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 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 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 432,000 gallons and the average gaily withdrawal sought is 42,608 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 amount of withdrawal requested is 92.20 percent of the maximum average daily withdrawal allowed by the water crop theory, as 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 Subsection 161-2.11(2), (3), and (4) exist so as to require the denial of this permit.
The Issue Whether a consumptive-use permit for the quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500046 requested water from one (1) well for the purpose of irrigation which is an existing use. The center of withdrawals will be located at Latitude 27 degrees 30' 6" North, Longitude 81 degrees 44' 54" West in Hardee County, Florida. Total continuous acreage is 80 acres. Use is for not more than 15,000,000 gallons of water per year and not more than 1,152,000 gallons of water during any single day to be withdrawn from the Florida Aquifer. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Herald-Advocate, on May 29 and June 5, 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 mail, copy of the Notice and affidavit of publication were received without objection and entered into evidence as Exhibit 1. No letters of objection were received. The applicant has previously written a letter requesting the application to be changed from 15,000,000 gallons to 30,000,000 gallons of water per year. He stated that he wished to amend the application to increase it by that amount. The 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, as pertained to the application on hand. The staff recommended that the application for the amount of water requested be granted but that the additional amount requested by applicant by letter of June 8, 1975, to the Southwest Florida Water Management District be denied inasmuch as said amount would exceed the water crop principle.
Findings Of Fact Respondent GL Homes filed a permit application with Respondent District for Conceptual Approval of a surface water management system. On August 28, 1996, Respondent District mailed a copy of its staff report and notice of rights to Respondent GL Homes. The staff report was the staff's summary and recommendation and Respondent District's notice of proposed agency action. The staff report indicated, among other things, that it was a "draft" and that the last date for action by the Governing Board of Respondent District was September 12, 1996. On or about August 29, 1996, Respondent District mailed a copy of the same staff report and notice of rights to interested third parties, including Petitioners. The notice of rights provided, among other things: PETITION FOR FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS Any person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by the action which is proposed in the enclosed Notice of Proposed Agency Action/Staff Review Summary, may petition for an administrative hearing ... Petitions for administrative hearing on the above application must be filed within four- teen (14) days of actual receipt of this Notice of Proposed Agency Action. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any rights such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under section 120.57, Florida Statutes, concerning the subject permit application. Petitions which are not filed in accordance with the above provisions are subject to dismissal. There is no dispute that this provision is clear and unambiguous. Petitioners did not receive the mailed staff report and notice of rights. Before the filing of Respondent GL Homes' permit application, Petitioners had been involved with other permit applications which had come before Respondent District and had filed petitions for administrative hearings on other applications. Petitioners were well familiar with Respondent District's process, involving permit applications, its staff reports and the notice of rights. Sometime during the first week of September 1996, while at the Respondent District's office, Petitioner Durando obtained a copy of the staff report and notice of rights. Petitioner Durando appeared at the September 12, 1966, Governing Board meeting even though the permit application had not appeared on any agenda for the Governing Board that she had received. The permit application was to be heard as part of a list of "Add On Items", which did not provide prior notice of these items to the public. At the meeting of September 12, 1996, Petitioner Durando obtained again a copy of the staff report. However, the staff report contained a cover memo, dated September 9, 1996, to the Governing Board from the Director of Respondent District's Regulation Department, with four maps included. The cover memo was written in layman's terms and was a summary of the staff report. The cover memo contained no modification of the staff report. Moreover, the staff report attached to the cover memo contained no modifications. Cover memoranda are routinely prepared for the members of the Governing Board for items on which public comment is expected. Public comment was expected on Respondent GL Homes' permit application. A problem with notice to the public, regarding the Governing Board considering Respondent GL Homes' permit application at the September 12, 1996, was brought to the attention of the Governing Board. On the recommendation of Respondent District's staff, the Governing Board decided not to address the permit application at that meeting but to re-notice the public hearing on the permit application for October 10, 1996. Petitioner Durando was concerned as to whether Respondent District had to re-publish the staff report and notice of rights. She made an inquiry to a member of Respondent District's staff regarding this issue, who was unsure if a re-publication had to occur and informed Petitioner Durando of his uncertainty. Later in the evening of the same day of Petitioner Durando's inquiry, that same member of Respondent District's staff left a message on Petitioner Durando's answering machine that no re-publication of the staff report and notice of rights was required since there was no modification or change of the staff report. Also, prior to departing the September 12, 1996, Governing Board meeting, Petitioner Durando inquired of Respondent District's counsel as to when was the due date for filing a petition for an administrative hearing on Respondent GL Homes' permit application. Respondent District's counsel informed her that she must file her petition within 14 days of receiving a copy of the staff report and notice of rights. Petitioner Durando had attended other Governing Board meetings in the past which contained permit applications as agendaed items and as add on items. No evidence was presented to show that the prior permit applications considered by the Governing Board at its meetings did not contain a cover memo from Respondent District's staff, which summarized in layman's terms the staff report. Petitioner Durando believed that she had 14 days from September 12, 1996, in which to file a petition with Respondent District for an administrative hearing on Respondent GL Homes' permit application. She filed a petition on behalf of the Petitioners on September 26, 1996. Neither prior to nor subsequent to the September 12, 1996, Governing Board meeting was a modification made to the staff report or a second staff report prepared. Petitioners' actual receipt of the proposed agency action was sometime during the first week of September 1996. If Petitioners' actual receipt was on September 2, 1996, their petition for an administrative hearing must have been filed on or before September 16, 1996. If Petitioners' actual receipt was on September 6, 1996, their petition must have been filed on or before September 20, 1996. At all times material hereto, Petitioner Durando was not an attorney. Subsequent to filing the petition for an administrative hearing, Petitioners obtained the services of an attorney.