STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RE: ESTABLISHMENT BY RULE OF )

POINCIANA COMMUNITY ) Case No. 99-2113

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT )

)

REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

Pursuant to Section l90.005 (1)(d), Florida Statutes, Robert

E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted a local public hearing in Haines City, Florida, on July 7, 1999.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Phillip C. Gildan

Teresa J. Moore Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

For Polk County: Palmer Davis

Assistant Polk County Attorney Post Office Box 9005, Drawer AT01 Bartow, Florida 33831

For Associated Poinciana Villages, Inc.:

Laura B. Belflower Frank & Gramling Post Office Box 1991

Tampa, Florida 33601-1991

Michael P. Sampson Holland & Knight LLP Post Office Box 1526

Orlando, Florida 32802-1526

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Poinciana Community Development District.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Petition for Rulemaking to Establish a Uniform Community Development District dated April 20, 1999, Petitioner requested the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to adopt a rule to establish a uniform community development district.

Following notice, a local public hearing took place in Haines City, Florida. There were approximately 20 to 25 members of the public in attendance at the hearing.

Petitioner called five witnesses and offered into evidence Petitioner Exhibits 1 through 24, all of which were admitted without objection. The names and addresses of the witnesses are listed in Appendix A, and the exhibits are listed in Appendix B.

The Association of Poinciana Villages called three witnesses and offered into evidence Association of Poinciana Villages Exhibits 1 and 2, which were excluded from evidence and then proffered. The names and addresses of the witnesses are listed in Appendix C, and the proffered exhibits are listed in

Appendix D.

The court reporter filed the Transcript on July 15, 1999. Petitioner filed a proposed report, which the Administrative

Law Judge has largely adopted as the report.

1. Summary of Record

   
   

   1. Amended Motion to Amend the Petition

      
      

      At the hearing, Petitioner Avatar Properties, Inc. (Petitioner) filed an amended motion to amend the petition (Amended Petition). The Administrative Law Judge granted the amended motion without objection. As Petitioner described them at the hearing, the amendments exclude a 0.20 acre lot (Lot) and a 2.5 acre power substation (the Substation) because they are not owned by the Petitioner.

   2. Amended Petition

      
      

      1. On April 20, 1999, Petitioner Avatar Properties, Inc. filed with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) a Petition for Rulemaking to Establish a Uniform Community Development District (Petitioner Exhibit 4). Previously, on April 19, 1999, Petitioner had submitted the petition with attachments to Polk County. On July 17, 1999, Petitioner filed the Amended Petition with FLWAC and the Division of Administrative Hearings (substantially the same as Petitioner Exhibit 17).

      2. The Amended Petition proposes the establishment of the Poinciana Community Development District (Poinciana CDD). The Amended Petition alleges that the land to be served by the Poinciana CDD is located in Polk County and consists of approximately 3,031 acres. Exhibit 2 of the Amended Petition (Petitioner Exhibit 17) provides the metes and bounds legal

         description of the Poinciana CDD. Exhibit 5 of the Amended Petition (Petitioner Exhibit 17) reveals that the land to be served by the Poinciana CDD is a single, contiguous parcel without enclaves.

      3. The Amended Petition alleges that the owner of all of land to be included in the Poinciana CDD has given written consent to its establishment. Exhibit 3 of the Amended Petition contains documentation constituting written consent of the landowner.

      4. The Amended Petition names five persons to serve on the initial Board of Supervisors.

      5. Exhibit 4 of the Amended Petition (Petitioner Exhibits 4 and 17) states a proposed timetable and schedule of estimated costs for the construction of the proposed facilities. Total costs projected for the construction period of 2000 to 2008 are

         $75,394,161.10 for roadways, master stormwater system, utilities and irrigation, mitigation, and right-of-way acquisition. The largest projected sums are for the master stormwater system, including easement acquisition, ($6,893,869.43) and utilities and irrigation, including right-of-way acquisition, ($8,292,601.91).

      6. Exhibit 6A to the Amended Petition is the future land use map (FLUM) of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan. The FLUM designates the land within the proposed CDD as "Pre-DRI."

