Findings Of Fact Respondent Cole seeks to construct a weed barrier approximately 40 feet from the end of a dead-end canal. Petitioner Weitershausen's property begins approximately 48 feet from the end of the canal. The only two property owners whose access to the canal will be restricted by the weed barrier are Respondent Cole and Mr. Wheeler, both of whom consent to the placing of the barrier. Throughout most of the year weeds are not a problem in the canal. However, under certain conditions hydrilla is blown into the canal and backs up at the end adjacent to Mr. Cole's property. Without a weed barrier these weeds are blown to the end of the canal and remain there where they settle to the bottom, break down, and because of the decomposition smell and are otherwise objectionable. The weed barrier as proposed will keep the hydrilla floating longer and reduce this settling and decomposition. The weed barrier does not create a safety hazard. The weed barrier will not interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources, to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest nor will it result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity to such am extent as to be contrary to the public interest. The weed barrier will not create a navigational hazard, or a serious impediment to navigation, or substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters, so as to be contrary to the public interest. The 8 feet of distance between the weed barrier and Mr. Weitershausen's property provides a catch basin for the buildup of weeds short of Mr. Weitershausen's property. So long as the weeds are properly cleaned out this catch basin is sufficient to prevent weeds from building up along Mr. Weitershausen's property.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the permit as applied for be issued with the condition that the applicant be required to remove the weeds from in front of the weed barrier at least once a month and at any time the weeds should back up to the extent that they substantially encroach on Mr. Weitershausen's waterfront. ENTERED this 17th day of September, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: R. L. Caleen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Jerry E. Cole Route 6, Box 871Y Brooksville, Florida 33512 Mr. R. C. Weitershausen Route 6, Box 871X Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request to modify permit no. 5601095728 should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, William Schulman, as trustee, is the owner of a parcel of real property consisting of approximately ten acres located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. On July 3, 1986, Petitioner was issued permit no. 5601095728 and became authorized to fill 1.5 acres of impacted wetlands in accordance with specifications and drawings which had been approved by the Department. Petitioner was required to provide mitigation in connection with the permit which included: the installation of culverts to allow tidal circulation to adjacent wetlands; scraping down a .5 acre area and planting smooth cordgrass; and dredging an area approximately sixty feet wide to allow an access to the Indian River. Petitioner has performed the above-described mitigation. The permit also required Petitioner to execute and record a Conservation Easement which included the .5 acre to be scraped and planted with cordgrass. This easement has not been recorded in accordance with the permit guidelines. Instead, Petitioner sought to modify the permit to allow an additional 1.5 - 2.0 acres to be filled. This proposed area encompassed the smooth cordgrass and an area of mangroves which were to be part of the conservation easement. By letter dated July 10, 1987, Petitioner provided drawings to the Department to further identify the area subject to the requested modification. The proposed modification would result in the permanent loss of white mangrove and cordgrass marsh. This marsh is connected to Class II waters (Indian River) via the dredged opening described in paragraph 2. Petitioner's ten acre parcel is bounded to the north by the platted Windmill Village subdivision; to the east is a commercial area which fronts on SR A-1-A; to the southwest of the property is a diked area known as Impoundment 12; to the west is a man-made lake referred to as "Black's Lake" at the hearing; and further to the west is the Indian River. As part of the original mitigation, Petitioner dredged a sixty foot opening connecting Black's Lake to the Indian River. The culverts required by the original mitigation connected Black's Lake to Impoundment 12, Petitioner's parcel to Black's Lake, and Impoundment 12 to the Indian River. As mitigation for the modification sought, Petitioner has proposed to provide four additional culverts to connect Impoundment 12 with Black's Lake. The record in this cause is unclear as to the present ownership of Impoundment Further, no owner has given consent to the proposed installation of additional culverts. The mitigation proposed for Impoundment 12 is not on Petitioner's property. As additional mitigation for the modification, Petitioner has proposed to provide two culverts which would connect a ditch on Petitioner's property to Black's Lake. On September 4, 1987, Petitioner provided materials from the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District to the Department in support of the requested modification. The information suggested that with the installation of additional culverts, the tidal activity within Impoundment 12 would be improved and would thereby eliminate most of the mosquito breeding within that area. On October 14, 1987, the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to deny the modification to permit no. 5601095728. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed for a formal review and these proceedings resulted. By stipulation, the parties agreed that the Department has jurisdiction of the project and the proposed modification to the permit. The proposed mitigation seeks to increase tidal exchange within Impoundment 12. Petitioner has not offered evidence to illustrate how the mitigation would directly benefit Petitioner's property. The tidal replication in Black's Lake is approximately 90 percent of that within the Indian River. The tidal replication within Impoundment 12 is approximately 60 percent of that within Black's Lake. Petitioner anticipates that the addition of culverts connecting Black's Lake to Impoundment 12 would increase the tidal exchange to the impoundment. Impoundment 12 consists of approximately 120 acres. Due to a dike which divides the property, only 80 + or - acres would be affected by the proposed mitigation. To effect 100 percent tidal replication within Impoundment 12 the dike separating it from the Indian River to the west would have to be removed. Since that solution is highly unlikely, authorities have sought to achieve tidal