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the petition for an administrative hearing as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED in this 13th day of November 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1996.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner's employment position was properly reclassified from Career Service to Selected Exempt Service pursuant to Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact Beginning on April 23, 2001, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Hillsborough County Health Department as a Professional Engineer III, a position requiring state registration in accordance with Chapter 471, Florida Statutes (2001). The job announcement related to the Petitioner's employment states that the position "oversees" the drinking water program and engineering-related activities. The position was responsible for management of "Safe Drinking Water" permitting and compliance enforcement program entailing a variety of duties, including planning, organizing, and coordinating work assignments. According to organizational charts before and after the date of the reclassification of the position, the Professional Engineer III position had direct supervision of four employment positions, and indirect supervision of eight additional positions that reported to one of the Petitioner's direct employees. The position of Professional Engineer III includes a substantial amount of engineering review responsibilities, and is charged with direct supervision of the Safe Drinking Water Act program staff and Limited Use Drinking Water program staff. The position description categorized the job responsibilities as "regulatory," "supervising/training," "enforcement," "policies and procedures," "record keeping," "education," and "committees/other duties." Review of the specific duties indicates that the Petitioner's supervisory responsibilities were included within several of the categories. Included within the "regulatory" category was "[e]nsures staff conduct field inspections of public water systems. . . . Supervisor is responsible and accountable for field staff." Included within the "supervising/training" category were the following duties: Supervises Engineers to ensure all programs in the Safe Drinking Water Program are completed according to the agreement with DEP and the policies and procedures of the Department of Health. Supervises an Environmental Supervisor II to ensure that all programs in the Limited Use Drinking Water Program and Private Drinking Water Program are completed according to the F.S., F.A.C. and county regulations. Supervises staff review of engineer's plans. Supervises and reviews the preparation of non-compliance letters written by staff regarding enforcement actions. Provide training to new Health Department staff in all aspects of EHS at least once a year (standardized presentation). Perform field inspections (documented) with personnel on a quarterly basis to evaluate staff performance and for Quality Improvement (QI) in accordance with office policy. Telephone regulated facilities each quarter to determine customer satisfaction . . . in accordance with office policy. Develop training modules for specific program areas (public drinking water systems) and maintain them accurate and current. Provide those training modules to new EH staff and twice a year to existing EH staff. Assign staff to special work areas as necessary and perform field inspections (staff shortages, vacation/leave time, and natural disaster). Evaluate personnel's work, plan work load, special tasks to include efficiency. Included within the "enforcement" category were the following duties: Reviews appropriate enforcement activities generated by staff and assure timely progress of formal enforcement from compliance to enforcement. Ensures the time progress of enforcement cases by working closely with the compliance section of the Public Drinking Water Program in bringing non-compliant clients into enforcement. Follow up on violations of FAC and/or FS and ensure compliance is achieved or enforcement action is taken. Included within the "policies and procedures" category was the responsibility to "[r]eview daily activity reports and corresponding paperwork each day." The Petitioner was responsible for managing the daily workflow of the office. He planned, directed, and reviewed the work performed by his employees. The Petitioner was responsible for the evaluation of all employees under his direct supervision, including newly hired probationary employees. The Petitioner was responsible for review of the evaluations for employees for whom he had indirect supervisory duties, and he also provided his own independent evaluation of their performance. The Petitioner was responsible for the discipline of employees. At one point he had to counsel an employee who was consistently late to arrive for work. The Petitioner was also responsible for seeking qualified applicants for position openings. He was responsible for initiating the employment process. He chose the panel that interviewed applicants, designed the interview questions, participated in interviews, and made the final recommendation as to the person hired. He had the authority to decline to fill an open position if he deemed that the applicants lacked sufficient qualification. The Petitioner claims that the majority of his time was spent in review of permit applications and related engineering tasks. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The Petitioner's claim appears to essentially relate to a period of time subsequent to the July 1, 2001, reclassification of the position. During the time between his initial employment and the date of the position reclassification, the Petitioner was primarily a supervisory employee and had little, if any, permit review responsibilities. The office was fully staffed with other employees who were directly responsible for review of permit applications and related field reviews. In autumn of 2001, after the position was reclassified, the office began to lose employees, resulting in an increased workload for the remaining workers. At this point, the Petitioner began to undertake a substantial role in the actual review of permit applications in addition to his supervisory duties. Nonetheless, the Petitioner remained responsible for supervision of remaining employees. The Petitioner was also responsible for filling the vacant positions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a Final Order finding that the "Professional Engineer III" position held by Raymond Van Loon on July 1, 2001, was properly classified into the Selected Exempt Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 21st day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen W. Foxwell, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Aaron J. Hilligas, Esquire AFSCME Council 79 3064 Highland Oaks Terrace Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Boulevard Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33606 Jerry G. Traynham, Esquire Patterson & Traynham Post Office Box 4289 315 Beard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32315 William E. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00451 seeks a consumptive water use permit for an existing use involving 14 withdrawal points. The application seeks a total average annual withdrawal of 20.2584 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 45.8539 million gallons per day. The water will be used for citrus processing. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flow meters of the propeller-driven type on all withdrawal points covered by this permit. That the applicant shall record the pumpage from the above-referenced meters on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly, beginning on January 15, 1977. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980.
