The Issue Whether Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is authorized to charge and collect interest from Respondent, Florida Gaming Centers, Inc., on the unpaid value of the outsbook for the 1995-1996 meet from August 29, 1997, the date payment of the value of the outsbook was due, to September 8, 1998, the date payment was received by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent held a permit to conduct jai alai pari-mutuel wagering, under License No. 2909-D Amended, issued by the Department. Between July 1, 1995, and June 30, 1996, inclusive, Respondent held jai alai games for the purpose of conducting pari-mutuel wagering on those games. Respondent's meet for the relevant time period ended on June 30, 1996. One year and sixty days after the end of the State of Florida's (State) fiscal year of June 30, 1996, any "out" tickets that remained uncashed escheated to the State pursuant to Section 550.1645(2), Florida Statutes. Once these tickets or the value thereof escheated to the State, Respondent was required to pay the value of such tickets, as reflected on its outsbook, to the Department no later than August 29, 1997. Pursuant to the outsbook prepared by Respondent, the value of the outs for the 1995-1996 meet was $108,221.20. Nonetheless, Respondent failed to submit to the Department the value of the balance of the outsbook within the prescribed time frame and instead held these funds. On June 2, 1998, the Department served an Administrative Complaint on Respondent, alleging that Respondent had failed to timely submit the value of the outsbook to Petitioner. By letter dated September 4, 1998, Respondent submitted to the Department a check for $109,128.60 as payment for the unpaid value of Respondent's outsbook for the 1995-1996 meet. The Department received Respondent's payment on September 8, 1998. Of the total amount Respondent paid over to the Department, $108,221.20 was credited against the unpaid value of the outsbook for the 1995-1996 meet, resulting in full payment of the outstanding outsbook value. The remaining $907.40 paid by Respondent to Petitioner was an overpayment. Petitioner alleges that Respondent is responsible for interest accrued on the unpaid value of the outsbook for the period of time that amount remained unpaid. According to the Department, the interest owed by Respondent as a result of its failure to timely remit the value of the outsbook, "shall be determined at a rate per annum . . . equal to the State's average investment rate for the preceding month to the month for which interest is being calculated." The average interest rate earned on the investment of State funds as determined by the State Treasurer and/or Comptroller" for the time period of August 1997 through August 1998, was 6.73 percent. The Department determined that the interest "shall accrue on the unpaid aggregate principal amount due the State for the month(s) from the respective due date." Based on its calculations and after deducting Respondent's overpayment of $907.40, the Department asserts that Respondent owes the Department approximately $6,573.85 in accrued interest. Respondent disputes that the Department has authority to collect interest on the unpaid amount of the outsbook and alleges the powers of the Department under Section 550.0251, Florida Statutes, do not include such authority.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that (1) an administrative fine of $1,000.00 be imposed against the Respondent for the violation Section 550.1645, Florida Statutes; and, (2) Respondent shall receive a credit of $907.40 toward payment of the administrative fine. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 28th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah R. Miller, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William P. Cagney, III, Esquire 3400 Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Eric H. Miller, Esquire Chief Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Woodyard Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Big Poker Twenty-One, Sure 2 Win, and Florida Twenty-One are authorized games of poker under Sections 849.085(2)(a) and 849.086(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact Rule 61D-11.002(2)(a) and the Incipient Policy During the 1996 Session of the Florida Legislature, pari-mutuel permit holders were authorized, for the first time, to operate cardrooms at their facilities on days when live racing is being conducted, effective January 1, 1997. Only certain card games were authorized, and games have to be approved by the Respondent, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (the Division). Chapter 96-364, Laws of Florida (1996). When the Division first began implementing the new cardroom statute, it anticipated that it would be receiving requests for card games as they appeared in Hoyle's Modern Encyclopedia of Card Games, by Walter B. Gibson, published by Doubleday and Company, Inc., April 1974 1st Edition (Hoyle’s). Hoyle’s includes many games besides poker; in addition to a special section on poker, it includes special sections on pinochle and solitaire; the evidence is not clear as to the other kinds of card games in Hoyle’s. Initially, the Division promulgated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-11.002(2)(a) which provides: (2)(a) All card games in Hoyle's Modern Encyclopedia of Card Games, by Walter B. Gibson, published by Doubleday and Company, Inc., April 1974 1st Edition hereinafter (Hoyle's) incorporated herein by reference, that are authorized by and played in a manner consistent with Section 849.085(2)(a) and Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, shall be approved by the division. All other card games shall be approved by the division if the type of card games and the rules of the card games, as specified in BPR Form 16-001, meet the requirements of Section 849.085(2)(a) and Section 849.086, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The Division soon noticed that it was receiving requests for the approval of games alleged to be “poker,” but which deviated from the standard features of poker. In November, 1996, the Division began to develop a policy for the review of such games and began to require card games to use standard poker card and hand ranking and afford players the opportunity to bluff after seeing their hands. The Requests and Denials On or about November 8, 1996, the Petitioner, the St. Petersburg Kennel Club, submitted a request for approval for Big Poker 21. The Division denied approval on December 3, 1996. On or about December 19, 1996, the Petitioner submitted a request for approval Sure 2 Win. The Division denied approval on January 2, 1997. On or about January 23, 1997, the Petitioner submitted a request for approval for Florida Twenty-One. The Division denied approval on February 14, 1997. All three games are played in a non-banking manner. (The house is not a player in games played in a non-banking manner, a requirement for approval.) The Division initially simply advised the Petitioner that its proposed games were not authorized. Subsequently, in discovery depositions in this case, the Division advised the Petitioner more specifically, as follows: approval of Big Poker 21 was denied because Big Poker 21 fails to adhere to standard poker-hand rankings and does not allow for the possibility of bluffing, calling or raising; approval of Florida Twenty-One was denied because Florida Twenty- One fails to adhere to standard poker-hand rankings; and approval of Sure 2 Win was denied because in the five-card portion of Sure 2 Win, the players have no opportunity to wager or bluff after viewing the cards and simply win or lose on the hand dealt. The Division has approved 35 out of 39 card games submitted by cardroom operators. The four denied include Sure 2 Win, Big Poker 21, Florida Twenty-One, and Pompano 22. Pompano 22 is very similar to Florida Twenty-One. The card games, Hollywood 2-3 Flash and Hollywood 4-3 Flash, were approved by the Division on January 10, 1997. The Petitioner contends that, under the Division’s incipient policy and proposed rule, these games should not have been approved because they “do not provide for bluffing.” However, both afford players the opportunity to check or bet after seeing their first cards (the first two in 2-3 Flash, or the first four in 4-3 Flash). The card game, Three-Card Stud, also was approved by the Division on January 10, 1997. The Petitioner contends that, under the Division’s incipient policy and proposed rule, this game should not have been approved because it does not follow the standard poker hand rankings. However, the hand rankings are consistent with the standard poker-hand-ranking system, just adapted for a three-card hand. The Proposed Rule Notice of a rule workshop regarding the definition of poker was published in December 1996, and a workshop was held in January, 1997. The Division distributed a hand-out on poker at the January workshop, but the evidence is not clear as to the content of the hand-out. It appears to have been a list of seven issues for discussion, including: whether there has to be one or more betting intervals in a poker game; whether the players of poker have to be able to wager on the quality of his/her hand by either folding, calling, passing, or raising; and whether a poker game must use the standard poker hand rankings. On March 18, 1997, the Division proposed a rule to reflect its incipient policy regarding the elements of poker on which Sure 2 Win, Big Poker 21, and Florida Twenty-One were denied, and on which other games were approved. Standard Poker Standard poker is a non-banking game played with cards or tiles that generally include the following features: at least part of the player’s hand is known only to the player and is solely under the player’s control; there are two or more players; there is a pot created by wagers which constitutes the prize for winning; there is a standard ranking of hands which is not arbitrary and which is based on the mathematical expectation or difficulty of achieving a particular combination of cards; there is a standard ranking of cards from lowest to highest; each player has an opportunity to bet on the cards which comprise the player’s hand; and there are one or more betting rounds. The fundamental element that differentiates poker from all other forms of gambling is the bluff: the possibility that a player can win the game with a hand that ranks lower than another player’s. The game of poker is an American invention whose rules have been fairly standardized for almost a century. There is no mention of poker in Hoyle’s 1776 text. The rules of poker developed during the 19th century. The first reference to rules for a game resembling poker is in Hoyle’s 1857 text. Although draw and stud poker did not exist in 1857, the hand rankings were the same then as they are today, only without the straight or straight flush. The straight was introduced into the ranking system below the flush at the turn of this century. Draw poker and five-card stud developed during the Civil War, although straight poker was clearly the most important form of poker at that time. The ranking system that is in use today was firmly established by 1885. The standard poker-hand rankings of today, given in order from highest to lowest, are as follows: five of a kind (possible only when wild cards are used), straight flush (royal flush is highest), four of a kind, full house, flush, straight, three of a kind, two pair, pair, high card. The standard poker-card rankings of today, in order from highest to lowest, are as follows: A, K, Q, J, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, with the ace sometimes low instead of high. Petitioner’s Expert On July 19, 1996, the Petitioner’s expert, Steven Fox, submitted to the Division a set of suggested revisions to the Division’s proposed cardroom rules. Fox stated that the games of poker in Hoyle’s are inappropriate for commercial cardroom use and that it was better for the State to develop its own generic standard of poker: “Attached are some of my own [generic standard of poker] on commercial poker games and a generic definition of poker for reference.” As applied to commercial poker games, the features of poker that Fox suggested the Division use as a guideline “to evaluate whether a game should be classified as poker” include: (a) usually played with cards; (b) cards are ranked from designated lowest or worst to highest or best; (c) there is a ranking system which assigns relative value to each player’s combination of cards, where the ranking system is not arbitrary and is based on the mathematical expectation for receiving each combination; (d) each player can participate in the action based upon cards solely under his control . . . and knowledge of other players’ habits or styles; (e) at least some of the cards under a player’s control are known only to him; (f) each player has the opportunity to bet on the cards which comprise his hand and there may be more than one betting round; and (g) players bet against the relative holdings of other players. In his July 1996 materials Fox suggested that the Division consider the traditional poker ranking system of cards, in order from