exchange via 40' culverts which are 30 inches in diameter and which have been placed to breech the dikes surrounding the impoundment. The most desirable locations for these culverts would be directly connecting Impoundment 12 to the river. That is not Petitioner's proposal. Petitioner proposes to connect Impoundment 12 with additional culverts to Black's Lake. The opening to the river from the lake would not be increased. Consequently, it is unlikely the replication within the lake will increase. The sole objective of Petitioner's proposed mitigation would simply cause more water to tidally flow from the lake to Impoundment 12. Increased flow to Impoundment 12 would enhance the likelihood of achieving tidal inundation which would make mosquito breeding less frequent. While it is expected that the Mosquito Control District would have to continue applying larvicide to Impoundment 12, its use may be less often. Optimally, tidal inundation would occur at least once a week. Currently, Impoundment 12 receives this desired inundation only during the fall season when the waters are high enough to flood the remote areas. Increasing the number of culverts would also increase the points of access and would allow the water to move more slowly through the openings. While there is no evidence to establish the locations for the placement of the proposed culverts, in theory, the placement would be to maximize the tidal exchange. A slower exchange through the culverts would benefit organisms moving through the system. The slower rate would also enhance the use of the passages by fish. To be lost by the modification are .5 acre of smooth cordgrass and 1.25 - 1.50 acres of mature, functioning mangroves. The mangroves are predominantly of the white variety with some reds scattered. They are approximately 20 feet in height. If allowed to remain undeveloped, it is anticipated that the cordgrass area will aid in the recruitment of additional mangroves. Mangroves provide several benefits to estuarine systems. The leaf litter is a primary source of food for organisms in the lower end of the food chain such as fish and crabs. Fish, birds and mammals use mangroves for cover from predators. Birds also use the mangroves for perching and nesting and feed on insects and crabs associated with the trees. Mangroves in Impoundment 12 and the Petitioner's property (which will be lost by the modification) currently provide these benefits. It has not been demonstrated that the increased tidal flow to Impoundment 12 will quantitatively improve the benefits offered by mangroves to the existing system. Smooth cordgrass is a food source for birds, fish and mammals. Not only do organisms feed on the cordgrass, but they also feed on the leaves and seeds of the associated growth of spike rush and fungus. Mammals use the cordgrass for cover and some birds nest there. The following listed birds have been identified on Petitioner's property and Impoundment 12: snowy egret and little blue heron, which are species of local concern, and the brown pelican which is on the federal list of endangered species. Also observed at the location was the roseate spoonbill. Mammals identified on the Petitioner's property included raccoon, marsh rabbit and rat. The loss of the Petitioner's mangroves and cordgrass will decrease the habitat area currently used by mammals, fish and birds. Moreover, the mangrove population on Hutchinson Island is on the decline. Wetland areas have been decreasing due to development over the last 20 years. Numerous dredge and fill projects previously permitted by the Department have allowed filling of mangrove areas. Fish currently inhabiting the area which are expected to be adversely affected by the loss of the mangroves and ditch area include: snook (a species of special concern), tarpon, mojarra, and striped mullet. The increased water flow to Impoundment 12 does not offset this loss. Windmill Village By The Sea Homeowners Association, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation consisting of property owners occupying approximately 46 duplexes to the north of Petitioner's property. The 13 individual intervenors (Sophie Holler, Jackson and Mildred Gray, Terry and Norine Young, Einer Nielsen, Richard and Alphild Chase, Jack and Pat Donohue, and Robert and Lynn Chandler) are homeowners on Aqua Ra Drive north of and contiguous to Petitioner's property.
Findings Of Fact Respondents, during all times here involved, were licensed by Petitioner as alleged and operated three separate pest control offices in Jacksonville, New Smyrna Beach and Palatka. During the period between May 1976 and April 1977 no certified operator was registered with Petitioner at the Jacksonville or New Smyrna Beach offices. During this period numerous fumigation contracts were entered into by Respondents. When these contracts were carried out all fumigation was performed under the supervision of a currently registered certified operator who was attached to the Palatka office owned by Respondents. Between June 1976 and October 1977 24-hour advance written notice of fumigation was not provided by Respondents to the health authorities in Duval County on five occasions and to the health authorities of Volusia County on six occasions. However, the health inspectors of each county apparently received telephone notice because they inspected the fumigations for which the written notice was not provided a higher percentage of times than the average inspection for fumigation for which 24-hour written advance notice was provided. Several violations involved the certified operator notifying HRS by letter that he would be certified operator for a specific office commencing on a given date and thereafter failing to submit the proper forms to obtain a current pest control identification card for the office at which he worked. Proper registration of pest control salesmen and certified operators requires the issuance of a pest control identification card for a specific location. On some occasions the charges resulted from Respondent, United Pest Control, acquiring another pest control company and continuing operations under United Pest Control without having changed the pest control identification cards of these employees. Two charges involved agents of Respondent who entered into contracts with customers. One resulted from a complaint that the agent inaccurately advised the customer that there was termite infestation and one involved a complaint of improper treatment for subterranean termites. After the customers complained to governmental authorities Respondents refunded their money. When Respondent Powell attempted to inspect the premises to verify the complaint of these two customers he was denied access to the premises by the customers. The certified operator in the Palatka office was used to supervise a fumigation contract obtained in the Jacksonville office and the New Smyrna Beach office during the period here involved. He told Respondent several times that it was a violation of the regulation for him to perform the fumigation on contracts in these other offices, but only after he reported this to HRS was the practice stopped. At the time of the hearing the Jacksonville pest control operation had been sold by Respondent United Pest Control.