Recommendation It is hereby Recommended that a consumptive use permit in the amounts and from the points set forth in the application be granted subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 2 above. ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Lykes Pasco Packing Company Post Office Box 97 Dade City, Florida
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-555.360 of the Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”), pertaining to cross-connection control for public water systems, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a natural person residing at 1805 Burlington Circle, Sun City Center, Hillsborough County, Florida. The Department is the state agency with powers and duties to protect public drinking water as set forth in the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, section 403.850, et seq., Florida Statutes (2013). Background The term “cross-connection” is defined in rule 62-550.200(26) as: any physical arrangement whereby a public water supply is connected, directly or indirectly, with any other water supply system, sewer, drain, conduit, pool, storage reservoir, plumbing fixture, or other device which contains or may contain contaminated water, sewage or other waste, or liquid of unknown or unsafe quality which may be capable of imparting contamination to the public water supply as the result of backflow. Cross-connections are prohibited unless appropriate backflow protection is provided to prevent backflow through the cross-connection into the public water system. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-550.360(1). There are three types of backflow prevention devices germane to this proceeding: Reduced Pressure Principle Assembly ("RP"), Double Check Valve Assembly ("DC"), and Dual Check Device ("DuC”). Typically, but not in every case, the water customer is responsible for the costs of installation, inspection, and maintenance of a backflow prevention device. It is undisputed that the RP is the most expensive to purchase, install, and maintain; followed by the DC; and then the DuC.2/ The RP and DC are installed above-ground, usually near a street. Test ports on these assemblies allow them to be tested to determine whether they are still functioning to prevent backflow. The DuC is usually installed underground and has no test ports. The Department asserts that this difference makes the DuC less reliable than the RP and DC. The rule states, and Petitioner did not refute, that the RP and DC offer greater backflow protection than the DuC. Petitioner has an auxiliary water system at his residence, which he uses to pump untreated water from a nearby lake to irrigate his lawn. There is no cross-connection between the plumbing system in Petitioner’s residence and his auxiliary water system. Petitioner does not have a backflow prevention device installed at his property. Hillsborough County has an ordinance that requires the installation of an RP device for residential customers who have auxiliary water systems, but the County currently has a moratorium on the enforcement of its ordinance. Petitioner is on a local committee established to investigate and advise the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners regarding cross-connection control. He believes the County is likely to modify its ordinance and allow the DuC for residential customers who have auxiliary water systems. The Department Rule The Department stated its purposes for the rule in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: These rules are being amended to significantly reduce the overall regulatory burden of cross-connection control requirements on community water systems (CWSs) and their residential customers by: allowing a dual check device to be used as backflow protection at or for residential service connections from CWSs to premises where there is any type of auxiliary or reclaimed water system; and (2) allowing biennial instead of annual testing of backflow preventer assemblies required at or for residential service connections from CWSs. A community water system (“CWS”) is a public water system which serves at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents. See § 403.852(3), Fla. Stat. The Department requires each CWS to have a cross- connection control program, and Table 62-555.360-2 in the rule establishes the “Minimum Backflow Protection” that must be provided at or for the service connection from the CWS to various types of water customers. The minimum backflow protection specified in the table for a residential service connection with an auxiliary water system is a DuC. All references hereafter to “residential service connection” shall mean one with an auxiliary water system. There is a footnote for the DuC at the bottom of the table, which explains: A DuC may be provided only if there is no known cross-connection between the plumbing system and the auxiliary or reclaimed water system on the customer's premises. Upon discovery of any cross•connection between the plumbing system and any reclaimed water system on the customer's premises, the CWS shall ensure that the cross-connection is eliminated. Upon discovery of any cross- connection between the plumbing system and any auxiliary water system other than a reclaimed water system on the customer's premises, the CWS shall ensure that the cross-connection is eliminated or shall ensure that the backflow protection provided at or for the service connection is equal to that required at or for a non•residential service connection. The SERC As part of the rulemaking process for the proposed amendments to rule 62-555.360, the Department prepared a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost ("SERC"). Section 120.541, Florida Statutes (2013), governs the preparation of SERCs and provides that a substantially affected person may submit a “good faith written proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative that substantially accomplishes the objectives of the law being implemented.” See § 120.541(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The parties dispute whether Petitioner challenged the SERC. In his amended petition, Petitioner states no objection to any statement in the SERC. Petitioner did not challenge the SERC. The parties dispute whether Petitioner submitted a lower cost regulatory alternative. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stated: Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. Within 21 days of the notice, the Department received Petitioner's written comments. In his comments, Petitioner cites section 120.52(8)(f), which provides that a rule is invalid if it imposes regulatory costs which could be reduced by adopting a less costly alternative. Petitioner recommends that the rule be changed to specify that the less costly DuC is the only acceptable backflow prevention device for residential service connections and “A CWS shall not impose a requirement for a more expensive type of backflow prevention valve.” The Department contends that Petitioner’s comments did not constitute a good faith lower cost regulatory alternative, citing pages 87-98 of the Transcript. Those pages contain some argument on the issue, but do not prove Petitioner did not submit a lower cost regulatory alternative. Petitioner’s timely written comments included a citation to the relevant statute and a plainly-worded proposal. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner’s comments were sufficient to constitute a lower cost regulatory alternative. Petitioner’s Objections Petitioner objects to rule 62-555.360 because (1) it specifies use of the RP and DC, which he contends are unreasonably dangerous to public health and safety; (2) it specifies the DuC for residential service connections as the “minimum” protection, which he contends allows a CWS to require the more expensive RP or DC; (3) it requires testing of backflow devices “at least biennially” (once every two years), which he believes is too frequent; (4) it makes biennial testing a “minimum” testing interval, which he contends allows a CWS to require more frequent inspection; and (5) it does not require the backflow prevention device to be attached to the CWS’s water meter where Petitioner believes it should always be located. Unreasonable Danger Petitioner contends that the RP and DC are unreasonably dangerous to public health and safety because a person could intentionally pump contaminants through a test port on one of these assemblies into a public water supply. The Department does not dispute that a person could introduce contaminants into a public water supply in this way. The flaw in Petitioner’s reasoning is his failure to see the danger in proper perspective. Department personnel and other persons with expertise in public water systems throughout the United States are well aware that there are many access points in potable water collection, treatment, and distribution systems and many methods to introduce contaminants into these systems. There are many access points other than RPs and DCs. For example, there are methods available that would allow contaminants to be pumped into a public water system from any building connected to the system that has no backflow prevention device installed. RPs and DCs are primarily designed to prevent accidental introduction of contaminants into a public water system. However, they also prevent a person from intentionally pumping contaminants into the public water system from inside a house or building, hidden from view. The danger described by Petitioner assumes that the criminal who is intentionally pumping contaminants through the RP or DC will do it while standing next to the device, in the open, near a street. It is a well-known fact officially recognized by the Administrative Law Judge that criminals prefer to conduct their criminal activities hidden from sight rather than in plain view. Therefore, a criminal planning to contaminate a public water supply is more likely to choose a means other than introducing contaminants through an RP or DC. RPs and DCs are already in wide use. There is no reported incident of intentional contamination of a public water supply by pumping contaminants through one of these devices. When these factors are taken into account, the rule’s specifications for the continued use of RPs and DCs do not create an unreasonable danger to the public health and safety. Minimum Backflow Protection Petitioner contends that Table 62-555.360-2 is invalid because it violates the Department’s duty under section 120.541 to adopt “less costly alternatives.” Petitioner asserts that by specifying the DuC as the “minimum” backflow protection required for residential service connections the rule allows a local government to require the more costly RP or DC. The Department cannot dispute that the DuC substantially accomplishes the statutory objectives. The RP and DC provide greater backflow protection than the DuC, but the Department specified the DuC for residential service connections, indicating that the lower protection provided by the DuC did not make it fall short of the statutory objectives. However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the rule imposes the least costly regulatory alternative for residential service connections because it only requires the DuC. Biennial Testing Schedule Petitioner contends that section III.D. of Table 62-555.360-1 also violates the Department’s duty to adopt less costly alternatives because the rule requires “backflow assemblies” to be tested biennially, which Petitioner believes is too frequent. The term “backflow preventer assemblies” refers only to the RP and DC. See footnote 1 of Table 62-555.360-1. Section III.E. of Table 62-555.360-1 indicates that the DuC must be refurbished or replaced “at least once every 5 to 10 years.” Petitioner did not object to this requirement. The preponderance of the evidence presented shows that biennial testing is reasonable. Furthermore, it is determined in the Conclusions of Law that Petitioner has no standing to object to the testing frequency specified for the RP and DC, because the rule does not require him to have an RP or DC. Location of the Backflow Preventer Petitioner objects to section III.B. of Table 62-555.360-1, which requires backflow prevention devices to be “installed as close as practical to the CWS’s meter or customer’s property line.” Petitioner contends that this is an unconstitutional interference with private property and is unreasonably dangerous because it provides a means for intentional contamination. Petitioner’s private property rights claim is based on his allegation that if he were required by Hillsborough County to have an RP and DC, the device could be placed on his private property. Petitioner did not allege or present evidence to show that placing an RP or DC on his property would deprive him of all reasonable uses of his property so as to cause a taking of his private property for a public purpose without full compensation. See Art. X, § 6(a), Fla. Const. Furthermore, it is determined in the Conclusions of Law that Petitioner has no standing to raise this issue because the rule does not require him to have an RP or DC. Petitioner contends the rule should require that backflow prevention devices always be attached to the water meter because that reduces the opportunity for intentional contamination. Petitioner is not an expert in public water systems, generally, or the installation of backflow prevention devices, in particular. He is not competent to state the relevant factors and constraints associated with installation of the devices. He is not competent to express an opinion whether it is always possible or always appropriate to attach the devices directly to the water meter. Furthermore, Petitioner’s claim of unreasonable danger was refuted above.
