STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In Re: Petition of Admiral ) Corporation, a Florida Corporation )
and a subsidiary of ITT Community ) CASE NO. 85-0265 Development Corporation, to establish )
a community development district to ) be known as Dunes Community )
Development District. )
)
REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
On April 15, 1985, a public hearing was held in this cause for purposes of considering the petition of Admiral Corporation to establish Dunes Community Development District pursuant to the terms and conditions of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (1984). The location of the hearing was the Flagler County Courthouse, 200 East Moody Blvd., Room 107, Bunnell, Florida. Petitioner was represented by counsel in the person of Wade L. Hopping, Esquire and Richard Brightman, Esquire. In the course of the public hearing the Petitioner presented witnesses and offered certain evidential items in support of the petition. Persons within local government, namely Flagler County, Florida, gave testimony. In addition, the general public was afforded an opportunity to present testimony and other matters of evidence and persons who favored and opposed this project availed themselves of that opportunity.
This process began with the filing of the petition of Admiral Corporation, a Florida corporation and subsidiary of ITT Community Development Corporation, before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. A copy of the petition may be found in exhibit number 3 offered by the Petitioner. The date of the filing was December 21, 1984. The district services, as contemplated by this petition, would be as follows:
Surface water management.
Internal potable water distribution with fire hydrant system.
Wastewater collection, treatment and disposal through an integrated system.
The building and maintenance of major north/south arterial roads.
On-site public safety complex to include fire and police station.
On-site fire, police, emergency medical
and secondary security equipment, including vehicles and apparatus.
The construction and maintenance of a bridge crossing the Florida Intracoastal Waterway.
This project is solely within the boundaries of Flagler County, Florida in an unincorporated area of that county.
Following the receipt and review of the contents of the petition, John
T. Herndon, Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, certified that all the required elements of the petition as envisioned by Rule 42-1.09, Florida Administrative Code, had been satisfied, related to the substantive instructions found within Section 190.005, Florida Statutes (1984) and Rule 42-1.08, Florida Administrative Code. By that same certification document of January 18, 1985, Secretary Herndon submitted the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for purposes of conducting a public hearing and providing a written report with conclusions. A copy of the letter of certification and transmittal may be found as part of Petitioner's composite exhibit number 2. Following the assignment of the present Hearing Officer, notice was given to the Petitioner of the selection of the April 15, 1985, hearing date and location and instructions were given to the Petitioner related to provision of public notice. This information was imparted on February 6, 1985.
The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, by notice published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 11, A No. 9, dated March 1, 1985, gave notice of the intent of receipt of petition, including a summary of the contents of the petition and a general description of the land area affected. This notice also set forth the estimate of economic impact and specifically detailed the date, starting time and exact location of the hearing. A copy of this notification may be found within Petitioner's composite exhibit number 2.
Petitioner paid a filing fee of $15,000 to Flagler County, and provided the county with a copy of its petition.
Notice of the public hearing was provided in two papers of general circulation within the area affected, namely notice through the Daytona Beach Morning Journal and Flagler Palm Coast News. Dates of publication were March 20 and 27 and April 3 and 10, 1985. Written notice was also given to prospective board members; the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs; the Chairman of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners; the Mayor of the City of Flagler Beach; the Mayor of the City of Bunnell; the Mayor of the City of Beverly Beach; the Mayor of the City of Marineland; the Clerk of the County in Palatka, Florida; the Clerk of the County in St. Augustine, Florida, and the Clerk of the County in Deland, Florida. Copies of these notices may be found in Petitioner's composite exhibit number 2.
The hearing conducted on April 15, 1985, was as envisioned by Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1984), and Rule 42-1.12, Florida Administrative Code. As set forth in Rule 42-1.12(4), Florida Administrative Code, the public hearing has been transcribed and the transcript is offered with this report and conclusions.
