STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: Petition of Hampton Hills, ) A Florida General Partnership and ) Citrus County, a Political )

Subdivision of the State of )

Florida, to Establish a )

Community Development District ) Case No. 90-2254 to be known as Hampton Hills )

Community Development District. )

)

REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary Matters

As envisioned by Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42- 1.012, Florida Administrative Code, a local public hearing was conducted on July 11, 1990. The hearing was held in the County Commissioner's Room, Citrus County Courthouse, 110 North Apopka Avenue, Inverness, Florida, commencing at 9:30 a.m. The hearing had been reset from the date of August 29, 1990 at the request of counsel for Hampton Hills. Copies of the hearing officer's original notice of hearing, the letter requesting an amended hearing date and the amended notice of hearing are provided with this report and conclusions.

In the course of these proceedings Hampton Hills was represented by Ken Van Assenderp, of Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Benton, P.A., 225 South Adams, Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1833. Citrus County was represented by Larry Haag, Esquire, County Attorney for Citrus County, Citrus County Courthouse, Inverness, Florida 32650.

At the local public hearing the Co-Petitioners Hampton Hills and Citrus County presented witnesses and exhibits to support their request for recognition of the proposed Hampton Hills Community Development District. Public testimony was received, together with written statements by the public. The public participation included the opportunity to not only listen to the remarks of the Co-Petitioners' witnesses before offering public comment or submitting written statements, it also included the opportunity to examine prefiled testimony of the witnesses of the Co-Petitioners and those exhibits presented by the Co- Petitioners.

In the transcript of the local public hearing, provided with this report and conclusions, the court reporter has set forth an index identifying the page at which examination of the various witnesses commenced. Witnesses for the Co- Petitioners were Scott Stephens, General Manager of Citrus Hills Investment Properties and related entities; Gary L. Moyer, project manager for the proposed community development who has fulfilled a similar role in the management of special purpose taxing districts throughout Florida; Jeannette M. Haag, an attorney with the firm of Haag and Deutschman, Inverness, Florida and counsel to the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority; Gail Easley, Director of Planning and Landscape Architecture, Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc., Crystal River, Florida, a certified planner and member of the America Institute of Certified Planners; Edward L. Czarnecki, civil engineer with the

firm of Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc.; Christopher Chinault, County Administrator for Citrus County, Florida; and Dr. Henry Fishkind, of the firm of Fishkind and Associates, Inc., who is an economist. In addition to the testimony at hearing, prepared testimony was submitted by Scott Stephens, Gary Moyer, Gail Easley, Edward Czarnecki and Dr. Henry Fishkind. That prefiled testimony is submitted with the report and conclusions. Their addresses are as follows: Scott Stephens, 2416 North Essex Avenue, Hernando, FL 32642; Gary L. Moyer, 10300 N.W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, FL 33071; Jeannette Haag, 1833 Kimberly Lane, Inverness, FL; Gail Easley, 640 East Highway 44, Crystal River, FL 32629; Edward L. Czarnecki, 640 East Highway 44, Crystal River, FL 32629; Christopher Chinault, 110 North Apopka Avenue, Inverness, FL; and Henry H. Fishkind, 507 North New York Avenue, Suite 301, Winter Park, FL.

Members of the public who testified at the local public hearing were Dr. Carlton McLeod, Dan Davies, Jim Kidder, Charles Osborn, Victoria Phillips and Jack Elam. Their addresses are Dr. Carlton McLeod, 670 West Pearson Street, Hernando, FL; Dan Davies, 1020 West Olympia Street, Hernando, FL; Jim Kidder, 1101 West Olympia Street, Hernando, FL; Charles Osborn, 105 West National Street, Hernando, FL; Victoria Phillips, 1100 North Ottawa Avenue, Lecanto, FL; and Jack Elam, 1659 West Jenny Street, Lecanto, FL. At the local public hearing written statements were also presented by Dr. McLeod, Mr. Davies, Mr. Kidder and Mr. Osborn. Those written statements are included with the report and conclusions. A photograph of the Davies property which is in the vicinity of the proposed community development district is also provided. This photograph was submitted at the local public hearing. Post-hearing, in accordance with Rule 42-1.012(3), Florida Administrative Code, a written statement of July 18, 1990 with attachments was submitted by Mr. Davies, Dr. McLeod, Mr. Kidder and Mr. Osborn. In that same category a written statement was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 20, 1990, with attachments as authored by James C. Phillips and Victoria T. Phillips, Jack L. Elam and Catherine P. Elam, Russell N. Mills and Eleanore A. Mills, James C. Westfall and

R. Charlene Westfall, Walter C. Rogers and June M. Pierce, Carl Mann and Hazel Mann, George J. Davis and Sherry Davis/Laura B. Morden, Edmund Dombrowski and Anna Dombrowski, Susan Antonetti and Jeffrey Q. Smith. Concerning this submission only the addresses of the Phillips and Elams were provided and that was done at the public hearing. Under cover letter of August 3, 1990 from G. Stephen Pfeiffer, General Counsel to the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, a July 5, 1990 letter from Andrew P. Ring of 795 East Everett Lane, Post Office Box 68, Hernando, FL 32642, has been received reference recognition of the proposed community development district. Correspondence filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 8, 1990 from Victoria T. Phillips has been received. Finally, correspondence of August 17, 1990 from Andrew P. Ring has been received. All of the post-hearing submissions from members of the public are forwarded with the report and conclusions.

As contemplated by Rule 42-1.012(3), Florida Administrative Code, Hampton Hills in the person of its counsel has filed an answer or response to the public comments. That answer is forwarded with the report and conclusions.

The exhibits submitted by the Co-Petitioners are in series: Composite Exhibit A-1, location map outlining the Hampton Hills development; Composite Exhibit A-2, location map of proposed district; Composite Exhibit A-3, sketch map of the Hampton Hills Development; Composite Exhibit A-4, Citrus County Comprehensive Plan map; Composite Exhibit A-5, Citrus County Comprehensive Plan map amendments; Composite Exhibit B-1, Hampton Hills Development Order; Composite Exhibit B-2, development agreement; Composite Exhibit C-1, Petition (original with exhibits); Composite Exhibit C-2, Petition Exhibit "1" showing

the location of land area to be serviced by district; Composite Exhibit C-3, Petition Exhibit "2" indicating metes and bounds; Composite Exhibit C-4, Petition Exhibit "3" - written consent by property owners/optionees; Composite Exhibit C-5, Petition Exhibit "4" - existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors or outfalls; Composite Exhibit C-6, Petition Exhibit "5" - proposed timetables and cost estimates for the district; Composite Exhibit C-7, Petition Exhibit "6" - copy of Planned Development Designation (pgs. 738 & 782) of future land use element of the existing Citrus County Comprehensive Plan; Composite Exhibit C-8-1, Petition Exhibit "7 A" - economic impact statement for Hampton Hills; Composite Exhibit C-8-2, Petition Exhibit "7 B" - New 1990 reporting requirements of special tax districts; Composite Exhibit D, Citrus County District Resolution; Composite Exhibit E-1, Letter from Robert L. Henigar to Larry M. Haag submitting petition to County; Composite Exhibit E-2, Xerox copy of $15,000.00 check; Composite Exhibit E-3, letter transmitting petition to Patricia Woodworth, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission on March 28, 1990, from Ken van Assenderp; Composite Exhibit F-1, letter transmitting petition to a hearing officer, certifying compliance from Patricia Woodworth, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission; Composite Exhibit G, Notices; Composite Exhibit G-1, Fla. Admin. Weekly - May 18, 1990, Vol. 16, No. 20, pg. 2390; Composite Exhibit G-2, affidavit for Citrus County Chronicle publication; Composite Exhibit G-3, tear sheet on June 13, 1990; Composite Exhibit G-4, tear sheet on June 20, 1990; Composite Exhibit G-5, tear sheet on June 27, 1990; Composite Exhibit G-6, tear sheet on July 4, 1990; Composite Exhibit H-1, the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan; Composite Exhibit

H-2, documentation of plan status; Composite Exhibit I, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, State Comprehensive Plan; Exhibit J, stipulation/agreement between Citrus County and Hampton Hills regarding the local public hearing; Composite Exhibit K-1, well sites of the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority; Composite Exhibit K-2, property description of Ted Williams' property within the external boundaries of the proposed development district; Composite Exhibit K-3, economic impact statement related to the proposed community development district and its influence on the well site properties; Composite Exhibit K-4, memorandum of law related to the affect of failing to identify properties excluded from the proposed community development district found within the external boundaries.

Concerning Composite Exhibit B-2, the attachments to the development agreement are not included.

