STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: | ) |
Petition of Strazzulla Brothers | ) |
Company, Inc. to establish a | ) |
community development district | ) CASE NO. 87-4356GM |
to be known as Capron Trail | ) |
Community Development District. | ) |
)
REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS
On December 4, 1987 a public hearing was held in this cause in Fort Pierce, Florida for the purpose of considering the petition of Strazzulla Brothers Company, Inc. (petitioner) to establish the Capron Trail Community Development District (District) in St. Lucie County, Florida pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (1985). At hearing, petitioner was represented by Richard S. Brightman, Esquire. Petitioner presented the testimony of Joseph P. Strazzulla, Bruce Scott Benewitz, Fred A. Greene and Dr. Henry H. Fishkind. Their names and addresses are attached to this Report as Exhibit A and a summary of their testimony is set forth in a separate portion of this Report. Petitioner also offered petitioner's exhibits 1-11 which were received in evidence. A list of said exhibits is attached to this Report as Appendix B. This Report and Conclusions is submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code (1987).
Procedural Background
This proceeding began when petitioner filed a petition with the Commission's Secretary on September 28, 1987 seeking authorization to establish a community development district in an unincorporated area of St. Lucie County, Florida. The contents of the petition are found in petitioner's composite exhibit 1 received in evidence. After certifying that all elements and contents of the petition were complete, the Secretary forwarded the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 2, 1987. By order dated October 15, 1987 a date and location of public hearing was established, and petitioner was required to publish notice of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area. Such notice was published in The News Tribune, a daily newspaper in Fort Pierce, Florida on November 7, 13, 19 and 25, 1987. Proof of publication is found in petitioner's exhibit 3B received in evidence. In addition, and as required by Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code (1987), copies of said notice were served upon all persons named in the petition (prospective board members), all affected units of local government (St. Lucie County) and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs.
Proof of service of said notices has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 3C through E. Finally, notice of the hearing was published by the Commission's Secretary in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 30, 1987 as required by Rule 42-1.010(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code (1987). A copy of said notice is found in petitioner's exhibit 3A received in evidence.
Petitioner also filed a copy of the petition with the St. Lucie County Commission and paid the required $15,000 filing fee to that body. A public hearing before the County Commission was held on November 3, 1987. After the
hearing was completed, the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 87-241 expressing support for the petition. The resolution has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 4B.
The hearing in this matter was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1985), and Rule 42-1.012(4), Florida Administrative Code (1987). A transcript of said hearing was filed with the undersigned on December 30, 1987 and is being transmitted with this Report and Conclusions. Other than petitioner's witnesses, no other person testified or offered evidence in this cause. As required by Rule 42-1.012(3), Florida Administrative Code (1987), the record was kept open for ten days after the public hearing so that interested parties, if any, could submit written statements concerning the petition. None were filed.
A Brief Overview of The District
By this petition, petitioner seeks to establish a community development district in St. Lucie County. Once approved, the District will be an independent special taxing district authorized by Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (1985). As such, it may plan, finance, construct, operate and maintain a communitywide infrastructure in a planned community development to be constructed in the District.
The proposed district is located entirely within an unincorporated area of northern St. Lucie County. Encompassing some 5,400 acres, the District lies just south of the Indian River County line and west of Interstate 95.
Eventually, petitioner intends to construct 5,400 dwelling units in the District so as to achieve a density of one unit per acre. It also intends to install a surface water management system, major arterial roads, water and sewer facilities and a drinking water system. This infrastructure will be constructed in a six-phase plan over a thirty year period. The cost of all such improvements will be borne by petitioner through the issuance of revenue bonds and the assessment of benefit taxes and user fees. Only those who receive the benefit of the services will pay the costs involved. After completion, the ownership, operation and maintenance of the improvements will be the responsibility of the District. It is noted that the sole purpose of this proceeding is to authorize the establishment of the District. Any other necessary permits for construction or planning purposes are not within the scope of this proceeding.
Summarization of Evidence and Testimony
Joseph P. Strazzulla - Mr. Strazzulla is president and chairman of the board of Strazzulla Brothers Company, Inc., the corporation that has filed the petition in this cause. Strazzula has overall responsibility for planning the project and overseeing the filing of the petition. In addition to Strazzula, who is a citrus grower and community developer, four other individuals have been designated as constituting the initial Board of Supervisors of the District: Edgar A. Brown, a retired attorney, rancher, businessman and citrus grower; Douglas S. Putnam, a realtor; Charles Stone, Jr., an aviation services executive; and Dr. Kenneth Fulton, a retired medical doctor and businessman.
