Case Name: COASTAL RECOVERY CENTERS, INC., Appellant, v. Eugene MATTHEWS, Robert Anderson, Charles Richards, Jack O'Neil And David Mills, as and constituting the Board Of County Commissioners of Sarasota County, Florida, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-07-25
Citations: 696 So. 2d 1364
Docket Number: No. 96-04478
Parties: COASTAL RECOVERY CENTERS, INC., Appellant, v. Eugene MATTHEWS, Robert Anderson, Charles Richards, Jack O’Neil And David Mills, as and constituting the Board Of County Commissioners of Sarasota County, Florida, Appellees.
Judges: SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 696
Pages: 1364–1364

Head Matter:
COASTAL RECOVERY CENTERS, INC., Appellant, v. Eugene MATTHEWS, Robert Anderson, Charles Richards, Jack O’Neil And David Mills, as and constituting the Board Of County Commissioners of Sarasota County, Florida, Appellees.
No. 96-04478.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 25, 1997.
Robert M. Johnson and John S. Jaffer of Wilson, Johnson & Jaffer, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellant.
Jorge L. Fernandez, County Attorney, and William M. Rossi, Assistant County Attorney, Sarasota, for Appellee.

Opinion:
THREADGILL, Judge.
Coastal Recovery Centers, Inc., challenges the dismissal of its complaint filed against the Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County. The complaint sought relief pursuant to chapter 394, part IV, Florida Statutes (1995), known as "The Community Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services Act." Under the Act, the state of Florida makes available certain funds to Coastal, a nonprofit corporation. Local participation or matching funds are then required to be budgeted and paid by the county. § 394.76, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Coastal sought a writ of mandamus to compel the county to pay past due matching funds. Coastal also sought a declaratory decree asking the court to declare the formula for computing the amount of matching funds because Coastal and the county were in disagreement about it.
The trial court dismissed the complaint finding that Coastal had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies under the Act. Coastal argues that there are no administrative remedies adequate or available to address the county's failure to properly calculate and pay the matching funds. We agree and therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. In doing so, we are not expressly or impliedly approving Coastal's elected remedy of mandamus.
Reversed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.