The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500112 requested water from three (3) wells for the purpose of industrial use. This application is for a new use. The center of withdrawals will be located at Latitude 27 degrees 38' 58" North, Longitude 81 degrees 48' 21" West, in Hardee County, Florida. The application is for the use of not more than 470 million gallons of water per year and not more than 2,592,000 gallons of water during any single day to be withdrawn from the Florida Aquifer. Application received as Exhibit 1. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Herald Advocate, published weekly in Wauchula, Florida, on August 7 and 14, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The affidavit of publication was received without objection and entered into evidence as Exhibit 2. Letters of objection were received from the following: Mr. Joseph F. Smith, Route 1, Box 238, Wauchula, Florida 33273. Mr. Smith states that in his opinion such withdrawal of water will severely damage his property. He is developing a mobile home park on eight (8) acres and is fearful that the amount of water requested in this application will diminish his supply of water for his project. A letter from Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Van Dyck, written on August 16, 1975, Route 2, Box 657, Wauchula, Florida 33873. They are fearful that the large amount of water American Orange Corporation proposes to pump each day will affect their shallow well which provides water for their home. They would like to see some type of agreement whereby American Orange Corporation would be willing to pay for replacement of the well if the corporation should cause their well to go dry. Mr. Stanley H. Beck, Counselor at Law, wrote a letter in behalf of his client, Harold Beck, requesting information as to the applicable statutes and regulations which affect the matter of the consumptive use permit. A telegram was sent by Harold Beck of Suite 1021, Rivergate Plaza, Miami 33131, stating that he objected to the application of American Orange Corporation's withdrawal of water or the reason that it would reduce the property value. The witness for the permittee is Barbara Boatwright, hydrologist, who was duly sworn and agreement was reached on each point enumerated as required by Rule 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The staff hydrologist recommended that the permit be granted with two (2) conditions. One was that each of the wells be metered and two, that the District receive monthly reports from each meter. The applicant has consented.
Findings Of Fact Mr. George Szell was presented by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and sworn as a witness. Mr. Szell was qualified and accepted as an expert hydrogeologist employed by the District. Included within Mr. Szell's responsibilities to the District were evaluations of the subject application. An application for consumptive water use permit has been filed in proper form by Pat Nathe Groves, Inc., and admitted into evidence as Exhibit A. The water source is an existing well located on a 134-acre tract of land in Pasco County within the Withlacoochee Basin, as shown by Exhibit A. The water is to be used for irrigation purposes. The maximum daily withdrawal sought is 720,000 gallons and the average daily withdrawal sought is 130.192 gallons. Proper notice of this proceeding and application have been given to all persons entitled thereto by statute and rule. No objections to the application have been received by the District. The request of 130.192 gallons average daily withdrawal is approximagely 81.96 percent of the maximum average daily withdrawal allowed by the water crop theory set forth in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. Therefore, the requested withdrawal is not violative of the consumptive use test. Pursuant to Mr. Szell's testimony, none of the matters set forth in Subsections 16J-2.11(2), (3), and (4) exist so as to require the denial of this permit.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500050 requested water from one (1) withdrawal point. Said withdrawal is for public supply. This application is for an existing use. The center of withdrawals will be located at Latitude 28 degrees 07' 49" North, Longitude 82 degrees 26' 22" West in Hillsborough County, Florida. Total continuous acreage is 59.4 acres. The use is for not more than 29,000,000 gallons of water per year and not more than 91,650 gallons of water during any single day to be drawn from the Floridian Aquifer. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Tampa Tribune in the issues of May 28 and June 4, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The application and map of the premises, the legal description, the receipt of certified nail, the copy of the Notice and the affidavit of publication were received without objection and marked Exhibit 1. Copy of the franchise application to the Health Department regarding the laboratory analysis on the public water supply was introduced into evidence and received without objection and marked Exhibit 2. The parties agreed to file a joint stipulation as follows: The agreement that a flow meter be installed. That monthly readings be submitted to the District staff at the Headquarters office. That applicant supply evidence that the individual lots will be restricted from having private wells. A copy of the joint stipulation was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 14, 1975. Said stipulation encompassed the following: That applicant, Groveland Developments, Inc. install a flow meter of the propeller type on the well; take monthly readings, and send them into the District monthly. Said stipulation did not encompass the third (3rd) condition agreed to at the hearing, to-wit: That evidence would be supplied that individual lots to be developed in conjunction with this application be restricted from having private wells thereon. Witnesses were duly sworn and agreement was reached on each point enumerated as required by Rule 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Grant Application No. 7500050 for a consumptive-us permit for the quantities of water applied for conditioned upon the items enumerated in the joint stipulation and further conditioned upon the submission by the applicant evidence showing that the individual lots will be restricted from having private wells thereon. August 22, 1975 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: T. Ahern, Esquire Staff Attorney southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Mr. George Szell, Hydrologist Permit Section Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Groveland Developments, Inc. Post Office Box 578 Lutz, Florida 33549 Mr. Frank Ripa Housel & Martinez, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors Post Office Box 9215 Tampa, Florida 33674 Attachment to the Recommended Order STATE OF FLORIDA
Findings Of Fact Mr. George Szell was presented by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and sworn as a witness. Mr. Szell was qualified and accepted as an expert hydrogeologist employed by the District. Included within Mr. Szell's responsibilities to the District were evaluation of the subject application. An application for consumptive use permit has been filed in proper from by Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc., and it was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1. The water source are two existing wells located on a 580.1 acre tract of land in Hillsborough County, Florida, legal description of which is included and admitted into evidence as part of Exhibit 1. A maximum daily withdrawal of each of the wells is 591,700 gallons and the average daily withdrawal of each of the two wells is 295,850 gallons. The total average daily withdrawal for both wells combined is 591,700 gallons, or 94.43 percent of the water crop of the applicant as defined in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. 85 percent of the water used would be used for general residential purposes and 15 percent of the water used would be used for watering the grounds of the development. Letters of objection were received from Joseph and Roseamn Clements, C. C. and Ida M. Weisner, Sr.,. Miguel and Juanita Perez, Howard R. Lewis, Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie F. Lovell, Stephen J. KucIar (sic), and Carmen Vasquez. Reasons for the objections as stated in these letters was the effect the pending application would have upon the wells of the persons objecting. Mr. Szell testified that none of the matter set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) and (4), F.A.C. exists so as to require the denial of the permit. Mr. Earl Bessent testified that 55 acres of holding ponds were to be constructed on the property during the development and that the effect of these holding ponds would be to increase the input of waters from the 580 acres to the surface aquifer.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500087, submitted by Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc., 111 Fountainbleau Boulevard, Miami, Florida, be granted for a maximum daily withdrawal of 1,183,400 gallons and an average daily withdrawal of 591,700 gallons, subject to the installation of flow meters on each of the wells and monthly readings thereof reported to the District quarterly. Entered this 4th day of August, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. T. Ahern, Esquire C. C. and Ida Weismer, Sr. Staff Attorney Route 7, Box 635-J Southwest Florida Water Tampa, Florida 33614 Management District Post Office Box 457 Miguel and Juanita Perez Brooksville, Florida 33501 Route 7, Box 635-K Tampa, Florida 33614 Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Lovell 111 Fountainbleau Boulevard Route 5, Box 485-A Miami, Florida 33126 Tampa, Florida 33614 Howard R. Lewis Carmen Vasquez Route 5, box 485-AB Route 7, Box 635 Tampa, Florida 33614 Tampa, Florida 33615 Mr. Earl Bessent Bessent, Hammack & Ruckman, Inc. 3708 Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33609 Joseph and Roseann Clememts Route 7, Box 634-J Tampa, Florida 33614
