STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: A RULE TO ESTABLISH THE )

VIERA EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ) CASE NO. 90-6904 DISTRICT. )

)

REPORT OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

On December 11, 1990, a public hearing was held in the above-captioned matter before Mary Clark, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing was held at the Rockledge Fire Department, Conference/Training Room, 1800 Rockledge Boulevard, Rockledge, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to section 190.005, F.S., for the purpose of taking testimony and public input and comment on the petition of The Viera Company to establish the Viera East Community Development District (hereafter "District" or "CDD").

This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("Commission) in accordance with section 190.005, F.S., and Rule 42-1.013, F.A.C.

APPEARANCES

The Viera Company ("Petitioner") was represented by Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire. Petitioner presented the testimony of John R. Maloy, Fred Greene, Jack

F. Glatting, Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, and Gary L. Moyer. Their full names and addresses are attached to this report as Appendix A. Petitioner also offered Exhibits 1-6 which were received into evidence. A list of those exhibits is attached to this report as Appendix B.

The City of Rockledge appeared in the person of Don Griffin, City Planner; however, Mr. Griffin made no comments. In addition, public comment was received from John Fleming, Lee Wenner, Robert Preston, Al Miller and Janice Peterson.

Their names and addresses are attached as Appendix C to this report.

Procedural Background

Petitioner filed its Petition to Establish the Viera East Community Development District (the "Petition") with the Commission on October 18, 1990. Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission, pursuant to section 190.005(1), F.S., to establish a community development district of approximately 2825 acres. Approximately 2585 acres are located in unincorporated Brevard County; the remaining 240 acres are within the City of Rockledge. The contents of the Petition, including its attached exhibits, were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2.

On October 25, 1990, the Commission determined that the Petition was complete and forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon a public hearing was scheduled in the City of Rockledge for December 11, 1990. Petitioner was required to publish notice and to provide such other notice as required by statute and rule.

Proof of publication of the notice in the Florida Today newspaper for four consecutive weeks, as well as proof of mailing of notice to persons named in the proposed rule, affected units of local government, and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit I. Notice was also published in the Florida Administrative Weekly by the Commission on November 16, 1990. A copy of that notice was received as part of Petitioner's Exhibit I. Finally, on December 11, Petitioner submitted copies of the proof of publication in Florida Today to the Commission as required by Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), F.A.C. A copy of the transmittal letter to the Commission was included as part of Petitioner's Exhibit I.

On October 18, 1990, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition with the City of Rockledge and Brevard County. Petitioner accompanied each filing with the requisite $15,000 filing fee. Copies of the receipts for those filing fees from the City of Rockledge and Brevard County were received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3.

Section 190.005(1)(c), F.S., provides that the city and the county have the option to hold a local public hearing within 45 days of the filing of the Petition. Neither Brevard County nor the City of Rockledge held such a hearing.

The hearing in this matter was conducted in accordance with section I90.005(1)(d), F.S., and Rule 42-1.012, F.A.C.. A transcript of the hearing was filed by the court reporter with the undersigned hearing officer on December 20, 1990. A copy of the transcript is being transmitted with this Report and Conclusions.

In accordance with Rule 42-1.012(3), F.A.C., the record in this matter was left open until December 21, 1990, to allow for the submission of additional written comments. None were received. As determined at the hearing, Petitioner was given leave to file a Proposed Report and Conclusions no later than December 28, 1990. Petitioner timely filed such Proposed Report and it has been substantially adopted herein.

Overview

Petitioner seeks to establish the Viera East Community Development District located partially in unincorporated Brevard County and partially in the City of Rockledge. Once established, the District will be an independent special taxing district authorized under Chapter 190, F.S.. The District will have all of the powers set forth in Chapter 190, including but not limited to the ability to finance, own, operate and maintain certain infrastructure.

All of the land in the proposed District-will be developed as a mixed use community pursuant to the, terms and conditions of approved Development of Regional Impact ("DRI") Development Orders issued by Brevard County and the City of Rockledge. (Pet. Exhs. 4 and 5) The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment of the District.