lowest or worst to highest or best, as follows: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Jack, Queen, King, Ace. “The Ace shall be treated as a one in low poker and in low straight sequences (A, 2, 3, 4, 5). Otherwise it will be assumed to be valued higher than all the other cards in assuming standard 52 card deck.” This is the exact same card ranking system listed in Hoyle’s. In his July 1996 materials, Fox suggested that the Division consider the traditional poker-ranking system of hands in descending order of value as: five aces (includes the joker when available), straight flush, four of a kind, full house, flush, straight, three of a kind, two pair, one pair, no pair (high card). This is the same hand-ranking system listed in Hoyle’s. At final hearing, Fox testified that it is “extremely difficult to pin down what exactly is poker”; that poker hand rankings are arbitrary and established by agreement of the players, i.e., “whatever the players want”; and that, because of the $10 pot limitation, games in Florida lend themselves more to “home-style” or “showdown” games. When questioned on cross- examination about these apparent contradictions, Fox asserted that his definition as submitted to the Division in July 1996, was “something that I used in more of the casino versions of poker, and I use this as a suggestion so that people can understand a casino version of poker.” But, nowhere in Fox’s July 1996 materials, does he state, suggest, or infer that his definition of poker is a “casino version” of poker, or that his definition would be inappropriate for use in Florida because of the $10 pot limitation. To the contrary, it was Fox’s desire that the Division incorporate his suggested definition of poker into its regulations. At the time he submitted his suggested definition of poker to the Division in July 1996, Fox was fully aware of the $10 pot limitation in Florida. Fox was paid by the Petitioner to provide expert testimony on its behalf at the hearing in the case at bar. Fox was not paid by the Petitioner for his proposed revisions and definition of poker submitted to the Division in July 1996. Dealer’s Choice Games Included among the poker games described in Hoyle’s are many dealer’s choice poker games. According to Hoyle’s, these games “run the gamut from mere variants of standard games to those that are wild beyond belief.” Some of these games— including Jacks High, Lalapalooza, Low Poker, One Card Poker, Place Poker, Second Hand Low, Tens High, Two Card Poker, and Zebra Poker—vary from the standard poker-hand rankings. Others— including High Spade Split, Jacks High, Tens High, and Zebra Poker—vary from the standard poker-card rankings. Some—including Cold Hands, Cold Hands Poker with a Draw, Blind Poker, and Show Down Poker—do not afford players the opportunity to bluff after seeing their hands. There also are other homestyle, dealer’s choice “poker” games, not listed in Hoyle’s, which do not conform to the Division’s definition of poker. These include 727 and 333, in which the object is to obtain a certain numerical total by adding the point values of cards. It was reasonable for the Division to want to narrow the definition of “poker” through its incipient policy and proposed rule. If all of the homestyle dealer’s choice poker games described in Hoyle’s (and games like them) were authorized, there would in effect be no definition of poker at all; whatever a dealer called poker would be poker. Big Poker Twenty-One and Florida Twenty-One Big Poker Twenty-One and Florida Twenty-One do not conform to the standard poker card ranking system. Face cards are all given exactly the same rank or value; each is worth 10 points, while aces are worth 1 or 11 points. The object of both Big Poker Twenty-One and Florida Twenty-One is to total 21 points, or as close to 21 points as possible, by adding the point values of cards. Players accumulate cards by drawing cards face up until a certain point value is reached, whereupon they “stand.” Big Poker Twenty-One and Florida Twenty-One both allow for an automatic win if the player’s first two cards total 21 points. An ace-king, ace-queen, ace-jack, and ace-10 each total 21 and are automatic winners. There are no automatic wins in poker. Big Poker Twenty-One and Florida Twenty-One both restrict the player’s ability to draw cards. This restriction is based on the point total. A player who accumulates 20 points is not allowed to draw any more cards. The game of poker does not restrict a player’s ability to draw cards simply because the player has attained a particular hand. There is no possibility of bluffing in Big Poker Twenty-One since players make their bets before they view their cards. It was reasonable for the Division to decide that neither Big Poker Twenty-One nor Florida Twenty-One are poker. Instead, they are variations of the game of Black Jack, or “Twenty-One,” as it is often called. Black Jack developed in the 1850s and was often played in a non-banking manner. It is still sometimes played today in a non-banking manner. Sure 2 Win The five-card hand, or “showdown” portion, of Sure 2 Win violates the fundamental rule of poker that players have to be able to make a bet after viewing their cards so that bluffing is possible. All participants must participate in the “showdown” portion. In the “showdown” portion of the game, the players wager before viewing their cards, which are then turned up to reveal the winning hand, with no further opportunity to bet. The winner of the showdown portion of Sure 2 Win wins strictly by chance since the player has no control over the deal of the cards, no opportunity to view the cards before making a bet, no opportunity to bluff, no opportunity to draw cards in order construct a higher ranked hand, and no control over the outcome of the showdown portion. The player who wins in the showdown portion of the game is not eligible to play the seven-card portion of the game. Other players can decide whether to bet on the seven-card portion of the game; however, that decision has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the five-card portion of the game. It was reasonable for the Division to decide that Sure 2 Win is not poker. The five-card showdown portion of the game is strictly a game of chance, and the winner cannot play the second, seven-card portion.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering enter a final order denying approval of Big Poker Twenty-One, Sure 2 Win, and Florida Twenty-One as authorized games of poker under Sections 849.085(2)(a) and 849.086(2)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 5th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell and Hoffman 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1841 Deborah R. Miller, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The factual issues in this unadopted-rule challenge relate to whether Respondent, in connection with the administration of the state’s gaming laws, has formulated statements of general applicability that have the effect of giving each slot machine licensee the rights (i) to maintain and operate an outdoor live gaming facility for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering activities, wherein slot machine gaming areas could not lawfully be located, so long as its slot machines are housed elsewhere, in an enclosed building; and (ii) to locate slot machine gaming areas in a separate, stand-alone building having no integral systems, structures, or elements, provided the building is located on the same parcel, and on the same side of the street, river, or similar obstacle, as the live gaming facility. If Respondent has developed such a statement or statements, then the ultimate issue is whether such statements meet the statutory definition of an unadopted rule.
Findings Of Fact PARTIES SCF is a Florida corporation whose principal place of business is located in Marion County. SCF has been in the business of breeding thoroughbred racehorses since 1996. The company also owns racehorses and, as an owner of racing animals, holds a Pari-Mutuel Wagering Business Occupational License, #PBU476648, from the Division. See § 550.105(2), Fla. Stat. As a licensed business owning racing animals, SCF is under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Division. In the three years preceding this action, SCF’s horses won approximately $120 thousand in purses from performing in race meets held at Florida pari-mutuel facilities.1 1 Although SCF is a licensed owner of racing animals, it is not a member of the Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc. (the “FHBPA”), a nonprofit corporation that advocates in support of Florida’s thoroughbred racing industry and represents the interests of the licensed owners and trainers who comprise its membership. This fact is relevant only to the question of whether SCF is precluded from maintaining this action, under the doctrine of administrative finality, by the Final Order entered in a case brought by the FHBPA in 2018 to challenge agency statements, similar to those at issue here, which the association alleged—but ultimately failed to establish—were unadopted Continued on next page... The Division is the state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing Florida’s gaming laws. It licenses and regulates pari-mutuel and slot machine gaming activities in Florida, as well as the professionals and businesses, such as SCF, that supply necessary goods and services to the gaming economy. The only places in Florida, in fact, where SCF’s thoroughbreds can legally perform in races upon which bets may be made are the several permitted pari-mutuel facilities, which are also subject to the Division’s regulatory jurisdiction; such tracks comprise the exclusive medium for live gaming activities. Calder is the holder of a pari-mutuel wagering permit and, in that capacity, owns a track called Calder Race Course, also known as Gulfstream Park West. As a permitholder, Calder must apply for an annual license to conduct pari-mutuel operations. See § 550.0115, Fla. Stat. This annual license gives the permitholder authority to conduct the pari-mutuel wagering activity authorized under its permit on the dates identified in the license. At all times relevant to this case, Calder has held a license to conduct thoroughbred horseracing performances, and SCF-owned horses have raced at Calder Race Course. In addition to its license to conduct pari-mutuel operations, Calder has held, at all times relevant hereto, a license to conduct slot machine gaming. SLOT MACHINE GAMING In 2004, voters approved an amendment to the Florida Constitution, which opened the door to the installation of slot machines at licensed pari- mutuel facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. See Art. X, § 23, Fla. Const. During its next regular session, the legislature enacted chapter 551 to implement the constitutional amendment. Under the original definition of rules. For reasons discussed much later in this Final Order, the undersigned concludes that the previous Final Order, while favorable to the Division on similar issues, is not a bar to SCF’s claims in this proceeding, because SCF was neither a party to the FHBPA case, nor in privity with the FHBPA. “eligible facility” set forth in section 551.102(4), seven pari-mutuel permitholders potentially qualified for slot machine licensure; a later statutory amendment increased that number to eight. A slot machine license may be issued only to a permitted pari-mutuel facility. That is, to become and remain a slot machine licensee, an eligible facility must operate a pari-mutuel facility in accordance with the provisions of chapter 550, Florida Statutes. So, as a condition of initial slot-machine licensure, a permitholder must demonstrate its compliance with chapters 551 and, as applicable, chapter 550. § 551.104(4), Fla. Stat. To renew, which must be done annually, a slot machine licensee must “[c]ontinue to be in compliance with” chapter 551; “[c]ontinue to be in compliance with chapter 550, where applicable[;] and maintain [its] pari-mutuel permit and license in good standing pursuant to the provisions of chapter 550.” Id. In short, slot machine gaming is secondary to pari-mutuel wagering operations because it cannot exist, lawfully, in the absence of such operations. This means, among other things, that an applicant for a slot machine license is required to have a “current live gaming facility,” in which pari- mutuel wagering occurs in the physical presence of real-time races or games, and that a live gaming facility (“LGF”) must be maintained at the permitholder’s pari-mutuel facility during the life of the slot machine license, if issued. See § 551.114(4), Fla. Stat. In 2005, when chapter 551 was enacted, all seven of the facilities initially eligible for slot machine licensure had large existing grandstands or other buildings that created indoor, conditioned spaces; these “conditioned environments,” in other words, were separated from the outdoor elements and conditions (wind, rain, heat, cold, etc.) by sheltering walls and roofs. Simply put, each of these facilities had a building envelope or exterior shell and, thus, each such facility fell within the definition of a “building” under the common