed on the Convicted Vendor List. Section 287.133(3)(e)3b. and c., Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.). On September 23, 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all convictions of Daniel M. Paradies, Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield. The Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing on December 26, 1996, but stayed its mandate pending a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in an Order entered January 22, 1997. By seeking a stay of the Eleventh Circuit's mandate, the Paradies companies announced their intention to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court within thirty (30) days after the mandate had been stayed. A copy of the Eleventh Circuit order granting the motion to stay pending a Petition for Writ of Certiorari is found as Exhibit A to the fact stipulation by the parties. The Petition for Writ of Certiorari has been filed. In consideration of the requirements of Section 287.133(e)3.d, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), requiring consideration of "prompt or voluntary payment of any damages or penalty as a result of the conviction" for a public entity crime, no restitution was required by the final judgment in that case. A fine and special assessment against Paradies Shops were payable over a five year period, once the judgment becomes final. Because the Eleventh Circuit order stayed issuance of the mandate pending United States Supreme Court's ruling for the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to be filed by Mr. Paradies, Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield, the fine and special assessment are not due at this time. The Paradies Shops has established a reserve for payment of the fine and that reserve is reflected in its audited balance sheet. In the event the Supreme Court denies the Petition, Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield intend to pay the full amount of the fine and the special assessment within thirty (30) days of a final judgment. A copy of "the Paradies Shops, Inc., its Subsidiaries and its Affiliates Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements June 30, 1996 and 1995," demonstrating the availability of the funds is attached to the fact stipulation by the parties as Exhibit D. In accordance with Section 287.133(3)(e)3.e, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp), Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield cooperated with the state and federal investigations and federal prosecution of the public entity crime consistent with their good faith exercise of constitutional, statutory or other rights during the investigation or prosecution of the public entity crime, to the extent that: Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield at all times cooperated with the federal government with its investigation. Paradies produced tens of thousands of pages of documents and made all of its employees available for appearance before the Federal Grand Jury. In addition, several Paradies Shops' employees were called by the government to testify at trial. Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield, fully cooperated with the Department in connection with this investigation initiated pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes, and supplied the Department with all requested documents concerning the Atlanta proceeding. In association with Section 287.133(3)(e)3.f, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), the following acts of "disassociation from any person or affiliates convicted of the public entity crime" have transpired: Paradies Midfield and Paradies Country Store ceased all operations on March 31, 1995. In May, 1994, Dan Paradies resigned as President and Director for Paradies Shops and is no longer employed in any capacity with any company. Mr. Paradies has placed in a blind irrevocable trust all of the stocks he owns in Paradies Shops and its affiliates (including the companies operating in Florida). Mr. Paradies does not have any control over the stock in the blind irrevocable trust and cannot vote any of that stock. In regards to his capacity within the company, Mr. Paradies has no involvement nor any control over any of the Paradies companies. He is not employed in any capacity with any of the companies nor is he an officer or director of any of the companies. Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield were held responsible based on the ownership and control of Mr. Dan Paradies. Charges were not brought against any other officer, director or employee of Paradies. The government did charge Mack Wilbourn, a director of Paradies Midfield, but he was acquitted. In association with Section 287.133(3)(e)3.g, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), "prior or future self-policing by the person or affiliate to prevent public entity crimes" has been shown to the extent that: Following the convictions Paradies Shops engaged the international accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand to review and evaluate all DBE business relationships of Paradies Shops. These reviews were completed in May of 1994, and found no evidence of any improper activities. These reviews are found as Exhibit E to the fact stipulation by the parties. Paradies Shops has adopted a Code of Business Practices that is designed to provide officers and all management of the Company a guide to the basic principles to be applied in conducting the company's business. The failure on the part of a covered employee to abide by the provision of the Code is grounds for immediate dismissal. This code also directs employees to report any suspected violations of the law or other misconduct. The Code has been read and executed by all employees in the home office in Atlanta