Summary of Evidence and Testimony 1/

John R. Maloy: Maloy is a Vice President of A. Duda & Sons, Inc., and the Viera Company. The Viera Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of A. Duda & Sons, Inc., and is the petitioner in this matter. (Tr. 13) It was his responsibility to select and work with the team of professionals who assembled the Petition. (Tr. 16) He identified Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, which is a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. At the

hearing, Maloy corrected one statement in the Petition to clarify the description of one of the attachments. The correction is not substantive and is found on page four of the Petition. (Tr. 22-23) With that correction, Maloy testified that the statement in the Petition and its attached exhibits were true and correct. ("rr. 22-3)

The owners of the land to be included in the District are A. Duda & Sons, Inc., a Florida corporation; The Viera Company, a Florida corporation; and Spyglass Road Partnership, a Florida general partnership. (Pet. Exh. 2, attachment 3) All of the owners have given their consent to be included in the District. (Id.) Maloy was designated as the Agent of each of those entities to act on their behalf with regard to any matters relating to the Petition. (Pet. Exh. 2, attachment 11)

There is no real property contained entirely within the boundaries of the District which is to be excluded from the District. (Pet. Ex. 2, attachment

2) All of the band to be included in the District is the subject of DRI development orders which have been approved by Brevard County and the City of Rockledge. (Pet. Ex. 4 and 5; Tr. 28)

The five persons designated in the Petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are:

Jack Maloy

135 Highway A1A N. Satellite Beach, FL 32937

Don Spotts

1113 Tuscawilla Road Winter Springs, FL 32708

David Duda

7979 Dunstable Circle

Orlando, FL 32817

Tracy Duda

1233 Litard Knot Creek Trail Oviedo, FL 32765

Gordon Masterson 607 Riverside Drive

Melbourne, FL 32951

All of them are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United State. (Tr. 23-24)

The boundaries of the proposed District were described by Maloy. In general, the District is bounded on the west by Interstate 95, on the south by Wickham Road, and on the north by Barnes Boulevard. A small piece of land is located adjacent to the west side of 1-95. This land will form the west side of the proposed new interchange of 1-95 and Viera Boulevard. The eastern boundary of the District is located west of U.S. 1. (Pet. Ex. 2, attachments 1 and 5; Tr. 24-28)

All of the land to be included in the District has been planned as a single, mixed use community to be developed pursuant to the development orders. The land to be included in the District consists of two large tracts physically

interconnected by an existing road called Murrell Road. Murrell Road is included in the District and may ultimately be widened as part of the DRI development order conditions. In addition, the provision of certain required infrastructure, e.g., roads, drainage, and utilities, will mean that the tracts are also functionally interrelated. Development activities will occur in both tracts in the initial phases of the development (Pet. Exh~. 4 and 5; Tr. 30- 33)

Maloy also generally described the existing land uses in and around the District. On the north, the District borders a vacant parcel and a residential and golf course community. On the west, the District borders 1-95; land uses further west of I- 95 are agricultural with the exception of a parcel containing government buildings. South of the District beyond Wickham Road, the land is vacant. East of the District, there are a vacant parcel and effluent disposal ponds. There are two residential communities adjacent to Murrell Road which are not part of the District or the approved DRI development orders. The land to be included in the District is presently either agricultural or vacant, with the exception of a small office building under construction pursuant to the terms of a Preliminary Development Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs (Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 4; Tr. 24-28)

In general, Maloy testified that it is presently anticipated the CDD will construct the major arterial roads, the interchange with 1-95, the master water and sewer system, and the master drainage system. (Tr. 33-34) The CDD may also serve to carry out certain requirements of the developer imposed through the development orders, such as the extension of Viera Boulevard east to U.S. 1. (Tr. 35-36; see also Pet. Ex. 4, paragraph IX, and Pet Ex. 5, paragraph XI). Maloy concluded that The Viera Company believes the CDD is the best alternative to provide the contemplated services and facilities. It will help ensure that the residents and businesses which locate in the Viera community will pay the costs of growth and the costs of infrastructure that will be constructed to serve them. (Tr. 34)

Fred A. Greene: Greene is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Gee & Jenson, an engineering and planning firm. He is a registered engineer in Florida and has a wide range of experience in providing engineering services relating to the use and operation of special districts, including community development districts. He advises districts on the construction, design, permitting and maintenance of infrastructure. Greene was qualified at the hearing as an expert in civil engineering, and land development, specializing in special districts and utilities. (Tr. 37-40)

Greene has visited the site and reviewed the design of and plans for the water management system, the roadway system, and the water and sewer facilities. He assisted in the preparation of the cost estimates contained in the Petition. (Tr. 40, 45-46; Pet Ex. 2, attachment 7) Greene testified that the cost estimates were reasonable, and that the proposed construction schedule for District activities was consistent with the proposed Viera East development. (Tr. 45-46) Those cost estimates were used by Dr. Fishkind in preparation of the economic impact statement. (Tr. 93-94)

