08-000603 John And Ruth Discher vs. Monroe County Commissioners Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, December 31, 2008.

Summary: Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Respondent committed a discriminating housing practice against them by failing to release or remove affordable housing deed restrictions.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOHN AND RUTH DISCHER, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 08-0603

)

MONROE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

on June 16, 2008, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Errol H.

Powell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John and Ruth Discher, pro se

182 Northeast 931st Street

Branford, Florida 32008

For Respondent: Robert B. Shillinger, Jr., Esquire

Christine Limbert-Barrows, Esquire

Monroe County Attorney Office

Post Office Box 1026

Key West, Florida 33041-1026

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination is whether Respondent

discriminated against Petitioners in violation of the Fair

Housing Act by failing to release them from a 20-year affordable

housing deed restriction.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

John and Ruth Discher filed a fair housing discrimination

complaint against the Monroe County Commissioners (Monroe

County) with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD). The complaint was investigated by the

Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). The Dischers

alleged that Monroe County discriminated against them through

its failure to make a reasonable accommodation by refusing to

release them from a 20-year affordable housing deed restriction.

On January 7, 2008, the FCHR issued a Determination of No

Reasonable Adverse Cause (No Cause) determining that no

reasonable cause existed to believe that a discriminatory

housing practice had occurred.

The Dischers timely filed a Petition for Relief from a

housing discriminatory practice with FCHR against Monroe County.

On February 1, 2008, FCHR referred this matter to the Division

of Administrative Hearings.

At hearing, the Dischers testified in their own behalf and

entered nine exhibits (Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1, 2, 4-9,

and 12) into evidence. 1 Monroe County presented the testimony of

four witnesses and entered seven exhibits (Respondent's Exhibit

numbered 1-5, 9, and 10) into evidence. Official Recognition

was taken of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-20.110, Monroe

County’s Comprehensive Plan; and Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.

A transcript of the hearing was ordered. At the request of

the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was

set for more than ten days following the transcript. The

Transcript, consisting of two volumes, was filed on July 7,

2008. Prior to filing its post-hearing submission, Monroe

County filed a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction (Motion) on

August 1, 2008, which, in essence, alleges that the Dischers

failed to meet its burden at hearing and requests an order

dismissing the Dischers’ housing complaint. This Recommended

Order addresses whether the Dischers met their burden and

recommends an action for the FCHR to take; therefore, the Motion

is denied but the ground for the Motion is addressed in this

Recommended Order. The parties timely filed their post-hearing

submissions, which were considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order. 2

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. No dispute exists that Mr. Discher is handicapped, as

indicated in his medical records, for purposes of the Fair

Housing Act.

2. John and Ruth Discher own the property located at 22916

Bluegill Lane, Cudjoe Key, Florida, with the following legal

description: Lot 32, Block 10, Cudjoe Ocean Shores, as recorded

in Plat Book 6, Page 76, of the Public Records of Monroe County,

Florida.

3. At the time of hearing, the Dischers did not live in

the residential home on the property but rented it.

4. No dispute exists that Monroe County is a political

subdivision of the State of Florida having regulatory

jurisdiction over the Dischers’ property.

5. Since around 1979, Monroe County has been designated as

an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC).

6. As an ACSC, increased State oversight of and

involvement in local planning decisions is required by the

Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Administrative

Commission, and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as

the State land planning agency.

7. The Florida Legislature imposed a series of “principles

for guiding development” in the Florid Keys. § 380.0552(7),

Fla. Stat. One of the principles for guiding development

imposed by the State is “to make available adequate affordable

housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.”

§ 380.0552(7)(j), Fla. Stat.

8. In 1992, the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) was

adopted by the Florida Administrative Commission on behalf of

Monroe County in order to limit growth in the Keys. The purpose

and intent of ROGO was to facilitate implementation of goals,

objective and policies set forth in Monroe County’s

comprehensive plan relating to many areas of concern, including

the protection of the environment (including endangered species

and species on the concerned list), residents, and visitors;

hurricane evacuation; road improvement; property and property

development. ROGO consists of a competitive point system, based

on a complex scoring system, and those who obtain the top points

receive allocations. Point values are accessed on and using a

number of criteria.

9. Under the ROGO system, property owners, who wish to

build houses on vacant land, must compete to receive a limited

number of residential allocations. The yearly number of

building allocations is limited by state administrative rule.

Property owners seeking building allocations compete against

each other in order to receive one of the limited number of

allocations.