Flagler County Resolution No. 84-7, pertaining to the approval of the application for development of Admiral Corporation, to be known as Hammock Dunes, a development of regional impact, may be found within exhibit number 5 to exhibit number 3 by the Petitioner. That resolution speaks to the Hammock Dunes project, which is a development to be served exclusively by the proposed Dunes Community Development District. Within that resolution, Flagler County sets forth its position on the issue of the recognition of the community development district sought by the present petition. Moreover, Noah McKinnon, Jr., attorney for Flagler County and Louis Steflik, Chairman of the County Commissioners for Flagler County, made known the county's position on the topic of the creation of the Dunes Community Development District. Through remarks of Messrs. McKinnon and Steflik, found at pages 9 through 25 of the transcript of the proceedings,
the county expresses its desire that the activities of Dunes Community Development District shall conform to the development order, which is Flagler County Resolution No. 84-7. The county in its development order, through the attachments to that order, emphasizes that development approval is based upon the fact that the project will be served by certain capital facilities which parallel those items sought by the present petition. At attachment page 6, under 3.2 to the resolution or development order, the county stresses its preference that the ownership, operation, and maintenance of the subject capital facilities be provided through an independent special district. At the time the development order was entered, Flagler County did not consider that a development district created under the then existing Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, constituted an appropriate independent special district. In essence, the county's perception was that the version of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, extant was not acceptable, given the broad powers granted to community development districts under the existing language within that chapter. With the advent of the amendment to Chapter 190, Florida statutes, which took place in 1984, the county, through its officials who appeared in the course of the hearing, indicated a willingness to support the subject petition for recognition by rule of the Dunes Community Development District, with the proviso that the Petitioner would acquiesce in the terms of the development order, Resolution No. 84-7. In response, counsel for the Petitioner, in the record of the present proceedings, has stated the intention of the Petitioner to live within the letter of the conditions set forth in the development order which pertain to the Dunes Community Development District recognition. This comment by counsel for the Petitioner was offered, notwithstanding the autonomy of a duly recognized community development district, and the potential for conflict between the rights and opportunities afforded the community development district and the specific limiting conditions set forth in the county's development order. To avoid this potential conflict, counsel for the Petitioner indicates that Petitioner would enter into a written agreement with Flagler County which limits the activities and the method of operation of the community development district to conform with the terms and conditions of the development order, should the community development district be recognized through rule enactment. As an indication of good faith on the part of the Petitioner, 40 acres of property have already been given to the Flagler County School Board for purposes of future school construction in the area of the proposed service district and
$25,000 of the obligation for capital expenditures has been devoted to the Flagler County Sheriff's office for provision of patrol units. In summary, Flagler County's position on the question of the recognition of the community development district is favorable to the project, if the project is limited in scope and complies with the special conditions set forth in the development order.
The witnesses who appeared and gave testimony in the course of the final hearing are as reflected in the index of witnesses set forth in the transcript of proceedings and their addresses or relative residence locations are described in the initial pages of the transcript attributed to testimony by those witnesses. Their presentation is more completely described subsequently. Items of evidence as admitted in the record are set forth in the index of the exhibits found within the transcript of proceedings. The index gives the page number at which discussion is made on the topic of the individual exhibits. The index is self-explanatory, with the following exceptions: Exception number 1 relates to the public opposition exhibit c number 1, which is more fully described as Flagler County Resolution Number 83-13; various newspaper articles which were not admitted as evidence; a map of Palm Coast, Florida, setting forth areas that are inhabited by coloring them in yellow; a brochure by the Palm Coast developers, that is ITT Community Development Corporation, a subsidiary of
ITT Corporation and an article by Thomas J. Wilkes, Jr., attorney, describing, from his point of view, the relative merits of community development districts as a method of providing government services. On the topic of exhibits, it is also noted that Petitioner's exhibits numbers 14, 15, and 16 were used as graphic display for the benefit of the public in the course of the final hearing and were not admitted. These same exhibits are depicted through smaller displays set forth in exhibits which were admitted.