         Exhibit 6B to the Amended Petition is the Future Land Use Element and Appendix 2.130 of the adopted Polk County Comprehensive Plan.

      7. Exhibit 7 to the Amended Petition is a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs.

      8. Last, the Amended Petition alleges that Petitioner paid

         
         

         $15,000 to Polk County on April 19, 1999, as filing fees, for the request to FLWAC that it promulgate a rule to establish the Poinciana CDD.

      9. On June 8, 1999, the Polk County Board of County Commissioners decided not to hold the optional local public hearing on the Poinciana CDD.

      10. Petitioner duly advertised the local public hearing conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 7, 1999, in two appropriate local newspapers in the four weeks immediately prior to the local public hearing. Publication dates were June 6, 16, 23, and 30, 1999.

   3. Evidence from the Local Public Hearing

      
      

      1. Thomas McCarthy is the Director for Land Development for Avatar Retirement Communities, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Petitioner. Mr. McCarthy described the nature of Petitioner's Active Adult Community, which will be established within the Poinciana CDD, and the developer-provided amenities. Mr. McCarthy testified that the statements in the Amended Petition were true and correct.

      2. Brian Canin, a professional planner, explained that the Poinciana CDD has a land use designation in the FLUM and that the development contemplated within the Poinciana CDD would require

         no amendments to the FLUM. Mr. Canin explained that the Pre-DRI land use designation meant that the development was exempt from the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process as a result of several binding letters issued by the Department of Community Affairs (Petitioner Exhibits 18D and E).

      3. Mr. Canin explained that the entire Poinciana CDD is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). He then described the land use approval process, including concept and tentative plan approvals, for the Avatar Active Adult Community, which comprises approximately 2,712 acres of the Poinciana CDD (Petitioner Exhibits 18A-C and F-H).

      4. Mr. Canin indicated that the approved land uses surrounding the Poinciana CDD are PUD, including primarily residential with some commercial and other types of supporting land uses. Specifically, everything surrounding the Poinciana CDD, including the Poinciana CDD, is part of a larger 40,000-acre PUD approved in the early 1970s.

      5. Mr. Canin also found that the Poinciana CDD is of sufficient size, compactness, and contiguity to be developable as a functionally interrelated community. Mr. Canin testified that the presence of the Lot and the Substation did not change his opinion and that the Poinciana CDD will not have any impact on the Lot and the Substation.

      6. Mr. Canin determined that the development services and facilities that will be provided by the Poinciana CDD are

         compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. He noted that a town center would provide on-site residents with recreational and commercial services.

      7. Mr. Canin opined that the Poinciana CDD raised no issues regarding habitat or environmental issues, that the Poinciana CDD would not lower the levels of service of nearby road segments below acceptable levels, and that Polk County had already adequately considered the impacts of the proposed development. Mr. Canin noted that the Poinciana CDD was a much less intense and dense use than what was originally approved. He also indicated that there is no significant land use issue associated with this property that would cause it not to function as a community development district.

      8. Mr. Canin concluded that the proposed development was consistent with the Pre-DRI land use designation and the state and local plans in general. He testified that all the statements contained in the Amended Petition were true and correct.

      9. Reginald Tisdale, a civil engineer, testified that he had reviewed the state and local plans and concluded that the Poinciana CDD is not inconsistent with either of those plans. Mr. Tisdale found that the Poinciana CDD is of sufficient size, compactness, and contiguity to be developable as a functionally

         interrelated community. He found that the area to be included in the proposed district is amenable to a special district

         government. Mr. Tisdale stated that he reached these conclusions with the knowledge that the Lot and the Substation would not be included in the Poinciana CDD because the Poinciana CDD will not have any impact on the Lot and the Substation.

      10. Mr. Tisdale endorsed the Poinciana CDD as the best means of delivering the community development services and facilities to the land area within the Poinciana CDD. He determined that the services provided by the Poinciana CDD will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.

