Marion Cnty. v. Dep't of Juvenile Justice
| Citation | 215 So.3d 621 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | CASE NOS. 1D15–0589,1D15–590,CASE NO. 1D15–592 |
| Parties | MARION COUNTY, Polk County, and Seminole County, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, Appellee. Polk County, Appellant, v. Department of Juvenile Justice, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Matthew G. Minter, County Attorney, Ocala, for Appellant Marion County.
Michael S. Craig, County Attorney, Bartow, for Appellant Polk County.
A. Bryant Applegate, County Attorney; Lynn P. Porter–Carlton, Deputy County Attorney; and Ann E. Colby, Assistant County Attorney, Sanford, for Appellant Seminole County.
Gregory T. Stewart, Carly J. Schrader, and Lynn M. Hoshihara of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Seminole, Polk, and Marion Counties.
Brian Berkowitz, General Counsel; John Milla and Michael J. Wheeler, Assistant General Counsels, Tallahassee, for Department of Juvenile Justice.
These three appellate cases are all that remain of a large consolidated appeal involving the Department of Juvenile Justice (the Department) and twenty Florida counties over the juvenile detention cost-sharing system in section 985.686, Florida Statutes. The three appellant counties, Marion, Polk, and Seminole, joined seventeen other counties in challenging the Department's annual reconciliations of their estimated costs with the actual costs of secure juvenile detention, arguing, among other things, that the Department's reconciliation contravened section 985.686. After legislation was passed in 2016, seventeen of the counties voluntarily dismissed their appeals. Marion, Polk, and Seminole argue they should not be compelled to dismiss their appeals because, due to their unique positions, the 2016 legislation does not affect them. We agree.
Section 985.686, Florida Statutes, creates a system by which the costs of juvenile detention are shared between the counties and the State. The counties are responsible for the costs of secure juvenile detention for detention occurring prior to "final court disposition," sometimes referred to as "pre-disposition," and the State is responsible for all other costs of secure detention, sometimes referred to as "post-disposition." §§ 985.686(3) & (5), Fla. Stat. Exactly where the line is drawn to delineate pre-and post-disposition has been the source of heavy litigation over the years.
Each participating county1 "shall" incorporate into its annual budget sufficient funds to pay its estimated share of costs based on the prior use of secure detention for juveniles who are residents of the county, as calculated by the Department. § 985.686(5), Fla. Stat. The county pays its estimated costs at the beginning of each month. Id. "Any difference between the estimated costs and actual costs shall be reconciled at the end of the state fiscal year."Id.
The Department promulgated rules contained in Chapter 63G–1, Florida Administrative Code, to implement section 985.686. For the years involved in these appeals, the Department performed an annual reconciliation and provided each county with an annual reconciliation statement for the previous fiscal year, which "shall reflect the difference between the amount paid by the county based on the estimated utilization and the actual utilization[.]" Rule 63G–1.017(4) & (5), Fla. Admin. Code. With regard to any overpayments found in the annual reconciliation, rule 63G–1.017(6) provides that the overpaying county is to receive a forwarding credit applied to the next year's estimated costs.
Marion, Polk, and Seminole Counties are unique in that they participated in the cost-sharing system for a period of time, but elected to opt out of the system as allowed by section 985.686(10), Florida Statutes. Marion County opted out in November 2010, Polk County in October 2011, and Seminole County in 2012. For all or part of the fiscal years at issue, these counties paid their required estimated costs. After the Department published its annual reconciliations for Fiscal Years 2009–2010, 2010–2011, and 2011–2012, the appellants joined various other counties in administrative challenges to each of the three annual reconciliations. Final hearings were scheduled in each of the cases.
The administrative challenges were abated pending a final decision in a rule challenge filed by several counties that challenged the Department's rules in Chapter 63G–1 as inconsistent with section 985.686 and an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The rule challenge resulted in a finding that the Department's interpretation of section 985.686 was improper and that the rules in place at the time were invalid and resulted in overcharges to the counties. SeeOkaloosa Cty. et al. v. Dep't of Juvenile Justice , DOAH Case No. 12–0891RX (Final Order July 17, 2012); Dep't of Juvenile Justice v. Okaloosa Cty. , 113 So.3d 1074 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Okaloosa I ) (). SeealsoOkaloosa Cty. v. Dep't of Juvenile Justice , 131 So.3d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
Following the decisions in the rule challenge, in 2013, the parties entered into Joint Stipulations of Fact and Procedure in each of the previously abated administrative proceedings relating to Fiscal Years 2009–2010, 2010–2011, and 2011–2012.2 In the Joint Stipulations, the Department acknowledged that the annual reconciliations were based on invalid rules and did not comply with section 985.686, resulting in the counties being overcharged for their portion of costs. The Department published recalculated overpayments for the three fiscal years, which were acknowledged by all parties to be the Department's final annual reconciliations. The Joint Stipulations resolved all the issues, but the Department would not agree to actually apply any credits or repayments for the three fiscal years.3 The parties stipulated that the overpayment amounts would become part of the official record. They also stipulated that they would file the Joint Stipulations at DOAH and move for relinquishment of jurisdiction. The Department would then enter final orders incorporating the stipulation of facts and attaching a copy of the recalculations as the "Amended and Final Reconciliation for the Counties."