Allen Salowe, Vice President, Admiral Corporation, has had the overall responsibility for planning in the Hammock Dunes project and in the petition for recognition of Dunes Community Development District. The land in question is owned by three corporation's; ITT Land, ITT Community Development Corporation and the sponsoring Petitioner in this cause, Admiral Corporation. The president of all three corporations is James Gardner. Salowe appeared at the hearing upon the authority of the president of those corporations. Salowe has been familiar with the development since 1976. Salowe holds a master's degree from Rutgers University and is a member of the Urban Land Institute and Recreational Resort Development Council. The petition and supporting documentation may be found as Petitioner's composite exhibit number 3. As identified by Salowe, the three corporations own all land to be served by the proposed community development district. Petitioner's exhibit number 7 is a map depicting the boundaries of the proposed community development district. The district is constituted of approximately 2,100 acres. It is bounded on the north by Malacompro Road; to the east primarily by the Atlantic Ocean; to the west by State Road A1A, and the Intracoastal Waterway and the southern-most boundary of the district will be enclosed by a parcel of land to be donated to Flagler County as a county park. The community development district would serve approximately 6,670 residential units, which are to be built in three phases over a period of 20 years.
Features of the development to be served by the community development district are golf courses; a destination resort community; a harbor village, connected to the Intracoastal Waterway and a tennis community. In addition to the 40 acres donated to the school board of Flagler County, 91 acres are to be donated to the county for public parks. The parcels donated to the county are six in number, four of which are along the ocean. These parcels and others are depicted in the map overlay, Petitioner's exhibit number 8 to be used in conjunction with the Petitioner's exhibit number 7. Petitioner's exhibit number 8, in addition to indicating those acreages dedicated to the school board and the county for public recreation, show property which was discussed in the development of regional impact, for which a decision as to use has not been made. In effect, Petitioner's exhibit number 8 is a depiction of the removal of the parcels as described from the boundaries of the development of regional impact, with the remaining area being served by the community development district. The parcel pending land use decision in the northern reach, would also be served by the community development district if the decision reached by local government and the developer was one of allowing that acreage to be developed. Petitioner's exhibit number 9 is a map overlay which depicts the boundaries of the proposed community development district in accordance with the legal description of that property.
The rights of way to the public parks are not part of the community development district. Likewise, State Road A1A and the Intracoastal Waterway rights of way are excluded from the district.
As described by Salowe and in keeping with the development order related to development of regional impact, the developer is committed, in furtherance of its request for community development district recognition, to construct, at its own cost, the north/south arterial roads shown on Petitioner's
exhibit number 9, together with the construction of its own water management system as depicted on that item of evidence. In addition, the developer will construct, at its own expense, the security building and, purchase emergency medical equipment, together with a fire truck. These are capital improvement costs desired by Flagler County. The scheme is for the developer to pay for these items and donate them to the community development district. The community development district would finance and construct the wastewater system to include collection and treatment features. This item is also described in the Petitioner's exhibit number 9 map overlay. The water distribution system related to potable water, with associated fire hydrants, are also to be capital facilities financed by the district to be paid for by fees and charges. The Intracoastal Waterway bridge would be financed by a bond and fee arrangement.
The bridge would be used by the general public and residents of the Hammock Dunes community for an estimated toll of .50 per trip. Flagler County and the developer have discussed the possibility of having the Florida Department of Transportation take over the maintenance and operation of the Intracoastal Waterway bridge; however, there is no indication that the Florida Department of Transportation would be willing to undertake that responsibility.
All of the proposed board supervisors for the proposed community development district are residents and citizens of the United States. (See Petitioner's exhibit No. 3).
At present there is an existing sixteen-inch water line which runs under the Intracoastal Waterway and serves the Palm Coast Sheraton Hotel. It is the intention of the Petitioner to tie this existing major water main into its proposed system and to purchase water from Palm Coast Utility, an existing supplier of potable water. Palm Coast Utility is amenable to this arrangement.
Exhibit 7 to Petitioner's exhibit 3 describes existing and abutting land usage, with the only on-site land usage being related to the 132-bed Palm Coast Sheraton Hotel. Adjacent to the project there are a number of small commercial enterprises and single family homes and house trailers.
Exhibit 9 to Petitioner's exhibit 3 is a copy of the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan for the year 2000. As identified through the testimony of Salowe, the community development district contemplated for recognition through this petition is consistent with the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan, to include sites and facilities for parks and recreation for the benefit of the general public; community facilities and schools; recreation for the residents of the district; the conservation of a large stand of hammock trees, approximately 100 acres in quantity; attending the need for phased development of roads and associated drainage and the equitable distribution of costs to pay for the ongoing services.