10. In 1996, Monroe County’s comprehensive plan was

effective. Prior to 1996, Monroe County received very few

applicants for ROGO; however, after the comprehensive plan

became effective the competition under ROGO increased

tremendously. Developers and persons with high economic means

became the majority of those able to receive points in order to

obtain the majority of the limited allocations. With the

increase in competition, affordable housing became a concern.

11. The ultimate goal of Monroe County under the ACSC

program is for it (Monroe County) to get into the position of

being able to protect the environmental resources, provide for

hurricane evacuation, and do everything that is required in

Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and be removed or “de-designated”

as an ACSC.

12. Applicable to the instant matter, affordable housing

was defined in Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations,

Section 9.5-4, which provided in pertinent part:

(A-5) Affordable housing means housing

which:

* * *

(c) With respect to a housing unit to be

occupied by moderate-income persons, that

monthly rents, or monthly mortgage payments,

including taxes and insurance, do not exceed

thirty (30) percent of that amount which

represents one hundred twenty (120) percent

of the median adjusted gross annual income

for households within Monroe County, divided

by 12 for a period of twenty (20) years.

The dwelling unit must also meet all

applicable requirements of the United States

Department of Housing and Urban Development

minimum property standards as to room sizes,

fixtures, landscaping and building

materials, when not in conflict with

applicable laws of Monroe County.

(d) For the purposes of this section,

“adjusted gross income” means all wages,

assets, regular cash or noncash

contributions or gifts from persons outside

the household, and such other resources and

benefits as may be determined to be income

by rule of the department of community

affairs, adjusted for family size, less

deductions allowable under section 62 of the

Internal Revenue code; and

(e) In which, if permitted by law,

preference is given to local contractors.

The threshold for a household’s income to qualify for affordable

housing was set by this regulation.

13. Further, Monroe County Code, Land Development

Regulations, Section 9.5-266, applicable to the instant matter,

provided in pertinent part:

(a) Affordable Housing:

(1) Notwithstanding the density limitation

in section 9.5-262, the owner of a parcel of

land shall be entitled to develop affordable

housing as defined in section

9.5-4(A-5). . . .

* * *

(3) Before any certificate of occupancy may

be issued for any structure, portion or

phase of a project subject to this section,

restrictive covenant(s), limiting the

required number of dwelling units to

households meeting the income criteria

described in paragraph (4)(a)-(f) of this

subsection (a) running in favor of Monroe

County and enforceable by the county, shall

be filed in the official records of Monroe

County. The covenant(s) shall be effective

for twenty (20) years but shall not commence

running until a certificate of occupancy has

been issued by the building official for the

dwelling unit or units to which the covenant

or covenants apply.

(4) In order for the owner of a parcel of

land to be entitled to the incentives

outlined in this section, the owner must

ensure that:

a. The use of the dwelling is restricted to

households that derive at least seventy (70)

percent of their household income from

gainful employment in Monroe County; and

* * *

e. The use of the dwelling is restricted

for a period of at least twenty (20) years

to households with an income no greater than

one hundred twenty (120) percent of the

median household income for Monroe

County . . . .

This regulation sets the limitation for covenants at 20 years,

with the time period beginning to run at the issuance of the

certificate of occupancy by the building department.

14. Under the ROGO plan, a person was awarded additional

points if the person agreed to the imposition of an affordable

housing deed restriction. Being awarded the additional points

meant that a person would receive an allocation in a shorter

period of time.

15. At that time, Mrs. Discher was an employee of the

Monroe County Sheriffs Department.

16. The Dischers completed a ROGO application. They

wanted to be awarded additional points to reduce the period of

time for them to receive an allocation for the construction of

their home.

17. The Dischers completed an Annual Affidavit of

Qualification for Affordable Housing (Residential Dwelling

Unit). The Affidavit provided, among other things, an

acknowledgement by the Dischers that the Affidavit was a waiver

of payment of the required impact fees; that Mrs. Discher was an

employee of the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department and at least

70 percent of the household’s income was derived from that

employment; that the single family home was restricted for 20

years to household’s with adjusted gross income of a certain

amount; that the Dischers would file an approved deed

restriction indicating “that, either (1) the deferred impact

fees shall become due and owing if the unit no longer qualifies

as Affordable Housing, or, (2) that the dwelling unit shall be

restricted by the affordable housing criteria for twenty years

commencing from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy”;

and that the Dischers understood that, if affordable housing was

used to gain points in the allocation system, the single-family

home would be restricted by the covenants for 20 years.

18. Mr. Discher prepared an affordable housing deed

restriction for a residential dwelling unit in 1997. The

Affordable Housing Deed Restriction, prepared by Mr. Discher,

was executed by the Dischers on July 2, 1997.