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional compensation for fishing nets that he sold to the State of Florida under the Net Buy-Back Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a commercial fisher who is an affected person under the Florida Net Ban, which is set forth in the Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 16. Section 370.0805(5), Florida Statutes, which became effective on July 1, 1995, establishes the Net Buy-Back Program. The program enables eligible persons previously engaged in the commercial fishing industry to sell fishing nets to the State of Florida. The Legislature appropriated $20 million to the Seafood Workers Economic Assistance Account (the Account) to fund the payments authorized in Section 370.0805, as well as agency expenses in administering the program. Section 370.0805(3)(b) directs Respondent to purchase nets "according to the availability of funds on a first-come, first-served basis determined by the date of receipt of each completed application." By Net Buy-Back Application signed on July 5, 1995, and filed with Respondent at 7:39 am on the same day, Petitioner applied to sell nets to the State of Florida. His application form is completely filled out and shows two saltwater-product license numbers, both for vessels. The application form calls for the applicant to list the "TOTAL NUMBER OF YARDS OF EACH NET TYPE THAT YOU INTEND TO SELL." The form lists five categories of nets: gill (49 meshes or less); gill (50 meshes or more); beach, purse, seine; trawl; and trammel. The former gill net is a shallow-water gill net. The latter gill net is a deepwater gill net. Petitioner listed on his application "maximum allowed." He did not otherwise fill in the blanks as to types or yardage of nets. After checking a data base maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection, Respondent found that Petitioner held three saltwater- product licenses. Respondent thus processed Petitioner's application as though he had three licenses, not two. By letter dated August 8, 1995, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was eligible "to receive compensation for 18 nets" and set an appointment for him to turn in the nets on September 14, 1995. A few days prior to September 14, a representative of Respondent telephoned Petitioner and told him that the net buy-back appointment was canceled and Respondent had shut down the program temporarily in order to make changes. The problem was that Respondent had discovered that the Account might be exhausted before Respondent had paid for all of the nets that fishers might lawfully seek to sell to the State. Respondent thus canceled Petitioner's appointment and suspended payment on outstanding vouchers while Respondent considered changes in its administration of the program. The purpose of the Net Buy-Back Program, as provided by Section 370.0805(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was to allow, "[a]ll commercial saltwater products licensees and persons holding a resident commercial fishing license" to apply to Respondent "to receive economic assistance to compensate them for nets rendered illegal or useless by the constitutional limitation on marine net fishing." The emphasis was on economic assistance. Section 370.0805(5)(a) authorizes Respondent to make payments only "in nonnegotiable amounts not intended to reflect the actual value of the nets." Section 370.0805(5)(a) assigns payment amounts of $3500 for beach, purse, or seine nets of at least 600 yards in length; $500 for trawls and shallow-water gill nets of at least 600 yards in length; and $1000 for trammel nets of at least 600 yards in length and deepwater gill nets of at least 600 yards in length. Section 370.0805(5)(a) states that, except for trawls, nets of less than 600 yards in length shall be "valued proportionately." Section 370.0805(5)(c) limits the number of nets that a commercial fisher could sell, based on his annual earnings from the sale of eligible saltwater products. The limits range from four nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average from $2500 to $4999 in earnings, to ten nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average more than $30,000. Respondent relied on another data base from the Department of Environmental Protection to determine the average yearly earnings of applicants. The Department of Environmental Protection maintains records of each licensee's trip tickets, which disclose earnings. The only other limit in the statute as to the type and number of nets to be purchased is that, under Section 370.0805(5)(d), "[n]o licensee may be paid for more than two ... trawls." Respondent reviewed the applications that it received from the initial fishers who filed applications. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the funds in the Account would be sufficient to cover the nets that the State was to be purchasing. Respondent found from the applications that seine nets represented a small percentage of the nets that fishers intended to sell to the State. Relying on this information, Respondent calculated the potential encumbrance of $6.5 million on the Account, based on an average payment that reflected the absence of a significant number of the most expensive seine nets. Applying liberal eligibility criteria, such as calculating the number of nets that each applicant could sell based on the number of licenses that he held, Respondent raised its estimate of the potential encumbrance to $8.775 million. But in recalculating the potential encumbrance on the Account, Respondent still assumed that the average payment per net would not be affected by a significant number of seines. Respondent began receiving nets in early August, 1995. Through the first three weeks of August, Respondent purchased seine nets at the relatively low rate that it had anticipated. After this point, fishers started turning in much larger numbers of seine nets than they had listed in their applications. During this first phase of the program, Respondent paid fishers for whatever types of nets they presented at their net buy-back appointment. Respondent paid a fisher entitled to sell six nets for seine nets if he turned in seine nets, even though he had listed only gill nets on his application. This policy jeopardized the solvency of the Account because the payments to fishers turning in all seine nets were much greater than the figures that Respondent had used in calculating the potential encumbrance on the Account. From the fishers' perspective, the program acquired an element of chance, as applicants