Greene described the existing drainage outfalls which eventually discharge into the St. Johns River. He also identified the existing water main owned by the City of Cocoa running south from Barnes Boulevard. Existing life stations

were also described. These lift stations currently serve the existing development. Effluent is currently being discharged into the Brevard County Wastewater Treatment Plant west of 1-95. (Tr. 42- 43; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment

6)

Greene explained that it is currently expected that the District will distribute potable water to new customers in the District off of the existing north-south main. In addition, it is currently expected that the District will construct sewage collection systems as new subdivisions are built, as well as necessary lift stations and force mains. The sewage will be discharged to Brevard bounty's plant west of 1-95. (Tr. 43)

The District is also currently expected to construct and maintain a system of lakes and waterways to receive surplus stormwater. Finally, the district is currently expected to construct the main arterial roads, the interchange of 1-95 and Viera Boulevard, and some improvements to the Wickham Road interchange.

Responsibility for maintenance of the various roads will depend in part on ownership at various stages of road construction. It is expected that the 1-95 interchange will ultimately be dedicated to the Department of Transportation. (Tr. 43-45)

Greene also confirmed that the portions if Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and its attachments which he developed or reviewed were still true and accurate. (Tr. 45)

Based on his training and experience as an engineer, Greene concluded that the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functionally interrelated community. (Tr.

46) Greene also concluded that the District is the best alternative for providing the proposed community development services and facilities. In reaching that conclusion, Green noted that his experience with regional water management districts has been that those agencies prefer to have CDDs provide services because of their track record and stability, as compared to homeowners' associations. (Tr. 47)

Greene also testified that the proposed community development services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.

In part, this is because the District will have to obtain all necessary permits from the appropriate agencies and will need, to follow all the conditions of the development orders. (`Tr. 47)

In Greene's opinion, the area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government. The project is large enough to support a staff to maintain and operate the proposed facilities. (Tr. 48)

J. F. Glatting: Glatting is a partner and Chairman of the Board of Glatting, Lopez, Kercher and Anglin, a, planning and consulting firm. Prior to joining Glatting, Lopez, he was Planning Director and Development Administrator for Brevard County, and also served as Executive Director for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Glatting has extensive experience in planning and development of large scale, mixed use projects, and also in reviewing comprehensive plans. Glatting was qualified at the hearing as an expert in land use planning, with special emphasis in comprehensive planning. (Tr. 52)

Glatting was responsible for the master planning that went into the Viera East development and participated throughout the DRI process. He prepared the land use map in the Petition and provided some of the data that went into the Petition. (Tr. 52-54; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 5) Glatting described how the development has been planned as an integrated community. He noted that a spine transportation system has been used, focusing on Murrell Road. Murrell Road will be carefully landscaped to create a consistent appearance along its entire section. Provisions for pedestrian traffic and bicycles along the entire length of Murrell Road have also been made. Extensive open space will be used to create unique neighborhoods within the larger community. (Tr. 54-55) Numerous church sites and an elementary school site to serve the residents in the District are located throughout the area to be included in the District (Tr.

55-56; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 5)

Glatting has reviewed both the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, and the City of Rockledge Comprehensive Plan. At the hearing, Petitioner presented amendments to the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan approved by Brevard County relating to the Viera East DRI. (Pet. Ex. 6) In the course of his work on the project and the District, Glatting also reviewed the State Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 187, F. ... Based on his experience and review of these plans, Glatting testified that the proposed District is consistent with the Brevard County, City of Rockledge, and State of Florida Comprehensive Plans. (Tr. 60- 61)

Glatting also testified that from a land use planning perspective, the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functionally interrelated community. (Tr. 61-62)

Glatting further testified that the proposed District is the best alternative for delivering the community development services and facilities to the area to be served by the Viera East CDD. (Tr. 62-63) This is particularly true because of the size of the development and the substantial amount of infrastructure necessary to make the community function. (Id.)

Finally, Glatting testified that in his opinion, the community development services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. He noted that this matter was taken into account in the DRI process, and that certain reporting requirements are imposed on the developer in the DRI, and by statute. (Tr. 63- 64; see s. 189.415, F.S.)

Glatting confirmed that the portions of the Petition and its attachments that he prepared are true and accurate. (Tr. 52-54)

Dr. Henry H. Fishkind: Fishkind is President and Chief Economic Forecaster for Fishkind & Associates, an economic consulting firm. In addition to providing economic forecasting services, the firm also provides financial advice to both public and private sector clients, including special districts. (Tr.