Enlarged exhibits are included as part of Composite Exhibits A-1 and A-2 to clearly identify road systems which exist and may be considered for construction as a result of any recognition of the proposed community development district.

These enlarged exhibits are constituted of two clear overlays marked A-1 and A-2 and the underlying road classification map.

Also provided is the affidavit of counsel for Hampton Hills related to the amendments to the legal description set out in the petition reference the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority well sites and property belonging to Ted Williams. The written response of Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority concerning inclusion within the proposed community development district under cover letters is provided. Copies of the July 13, 1990 letter to the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission with attachments pertaining to the corrections to the petition associated with the legal descriptions for the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority and the Ted Williams' property are included. Memoranda of law related to expert witness testimony and exercise of powers beyond the external boundaries of the district and the proposed report and conclusions submitted by Hampton Hills are submitted.

The April 10, 1990 transmittal of the petition from the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings with attachments is included with the report and conclusions.

The Process

On March 28, 1990, Hampton Hills and Citrus County petitioned the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to enact a rule to establish the proposed Hampton Hills Community Development District. On that same date through the Co- Petitioner Hampton Hills the $15,000 filing fee called for in Section 190.005(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes, was paid to Citrus County. At the time that the $15,000 filing fee was paid to Citrus County, the county was provided a copy of the petition which it had joined in with Hampton Hills. See Section 190.005(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes.

This proposed project is located in unincorporated Citrus County, Florida.

The property within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district is approximately 2,000 acres.

Given its status as a Co-Petitioner, Citrus County did not avail itself of the opportunity to conduct its own public hearing to consider review criteria associated with recognition of a community development district. See Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

Infrastructure needs which would be addressed by the proposed community development district include surface water management, roads and drainage, water distribution, major wastewater lines and park facilities and landscaping. The petition identifies capital costs, ownership, operation and maintenance and financing for this infrastructure, with the overall cost quotations being found in Composite Exhibit C-8-1 at Tables 1 and 2 respectively, part of the economic impact statement prepared by Dr. Fishkind. Those cost estimates are also referred to in Composite Exhibit C-6 which explains that the cost estimates for construction are those related to the exercise of the powers envisioned by Section 190.012(1), Florida Statutes.

After receiving the petition for rule making the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission conducted the review which is required by Rule 42-1.009, Florida Administrative Code. The Petition was then transmitted to the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. This action took place on April 10, 1990. Through the letter of transmittal the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission by her designee Karen K. MacFarland certified that all requirements incumbent upon the Co-Petitioners under Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, had been complied with. The Secretary called upon the Division Director to see that the public hearing contemplated by Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, was conducted.

William F. Quattlebaum, Hearing Officer, was initially assigned to conduct the local public hearing and render the report and conclusions. He was unavailable to carry out those responsibilities based upon a scheduling conflict. Consequently Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer, conducted the local public hearing and rendered the report and conclusions.

Pursuant to Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission caused the publication in Vol. 16, No. 20, May 18, 1990 of the Florida Administrative Weekly of a notice of its receipt of the

petition which set forth a summary of the contents of the petition and general description of the land area affected, a summary and estimate of economic impact of the proposed rule on the agency, the time, date and place of this scheduled local public hearing and a reference to where the full text of the petition might be reviewed, copied or procured. See Composite Exhibit G-1.

Following the publication of the notice of receipt of the petition, Co- Petitioners caused to be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in Citrus County, a newspaper of general interest and readership in the community, a notice of the local hearing. This publication was as called for in Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code. The newspaper publication occurred on June 13, 20 and 27, 1990 and July 4, 1990. The format of the notice as published in the newspaper sufficiently complied with the requirements of Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code. Copies of the affidavit of the newspaper as to the authenticity of the tear sheets associated with the publications and the publications themselves may be found as Composite Exhibits G-2 through G-6, respectively.

Although it was not shown that a copy of the notice of local hearing published in the newspaper was mailed to all persons named in the proposed rule, all affected units of local government and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs, as contemplated by Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, notice was provided to those persons. That is evidenced by the amended notice of hearing provided by the Division of Administrative Hearings which was sent to the General Counsel for the Department of Community Affairs; the appearance at hearing of counsel for the Co-Petitioner Citrus County and the appearance at hearing of the counsel to the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority. While no indication was given that Theodore S. Williams who owns property within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district was made aware of the July 11, 1990 local public hearing by being provided a copy of the notice of local public hearing, Composite Exhibit

K-2, which is an agreement between Hampton Hills and Mr. Williams clearly indicates his awareness of the pendency of the petition for recognition of the proposed community development district and his acquiescence in that arrangement. Moreover, the county, the Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission were made aware of the inclusion of the Williams' property within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district which caused an amendment to the original metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the proposed community development district and did not express opposition to that amendment.

On July 11, 1990, the local public hearing was conducted in accordance with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.012, Florida Administrative Code.

The proposed community development district is roughly bounded on the north by the unincorporated community of Beverly Hills, Florida; and the south and east by the unincorporated community of Citrus Hills, First Edition, Florida and to the west by the unincorporated community of Timberland Estates and County Road 491. The proposed community development district has boundary lines which are coincident with those of the Hampton Hills Development, a development of regional impact under authority of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Composite Exhibit A-1 shows the map location of the Hampton Hills Development. Composite Exhibit A-2 shows the map location of the proposed community development district. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A-3 sets out the overall features of Citrus Hills II, which is the development of regional impact. Composite Exhibit

A-5 is the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan map as amended and would by comparison to other maps show the location of the proposed community development district.

On February 6, 1990 by Resolution No. 90-24, Citrus County resolved to support the proposed community development district to the extent of being a Co- Petitioner. A copy of that resolution is found as Composite Exhibit D. In this resolution the County referred to its primacy under law concerning regulation of land use and growth within the boundaries of the proposed community development district.

The Citrus Hills II Development of Regional Impact Development Order as drafted October 18, 1985, revised on October 22, 1985 and November 5, 1985 and as amended per discussions with the Department of Community Affairs on January 14, 1986 is found as Composite Exhibit B-1. It speaks of the development of 6,397 dwelling units and 20 acres of commercial and other identified mixed land uses within the 2,000 plus acres whose external boundaries are common to that of the proposed community development district. The development order contemplates provision of a central potable water system, storm water management, wastewater management by use of central sewer system, drainage control and transportation.

The transportation element in the development order refers to a $1,003.90 per dwelling impact fee to offset the off-site road improvements incurred by Citrus County. Under the heading of Transportation there is a paragraph 3 at page 11 of the development order which refers to exhibits (e) and (f). The paragraph describes responsibilities for on-site road improvements; however, some of these improvements are made outside the boundaries of the development. They include reference to nos. 7 and 8 under exhibits (e) and (f). The no. 7 is referred to as a new two-lane n/s connector from North Union Street to West Wheeling Lane. At no. 8 it calls for the developer to reconstruct a two-lane road n/s connector from the south project boundary of parcel B to the Bauer Rusk intersection. In the exhibit (f), the off-site improvements appear to be in an area of some considerable public concern with was described at the local public hearing and will be more completely explained. Again, within the development order at page 12 paragraph 5b, under Transportation, there is the reference to constructing a road from the golf club location in Parcel B to the intersection of Bauer Rusk, a two-lane facility. It is stated that the county would agree to obtain the necessary right-of-way south of the project within five years after development commences as a condition of constructing the south 500 plus or minus feet of the road length described. The development order also obligates the developer for certain off-site signalization. Cost estimates were provided in Table 6 related to the improvements of the road system that have been referred to. Exhibit (g) in the development order refers to a system for monitoring the impacts of the development on the transportation system.