19. Provision II of the Affordable Housing Deed

Restriction provided, among other things, an acknowledgement

that “fair share impact fees” shall be paid by any person prior

to receiving a building permit for any new land development.

20. Provision III of the Affordable Housing Deed

Restriction provided, among other things, an acknowledgement by

the Dischers that they were being exempt from payment of their

fair share impact fees for the single family home to be

constructed by them on their property.

21. Provision IV of the Affordable Housing Deed

Restriction provided, among other things, that the sale,

transfer or rental of their single family home shall only be to

persons who qualify under Monroe County’s current affordable

housing eligibility requirements as established and amended from

time to time.

22. Provision V of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction

provides, among other things, that the covenants shall be

effective for 20 years and shall begin to run at the issuance of

certificate of occupancy by the building department.

23. Provision VI of the Affordable Housing Deed

Restriction provides, among other things, that the Dischers used

the affordable housing program to gain additional points in the

permit allocation system.

24. The Affordable Housing Deed Restriction contains no

provision for removal of the affordable housing deed

restriction.

25. The Dischers were given additional points. Their

wait-time for an allocation was reduced, and they received an

allocation to build their single family home.

26. The Dischers attempted to pay impact fees on or about

October 2, 1997. They were informed by the building department

that they were not required to pay the impact fees and their

check for the impact fees was returned to them.

27. They obtained a mortgage loan and completed their

single family home. A certificate of occupancy was issued on

June 30, 1999.

28. Mr. Discher testified at hearing that the only reason

that he and his wife applied for the ROGO program and that he

prepared and he and his wife executed the Affordable Housing

Deed Restriction was because an employee of the Monroe County

Building Department informed him that they (the Dischers) could

be released from the affordable housing deed restriction simply

by paying the fair share impact fee at any time.

29. Before ROGO, Monroe County had an affordable housing

ordinance that permitted the removal from affordable housing by

paying the impact fees. A household benefited by not initially

paying impact fees; but, the household could later decide to pay

the impact fees, come forward and pay the impact fees, and be

removed from affordable housing. However, after ROGO was

adopted, the option to later pay the impact fees and be removed

from affordable housing no longer existed. ROGO contained no

mechanism for a person to pay the impact fees and be removed

from affordable housing before the time limit expired or to be

removed from affordable housing before the time limit expired.

30. At hearing, the building official was identified but

did not testify. Insufficient evidence was presented to

ascertain whether the building official had the apparent

authority to allow the Dischers to pay the impact fees and

remove them from the affordable housing restrictions prior to

the 20 years. Consequently, the evidence is insufficient to

demonstrate that the Dischers reasonably relied upon the

building official’s representation to support a release from the

affordable housing restrictions.

31. No copy of any release from the affordable housing

deed restrictions recorded in the official records of Monroe

County was presented at hearing. The evidence is insufficient

to demonstrate that Monroe County had released any persons from

affordable housing deed restrictions.

32. In 2005, the Dischers made a request to Monroe County

for removal of the affordable housing deed restrictions. The

Dischers were notified by Monroe County that no provision

existed in the Monroe County Code or Monroe County’s

Comprehensive Plan for removal of the affordable deed

restrictions prior the effective date of their expiration or

termination and that its Comprehensive Plan provided that

affordable housing projects shall be required to maintain the

project as affordable housing on a long-term basis in accordance

with deed restrictions. Furthermore, the Dischers were notified

by Monroe County that prospective occupant(s) of the affordable

housing must meet the qualifications for affordable housing.

33. The Dischers attempted to pay the impact fees in order

to be released from the affordable housing deed restrictions.

They attempted to pay the impact fees on at least two occasions—

March 20, 2006, and February 20, 2007. On each occasion, their

payment was refused by Monroe County. Monroe County determined

that payment of the impact fees would not release the Dischers

from the affordable housing deed restrictions, and, therefore,

refused and returned the Dischers’ payments. Moreover, no

provision in the Monroe County Code permitted the removal of the

affordable housing deed restrictions.

34. Monroe County admits that, under the guidelines in

place when the Dischers obtained affordable housing, the

Dischers are not restricted to a selling or renting price for

their single family home. However, they are restricted as to

the income of prospective buyer(s) or renter(s), i.e., the

prospective buyer(s) or renter(s) must meet the income

guidelines set forth in the Monroe County Code.

35. Prior to and during the entire process involving the

ROGO program, Mr. Discher was disabled. A copy of a letter

written by the Dischers in September 1997, in which Mr. Discher

indicated his disability, was forwarded to Monroe County. After

the completion of the Dischers’ home, Mr. Discher’s health

deteriorated.