and all managers in all locations around the country. All future new employees at the home office and new management level employees are required to read and agree to follow the Code. The Company requires all covered employees to certify, on at least an annual basis, that they have reviewed the Code and that they will continue to abide by its terms. A copy of Paradies Code of business practices, which includes a blank certification form, is Exhibit F to the fact stipulation by the parties. In accordance with Section 287.133(3)(e)3.h, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), consideration is given any "reinstatement or clemency in any jurisdiction in relation to the public entity crime at issue in the proceeding." To that extent: No debarment proceedings have been initiated against Paradies by any state as a result of the Atlanta conviction. Paradies has not been debarred by any state as a result of the Atlanta conviction. The fact stipulation relates that: Since the convictions, Paradies has won thirteen (13) new contracts through competitive proposals and received the extensions of fourteen (14) existing contracts. Additionally, Paradies has been awarded five (5) off-airport contracts since the conviction to include a long-term contract with the World Golf Village, currently under development south of Jacksonville, Florida, and scheduled to open March of 1998. In addition, in 1996, the PGA TOUR has extended the Paradies exclusive license to operate the PGA TOUR Shops for an additional five (5) years. These representations in the fact stipulation are not found to relate to the factor to be considered by the undersigned which is Section 287.133(3)(e)3.h, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.). Section 287.133(3)(e)3.i, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.) makes it incumbent upon the person or affiliate who is convicted of a public entity crime applicable to that person or affiliate of that person to notify the Department within 30 days of the conviction of the public entity crime. Without necessity the parties stipulated that: On July 9, 1993, the same day the indictment was returned, Paradies Shops notified all airports at which Paradies Shops (or its subsidiaries or affiliates) operates, including all airports in Florida of the indictment that was returned by the Federal Grand Jury in Atlanta. Copies of the indictment were sent to all airports in Florida along with the notification. Copies of the notice of indictment sent to all Florida Airports at which Paradies Shops operated are attached and incorporated in the fact stipulation as Exhibit G. As contemplated by the statute and stipulated to by these parties: On January 24, 1994, the first business day after the conviction, Paradies Shops notified all such airports in Florida (and elsewhere) of the guilty verdicts returned by the jury in Atlanta. Copies of the Notices of Convictions sent to all Florida airports at which Paradies operated are attached and incorporated into this stipulation as Exhibit H. On April 15, 1994, the same day as the sentencing, Paradies Shops notified all such airports in Florida (and elsewhere) that the District Court had denied the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or New Trial. Copies of the notices reporting Denial of the Motionfor Judgment of Acquittal or new trial sent to all Florida airports at which Paradies Shops operated are attached and incorporated into this stipulation as Exhibit I. Additionally, the parties stipulated that "the Department of Management Services has been informed of all subsequent developments and decisions." This refers to circumstances following the notification to the Florida airports that the District Court had denied the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or New Trial. It is not clear from the fact stipulation upon what basis the Department was informed of the judgments of convictions within 30 days after the conviction of the public entity crime applicable to the subject persons or affiliates nor has it been shown that any public entity (Florida airports) which received the information that a person had been convicted of a public entity crime had transmitted that information to the Department in writing within 10 days after receipt of that information as contemplated by Section 287.133(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.). Nonetheless, the parties have stipulated that pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), Paradies Shops made timely notification to the Department of the conviction of public entity crimes applicable to persons or affiliates of that person and provided details of the convictions and that communication was direct. Section 287.133(3)(e)1., Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), was complied with by the Department through its Notice of Intent to Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield in writing indicating the intent to place those persons on the Convicted Vendor List. This notification occurred on April 29, 1997. A copy of the Notification is included with the parties fact stipulation as Exhibit B. On April 29, 1997, in accordance with Section 287.133(3)(e)2, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield timely filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.) to determine whether it is in the public interest for Paradies Shops and Paradies Midfield to be placed on the State of Florida Convicted Vendor List. A copy of the petition for Formal Administrative Hearing is attached and incorporated in the parties fact stipulation as Exhibit C. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.j, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), calls for consideration of "the needs of public entities for additional competition in the procurement of goods and services in their respective markets." The parties have not stipulated concerning that criterion. Therefore, no factual basis exists for determining the needs of public entities for additional competition in the procurement of goods and services in the respective markets. Section 287.133(3)(e)3.k, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), addresses "mitigation based upon any demonstration of good citizenship by the person or affiliate." In responding to that factor the parties have stipulated to the following: Paradies Shops was rated the 'Best Airport Retail Concessionaire for 1995' by an expert group of Concessionaires, and Consultants and Airport Managers. Paradies Shops was also chosen as the 'concessionaire with highest regard for customer services'. These awards were reported in the December 20, 1995 edition of 'World Airport Retail News', a publication based in West Palm Beach, Florida. A copy of this report is attached and incorporated into the stipulation as Exhibit J. In addition, Paradies Shops has supplied letters from 26 airport authorities attesting to the good citizenship of Paradies Shops. Copies of such Supplied Letters are attached and incorporated into the stipulation as Exhibit K. Paradies Shops was rated the 'Best Airport retail concessionaire for 1996' by an expert group of concessionaires, and Consultants and Airport Managers. Paradies Shops has now won this award for the past two (2) consecutive years. In each year, Paradies Shops was honored with this Award by a separate panel of experts. Additionally, Paradies Shops was granted the following awards in 1996: 'Best Airport Retailer', 'Concessionaire with Highest Regard for Public Service', 'Best New Specialty Retail Concept', and 'Most Visually Attractive, Engaging Retail Store Front in an Airport'. Notice of these awards appeared in the February 20, 1997 edition of 'World Airport News', a copy of which is attached and incorporated into the stipulation as Exhibit L'. Having considered the fact stipulations and Exhibits J, K, and L, it is concluded that these facts and exhibits do not relate to demonstration of good citizenship as described in Section 287.133(3)(e)3.k, Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Richard L. Hensch submitted to the Department of Transportation (DOT) an Airport Site Approval and License Application dated December 8, 1987, for a private seaplane base on Lake Fairview in Orange County. On the application, Mr. Hensch indicated that flight activities that would be conducted from the proposed site could be sight-seeing flights, seaplane rides and tours and occasional seaplane instruction. Mr. Hensch plans to offer these activities to the public and charge fees for them. Attached to the Application was a letter dated December 17, 1987, from Ms. Sharon Smith, the Orange County Zoning Director, in which she states: Please be advised that insofar as Orange County Zoning requirements are concerned, our department has no jurisdiction over the use of water bodies of lakes; rather such use falls under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida. This letter was written at the request of the Petitioner. While the above-referenced application was under consideration by DOT, Petitioner applied for and received from the County tentative approval for an occupational license for his proposed operation. F.A.A. airspace determination approval letter for the proposed site was dated June 1, 1989. A Notice of Intent about the "proposed Private Seaplane Base" was issued by the Department of Transportation on June 21, 1989. A public meeting in connection therewith was conducted on August 28, 1989. Bronson Monteith, working for the DOT in Orange County, conducted the public meeting and recommended site approval relying on the letter by Orange County, dated December 17, 1987, as to the zoning. The Orange County Commission at its meeting held on August 14, 1989, objected to the placement of a seaplane base at Lake Fairview based on a determination by the zoning director and the county attorney's office that the proposed seaplane base did not comply with the zoning ordinance. The Lake Fairview area property is zoned predominantly residential, R- 1A, R-1AA with some C-2, R-T and R-3 zoning within the lake. Included within the commercial-type operations along and on the lake are jet-ski, sailboat and other watercraft rentals. Airports can be located only by special exception in A1 and A-2, agricultural zoning districts, and are permitted outright in I-5, Industrial Airport Zoning District. None of the lake area or shoreline areas are zoned A-1, Z-2 or I-5. During August of 1989, the Assistant Zoning Director, Joanne McMurray, who as Acting Zoning Director, received a memorandum from Mr. Hartman, Acting Director of the County's Administrative Services Office, about the seaplane base proposal whereby she researched the zoning regulations as to airport facilities and zoning districts and permitted uses. She determined the proposed seaplane site would not comply with the Orange County zoning requirements. Ms. McMurray had received information from the county legal department that Zoning had jurisdiction to govern the use of lakes. Lacy Moore, DOT's Chief of Airport Inspection, indicated that licensing followed site approval and was subject to annual renewal. Licensing was subject to revocation or denial of renewal if zoning changes occurred that made the airport out of compliance with zoning. DOT sought clarification from the County as to whether the proposed site was in compliance with the Orange County zoning regulations. Phillip N. Brown, Orange County Administrator, sent a letter to Mr. Moore dated October 30, 1989, advising that the proposed seaplane site was not a permitted use in the County zoning