The bridge, contemplated by the project would also be a valuable contribution to the transportation system in the area related to the needs of the general public. At present the bridges that serve the area east of the Intracoastal Waterway are approximately seven miles from the Sheraton Hotel in a southerly direction and seven to nine miles north of the Sheraton Hotel.
At present Florida does not have a comprehensive land use plan. Consequently, this petition does not speak to that matter.
When questioned on the subject of the satisfactory compliance with those criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, (1984), from the point of view of the developer and as a land use planner, Salowe
testified that those criteria would be satisfactorily addressed by the project. The text of that statutory provision is as follows:
Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct.
Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan.
Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community.
Whether the district is the best alterna- tive available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district.
Whether the community development services and facilities of the district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government.
Having considered Salowe's testimony in the context of other evidence in this cause, that testimony is accepted as an accurate assessment.
In furtherance of its petition, Admiral Corporation employed the services of Gee and Jenson, Engineers, Architects and Planners, of West Palm Beach, Florida. Its president, Fred Greene, a registered engineer in the State of Florida, testified in the course of the public hearing. His testimony was based upon an intimate knowledge of the particulars of the project design. Greene has had experience in large scale developments within the State of Florida ranging from 1,000 acres to 60,000 acres in size. This experience involved, among other matters, approximately 35 community development districts, drainage districts, improvement districts and modifications to those entities. Petitioner's exhibit number 10 is a map overlay, by which the witness Greene describes the pending location of water and sewer lines and the location of the proposed wastewater treatment plant. In this project the major mains for service of potable water include fire hydrants and valves. The design of these systems would be such that they would meet Florida Health Department requirements and those of the Department of Environmental Regulation. The proposed wastewater treatment facilities will be designed to use state of the art technology. Among other features is a standby generator, in case of power failure, allowing for continuous operation of essential features of the wastewater treatment plant. The plant will be constructed in phases to coincide with the phases of development in Hammock Dunes. Per the testimony of Greene, the proposed bridge will be a high level design with two lanes and will connect with the Palm Coast Parkway west of the Intracoastal Waterway and from there to Interstate 95. A second two-lane span would be added as needed. A permit from the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation has been obtained for bridge construction as may be seen as Petitioner's exhibit number 12,
admitted into evidence and a Coast Guard permit has been obtained for the construction of the bridge, a copy which may be seen as Petitioner's exhibit number 13 admitted into evidence. There is pending a request for approval of the conceptual design of the water management system, related to permit requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District. From the point of view of an engineer, Greene establishes that this project will use best management practices in water management. This envisions protection of wetlands within the boundaries of the community development district and coincides with requirements of the Flagler County development order related to the development of regional impact. The main arterial roads contemplated for construction by the community development district are level C and meet Flagler County standards for road construction. The public safety complex contemplated by this project is 5,000 square feet in size as contemplated by the Flagler County development order. From the point of view of an engineer, Greene feels that the project satisfactorily addresses those criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1984), supra. Having considered that testimony in the context of other evidence in this cause, that testimony is accepted as an accurate assessment.
Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, an economist, testified for the Petitioner on the issue of the recognition of the community development district proposal. Exhibit number 10 to Petitioner's exhibit number 3, is the economic impact assessment related to this project. That economic impact assessment is tied to the requirements of the development order of Flagler County, pertaining to Hammock Dunes. On balance, Fishkind finds that the project would have a positive economic influence and that testimony is accepted. From Fishkind's point of view, the essence of a community development district is to plan, construct, maintain, operate and finance community infrastructures. The district does this through an independent board and is an alternative to over- burdening existing units of local government, by placing that burden of governmental services on persons who receive the services, that is to say direct payment for those services. Alternative methods of dealing with the needs identified in this petition for recognition of the community development district, are not as advantageous. At page 34, Table 3, of Petitioner's exhibit number 10 to its exhibit number 3, comparisons are made of the various choices of offering the services contemplated by this petition. In addition, Fishkind speaks to those alternatives in his testimony. The alternative of municipal incorporation does not exist early on, due to the limited number of population, which would not be overcome for a number of years. Therefore, incorporation as a city is not a viable choice. A second alternative is to have the county provide the services, which given the nature of this development, i.e., one which is relatively expensive and demands a higher level of service, will cause an imposition on existing residents of the county who may not be as interested in the additional services and paying for those services through the county's tax assessment process. Another alternative is a homeowners association which Fishkind, through his experience, found to be less capable of raising the necessary amount of money that would be required to build the type of infrastructures as envisioned by the present project. The other form of possible provision of the services is a municipal service taxing unit, a dependent district, lacking in autonomy. Of the alternatives, only the community development district alternative provides independent staff; is directly responsive to the district residents; has the capability of financing large scale infrastructure; is charged with full disclosure of its business as mandated by the Sunshine Law of Florida and avoids the imposition of additional tax burden to those persons who do not wish the same quality of service as sought by the residents of the community development district. On balance, Fishkind believes that the community development district is the appropriate
option for provision of the services contemplated by this project and that opinion is accepted.
Fishkind in looking at the financial stability of this proposal developed a cash-flow model dealing with the topics of operations, maintenance and capital financing and found this project to be a viable proposal. His opinion on its financial feasibility is accepted. The fiscal activities of the planned community development district do not involve any debt obligation of general government. Financing is contemplated for this project in the form of revenue bonds. Of course, those bonds pledge the stream of revenue for the purpose of securing the bond issue. They do not pledge the full faith and credit of the community development district and do not involve placement of mortgages or liens on development district property. Table 1, at page 5, of Petitioner's exhibit number 10 to Petitioner's exhibit number 3, is a table of infrastructure financing of the proposed community development district, in accordance with the Flagler County development order. This item was discussed in the course of the final hearing and deals with the general method of construction, operation, and financing of the major elements of this proposal. In keeping with the development order, the surface water management system is to be built by the developer, that is to say the capital cost is to be provided by the developer. The ownership then is turned over to the development district which is responsible for the operation and maintenance, financed by maintenance taxes. This is 4.8 million dollars worth of capital expenditures by the developer. Other features donated by the developer are the primary arterial roads and the public safety complex, with equipment. The total initial outlay or donation by the developer is 8.9 million dollars worth of capital items which will be reflected on the balance sheet when the community development district takes over the maintenance and operation. The arterial roads will be maintained through maintenance taxes assessed upon district residents. The potable water system with its associated water distribution and fire hydrants, is expected to be financed through capital cost incurred by the community development district using a revenue bond issue for provision of capital. Those bonds would be retired through a combination of connection charges and monthly revenue fees. Those charges and fees are set through a public hearing. The wastewater system at issue is to be financed, owned and operated in the same fashion as the potable water system. Capital cost associated with the Intracoastal Waterway bridge are through the community development district, utilizing a revenue bond issue. Ownership of the bridge would be held by the community development district with operation and maintenance of that bridge being the responsibility of the community development district. Financing would be through standard tolls, which again are in the neighborhood of $ .50 per one-way trip and a developer imposed impact fee on each housing unit as it comes on-line. The public safety complex as addressed in the development order is the responsibility of the developer and involves an expenditure of some $700,000 to be donated to the community development district. Table 2, at page 7 of Petitioner's exhibit number 10 to Petitioner's exhibit number 3, sets forth the proposed cost of each of the major expenditure items at various phases within the development buildout. This totals 46.8 million dollars, with the developer contributing an additional 9.4 million dollars plus in capital costs over and above its initial outlay of 8.9 million dollars. Those subsequent phased donations by the developer pertain to the same items within the project envisioned in the initial outlay for capital contributions, with the exception of the one-time $700,000 expended on the public safety complex and its equipment. The public safety complex will be operated and maintained by the community development district and financed by fire service fees assessed against residents within the district. The finance package, in addition to the noteworthy cash contribution of the developer in the beginning and at the point
of development of phases 2 and 3, also is established in a way which places the onus on the developer to satisfy the maintenance and operation requirements of the community development district in its early years prior to purchase by third parties. Those assessments would be made against the acreage held by the developer. The developer should be able to meet its portion of the obligation in view of the fact that the maintenance of the undeveloped acreage will be at minimal expense. This project also contemplates that the developer shall be obligated to stand behind the revenue bond issues and Fishkind feels that this developer group is capable of meeting that obligation.