Findings Of Fact Donn M. Patterson, Petitioner, was employed by the City of Lakeland, Florida as a Water Plant Operator I (WPO I) in 1982 and was promoted to Water Plant Operator II (WPO II) in 1985 or 1986 after obtaining his Class C WPO license. In July 1988 Petitioner was involved in a motorcycle accident in which he received serious head injuries and was unable to return to work for nearly one year. Because of his extended absence he was terminated on June 26, 1989. (Ex. 10). In 1990 Respondent had a vacancy for the position of WPO I and advertised for applicants for this position. Petitioner was one of those applicants. WPO I is an entry level position for which Petitioner met all the requirements. Petitioner has completed more than two years of college and, on the examination given to the 60-65 applicants for the WPO I position, Petitioner received a higher score than did the individual who was hired, Perry Cochran. Petitioner testified that he went to the water plant and went through the various tasks that water plant operators perform while on duty, and that he, with some minor adjustments, could perform all of those functions. No medical evidence was presented that Petitioner could or could not perform the duties required of a WPO I. However, the stipulation of the parties that the only issue for resolution is whether Respondent's stated reason for not employing Petitioner is pretextual, removes the requirement that Petitioner demonstrated that he is in the covered position of handicap. Petitioner's supervisor while he was employed by the City of Lakeland, John Sluski, is presently Superintendent of Production. Sluski has worked his way up in the Lakeland Water Department from WPO I, II, and III to Chief Operator, temporary superintendent and superintendent. Most of the time while Petitioner was employed by Lakeland Sluski was Chief Operator whose principle function was to supervise water plant operations and water plant operators. A municipal water plant is a 24 hour per day operation with three shifts each 24 hours. The day shift (from 6:45 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.) has a lead operator (WPO III) and 3 or 4 WPO IIs. The afternoon shift (2:45 - 10:45) has a lead operator, one or two WPO IIs and the midnight shift has a lead operator only part of the time and a WPO II in charge the balance of the time with another WPO II and a WPO I. Petitioner generally received satisfactory performance evaluations during the period from 1982 until 1985 as a WPO I. His evaluation as a WPO II in July 1986 was also satisfactory; however, his evaluation in August 1987 (Ex. 2) was decidedly below his previous evaluations and contained numerous adverse comments about Petitioner's performance and attitude. Similarly, Petitioner was recommended for merit pay increases each time he was eligible except in August 1987. (Ex. 3) Although Petitioner's evaluation in August 1987 showed only 8 days Petitioner was late for work, Mr. Sluski testified that Petitioner was frequently late reporting for his shift and that this was irritating to the person he was to relieve and destructive of morale at the plant. This lateness varied from a few minutes to an hour or more and the person to be relieved had to remain on duty until Petitioner relieved him. During the period between December 1983 through January 1987 the time cards (Ex 7) showed Petitioner late reporting for work some 166 times. When Sluski spoke to Petitioner about his tardiness Petitioner's attendance would improve for a short while but then revert. When Sluski received Petitioner's application for the WPO I position in 1990 he called Petitioner's latest employer, The City of Dundee, and was told Petitioner had been terminated. This factor plus the numerous times Petitioner had been late for work while employed by the Lakeland Water Department led Sluski not to interview Petitioner for the position and to employ Perry Cochran. Petitioner testified, without contradiction, that he was terminated by the City of Dundee because he lived too far away to be on call in an emergency situation which the job required.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petition for relief from an unlawful employment practice, based on handicap, filed by Donn M. Patterson against the City of Lakeland, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 6th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy J. McCausland Assistant City Attorney 228 S. Massachusetts Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33801-5086 Robert H. Grizzard, II, Esquire P.O. Box 992 Lakeland, Florida 33801-5006 City Clerk City of Lakeland 228 South Massachusetts Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33801-5086 Margaret Jones/Clerk Florida Human Relations Commission Bldg F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission Bldg F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 4149