district for Lake Fairview. As a result of Mr. Brown's letter, Petitioner's application was denied on November 1, 1989, based on failure to comply with local zoning requirements. An "airport" is defined by the Orange County Zoning Ordinance as "any area of land or water designated and set aside for the landing and taking off of aircraft and utilized or to be utilized in the interest of the public for such purpose." No amendments to the zoning ordinance or zoning district map have been enacted since the filing of Petitioner's Application of December 8, 1987. On or about November 11, 1988, Ms. Smith, Orange County Zoning Director, by letter, stated that there were no zoning regulations in force in connection with another unrelated application for site approval and licensure of a private seaplane base on Big Sand Lake in Orange County, Florida. Licensed private airports have been authorized by DOT to provide services to the public such as airplane rides and flight instruction and charge fees. At the formal hearing held on this matter, several residents of the Lake Fairview area expressed opposition to the proposed seaplane site and indicated their concerns as to noise and safety because of extensive activity on the lake. Some people spoke in favor of the seaplane base indicating operational safety. Members of the public, including lake residents and others who spoke at the hearing, were not under subpoena by either party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the agency head denying site approval for a private seaplane base on Lake Fairview in Orange County, Florida, because it does not comply with applicable county zoning as required by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-6714 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10 (discussed in Preliminary Statement). Rejected as argument: 8,11. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: 1,2,3,4,5 COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Brian D. Stokes, Esquire Post Office Box 538065 Orlando, Florida 32853-8065 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The sole issue in this cause is whether the Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination, which he took in June, 1982. Both parties submitted post hearing proposed findings of fact in the form of a proposed recommended order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, is an applicant for licensure by examination to practice architecture in Florida. The architectural examination in Florida is administered in two parts: a written examination given in December of each year, and the design and site planning examination given in June of each year. Canavan met all requirements for admittance to the licensure examination. Canavan took the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination in June, 1982. This examination consisted of various design and site problems to be resolved in drawings to be completed within 12 hours. The examination is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation. The examination is prepared and supplied to the Office of Examination Services by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). The design and site planning portion of the examination for June of 1982 required the design of a small airport terminal by the applicant to include drawings of the structure on the site, exterior elevations, interior floor plans and cross-sections of the building interior. Canavan, together with the other applicants, was supplied information and a preexamination booklet setting forth generally the architectural program to be accomplished and the various requirements which the applicants would be expected to sketch. At the time of the examination, other information was supplied to the applicants to enable them to more adequately design the structure requested and meet the necessary architectural requirements. The examination of the Petitioner, together with the examinations of the applicants from some 20 states using the NCARB standardized examination, were graded at one time by graders of the NCARB. Each state participating in the examination process provides at least two qualified architects to function as graders. These graders are given specific training by NCARB to standardize their grading approach to the examination. The examinations of all the applicants are divided among the various graders on a blind grading basis in such a manner that the grader has no knowledge of the name or state of origin of the applicant whose examination he is grading. Graders look at the applicant's overall plan to determine whether the applicant has met or failed to meet the requirements. The grader makes notations of specific areas of weakness based upon the grading criteria and based upon the overall conception of the applicant's submission. Each examination is graded by a minimum of two graders, who grade the examination independently. If the examination receives a failing grade from each of the independent graders, it is graded by a third grader. The Petitioner's examination was graded in accordance with the above process and received a failing grade, indicating that it was graded by three independent graders. The Petitioner was notified of his failure to pass the examination and given notice of his right to a formal hearing. Jeff Hoxie, who was one of the graders on the June 1982 examination and who is an experienced architect licensed in the State of Florida, reviewed the Petitioner's examination in the manner that it would have been assessed by the graders, explaining the process generally and explaining the specific deficiencies which he noted. He used the original grader's comments regarding the deficiencies noted as a point of departure to explain his assessment of the Petitioner's examination. The Petitioner failed to follow specific examination requirements as to the required sizes of specific floor areas, failed to follow building code requirements in his design of the kitchen and restaurant, and failed to properly draw the sketch required of the structural and mechanical elements of the building. While there were other areas of weakness noted, Mr. Hoxie stated that the major failures listed above would justify a failing grade. Petitioner's testimony revealed that he had made a mistake in sketching one plan, and that, because of this mistake and the corrections which Petitioner made, he ran out of time, which resulted in the specific failings noted by the three graders at the national level and confirmed by Mr. Hoxie.