Fishkind, in addressing the economic impact of this project, looked to the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and exhibit number 10 to Petitioner's exhibit number 3 and the testimony of Fishkind established that the economic impact of this project will be positive in nature and not an unacceptable imposition on competition in the open market for employment or upon the citizens and government within the area in question. The processing of this project from the point of view of the county, has been sufficiently addressed with the payment of the $15,000 filing fee. This method of dealing with the services contemplated by the project is the least costly method from the point of view of state and local government and comports with the development order.
Fishkind stated, upon inquiry, that from his point of view as an economist all criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e) Florida Statutes, (1984) supra have been satisfactorily answered. Having considered his testimony in the context of other evidence in this cause, that testimony is accepted as being an accurate assessment.
Public Participation
Dr. Paul Liefer, who is chairman of the Palm Coast Service District Advisory Council, a board appointed by the Flagler County Commission to assist the commission in responding to the needs of the Palm Coast service district, gave testimony. In his capacity as chairman of the advisory council, he noted that the advisory council favors the recognition of the Petitioner for a community development district, provided this recognition is consistent with the Flagler County development order.
Don Kaupke, Superintendent of Flagler County Schools, in that capacity and in accordance with the wishes of the Flagler County Board of Education, and by that board's resolution, which is Petitioner's exhibit number 17a, favors the creation of a community development district, as it benefits student safety, particularly related to the construction of the proposed bridge.
R. Tolman, Administrator, Coastal Community Hospital, Flagler County, Florida, supports the recognition of the community development district sought by the Petitioner, in its feature of offering more immediate access to the hospital in transporting patients. This comment relates to the construction of the bridge across the Intracoastal Waterway. A letter in memorialization of this position was placed in the record as Petitioner's exhibit number 17b.
David Siegel, President, Palm Coast Chapter of the American Association of Retired Persons, testified at the hearing and offered Petitioner's exhibit number 17c which is a resolution in behalf of the 600 members of that organization endorsing the establishment of the community development district associated with Hammock Dunes.
Warren Wolfert, a resident of Palm Coast and President, Palm Coast Civic Association, testified at the hearing. This civic group is an organization of 800 families who reside in the Palm Coast community which is west of the proposed project across the Intracoastal Waterway. In behalf of the association, Wolfert indicated support for recognition of the community development district, with a caveat, that some reservations were held about the financing of the various projects. He indicated the desire to speak to those matters when the public was granted the opportunity to participate in the future.
Kenneth L. Hansen, a resident of Palm Coast who is employed as a financial planner gave testimony. As a member of the business community in Palm Coast he favored the community development district idea expressed in this petition.
Herbert Brattlof, a resident of Palm Coast gave testimony. Brattlof is a civil engineer and contractor and feels that the community development district idea is a positive asset for the county and for Palm Coast community.
Harold Jordan, a resident of Palm Coast community, who is in the alarm security business, spoke in favor of the community development district, especially that feature of the district related to the construction of a bridge.
Robert McMillan, who resides in an area adjacent to the proposed project, spoke in favor of the project. His business is realty and construction. In addition to the general contribution of this district, the bridge feature of the project is considered a valuable addition, according to McMillian.
Shelton B. Barber, Clerk and ex-officio member of the Board of County Commissioners for Flagler County, submitted a copy of the resolution of the School Board of Flagler County and a Resolution by the Flagler County Chamber of Commerce favoring the project. The school board resolution is a duplicate of Petitioner's exhibit number 17a. These items were presented post-hearing and are included with this report.
There are various other resolutions of civic organizations and others which favor the creation of the Dunes Community Development District. Those exhibits may be found within Petitioner's composite exhibits number 17.