All are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States of America.
Strazzula identified petitioner's composite exhibit 1 which accompanied the petition initiating this proceeding. Exhibit 1 is made up of ten exhibits, which are numbered as petitioner's exhibits 1 through 10 of composite exhibit 1.
The first exhibit within composite exhibit 1 is a county context map which depicts the general location of the project within the county. It is noted that the proposed district will be located in an unincorporated area of St. Lucie County and will encompass approximately 5,400 acres of land. Exhibit 2 is a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District.
Petitioner owns 100 percent of the real property to be included within the District. This is evidenced by petitioner's exhibit 3 which is a warranty deed executed on October 29, 1985 and which conveyed the property in question to the corporation. Exhibit 4 is a map of existing and abutting land use. It reflects that most of the existing property is now being used as pasture land for grazing cattle. Presently, productive citrus groves lie on parts of all sides of the site, while a rock mine and pasture also border on two sides. Exhibit 5 is a conceptual phasing plan for the District showing the development of the District in six five-year phases over a thirty-year period beginning in 1987. Exhibit 6 contains the conceptual water and wastewater master plan. It depicts planned major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors, drainage outfalls and water/wastewater treatment facilities. Presently, there are some drainage outfalls on the property but no existing water mains or sewer or interceptor mains. Exhibit 7 is the estimated infrastructure construction schedule and cost. In graph form it reflects the anticipated construction schedule and estimated costs in 1986 dollars (excluding cost of bond issues) for the roads, potable water system, wastewater system and surface water management system.
Actual timetables and expenditures may vary, due in part to the effects of future changes in economic conditions upon costs such as labor, services, materials and the like. Exhibit 8A is a copy of the original St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan which became effective on June 15, 1981 and which contains all required elements for a local government comprehensive plan under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1985). Exhibit 8B is a copy of St. Lucie County Ordinance Number 86-92 adopted on December 18, 1986 and which amended the St.
Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan by changing the land use designation of petitioner's property from productive agriculture to semi-urban. Exhibit 9 is the economic impact statement (EIS) for the District as required by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). Attached to the exhibit are all of the data and methodology used in preparing the EIS. Finally, exhibit 10 is an authorization of agent which authorizes Strazzula to act as agent for petitioner with regard to any and all matters pertaining to the petition.
Bruce Scott Benewitz - Benewitz is a senior planner with Gee & Jenson, an engineering, architectural and planning firm located in West Palm Beach, Florida. As a senior planner with the firm, Benewitz is responsible for long- range planning, preparation of regional impact statements and planned-unit development applications. He has had a wide range of experience as a planner while employed by a water management district, a county area management board and Gee & Jenson.
Benewitz was involved with the preparation of the District's land use and phasing plans as well as the land use application previously filed with St.
Lucie County.
As identified by Benewitz, exhibit 7 is an enlargement of the map of existing and abutting land use and reflects the existing and abutting uses of the land in question. To the east of the proposed site (and across 1-95) is an improved residential development. A rock mining operation borders on the northeastern portion of the District while an air park development lies on its north side. Citrus groves are found to the west and south, and a pasture area is located on the southeastern boundary. The existing land use within the boundaries of the District is predominantly pasture land.
Benewitz described exhibit 5 as being an enlargement of the conceptual phasing plan filed with the petition. According to Benewitz, the present land use designation is semi-urban which allows one dwelling unit per acre. While the overall density will conform with this requirement, there will be some areas with only one dwelling for each five acres and others with a density as high as ten units per acre.
In planning the project, Benewitz utilized the St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan, as amended, as well as the Florida State Comprehensive Plan. It is his opinion that the proposed District will be compatible with both plans.
In response to counsel's inquiry, Benewitz stated that the District meets each of the criteria set forth in Subsection 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). These criteria are as follows:
(e) The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission shall consider the entire record of the local hearing, the transcript of the hearing, resolutions adopted by local
general-purpose governments as provided in paragraph (c), and the following factors and make a determination to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a community development district:
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 alternative 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 Benewitz' testimony in the context of other evidence in this case, that testimony is accepted as an accurate assessment.
Fred A. Greene - Greene is chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Gee & Jenson, Engineers, Architects and Planners, a West Palm Beach firm employed by petitioner to assist in the preparation of this case. Greene is a registered professional engineer who has been involved in the creation, operation and maintenance of over twenty-five special districts during his thirty-one year tenure in the business. These districts range in size from 1,000 acres to 60,000 acres. He has also served as chief engineer for five special districts.