usage of that term. It is reasonable to infer, if not presume, that when section 551.114(4) was being written, the legislature, or at least the drafters of the legislation who coined the term “live gaming facility,” had in mind the buildings then currently in use as “live gaming facilities” at the relatively few eligible facilities that would be subject to the law. At the time chapter 551 took effect, moreover, the Division, in fact, considered these buildings to be the permitholders’ LGFs. A slot machine licensee must have a designated slot machine gaming area (“SMGA”) where “slot machine gaming may be conducted in accordance with the provisions of” chapter 551. §§ 551.102(2), 551.114, Fla. Stat. Section 551.114(4) specifies where the licensee is allowed to locate its SMGA: Designated slot machine gaming areas may be located within the current live gaming facility or in an existing building that must be contiguous and connected to the live gaming facility. If a designated slot machine gaming area is to be located in a building that is to be constructed, that new building must be contiguous and connected to the live gaming facility. For ease of reference, the term “slot machine building,” or “SMB,” will be used herein to refer to any building besides the LGF in which a licensee optionally locates its SMGA. As the statute makes clear, every SMB, whether previously existing, newly constructed, upgraded, refurbished, retrofitted, or freshly painted, must be “contiguous and connected to” the LGF. This will be called the “CCT Requirement.” THE DIVISION’S INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE Over time as it implemented section 551.114(4), the Division interpreted the text in ways which SCF alleges constitute unadopted rules. The circumstances surrounding the development of these interpretations are interesting, and a good deal of evidence was adduced in this proceeding establishing them, but it is not necessary, for present purposes, to make detailed findings concerning these historical facts. Readers who would like to know more about the events leading to this rule challenge may read the Recommended Order (“Calder RO”) that the undersigned issued in The Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association, Inc. v. Calder Race Course, Inc., et al., DOAH Case No. 18-4997, 2019 Fla. Div. Admin. Hear. LEXIS 283 (Fla. DOAH May 24, 2019) (the “License Challenge”). If the undersigned were to make extensive findings of historical fact in this Final Order, such findings would be substantially the same as, if not identical to, the findings set forth in the Calder RO. The primary relevance, to the instant case, of the historical facts relating to the Division’s approvals of SMBs at Calder and another track (Pompano Park/Isle of Capri), respectively, would be to show that, despite the absence of rulemaking or other written evidence of its statutory interpretations, the agency has formulated (but not formally adopted) governing principles for making regulatory decisions—”nonrule policies,” in other words—whose existence and contents can be deduced from the agency’s actions, namely the issuance of slot machine licenses or renewals manifesting underlying determinations that this SMB or that one is compliant, as a matter of ultimate fact, with the provisions of chapter 551, including the CCT Requirement. Recently, however, on February 3, 2020, the Division issued the Calder FO, wherein the agency expressed very clearly not only its understanding of what the relevant words of section 551.114(4) mean (the semantic content), but also what law is made thereby (the legal content). It is, therefore, no longer necessary to deduce the Division’s statutory interpretations from its actions; that these statements exist, and have specific linguistic content, are matters now beyond genuine dispute, the statements having been communicated in writing by the agency itself.2 2 This is what the undersigned meant when he wrote in the Order Regarding Official Recognition that, based on the Calder FO, the Division’s interpretive statements relating to section 551.114(4) “appear to be not genuinely disputable.” In other words, to be clear, the existence and contents of the Division’s interpretive statements are now beyond reasonable Continued on next page... From the Calder FO, the Division’s interpretive statements can be fairly, accurately, and concisely described.3 The first statement of interest dispute, although there might be some relatively insignificant disagreements at the margins regarding the meaning of the agency statements. Independent of all that, the question of whether the Division’s interpretation of section 551.114(4) is the best interpretation, or even a reasonable one, is sharply disputed. While the correctness of the Division’s interpretive statements is a matter of continued conflict, that particular dispute need not be decided in this proceeding, whose focus, instead, is on whether the statements meet the definition of a rule, a question that has little to do with whether the statements reflect the best, or correct, reading of the statutory text. (A statement that expresses nothing but a literal comprehension of the statutory text, reflecting only such meaning as is readily apparent without reading between or beyond the lines of the codified language, is not a rule by definition; nor, however, is it an “interpretation,” strictly speaking. Such a literal paraphrase could be called “correct,” though, and so, to the extent a decision is required regarding whether a statement adds legal content to the underlying statute’s straightforward semantic content, some consideration must be given to the correctness, in this narrow sense, of the statement at issue.) 3 So that no one can misinterpret what the undersigned is doing here, let it be clear. First, the undersigned is not implying that the Calder FO is itself an unadopted rule. The Calder FO is, of course, an order, which determines the substantial interests of specifically named parties, subject to judicial review. The undersigned is saying, however, because it is indisputably true, that the Calder FO contains statements that communicate—expressly, unambiguously, and in specific language (not by implication or through interpretation)— the Division’s interpretation of section 551.114(4). In fact, the Calder FO includes a section titled “Interpretation of Section 551.114(4), F.S.” Thus, while the Calder FO is not, per se, an unadopted rule, it is evidence of the Division’s interpretation of a section 551.114(4); indeed, it is convincing evidence thereof. (The agency’s interpretive statements are not hearsay because what makes them relevant is their existence and contents, not the “truth” of the matters asserted. See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla Stat.) Further, the Division’s interpretation of the statute is, obviously, highly relevant because agency statements that interpret law fall within the definition of a rule when, as SCF alleges here, they do so in ways which give the law meaning not readily apparent from the raw semantic content of the statutory text being implemented. It should also be noted that it makes no difference where or how an agency communicates a statement of general applicability that meets the definition of a rule. There is no “final order immunity” that somehow shields statements contained in a final order from examination in a section 120.56(4) proceeding. We are concerned here with three basic questions: (i) does the statement exist; (ii) if so, what is the content of the statement; and (iii) does the statement’s content meet the definition of a rule? The Calder FO persuasively proves both the existence of the statements at issue and the contents of the statements issue. Second, in describing the Division’s interpretive statements, the undersigned is not attempting to summarize the entire Calder FO. Nor is he purposefully adding to, or subtracting from, the agency’s statements. This is not an exercise in straw-man argumentation. To the extent possible, the undersigned is using the agency’s exact words; his intent, again, is to express the Division’s statutory interpretation accurately and fairly. The Calder FO is available for anyone to read, and the undersigned invites everyone who is interested to do just that and decide for him or herself whether the descriptions herein of the Continued on next page... concerns the CCT Requirement. As the undersigned reads the Calder FO, the Division has interpreted the statute to mean that a licensee’s SMB is “contiguous and connected to” its LGF if the SMB and LGF: (i) “share a common boundary,” for which simply “being located on the same piece of property” is sufficient; (ii) are no more than a “short distance” from one another; (iii) are not on opposite sides of “a public roadway, waterway, or any [similar] barrier”; and (iv) are “connected” by a walkway between the two, for which an outdoor sidewalk is sufficient. In its Response in Opposition to the Order Regarding Official Recognition, however, the Division stated that and (iv) “may not be required” in every instance and, thus, are not necessary conditions. In other words, the SMB and LGF might be farther than a “short distance” from each other and still be “contiguous”; and the two structures, if respectively self-contained, might be “connected” other than by a “walkway” between them. Making this correction, the agency statement becomes: A licensee’s SMB is “contiguous and connected to” the LGF if the SMB and LGF: (i) “share a common boundary,” for which “being located on Division’s interpretive statements are accurate and fair. (The Division expressed some minor disagreements with the undersigned’s original descriptions of the agency interpretations at issue, and these disagreements will be addressed in the text above.) Third, relatedly, the undersigned emphatically disclaims any intention of using unfair descriptions of the Calder FO to turn “narrow issues” into “more general” statements having a “broader scope of applicability” than the agency intends. The fact is, however, that there is nothing “fact-specific” about the Division’s interpretation of section 551.114(4), and the Division’s insisting otherwise will not make it so. This point will be discussed further above, but let it be emphasized in this footnote that a statement’s relative applicability is determined based upon the level of generality expressed by the statement’s language, that is, by the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of the semantic content of the text. The more inclusive the statement, the more generally applicable it is. A statement of general applicability, so framed, is not rendered “fact-specific” simply because it has been applied to the facts of a specific case in determining the substantial interests of a particular party. the same piece of property” is sufficient;4 and (ii) are not on opposite sides of “a public roadway, waterway, or any [similar] barrier.”5 What cannot be disputed, bottom line, is that the Division, in its own words, interprets “the plain statutory language” of section 551.114(4) as “contemplat[ing]” that the SMB may be “a stand-alone separate building” from the LGF. See Calder FO at 42. From this interpretation, it follows logically that having structural elements in common with the LGF, or sharing integrated systems therewith (e.g., exterior envelope, HVAC, electric, and plumbing), is not a necessary condition of an SMB’s satisfying the CCT Requirement; that is, even without such integration, the SMB and LGF may be deemed statutorily “contiguous and connected to” each other, according to the Division. The undersigned will call this the “nonintegration principle.” The nonintegration principle is the Division’s seminal insight regarding the meaning of section 551.114(4); if the nonintegration principle were deemed false (incorrect), such determination would guarantee the falsity (incorrectness) of the Division’s statement that “the plain statutory language” of section 551.114(4) “contemplate[s]” that the SMB may be “a stand-alone separate building” from the LGF. This is because, to state the obvious, “a stand-alone separate building” is, by that description, a self- 4 Because it is necessary that all of the permitholder’s pari-mutuel facilities be located on the property “specified in the permit,” see section 550.0115, Florida Statutes, and because slot machines must be located “within the property of the [permitholder’s] facilities,” see sections 551.101 and 551.114(1), part (i) of the agency statement makes “shar[ing] a common boundary” practically a given, and certainly a gimme. 