65-67) Fishkind holds both a Bachelor's Degree and Ph.D. in Economics. In the course of his doctoral studies, he specialized in econometrics, measuring urban and regional developments, and forecasting. (Tr. 66-67) He has testified previously both in support of and in opposition to creation of community development districts. (Tr. 69-70) At the hearing, Fishkind was qualified as an expert in economics, finance and statistics, including infrastructure financing and the use of special taxing districts. (Tr. 70-71)

Fishkind has assisted The Viera Company $n assessing the financial feasibility of the proposed District and prepared the economic impact statement ("EIS") which accompanied the Petition. (Tr. 71-72) Fishkind confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the EIS. (Tr. 72) The EIS was prepared not only to meet the statutory requirements of Chapter 190 and Section 120.54, F.S., but was used to explore the appropriate financial structure for the District to ensure the creation of a district that would meet the needs of The Viera Company in its development of the underlying project. (Tr 72-73) At the hearing, Fishkind summarized the findings contained in the EIS.

He identified three governmental agencies which would be affected by the processing of this Petition and-ongoing review and oversight of the District: Brevard County, the City of Rockledge, and the State of Florida. The City and the County received the petition for review, and were each paid $15,000 to cover those expenses. It is believed that this fee would adequately cover those costs. (Tr. 74, 78; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 10, page 3) The City and County will have the option to review the District's proposed budgets each year if they so desire. With respect to the State, several agencies may be affected. The Commission will incur certain costs in processing the Petition and holding the required hearing. The Division of Banking will review certain financial reports that all special districts must file; however, the incremental costs of that review are small. The Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") also has certain reporting requirements that must be complied with; however, the District will be required to pay an annual assessment designed to partially offset the cost of DCA's activities. (Tr. 74-75; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 10, page 3)

Fishkind's EIS also analyzed the expected costs and benefits to the citizens of Florida and the state at large. He noted the language in Chapter

190 encouraging planned large-scale communities such as this one, and commented that the District serves as an incentive for developers to plan their projects and provide the necessary infrastructure. The District also serves as a way to ensure that growth pays for itself, and that those who receive the benefits absorb the costs. Fishkind also stated that the District will not require any subsidies from the state nor receive any revenue sharing monies. (Tr. 76-77, 79; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 10, page 4) Debt of the District is-not debt of the state nor of a general purpose local government. (Tr. 79; see S. 190.016(15), F.S.)

With respect to the City and County, Fishkind testified that other than the optional ongoing budgetary and reporting review, there should be no costs to the citizens who live outside the District. Debt of the District is not the obligation of the City or County and will not effect the bond rating's or capacity of those entities. (Tr. 79-81) The City and County would have the ability under S. 190.046(4) to take over the services of the District under certain circumstances. To the extent the District uses the services of the property appraiser or tax collector, provisions for payment for those services are contained in Chapter 197, F.S. (Tr. 81) The benefits to the City and County are that the District will be a mechanism to facilitate the financing and ongoing maintenance of infrastructure for the project. It allows the "up front" financing of such capital- intensive facilities as the 1-95 interchange. (Tr.

82-83) Without the District, Fishkind testified, it would be likely that a very different type of development would occur, and that it would be difficult to finance the necessary improvements. (Tr. 82-83)

Costs and benefits to the Petitioner were also analyzed. The costs include the preparation of the Petition and all of the underlying analysis by the team members. In addition, the Petitioner, as a landowner, will be the largest

single taxpayer for some time, and is likely to incur the cost of certain land donations. The Petitioner is also expected to provide certain technical assistance to the District, particularly in its early years. This will impose certain noticing and record maintenance costs it would not otherwise incur.

Benefits to the Petitioner include the District's access to the tax exempt bond market, as well as being able to provide necessary assurances to permitting agencies that there is a stable, long term entity in place to maintain certain infrastructure. (Tr. 83-84; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 10, pages 8- 9)

Benefits and costs to persons residing in the District were summarized by Fishkind. District residents and landowners will pay certain assessments for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, in addition to its city, county or school board taxes or assessments. In turn, they will receive a high quality community where the infrastructure can and will be maintained. The market value of the land should increase due to the existence of the District. Ultimately, as Dr. Fishkind noted, the residents will control the board of supervisors and determine the precise levels of services they wish to receive. (Tr. 85-86; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 10, pages 9-11)