Greene played an active role in the design of the District's water management system, roads and water and sewer systems. He also assisted in the preparation of cost estimates and attended the St. Lucie County hearing on this matter. Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of petitioner's composite exhibit 1 were prepared by his staff and under his supervision.
According to Greene, the construction timetable calls for the construction of the infrastructure (roads, water and wastewater treatment systems) over a thirty-year period beginning in 1987. There are no water mains or sewer facilities on the property at the present time. Under its plan, the District proposes to construct a series of wells from which water will be pumped to a central water treatment plant and then distributed to the area south of Indrio Road, which runs in an east-west direction through the middle of the property. As to the area north of Indrio Road, in which larger individually owned tracts will be located, petitioner intends to use individual wells and septic tanks until it is economically feasible to use a central system.
Under the District's surface water management plan, a series of lakes, canals and reservoirs will be constructed to handle surface water from excess rainfall. This will also give the District the opportunity to pump the surface water to reservoirs for reuse. Any excess flow will discharge south through a canal into the C-25 canal facility owned by the South Florida Water Management District.
The District's proposed wastewater treatment system will include lines constructed with the streets below Indrio Road. These will be used to collect wastewater. The wastewater will be carried through the lines to lift stations where it will then be pumped to a treatment facility. This facility will treat the wastewater to the standards required by the Department of Environmental Regulation.
The main access to the area will be by Indrio Road which connects to Interstate 95. A sufficient number of connector roads will be constructed off that main east/west artery to meet the needs of the residents. All such facilities will be designed and constructed to meet St. Lucie County standards.
According to Greene, the project will meet all statutory criteria in Subsection 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). This testimony is hereby accepted as being an accurate assessment.
Dr. Henry H. Fishkind - Doctor Fishkind is president and chairman of the board of M. G. Lewis Econometrics, Inc. His services as an economist were used by petitioner in developing the economic impact statement (EIS) which has been received in evidence as exhibit 9 of composite exhibit 1. Doctor Fishkind heads up the forecasting efforts of his firm, serves as financial advisor for a number of governmental entities, including community development districts, and is a financial consultant for several private corporations. He has taught urban and regional economics at the University of Florida, prepared forecasting for
that university's Bureau of Economic and Business Research, published numerous professional literature, and prepared revenue projections for the State of Florida. He has also participated in the creation of several other districts.
On this particular project, Dr. Fishkind prepared the EIS and served as financial advisor and economic consultant to petitioner. In the latter role, his primary goal was to design a District financial structure that would be strong and stable over the course of numerous business cycles that are likely to occur in the future.
According to Dr. Fishkind, there are two primary governmental entities that will be financially affected by the petition: the State of Florida (and its agencies) and St. Lucie County. The EIS anticipates minimal costs to be incurred by the State in reviewing and processing this application since the affected agencies already have an existing staff in place. This is also true of the Comptroller's Office which has the responsibility of reviewing the District's future budgets. Although costs were incurred by the County in processing this application and conducting a hearing, these were more than offset by the $15,000 filing fee paid by petitioner to the County. Once the infrastructure is established and in place, it is the responsibility of the District, and not the County, to maintain the facilities. In terms of costs to the general citizenry, there are none since all costs of the District will be borne through taxes or fees paid by those who use the District's services.
Benefits to the County, general citizenry and District consumers are enumerated in the EIS attached to the petition.
In terms of competition, the granting of the petition will convey no particular competitive advantage to any person. It will provide greater access to small businesses, including minority businesses, for the provision of sales and services to residents of the District.
In preparing the EIS, Dr. Fishkind developed a detailed cash-flow model using a spreadsheet program called Lotus 123. This program tracks each source of revenue and each major cost item related to the District.
According to Dr. Fishkind, a community development district is a vehicle for planning, financing, constructing, operating and maintaining a community infrastructure. However, a district is not a substitute for general-purpose government and hence has no power to create a police force, enact zoning regulations or perform other functions that a governmental entity normally performs. Accordingly, the only relevant inquiry is whether the District will be a financially viable entity, that is, will it have sufficient revenues to finance the infrastructure and thereafter operate and maintain the same?