5 It is usually unhelpful to define anything by describing what the thing being defined is not, which entails a process of elimination. Saying that being “contiguous and connected” means being not separated by a public roadway, etc., tells us nothing that we didn’t already know; it is the answer to a question that no one would ask, akin to saying that the CCT Requirement prohibits a permitholder from locating its SMB in a different city or state from the LGF. Like part (i) of the agency statement, part (ii) imposes a “requirement” that is a gimme, if not a given. Taken together, the two parts, (i) and (ii), comprising the agency statement under consideration, come very close to eliminating the CCT Requirement altogether, reducing it to the ineffectual status of “requirement in name only.” As the Division sees it, the CCT Requirement has little practical effect, if any, other than ensuring that the SMB and LGF have the same address, which is already assured. contained structure that is not integrated with another structure. So, the Division’s statement that the statute allows the use of a nonintegrated SMB is true only if SMB/LGF integration is not a necessary condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement. In its Response in Opposition to the Order Regarding Official Recognition, the Division states that the Calder FO “does not comment on whether it is ever necessary, to satisfy the [CCT] requirement, that the SMB and LGF ‘have any common structural elements or integrated systems, e.g., exterior envelope, HVAC, lighting, etc.’“ This is trivially true inasmuch as the Calder FO does not specifically describe the nonintegration principle as such. But the point is irrelevant because, as just explained, if section 551.114(4) permits locating an SMGA in a separate, stand-alone building, as the Division maintains, then the nonintegration principle must exist, and it must be true, regardless of whether the Division actually utters the words that communicate the concept. If the Division meant to say more, i.e., to imply that there might be an as-yet unrevealed exception or exceptions to the nonintegration principle, this possibility, whatever else might be said about it,6 does not negate the nonintegration principle itself. This is because the principle does not hold that nonintegration is a necessary condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement; that is, integration does not guarantee failure. Nor does it hold 6 One thing that can be said if there exists an exception to the nonintegration principle is that an SMB’s “being located on the same piece of property” as the LGF would not be a sufficient condition for finding that the two “share a common boundary,” contrary to what the Division has said elsewhere. If there were an exception, then sometimes (when the exception applies) integration would be required in order for the two structures to share a common boundary and be deemed contiguous to one another. To explain, locating a self- contained SMB on the same piece of property as the LGF guarantees compliance with the “common boundary” requirement—i.e., is a sufficient condition therefor—only if the nonintegration principle has no exceptions. (The undersigned takes for granted that integration would never be required to meet the only other identified requirement, namely that the SMB and LGF not be separated by a public roadway, waterway, or similar barrier, because that condition would be so easily met by putting the two structures on the same side of the street or river.) that nonintegration is a sufficient condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement; that is, nonintegration does not guarantee success. Rather, the nonintegration principle holds that integration is not a necessary condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement; or, put another way, that nonintegration is statutorily permissible. Why is this significant? Because if section 551.114(4) literally requires an integrated SMB/LGF in all cases where the SMGA is located outside the current LGF, then the Division’s interpretation of the CCT Requirement is not readily apparent from what is actually stated in the statutory text, even if it might conform to the legislature’s communicative intent,7 which would mean that the agency has declared what the law shall be (a legislative power), as opposed to applying the law as it is (an executive power). And, as we know, an agency is authorized to exercise delegated legislative authority only through formal rulemaking. The second statement concerns the meaning of the term LGF, which the Division defines as being any area, including an “open-aired, unenclosed place” or “space,” from which patrons can “view … and/or [be] within the physical presence of” contests occurring in real time, and at which they may engage in pari-mutuel betting on such contests using equipment designed to facilitate these “live gaming activities.” In its Response in Opposition to the Order Regarding Official Recognition, the Division asserts that the foregoing description of its definition of the term LGF is too narrow, because the Division defines LGF to include the racetrack as well. The undersigned accepts this assertion to be true, and revises his original description accordingly. 7 The legislature might have intended, for example, to communicate meaning beyond the plain semantic content of the statutory text, whose full linguistic content thus could not be understood without an appreciation of pragmatic considerations, such as programmatic goals, arguably better known to the agency than to the citizenry. If so, the necessary and proper, lawful agency response would be to take quasi legislative action and adopt a rule. The track, of course, is the “field of play” for live horse racing performances, analogous to the three-walled court (or cancha) on which jai alai players perform. Clearly, there can be no LGF without a track or cancha; this practically goes without saying. Including the live performance site, definitionally, as an element of the LGF, however, is inconsequential to this case because neither a track nor a cancha, by itself, could constitute an LGF; there must be something to accommodate patrons, who obviously cannot watch, or place wagers on, live contests while sitting or standing upon the track or jai alai court. The relevant question in this case is whether the statute literally requires that something to entail conditioned space within an enclosed building shell.8 Reduced to its undisputed essentials, the Division’s position is that while an LGF may be an enclosed building, it needn’t necessarily be. An open- air, unenclosed place or space will suffice, if properly equipped to facilitate wagering. It is this “open-air option” to which SCF objects as the instantiation of a policy that exceeds the raw semantic meaning of the term LGF and thus constitutes an unadopted rule. SCF alleges that the Division has formulated a third unadopted rule, extrinsic to the Calder FO, which is not interpretive in nature but rather is a prescriptive statement to the effect that certain ultimate facts are conclusively determinable as a matter of law if the basic facts are undisputed. To the point, SCF contends that the Division has decided that, if a hearing is requested to determine whether an SMB satisfies the CCT Requirement, the proceeding will be governed by section 120.57(2) unless the objective facts on 8 At times, the Division appears to imply that the LGF comprises entire pari-mutuel complex, so desirous is the agency to get across the idea that the term LGF must be read expansively. While warning of the dangers of defining LGF too narrowly, the Division seems unconcerned about the opposite problem, namely reading LGF so broadly that the term ceases to have relevant meaning. If the LGF is everything on the permitted premises, then it is nothing specifically identifiable. For the LGF to have discernible boundaries—a necessary condition of contiguity with another structure, by the way—there must be a limiting principle or Continued on next page... the ground are genuinely disputed. SCF contends that the Division is using this “gatekeeper mechanism” to deny SCF (and another party) the formal hearings they have requested, pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), to challenge the renewal of Calder’s slot machine license, based on allegations that Calder does not have a statutorily compliant LGF and that its SMB fails to meet the CCT Requirement. The Division has not published a notice of rulemaking under section 120.54(3)(a) relating either to the open-air option, the nonintegration principle, or the gatekeeper mechanism. Nor has the Division presented evidence or argument on the feasibility or practicability of adopting any of these alleged statements of general applicability as a de jure rule. THE DIVISION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALLEGED UNADOPTED RULES As mentioned above, the historical facts giving rise to the agency interpretations at issue are not only, for the most part, undisputed, but also, more importantly, largely irrelevant for purposes of determining the merits of this action under section 120.56(4). The Division’s implementation of the alleged unadopted rules does have some bearing, however, on the question of SCF’s standing, which is a hotly contested issue in this case. Therefore, an abridged history follows. Of the eight pari-mutuel facilities eligible for slot machine licensure, only Pompano Park/Isle of Capri (“PPI”) and Calder have chosen the option contained in section 551.114(4) to erect a new building in which to locate their respective SMGAs. All of the other eligible permitholders opted to locate their SMGAs within their current LGFs; these were buildings, enclosing conditioned environments, not open-air places exposed to the elements. Because Broward County satisfied the local referendum requirement before Miami-Dade County did, PPI’s application for slot machine licensure was the principles to delimit the definitional scope. The Division has been reluctant to commit to such limiting principles. first to require the Division’s decision as to whether an SMB that was to be constructed would meet the CCT Requirement. The physical configuration of PPI’s SMB, as planned and built, was not “contiguous” to its existing LGF under any ordinary understanding of the word “contiguous,” which denotes actual contact along a common boundary; the buildings were in “reasonably” close proximity, but they did not communicate in the sense of opening into each other. Nor was PPI’s SMB “connected to” its LGF in accord with the image that readily comes to mind when thinking about how two contiguous structures would be connected to each other. The two separate, stand-alone buildings were “connected,” not physically, through any sort of direct contact, but figuratively, by basic transport infrastructure—i.e., a covered walkway between them.9 This apparent departure from the plain meaning of section 551.114(4) resulted from the Division’s desire to give the eligible permitholders some “leeway” in satisfying the strict statutory requirement that an SMB be “contiguous and connected to” the current LGF, according to David Roberts, who headed the Division from 2001 through 2009, and who was involved in making the decision.10 After Miami-Dade County satisfied the local referendum requirement in 2009, Calder applied for its initial slot machine license. Because Calder, 9 They were connected, that is to say, in the same way Tallahassee is connected to Jacksonville via Interstate 10. 10 On October 17, 2019, the agency head of DOAH began systematically reviewing every final order and recommended order prior to, and as a prerequisite of, its issuance. Pursuant to this review, the director makes written “comments and suggested edits” on some, but not all, orders. Although the presiding officer is not required to accept the director’s suggested edits, he is not given the option of declining the director’s review. As a result, the undersigned received two comments, one on the paragraph above and the other on paragraph 30 of this Final Order, which are, at least arguably, “relative to the merits,” and hence which are, or might be, ex parte communications prohibited by section 120.66(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (no “ex parte communication relative to the merits” shall be made to the presiding officer by “[a]n agency head,” among others). Erring on the side of caution and disclosure, the undersigned hereby places on the record the director’s comment concerning paragraph 24: “This is the crux of Continued on next page... like PPI, intended to place its SMGA in a self-contained casino, which would be newly constructed, Calder sought and received the Division’s permission to build a separate, stand-alone SMB pursuant to the same informal policy that had relaxed the strict CCT Requirement for PPI. The Division’s issuance to Calder of its initial slot machine license manifested the Division’s determination that Calder’s SMB and LGF, as initially configured after construction of the new SMB, were compliant with all of the statutory requirements for slot machine gaming licensure, including the CCT Requirement. In 2016, Calder demolished its grandstand building; as of this hearing, Calder has not replaced its former LGF with a new building of any kind. The demolition of the grandstand was one of several actions taken in furtherance of a business decision by Calder to distance itself from live racing activities at Calder Race Course. Other actions included slashing the number of annual performances during the race meet, from an average of 250 performances per year to 40 performances per year; the entry into a contract with Gulfstream Park to operate and manage Calder’s abbreviated race meet; and a