      11. Mr. Tisdale also reviewed the existing facilities currently located within the proposed CDD, including the M-7 canal. He testified that the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) had issued an conceptual Environmental Resource Permit for construction of the surface water management system for the entire development and that construction permits had been issued by SFWMD for about 800 acres of the development.

      12. Mr. Fishkind summarized the purpose of the Statement of Regulatory Costs contained in Exhibit 7 to the Amended Petition (Statement). Specifically, he testified that the Statement satisfied the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. He discussed the minimal costs to the state and local agencies associated with the proposed rule. He stated that the costs to provide the proposed infrastructure to the Poinciana CDD would be approximately $75 million in 1999 dollars. He analyzed that the

          residents will receive a higher level of amenities and facilities than they would without the existence of the Poinciana CDD.

          Mr. Fishkind also testified that there was no significant impact on small businesses or small counties by the adoption of the rule.

      13. Mr. Fishkind testified that the exclusion of the Lot and the Substation from the Poinciana CDD had no financial impact on the proposed district, that the Poinciana CDD has no impact on the Lot and the Substation, and that exclusion of small parcels such as these was common with community development districts.

      14. Mr. Fishkind testified that all the statements that he prepared in the Amended Petition were true and correct.

      15. Gary Moyer is a principal with the firm of Moyer & Associates, which is a management consulting firm representing over 85 community development districts in Florida. Mr. Moyer testified that he does not see any problems in administering or managing the Poinciana CDD. He stated that the land area is amenable to governance by the Poinciana CDD. He also testified that the two excluded parcels (the Lot and the Substation) would in no way a effect the viability of the project to be a functionally interrelated community. Mr. Moyer testified that the statements in the Amended Petition were true and correct.

      16. Polk County did not present any testimony and did not controvert any of the evidence presented by Petitioner.

      17. Members of the public present at the hearing largely represented the Association of Poinciana Villages (APV). APV is an organization composed of homeowners' associations governing eight villages in the already-developed area known as Poinciana. APV is an unusually large organization, for an association of homeowners' associations. APV has existed for over 25 years, employs 91 persons, exercises responsibility over several thousand acres of common grounds, and enjoys a healthy reserve of funds.

      18. The APV witnesses raised two specific concerns about the designation of the Poinciana CDD, although the witnesses were careful to acknowledge that their concerns had not yet ripened into objections. Basically, they were concerned about the impact on recreational and drainage facilities of the removal of the Poinciana CDD from the area already under or expected to come under their jurisdiction.

      19. There seemed to be two general aspects to their concerns. The first is whether deed restrictions (or, in the case of one witness possibly not affiliated with APV, a bankruptcy order) might preclude Petitioner from establishing the Poinciana CDD, at least with its contemplated powers over recreation and drainage. The second is whether the contemplated drainage facilities would adversely affect the drainage facilities under the jurisdiction of the APV.

      20. The Administrative Law Judge noted that the presence of enforceable deed restrictions or other contractual undertakings (or a court order) could have a serious impact on the issues of whether the Poinciana CDD is the best alternative for delivering public-facility services, whether the Poinciana CDD services and facilities will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of nearby community development services and facilities, and whether the area to be served by the Poinciana CDD is amenable to separate special-district government. However, as the Administrative Law Judge stated at the hearing, the record is not sufficiently developed on these points to permit findings adverse to Petitioner.

      21. The situation is similar as to the drainage concerns expressed by APV. The SFWMD will necessarily consider, if it has not already done so, a broad range of drainage issues in determining whether to grant Petitioner an Environmental Resource Permit for the management and storage of surface water. On this point, as well, the record is not sufficiently developed to permit findings adverse to Petitioner.

      22. The Administrative Law Judge strongly advised Petitioner and APV to meet prior to any hearing conducted by FLWAC to determine if they have any real disputes and, if so, to try to resolve them.

2. Summary of Law

   
   

   1. General

      
      

      1. Under Section 190.003(6), Florida Statutes (all references to "Section" are to Florida Statutes), a "community development district" is

         a local unit of special purpose government which is created pursuant to this act and limited to the performance of those specialized functions authorized by this act; the boundaries of which are contained wholly within a single county; the governing head of which is a body created, organized, and constituted and authorized to function specifically as prescribed in this act for the delivery of urban community development services; and the formation, powers, governing body, operation, duration, accountability, requirements for disclosure, and termination of which are as required by general law.