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA) was formed in 1974 by inter-local agreement under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, as a supply entity to provide and develop sources of water for its members and other governmental entities. The members of WCRWSA include the two cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa and the three counties of Pinellas (intervenor herein), Hillsborough and Pasco. The petitioner and the intervenor own and operate permitted well fields which are regulated by the respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and are therefore subject to the rules and regulations of SWFWMD. All parties have stipulated, and the evidence so demonstrates, that the WCRWSA and Pinellas County are substantially affected by the challenged proposed rule and therefore have standing to challenge its validity. The proposed rule being challenged in this proceeding was considered by the Governing Board of SWFWMD as a result of a prior rule being declared invalid in another proceeding. The prior rule, codified as Rule 16J-2.11(3), Florida Administrative Code, provided as follows: 16J-2.11 Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit Issuance of a permit will be denied if the amount of water consumptively used will exceed the water crop of lands owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. (Except where determined otherwise, the water crop [precipitation less evapotranspiration] throughout the District will be assumed to be three hundred sixty-five thousand (365,000) gallons per year per acre.) By Final Order dated April 9, 1980, 1/ that rule was declared to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the grounds that it exceeded SWFWMD's statutory authority under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, it impermissibly conflicted with provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, it created property rights to water by virtue of land ownership contrary to Chapter 373 and the decision in the case of Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So.2d and 663 (Fla. 1979); and it was a hydrologically unsound method of determining the issuance or denial of consumptive use permits and was accordingly arbitrary and capricious in nature. The two subsections of proposed Rule 40D-2.301 being challenged in this proceeding read as follows: "40D-2.301. Conditions for Issuance of Permits. Among other factors to be considered by the Board in determining whether a particular use is consistent with the public interest will be: the maximum amount to be withdrawn of a single day; the average amount to be withdrawn during a single week, during a typical growing (or irrigation) season, during an extreme cold season, during a year of extreme drought an during the term of the proposed permit; the amount to be withdrawn in relationship to amounts being withdrawn from adjacent or nearby properties; the proximity of withdrawal points to location of points of withdrawal by others; the total amounts presently permitted from the entire basin, or other hydrologic unit; and the change in storage that such withdrawal and use will cause. If the proposed consumptive use will average less than 1,000 gallons per acre per day, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board will presume that the quantity of water proposed for consumptive use is consistent with the public interest and the applicant will not be required to submit further evidence on this point. If the proposed consumptive use is to average 1,000 gallons or more per acre per day, the applicant must establish that the proposed use of water in such quantity is consistent with the public interest. (NOTE: Present subsections 6 through 11 will be renumbered consecutively following the above new subsections.) The factors listed in subsection (6) of the proposed rule are not all- inclusive. Each of the factors listed are resource related or hydrological considerations. The effect of each of the factors listed is appropriate for consideration by the Governing Board of SEFWMD when making a determination as to whether a consumptive use permit should be granted. With the exception of that portion of subsection (6) relating to a weekly average amount to be withdrawn, the factors listed in subsection (6) are covered by existing specific rules of SWFWMD. The word "acre" in the phrase "1,000 gallons per acre per day" is intended to mean land owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. The figure of 1,000 gallons per acre per day represents the average quantity of water which is available within the respondent's District for man's use and to maintain natural systems. The figure is a district wide estimation. It cannot be arbitrarily applied to any specific site within the District due to the fact that different parcels of land do not possess identical geologic or hydrologic characteristics. The amount of water which is available from a specific parcel of land is dependent upon geographical and hydrological factors which vary considerably from site to site. These factors include, among other things, the amount of rainfall the land receives, the water table, the existence of confining layers, soil and vegetation types, and transmissivity, storage and leakage coefficients. Withdrawals of water in small amounts per acre per day are generally less likely to have adverse hydrologic effects on the water resources within the District than are withdrawals in greater amounts. In most areas of the District, 1,000 gallons per acre per day can be withdrawn without jeopardizing or adversely affecting the resource or the availability of water for others. This would not necessarily be true of coastal areas where salt water intrusion is a possibility or in areas where wells presently exist which withdraw large quantities of water on a daily basis. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of the more than 6,000 consumptive use permits which have been issued by the SWFWMD are for amounts less than 1,000 gallons per acre per day.