By statute, the District will be empowered to issue bonds, levy ad valorem taxes and special assessments, and impose user fees and charges. In this case, the District proposes to issue revenue bonds to finance the construction of the water and wastewater systems, the water management system and some of the primary roads. These bonds will be repaid through a combination of benefit taxes, user fees and connection charges. A maintenance tax will cover other district expenses for the water management and road system. A more specific plan for financing is set forth on Table 1 of the EIS. As reflected on the table, revenue bonds will be used to finance the construction of the surface water management system and main arterial roads. These bonds will be retired through the use of benefit taxes levied on all benefitted property in the District. Revenue bonds will also be used to finance the water and wastewater systems. This is the least cost alternative means of doing so. These bonds
will be retired through a combination of connection charges and monthly service fees. To defray the costs of operation and maintenance of the infrastructure, the District will utilize a variety of taxes and charges tailored to the service involved so as to minimize costs while ensuring that only those who receive the benefits from a facility pay the costs involved. It is noted that the debts of the District, by law, cannot be considered debts of St. Lucie County or the State of Florida, and therefore will not become the obligation of any other entity. It is also noted that the District does not propose to issue general obligation debt or levy ad valorem taxes.
Doctor Fishkind characterizes the project as having a very conservative financial structure and one patterned after other successful districts. Its financial design has been formulated to help assure that the District will be strong, stable, and can stand alone throughout its lifetime. To support this proposition, his cash-flow model used a wide range of potential economic conditions in which the District might have to operate, including circumstances of high and rising interests rates with inflation, deflation, slow home sales and the like. The results show that the District will be able to meet its financial obligations on an ongoing basis.
Doctor Fishkind also pointed out that, of the various alternatives in providing infrastructure services for the project, a community development district is superior to a municipal service taxing unit, the county or a homeowner's association. This is because neither the county or a municipal service taxing unit would be as responsive to the District residents as would be the District. Similarly, a homeowner's association would be hindered by reason of its inability to issue bonds.
According to Dr. Fishkind, the project complies with all statutory criteria set forth in Subsection 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). This testimony is accepted as being an accurate assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
Having considered the entire record in this cause, it is concluded
That all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct.
That the creation of the district is consistent with applicable elements or portions of the state comprehensive plan and the St. Lucie County Growth Management Plan, as amended.
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 will 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 14th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1988.
Appendix A
(Names and Addresses of Witnesses)
Joseph P. Strazzula, Post Office Box 3152, Fort Pierce, Florida 34948
Bruce Scott Benewitz, c/o Gee & Jenson, Post Office Drawer 4600, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Fred A. Greene, c/o Gee & Jenson, Post Office Drawer 4600, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, 201 North New York Avenue, Suite 300, Winter Park, Florida 32789
Exhibit 1
Appendix B
(List of Documentary Evidence)
St. Lucie County Context Nap
Metes and Bounds Legal Description of District
Warranty Deed of October 29, 1985
Conceptual Phasing Plan of District
Conceptual Water and Wastewater Master Plan of District
Estimated Infrastructure Construction Schedule and Cost 8A St. Lucie County Growth Management Policy Plan
8B St. Lucie County Ordinance No. 86-92
Economic Impact Statement
Authorization of agent
Exhibit 2 Letter of September 29, 1987 from Secretary Robertson to Sharyn Smith
Exhibit 3A Copy of Notice published in Florida Administrative Weekly
Exhibit 3B Notice of publication in The News Tribune Exhibit 3C1 Service of Notice of Hearing on Edgar A. Brown
Exhibit 3C2 Service of Notice of Hearing on Joseph P. Strazzula Exhibit 3C3 Service of Notice of Hearing on Douglas S. Putnam Exhibit 3C4 Service of Notice of Hearing on Charles Stone, Jr. Exhibit 3C5 Service of Notice of Hearing on Dr. Kenneth Fulton Exhibit 3D1 Service of Notice of Hearing on St. Lucie County
Attorney
Exhibit 3D2 Service of Notice of Hearing on St. Lucie County Commission Chairman
Exhibit 3E Service of Notice of Hearing on Secretary, Department of Community Affairs
Exhibit 4A Notice of St. Lucie County meeting
Exhibit 4B Copy of St. Lucie County Resolution No. 87-241 Exhibit 5 Copy of St. Lucie County Ordinance 86-92 Exhibit 6 County Context Map (enlargement)
Exhibit 7 Existing and Abutting Land Use Map (enlargement) Exhibit 8 Conceptual Phasing Plan of District (enlargement) Exhibit 9 Corrected Table 3 of Economic Impact Statement Exhibit 10 Table 3 of Economic Impact Statement
Exhibit 11 Table 1 of Economic Impact Statement
COPIES FURNISHED:
Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
Glenn W. Robertson, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 14, 1988 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 14, 1988 | Recommended Order | Request for approval of a community development district in St. Lucy County granted. |
