Judges: Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
Filed Date: 2/5/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Ms. Jo Ann Hutchinson Executive Director Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged 605 Suwannee Street, MS-49 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Dear Ms. Hutchinson:
You ask the following question:
May nongovernmental Community Transportation Coordinators, either for-profit or not-for-profit, claim sovereign immunity under section
In sum:
Nongovernmental Community Transportation Coordinators exercising the powers and duties prescribed in Part I, Chapter
The Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (commission) has been asked by a Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) whether the liability protections in Chapter
Section
State agencies or subdivisions within the scope of section
The question of whether a nongovernmental corporation may attain the status of "acting primarily on behalf of the state" has been judicially considered to turn on whether the day-to-day operations of the entity are subject to extensive governmental control.3 The First District Court of Appeal, in Shands Teaching Hospitaland Clinics, Inc. v. Lee by and through Lee,4 looked to federal law, by analogy, to find that the critical factor in determining whether an entity is an agency for purposes of sovereign immunity is the existence of government control over the "``detailed physical performance' and ``day to day operation of that entity.'"5 The Shands court considered the legislation organizing the hospital, authorizing the state to lease the facility to a private nonprofit corporation, and directions from the Legislature that Shands study and develop a plan to become more self-sufficient and fiscally independent, in concluding that the intent of the Legislature was to treat Shands as an autonomous and self-sufficient entity, not primarily acting as an instrumentality on behalf of the state.
In contrast, the First District Court of Appeal in PrisonRehabilitative Industries v. Betterson6 evaluated the statutes creating Prison Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Enterprises (PRIDE) to determine whether the entity was acting primarily as an instrumentality of the state. The court found numerous provisions for extensive governmental control over PRIDE's day-to-day operations. While the legislation recognized that PRIDE could best operate independently of state government, it also stressed the state's continuing interest in assuring continuity and stability of the program. The court found that "while PRIDE was accorded substantial independence in the running of the work programs, its essential operations nevertheless remained subject to a number of legislatively mandated constraints over its day-to-day operations."7
A Community Transportation Coordinator is "a transportation entity recommended by a metropolitan planning organization, or by the appropriate designated official planning agency . . . in an area outside the purview of a metropolitan planning organization, to ensure that coordinated transportation services are provided to the transportation disadvantaged population in a designated service area."8 The CTC "may provide all or a portion of needed transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged butshall be responsible for the provision of those coordinatedservices."9 (e.s.) Performance of the CTC in providing transportation services is evaluated by the local coordinating board using evaluation criteria approved by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.10 This office has not been advised of a contractual agreement that would indicate the CTC operates as an independent contractor when providing transportation services.11
Among the powers and duties given to a CTC is the authority to execute contracts for service, review all transportation operator contracts annually, approve and coordinate the use of school bus and public transportation services in accordance with the transportation disadvantaged plan, review applications for available transportation disadvantaged funds, develop and implement a memorandum of agreement including a service plan for submission to the commission, establish priorities for recipients of nonsponsored transportation disadvantaged services purchased with transportation disadvantaged trust fund moneys, and have full responsibility for the delivery of transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged.12 Thus, the CTC appears to have comprehensive powers to carry out the legislative mandate to provide transportation services set forth in Part I, Chapter
In light of the legislatively mandated constraints over the day-to-day operations of the Community Transportation Coordinator and the ultimate oversight of its operations by the commission and the local coordinating board, it is my opinion that a nongovernmental Community Transportation Coordinator carrying out duties prescribed in Part I, Chapter
Sincerely,
Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General
RAB/tls