Composite Exhibit B-2 is the February 6, 1990 development agreement between Hampton Hills developer of Citrus Hills II and Citrus County. It refers to the development of regional impact order of January 14, 1986 as "Exhibit D" attached to the agreement. Although Exhibit D is not attached, the development order itself has been presented in this record as the previously described Composite Exhibit B-1. On the other hand, the "Exhibits A through C" said to be attached to Composite Exhibit B-2 are not attached and are not otherwise found in the materials submitted by the Co-Petitioners. Those attachments are described in the agreement as transportation drainage and water management, central water and utilities and landscaping and public park facilities respectively. The agreement between Hampton Hills and the county refers to the requirement of the development of regional impact order to make sure that the developer improves

the property by providing central sewer and water, certain transportation systems (to include highways, streets, drainage and water control), to mitigate traffic impacts of the "project", and to provide park, landscaping, identification signage and recreation facilities. The agreement refers to the need for concurrency of these improvements as envisioned by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It goes on to describe how the county and Hampton Hills are convinced that the proposed community development district could achieve the improvements, services and facilities contemplated as being provided by the proposed community development district. It identifies the belief that services would be provided within the district and improvements made beyond the boundaries of the district to land surrounding the district which is impacted by the "project". It recognizes that the developer would be the property owner whose lands would be subject to levy or assessment for financing of the district in its management, planning, implementation and maintenance responsibility for pursuit of improvements, facilities, and services within the area to be served by the district. At page 4, in the agreement, it is stated that the recognition of a community development district and the construction of infrastructure improvements contemplated by the agreement would partially mitigate and relieve Citrus County of the funding to improve road segments necessary to accommodate the development of Citrus Hills II, the project, in accordance with the development of regional impact development order and would be an alternative solution to manage and finance basic community development services without overburdening government and other tax payers without the proliferation or duplication of or fragmentation of local government services. It goes on to call for the joint petition to establish the development district. It notes the waiver of any formal hearing by Citrus County under authority of 190.05(1)(c), Florida Statutes. It calls for the costs of the establishment of the community development district to be borne by the developer. If a rule is enacted recognizing the proposed community development district, the developer and land owner is to petition the district to manage and finance the infrastructure related to roads, drainage, parks, landscaping and central utilities. In the event the rule is not enacted or in the event the management and financing by the district related to the called for infrastructure and improvement does not occur or is not sufficient to timely construct and maintain the infrastructure then the agreement is null and void. At page 6 it is agreed, that subject to any prior existing agreements between the county and the developer, that relate to park facilities that have been described in the agreement, the Co-Petitioners agree to the establishment of the district and that subsequent to that establishment the district shall have express power and authority to plan, establish, acquire, construct and maintain such facilities as parks and other facilities as well related to indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational use as contemplated under Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and that Citrus County has formally consented to those activities on the part of the district by the terms of the agreement.

In the agreement, at page 6, reference is made to the Transportation and Recreational Fee Ordinance No. 86-11, as amended and to the recreational amenities described in Exhibit B, which is not attached, and the fact that those recreational amenities are qualified for recreational impact fee credits.

Likewise, reference is made to the fact that the developer or district in accordance with the terms of Exhibit C, not attached, shall be entitled to receive credits for the recreational amenities.

It is stated that upon all conditions of the agreement being met, the developer shall request the district to establish improvements in the Citrus Hills II development of regional impact related to transportation, drainage and

water management, central water and utilities and landscaping and public park facilities pursuant to estimated costs and time tables, referring to those amounts and time lines in Exhibits A, B and C, none of which are provided.

At page 7 of the agreement reference is made to the belief that the transportation facilities contemplated in the missing Exhibit A represent improvements to major collector roads within the district and a major off-site transportation improvement to the extent that they expand the Citrus County road network capacity. Whether these improvements described in Exhibit A speak in any fashion to other discussions related to road improvements, to include off- site transportation improvements described in other places in the record cannot be decided without the availability of Exhibit A. Exhibit A is also said to describe drainage facilities. The transportation and drainage facilities that are said to be set forth in Exhibit A are contemplated as being conveyed and dedicated to Citrus County with the district retaining perpetual maintenance responsibility for the transportation and drainage facilities. The perpetual maintenance responsibility for the district is to be particularly defined through another written agreement between the district and Citrus County at the time of conveyance and dedication of each transportation and drainage facility to Citrus County.

Through the agreement the developer and Citrus County recognized that the proposed district's activities did not relieve the developer of its development responsibilities. The proposed district function would be supplementary. Nor is Citrus County relieved of its responsibilities under the development order with the advent of the district. To the extent that the district does not undertake the infrastructure improvements contemplated by the agreement the county and the developer are responsible for them under the terms of the development order.

Through the agreement it was intended that Samuel A. Tamposi, Sr.; Gerald

Q. Nash; Robert L. Henigar; Scott Stephens and Johnny Pastor would become members of the initial board of supervisors for the proposed community development district. Through the petition the Co-Petitioners sought recognition of those persons as the initial board members. The addresses of these proposed board members are set forth in Composite Exhibit C-1. All the initial board members for the proposed community development district are United States citizens and residents of Florida.

Petitioners' Composite Exhibit C-1 through C-8-2 is the petition. As alluded to, it was found by the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to have adequately responded to Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Section 190.005(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, makes it necessary to gain the written consent of the owner or owners of 100% of the real property included within the proposed community development district before establishing the district. At hearing the petition had to be modified given the oversight by the Co-Petitioners in not addressing holdings associated with the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority and Theodore S. Williams.

Composite Exhibit K-1 shows the conveyance of certain well sites from Hampton Hills to Citrus County and thus from Citrus County to the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority. At hearing Jeanette M. Haag, Esquire, Counsel to the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority testified that while she recognized that these well sites were enclaves within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district, the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority did not have any objection to this recognition of the proposed community development district by rule enactment. This testimony was followed

by a formal written statement of this position offered through counsel and submitted to the Hearing Officer post-hearing. Again, that written submission has been submitted with the report and conclusions.

The purpose of the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority is to provide potable drinking water to member governments to include Citrus County. Those governments in turn offer water to a customer base. The creation of the proposed community development district is not seen as taxing the capacities and facilities of the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority. Lack of notice of the local public hearing, according to Ms. Haag, did not adversely affect the interest of the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority. The assessments that may be associated with the proposed community development district will not influence the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority. The Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority has necessary easements to allow access to the two well sites mentioned in Composite Exhibit K-1. They also have easements to well sites 3 and 4 yet to be conveyed from Hampton Hills to Citrus County and subsequently to the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority. Well sites 3 and 4 are within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district. The entire well site acreages that are mentioned in Composite Exhibit K-1 are 4 acres and 3 acres in dimension. The actual well sites in operation are 14 feet by 40 feet. The remaining acreage in those two well sites are subject to recreational easements. This same arrangement is contemplated for the upcoming well sites 3 and 4. In extracting potable water from the wells, customers in the geographical area to be served by the proposed community development district will have no priority compared to customers outside that area in use of the potable water resource.

Composite Exhibit K-2 concerning the property of Theodore S. Williams represents his agreement to allow inclusion of his property within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district as part of that proposed community development district. Therefore there was no adverse affect when he failed to receive notice of the local public hearing held on July 11, 1990 in that the agreement found in Composite Exhibit K-2 constitutes his consent to include his property within the proposed community development district. The metes and bounds of that property are described in Composite Exhibit K-2 as are the metes and bounds descriptions of well sites 1 and 2 set out in Composite Exhibit K-1.

Concerning the economic impact of inclusion of the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority well sites and the Theodore S. Williams property within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district, there is no economic impact on the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority and Mr.

Williams has acknowledged the possible economic impact in his agreement with Hampton Hills of May 5, 1989.

As instructed, counsel for Hampton Hills made the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission aware of the changes to the metes and bounds description promoted by recognition of the enclave associated with the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority's lands and the inclusion of those held by Mr. Williams. This was done by correspondence of July 13, 1990, which included copies of Composite Exhibits K-1 and K-2, together with a proposed statement of economic impact and a legal memorandum. In addition to notifying the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, counsel for Hampton Hills also notified William Buzzett, of the Governor's Office; David Maloney, counsel for the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission and Alfred Bragg, counsel to the Department of Community Affairs of these changes to the metes and bounds descriptions associated with property held by the

Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority and Mr. Williams. None of those persons so notified filed a statement of opposition with the Division of Administrative Hearings. In an affidavit prepared by counsel to Hampton Hills he averes that he has discussed these changes with William Buzzett who reported that Mr. Buzzett and Mr. Maloney had discussed these changes and did not object, and would not be filing any pleadings in opposition to the changes. Also in the affidavit, it is reported that through a telephone discussion with Alfred Bragg the Department of Community Affairs said that it approved the change to the legal description in the petition and would not file any form of notice or pleading with the hearing officer.

Petitioners' Witnesses

Scott Stephens is General Manager of Citrus Hills Investment Properties and related entities. He oversees operations within the company. It was his task to appoint someone to be in charge of the effort to obtain recognition of the proposed community development district. He chose Gary Moyer as project coordinator. The decision of the Hampton Hills to recruit Citrus County as Co- Petitioner was made because this was felt to be a positive outcome.