reduction in the number of stalls available for the stabling and training of racehorses. There is an ongoing dispute as to whether Calder, without an enclosed building for live gaming, has a legally sufficient LGF. See License Challenge. What is not disputed is that Calder lacks an LGF capable of housing an SMGA in compliance with chapter 551, because an SMGA must be housed in a building. Calder’s “LGF,” such as it is, currently consists of open-air viewing areas where patrons can watch, and place wagers on, live races. The primary viewing area is located in front of the final stretch of the racetrack, at a spot called the “apron.” There are some outdoor seats and tiki huts on the apron, and, during the race meet, Calder erects a collapsible canopy tent, your most defensible finding.” Any party desiring to rebut this communication shall be allowed to do so in accordance with section 120.66(2). which, despite the absence of walls, provides a bit of shelter for wagering machines, video screens, and, of course, patrons, for whom additional outdoor seating is provided. The casino is at least 100 yards from the temporary “big tent.” It is possible to walk from the casino to the big tent, and return, on a concrete walkway, but the walkway is only partially covered, which means, when it rains, that patrons cannot go back and forth between the SMB and the “LGF” without getting wet. The walls of the SMB do not touch or abut the areas where patrons can view the live horse races and place bets. Indeed, a patron can walk into the main entrance of the casino, play the slot machines, and then leave, without once seeing, or being within a football field’s length of, an area that allows the viewing of live horse racing. At the time of the hearing, Gulfstream Park’s general manager was William Badgett. (Gulfstream Park, recall, operates Calder’s race meet pursuant to contract.) Mr. Badgett testified as follows regarding the decline in attendance and wagering after the demolition of Calder’s grandstand: [W]hat I’ve seen is—it’s, pretty much, in black and white. The numbers over the year—year to year to year[—]have declined mostly because this is the best that we can offer at the facility without building a permanent structure. … When it rains the water comes down the hill and people just leave. And what I’ve seen from the owners is they’ll come to watch a race. After the race they’ll leave. … [I]t has declined year to year to year in the handle and the amount of people that we see there. When asked whether, based upon his many years of experience in the horseracing industry as a trainer and as a track manager, he believed that the lack of a grandstand and of any protection from the elements has negatively affected the amount of live handle at the race meets at Calder Race Course, Mr. Badgett answered, “Yes, absolutely.” Describing the experience of watching a race at ground level on the apron, Mr. Badgett testified: What we do is we put televisions in the tent because it’s not as—You, more or less, have to walk down the apron if you want to see it live. There’s a structure in the middle of the—of the in-field, which is the tote board, which doesn’t work anymore. So, it’s a little bit of an obstruction. You can see [the race], but you’re better off watching it on television. The undersigned credits Mr. Badgett’s testimony on these points. DETERMINATIONS OF ULTIMATE FACT It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that both the open-air option and the nonintegration principle have the effect of law because the Division, if unchecked, intends consistently to follow them in carrying out its responsibilities to administer chapters 550 and 551 generally, and section 551.114(4) specifically. Each statement creates rights (in the form of expanded locational options for SMBs and architectural options for LGFs) that are exercisable by slot machine licensees.11 While directly regulating the physical plant of a permitted pari-mutuel facility, these statements collaterally regulate live gaming licensees, including businesses owing racing animals such as SCF, whose licensed occupations require access to, and the use of, the permitholders’ LGFs and other pari-mutuel facilities. From the perspective of a licensed racehorse owner, the LGF (which it neither owns nor controls) is the environment for its audience, the spectators whose money (wagered on races) helps fund the purses and awards that compensate the licensee for its services. A law that allows an LGF to be an open-air place as opposed to a climate controlled 11 The undersigned hereby places on the record the director’s comment regarding paragraph 30: “Finding the agency’s future intent as a matter of fact is troubling.” Any party desiring to rebut this communication shall be allowed to do so in accordance with section 120.66(2). Continued on next page... building is detrimental to the interests of a business licensee whose success in a pari-mutuel occupation depends upon the continued presence of a large, paying audience, for the obvious reasons that an open-air place is unlikely to be as comfortable, or as amenity-rich, as a building; and, taken together, less comfort and fewer amenities, relatively speaking, are more likely to discourage potential customers from showing up.12 Similarly, the nonintegration principle negatively affects the interests of live gaming licensees such as SCF because it allows the permitholder literally to draw patrons away from the live gaming activities upon which the live gaming licensees depend, to a “nearby,” but physically separate and independent, SMB. The relative draw of the SMB, moreover, which must be an enclosed building, is enhanced if the LGF, pursuant to the open-air option, does not afford patrons a conditioned environment. That is, when the nonintegration principle works in tandem with the open-air option at the same pari-mutuel facility, the result is even more disadvantageous to live gaming licensees, because the disequilibrium in patron comfort, as between slot machine players and live game spectators, ratchets up as the LGF becomes more stripped-down. The bottom line is that the nonintegration principle and the open-air option are unadopted rules because, in the Division’s hands, they create legally protected opportunities for permitholders to design, configure, and construct their physical plants, in ways that predictably and substantially affect live gaming licensees. 12 The undersigned regards this as self-evident. Common, everyday experience informs the undersigned—who doubts that any reasonable person can genuinely deny—that an enclosed, dry, heated or cooled environment, separated from the outdoors, where a spectator can sit and watch a race without being exposed to direct sunlight, wind, or insects, is more attractive to potential customers, in the main, than an open-air place where the spectator might be uncomfortably hot or cold, windswept, and bitten by mosquitoes; thus, a building is a relatively stronger draw. Continued on next page... The gatekeeper mechanism, in contrast, while perhaps having some of the characteristics of a general principle, is primarily a quasi-judicial ruling, operative only in the context of a quasi-judicial administrative proceeding, and lacking any broad regulatory effect. While such a ruling plainly affects the interests of the party or parties to the particular proceeding, it is judicially reviewable without the mediation of yet another administrative proceeding (unlike an intended regulatory decision, which becomes final unless a hearing is requested).13 To be sure, the question of whether an agency statement to the effect that “formal hearings shall not be granted if the historical facts are undisputed, leaving for determination only the ultimate fact of compliance” (whose level of generality is somewhat higher than the gatekeeper mechanism at issue) could be deemed an unadopted rule is fairly debatable. Yet, even that apparently rule-like statement, which arguably “describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency,”14 would be actionable only as an interlocutory order in a quasi-judicial proceeding, because only such a proceeding would give the agency an opportunity to use the statement. It is hard, therefore, to distinguish between 13 In other words, if a party disagrees with the agency’s decision under section 120.569(2)(a) to deny the party’s request for a formal hearing, that party does not need to request another administrative hearing to contest the decision. The agency’s decision to deny a formal hearing and proceed under section 120.57(2) is a nonfinal order, which may be immediately appealed under section 120.68(1)(b), see United States Service Industries-Florida v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 383 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), or reviewed on plenary appeal from an adverse final order, see Spuza v. Department of Health, 838 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). If the agency refuses to discharge its duty under section 120.569(2)(a), mandamus will lie. See Cmty. Health Charities v. Dep’t of Mgmt. Servs., 961 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 14 See § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. (definition of “rule”). “policy” and “reversible error” in this instance.15 Ultimately, the undersigned determines that the gatekeeper mechanism is not a rule by definition.
The Issue The issues for disposition in this case are whether proposed rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, which consist of the repeal of said rules, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes; and whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering’s (Respondent), failure to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs constituted a material failure to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in chapter 120.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes, and cardrooms pursuant to section 849.086, Florida Statutes. Each Petitioner currently holds a permit and license under chapter 550 to conduct pari-mutuel wagering and a license under section 849.086 to conduct cardroom operations. Petitioners offer designated player games at their respective cardrooms. The rules proposed for repeal, rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), relate to the play of designated player games. Rule 61D-11.001(17) provides that “‘[d]esignated player’ means the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position.” Rule 61D-11.002(5) provides that: Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ potential wagers shall be governed by the cardroom operator’s house rules. The house rules shall: Establish uniform requirements to be a designated player; Ensure that the dealer button rotates around the table in a clockwise fashion on a hand to hand basis to provide each player desiring to be the designated player an equal opportunity to participate as the designated player; and Not require the designated player to cover all potential wagers. Both rules were adopted on July 21, 2014. Both rules list sections 550.0251(12), and 849.086(4) and (11) as rulemaking authority, and section 849.086 as the law implemented. Designated Player Games A designated player game is a subset of traditional poker games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table, instead of all players competing against each other. The term “designated player game” is used synonymously with “player banked games.”3/ However, a designated player is not a cardroom operator. In traditional “pool” poker games, each player bets into a central pool, with the winning hand(s) among all of the players collecting from the pool of bets, minus the cardroom rake. In designated player games, each player at the table makes an individual bet, and compares their hand against the designated player’s hand. If the player’s hand is better than the designated player’s hand, then the designated player pays the player from the designated player’s stack of chips. If the designated player’s hand is better than the player’s hand, then the designated player collects the player’s wager. At an eight- seat table, it is as though there are seven separate “player versus designated player” games. Designated player games were first played at the Ebro (Washington County Kennel Club) cardroom in 2011. The game, known as “double hand poker,” was demonstrated to Respondent, and subsequently approved for play. Though the internal control that describes the rules of game play was not offered in evidence, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the game used a designated player. After Respondent’s approval of Ebro’s double hand poker, Respondent entered an order rescinding its approval due to concerns that the use of a designated player resulted in the establishment of a banking game. That decision was challenged, and subsequently withdrawn, with the result being that “Ebro may immediately resume play of Double Hand Poker as approved by the division.” In 2012, the Palm Beach Kennel Club cardroom began offering “tree card poker” with a designated player. Although tree card poker had been approved by Respondent, the designated player element had not. Thus, since the game was not