Findings Of Fact The Dunes Golf and Country Club, Sanibel, is a partnership owned by John K. Kontinos and William R. Frizzell. They operate a nine hole golf course consisting of 65 acres of the eastern portion of Sanibel Island. The golf course is open to the public and, during the winter season, some 150 to 175 persons utilize the facility daily, but in the period May--November, it is utilized by only about 15 or 20 persons per day. The golf course is presently irrigated by water obtained from the lower Hawthorn and Suwannee aquifers through a well that is approximately 737 feet deep. On the days that water is pumped from the well, the pumping duration is from 8 to 12 hours per day, but the monthly hours during which pumping occurs averages approximately 155 hours per month. There is another existing well in another portion of the applicant's property which extends 896 feet into the Suwannee aquifer. The well presently in use (well number 1) has 546 feet of casing and the well that is not in use (well number 2) has 700 feet of casing. (Testimony of Kontinos, Exhibits 2, 4) On December 15, 1977, the Dunes Golf and Country Club submitted an application to the South Florida Water Management District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw 320 acre feet of groundwater per year to irrigate an area of approximately 109 acres. The intent of the application was to obtain a sufficient quantity of water to irrigate the golf course which the applicant intends to enlarge to consist of 18 holes. The additional 9 holes would cover some 44 acres and well number 2 is intended to be activated to provide additional water for this purpose. (Testimony of Kontinos, Keiling, Exhibits 1- 2) The South Florida Water Management District issued the required public notice of the application on March 30, 1978, and objections to the application were received by that agency from the City Council of Sanibel, the Island Water Association, Inc., and George R. Campbell. Public notice of hearing on the application was duly published on March 30, 1978. (Exhibits 5-7) The staff of the South Florida Water Management District reviewed the application and recommended continuation of the applicant's existing use from the lower Hawthorn Formation and use of additional irrigation water from the Suwannee aquifer in the total amount of 320 acre feet annually. It also recommended that the issuance of a permit should be conditioned in various respects to include semiannual submission of water quality data and pumpage records for each well, installation and maintenance of well controls, and repair or replacement of well casings, valves or controls that leak or become inoperative. The staff further recommended that maximum monthly withdrawals from the lower Hawthorn Formation be limited to 7.5 million gallons and 7.6 million gallons from the Suwannee Formation. At the hearing however, the South Florida Water Management District representative changed these recommendations to 8.9 MO and 6.1 MG respectively. Additionally, the initial recommendation of 320 acre feet annual withdrawal was reduced to 200 acre feet. This amount is considerably less that the average of 600 acre feet used on other comparably sized golf courses. Further the staff representative recommended at the hearing that a further condition be attached to the issuance of the permit; i.e., Condition 15, which requires the permittee to submit analyses of total dissolved concentrations in water samples from each well within 30 days of permit issuance and, if such concentration exceeds 4,000 MG/L, logging procedures as to the affected well will be required with necessary safeguards to be employed to eliminate any interaquifer leakage. (Testimony of Gleason, Exhibit 4) The objections of the City of Sanibel and the Island Water Association, Inc. involved concerns that further withdrawals from the lower Hawthorn aquifer will affect the availability of water which is treated by the water association for general island use. In addition, there is concern about possible contamination of the lower Hawthorn aquifer from interaquifer leakage. The Water Association is a member-owned cooperative that is not under the jurisdiction of the municipality. It is concerned about the draw down in the water table which will be occasioned by additional withdrawals by the applicant. It therefore believes that pumping tests should be conducted prior to the issuance of a permit to provide information concerning the capacity and safe yield of the wells. Although an Association expert testified that the proposed Dunes' withdrawal would create a cone of depression that would extend into and influence the existing Water Association wells, the evidence shows such influence to be minimal due to the fact that the Dunes wells are almost three miles away from the nearest Association well. Further, due to the limited time that the Dunes wells are pumped each day, the aquifer recovers to a certain extent during other hours. Although concerns are felt by the Water Association that water quality will be affected because of leakage from the Suwannee aquifer to the lower Hawthorn aquifer due to possible corrosion of steel casings in the Dunes wells, no evidence was presented that such casings are in fact defective and will contribute to degradation of water quality because of additional withdrawals. The additional special condition placed upon the issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District will require correction of any such leakage that is discovered in the future. Previous studies show that the lower Hawthorn aquifer is separated from the Suwannee aquifer by the Tampa Limestone Formation which would slow down any entry of poorer quality water into the Hawthorn aquifer. It is found that the lesser amounts of water recommended by the South Florida Water Management District at the hearing will further reduce the likelihood of water quality degradation or draw down in other Island wells. (Testimony of Butler, Holland, Nuzman, Gleason, Exhibits 6, 8-13) Ecological concerns were expressed at the hearing by a public witness as to the wastefulness of irrigating golf coup Yes and the requirement for fertilizer in sandy soil which causes leaching of nutrients after heavy water use. (Testimony of Webb)
Recommendation That a permit be issued to the applicant authorizing the consumptive use of the quantity of water recommended by the South Florida Water Management District staff, subject to the recommended conditions thereto. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Wheeler Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 James D. Decker, Esquire Post Office Box 200 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are: Whether the City of Altamonte Springs (City) violated Sections 760.10(1)(a), F.S., by discriminating against Albert Robinson (Robinson) on the basis of his race (Black) or his national origin (Jamaican), with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; Whether the City violated Section 760.10(7), F.S., by discriminating against Robinson in retaliation for his opposition to a practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section or because he assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section; and If such violations did occur, what relief is appropriate pursuant to Section 760.10(13), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Albert H. Robinson is a black male, over 18 years of age, born in Jamaica, West Indies. Respondent, the City of Altamonte Springs, is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, and admits that it is an "employer" for purposes