Mr. Stephens appeared at the hearing on behalf and under the authorization of Hampton Hills, a Florida general partnership whose general partner is Gerald

Q. Nash.

Gary Moyer has qualifications as a consulting manager for special purpose taxing districts within Florida and has had vast experience in that arena, to include familiarity with statutes that pertain to the recognition of those special taxing districts. As a district manager his work involves coordination of planning, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure in special purpose taxing districts. A community development district is such a special purpose taxing district. A number of the special tax districts which Mr. Moyer manages are community development districts. A listing of the districts for which he has management responsibility may be found in his prefiled testimony at page 4. Districts over which he has responsibility have similar functions to that of the proposed community development district under consideration here.

Mr. Moyer identified the fact that community development districts serve to provide the same services as general purpose government. These services are limited to those items referred to in Section 190.012, Florida Statutes. He points out that the community development districts are controlled by an elected board of supervisors, are subject to disclosure of their activities, held accountable under public records laws, and hold their meetings "in the sunshine." Mr. Moyer points out that pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Administrative Code, a community development district can issue notes, bonds or certificates of indebtedness which are generally exempt from taxation. These are paid back through assessments related to monthly user fees or charges or levy of benefit taxes on an annual basis, depending on the form of service provided. The taxation is not advalorem taxation. The bond issues are referred to as special assessment bonds or revenue bonds, sometimes referred to as principal bonds. Mr. Moyer points out that through conduct of necessary elections a community development district could issue general obligation bonds. However that is not the preferred method of financing. The bond issues are ordinarily special assessment or user rate supported bonds. According to Mr.

Moyer, when the tax collector is involved in the collection of non-advalorem

taxes for the delivery of services by the community development district, there is a high level of confidence that the community development district will honor its indebtedness because of the expectation that people will pay their taxes.

According to Mr. Moyer, in the unlikely event where the community development district board of supervisors would levy an advalorem tax to pay for a general obligation bond issue, it would be with certain limitations as he describes at page 40 of the transcript of the local public hearing. General obligation bonds would not obligate taxpayers in Citrus County who are not living within the district.

As project manager Mr. Moyer assembled a group of experts including Mr. Moyer, Ms. Easley, Mr. Czarnecki, Dr. Fishkind and the law firm representing Hampton Hills to consider whether the infrastructure needs of the Hampton Hills Development of Regional Impact specified in the petition could be best met by creation of a community development district. This included an examination of the feasibility of this proposal measured against the criteria identified in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

As alluded to in Composite Exhibit C-6, and addressed by Mr. Moyer in his prefiled remarks, at page 21, the community development district might finance additional components of infrastructure which would increase the projected cost set out in Composite Exhibit C-6. This was further referenced by counsel for Hampton Hills during the testimony of Mr. Moyer. These comments pertaining to possibilities that are presented under Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes to provide other services during the life of proposed community development district do not create doubts about the acceptability of the present petition which does not specifically designate those possible services as to cost and the date upon which the services or improvements might become available. Services or improvements under Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes would encompass landscaping and related recreational uses in parks, according to Mr. Moyer. As Mr. Moyer pointed out in his prefiled testimony, any expansion of the district services, facilities, or improvements beyond what was contemplated in the initial petition would be subject to consideration in a public hearing and approval by the District's governing board.

Having in mind the modifications to the petition that were made at hearing, to include the corrections of metes and bounds related to the water supply authority and Mr. Williams and the possibility of a greater scope of services by the community development district, Mr. Moyer felt that the petition was true and correct. He also expressed the opinion through his testimony at hearing that the land size was large enough to support a community development district and was contiguous enough to be developed as a functionally interrelated community, that it was amenable to separate district government, that is was not inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan or local comprehensive plan and would serve the needs of the present and future land owners to provide infrastructure facilities necessary for the development of the property. See Section 190.005(1)(e)1.,2.,3., and 6., Florida Statutes. In addition Mr. Moyer felt that the proposed community development district's services and facilities were not incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing, local, and regional community development services. See Section 190.005(1)(e)5., Florida Statutes. Finally, Mr. Moyer is of the opinion that the community development district is the best choice for providing infrastructure when compared to the provision of infrastructure by general purpose government or the private sector. See Section 190.005(1)(e)4., Florida Statutes.

By his remarks in his prefiled testimony, Mr. Moyer points out that the district would provide street lighting and landscaping together with road and drainage improvements and water and waste water improvements.

Mr. Moyer through his testimony at the local public hearing indicated that in his experience special tax districts were found to provide timely infrastructure facilities which operate consistent with the local comprehensive plan and the State Comprehensive Plan.

From a financing point of view Mr. Moyer pointed out that district services and facilities are construed to be those for public purposes and as such the indebtedness is exempt from federal income tax, resulting in lower interest rates which benefit present owners and future purchases of property within the district. The district arrangement also provides a mechanism for perpetual operation, maintenance and management of the facilities constructed.

More specifically, on the topic of amenability of the area to service by separate special-district government, under the criterion at Section 190.005(1)(e)6., Florida Statutes, as well as the criterion related to the most suitable alternative for providing the infrastructure contemplated by this petition, as announced at Section 190.005(1)(e)4., Florida Statutes, Mr. Moyer in the prefiled testimony stated that the district provides benefits that general purpose government cannot. This is accomplished by a more narrow focus directed to this development alone. This leads to a timely construction of the infrastructure to coincide with the requirements of the land owner for marketing and building activity. At the same time the community development district provides public safeguards which are common to general purpose government such that the public at large, and present and future landowners can participate in the decision making process of the district. This is controlled by numerous statutes which govern the business of the district insuring notice of the district business, disclosure of its activities, public access to records, accountability for its action, and periodic reporting of its activities. The conduct of the business in a manner similar to general purpose government is a superior arrangement to what could be provided in private sector management of community infrastructure. The law on accountability of the district's activities is Chapter 189, Florida Statues. Controls on the board of supervisors of the district include the fact that they are elected by landowners, that they are subject to ethics laws, to doing their district business "in the sunshine", and are controlled by public records requirements set out in law. Moreover, the district is not free to establish policies that have to do with land use, zoning, and other similar factors. This responsibility is left to local government with the district implementing the infrastructure improvements consistent with Citrus County's Comprehensive Plan and standards.

Mr. Moyer pointed out that as envisioned by Section 190.005(1)(e)5., Florida Statutes, the criterion concerning compatibility of the district with the functions of existing local and regional community developments services and facilities, that the experience he has had is that the district once created becomes a partner with local government in achieving the goals and objectives of the overall community.

Mr. Moyer's prefiled testimony and testimony at the local public hearing as commented on in this report and conclusions is accepted.

Gail Easley offered her remarks at the local public hearing and through prefiled testimony. She is Director of the Division of Planning and Landscape Architecture for Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc., Crystal River, Florida. She is a certified planner and member of The American Institute of Certified Planners. As stated before, she acted as a consultant in studying the potential of the establishment of this proposed community development district, with special emphasis on the compatibility of that proposal with the State Comprehensive Plan and local comprehensive plan. The critical component of this inquiry concerns the management of growth and establishment of infrastructure concurrent with development to assure that the planning is consistent at each level of comparison be it the local level, regional level, or state level of government planning. In the process of comprehensive planning one must also look at capital improvements and the feasibility of the underlying financing of those improvements, keeping in mind the five year period contemplated by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Growth Management Act, which examines the success of capital improvements planning on a five year cycle. In offering her remarks Ms. Easley was aware of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes in it's requirements as well as Chapter 187, Florida Statutes which is the State Comprehensive Plan, the regional comprehensive plan, and that of Citrus County. Ms. Easley also examined the consistency of the proposed community development district with the Citrus County Land Development Regulations. Considering her background Ms.

Easley was recognized at the local public hearing as an expert in planning.

In addition to looking at the question of consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Citrus County Comprehensive Plan, and Citrus County Land Development Regulations, Ms. Easley also examined the consistency of the infrastructure to be provided by the proposed community development district when measured against the criteria set out in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes. She is also familiar with the requirements of Chapter 189, Florida Statutes.

Having in mind the corrections to the petition that were brought about in recognition of the parcels within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district attributable to property held by the water supply authority and Mr. Williams, Ms. Easley believes that the petition is true and correct as it pertains to the criterion announced at Section 190.005(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes. She finds the creation of the district to be consistent with applicable elements or portions of the State Comprehensive Plan and the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan as contemplated by the criterion at Section 190.005(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes. Ms. Easley's discussion of the reasons for these opinions is set forth in her prefiled testimony at pages 9 through 28, and at pages 107 through 120 of the testimony at the local public hearing. In examining the question of consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Ms.

Easley is mindful of the fact that the concept of accountability envisioned by Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, the State Comprehensive Plan, is carried forth in the dictates of Chapter 189, Florida Statutes referring to accountability by community development districts.