36. At hearing, Mr. Discher admitted that, prior to filing

the discriminatory fair housing complaint, he had never

mentioned his disability to Monroe County in relation to having

the affordable housing deed restrictions removed. Moreover, at

hearing, he admitted that Monroe County had not discriminated

against him on the basis of his disability by refusing to remove

the affordable housing deed restrictions.

37. Mr. Discher’s physicians recommended to him that he

move away from the Keys to improve his health. Furthermore,

eventually, Mr. Discher needed to be closer to the locations

where he was receiving his medical treatments, which were

outside of the Keys.

38. The Dischers finally moved away from the Keys to be

closer to the locations where Mr. Discher was receiving his

medical treatments. They rented their single-family home in

Monroe County. Mrs. Discher was forced to return to work.

39. If the Dischers are released from the affordable

housing deed restrictions or if the affordable housing deed

restrictions are removed, the Dischers would sell the

single-family home.

40. A Senior Planner with DCA, Ada Mayte Santamaria,

testified at hearing as an expert in community planning.

Ms. Santamaria testified that neither Monroe County’s

Comprehensive Plan nor its Land Development Regulations allow

for the removal of the Dischers’ affordable housing deed

restrictions; and that, if the affordable housing deed

restrictions were released, DCA would probably issue a notice of

violation against Monroe County for not properly implementing

its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and

probably recommend to the Administration Commission that Monroe

County’s allocations for the year following such release be

reduced because of the failure of Monroe County to enforce and

implement its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development

Regulations. Ms. Santamaria further testified that Monroe

County is allowed to submit two proposed comprehensive plan

amendments per year; and that, because of the process involved

in proposed amendments, including review by DCA, a proposed

amendment by Monroe County to release affordable housing deed

restrictions would take a minimum of six months and could take

up to a year and a half to complete the process.

41. At a Monroe County Commission meeting held on

January 17, 2007, the Dischers requested to be released from

their affordable housing deed restrictions based on hardship due

to Mr. Discher’s medical conditions. At the meeting, copy of

his medical documents, identifying his disability, was

distributed to the Commissioners. The Commissioners denied the

Dischers’ request. However, the Commissioners also decided that

they wanted to address extreme hardship situations and

unanimously voted to direct its staff to begin work on an “exit

strategy” for affordable housing deed restrictions on the basis

of extreme hardship situations. The Commission staff

represented at the meeting that such a process would take at

least three months and indicated that Monroe County’s

Comprehensive Plan may have to be amended in conjunction with

what the Commission wanted. At the time of the final hearing in

the instant matter, approximately a year and a half later, no

“exit strategy” had been brought before the Commission. No

evidence was presented that the Commission had decided that it

no longer wanted to develop an “exit strategy.” No evidence was

presented as to why the process had not begun.

42. The Dischers are convinced that Monroe County wants to

take their property. The evidence is insufficient to

demonstrate that Monroe County wants to take the Dischers’

property.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

43. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the

parties thereto, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (2008).

44. The standard of proof is preponderance of the

evidence. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2008).

45. These proceedings are de novo . § 120.57(1)(k), Fla.

Stat. (2008).

46. The Fair Housing Act is found at Sections 760.20-

760.37, Florida Statutes (2008). 3

47. A discriminatory housing practice is defined as "an

act that is unlawful under the terms of ss. 760.20-760.37."

§ 760.22(3), Fla. Stats.

48. Section 760.23, Florida Statutes, provides in

pertinent part:

(2) It is unlawful to discriminate against

any person in the terms, conditions, or

privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling,

or in the provision of services or

facilities in connection therewith, because

of race, color, national origin, sex,

handicap, familial status, or religion.

* * *

(8) It is unlawful to discriminate against

any person in the terms, conditions, or

privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling,

or in the provision of services or

facilities in connection with such dwelling,

because of a handicap of:

(a) That buyer or renter;

(b) A person residing in or intending to

reside in that dwelling after it is sold,

rented, or made available; or

(c) Any person associated with the buyer or

renter.

(9) For purposes of subsections (7) and

(8), discrimination includes:

(a) A refusal to permit, at the expense of

the handicapped person, reasonable

modifications of existing premises occupied

or to be occupied by such person if such

modifications may be necessary to afford

such person full enjoyment of the premises;

or

(b) A refusal to make reasonable

accommodations in rules, policies,

practices, or services, when such

accommodations may be necessary to afford

such person equal opportunity to use and

enjoy a dwelling.

49. Handicap is defined to include a person who "has a

physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or

more major life activities, or he or she has a record of having,

or is regarded as having, such physical or mental impairment."