of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, sections 760.01-760.10 F.S. Robinson's account of how he arrived in the United States approximately seven years ago is bizarre, but uncontroverted, and for purposes of this proceeding is deemed true. In Jamaica, Robinson had been affiliated with the ruling People's National Party. He held the government post of Development Director in the "New Development Agency" and was in charge of approximately 300 underprivileged persons. He was also president of a youth organization within the party, and was involved in organizing youth activities and selecting members to visit Cuba as a party representative. At some point he was approached by an American embassy attache from the CIA who recruited him to provide under-cover information on the party. When that involvement became publicly exposed, he was forced to flee the country. Robinson and his family lived for awhile in Panama and other Latin American countries. When they decided to emigrate to the United States, the U.S. Government made arrangements for Mrs. Robinson and the children to enter through Miami and for Mr. Robinson to cross the border "illegally" at Brownsville, Texas. He was given authorization to work and temporary asylum. He is currently awaiting disposition of his petition for a more permanent status. Through other relatives in Florida, Robinson ended up in Altamonte Springs. At the time that he was hired by the City in September 1984, Robinson presented a letter from the INS permitting him to work during the pendency of his asylum petition. The City was thus aware of his national origin and non- citizen status. Robinson was hired as a laborer in the city water distribution division on September 24, 1984. He received two personnel evaluations during his probationary period, both "average," with every factor rated "average," and few comments. On February 7, 1985, he was promoted from laborer to utility serviceworker, a more responsible position. The serviceworker is generally assisted at a job site by the laborer, who does most of the digging. The Dixon Personnel Board hearing In April 1985, Robinson assisted a black coworker, Patrick Dixon, at his hearing before the City Personnel Board. Dixon and another black utilities worker, Carl Wilder, had been accused of making obscene and inappropriate gestures to two white women while the men were on city duty. Wilder was given a one-day suspension. Dixon, who already had a negative performance record, was given a two-day suspension. Dixon appealed the discipline to the Personnel Board. Robinson's involvement at the hearing on April 3rd was to sit behind Dixon and assist with the documents. Robinson, who had no firsthand knowledge of the incidents, did not testify. Carl Wilder did testify on behalf of Dixon. The Personnel Board, in a unanimous decision by all members present, upheld the disciplinary action. Robinson believed that Patrick Dixon had been the victim of a racial vendetta. Dixon testified in this proceeding that he, also, feels that the charge was racially motivated, yet nothing in the written documents related to his appeal supports that contention. The basis for his appeal was the insufficiency of the evidence against him and his contention that he was a bystander while Wilder, the actual perpetrator, received a lesser penalty. Shortly after the hearing Dixon was terminated for absenteeism. He did not file a discrimination complaint nor take any other action against the city. Wilder is still employed by the city, and in 1987, was promoted from laborer to serviceworker. The performance evaluation On May 3, 1985, Robinson received his first performance evaluation as a utility serviceman. His overall rating by his reporting supervisor, George Simpkins, was "average." However, he received "below average" in four categories: "ability to carry out instructions/orders"; "conduct"; "directs the work of subordinates effectively"; and "ability to make decisions within his authority." The comments in explanation of these ratings related to Robinson's failure to follow operating procedures, his temper and conflict with fellow employees, and his dictatorial manner in dealing with subordinates. Robinson was not pleased with the evaluation and wrote a letter to the Assistant Director of Public Works, Ronald Howse, asking to discuss it. Howse suggested that the discussion take place with Larry Alewine and George Simpkins, who were the supervisors responsible for the evaluation. Alewine was Simpkins' immediate supervisor. The discussion took place. Robinson now claims that Larry Alewine asked him why he followed Patrick Dixon to City Hall and claims that Alewine blamed the evaluation on his involvement with Dixon. Alewine denies this and cannot recall any notoriety with regard to Robinson's association with Dixon. Not following procedures and problems with fellow employees Robinson's difficulties in working with others and in following procedures are well-documented throughout his 1985 and 1986 employment with the city. In June 1985, he received a notice of remedial action after placing a water meter in a location where the customer wanted it, rather than where he had been directed to place it. The customer was happy, but under the city's procedures, the serviceman does not have the authority on his own to change the supervisor's direction. On November 4, 1985, Robinson had an altercation with his supervisor, Larry Alewine, regarding a meeting that Robinson wanted with Chris Hill, the recently-appointed director of the city's water distribution division. Alewine attempted to convey Hill's directive that Robinson put his request in writing, but Robinson became loud, yelled at Alewine and started to leave. When Alewine attempted to call Robinson back to discuss the matter, Robinson retorted that he (Alewine) wasn't his daddy. Right after the incident Robinson apologized for getting loud and Alewine explained that he would still have to "write him up," because he had refused to come back in the building and was hollering. Robinson claims that the incident occurred prior to 7:30 A.M., when he was still on his own time, but this claim is unsupported by Alewine or any of the other several witnesses. On November 26, 1985, Robinson and Carl Wilder were at a job site trying to locate a buried water meter. Wilder, as the laborer, was doing the digging. Robinson, his superior, insisted that Wilder keep digging in a place where Wilder did not believe the meter was located. Both men's tempers flared and Wilder called the supervisor to the site to prevent further argument. Because it was near the end of the day, Robinson was excused and Wilder was taken back to the city garage. Chris Hill spoke with both Robinson and Wilder and determined that no disciplinary action was warranted. He told Wilder that if he had any complaints or grievances about Robinson, he would have to put them in writing. Chris Hill asked other employees if they had problems working with Robinson; he did not, as alleged by Robinson, solicit written statements against Robinson from other employees in the division. Chris Hill Most of Robinson's claims of discrimination by the city are directed toward Chris Hill, who, in October 1985, was placed in charge of the city's water distribution division. The City Manager, Philip Penland, was concerned about the management of the division. The Dixon/Wilder incident was an example. Larry Alewine and George Simpkins, both white Americans, were considered to be weak