being played in accordance with the approved internal control, it was unauthorized. Respondent investigated the playing of tree card poker at Palm Beach Kennel Club. A video demonstration was provided that showed two hands of tree card poker being played with a designated player. The video depicted a single designated player playing his hand against each other player at the table, and paying or collecting wagers based on each individual hand. After having reviewed the demonstration video, Respondent ultimately determined that the use of a designated player did not violate the prohibition against banking games as defined. The Adoption of the Designated Player Rules As requests for approval of internal controls for games using designated players became more common, Respondent determined that it should adopt a rule to establish the parameters under which designated player games would be authorized. On December 16, 2013, after having taken public comment at a series of rulemaking workshops, Respondent published proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) which provided as follows: 61D-11.002 Cardroom Games. * * * Card games that utilize a designated player that covers other players’ wagers shall: Allow for only one designated player during any single hand; Not require the designated player to cover all wagers that could be made by the other players in the game; Not allow other players to cover wagers to achieve winnings that the designated player could have won had he or she covered the same wagers; Not allow or require a player to buy in for a different amount than any other player in the game in order to participate as the designated player; and Rotate a button or other object to designate which player is the designated player. The button or other object shall rotate clockwise around the table to give each player the opportunity to participate as the designated player. On February 14, 2014, a challenge to the proposed rule was filed that objected to restrictions on the manner in which designated player games could be conducted. The rule challenge hearing was continued, and the case placed in abeyance pending negotiations between the parties. On March 14, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change to the proposed rule 61D-11.002, which added the following provisions to proposed rule 61D-11.002: The designated player shall: Cover the table minimum for each participating player; and Pay each player an amount above the table minimum equal to their pro rata share of the pot in the event the designated player cannot cover all wagers. A public hearing on the changes to the proposed rule was held on May 8, 2014. As to the designated player provisions of the proposed rule, Respondent received the following comment: [I]f we could modify this . . . taking the existing paragraph 5 and come up with three new criteria, one being uniform requirements for a designated player included within the house rules; allowing for the dealer button to rotate on a hand-by-hand basis for qualified designated players; also, not requiring the designated player to cover all potential wagers, but nonetheless allowing the house rules to set a designated minimum buy-in amount or just a chip count. I think if we had those particular parameters, we would allow the preservation of this game to continue in its current fashion . . . . And . . . we’re going to avoid [] any argument that the department has somehow created a banked card game, because the biggest thing here is that we’re not requiring that the designated player meet all the theoretical payouts of the game. On May 19, 2014, written comments were submitted on behalf of several pari-mutuel facilities. Those comments included proposed language that is identical to the rule that was ultimately adopted, and included the following: Multiple jurisdictions have determined a key element to banked card games is the house requiring all wagers be covered. We propose this language to distinguish between lawful games and impermissible banked games. On June 9, 2014, Respondent filed a Notice of Change that adopted the industry’s proposed language, and changed proposed rule 61D-11.002 to its present form. On June 13, 2014, the challenge to proposed rule 61D-11.002(5) was voluntarily dismissed, and the case was closed. On July 21, 2014, rule 61D-11.002(5) became effective. There can be little doubt that Respondent understood that it was, by its adoption of rule 61D-11.002(5), recognizing player banked games in which a designated player plays his or her hand against each other player at the table. The rule is substantial evidence that, as of the date of adoption, Respondent had determined that designated player games did not violate the prohibition against “banking games” as that term is defined in section 849.086. Internal Controls Over the course of several years, beginning generally in 2011 and extending well into 2015, Respondent was presented with internal controls from cardrooms around the state for playing designated player games. Internal controls are required before a particular game may be offered, and describe the rules of the game and the wagering requirements. The internal controls submitted by the Jacksonville Kennel Club; the Daytona Beach Kennel Club; the West Flagler Associates/Magic City Poker Room; and the Naples/Ft. Myers Greyhound Track Cardroom, described games in which designated players played their hand against those of the other players at the table, and paid and collected wagers from the designated player’s chip stack based on the rank of the designated player’s hand against the individual players. The games described did not involve pooled wagers, and clearly described player banked games. Respondent approved the internal controls for each of the four facilities. The process of approving internal controls occasionally included the submission of video demonstrations of the games described in the internal controls for which approval was being sought. Approval of internal controls was never done without the review and assent of Respondent’s legal department or the division director. With regard to the rules of the designated player games that underwent review and approval by Respondent, “all of them are about the same, few differences.” From 2011 through mid-2015, Respondent approved internal controls for playing one-card poker, two-card poker, three-card poker, Florida Hold ‘Em, and Pai Gow poker using designated players at numerous cardroom facilities. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent was aware of the fact that, for at least several facilities, “eligible” designated players were required to meet minimum financial criteria, which ranged from a minimum of $20,000 in chips, up to $100,000 in chips. In the case of the Daytona Beach Kennel Club cardroom, internal controls called for a designated player to submit an application, agree to a background check, and submit a deposit of $100,000. Respondent approved those internal controls. DBPR Training In August 2015, Mr. Taylor was invited by the Bestbet cardroom in Jacksonville4/ to participate in a training session it was offering for its employees. Mr. Taylor is an investigator for Respondent, and visited the pari-mutuel facilities at least once per week. Mr. Taylor was invited by the facility to get an overview of how the cardroom games that had been approved by Respondent, including designated player games, were played. The games that were the subject of the training were substantially similar to those depicted in the April 2012 training video, and those he had observed during his weekly inspections. The designated player games for which training was provided had been approved by Respondent. In September 2015, training in designated player games was provided at Respondent’s Tallahassee offices to several of its employees. Mr. Taylor perceived the training “as an overview to give us an idea of what we are going to see.” Neither Mr. Taylor nor any other participant in the training offered any suggestion that the training was being provided in anticipation of a shift in Respondent’s practice of approving the internal controls for designated player games. Current Rulemaking On September 23, 2014, Respondent published a Notice of Development of Rulemaking. The notice cited 15 of the 30 subsections of chapter 61D-11 as being the subject areas affected by the notice, and provided that “[t]he purpose and effect of the proposed rulemaking will be to address issues discovered in the implementation and practical application of cardroom rules adopted on July 21, 2014.” There is nothing in the notice to suggest that Respondent had modified its position on designated player games, and its continued approval of institutional controls approving such games is strong evidence that it had not. On August 4, 2015, Respondent published a Notice of Meeting/Workshop Hearing for a rule workshop to be held on August 18, 2015. The Notice listed each rule in chapter 61D-11 as the “general subject matter to be considered,” including those related to games of dominos. Respondent asserted that it had “posted a version of amended cardroom rules that included the [repeal of rule 61D-11.005] on its website,” though such was not published, nor did Respondent provide a record citation in support of its assertion. On October 29, 2015, Respondent published its proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11. Rule 61D-11.001(17), which defines the term “designated player” as “the player identified by the button as the player in the dealer position,” was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.002(5), as set forth above, which had established the standards for designated player games, was proposed for repeal. Rule 61D-11.005 was proposed for amendment to add subsection (9), which provided that “[p]layer banked games, established by the house, are prohibited.” On December 2, 2015, the Division held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. During the public hearing, Mr. Zachem made it clear that the intent of the proposed amendments was to change the Division’s long-standing and consistently applied construction of section 849.086 as allowing designated player games to one of prohibiting designated player games, and in that regard stated that: The rules pertaining to designated player games are now going to be correlated with the statute that is the prohibition against designated player games. The statute does not allow designated player games. There has to be a specific authorization for a type of game in statute, and there is none in 849.086 pertaining to designated player games . . . . When some of these definitions in other areas were created, I don’t think that the concept of what these games could even become was fathomed by the division. Given the process by which internal controls for designated player games were approved by Respondent, including written descriptions and video demonstrations of play, the suggestion that Respondent could not “fathom” the effect of its rules and decisions is not accepted. On December 11, 2015, Petitioners individually filed petitions challenging the validity of the proposed rules. The cases were consolidated and ultimately placed into abeyance pending efforts to resolve the issues in dispute. Agency Action Concurrent with Rulemaking After the December 2015 public hearing, and prior to the adoption of any amendments to chapter 61D-11, Respondent filed a series of administrative complaints against cardrooms offering designated player games. Those administrative complaints were very broadly worded, and reflected Respondent’s newly-developed position that designated player games constituted “a banking game or a game not specifically authorized by Section 849.086, Florida Statutes.” In that regard, Mr. Zachem testified that a cardroom could have been operating in full compliance with its Respondent-approved internal controls and still have been the subject of an administrative complaint.5/ The position of Respondent was made clear by Mr. Zachem’s statement that if a cardroom has an approved designated player game “where a banker is using their table, their dealer, their facility they [the cardroom] are establishing a bank.”6/ Thus, there can be little doubt that Respondent now construes section 849.086 to mean that player banked games constitute prohibited “banking games” because, by allowing the player banked game in its facility, the cardroom “establishes” a bank against which participants play. After the December public hearing, Ms. Helms was instructed that she was to no longer approve internal controls if they included provisions regarding designated players. That blanket instruction came with no conditions. Since that instruction, the internal controls for at least one facility have been disapproved, despite their being “about the same” as internal controls that had been previously approved for other facilities. Ms. Helms testified that after the December 2015 rule hearing, “things kind of turned around” with regard to Respondent’s position on designated player games. She then rethought her selection of words, stating instead that “things changed.” Given the totality of the evidence in this case, Ms. Helms’ statement that the position of Respondent towards designated player games “turned around” is the more accurate descriptor. Notice of Change On January 15, 2016, the Division published a Notice of Change/Withdrawal of proposed rules. Through the issuance of this notice, the Division withdrew proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). The proposed repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5) remained unchanged. Since that notice of change, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Respondent has stopped approving internal controls that propose the offering of designated player games, and has continued to take action against facilities that offer designated player games. Respondent’s statements and actions, including those made in the course of this proceeding, demonstrate that Respondent intends the repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), to effectuate the prohibition of designated player games despite the withdrawal of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9). Lower Cost Regulatory Alternative When it proposed the subject amendments to rule 61D-11 on October 29, 2014, Respondent had not prepared a statement of estimated regulatory costs. Rather, the notice of proposed rule provided that: The agency has determined that this rule will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the agency. The agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of estimated regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: the economic review conducted by the agency. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding the statement of estimated regulatory costs, or to provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so in writing within 21 days of this notice. On November 19, 2015, in conjunction with the rulemaking process described above, a number of licensed cardroom operators, including some of the Petitioners, timely submitted a good faith proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative (“LCRA”) to the proposed amendments to chapter 61D-11 that would have the effect of prohibiting designated player games, citing not only the creation of rule 61D-11.005(9), but the repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5). A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the LCRA indicated that the rule was likely to directly or indirectly increase regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. The LCRA, as described in the letter of transmittal, also concluded that regulatory costs could be reduced by not adopting the proposed rule amendments, thus maintaining Respondent’s previous long-standing interpretation of section 849.086, and thereby accomplishing the statutory objectives. Respondent employed no statisticians or economists, and there was no evidence to suggest that any such persons were retained to review the LCRA. Though Mr. Zachem did not “claim to be an expert in statistics,” he felt qualified to conclude that the LCRA was “a bit of a challenging representation.” Thus, Respondent simply concluded, with no explanation or support, that “the numbers that we received were unreliable.” Respondent did not prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs or otherwise respond to the LCRA. Respondent argues that its abandonment of proposed rule 61D-11.005(9), which was the more explicit expression of its intent to prohibit designated player games, made the LCRA inapplicable to the rule as it was proposed for amendment after the January 15, 2016, notice of change. That argument is undercut by the fact that Respondent did not amend its statement of estimated regulatory costs as a result of the change in the proposed rule. Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that Respondent, by its decision to disapprove internal controls that included designated player games, and its enforcement actions taken against cardrooms offering designated player games, specifically intended the amendments repealing the designated player standards to have the effect of prohibiting designated player games. Thus, despite the elimination of the specific prohibition on designated player games, there was no substantive effect of the change. Therefore, the LCRA remained an accurate expression of Petitioners’ estimated regulatory costs of the proposed rule. Ultimate Findings Respondent has taken the position that the repeal of rule 61D-11.005(9) was undertaken “[f]or clarity with the industry.” That position is simply untenable. Rather, Respondent has taken an activity that it previously found to be legal and authorized and, by repealing the rule and simply being silent on its effect, determined that activity to be prohibited. By so doing, Respondent has left it to “the industry” to decipher the meaning and effect of a statute that is, quite obviously, ambiguous and in need of the interpretive guidance that has been and should be provided by rule. The evidence is conclusive that, by its repeal of rule 61D-11.002(5), Respondent simply changed its mind as to whether playing with a designated player constituted the establishment of a prohibited banking game.7/ It previously determined that such games were lawful under the terms of section 849.086; it has now determined they are not. Though there is substantial evidence to suggest that the reason for the change was related to the renegotiation of the Seminole Compact, the reason is not important. What is important is that Respondent has taken divergent views of the statute in a manner that has substantially affected the interests of Petitioners. For Respondent to suggest that its repeal of the rules is a clarification, a simplification, or a reflection of the unambiguous terms of the statute, and that Petitioners should just tailor their actions to the statute without any interpretive guidance from Respondent, works contrary to the role of government to provide meaningful and understandable standards for the regulation of business in Florida. Respondent cannot, with little more than a wave and well-wishes, expect regulated businesses to expose themselves to liability through their actions under a statute that is open to more than one interpretation, when the agency itself has found it problematic to decipher the statute under which it exercises its regulatory authority.
The Issue Whether subsections (1) and (2) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A-1.074 enlarge, modify or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, or are arbitrary or capricious, and thus constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated facts and the uncontested affidavit of H. French Brown, IV, the following findings of facts are made. The rule provisions at issue in this proceeding are subsections (1) and (2) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 12A- 1.074, hereinafter referenced as "the Rule." The Rule provides: 12A-1.074 Trade-Ins. Where used articles of tangible personal property, accepted and intended for resale, are taken in trade, or a series of trades, at the time of sale, as a credit or part payment on the sale of new articles of tangible personal property, the tax levied by Chapter 212, F.S., shall be paid on the sales price of the new article of tangible personal property, less credit for the used article of tangible personal property taken in trade. A separate or independent sale of tangible personal property is not a trade- in, even if the proceeds from the sale are immediately applied by the seller to a purchase of new articles of tangible personal property. Where used articles of tangible personal property, accepted and intended for resale, are taken in trade, or a series of trades, at the time of sale, as a credit or part payment on the sale of used articles, the tax levied by Chapter 212, F.S., shall be paid on the sales price of the used article of tangible personal property, less credit for the used articles of tangible personal property taken in trade. A separate or independent sale of tangible personal property is not a trade-in, even if the proceeds from the sale are immediately applied by the seller to a purchase of new articles of tangible personal property.1/ The Rule states that it is intended to implement the following statutory provisions: Sections 212.02(15), 212.02(16), 212.07(2), 212.07(3), and 212.09, Florida Statutes. Section 212.02, Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part: 212.02 Definitions -- The following terms and phrases when used in this chapter have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: * * * "Sale" means and includes: (a) Any transfer of title or possession, or both, exchange, barter, license, lease, or rental, conditional or otherwise, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of tangible personal property for a consideration. . . . "Sales price" means the total amount paid for tangible personal property, including any services that are a part of the sale, valued in money, whether paid in money or otherwise, and includes any amount for which credit is given to the purchaser by the seller, without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of materials used, labor or service cost, interest charged, losses, or any other expense whatsoever. . . Trade-ins or discounts allowed and taken at the time of sale shall not be included within the purview of this subsection. . . Section 212.07(2), Florida Statutes, set forth the method and manner by which a dealer is to charge and collect sales tax. Section 212.07(3), Florida Statutes, sets forth penalties for a dealer who fails to collect sales tax. Neither of these provisions affects the matters at issue in this proceeding. part: Section 212.09, Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant 212.09 Trade-ins deducted; exception.-- Where used articles, accepted and intended for resale, are taken in trade, or a series of trades, as a credit or part payment on the sale of new articles, the tax levied by this chapter shall be paid on the sales price of the new article, less the credit for the used article taken in trade. Where used articles, accepted and intended for resale, are taken in trade, or a series of trades, as a credit or part payment on the sale of used articles, the tax levied by this chapter shall be paid on the sales price of the used article less the credit for the used article taken in trade. [2/] GameStop is a Minnesota corporation that is authorized to do business in the State of Florida, and a registered dealer for purposes of collecting and remitting sales and use tax to the Department. GameStop is a publicly held international retailer of new and used video game hardware, software, and accessories, with over 6,000 stores worldwide, including stores in Florida. One of GameStop's customary business practices is to accept from its customers used gaming software, hardware, and accessories that the GameStop store manager determines is in resalable or re-furbishable condition. In return for the used articles, a GameStop customer may choose among three options: Option 1: The customer may receive cash in exchange for the used items. Option 2: The customer may apply the value assigned to the item by the store manager as part payment toward the immediate purchase of another new or used item from GameStop. Option 3: The customer may receive a credit for the value of the used item, which may be used only toward the purchase of new or used items from GameStop at some time in the future. If the GameStop customer elects Option 1, he receives 20 percent less value in the cash exchange than he would have received pursuant to the part payment offered by Option 2 or the credit toward a future purchase offered by Option 3. For a customer who chooses Option 3, GameStop tracks outstanding credits by issuing to the customer an "EdgeCard." When the customer returns to a GameStop store and requests to apply credits toward the purchase of a new or used item, the GameStop salesperson can swipe the electronic strip on the back of the EdgeCard and learn the credit amount available to the customer. The EdgeCard system merely tracks the amount of ongoing credits available to the customer. It does not record any request made by the customer to reserve or identify a specific item toward which the credits will later be used. The credits on an EdgeCard never expire. Once the customer has chosen Option 3, he may go to a GameStop store or access the GameStop website at any time thereafter and apply the credit on his account toward the purchase of new or used items from GameStop. GameStop also offers traditional gift cards that are purchased via cash or credit card rather than in exchange for used articles. Purchases made using a gift card or gift certificate are taxable for the full purchase price.3/ When a customer uses a gift card to purchase an item at a GameStop store, GameStop does not reduce the taxable sales price by the amount of the credit or value stored on the gift card and used in the purchase. GameStop assigns no redeemable cash value to the EdgeCard or to traditional gift cards. GameStop does not allow a gift card to be used to store credits obtained through the exchange of used items, reserving that function exclusively to the EdgeCard. The value of a GameStop gift card can be redeemed only