As part of the EIS, Fishkind analyzed the impact of the District on competition and the open market for employment. He concluded that there will be a modest impact on the competitive market for housing in Brevard County due to the formation of the District, but noted that any advantage is not exclusive to The Viera Company. Any developer has the right to avail herself of the opportunity to establish a CDD. (Tr. 87-88; PEt. Ex. 2, attachment 10, page

11) Fishkind expects no impact on small business. To the extent the District will engage in competitive bidding where a private developer would note that may be a benefit to the small business. (Tr. 88-89; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 10, page 11)

Fishkind used data supplied to him by The Viera Company and the consultants, Gee & Jenson, in performing his financial analysis. He modeled the financing characteristics and capabilities under numerous economic scenarios, including a recession. He also created a bond schedule and determined what type of assessment levels would be necessary to support those bonds. Based on the result of these studies and analyses, Fishkind concluded that the District will be financially sound and able to fulfill its economic obligations. (Tr, 90-91, 93-94; Pet. Ex. 2, attachment 10, page 12)

From a financial perspective, based on his review of the applicable plans, Fishkind testified that the CDD is consistent with the comprehensive plans of the City, County and State. (Tr. 94-96). Based on his experience with, other districts of a similar size and configuration, Fishkind also concluded that the area to be included in the District is of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functionally interrelated community (Tr. 96-97) Fishkind further testified that the proposed District is the best alternative avai1able for delivering community development services and facilities to the area to be served by the District, based on his analysis of other options available, such as homeowner associations. (Tr. 97-99) The community development services and facilities expected to be provided by the District are also, in his opinion, compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. (Tr.

1. Finally, Fishkind concluded that the area is amenable to special district government. (Tr. 100)

   Gary L. Moyer: Moyer is President and C.E.O. of Gary L. Moyer, P.A., a firm engaged in the management of special purpose taxing districts. He provides a myriad of services to a large number of districts, including budgeting, accounting, reporting, operations, maintenance of facilities, relations with other governmental entities, and conduct of meetings. He has provided these services for approximately 14 years. Moyer has a B.S. in Marketing from Pennsylvania State University, and an MBA from Notre Dame. At the hearing, Moyer was qualified as an expert in special district governance and management. (Tr. 106)

   
   

   Moyer reviewed the evolution of district-financing under Florida Statutes, focusing on the improvements in the safeguards for district debt. He noted that Chapter 189, as revised in 1989, imposes some specific requirements that must be met before district debt can be issued. (Tr. 106-109; see s. 189.4085, F.S.) He also noted the improvements in the collection mechanisms for district assessments in Chapter 197, F.S. which help insure that bonds will be paid. (Tr. 108)

   
   

   Moyer concluded, based on his experience and familiarity with the proposed District, that it is-the best alternative for providing the contemplated services and facilities. (Tr. 109) He also concluded that the area is amenable to separate special district governance. (Tr. 109-110) From a district management point of view, Moyer opined that the area of land to be included in the District is of a sufficient size, is sufficiently compact and sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functionally interrelated community. (Tr.

   110)

   
   

   Public Participation

   
   

   Comments and questions were received from several members of the public, identified in the appendix C, attached here. The questions focused on: clarification of the boundaries of the District (Tr. 114-115); clarification that this is not a city, but a special district that is being established (Tr. 115- 118); explanation of where additional school sites will be located outside the boundaries of the District under the terms of the DRI development orders (Tr. 118-119); clarification of the provision of potable water and sewer (Tr. 1.19-120, 130-132); clarification of phasing of specific development activities (Tr. 127-130)

   
   

   In addition, two people expressed concern about existing drainage in the area. (Tr. 122-23, 133-34) It must be noted, however, that to the extent there are existing drainage problems in either the City or the County, the proposed District is obviously not their cause. Specific drainage issues were thoroughly reviewed in the DRI process, and are not properly within the scope of this proceeding. To the extent the District will provide or maintain drainage facilities, it must do so in accordance with all applicable DRI conditions and permitting requirements of the appropriate agencies.

   
   

   Rule 42-1.1013(5), F.A.C.: There are no written orders rendered by the Department of Administrative Hearings or the Commission in any related proceedings. Attached as appendix D is the text of a proposed rule establishing the Viera East Community Development District, as drafted by Petitioner.

   CONCLUSIONS

   
   

   Based on the entire record in this matter, it is concluded that the evidence supports or meets each of the criteria listed in section 19o.005(1)(e), F.S.