leaders. Robinson and Carl Wilder were identified as employees with whom there had been problems. Chris Hill started working for the City of Altamonte Springs in 1977 as temporary summer help and laborer. He gradually worked his way up through various levels of management and was highly regarded by his supervisors and by Philip Penland as a competent and capable employee, with a positive, "can-do" attitude. He was regarded as a tough manager who could obtain top performance from his employees. In addition to his duties at Altamonte Springs, he also is in charge of water plant operations in the neighboring towns of Eatonville and Maitland. Lack of tact and finesse in dealing with people, including subordinates, have been considered Hill's weak points. Hard times in the Water Distribution Division These characteristics and Hill's direction to shape up the division led to some tense months in the division. Larry Alewine, whose management style was certainly more relaxed, openly referred to Hill as "God" and "asshole." Alewine's position had been downgraded as a result of the reorganization, and he eventually left the city in 1987 after his position was eliminated from the budget. George Simpkins left a bitter resignation notice when he resigned in October, shortly after Chris Hill's appointment. In February 1986, Larry Alewine prepared an evaluation of Robinson which was reviewed, consistent with procedures, by Chris Hill. Hill did not believe the evaluation was strong enough, in light of his knowledge of the incident with Wilder and other minor problems with fellow employees. Both Hill and Scott Gilbertson, the Assistant Director of Public Works, met with Alewine and suggested that the evaluation should be changed. When Alewine declined, Chris Hill changed the evaluation. The evaluation, dated 3/6/86, rates Robinson overall as "Employee needs improvement." The written comments are very similar to those made by George Simpkins on the May 1985 evaluation; that is, the quality of his work was deemed generally good, but his conduct, ability to follow instructions, and ability to get along with fellow employees was noted as the real problems. While it is not apparent from the evaluation itself and the testimony in this proceeding how much of the evaluation was completed by Larry Alewine, it is clear that at least some of the negative written comments were made by him. (Respondent's exhibit #2.) The meeting with management officials and its aftermath Robinson wrote a protest of his evaluation which precipitated a meeting with himself, Chris Hill, Scott Gilbertson, Philip Penland, and the City Personnel Director, Sam Frazee. The evaluation was discussed; Robinson was told that his signing the evaluation only acknowledged its receipt and that he could provide his written notations on the back of the evaluation regarding portions with which he disagreed. The group also discussed an appointment Robinson had made with the city's worker's compensation physician. He had attempted to arrange his own follow-up visit for treatment of a work-related injury. The city's policy required that the appointments with the city's physician be made after notification to the supervisor. While explaining his actions, Robinson gave contradictory versions of what he had been told by the nurse in the doctor's office regarding the procedures. His testimony at hearing was also confused and inconsistent on this point. On direct, he testified that he had been told that authorization from the city is not necessary for follow-up visits. On rebuttal, however, he stated that the nurse had told him that the city personnel department would have to be notified, but not his foreman. (TR, Vol I, p. 77, Vol IV, p. 324-325). In the course of the same meeting, Robinson made allegations of wrongdoing by Larry Alewine, stating that Alewine had a meeting with his employees and encouraged them to write grievances against Chris Hill and had called Hill an "asshole" and "God." The City Manager considered these allegations to be serious and promised Robinson that an investigation would be made. The meeting then broke up. Ed Haven, an officer with the Professional Standards Bureau of the City Police Department was assigned to investigate the allegations of misconduct. This bureau normally conducts personnel-related internal affairs investigations and considers them administrative, not criminal. The investigation was initially inhibited by Robinson's refusal to answer Officer Haven's questions unless the investigation was expanded to include Chris Hill as well. Robinson was then ordered by the City Manager to participate. The inquiry sustained the allegations that Alewine had called Hill "asshole" and "God." This investigation spawned a second investigation as to whether Robinson had ever told another employee that he lied about Alewine in order to get an investigation against Chris Hill. The issue was never resolved, but Officer Haven found that a "preponderance of evidence indicates Robinson was untruthful during this investigation...," that Robinson did have a conversation with an employee, Barry Beavers, but denied it. (Petitioner's composite exhibit #1, Memorandum of Internal Inquiry #86-9998-03, April 15, 1986). The lead Utility serviceworker positions In Spring 1986, the city created two supervisor positions in the Water Distribution Division, titled "lead utility serviceworker," to supervise and oversee the work of the utility workers and their laborers. All three utility serviceworkers applied for the jobs: Robinson, Ronnie Oliver (Black American) and Barry Beavers (White American). Robinson was never considered a viable candidate and was interviewed as a matter of courtesy. Oliver and Beavers were chosen. Robinson concedes that Beavers was qualified and properly promoted, but he disputes Ronnie Oliver's qualifications. Ronnie Oliver began work one month after Robinson, in October 1984. He worked under Robinson as a laborer for some time and he freely acknowledges that Robinson taught him a lot. Oliver also had considerable personal initiative and taught himself with the use of materials he acquired from Larry Alewine. Oliver's performance evaluations were substantially better than Robinson's; by May 1986, the time of the promotion, he was evaluated as an "Outstanding" employee. Robinson had, in fact, been on the job less than Oliver, as he had sustained a work-related injury in December 1985, and was out for weeks at a time. He had not been cleared for full-time duty when he was interviewed and was absent from work when the positions were filled. Light duty Robinson alleges that he was given "make-work" light duty when he was returned to work after his injury, and was later denied light duty. The city furnishes injured employees with light duty on a case-by-case basis, depending on the capabilities and physical condition of the individual and the needs of the employer. Robinson was first assigned floor sweeping duties in June after his recurring back problems. Later he was given the task of painting an area near Hill's office. An assistant was assigned to paint the high and low portions of the wall. He was also given a chair to sit on and rest his back. This was the lightest duty available at the city at time. Other employees including a black who had cancer, were also given routine maintenance chores. While painting, Robinson injured his neck, shoulder and hands. He never returned to work after this injury in June 1986. The city informed him in July and