      2. Section 190.011 enumerates the general powers of community development districts. These powers include the power of eminent domain inside the district and, with the approval of the governing body of the applicable county or municipality, outside the district for purposes related solely to water, sewer, district roads, and water management.

      3. Section 190.012 lists special powers of community development districts. Subject to the regulatory power of all applicable government agencies, community development districts may plan, finance, acquire, construct, enlarge, operate, and maintain systems and facilities for water management; water supply, sewer, and wastewater management; district roads meeting

         minimum county specifications; and certain projects within or without the district pursuant to development orders from local governments. After obtaining the consent of the applicable local government, a community development district may have the same powers with respect to the following "additional" systems and facilities: parks and recreation, fire prevention, school buildings, security, mosquito control, and waste collection and disposal.

      4. Section 190.005(1) provides that the sole means for establishing a community development district of 1,000 acres or more shall be by rule adopted by FLWAC granting a petition for the establishment of a community development district.

      5. Section 190.005(1)(a) requires that a petition be filed with FLWAC. The petition must describe by metes and bounds the area of the proposed community development district with a specific description of any real property to be excluded from the district. The petition must set forth that the petitioner has the written consent of the owners of all of the real property in the proposed community development district, or has control by "deed, trust agreement, contract or option of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the district." The petition must designate the five initial members of the board of supervisors of the proposed community development district and the district's name. The petition must contain a map showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if any.

      6. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires that the petition propose a timetable for construction an estimate construction costs. The petition must designate future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land in the future land use element of the appropriate local government. The petition must contain an economic impact statement.

      7. Section 190.005(1)(b) requires that the petitioner submit a copy of the petition, with a $15,000 filing fee, to the county and to each municipality whose boundaries are within or contiguous to the proposed community development district.

      8. Section 190.005(1)(c) permits the county and each municipality described in the preceding paragraph to conduct a public hearing on the petition. Such local governments may then present resolutions to FLWAC as to the proposed community development district.

      9. Section 190.005(1)(d) requires an administrative law judge to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The hearing "shall include oral and written comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in paragraph (e)." Section 190.005(1)(d) specifies that the petitioner publish notice of the local public hearing once a week for the four successive weeks immediately prior to the hearing.

   2. Factors for Granting or Denying Petition

      
      

      1. Section 190.005(1)(e) provides that FLWAC

         
         

         consider the entire record of the local hearing, the transcript of the hearing,

         resolutions adopted by local general

         purpose governments as provided in paragraph (c), and the following factors and make a determination to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a community development district:

         
         

         1. Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct.

            
            

         2. Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element of the effective local government comprehensive plan.

            
            

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

            
            

         4. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district.

            
            

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

            
            

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

            
            

3. Summary of Evidence Under Applicable Law

   
   

   1. General Law

      
      

      1. Petitioner satisfied the procedural requirements for the establishment of a community development district by paying the $15,000 filing fee, filing a petition in the proper form and with the required attachments, submitting a copy to the petition

      to Polk County, and publishing statutory notice of the local public hearing.

   2. Six Factors of Section 190.00 5(1)(e)

      
      

      1. Truth of Statements in Amended Petition

         
         

         1. The statements in the Amended Petition are correct.

            
            

   3. Consistency of Proposed District with Local and State Comprehensive Plans

1. No provision of the Polk County or state comprehensive plan prohibits the creation and establishment of a community development district at this location. Thus, the creation of the Poinciana CDD would not contravene any express plan provisions prohibiting the creation and use of community development districts.

2. However, a finding that the Poinciana CDD would not be inconsistent with the state and local plans requires more than a finding that these plans do not prohibit the creation of the Poinciana CDD. This factor requires analysis of whether the Poinciana CDD would be inconsistent with the operative provisions of these plans, including the FLUM.