The Issue Whether the South Florida Water Management District’s (“District”) intended award of a contract for aerial spraying services, granular application services, and aerial transport services, to Coastal Air Services, Inc. (“Coastal”), is contrary to the District’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the bid specifications; and, if so, whether the decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The District is an independent taxing authority created pursuant to section 373.069, Florida Statutes, with the authority to contract with private entities to maintain real property controlled by the District. See § 373.1401, Fla. Stat. HAI is a Florida corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida with a business address of 1090 Airglades Boulevard in Clewiston, Florida. Coastal is a Florida corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida with a business address of 7424 Coastal Drive in Panama City, Florida. The RFB On February 7, 2018, the District issued the RFB, soliciting bids for qualified respondents to provide the following: [F]urnish all labor, equipment, perform data entry and perform all operations for spraying of aquatic, ditchbank and invasive vegetation by helicopter and provide aerial flight services for site inspection and plant surveys. Both HAI and Coastal submitted timely bids, which the District deemed responsive and responsible under the terms of the RFB. The District deemed Coastal the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for aerial spraying, granular application, and aerial transport services. The District deemed HAI the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for spot spraying services. On May 11, 2018, the District posted its Notice of Intent to Award the respective contracts to Coastal and HAI. HAI challenges the award to Coastal because it is not a responsible bidder under the terms of the RFB. HAI’s challenge focuses on two items required to document the bidder’s responsibility to perform the requested services. First, the RFB requires the bidder to provide at least two helicopters certified pursuant to 14 CFR Part 133, Rotocraft External-Load Operations; and 14 CFR Part 137, Agricultural Aircraft Operations (Part 137 Certificate). Second, the RFB requires the bidder to demonstrate its ability to obtain required insurance coverage. Part 137 Certificate HAI contends that Coastal’s bid does not meet the responsibility provisions of the RFB because it did not include sufficient Part 137 Certificates for its subcontractor, HMC Helicopters (“HMC”). HAI contends the Part 137 Certificates are required to expressly state that aircraft are certified to dispense economic poisons. Petitioner’s argument fails for three reasons. First, the RFB does not require the bidder’s Part 137 Certificate to expressly endorse aircraft to dispense economic poisons.3/ Second, assuming the express endorsement was required, the requirement does not apply to HMC. The RFB defines the term “Bidder” and “Respondent” as “[a]ll contractors, consultants, organizations, firms or other entities submitting a Response to this RFB as a prime contractor.” (emphasis added). In its bid, Coastal is listed as the prime contractor, and HMC as a subcontractor. The RFB requires each Respondent to list at least two aircraft which are Part 133 and 137 certified. The requirement applies to Coastal as the primary contractor, not to its subcontractor. Coastal’s bid listed five aircraft with both Part 133 and 137 Certificates, actually exceeding the requirement for two such certified aircraft. Third, assuming an express endorsement for dispensing economic poisons was required, and that the requirement applied to HMC, HMC’s Part 137 Certificate documents HMC’s authority to dispense economic poisons. Pursuant to 14 CFR 137.3, “Agricultural aircraft operation” is defined as follows: [T]he operation of an aircraft for the purpose of (1) dispensing any economic poison, (2) dispensing any other substance intended for plant nourishment, soil treatment, propagation of plant life, or pest control, or (3) engaging in dispending activities directly affecting agriculture, horticulture, or forest preservation, but not including the dispensing of live insects. To obtain a Part 137 Certificate, the operator must pass a knowledge and skills test, which includes the safe handling of economic poisons and disposal of used containers for those poisons; the general effects of those poisons on plants, animals, and persons and precautions to be observed in using those poisons; as well as the primary symptoms of poisoning in persons, appropriate emergency measures in the case of poisoning, and the location of poison control centers. See 14 CFR § 137.19. However, if the operator applies for a Part 137 Certificate which prohibits dispensing of economic poisons, the applicant is not required to demonstrate the knowledge and skills listed above. See Id. HMCs’ certificates do not contain an express prohibition against dispensing economic poisons. The authorization for HMC’s aircraft to dispense economic poisons is inherent in its Part 137 Certificate. Coastal’s bid meets the solicitation requirement for at least two aircraft with Part 137 Certificates. Insurance Requirements The RFB requires each Respondent to “provide evidence of the ability to obtain appropriate insurance coverage.” Respondents may meet the insurability requirement by having their insurance agent either (1) complete and sign an insurance certificate which meets all of the requirements of Exhibit H to the RFB; or (2) issue a letter on the insurance agency’s letterhead stating that the Respondent qualifies for the required insurance coverage levels and that an insurance certificate meeting the District’s requirements will be submitted prior to the execution of the contract. In response to this requirement, Coastal submitted a letter from Sterlingrisk Aviation, dated March 6, 2018, stating, “All required coverage amounts are available to Coastal Air Service, Inc. to fulfill the requirements of this contract.” In the Re: line, the letter refers to the specific RFB at issue in this case. Coastal also submitted a certificate of insurance from Sterlingrisk Aviation demonstrating the levels of insurance coverage in effect at the time the bid was submitted, although the coverages are less than the amounts required under the RFB.4/ HAI takes issue with Coastal’s evidence of ability to obtain the required coverage because the letter from Sterlingrisk does not state “an insurance certificate