After DOAH relinquished jurisdiction, in 2015, without any further proceedings involving the counties, the Department entered its final orders. The final orders did not adopt the facts in the Joint Stipulations. The Department stated that the recalculated overpayment amounts were "contrary to section 985.686(3) and (5)... in that they obligate the State to pay for detention stays that are 'prior to final court disposition.' " The Department found the recalculations included some days that it determined were actually pre-dispositional, and thus, not an obligation of the State. The Department then unilaterally "corrected" the overpayments for each fiscal year. The final orders stated the corrected amounts "represent the Department's final action on the parties' challenges[.]" The difference between the recalculated overpayments in the Joint Stipulations and the corrected overpayments in the final orders are as follows:
FY09-10 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY11-12
Stipulated Corrected Stipulated Corrected Stipulated Corrected
(1D15-590) (1D15-590) (1D15-589) (1D15-589) (1D15-592) (1D15-592)
Marion $502,656.56 $949,551.354 $164,175.28 $86,182.04 NA NA
Polk $1,759,258.57 $943,028.21 $2,476,765.89 $377,130.36 $546,175.30 $102,537.99
Seminole $1,362,557.19 $378,712.61 $1,748,435.61 $906,136.36 NA NA
[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote4 ].
Each of the final orders also included the same footnote:
No moneys were appropriated for FY 2014/2015 to credit counties. Only the Legislature has the power to provide funding for credits or refunds for past fiscal years.
Marion, Polk, and Seminole Counties joined in the original consolidated appeals, arguing that the Department was bound by the Joint Stipulations and that it had a duty under section 985.686 to reconcile the counties' estimated costs with their actual costs. They, like the other counties, argued this reconciliation had to be more than just a paper accounting. Marion, Polk, and Seminole Counties specifically requested a reimbursement or refund of their overpayments as a substitute for credits because it was the only manner in which their costs could be reconciled.
In 2016 while the consolidated appeals were pending, a settlement was reached in the Legislature, and section 985.6865, Florida Statutes (2016), was enacted. See Ch. 2016–152, Laws of Florida. Section 985.6865(4) creates a new cost-sharing system that applies a prospective 50/50 split of the costs of secure detention between the State and the non-fiscally constrained counties.5 The 2016 legislation created a system where, in exchange for dismissing all pending litigation, the counties would effectively recoup their previous overpayments by enjoying a more county-favorable cost-sharing split in the future. Seventeen of the counties filed notices of voluntary dismissal. Marion, Polk, and Seminole did not, arguing they were not compelled to dismiss their appeals because the "remedy" in section 985.6865 would not apply to them as they were no longer a part of the cost-sharing system.
The language in section 985.6865 is clear that the legislative intent was to have the counties execute voluntary dismissals. See § 985.6865(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). The language is also clear that the new cost-sharing formula applies notwithstanding section 985.686 and applies to each county "that has taken the action fulfilling the intent of this legislation as described in subsection (2)." See § 985.6865(4), Fla. Stat. (2016). The Department concedes that the appellant counties cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delgado v. Agency for Health Care Admin.
...are binding on ... administrative agencies participating in administrative proceedings ....’ " Marion Cty. v. Dep't of Juvenile Justice , 215 So.3d 621, 626–27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (citation omitted) (holding "[t]he parties were bound by the Joint Stipulations, and the fact that the Departme......
-
Daly v. Marion Cnty.
...by section 985.686(10), Florida Statutes. The Department denied any obligation to issue refunds to these counties. In Marion County v. Department of Juvenile Justice , this Court held that the Department has a duty to reconcile differences between initial estimates and actual costs, and tha......
-
Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. Pin-Pon Corp.
...1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)."[G]enerally ... stipulations as to questions of law are not binding ...." Marion Cty. v. Dep't of Juvenile Justice , 215 So.3d 621, 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). However, "when a case is tried upon stipulated facts the stipulation is binding not only upon the parties but......