   
   

   1. That all statements contained within the Petition as corrected at the hearing are true and correct.

      
      

   2. That the creation of the District is consistent with all applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan, the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan as amended, and the City of Rockledge Comprehensive Plan.

      
      

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

      
      

   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 the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.

      
      

   6. That the area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government.

DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

MARY CLARK

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 22nd day of January, 1991.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

PETITIONER'S WITNESSES

John R. Maloy

The Viera Company

1802 South Fiske Boulevard Rockledge, Florida 32955

Fred Greene Gee & Jenson

One Harvard Circle

West Palm Beach, Florida 33409

Jack F. Glatting

Glatting Lopez Kercher Anglin

33 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801

Henry H. Fishkind, Ph.D. Fishkind & Associates, Inc.

507 North New York Avenue Suite 301

Winter Park, Florida 32789

Gary L. Moyer

10300 Northwest Eleventh Manor Coral Springs, Florida 33065

APPENDIX B

LIST OF EXHIBITS AT HEARING

Exhibit Description

1. Composite exhibit of notice

2. Petition to Establish the Viera East Community Development District as filed, with the exhibits:

   1. District Location Map

   2. Metes & Bounds Description

   3. Documentation of Ownership

   4. Map of Existing Uses

   5. Land Use Plan

   6. Existing Drainage Basins and Outfall Canals

   7. Estimated Infrastructure Cost

   8. Brevard County Comprehensive Plan

   9. City of Rockledge Comprehensive Plan

   10. Economic Impact Statement

   11. Designation of Agent

3. Receipts for filing fee from City of Rockledge and Brevard County

4. DRI Development Order for the Viera East Project -- Brevard County

5. DRI Development Order for the Viera East Project -- City' of Rockledge

6. Approved Brevard County Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Viera East DRI

APPENDIX C

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

John Fleming 944 Bridle Lane

Rockledge, Florida

Lee Wenner

1060 Matador Drive Rockledge, Florida

Robert Preston 939 Bridle Place

Rockledge, Florida

Al Miller

26 South Hardee Circle Rockledge, Florida

Janice Peterson 975 Beechfern Lane Rockledge, Florida

APPENDIX D

VIERA EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

CHAPTER 42 -

VIERA EAST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

42 - Creation.

42 - Boundary.

42 - Supervisors

42 - Creation. The Viera East Community Development district is hereby created.

42 - Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: PARCEL 1

All of Section 27 and portions of Sections 22, 26, 28, 33, 34 and 35,

Township 25 South, Range 36 East, and portions of Sections 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11, Township 26 South, Range 36 East, all in Brevard County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Southeast corner of said Section 10 and run N00058'45"W along the East line of said Section 10, for a distance of 50.04 feet to the North right of way line of Wickham Road and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the following described parcel; thence S86240'00"W along said North right of bay line of Wickham Road 1,791.05 feet; thence continue along said North right of way line S89231'32"W for 1,232.48 feet to the East line of Official Records Book 876, Page 569 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence N14232'54"W along said East line for 766.98 feet to the North line of said Official Records Book 876, page 569; thence S75227'06"W along said North line for a distance of 768.49 feet to the Easterly right of way line of Interstate 95; thence N26201'27"W along said Easterly right of way line for a distance of 745.31 feet; thence N14232'54"W along said Easterly right of way

line for a distance, of 2,308.02 feet; thence N60244'50"E for 346.47 feet; thence N37249'35"E for 170.97 feet; thence N52208'55"E for 84.63 feet; thence N75227'05"E for 550.00 feet; thence N77247'23"E for 75.00 feet; thence S83203'16"E for 75.00 feet; thence S83200'14"E for 410.74 feet; thence N06259'46"E for 104.22 feet to a point on a curve concave to the North, having a radius of 813.27 feet and to which a radial line bears S01209'22"W; thence Easterly along the arc of said curve for 328.78 feet, through a central angle of 23209'46 to the point of tangency; thence N67259'36"E for 243.76 feet to a point lying 30.00 feet West of the Westerly right of way line of Murrell Road, (a

120.00 foot wide right of way), as described in Official Records Book 2953, Page 2101 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence Northerly and