reflecting the required coverage will be provided prior to the contract execution.” Based on the totality of the evidence, the undersigned infers that Sterlingrisk’s letter omits the language that a certificate “will be provided” prior to contract execution, because Sterlingrisk will issue an insurance certificate only when Coastal applies, and pays the premium, for the increased coverage limitations. The letter from Sterlingrisk substantially complies with the insurance requirements of the RFB, and constitutes competent, substantial evidence of Coastal’s ability to obtain the required insurance coverage. HAI introduced no evidence that Coastal obtained an economic advantage over HAI by failing to include language from its insurance agent that “an insurance certificate reflecting the required coverage will be provided prior to the contract execution.” Instead, HAI argued that by failing to enforce that provision of the RFB, the District cannot ensure the winning bidder will be responsible to undertake the contract. HAI argued that the District’s failure to adhere to this RFB requirement may create inefficiencies that “would result in the event that Coastal were unable to obtain the required insurance coverage” before execution of the contract. Coastal’s bid documents its eligibility for insurance coverage in the amounts required by the RFB. If Coastal does not provide said certificates, it will not be qualified for final execution or issuance of the contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing Helicopter Applicator, Inc.’s Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 15th day of November, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a special taxing district providing fire protection and rescue services to the residents of the Estero area of Lee County. The fire station is located at 20241 Tamiami Trail, Estero, Florida. Petitioner employs 14 employees, including administrative staff and firefighters. The firefighters work 24 hours straight and then are off-duty for 48 hours. Two to four employees work each shift. Firefighting requires a fast response. Thus, Petitioner requires that on-duty firefighters remain at the station for their entire 24-hour shift, unless they are out fighting fires or performing rescue duties. The fire station contains an 8' x 13' bedroom with six mattresses located on three bunk beds. On-duty firefighters are allowed to bring pillows and sheets so they can sleep at the station while on duty. There are no dressers in the room, which contains small lockers that the firefighters may use to store a change of clothes. Petitioner provides kitchen facilities at the fire station and well water. The well water is used for washing equipment, taking showers, and flushing the toilet. The well water is not used for any other purposes, nor is it used by any other persons. Petitioner provides bottled water for drinking and cooking. All of the firefighters have residences apart from the fire station and within a reasonable commuting distance from the fire station. No firefighter has ever lived at the station. Petitioner does not charge, or reduce the pay of, the firefighters for their use of the limited sleeping facilities. Petitioner lawfully does not treat the use of the limited sleeping facilities by firefighters as gross income for the purposes of withholding federal income tax or making social security contributions. By letter dated July 18, 1995, Respondent informed Petitioner that the fire station's water system is a limited use community water system because the sleeping facilities constituted rental residences, as defined by Rule 10D- 4.024(21), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent advised Petitioner that it was therefore required to obtain a permit. As noted in the following section, the statute authorizes Respondent to regulate as limited use community public water systems those systems serving a certain number of "rental residences." The statute does not define "rental residence." In Rule 10D-4.024(21), Respondent defines a "rental residence" as follows: a dwelling unit, a structure or part of a structure that is rented for use, or furnished with or without rent as an incident of employ- ment, for use as a home, residence, sleeping place by one or more persons, a mobile home rented by a tenant. This term does not apply to facilities offering transient residency such as public lodging establishments. This term includes other facilities where residency or detention is incidental to the provision of medical, geriatric, educational, counseling, religious, or similar services. Respondent equated a "rental residence" with a "dwelling unit" when it based its definition of "rental residence" on the statutory definition of "dwelling unit" in Chapter 83, Part II, Florida Statutes, which is the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. A "dwelling unit" is a "residence." The American Heritage dictionary defines a "dwelling" as "a place to live in; residence; abode." Similarly, the same dictionary's first definition of "residence" is "the place in which one lives; a dwelling; an abode." But the statutory definition qualifies "residential" with "rental." The word "rental" requires consideration of the nature of the relationship of the occupant to the dwelling and its owner. Obviously, the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act addresses rental transactions, but it does not do so in the definition of "dwelling unit." Other provisions of the Act describe the kind of activity that must take place for a person to be considered a tenant renting a dwelling unit. Most importantly, Section 83.43(6) defines "rent" as "periodic payments due the landlord from the tenant for occupancy under a rental agreement " The facts of this case present a revealing illustration of the distinction between a "residence" or "dwelling unit," on the one hand, and a "rental residence," on the other hand. There is no rental relationship between the occupants of the sleeping quarters at the fire station and the residence or dwelling itself. The firefighters do not pay, directly or indirectly, for these beds or the rooms in which the beds are located. Their employer legitimately does not include the value of the use of these sleeping quarters in the compensation paid to the firefighters. The firefighters have residences within commuting distance of the fire station and use the meager sleeping quarters and kitchen facilities only because they are required to spend long hours continuously at the fire station.