Public Opposition
Jerry Shatz resides in a location which is just north of the project, approximately a quarter of a mile away, on State Road A1A. Mr. Shatz is a manufacturer's representative who has lived in the area off and on since 1950. Mr. Shatz is president of a local civic organization of persons living within the general vicinity of the development and that organization consists of 210 to
215 persons. Shatz and the organization oppose the recognition of a community development district. In addition Shatz indicated that he represents the Florida Wildlife Federation, in the capacity of vice-president. Shatz questions the claim of ownership of the overall property in that he believes a certain right-of-way in this project is the property of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. This matter was the subject of litigation and Petitioner's exhibit number 18 is a copy of the final judgment against the State of Florida, Department of Transportation in favor of the developers who sponsor this petition. That judgment was in a suit to quiet title and is, pending appeal. Shatz was also a defendant in that cause. Unless the determination by the
Circuit Court is overturned, this final judgment resolves the question of title to this disputed road or road right-of-way.
Shatz also believes that the general public is entitled to have the bridge constructed without the necessity of the creation of a community development district.
Shatz is concerned that with the advent of the residents moving into the Hammock Dunes community, Flagler County will have a problem related to ad valorem taxes for financing public schools, in that Flagler County residents would be "property rich and student poor." As pointed out by Dr. Fishkind in his rebuttal comments to this opinion, the matter of ad valorem taxes for school financing is an issue in the development of regional impact case and not the topic for consideration in the community development district case. The community development district will not impact the schools. Even so, on its merits, Shatz's perception is erroneous in that the Hammock Dunes community will have a positive impact on tax revenues for the school system in Flagler County.
Shatz also worries that the property values in adjacent parcels to the development will go up, thereby creating an additional tax burden for those residents who reside near the proposed development. Fishkind in his response again accurately identifies that those matters relate to the development of regional impact and not to the community development district issues. Nonetheless, Fishkind believes, and that belief is accepted, that the overall tax burden of adjacent residents will not increase and should it increase the quid pro quo for that increase is a realized increase in property values for the benefit of those adjacent residents.
Shatz stated that this project is contrary to the governor's idea about barrier island development. Without more support for that statement, which is lacking in this record, it is unclear what Shatz intends by this comment.
Shatz believes that the drainage and water systems identified in this project are incompatible with the surroundings. Given the steps taken by the Petitioner to protect the environment, this opinion is not accepted, as it pertains to water management, or wastewater treatment.
Finally, Shatz is concerned about the overall economic impact of this project and feels that it is negative in its implication. That perception is not accurate when considered in the face of the presentation of the Petitioner.
James Martin, who resides in the Palm Coast community, gave testimony. Martin is retired and works part-time in real estate. By his remarks he states general opposition to the concept of this project. He is particularly distressed by the idea of providing the proposed services by a means other than general government. His testimony is found in the transcript, volume II, pages
26 through 38. Having considered his remarks, they are not so compelling as to cause the suggested denial of the recognition of the community development district petition for rule enactment.
Vicki McCartney, resides in the vicinity of the project in an area east of the Intracoastal Waterway. She is a member of the civic association of which Mr. Shatz is the president. By her composite exhibit number 1 by the opposing public, McCartney suggests that the community development district idea is unsound; that Flagler County opposes the community development district; that conveyance of ownership of the bridge to the State of Florida, Department of
Transportation would cost the citizens of Flagler County and that the bridge at the Intracoastal Waterway is not a basic service contemplated by Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (1984). These concerns expressed by the witness McCartney are not well founded and are rejected.
CONCLUSIONS
Having considered the record in this cause, and being mindful of Flagler County Resolution No. 84-7, the development order related to Hammock Dunes community, it is concluded:
That all statements contained within the petition are found to be true and correct.
That the creation of the district is consistent with applicable elements or portions of the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan.
That the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community.
That the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district.
That the community development services and facilities of the district would be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
That the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government.
DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1985.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Wade L. Hopping, Esquire and Richard Brightman, Esquire
Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
John T. Herndon Secretary
Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
Office of the Governor The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 29, 1985 | Recommended Order (hearing held April 15, 1985). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 29, 1985 | Recommended Order | Report and conclusions are in support of rule enactment for Dunes Development District related to surface, potable and waste water and roads and bridge. |