Ms. Easley also remarked that the development order, Composite Exhibit B-1 and the agreement between Hampton Hills and Citrus County, Composite Exhibit B-2 are consistent with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and county ordinances. Moreover, she believes that the establishment of the community development district is not inconsistent with the terms of the development order or the aforementioned agreement. She recognizes that the development order requires the developer to provide certain infrastructure which is as contemplated in

Section 190.012(1), Florida Statutes, and that the proposed community development district could deliver those services, namely a potable water system, central sewer system, drainage, roads and landscaping of the road area.

Ms. Easley's perception of the agreement between Hampton Hills and Citrus County, Composite Exhibit B-2 is one in which the county desires to expedite construction of infrastructure and to meet the concurrency requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. This can be partially met through the establishment of the proposed community development district. Furthermore, to the extent to the services may be rendered by the proposed community development district this is the best alternative to provide those services. Thus, the agreement was entered into with the expectation by the county and the developer that they would ask the governing board of the proposed community development district, if the district were established, to provide some of the infrastructure contemplated in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.

Ms. Easley is persuaded that in the event that the proposed community development district was recognized and sought to exercise those powers set out in Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, the exercise of those powers at some future point would not be inconsistent with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. Nor would the exercise of powers under Section 190.012(1), Florida Statutes not presently contemplated by the petition be inconsistent with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan.

Ms. Easley believes that the proposed community development district is of sufficient size, compactness, and contiguity to be developable as a functionally interrelated community within the meaning of Section of 190.005(1)(e)3., Florida Statutes. This opinion takes into account a narrow corridor between parcels B and C reflected on Composite Exhibit A-1 and A-2. That corridor is traversed by a road that connects parcels B and C. In this regard a complete physical connection of the property is not needed. There is no major barrier to the physical and functional interrelationship between the various parcels that make up the community development district.

Ms. Easley does not believe that the two wells sites previously referred to and the water plant which is also within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district, enclaves not part of the proposed community development district, destroy the character of the area as a potential community development district when considering the criterion that at Section 190.005(1)(e)3., Florida Statutes. These places are small in area and are integrated into the overall development of the site. See Composite Exhibit A-3. The water plant had been specifically excluded in the legal description attached to the original petition as not being part of the proposed community development district. The correction made at the local public hearing concerning the two well sites was designed to remove those locations from the metes and bounds description that was forwarded with the original petition.

In the large Exhibit A-1 and A-2, Exhibit A-1 is an overlay in yellow which shows the external boundary of the development. Exhibit A-2 is an overlay which shows the external boundaries of the proposed community development district in red. The overlays are placed on an underlying functional road classification map which is a copy of a document from Citrus County. Those classifications depicted concern road classifications as described in the legend for state and county roads, existing and proposed. That classification system, to the knowledge of Ms. Easley was adopted by Citrus County pursuant to a public hearing. In Ms. Easley's understanding of the agreement between Hampton Hills and Citrus County, it contemplates the extension of a road from the southern

boundary of Parcel B down to State Road 44. The road to be extended is referred to as Forest Ridge Boulevard on the underlying large map which is the road classification map with overlays A-1 and A-2. That extension is a proposed major collector. A portion of that roadway would be within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district. According to Ms.

Easley, if the proposed community development district is formed, the possibility exists that the board of supervisors of the district could be petitioned to construct the road outside the boundaries of the district to State Road 44. This would further the agreement between the county and developer mentioned before. Extension of the road in question beyond its external boundary is dependent upon the district being recognized through rule enactment and then being willing to accede to the wishes of the developer and Citrus County to build that portion of the road, among other requirements. By the agreement, Composite Exhibit B-2, between the developer and Citrus County it appears that those entities would petition the district to construct and install the road extension. The matter would be considered at a noticed meeting, and the public could attend.

On the subject of the extension of Forest Ridge Boulevard, the road classification map does not show the exact alignment of that extension. That alignment is yet to be decided. The present alignment as shown on the road classification map is for planning purposes, and is not a precise engineering document. From explanations at the local public hearing, the matter of the alignment would have to be attended through a public hearing conducted by the county. Apparently the alignment hearing would precede the petition to the board of supervisors of the district for construction and the hearings that those supervisors would conduct in considering the question of the extension of the road beyond the external boundaries of the district. In summary, the legal foundation for considering the extension of the subject road beyond external boundaries of the district is pursuant to the agreement between the county and the developer, Composite Exhibit B-2, upon acquiescence to that arrangement by the district, if formed, by county action on alignment and as countenanced by Section by 190.012(1)(e), Florida Statutes which states:

Any other project within or without the boundaries of a district when a local government issued a development order pursuant to s. 380.06 or s. 380.061 approving or expressly requiring the construction or funding of the project by the district, or when the project is the subject of an agreement between the district and a governmental entity and is consistent with

the local government comprehensive plan of the local government within which the project is to be located.

As mentioned before certain road improvements beyond the boundaries of the development have also been mentioned in the development order, Composite Exhibit B-1, described in Exhibits (e) and (f) to that exhibit.

It is unclear in this presentation what the relationship is between Forest Ridge Boulevard as apparently contemplated by the agreement between Hampton Hills and Citrus County, Composite Exhibit B-2, and as depicted on the large road classification map, and the roads contemplated by the development order, Composite Exhibit B-1 and referred to in the transportation section of that development order and depicted in Exhibits (e) and (f) to Composite Exhibit B-1.

Nonetheless, when the agreement between Citrus County and the developer, Composite Exhibit B-2 speaks in terms of transportation, it is not unreasonable to infer, even in the absence of Exhibit A to Composite Exhibit B-2, that the reference in Composite Exhibit B-2, at page 7 to improvement of major collector roads would include a reference to the Forest Ridge Boulevard, given the discussion by Ms. Easley at the local public hearing. The development order, composite Exhibit B-1 does not appear to mention the proposed major collector, Forest Ridge Boulevard being extended to State Road 44. Likewise, without being able to review Exhibit A to Composite Exhibit B-2, the agreement between Citrus County and the developer, it is not established that the road improvements contemplated in the transportation section of the development order, in Exhibits

(e) and (f) to Composite Exhibit B-1, at Nos. 7 and 8, are part of what the agreement, Composite Exhibit B-2 describes at Page 7, in that exhibit as being "a major off-site transportation improvement". Those roadways of Nos. 7 and 8 of Exhibits (e) and (f) to Composite Exhibit B-1, the development order, are two laned roads, and not major collectors. Moreover, they do not appear to extend to the intersection with State Road 44, an indication that they are not synonymous with the extension of Forest Ridge Boulevard. Finally, there is another anomaly in the matter of the road extension beyond the external boundaries of Parcel B of the proposed development district approaching State Road 44, within Exhibit (f) to Composite Exhibit B-1 there is a line which encompasses Numbers 7 and 8, and continues south and intersects with State Road

44. Whether this is inartfully portrayed or whether this shows in some prospective manner the desire to extend a road to the intersection, that is a road from the south property line of Parcel B to the intersection with State Road 44, and possibly refers Forest Ridge Boulevard is not evident.

In spite of the inexactitude concerning the prospective roads previously discussed, the requirements for the petition announced in Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes did not mandate that the issue of the location of road systems beyond the external boundaries of the proposed community development district and their costs be set out. The petition for rule enactment is decided upon by an examination of items contemplated by the petition as amended at hearing to correct metes and bounds and to update the cost of construction related to infrastructure within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district. These adjustments are later described by Dr. Fishkind in his testimony to be examined subsequently. These are the crucial items to be explained. The external roads and their costs are not essential topics. As Ms. Easley alludes to in her testimony, the external roads contemplated by the agreement between the County and the developer, Exhibit Composite B-2 and any other external roads which may not be the product of that agreement, and may have their origins solely in the development order, Composite Exhibit B-1 or by some future agreement on the subject between the developer and Citrus County, are items which may be pursued by the district, if recognized, under authority announced at Section 190.012(1)(e), Florida Statutes, providing that appropriate procedures are followed concerning public meetings and otherwise. While Ms.

Easley limited her remarks at the local public hearing to extension of Forest Ridge Boulevard as being an activity by the proposed community development district not inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan or local comprehensive plan, by analogy her comments would relate to any other external roads, and the fact that they would not be inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and local comprehensive plan.

One could query whether the full explanation of the intended services to be offered by the community development district must be identified in the initial petition or whether these services are subject to change after the rule is enacted recognizing the community development district. The answer is found

within Sections 190.012,(1)(e) and (2), Florida Statutes, which contemplates the opportunity to expand services beyond the initial recognition of the services described in the petition which seeks the rule enactment.