30.00 filet West of 25 said Westerly right of way line the following seven (7) courses: (1) thence N22000'24"W for 742.63 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the East and having a radius of 1,235.92 feet; (2) thence Northerly along the. arc of said curve for 582.56 feet, through a central angle of 27200-24 to the point of tangency; (3) thence N05200'00"E for 468.53 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the West, having a radius of 1,055.92 feet; (4) thence Northerly along the arc of said curve for 497.59 feet, through a central angle of 27200'00" to the point of tangency; (5) thence N22200'00"W for 1,399.77 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the East, having a radius of 1,235.92 feet; (6) thence Northerly along the arc of said curve for 593.20 feet, through a central angle of 27230'00 to the point of tangency; (7) thence N05236'00"E along said line lying 30.00 feet West of the Westerly right of way line of Murrell Road and its Northerly extension thereof, said line being the Westerly right of way line of proposed Murrell Road (150.00 foot wide right of way) for a distance of 1,365.19 feet; thence run N84230'00"W for 600.00 feet, to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, having a radius of 640.00 feet and a central angle of 48208'20"; thence run Southwesterly, along said curve, an arc distance of 537.72 feet; thence run N42238'20"W, a distance of 493.95 feet; thence run N14233'28"W, a distance of

580.00 feet; thence S75226'32"W for a distance of 1437.64 feet to said Easterly right of way line of Interstate 95; thence N14232'54"W along said Easterly right of way line of Interstate 95 for a distance of 8,929.18 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 5,879.65 feet; thence Northwesterly along the arc of said curve and said Easterly right of way line, for a distance of 2,592.25 feet, through a central angle of 24223'02" to the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, Township 25 South, Range 36 East; thence N89234'55"E along said North line 2,011.71 feet to the North 1/4 corner of said Section 28; thence N89235'49"E along the North line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28 for a distance of 2,649.14 feet to the Southwest corner of, said Section 22; thence N89244'33"E along the South line of said Section 22, for a distance of 4,533.48 feet to the West line of lands described in Official Records Book 2237, Page 2896 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence N00215'56"W along said West line of Official Records Book 2237, Page 2896 for a distance of 1,969.91 feet to the South right of way line of Barnes Boulevard; thence S89247'58"E along said South right of bay line of Barnes Boulevard for a distance of 800.00 feet to the East line of said Section 22; thence S00215'56"E along said East line of Section 22, for a distance of 1,963.51 feet to the Southeast corner of said Section 22, said corner also being the Northeast corner of Section 27, Township 25 South, Range

36 East, Brevard County, Florida; thence S00221'41"E along the East line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 27, for a distance of 2,659.87 feet to the Northeast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 27; thence 26

S00240'49"W along the East line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 27, for a distance of 2,181.04 feet; thence S38250'18"E for 1,283.83 feet; thence South for 1,950.00 feet; thence S40214'11"E for 170.29 feet; thence South for 1,020.00 feet; thence S40236'05"E for 322.68 feet; thence S39242'36"W for 383.47 feet;

thence S01247'24"E for 160.08 feet; thence S56218'36"E for 396.61 feet; thence S60238'32"E for 91.79 feet; thence S03216'14"E for 350.57 feet; thence S40227'54"W for 467.47 feet to the South line of aforesaid Section 35, Township

25 South, Range 36 East, Brevard County, Florida; thence S88257'29"W along said South line of Section 35, for a distance of 1,034.11 feet to the Northeast corner of Section 3, Township 26 South, Range 36 East; thence S01017'09"W along the East line of said Section 3, for a distance of 1,245.78 feet to the Northeast corner of INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 2, UNIT 1, as recorded in Plat Book 34, Page 92 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence S88235'03"W along the North line of said INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 2, UNIT 1, and along the North line of INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D. PHASE 1, UNIT 2, as recorded in Plat Book 34, Page 36 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida, for 2,634.30 feet; thence S88228'04"W along the North line of said INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 1, UNIT 2, and along the North lines of INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 1, UNIT 1, as recorded in Plat Book 34, Pages 31 and 32 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida and INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 1, UNIT 3, as recorded in Plat Book 35, Page 91 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida, for a distance of 883.63 feet to the Easterly right of way line of Murrell Road, as recorded in Official Records Book 2953, Page 2101 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence for the following seven (7) courses along said Easterly right of way line: (1) S05230'00"W for 785.19 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the East, having a radius of 1,085.92 feet; (2) thence Southerly 521.20 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 27230'00" to the point of tangency; (3) thence S22200'00"E for 1,399.77 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the West, having a radius of 1,205.92 feet; (4) thence Southerly 568.28 feet along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 27200'00" to the point of tangency; (5) thence S05200'00"W for 468.53 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the East, having a radius of 1,085.92 feet; (6) thence Southerly 511.85 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 27200'24" to the point of tangency; (7) thence S22200'24"E for 592.63 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 50.00 feet; thence Southeasterly 78.54 feet along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 90200'00" to the point of tangency; thence N67259'36"E for 423.19 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave to the South, having a radius of 960.00 feet; thence Easterly 318.71 feet along the arc of said curve, through a central angle of 19201'19 to the point of 27 tangency; thence N87200'55"E for

