IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
BROWARD COUNTY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D14-4219
STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed December 4, 2015.
An appeal from an order from the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Christina K. Daly, Interim Secretary.
Joni Armstrong Coffey and Adam Katzman, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
John Milla, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
MARSTILLER, J.
This appeal is a companion to Pinellas County v. Florida Department of
Juvenile Justice, No. 1D14-4187 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 4, 2015), challenging a final
order entered by the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department”) on remand from
this court after we reversed an earlier order. See Okaloosa Cnty. v. Dep’t of Juvenile
Justice, 131 So. 3d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The controversy concerns the
Department’s annual county-by-county reconciliation of juvenile detention facility
utilization for fiscal year (“FY”) 2008/09 pursuant to section 985.686, Florida
Statutes (2008), which sets out the state-county cost sharing and allocation
framework for secure detention facilities in Florida. Broward County argues that, in
contravention of our mandate after Okaloosa County, the Department has failed to
provide the county a full and correct accounting of payments made versus actual
costs for FY 2008/09, and has failed to credit the county for its overpayments.
Finding the final order on remand in compliance with our mandate, we affirm.
Our opinion in Pinellas County, supra, sets out the factual and procedural
history of this case; thus, we need not recount it in detail here. To summarize, several
counties challenged the Department’s FY 2008/09 calculations and reconciliations
under section 985.686, and took the matter to the Division of Administrative
Hearings (“DOAH”). The administrative proceedings resulted in a recommended
order concluding the Department’s calculations were in error, and recommending
the Department enter a final order that, pertinent to Broward County:
C. Provides that the Department will, without
undue delay, provide a revised assessment that states the
actual costs of providing predisposition secure juvenile
detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 for the following
Counties: Hernando, Miami-Dade, and Broward.
2
The Department’s final order rejected the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
recommendations, and we reversed the order in Okaloosa County, directing the
Department to issue an order adopting the recommendations. This the Department
did. The August 14, 2014, final order on remand provides, inter alia:
4. Revised assessments of actual costs for fiscal
year 2008-2009 for Hernando, Miami-Dade and Broward
Counties are as follows:
(a) Hernando ($277,111);
(b) Miami-Dade ($7,947,245); and
(c) Broward ($4,845,144).
The Department concluded the order with a footnote informing the counties that:
No moneys were appropriated for Fiscal Year 2014/2015
to credit counties. Some counties continue to pursue
credits or refunds for past fiscal years. Only the
Legislature has the power to cure such complaint.
Similar to the claim in Pinellas County, the gravamen of Broward County’s
complaint is that the Department has incorrectly failed to apply a $4.8 million FY
2008/09 overpayment credit toward the county’s future cost-sharing obligation. But
as we concluded in the other case, the actual crediting of overpayments is a matter
outside our Okaloosa County decision and mandate.
While this issue is, in our view, a critical matter needing
resolution sooner rather than later, whether by declaratory
action, or by the Department’s agreement to seek
necessary appropriations, or by some other vehicle—
indeed, according to counsel for the Department during
oral argument, total creditable or reimbursable
overpayments from FY 2008/09 forward, when
3
calculations are complete, will be “truly staggering
numbers,” reaching “at least” $40 million—it is not one
for us to resolve in this appeal. The DOAH recommended
order we affirmed and directed the Department to adopt
was limited to correcting the juvenile detention cost-
sharing calculations for FY 2008/09; it made no
recommendation concerning credits for or
reimbursements of overpayments.
Pinellas County, No. 1D14-4187, slip op. at 6. The Department’s final order on
remand adopted the ALJ’s recommendations, as we directed, and “[a]ny action or
inaction by the Department beyond that is simply not ripe for our consideration in
this appeal.” Id. at 7. For this reason, we affirm the order on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
THOMAS, J., CONCURS; KELSEY, J., DISSENTS WITH OPINION.
4
KELSEY, J., dissents with opinion.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion
in Pinellas County v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Case No. 1D14-4187
(Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 4, 2015).
5