Concerning the criterion set fort at Section 190.005(1)(e)6., Florida Statutes, Ms. Easley feels that the area to be served by the district would be amenable to separate special district government for provision of the subject infrastructure. Her remarks in her prefiled testimony concerning the reasons for this opinion are set out in pages 33 though 35, and at page 137 of her testimony in the local public hearing.

Ms. Easley believes that the project will comply with Section 190.005(1)(e)5., Florida Statutes dealing with compatibility with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Her comments in the prefiled testimony explaining her reasons are found at pages 35 through 37 and at pages 137 through 140 of the transcript of her testimony at the local public hearing.

Ms. Easley is of the opinion that the proposed community development district will comply with Section 190.005(1)(e)4., Florida Statutes, in that it is believed to be the best alternative available for delivery of community development services and facilities to the area in question. Explanation of those reasons is set out in her prefiled testimony of pages 37 through 39 and at pages 140 and 141 of the transcript of her testimony at the local public hearing. She sees this as the best alternative among general purpose government, private provision of services, and the proposed community development district. She is particularly impressed with the manner in which the proposed community development district deals with the special problems of concurrency.

Ms. Easley's prefiled testimony and testimony at the local public hearing as commented on in this report is accepted.

Edward L. Czarnecki is a civil engineer with the firm of Henigar and Ray Engineering Associates, Inc. In his work with that firm he has designed and obtained developmental approvals for land development projects, commercial sites, roadway improvement projects, water and wastewater distribution and collection systems, and public water supply systems and on-site sewage disposal systems. He was a member of the team that was responsible for the development of the Citrus County Model Land Development Code. He is familiar with the Hampton Hills Development and the engineering aspects of the development order associated with that development. He is familiar with the State Comprehensive Plan set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. He is also familiar with Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. As a consultant on the feasibility of the proposed community development district he has examined that question from the engineering perspective.

Concerning the criterion set out at Section 190.005(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes, as to the truth and correctness of the Petition, he finds it to be true and correct. He verifies that the basic services involved with the proposed community development district are provision of roads, drainage, water, sewer, parks, recreation and some landscaping. He refers to the continuous roadway through the center of these properties. Reference is made to the fact that the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority wells will be connected with the county well site to provide water service for the district. He describes the existence of 10 and 8 inch county sanitary sewer lines in the

project site. He describes the existing water main which will serve Parcel A. In summary, water and sewer lines would be located throughout the project and would be served by water and sewer facilities.

The water and sewer to be provided by the proposed community development district would include service laterals, pump stations and fire protection.

Mr. Czarnecki describes the road network as being connections with County Road 491, County Road 486 and from State Road 44 to connect to the southern boundary of the land in question.

The roads that are to be installed would exceed county requirements for functional classification and would have lighting and landscaping as appropriate, according to Mr. Czarnecki.

He points out the several park areas that would be involved in the project.

Mr. Czarnecki describes the drainage disbursement through the site through gravity flow.

Nothing in the development order, agreement between the County and Hampton Hills or the local comprehensive plan would be an impediment to the development of the services that have been previously described as Mr. Czarnecki sees it from an engineering perspective.

Mr. Czarnecki indicated that he was unaware of any intention to change the number of lanes in the existing Fenway Drive within the proposed community development district's external boundary. That road runs east and west.

Likewise, he is unaware of any agreement between the county and Hampton Hills to request the district board of supervisors to make changes to the existing East Hartford and East Stephens streets as they now exist.

By contrast, in the large road classification map which is assocaited with the enlargement of Exhibits A-1 and A-2, underlying those exhibits, there appears to be an intention within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district to install a connector road running east and west through Parcels B and C. Whether this is an extension of Fenway Drive or not is unclear.

From his perspective as an engineer Mr. Czarnecki does not believe that the proposed community development district is at odds with the criterion set out at Section 190.005(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes, dealing with consistency when measured against the State Comprehensive Plan and the local comprehensive plan in Citrus County.

Mr. Czarnecki believes that the criterion set out at 190.005(1)(e)3., Florida Statutes, pertaining to the sufficiency in size, compactness and contiguity for development as a functional interrelated community has been met.

Mr. Czarnecki is of the opinion that the provision of the infrastructure which he has described is best achieved by use of the proposed community development district. Those remarks are in response to the criterion set out at Section 190.005(1)(e)4., Florida Statutes.

Mr. Czarnecki believes that the services proposed are facilities compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities as envisioned in Section 190.005(1)(e)5., Florida Statutes.

Mr. Czarnecki believes that the proposed service area is amenable to separate special district government within the meaning of Section 190.005(1)(e)6., Florida Statutes.

From an engineering standpoint the enclaves that are owned by the Withlacooche Regional Water Supply Authority, the well sites and the Citrus County water plant, do not present problems related to the compactness or size of the land proposed for the district and the provision of the district services per Mr. Czarnecki's remarks.

Mr. Czarnecki's prefiled testimony and testimony at hearing as commented on in this report is accepted and his engineering opinion is credited.

Christopher Chinault is the County Administrator for Citrus County. He testified at the local public hearing. He identified the reason for the county's support of the proposed community development district as based upon the ability of the county to monitor the activities of the district given the requirements to operate in a public atmosphere and secondly because the county believed that this was a method of making growth pay for itself. That is to say that county taxpayers would not be burdened with the provision of infrastructure in this development.

He identified the nature of the Forest Ridge Boulevard as existing from County Road 491 down to 486. It continues into a portion of what is sought for recognition as the community development district. The proposal is to extend it down to an intersection with State Road 44. From his understanding, the developer would construct that extension to State Road 44 with the county being obligated to assist in acquisition of right-of-way for the extension. Whether or not the community development district is recognized, it is the county's intention to construct this extension of Forest Ridge Boulevard to alleviate the traffic burden on other roads. As part of this process it is also the intention to four lane State Road 44. This latter item is an arrangement wherein

the county is assisting the State of Florida. That arrangement would take some of the burden off of State Road 486. It would also assist in relieving the burden on Croft Road which is a two lane road where there is no intention to expand. Mr. Chinault said that the combination of four lanes at Forest Ridge Boulevard and State Road 44 would also have a positive influence on US 41, where there is no intention to four lane. Mr. Chinault points out the fact that any extension of Forest Ridge Boulevard would have to be done through public process where the public would have the right to give its input on the expenditure of money, to include the purchase of right-of-way. The corridor or route which is depicted on the large road classification map which is part of the enlarged Exhibits A-1 and A-2 is susceptible to improvement according to Mr. Chinault.

Mr. Chinault's remarks concerning the county's intentions about the participation of the proposed community development district and the construction of roads within the county and the county's overall intentions about the roads that have been mentioned in reporting his testimony is accepted.

The intention to expand or extend Forest Ridge Boulevard south to State Road 44 is also an item which has been discussed in the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. As related before the actual outcome of the Forest Ridge Boulevard extension is not controlling of the issues set forth in the petition for recognition of the proposed community development district which also involves the amendments to that petition brought out in the local public hearing.

Dr. Henry Fishkind is a Ph.D. economist. His remarks were presented through prepared testimony and testimony at the local public hearing. Related to community development districts he has testified as an expert in economics on approximately twelve occasions prior to this case. Based upon his experience he was recognized as an expert in economics, especially as that profession pertains to community development districts.

In offering his remarks about the economic impact of the proposed community development district he has utilized the guidance set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, pertaining to enactment of rules as well as Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. This analysis by Dr. Fishkind included an examination of:

(1) economic impacts on the agency responsible for approving the district including the cost of paper work; (2) the economic impacts on all parties who are directly affected; (3) the economic impacts on competition in the open market for employment; (4) the economic impacts on minority owned and/or small business and (5) a statement of the data and methodology used in making this analysis is also included. This process leads to the ultimate determination of whether the Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, community development district is the best alternative for planning, financing, constructing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure which is contemplated by this petition and by that law. To come to the answer Dr. Fishkind resorted to standard micro- economic methodology and cost benefit analysis to assess the impacts of the establishment of the proposed district. In his work Dr. Fishkind has written nine economic impact statements for community development districts in Florida that were subsequently formed. He was a participant in the amendments to Chapter 190 in the amendatory process involved with the change to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, which took place in 1984. He also took part in the public hearing related to Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, the accountability law for community development districts. In examining the basic question of the infrastructure to be provided a financial pro forma was created concerning this project. Some of the financing of the services provided by the proposed community development district occurs through the purchase price of the lots sold to potential home owners, some through an agreement with the utility that would impose impact fees or collection charges or connection fees and some of the financing might be arranged through special assessment or benefit taxation. Once the infrastructure is in place Dr. Fishkind has also considered the matter of the ongoing operation and maintenance of the facilities to be provided by the community development district. Some of that maintenance can be provided by local government for items which are dedicated to it beyond the build-out.