§ 760.22(7)(a), Fla. Stat.

50. The parties agree that Mr. Discher is handicapped as

defined by Section 760.22(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and is,

therefore, a member of the protected class.

51. When the Florida Legislature enacted the Fair Housing

Act, it essentially codified the United States Fair Housing

Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA). Dornbach v. Holley , 854 So. 2d

211, 213 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002). The application of the FHAA by

the federal courts has been found to be instructive and

persuasive by the courts of Florida in considering the

application of the Fair Housing Act. Id.

52. “Discrimination claims under the FHA [FHAA and the

Fair Housing Act] are subject to the Title VII McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green , burden-shifting analysis.” Savanna Club Worship

Service, Inc. v. Savanna Club Homeowners’ Association , 456

F.Supp.2d 1223, 1231 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citations omitted).

“Under this test, a plaintiff first bears the burden of

establishing that the defendant has engaged in discrimination.

Once that is done, the burden then shifts to the defendant to

establish a legitimate non-discriminatory business reason for

taking the action. If the defendant comes forth with such

reason, then the burden returns to the plaintiff to establish

that the defendant’s reason is merely a pretext.” Id. at 1231-

1232.

53. The federal courts have determined that discrimination

may exist under the FHAA in either one of three ways: the FHAA

(1) "prohibits intentional discriminatory conduct towards a

handicapped person”; (2) "prohibits incidental discrimination,

that is, an act that results in making the property unavailable

to a handicapped person”; or (3) "prohibits an act that fails to

make a reasonable accommodation that would allow a handicapped

person the enjoyment of the chosen residence.” Dornbach , at 213

(citations omitted). Given the similarity of the language and

the purpose of the FHAA and the Fair Housing Act, the three

approaches to fair housing discrimination are applicable to the

Fair Housing Act. Id.

54. "The [United States] Supreme Court has decided that

discrimination under the Fair Housing Act [FHAA] includes a

refusal to make a 'reasonable accommodation' for handicapped

persons.” Loren v. Sasser , 309 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2002)

(citation omitted). Determining whether a requested

accommodation is required by law is "highly fact-specific,

requiring case-by-case determination.” Id. (citation omitted).

55. "Under the Fair Housing Act [FHAA], plaintiffs have

the burden of proving that a proposed accommodation is

reasonable." Loren , at 1302 (citations omitted).

56. The Dischers failed to establish a prima facie case

that Monroe County engaged in discrimination by refusing to

release or remove their affordable housing deed restrictions.

The Dischers agreed to and received a benefit from the

affordable housing deed restrictions; they received additional

points under the ROGO system, which allowed the Dischers to

obtain an allocation to construct their single family home and

to obtain the allocation in a shorter time period. The evidence

was insufficient to demonstrate that Monroe County had released

or removed any other persons from affordable housing deed

restrictions. Mr. Discher admitted that Monroe County had not

discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in

refusing to release or remove their affordable housing deed

restrictions.

57. As to Monroe County providing a reasonable

accommodation, the Dischers requested that Monroe County release

or remove their affordable housing deed restrictions. Neither

Monroe County’s regulations nor its comprehensive plan contained

a provision for the release or removal of affordable housing

deed restrictions during the time period material to the instant

matter. The evidence fails to demonstrate that a reasonable

accommodation was available.

58. Even assuming that the Dischers had established a

prima facie case of discrimination, Monroe County established a

non-discriminatory reason for its action. Monroe County was

complying with its regulations and comprehensive plan regarding

providing long term affordable housing in the Keys.

59. Monroe County having established a non-discriminatory

reason for its action, the burden shifts to the Dischers to

establish that Monroe County’s reason for its action is merely a

pretext for discrimination. The evidence fails to establish

that Monroe County’s reason for its action is merely a pretext

for discrimination.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations

enter a final order finding that Monroe County Commissioners did

not commit a discriminating housing practice against John and

Ruth Discher in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to

release or remove the affordable housing deed restrictions.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2008, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

ERROL H. POWELL

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 31st day of December, 2008.

ENDNOTES

1/ Petitioners’ Exhibits numbered 3, 10, and 11 were rejected.

2/ The Dischers filed documents subsequent to the final hearing.

Those documents were not considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

3/ The statutory sections are applicable from 1997 through 2008.

COPIES FURNISHED :

John and Ruth Discher

182 Northeast 931st Street

Branford, Florida 32008

Robert B. Shillinger, Jr., Esquire

Christine Limbert-Barrows, Esquire

Monroe County Attorney Office

Post Office Box 1026

Key West, Florida 33041-1026

Cecil Howard, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions

to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.