with earlier appointment times-which did not necessarily correspond with earlier-filed applications-netted fine catches of economic assistance at the expense of their counterparts, upon whom destiny had bestowed later appointment times. By late August, the applicants began turning in seine nets in large numbers, so that Respondent was purchasing nearly all seine nets. Before long, Respondent was purchasing nothing but seines. After a brief period of trying to stay the course, Respondent decided on September 6, 1995, that it had to take action or else the Account would be exhausted before the State had purchased all of the nets listed on the applications. Respondent immediately suspended the program and developed new criteria to apply to all persons not yet paid for their nets. As of September 6 (retroactive to August 28), Respondent began the second phase of the Net Buy-Back Program. In this phase, Respondent paid for seine nets, but only up to the greater of the number of seines shown on the application or the number of seines based on past use of seines. Respondent determined the latter figure from the trip tickets, which also contained information as to types of catch, from which Respondent could infer the type of net used. As in the first phase, Respondent continued to insist the fishers turn in seines if they were being paid for seines. Petitioner's application lists no seine nets. But his application put Respondent on notice that Petitioner sought to sell as many nets, as at high a value, as the law would permit. This would mean seine nets. And based on his possession of three licenses, this would mean 18 seine nets, given Petitioner's earnings during the relevant period. Petitioner claimed that he turned in seine nets. If turned in during the first or second phase of the program, Respondent would have treated these nets as seine nets. But these nets were turned in during what became the third phase of the Net Buy-Buyback Program. After canceling Petitioner's net buy-back appointment, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter, setting another net buy-back appointment for October 2. The letter states that Respondent would purchase a total of 18 nets, but none could be a seine net. Dissatisfied with the effects of the restrictions introduced by the second phase of the program, Respondent added a third phase by promulgating an emergency rule defining "seine nets," effective October 2, 1995. This third phase, which did not change Respondent's policy of paying for the greater number of seines as shown on the application or the trip tickets, restricted the kinds of nets that fishermen could turn in as seine nets. Rule 38BER95-1 provides that, for the purpose of "the implementation of the Net Buy-Back Program" described in Section 370.0805(5): "Gill net" means a wall of netting suspended vertically in the water, with floats across the upper margin and weights along the bottom margin which captures fish by entangling them in the meshes, usually by the gills. Any net offered for the net buy-back program that consists of at least fifty-one percent (51 percent) gill net, shall be considered a gill net. "Seine" means a small-meshed net suspended vertically in the water, with floats along the top margin and weights along the bottom margin, which encloses and concentrates fish, and does not entangle them in the meshes. No net offered for the net buy-back program shall be considered a seine if the wings are composed of entangling mesh. * * * THIS RULE SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON BEING FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Effective Date: October 2, 1995 Under the emergency rule, Respondent's nets were not seines, but were gill nets because they were at least 51 percent, by area, gill net.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order directing payment from the Account to Petitioner of the difference between the amount he has already received and the amount he would have received had all 18 of the nets that he delivered to Respondent been valued as seine nets. ENTERED on October 4, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this October 4, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Secretary Douglas L. Jamerson Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Charles L. Wilson, pro se 9210 West Robson Tampa, Florida 33615 Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of Pest Control Business License No. 875, Pest Control Operator's Certificate No. 667, and Identification Card No. 6415. Respondent's business was and is located at 512 South Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. The anniversary date for purposes of renewal of Respondent's Pest Control Business License was November 30, 1978. Those persons holding identification cards issued in connection with the operation of H & K Pest Control were Respondent, Dolphus Lee White, Donna Kay Young and George Morrison Young. Respondent was licensed to conduct pest control business only in the category of Lawn and Ornamental pests. On November 28, 1978, two days before Respondent's pest control business license was to expire, HRS received an Application for Pest Control Business License and Identification Cards from Respondent requesting renewal of the aforementioned licenses and identification cards. However, the Certificate of Insurance attached to the renewal application failed to meet the requirements for minimum financial responsibility for property damage contained in Section 482.071, Florida Statutes. The Certificate of Insurance in question indicated that the limits of liability for property damage were $50,000 for each occurrence, and $50,000 in the aggregate. The statutory requirements are $50,000 for each occurrence and $100,000 aggregate. As a result, by notice dated November 29, 1978, HRS returned Respondent's application, indicating that the Certificate of Insurance did not meet the statutory standard. In addition, the November 29, 1978 letter specifically informed Respondent that . . . it is unlawful to operate a pest control business that is not licensed." HRS received a corrected Certificate of Insurance on February 27, 1979. However, this Certificate of Insurance did not indicate the name of the insured pest control business, and was, accordingly, returned to Respondent's insurance agent. Respondent's name was then apparently inserted in the Certificate of Insurance by the agent, and the corrected Certificate of Insurance was received by HRS on March 3, 1979. As a result, Respondent's application for renewal of his licenses and identification cards was not, in fact, complete until March 3, 1979. The renewal licenses and identification cards were thereafter issued on June 4, 1979. The delay between receipt of the completed application and issuance of the licenses and identification cards was apparently due to work load in the HRS Office of Entomology. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent was licensed only in the area of Lawn and Ornamental Pest Control, H & K Pest Control performed pest control services inside buildings at the Florida Marine Welcome Station in Fernandina Beach, Florida, for the period July 1, 1978 through and including two days prior to the hearing in this cause on September 28, 1979. The State of Florida, Department of Commerce, Office of Administrative Services was billed ten dollars monthly on H & K Pest Control statements for this service, and payment was remitted by the State of Florida for these services to H & K Pest Control. In addition, on at least two occasions H & K Pest Control performed pest control services inside buildings at the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida. One of these occasions occurred in November, 1978 for which H & K Pest Control billed the Florida Welcome Station in Yulee, Florida, thirty dollars on its statement dated January, 1979. At no time during the performance of pest control services inside the Florida Marine Welcome Station in Fernandina Beach, Florida, and the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida, was Kinsey C. Haddock or any other employee of H & K Pest Control licensed in the category of General Household Pests and Rodents, or in any other category that would have allowed them to treat the inside of buildings for pests. Although Respondent was never observed to have personally sprayed the insides of buildings at either Welcome Station, persons identifying themselves as employees of H & K Pest Control did perform those services, the State of Florida was billed on statement forms of H & K Pest Control for these services, and payment was remitted by check to H & K Pest Control. On December 27, 1978 an inspector from HRS visited the business location of H & K Pest Control at 512 South Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. The business office was open and being operated by a person claiming to be an employee of H & K Pest Control who identified herself as Joyce French. Ms. French advised the inspector that she had been trained in the category of General Household Pest Control, and had performed these services inside the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida. Records maintained by the Office of Entomology indicate that no identification card or other license had ever been issued to a "Joyce French" in the area of General Household Pest Control. Respondent denied that he had ever employed a "Joyce French", nor was Miss French called as a witness in this proceeding. Further, other than the statement attributed by the inspector to Ms. French, there is no evidence in this proceeding to corroborate that Ms. French did, in fact, perform pest control services of any description. Further, on December 27, 1978, Respondent did not have displayed in his business office a certified operator's certificate renewal or a current business license, as required Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Finally, the record in this proceeding establishes, and Respondent has, in fact, admitted, that he is not a full- time employee of H & K Pest Control. In fact, the record clearly establishes that Respondent has been a full-time employee of Container Corporation of America as an engineer in the Power Department of that company since December 9, 1937. Respondent works rotating shifts in his employment at Container Corporation of America, but usually works the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift an average of only five days per month. When not working the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift at Container Corporation of America, Respondent operates his pest control business at the address above mentioned.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Kenneth F. Feathers, d/b/a Feathers Exterminating Company, is entitled to the renewal of an emergency pest control certificate in accordance with the terms and conditions of Subsection 482.111(10), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' refusal to renew the emergency pest control certificate of Kenneth F. Feathers, d/b/a Feathers Exterminating Company. On November 6, 1978, a representative of the Respondent wrote to the Petitioner and indicated the basis for denying the renewal request, after which the Petitioner requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The testimony in the course of the hearing revealed that the Petitioner, Kenneth F. Feathers, d/b/a Feathers Exterminating Company, is involved with the structural pest control business. Kenneth F. Feathers, the licensee, is the holder of a special identification card under the authority of Section 482.151, Florida Statutes. He does not hold a pest control operator's certificate as described in Section 482.111, Florida Statutes. In the years 1977 and 1978 the Petitioner had listed at various times, the names of Wayne Neal Pearce and Michael D. Brennan as being the certified pest control operators in charge of all categories of pest control being carried out by Feathers Exterminating Company. In fact, Pearce and Brennan, though certified as pest control operators and listed by the Petitioner as being the certified operator in charge of the Feathers Exterminating Company, were in fact employed in Gainesville, Florida, in other primary occupations which they worked contemporaneously with the work day of the Feathers Exterminating Company. Under the arrangement they were merely on call and never actually performed supervisory duties for the Petitioner. Mr. Pearce was a police officer with the Gainesville, Florida, Police Department and subsequently opened up his own pest control business in Gainesville. Mr. Brennan was and is primarily employed by Clay Electric Company. When these discoveries were made by employees of the Respondent, the Petitioner was advised that neither Mr. Pearce nor Mr. Brennan could serve in the capacity as certified pest control operators for the Feathers Exterminating Company, in view of the fact that these individuals were not employed on a full-time basis by Feathers Exterminating Company, in the sense of being in charge of all categories of pest control. After these discoveries on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner requested an emergency pest control certificate under authority of Subsection 482.111(10), Florida Statutes, and this emergency certificate was granted. That initial request occurred sometime in October, 1978. On October 28, 1978, the Petitioner requested a renewal of the emergency pest control certificate which brought about the denial which is the issue in this hearing. At present and during the time for which the original emergency certificate had been granted and a renewal requested, the Petitioner does not and did not have a certified pest control operator in charge of the categories of pest control conducted by Feathers Exterminating Company. Both Pearce