through the purchase of new or used items from GameStop. Credits can be added to an EdgeCard only by turning over used articles to GameStop. A customer may not purchase credits. A credit on an EdgeCard can only be redeemed by the subsequent purchase of new or used items from GameStop. The GameStop customer who selects Option 3 first submits his used game or item of hardware to the GameStop store, which assigns it a dollar value and credits that amount to the customer's EdgeCard account in exchange for the item. At some later date, the customer returns to the GameStop store and trades the credit stored on the EdgeCard for some used or new item. The customer may build up credits on the EdgeCard with any number of transactions over any length of time before trading in the credits for an item from GameStop. The customer is not required to identify the item toward which he wishes to apply his EdgeCard credits until the time he actually trades the credits for the item. The Edge Card system replaced GameStop's former practice of requiring a customer who chose to obtain a credit for the submission of used articles to retain a cash register receipt showing the amount of the credit. This "paper credit" would then be redeemable toward the purchase of another item at a later date. There is no expiration date on an EdgeCard, a gift card, or a paper credit. GameStop does not replace the credits on a lost EdgeCard or a lost gift card. For purposes of accounting, GameStop carries unredeemed EdgeCard credits on its books for a period of three years as customer liabilities. GameStop does the same for unredeemed value on gift cards. GameStop continues to honor unredeemed EdgeCard credits and gift card values that are more than three years old, but no longer carries them on its books as customer liabilities. Prior to 2007, for the purpose of collecting sales tax from its customers, GameStop deducted the value of EdgeCard or any paper credits used in the purchase of new or used items from the purchase price for the purpose of calculating sales tax due. GameStop has remitted to the Department tax for the entire sales price of new or used items purchased from approximately January 2007 through August 31, 2007, in response to an audit by the Department, without reducing the taxable sales price by the value of any EdgeCard or paper credits used. GameStop has a return policy that allows a customer who is not satisfied with an item purchased from GameStop to return the item within a certain period of time and under certain conditions. When a customer returns an item in compliance with GameStop's return policy, the customer receives full retail value back, including the amount of the tax paid on the original purchase. A customer who returns an item in compliance with GameStop's return policy can elect to receive the return value in the form of cash, as a reimbursement to the customer's credit card, or as value stored on a GameStop merchandise card. The GameStop merchandise card does not record credits received via the return of used articles. The Department states that its historical administration and interpretation of the Rule and the statutes it implements do not strictly limit trade-in credits to a simultaneous exchange situation, or to transactions occurring within any particular time frame. However, the Department states that it does require the customer to identify the merchandise to be purchased with the EdgeCard credits at the time the credits are acquired. The Department does not consider the transaction to constitute a "trade-in" unless the item to be purchased with the EdgeCard credits has been specifically identified by the customer at the time the customer first returned a used item to GameStop.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Emergency Order of Suspension; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this matter, the Respondent, Robert L. Seamans, held alcoholic beverage license no. 23-00987, series 4-COP, for the licensed premises located at 11425 S.W. 40th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida, known as the Lucky Lady. Respondent, age 64, has held alcoholic beverage licenses in the states of New York or Florida since 1963. Respondent has never been charged or reprimanded for a beverage law violation until these proceedings. At all times material to this case, the Respondent employed a barmaid at the Lucky Lady who was known as "Stella." Also present at the Lucky Lady during relevant time periods was a drifter known to the bar patrons as "Tom". In exchange for food and/or the use of the bar kitchen, Tom assisted the barmaids by carrying out trash, stocking the beer cooler, or filling the ice bins. Although Tom was not an employee at the Lucky Lady, he, like many of the regular patrons, had unrestricted use of the Lucky Lady's kitchen area. Sometime prior to April, 1990, a bar located near the Lucky Lady was closed by the Department following an investigation and a determination that controlled substances were being either sold or possessed on the licensed premises. Respondent was aware of the action taken to close the local bar and was further aware that undesirable persons from that bar might attempt to patronize the Lucky Lady. Respondent had considered joining the Department's Responsible Vendors Program but did not. Respondent's policy was to exclude any customer suspected of improper conduct whether related to drugs or other inappropriate activities. To effect that policy Respondent maintained a "barred" list which listed those individuals either by name or description who were not welcome at the Lucky Lady. Employees were instructed to request any person on the barred list to leave the facility. In the event such person refused, the police were to be summoned. On numerous occasions not described below, patrons of the Lucky Lady have observed Respondent escorting persons from the bar who were suspected of, or were known to have exhibited, improper conduct. Respondent relied on his wife, Tanya, to assist him to monitor the interior areas of the Lucky Lady. It was Mrs. Seamans' custom to remain in the licensed premises throughout the evening hours and to watch for any improper conduct. If she observed anything suspicious, she would either report the activity to her husband or to an employee for further investigation and/or action. Unfortunately, Mrs. Seamans sustained a broken hip on April 29, 1990, and was unable to supervise the licensed premises after that date. The Respondent did not obtain a replacement to perform Mrs. Seaman's monitoring function. During May, 1990, Vincent Weiner, a law enforcement investigator employed by the Department, conducted an undercover narcotics investigation of the Lucky Lady. To effect his purpose, Mr. Weiner assumed the name "Vinnie Capio" and began to patronize the licensed premises. On May 5, 1990, Mr. Weiner and a confidential informant went to the Lucky Lady and asked Stella if cocaine were available. Stella directed the two men to the restroom. Once there, they proceeded to complete the transaction with Tom based upon the price which had been negotiated with Stella ($25.00). On this occasion, in exchange for the $25.00, Mr. Weiner received a clear baggie containing a substance which was later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 8, 1990, Mr. Weiner returned to the Lucky Lady and again inquired if cocaine were available for purchase. On this date, Stella went to the kitchen and returned with a packet which was exchanged with Mr. Weiner across the bar counter for $25.00. This packet was later analyzed to be cocaine. At all times when Mr. Weiner was seated at the bar counter, other patrons were also present at the counter during the course of the transactions. Mr. Weiner attempted to make a second purchase of cocaine on May 8, 1990. Similar to the prior transaction of that date, Stella went to the kitchen but returned with a written message for Mr. Weiner which she handed to him (instead of another packet). Tide message stated, "he's OUT he got rid of all of them already." Stella did not identify the "he" noted in the message. On May 15, 1990, Mr. Weiner purchased two packets of cocaine at the Lucky Lady. During the first transaction, Stella advised Mr. Weiner to enter the kitchen where he met Tom. Tom then took a packet from an envelope on the kitchen shelf and exchanged it for $25.00. Later in the evening, Mr. Weiner gave $25.00 to Stella while Tom removed another packet from the envelope and handed it to the investigator. This second exchange also took place in the Lucky Lady kitchen. Both of the packets purchased on this date were later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 18, 1990, the investigator returned to the Lucky Lady and purchased two packets from Stella and Tom. Again, the exchange took place within the kitchen and the amount for these transactions totalled $50.00. The substance obtained on this date was later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 22, 1990, Mr. Weiner was seated at the bar when Stella asked him if he would be needing anything that evening. The investigator placed $25.00 on the bar while Stella went to her purse (located behind the bar counter) and retrieved a packet which she then exchanged for the money. This transaction took place in front of the other patrons seated at the bar. Later in the evening, in the same manner as described above, Mr. Weiner purchased a second packet from Stella. Both of the packets obtained on this date were later analyzed and found to be cocaine. On May 29, 1990, Stella was again behind the bar at the Lucky Lady. On this date, Mr. Weiner negotiated for one packet (which she obtained from her purse located within the bar area) in exchange for $25.00. This packet was later analyzed and found to be cocaine. The Respondent was present within the premises at the Lucky Lady during at least one of the transactions described above. There is no evidence that Respondent was personally involved in the exchanges nor that he was aware of the sales. The Respondent does not dispute that the substance purchased by Mr. Weiner on each of the occasions described above was cocaine. During the course of the investigation Mr. Weiner observed video poker games located within the licensed premises. The games were coin operated and required the player to choose a hand for five card draw poker. By discarding any or all of his original hand, the player attempts to, by the chance of the game, receive a winning hand. The game awards points for Winning hands and subtracts points for losing hands. If a player accrues more points than he paid for, he finishes ahead of the machine. On May 22, 1990, Mr. Weiner finished playing the video poker game with a total of 36 points. That total was 16 more than he had originally purchased. Mr. Weiner consulted Stella regarding the results and she wrote his name and the point total on a piece of paper which she then placed near the cash register. On May 23, 1990, Mr. Weiner returned to the Lucky Lady and requested his "mail." He intended to obtain his winnings related to the video game he had played the day before. He received $9.00 which he believed was the amount he was due for accruing the 36 points. No other explanation as to why Mr. Weiner would receive $9.00 from the bar (except in connection with video game results) was suggested by either party. On May 31, 1990, an Emergency Order of Suspension was executed by the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. That order was served on the Respondent on June 1, 1990, and the licensed premises have been closed since that time. On June 1, 1990, an inspection of the Lucky Lady premises was conducted by agents of the Department. The Respondent had keys to the video poker games described in Paragraphs 16 and 17.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license no. 23-00987, series 4-COP, for the premises located at 11425 S.W. 40th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-3447 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. To the extent the drug transactions are outlined in findings paragraphs 7 through 13, the Department's paragraphs 4 through 12 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. To the extent the video poker games are addressed in findings paragraphs 16 and 17, the Department's paragraphs 13-15 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 16 through 18 are accepted. But see also finding paragraphs 3 and 4. Except as addressed in finding paragraph 2, paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant, comment or argument not constituting a factual finding. Paragraph 5 is rejected as recitation of testimony. The video poker games were games of chance in that the machine, of its own design (not a player's choosing) dictated the hand received by the player. Paragraphs 6 through 9 are accepted. It is accepted that Respondent did not personally engage in the illegal sales recounted in the order; otherwise, paragraph 10 is rejected a irrelevant, argument or comment. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry A. Amoon Continental National Bank Building Suite 408 400 Southwest 107th Avenue Miami, Florida 33174 John B. Fretwell Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