Throughout the process of analyzing the feasibility of the provision of infrastructure by use of the proposed community development district Dr.

Fishkind talks about the comparison of this approach to the use of local government or private provision of the services.

In making his analysis Dr. Fishkind is mindful of the requirements of growth management, in particular the "concurrency doctrine." Again that doctrine refers to the necessity for services and facilities to be in place or be funded so that they will be in place concurrent with the development itself.

In preparing his remarks about this proposal Dr. Fishkind became familiar with the basic petition and the development order issued by Citrus County for the benefit of Hampton Hills as developer.

Dr. Fishkind believes that the economic impact on the county for processing has been adequately addressed by the payment of the $15,000 filing fee. He sees the processing of the petition by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission as being a routine matter. The annual responsibility of Citrus County to review budgets by the proposed community development district and other governmental costs for processing reports are not deemed to be significant.

Dr. Fishkind finds that the proposed community development district can manage, operate, and maintain the community infrastructure necessary to serve the district exclusive of those infrastructure items that would be dedicated to the county. In Table I to Composite Exhibit C-8-1, the economic impact statement filed with the petition, the nature of the infrastructure is described as to entities responsible for capital costs, ownership, operation, maintenance and financing. Table II describes the actual costs projected at the time of the petition together with the date anticipated for completion of the construction of the various infrastructure items. That initial proposal, as stated, was

$9,631,105. Dr. Fishkind is confident of the accuracy of those costs projections set out in the petition. At the local public hearing he referred to the items as a spine infrastructure. At the local public hearing he updated those estimates because of changes in January, 1990 related to banking systems especially for savings and loans. The changes were put into effect to better manage the savings and loans due to financial difficulties in those institutions. The detailed explanation of this phenomenon is set out on page

199 of the transcript of the local public hearing. The result of that change was to cause Hampton Hills to express an interest in providing a more comprehensive infrastructure within the external boundaries of the proposed community development district. That adjustment brings about an estimated cost of 30 million dollars for that infrastructure within the district. This means that the developer would pay more in the way of taxes to make certain that the user costs as a matter of taxation would remain at $450 per year or less.

Dr. Fishkind reiterated Mr. Moyer's remarks about the use of revenue bonds to finance the project and the disinclination to use general obligation bonds. Dr. Fishkind testified that none of the districts that he is associated with use general obligation bonds. He goes on at page 201 of the local public hearing transcript to describe why general obligation type debt is not a good idea in this project. By contrast he points out that the special assessment is more desirable because it means that the individual landowner or major landowner who is unwilling to pay his taxes would be exposed only to the extent of his land holdings if a tax lien was imposed. The balance of the taxpayers would not be exposed because there was no general obligation for every one to pitch in to pay for the person who had been delinquent. This in Dr. Fishkind's mind makes the financial structure better. Dr. Fishkind also refers to the need for the district to verify its benefits that are being provided upon the payment of taxes and the use of the circuit court to examine a commissioner's report for codification of the assessment methodology. He points out that people outside of the district would not pay any tax for the district's activities. Tax liens would only pertain to properties within the district's boundaries.

By the use of the revenue bonds and their tax free nature the developer will have less of a financial burden than would have been the case if the infrastructure would have been privately financed, as seen by Dr. Fishkind. The private financing means financing for provision of the infrastructure by the developer as opposed to the community development district.

Dr. Fishkind finds that the proposed community development district is of an economic benefit to all affected persons.

As contemplated by Section 190.005(1)(e)4., Florida Statutes, he finds that this is the best alternative for delivery of community development services and facilities for the area in question when contrasted with provision by local government, dependent tax districts known as MSTU/MSBU and neighborhood associations. He is also of the opinion that the area would be of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be developable as one functional interrelated community within the meaning of Section 190.005(1)(e)3., Florida Statutes. Dr. Fishkind believes that the proposed community development district is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan as envisioned by Section 190.005(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes.

Dr. Fishkind's prefiled testimony and testimony at hearing as commented on in this report is accepted and his opinion as an economist is credited.

Public Participation

Dr. Carlton J. McLeod gave his testimony and presented prepared testimony at the local public hearing. He and a number of other citizens remarked of their affiliation with Citrus Hills Civic Association. He resides in Citrus Hills, a neighboring community to the proposed community development district. In his written remarks he indicates that Citrus Hills Civic Association also includes Hampton Hills, Clearview Estates, Meadow View, Greenbrier and Kensington Estates. He complains about the lack of information about a major housing development located to their west (the development in question) and the proposed community development district. He recounts the attempts to find out about the proposed community development district through contacts with Citrus County and its officials and with Bob Henigar, an engineer. In particular he is concerned that the information about the connection of Forest Ridge Boulevard to State Road 44 was a circumstance that was not very well explained by Mr. Henigar who had been provided by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County to speak to the civic association on March 12, 1990. That County Chairman is a Mr. Langley. He expresses his concern about who would be required to maintain the extension of the road from the district boundary to State Road

44. He describes the concern of the association that the developer Hampton Hills and Citrus County "may be ganging up on homeowners in Citrus Hills, particularly those in Phase II and Phase III". He says that those persons bought their home sites in good faith in what was described to be a golf community in a peaceful rural setting and in which may now be subject to traverse by what he says is a "super highway." Finally, he comments that the adverse impact on hundreds of property owners in Citrus Hills had not been made known to them or adequately presented in the petition for recognition of the proposed community development district. In his testimony at the local public hearing Dr. McLeod speaks in terms of traffic coming from Crystal River through Beverly Hills and down Forest Ridge Boulevard to State Road 44 and a parade of trash trucks through Citrus Hills to the county landfill. This would create a traffic situation through the midsection of the county. Dr. McLeod complains that the Forest Ridge Boulevard will separate Phases II and III of Citrus Hills.

Dan L. Davies presented a written statement at the local public hearing and offered his testimony. He also participated in the presentation of the written statement post-hearing that involved Dr. McLeod. Other participants in that post-hearing statement were James Kidder and Charles L. Osborn. In his written statement presented at hearing Mr. Davies pointed out that he resides in Citrus Hills at the corner of Olympia Street and Jill Avenue. He describes the moment when the property was sold to him where the property was billed to be in a quiet area removed form heavy traffic. He says that the installation of the four lane road to State Road 44 from County Road 486 would change the nature of his property from a quiet area to one with traffic. He complains that contrary to what Commissioner Langley had said to them no one representing the interest of the developer had contacted the homeowners along the proposed route to discuss the four lane extension of Forest Hill Boulevard. He sees this extension as having a major impact on home values and life-styles. That impact is seen by him to be negative. He describes how the current residents of Beverly Hills, Pine Ridge and Kensington Estates and other places going to the Citrus Center Shopping Mall or to Inverness do not make that transport through Citrus Hill.

Instead they go on County Road 486 and south to Croft Road or US Highway 41. He points out that if the four lane extension of Forest Ridge Boulevard took place that the trash trucks on the way to the landfill and other automobile traffic would use that four lane road. He feels that home values would plummet and that he would lose at much as $50,000. His oral remarks at hearing parallel those comments in his written statements.

James Kidder provided a written statement at the local public hearing and offered his oral testimony. In his written statement he points out that he lives at Reading Street in Hernando, Florida. He asked the question by his written statement about whether the cost of maintaining Forest Ridge Boulevard outside the development district is to be paid for by the development district or the county. He does not believe the economic impact statement is clear on that point. If residents outside the proposed community development districts are to pay the cost of maintenance he does not believe that those residents have been advised. He opines that Citrus County does not have the money to keep the potholes repaired in 45 miles of Citrus Hills and complains of the poor state of repair in that road system. He offers the opinion that the homesite owners in Hampton Hills Development District who are subject to special taxes and assessments to pay for the boulevard in question and other facilities within the district are confronted with something that deserves careful consideration. He wonders if they would question the cost of paying for Beverly Hills, Pine Ridge, Kensington Estates and other places not in the district to use Forest Ridge Boulevard. He thinks the construction of the boulevard would have a negative impact on the environment and this is especially true as it relates to the impact on live oak trees that may be in the path of the proposed boulevard. His oral remarks are in keeping with his written statements presented at the local public hearing.

In responding to the concerns of Mr. Kidder related to the road maintenance the county attorney Larry Haag remarked at the local public hearing that the maintenance of Forest Ridge Boulevard within the external boundaries of the community development district would be incumbent upon the district and that maintenance outside that boundary would be the responsibility of the county. He also pointed out that the exact alignment of the Forest Ridge Boulevard extension has not been established and that the county was responsive at times to complaints about alignment and gave an example of a road known as Seven Rivers Drive. He also commented that the county was trying to arrive at a more stringent tree ordinance to protect trees such as the live oak trees mentioned by Mr. Kidder.