221.13 feet; thence N02259'05"W for 692.95 feet to the South line of INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 2, UNIT 4, as recorded in Plat Book 35, Pages

65 thru 67 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence N86030'29"E along said South line of said INDIAN RIVER COLONY CLUB, P.U.D., PHASE 2, UNIT 4, for a distance of 1,620: .78 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 2; thence N01217'32"E along the West line of said Section 2, for a distance of 2,506.96 feet to the North line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 2; thence N87227'20"E along said North line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, for a distance of 1,347.22 feet to the East line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 2; thence S00255'23"W along said East line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, for a distance of 2,563.88 feet to the Southeast corner of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 2, said Southeast corner also being the Northeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 26 South, Range 36 East; thence, S00231'25"E along the East line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, for a distance of 1,336.40 feet to the South line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section; 11; thence N89231'57"W along said South line 1,350.78 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, said corner being on the East line of

said Section 10; thence S00258'45"E along said East line of Section 10, for a distance of 1,322.94 feet to the East 1/4 corner of said Section 10; thence continue along said East line S002058'45"E for 541.60 feet to the North line of lands described in Official Records Book 2812, Page 2063 of the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida; thence for the following eight (8) courses along the Northerly line of said lands described in Official Records Book 2812, Page 2063: (1) S87255'44"W for 650.12 feet; (2) thence S00258'45"E for 288.82 feet; (3)

thence S59001'15"W for 245.81 feet; (4) thence N88024'23"W for 501.94 feet; (5)

thence S59001'15"W for 503.09 feet; (6) thence S00258'45"E for 575.00 feet; (7) thence S44201'15"W for 159.04 feet; (8) thence S87255'44"W for 359.20 feet to the East right of way line of said Murrell Road; thence S12228'28"E along said East right of way line 152.51 feet to the South line of said lands described in Official Records Book 2812, Page 2063; thence N87255'44"E along said South line for 2,241.61 feet to the East line of said Section 10; thence S00258'45"E along said East line 600.08 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said lands containing 2,790.73 acres, more or less.

TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL 2

A parcel of land lying in Section 33, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, Brevard County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northwest corner of Section 28, Township 25 South, Range 36 East, Brevard County, Florida; thence N89234'55"E along the North line of said Section 28, a distance of 236.62 feet to the Westerly right of way line of Interstate 95, (a

300.00 foot wide right of way), and a point of intersection with a non-tangent curve, concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 5,579.65 feet and a central angle of 26252'46"; thence Southeasterly along said Westerly right of way line and along the arc of said curve to the right, a distance of 2,617.62 feet, (said arc subtended by a chord which bears S27259'17"E a distance of 2,593.68 feet) to a point of tangency; thence S14232'54"E along said Westerly right of way line, a distance of 3,416.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described parcel; thence continue along said Westerly right of way line S142032'54"E, a distance of 4,994.84 feet; thence N15241'39"W a distance of 1,203.33 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1,051.92 feet, a central angle of 35221'15"; thence North Westerly along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 649.08 feet to the point of tangency of said curve; thence N51202'54"W, a ,distance' of 978.47 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1,051.92 feet, a central angle of 33200'00"; thence Westerly along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 605.86 feet to the point of tangency of said curve; thence N84202'54"W a distance of 136.38 feet; thence N88202'54"W a distance of 76.74 feet; thence N01257'06"E a distance of 247.75 feet; thence S88202'54"E a distance of 600.00 feet; thence N43230'28"E a distance of 193.49 feet; thence N21215'19"E, a distance of 750.65 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1,051.92 feet, a central angle of 31248'13"; thence Northerly along the arc of said curve, an arc length of 583.89 feet to the Point of Tangency of said curve; thence N102032'54"W, a distance of 652.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, parcel contains 35.03 acres, more or less.

42 - Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Jack Maloy, Don Spotts, David Duda, Tracy Duda and Gordon P. Masterson.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Douglas M. Cook, Director Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor

Office of Planning and Budgeting

419 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

Wade L. Hopping, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams

P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314

Docket for Case No: 90-006904

Orders for Case No: 90-006904