and Brennan have terminated their involvement with the Feathers Exterminating Company, even in an advisory capacity, and the Petitioner's efforts at arranging for a replacement certified pest control operator have not been successful. This has been the outcome notwithstanding the long-term efforts on the part of the Respondent, beginning in 1975, to assist the Petitioner in complying with the requirements for having a certified pest control operator in charge of the Petitioner/licensee's business activities conducted under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. In view of these facts, the Petitioner is not entitled to a renewal of the emergency pest control certificate. Subsection 482.111(3), Florida Statutes, states: "Each category of each licensee shall be in the charge of a certified operator who is certified for the particular category..." Under the current statement of the law found in Section 482.152, Florida Statutes (1978), whose effective date was October 1, 1978; for the business activity of the licensee to be in the charge of a certified operator, it is necessary for that certified pest control operator to fulfill the duties set forth in this section. Section 482.152, Florida Statutes (1978), contained the following language: "Duties of certified pest control operator in charge of pest control activities of licensee.--A certified operator in charge of pest control operations of a licensee shall be a Florida resident whose primary occupation is in the structural pest con trol business, who is employed on a full time basis by the licensee, and whose principal duty is the personal supervision of and participation in the pest control operations of the licensee as the same relate to the following: ..." It can be seen by the language set forth in this Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, that neither Pearce nor Brennan would qualify as certified pest control operators for the benefit of the Petitioner, because they either do not have their primary occupation in the structural pest control business, and/or are not employed on a full-time basis by the Petitioner and do not have their principal duties as one of personal supervision and participation in the pest control operations of the Petitioner, even if those individuals consented to continue their prior arrangement with Feathers. Nevertheless, the Petitioner might be entitled to an emergency certified pest control operator's certificate if provisions of Subsection 482.111(10), Florida Statutes, could be satisfied; however, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has any reasonable expectation of hiring a certified pest control operator who may fulfill the requirements of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, in terms of the duties incumbent on a certified operator through whom the licensee intends to transact business in accordance with the requirements of Section 482.111, Florida Statutes. In addition, the testimony clearly demonstrated that the Petitioner at one time was using the certificates of Pearce and Brennan to secure or keep his license at a time when Pearce and Brennan were not in charge of the pest control activities, and the Petitioner was thereby in violation of Subsection 482.121(2), Florida Statutes, which violation in turn would constitute a sufficient ground for denying the renewal of the emergency pest control operator's certificate. This ground for denial is authorized by Subsection 482.161(1), Florida Statutes, which states that a license renewal may be denied on the basis that a Provision of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, has been violated. In summary, the renewal of the emergency certified pest control operator's certificate should be denied because the Petitioner has failed to give sufficient reasons for such renewal and because the Petitioner, by violating Subsection 482.121(2), Florida Statutes, has given the Respondent an affirmative ground for such a denial under provision Subsection 482.161(1), Florida Statutes. (At the conclusion of the hearing the Petitioner indicated his intention to stand for an examination under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, which would allow him to obtain a pest control operator's certificate that would allow him to operate his business in those categories which he desired to be employed in. On March 22, 1979, the attorney for the Respondent informed the undersigned that Mr. Feathers had successfully passed those portions of the examination which would allow him to obtain a certificate to operate in the areas of lawn and ornamental pest control and general household pest control. On this occasion, Mr. Feathers was not successful in passing the portion of the examination involved in termite pest control. It would therefore appear that the Petitioner is entitled to a certificate to operate in the fields of lawn and ornamental pest control and general household pest control, after the payment of the appropriate fees. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner would not be entitled to operate in the area of termite pest control in the sense of being the holder of such a certificate and in keeping with the undersigned's impression of this case, the affect of this Recommended Order would be a recommendation that the Petitioner not be granted a renewal of his emergency pest control operator's certificate in the termite pest control specialty.)
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner's request for the renewal of his emergency pest control operator's certificate be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Kenneth F. Feathers Feathers Exterminating Company 1527 Northeast 8th Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Joseph E. Hodges, Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2002 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32601
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was, and is, a Florida certified pest control operator. Petitioner owns and operates Campbell's Pest Control, a firm licensed by the State of Florida for pest control purposes and doing business in Alachua, Florida. In his capacity as owner and operator of that firm, Petitioner supervises two cardholder employees. In the latter part of 1982, Petitioner received two letters from Respondent, one dated August 13, 1982, and the other September 7, 1982. Both of these letters contained notification to Petitioner of Respondent's contention that he had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: A certified operator in charge of pest control operations of a licensee shall be a Florida resident whose primary occupation is in the structural pest control business, who is employed on a full-time basis by the licensee, and whose principal duty is the personal supervision of and participation in the pest control operations of the licensee as the same relate to the following: The selection of proper