The Issue Did Respondent, William D. Going, willfully and intentionally violate Florida Statutes and Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) rules regulating well construction? If he did, what corrective action is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact William Going is a licensed water well contractor. He has held License Number 1564 since 2007. Mr. Going is a managing member of Going Irrigation, Inc., and conducts business under that name. Mr. Going constructed four sand point irrigation wells at a residential property in St. Petersburg, Florida. He did not have and had not applied for a Well Construction Permit (WCP). 1 All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification unless noted otherwise. 2 The findings are based upon the evidence admitted at the hearing and the stipulations of the parties. Mr. Going did not call or otherwise contact the District to request a WCP. The District operates an online permitting system called the Water Management Information System (WMIS). The District will issue a WCP based upon a telephone call, an application on its website, a faxed application, a mailed application, or a hand-delivered application. The District routinely issues permits within two hours of receiving an application, often within ten minutes to half an hour. The District's application system operates from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. It is infrequently offline for a few hours. While quick, the process reviews significant information. It verifies that the well location is sufficiently distant from septic systems, verifies construction methods and materials, and verifies, if the well is for drinking water, that the well is not too close to a contamination site. Mr. Going is a registered and experienced user of WMIS. The District learned of the unpermitted wells on April 28, 2020, when it received an anonymous complaint. On May 5, 2020, approximately ten days after he constructed the wells, Mr. Going submitted WCP Application 889173 for construction of the four already completed sand point irrigation wells. He did not disclose that they were already completed. He falsely represented them as proposed. The District approved the application on May 6, 2020, and issued WCP 889173 to Mr. Going. On June 11, 2020, Mr. Going submitted four Well Completion Reports for the wells, falsely representing that each was completed on May 7, 2020. This was more than 30 days after Mr. Going completed the wells. Mr. Going claimed at the hearing that he tried to apply for a WCP for four or five days before constructing the wells but was locked out of the WMIS. Mr. Going said that his son usually obtained permits online for the company. He also claimed that he tried to apply online on April 24 and 25, 2019. His claims are not persuasive. There is no question that Mr. Going knew the requirements for obtaining a permit and reporting completion. In 2009, in Order No. SWF 09- 017, the District imposed a $500.00 fine and assessed five points against his license for an almost identical offense. In that case, Mr. Going also constructed a well without a permit from the District or applying for a permit. In that case, like this one, he sought to excuse failure to apply for a permit by claiming difficulties with the website. In that case he blamed his wife's unfamiliarity with computers, rather than his own, for failure to apply. In that case, like this one, he applied for and obtained a permit after constructing the well. Mr. Going knowingly and willfully constructed four unpermitted wells, filed a WCP application more than thirty days after he completed the wells, and misrepresented the dates of completion in the WCP completion reports that he filed with the District. Mr. Going tries to characterize his after-the-fact misrepresentations as mitigation. But they were not. Mitigation would have been contacting the District to advise it of the wells' unpermitted construction and the asserted justification for it. Furthermore, his misrepresentations deprived the District of the chance to prevent construction of the wells using improper materials or near a septic tank or contaminated location.
