BROWARD COUNTY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE 

JUSTICE,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4219

_____________________________/

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 
2

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.
3

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 
4

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 costsharing 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. 
5

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).