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Architecture of the State of Florida fail the Petitioner, Daniel T. Canavan, on the design and site planning portion of the National Architectural Examination taken by Canavan in June, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel T. Canavan 814 Avenida Hermosa West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herbert Coons, Executive Director Board of Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Selwin Coleman is the record holder of land located near Maytown Road three miles west of Oak Hill, Florida, at latitude 28o51'25" North, longitude 80o54'26" West in Sections F and G, Township 19 South, Range 34 East in Volusia County (the proposed site). He has authorized his son-in-law, Ron Biritz, to seek DOT site approval and a license for a private airport as the proposed site. Petitioners and intervenors own land in the general vicinity, and Robert L. Hart owns extensive mineral rights, including rights to any minerals underlying the proposed site. Other land owners, including Warren J. Brull, who owns part of the land over which the existing air strip runs, C.R. "Dick" Powell, and Vaughn L. Grasso, who owns a crop duster he stores in a building he characterizes as agricultural, also made Mr. Biritz their agent for purposes of the pending application. Known as "Blue Ridge Flightpark," a 4,000-foot grass air strip at the proposed site had been used by light planes for some time, until recently. The air strip has been significantly improved within the last two years; at one time watermelons were grown on the property. Originally, scrub hickory and gopher tortoise holes made its use as an air field impractical. When John Bronson Monteith, the aviation specialist for DOT's District Five, learned the grass strip at the proposed site was "operational," he contacted the owners and instructed them to close down operations until site approval was granted; and told them how to apply for site approval. As one result, they caused a large "X" to be placed on the strip, indicating the field was closed to operation. When Mr. Monteith visited the proposed site on November 21, 1991, he saw rust on a brake disc on Mr. Biritz's airplane, suggesting disuse. After DOT received the application, Mr. Monteith determined that it was complete and seemed to meet all rule and statutory criteria, so he prepared a notice to grant the application for Nancy Houston's signature. He caused copies of the notice of intent to be sent by certified mail to all airports and municipalities within 15 miles and to all landowners within 1,000 feet of the proposed site. The notice of intent was published in the News Journal, and a public hearing was held on July 18, 1991. There is some question regarding the true nature of several largish buildings along the air strip. Treated as "agricultural" for purposes of construction without building permits, the buildings look to some more like hangars than barns. But, as to the air strip itself, Volusia County zoning officials have recognized a nonconforming use antedating adoption of County zoning ordinances, a use which the ordinances allow to continue, as long as it does not entail construction of any new structures. Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 4 and 7. As experience has demonstrated, the proposed site is "feasible" and "adequate." Despite military air traffic in the general vicinity, the Federal Aviation Authority concluded that, if limited to private use, the "airport will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft." Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Only a windsock and markings, including threshold markings, are needed to meet licensing requirements.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOT grant site approval on the conditions stated in Order No. 91-34; and, after the requirements of Section 330.30(2), Florida Statutes (1991) have been satisfied, issue a private airport license to Ron Biritz. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. own. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 28 day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Both intervenors adopted petitioner's proposed findings of fact as their Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have been adopted in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the legal status was not clear. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 5, a preponderance of the evidence established that flights had stopped recently. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is properly a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Dan R. Warren, Esquire 315 Silver Beach Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32118 Bruce Best Post Office Box 2793 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170 Cheryl M. Sanders Post Office Box 2793 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170 James S. Morris, Esquire Storch, Hansen & Morris, P.A. 1620 South Clyde Morris Blvd., #300 Daytona Beach, FL 32219 Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