August that it did not have light duty available. In September 1987, the City agreed to pay Robinson $47,000.00 (including $7,000.00 to his attorney), to settle his worker's compensation claim of permanent back injury. He has since applied for reemployment. As of the hearing in this proceeding, the city was reviewing his request for reemployment. This request is not at issue here. Various grievances In Spring 1986, as the result of some publicity about the arrest of illegal aliens, the city reviewed the work authorization status of its employees. Since Robinson had initially given the city a letter from INS stating that he was eligible to work pending an application for political asylum, he was asked again for authorization. He refused at first, and claimed this was harassment. He also claimed that he was subject to derision for being a CIA spy. He had told some fellow employees about his past and the news circulated. The employees mostly did not take the matter seriously, but in an employee meeting, someone asked Chris Hill whether it was true that Albert was a CIA spy. He replied that this was what Robinson claimed. At the same employees' meeting, Hill also stated that he did not think that Robinson was going to be around much longer. He made this remark based on his knowledge of Robinson's disciplinary problems. Hill was strongly reprimanded for this remark. He did not have the authority to terminate Robinson, and management had not taken steps to terminate him. Robinson has attributed various derogatory statements and epithets to Chris Hill. He claims that Hill said that no one would take the word of a "nigger" against him and that he didn't want Americans to take orders from a Jamaican. Hill vigorously denies these statements and no credible evidence was produced to support Robinson's claims. Nor was credible evidence presented of Robinson's claim that on July 3, 1986, Hill lost his temper and spat in his face. At hearing on November 2, 1987, Robinson, through his attorney, withdrew his allegation that he was defrauded of sick leave through a forged signature. (TR Vol IV, p. 293-294.) Summary of Findings Beyond his own unsubstantiated claim that Alewine told him so, there is no evidence that Robinson's problems with the city were the result of his rather inconspicuous involvement at the Patrick Dixon hearing. His problems clearly began when he was promoted to a position of some authority over others and his temper, loud mannerisms and difficulty working with others became an issue. Beginning with his response to his first slightly negative personnel evaluation, Robinson's reaction to every event in his employment, major and minor, was lengthy, rambling, confused and confusing written grievances, memoranda and letters. Robinson also carried a tape recorder to memorialize his encounters and (in his words) "...to intimidate people from molesting me..." (TR, Vol I, p. 243). Robinson's inconsistent accounting and mixing of facts in his scenario of alleged discrimination fail to make sense. Pressure was applied to blacks and whites, alike; of the four employees targeted as "problems," the two whites are gone (Alewine and Simpkins) and one black (Wilder) has been promoted. Evidence is clear that there were serious management problems in the city's Water Distribution Division in 1985, and the atmosphere which prevailed with reorganization of the division and Hill's arrival could very well have fueled Robinson's paranoia. His vehement protestations and repetitious and rambling litany of wrongs are either a sincere confused perception, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate a situation, which because of justifiable criticism of his job performance, was becoming increasingly uncomfortable. Nevertheless, his myriad allegations of discriminatory harassment, retaliation and of unlawful failure to promote, are unsupported by competent evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Albert Robinson's charges that the City of Altamonte Springs violated subsections 760.10(1)(a) and (7), F.S., by harassment failure to promote, and retaliation, be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2482 The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Addressed in summary form in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 4. and 5. Addressed in paragraph 5. Adopted in part in paragraph 8. The account of discussion with Alewine is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Adopted in part in paragraphs 6.-8., otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 6.-15. Addressed in paragraph 12. The characterization of Simpkins' motives and the mandate to fire the four employees are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 15. and 16. Adopted in part in paragraph 18., otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence or immaterial. 14-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, except for the comment about Robinson being terminated. See paragraph 34. Rejected as cumulative, unnecessary and argumentative (rather than factual). Addressed in paragraph 14.; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in paragraph 13., otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Addressed in paragraph 21. Addressed in paragraph 22. Addressed in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as unnecessary and unsupported by the competent evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in paragraphs 33 and 34, otherwise rejected as contrary to the evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 26. through 28. Addressed in paragraphs 29. through 30. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in paragraph 31. 34-35. Rejected as irrelevant. The "fraud" charge was withdrawn. See paragraph 36. 36-37. Rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. 6-12. Adopted in paragraphs 6. through 8. 13-15. Rejected as cumulative. 16-22. Addressed in paragraphs 15. and 16., otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 23. Adopted in paragraph 13. 24-27. Addressed in paragraph 14. 28-34. Addressed in paragraph 19. 35-38. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. 39-40. Adopted in paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. Adopted in paragraph 23. 44-49. Adopted in paragraphs 24. and 25. in substance. 50-60. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 61-66. Addressed in paragraph 32. 67-69. Addressed in paragraph 33. 70-72. Addressed in paragraph 34. 73-89. Addressed in paragraphs 26.-28.; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. 93-94. Adopted in substance in paragraph 29. 95-96. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 30. 99-102. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. 103-110. Rejected as irrelevant. The "fraud" charge was withdrawn at hearing. See paragraph 36. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev & Siwica, P. A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 David V. Kornreich, Esquire Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crossland, & Bramnick, P. A. Suite 1525, Firstate Tower 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA09-GM-231 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this ay of June, 2009. U.S. Mail: The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Robert Quintin Williams Williams, Smith & Summers 380 West Alfred Street Tavares, Florida 32778-3206 Hand Delivery Matthew Davis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Agency Clerk LOB ge Viren Ford