and correct chemicals for the particular pest control work to be performed. The safe and proper use of these pesticides. The correct concentration and formulation of pesticides used in all pest control work performed. The training of personnel in the proper and acceptable methods of pest control. The control measures and procedures used. The notification of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services within 24 hours of any knowledge of accidental human poisoning or death connected with pest control work performed on jobs he is supervising. Two memoranda were enclosed with the letter from Respondent dated September 7, 1982. The first of these was a legal memorandum from Respondent's counsel concerning an interpretation of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, quoted above. This memorandum provided in pertinent part that: It is clear from a careful reading of Chapter 482 that the requirement concerning a fully qualified certified operator exists as a condition precedent to licensure because of the many dangers inherent in pest control activities. The interpretation placed on the language above quoted from Section 482.152, F.S. is that the certified operator's primary job should be that of a certified operator. Because of the many functions which are required to be performed by the certified operator, he should be on the job on a full-time basis or a nearly full-time basis for the licensee. It is obvious that the legislature, by using the language above described, intended to preclude 'certificate selling'. . . The other memorandum was dated February 23, 1978, and furnished to all commercial pest control licensees and certified operators, and concerned the subject of "renting" of pest control certificates. This memorandum provided in part that: It has come to the attention of this office that some licensees and certified operators are not in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 482.121 and 482.152, Florida Statutes, concerning the status and activities of a certified operator in charge of pest control activities of a licensee. * * * The intent and purpose of the provisions of the Pest Control Act . . . are to prevent such practices as certificate 'renting' or 'selling' under the pretense that the certified operator is in the [sic] charge of pest control activities of the licensee, when in fact he or she is not. The Office of Entomology will enforce the referenced provisions of chapter 482 F.S. as interpreted by legal counsel [in the January 25, 1977 memorandum] with regard to certificate 'renting'. Licensees and certified operators should examine their present arrangements with regard to this matter to determine if they are in compliance with the law. Violations could be grounds for suspension or revocation of licenses or certificates. Any licensee adversely affected would be entitled to apply for an emergency certificate upon loss of certified operator. By Administrative Complaint dated October 13, 1982, Petitioner was charged with a violation of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes: . . . in that you are presently employed on a full-time basis by the City of Gainesville as a firefighter and at the same time registered with the Department as an employee--identification cardholder and as a certified operator in charge of the pest control operations of Campbell's Pest Control . . . This constitutes a violation of Section 482.152, F.S., which requires, in part, that the primary occupation of a certified operator in charge of the pest control operations of a licensee shall be in the pest control business and that such certified operator be employed on a full-time basis by the licensee with the principal duty of personal supervision of and participation in the licensee's pest control operations as these operations relate to selection and safe, and correct use of pesticides, control measures and procedures used, and training of personnel; and a violation of section 482.121(1), F.S., which provides that no certified pest control operator shall allow his certificate to be used by any licensee to secure or keep a license unless such certified operator is in charge of the 'pest control activities of the licensee in the category or categories covered by his certificate and is a full-time employee of the licensee.
The Issue The primary issue for determination is whether Emerald Shores Heath Care Associates, LLC, d/b/a Emerald Health Care Associates (Respondent) committed the deficiencies as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 17, 2004. Secondary issues include whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from Standard to Conditional for the time period of July 16, 2004 until August 13, 2004; and whether Petitioner should impose administrative fines for alleged deficiencies that are proven to be supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent is licensed to operate a nursing home located at 626 North Tyndall Parkway, Panama City, Florida 32404 (the facility). Petitioner conducted a survey of Respondent's facility on July 16, 2004. Upon completion of that survey, Petitioner prepared a report that charged Respondent with violations of various nursing home regulations. This report organized each of the charged violations under “Tags,” which are shorthand references to the regulatory standards that Petitioner alleges were violated. Additionally, Petitioner assigned, as required by law, Class I severity ratings and widespread scope ratings to the two deficiencies or Tags (F224, and F469) at issue in this proceeding. On July 8, 2004, one of Petitioner’s surveyors observed that a patient in Respondent’s facility had approximately 60 ant bite pustules on her face, arms, neck, and chest. Investigation revealed that the patient had been discovered with fire ants in her bed at about 4 p.m. on July 7, 2004. Personnel of the facility had, at that time, taken appropriate steps to care for the injured patient. That care and treatment is not at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner initiated another survey of Respondent’s facility on July 16, 2004. A primary objective of that survey team was to ascertain the extent of the ant bite situation in the facility. There had been other incidents in the past involving ants. One incident involved harmless, non-biting “sugar” ants, covering a patient’s sandwich left by the patient on a nightstand. The sandwich was removed, the room sprayed and the patient admonished about leaving food in the room. Later, ants were again discovered in the room, requiring further spraying and maintenance. In the course of the July 16th survey, dead ants were found in the room of the patient who had been bitten. Additionally, a couple of ant beds were found in the lawn outside the facility. As a consequence of the findings of ant nests outside the facility and dead ants inside the facility, coupled with the previous incidents