Charles Osborn presented a written statement at the local public hearing and gave oral testimony. In his written statement he points out that he lives in Citrus Hills. He offers a suggestion for the improvement of other road systems to deal with the transportation needs in that part of the county without resort to the construction anticipated for Forest Ridge Boulevard. His oral remarks are in the same vein.

The aforementioned statement offered by Messers. Davies, McLeod, Kidder and Osborn post-hearing continues to emphasis the concerns expressed at hearing.

They also provided two road maps to support their concerns about the traffic problems that they feel would be created in Citrus Hill with the advent of the Forest Ridge Boulevard construction previously described. Among the items that they refer to is the belief that Fenway Drive does not directly connect to East Hartford Street. Instead it is several blocks north of East Hartford Street.

In the post-hearing submission these gentlemen speak of their concern as to who would be financially responsible upon the failure of the development given that the county is a Co-Petitioner in this request for recognition of the proposed community development district. They are worried about safeguards for bond holders who invest in this project. They profess a lack of understanding of Dr. Fishkind's explanation of the changes in the circumstances of savings and loans increasing the amount of infrastructure costs from $9 million plus to $30 million. They believe that increase to be excessive. They express some concern about the $450 assessment fee that Dr. Fishkind describes. They express a lack of understanding of who would pay for the 27-hole golf course contemplated in the project. They express concern about the memorandum of law submitted by counsel for Hampton Hills related to the offsite activities of the community development district and the belief that this might preclude the opportunity for public hearings on the extension of Forest Ridge Boulevard to State Road 44.

They express concern that concurrency requirements will not be met and that this project will cause greater congestion on State Road 44. They take issue with Mr. Chinault's testimony at the local public hearing about the belief that the Forest Ridge Boulevard extension to State Road 44 would relieve a traffic congestion problem. They take issue with the economic impact statement at Section 2.2.4, paragraph 2 of the Hampton Hills Development District, and the assertion that deferral of improvements to County Roads 486 and 491 is an economic benefit. This refers to Composite Exhibit C-8-1.

Victoria Phillips of Lecanto, Florida, testified at the local public hearing. She also submitted a post-hearing written statement together with John

L. Elam, Catherine P. Elam, Walter Klein, Betty A. Klein, Russell N. Mills, Eleanore A. Mills, James C. Westfall, R. Charlene Westfall, Walter C. Rogers, June M. Pierce, Carl Mann, Hazel Mann, George D. Davis, Sherry Davis, Laura M. Morden, Edmond Dombrowski, Anna Dombrowski, Susan Antonetti and Jeffrey Q. Smith. In her remarks at hearing she identified that her property is located west of Parcel B of the proposed community development district. She questioned Mr. Moyer's description of the property boundaries of the proposed community development district and whether her property would be included within the community development district. It does not appear that her property is within the community development district. She believes that Mr. Moyer's description should have indicated that the property boundaries of the proposed community development district would have been Crystal Hills and Mini-Farms rather than Timberlane Estates on the west boundary. She is worried about taxing property owners outside the proposed community development district for services that they might receive. Dr. Fishkind in response indicated that it was not possible for the district to tax those who live outside its boundaries.

Commander Jack Elam of Lecanto, Florida, testified at the local public hearing. He pointed out that he and Ms. Phillips live in Mini-Farms. He had some concerns about the development of regional impact order. The hearing officer told Mr. Elam that the purpose of the local public hearing was not to entertain remarks about the development of regional impact. That matter of the development of regional impact and changes to Composite Exhibit A-3, what Mr.

Elam describes as a proposed map of July 5, 1990 and its lack of official approval by the county was the item of his concern. Mr. Elam was given the opportunity to examine the Composite Exhibit A-3 and to suggest that the petition might need to be modified related to the Composite Exhibit A-3 through a submission ten days beyond the hearing date. Ms. Easley in response to Commander Elam's remark stated at the local public hearing that the Composite Exhibit A-3 was a sketch map and may in fact differ in some regard to the map within the development order and that there might be a more precise alignment of golf course fairways as example. In any event, she said that it was not the intention of the petition to substantially deviate from the development order as recognized under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.

In the written remarks by Ms. Phillips and Commander Elam and others, they address the fact that those persons are homeowners in Crystal Hills Mini-Farms, Unit III bordering on the proposed community development district. They had understood that the Hampton Hills Development would be a benefit to them as well-built, well-maintained multi-family medium density dwellings. They say

that in the local public hearing by reference to Composite Exhibit A-3 they came to realize that the neighborhood services and community facilities depicted were commercial uses which they object to. They attach a copy of a map which is the same as Composite Exhibit A-3. This copy of the map from these members of the public reflects the location of Crystal Hills Mini-Farm, Unit III. They have attached other maps from July 1986, whose legends cannot be read, which they claim demonstrate the area in question adjacent to their homes involved with the Hampton Hills Development as shown to be multi-family dwellings. In any event, they complain that they should have been notified of any change in zoning concerning the use of the property in the Hampton Hills Development adjacent to their home sites.

In the correspondence, the written statement by Phillips, Elam and others, they complain that the Hampton Hills developer bought certain lots to allow a connection of Parcels B and C and by doing so divided the subdivision in which these persons reside. They believe that the reason for this was to give the appearance that Parcels B and C are sufficiently contiguous and compact to meet Chapter 190, Florida Statutes requirements.

Phillips and Elam and others offer remarks in the written statement, by hearsay, that one of the developers in the proposed community development district has a poor track record for complying with the development laws and looking at ecological consequences of development. This goes on to describe newspaper articles about clear cutting live oak trees.

G. Stephen Pfeiffer, General Counsel to the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, received correspondence from Andrew P. Ring of Hernando, Florida which was forwarded. That correspondence states opposition to the proposed community development district. In particular, Mr. Ring is concerned about this community development district as it affects water resources. He also is concerned about the district being turned over to Citrus County in the event that it fails and the county has to take over thereby causing problems for taxpayers. He believes that this project will be costly to taxpayers and is opposed to the project.

Victoria T. Phillips has requested notification of the date and time that the case will be presented to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission for its deliberations. Again, her address is 1100 North Otto Avenue, Lecanto, Florida 32661.

Andrew P. Ring has also expressed opposition to a hearing date of August 29, 1990 as reported to him by Mr. Pfeiffer. That date that is made mention of was the original date of the local public hearing which was changed to July 11, 1990. As a consequence any request by Mr. Ring to have the local public hearing on a different date is not relevant because that requirement of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, has been attended.

Don Davies has presented a photograph of the intersection of this home at Jill Street and it is included with the report.

Dr. Fishkind in commenting at the local public hearing on the remarks of Dr. McLeod received at the local public hearing, points out that no economic assessment was made of the effects of the proposed community development district on Citrus Hills, as such. This is related to the construction of a road system beyond the proposed community development district into Citrus Hills. That economic impact assessment was not made because the district would not be empowered to bring about the construction of the extension of Forest Ridge Boulevard by itself. Dr. Fishkind also commented pursuant to Mr. Kidder's remarks at the local public hearing that Citrus Hills residents would not be expected to pay for roads within the proposed community development district.

Counsel for Hampton Hills provided a written reply to the written statements filed by the public.

The comments offered by the public do not promote a change in the overall impression of the proof that has been offered in support of this petition for recognition of the proposed community development district.

CONCLUSIONS

Having considered the record in this cause, it is concluded pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(e)1 through 6, Florida Statutes:

1. That all statements contained within the Petition, as amended, are found to be true and correct.

   
   

2. That the creation of the district is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective local comprehensive plan.

   
   

3. That the area of land within the district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community.

   
   

4. 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.

   
   

5. That the community development services and facilities of the district will be compatible with capacity and uses of existing local and regional community services and facilities.

6. That the area that will be served by the district is amenable to the special-district government.

DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1990.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ken Van Assenderp, Esquire George L. Varnadoe, Esquire Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1833

Larry Haag, Esquire Citrus County Courthouse

110 North Apopka Avenue Inverness, FL 32650

Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire Alfred Bragg, Esquire

Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

Patricia A. Woodworth, Secretary Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

William Buzzett, Esquire Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

David Maloney, Esquire Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

Jeannette Haag, Esquire Withlacooche Regional Water

Supply Authority

452 Pleasant Grove Road Inverness, FL 32652

Docket for Case No: 90-002254

Orders for Case No: 90-002254