involving the sandwich attacking ants and other ant incidents, Petitioner cited Respondent for “immediate jeopardy” on July 16. The surveyor report found Respondent had not dealt adequately with its pest problem and cited Respondent for violation of Tag F224, abuse and neglect, and Tag F469, pest management. Before Respondent erected the facility, a contract was executed with A to Z Pest Control to provide a termite barrier effective against termites, as well as other all arthropods, including ants. A to Z Pest Control is a certified, licensed pest control company with certifications in entomology and pest control. Respondent’s continuing contract with the pest control company required that the pest control barrier be renewed in December of every year. After opening the facility, Respondent entered into a regular pest control contract with A to Z. The contract was for integrated pest control management. Under the integrated pest management approach, the pest control company continually changed its approach to eliminating and preventing insect problems depending on the nature of the problem and its location within the facility. Monthly routine service and “call-backs” as needed were provided under the contract. The pest control company used EPA approved and laboratory-tested chemicals at the facility. No adverse incidents occurred at the facility as the result of ants or other insects from 1999 through 2003. From time to time, ant mounds were discovered in the yard to the facility, but were treated by maintenance personnel or the pest control company. Typical of insects in Florida, activity of insects increased in the spring and summer months. In addition to monthly treatment and Friday drop-bys, the pest control company personnel would treat pests at the facility whenever they were called. The first adverse incident related to ants at the facility occurred in August 2003, concluding a summer of an unusual amount of insect activity. In August, a patient was discovered in her bed with ant bites and pustules. Respondent then asked A to Z for a solution to the problem. The pest control company recommended a “barrier” treatment which involved placing insecticide in all openings in the facility, digging a trench around the building and placing granular insecticide in the trench, and finally spraying the lawn area in a band five to ten feet around the entire building. Despite the extra cost of such a treatment, Respondent approved the treatment and the additional payment. Notably, Respondent conducted a complaint survey in response to the August 2003 ant bite incident and determined that no deficient practices had occurred to cause the incident. Respondent assumed its pest control practices were adequate and continued to use the same pest control company, A to Z until the conclusion of July 2004. The barrier treatment, or grounds treatment, provided after the 2003 ant bite incident remained effective, in conjunction with the annual termite treatment, through the fall of 2003 and into the winter and spring of 2004. After that, it might have started breaking down due to rain and exposure to the elements. As previously noted, the afternoon of July 7, 2004, presented the patient with fire ants in her bed and approximately 60 ant bites on her head and upper body. The patient was removed from the room and thorough treatment for ants applied to the room while the patient was being treated. A survey was made of all of the rooms in the facility to determine if there were ants anywhere else. The grounds were inspected and all ant beds were treated. A to Z Pest Control was called, but couldn’t get out to the facility until the next day. On the following day, A to Z treated the entire inside of the building, but could not treat the grounds because it was raining. Personnel of A to Z returned and treated the outside of the facility on the following day, July 9. Thereafter, the “sugar” ant sandwich attack occurred. The room was immediately sprayed with pesticide. Several days later, the ants were again found in the same room and the room was cleaned and sprayed again. At this point, Respondent sought more aggressive treatment of ants to ensure that everything possible was being done to keep patients safe. Further, facility management created an “Action Plan” on July 7 to deal with this issue. This plan included daily rounds of the grounds; inspections of every resident’s room for signs of ants three times per shift (nine times per day); educating residents and staff of the necessity of keeping all food items tightly sealed; and implementation of a pest control log. Respondent also began the process of reevaluating its contract with A to Z after this incident. Several other local pest control operators were contacted and asked for a plan of treatment. The proposal to include an annual barrier treatment as a part of regular pest control services was made to Respondent for the first time. Shortly thereafter, Respondent terminated its routine pest control contract with A to Z (although A to Z retains the termite contract), and hired Panama Pest Control to provide both interior and exterior treatment with regular barrier treatment. Patients of Respondent’s facility were not at risk or in “immediate jeopardy” from insects on July 16, 2004. Petitioner requires nursing home facilities to adopt specific policies and procedures. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-4.106. Although pest control is not one of the required policies and procedures, Respondent has had since 2002, a policy and procedure on pest control. Respondent followed those policies and procedures. Among the pest control activities of Respondent before either ant bite incident were daily checks of every room, so-called “Angel Rounds," and regular monitoring of the grounds. Pest control is not part of the curriculum for Nursing Home Administrators. Neither Petitioner nor the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have issued any regulations, guidance, or advisories with regard to pest control. The term “effective” as is used in the regulation requiring “effective pest control” isn’t defined anywhere. It is impossible to be certain that fire ants will not enter any building. The owner of A to Z Pest Control Company, bearing certifications in entomology and pest control, opined that no matter what you are doing to prevent ant bites, you can still do more. Even then, you cannot be sure of success “because you are trying to control something that is based in nature.” You can only provide pest “control” as opposed to pest “elimination.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint and issuing a standard rating to Respondent’s facility, and further finding that no deficiencies stemming from the survey of July 16, 2004, as described under the tags and regulations cited and discussed above, have occurred. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 16th day of May, 2005.