3. Generally, the creation and establishment of a community development district serves various goals, objectives, and policies of comprehensive plans by the efficient provision of certain infrastructure (i.e., the infrastructure to be provided by the proposed community development district), typically concurrent with the impacts of development. This consistency

   determination is important. But if it were all that was required to satisfy the consideration of the factors on consistency with state and local comprehensive plans, this factor would mean very little, as the purpose of creating community development districts is the provision of infrastructure.

4. The establishment of a community development district conveys upon a nongovernmental entity special powers to finance and manage facilities that traditionally have been provided by government. The existence of these powers may accelerate or even permit residential and commercial development of previously undeveloped areas. The community development district process does not lend itself to a detailed consideration of the consistency between establishing the community development district and various provisions of relevant local government comprehensive plans. Typically, there are no adversaries in a community development district hearing, and the evidentiary record does not approach the complexity of the evidentiary record of a growth management hearing. For these reasons, the consistency determinations in a community development district case cannot approach the detail of consistency determinations in a growth management case, but this does not mean that such consistency determinations are inapposite. The second factor of the community development district case requires a consistency determination; necessarily, though, the consistency determination

   is less rigorous than it is in a vigorously contested growth management case.

5. The FLUM designates the land to be included in the Poinciana CDD as Pre-DRI. This FLUM designation is consistent with the FLUM designations for surrounding undeveloped lands and the existing land uses of already-developed lands, at least with respect to land within Polk County.

6. The land area within the Poinciana CDD is vested or exempt from the DRI process. Polk County has given conceptual approval for the development of all of the land within the Poinciana CDD and tentative approval for part of the land. It is obviously in the best interest of Polk County for developers of vested land to find means of funding and providing infrastructure given the general exemption of vested development from the constraints either of concurrency or the moratoria that following the activation of concurrency provisions. See, e.g., Polk County Comprehensive Plan Policy 4.207-A5.d.

7. Establishment by Rule of the proposed district is not inconsistent with the Polk County or state comprehensive plan.

   3. Whether Size, Compactness, and Contiguity of Proposed District Is Sufficient to be Developable as one Functional Interrelated Community

   
   

8. The size, compactness, and contiguity of the Poinciana CDD land area are sufficient for it to be developable as one functional interrelated community.

   4. Whether Proposed District is Best Alternative Available for Delivering Community Development Services and Facilities to Area to be Served

   
   

9. The Poinciana CDD is the best alternative presently available for delivering community development services and facilities at this time to the area of the Poinciana CDD.

   5. Whether the Poinciana CDD's Community Development Services and Facilities will be Compatible with Capacity and Uses of Existing Local and Regional Community Development Services and Facilities

   
   

10. The services and facilities provided by the Poinciana CDD will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.

    6. Whether Area to be Served by Proposed District

    is Amenable to Separate Special-District Government

    
    

11. The area to be served by the Poinciana CDD is amenable to a separate special-district government.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

ROBERT E. MEALE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us.

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1999.

APPENDIX A

Petitioner's Witnesses: Thomas McCarthy

Avatar Adult Communities 4755 Laurel Avenue

Poinciana, Florida 34578

Reginald Tisdale

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

135 West Central Boulevard, Suite 800 Orlando, Florida 32801

Brian Canin Canin Associates

500 Delaney Avenue, Suite 404 Orlando, Florida 32801

Henry Fishkind

Fishkind and Associates, Inc. 11869 High Tech Avenue Orlando, Florida 32817

Gary Moyer

Moyer & Associates

10300 Northwest 11th Manor Coral Springs, Florida 33071

APPENDIX B

Petitioner Exhibits:

1. General location map

   
   

2. Boundary map of development to be serviced by Poinciana CDD

   
   

3. Future Land Use Map of Polk County

   
   

4. Petition with Exhibits (composite exhibit)

   Exhibit 1 - Location of Land Area to be Serviced Exhibit 2 - Metes and Bound Legal Description Exhibit 3 - Documentation of Consent of 100% of

   Landowners to Establishment of District Exhibit 4 - Documentation of Proposed Timetables for

   Construction of District Services and Estimated Cost of Constructing the Proposed Services

   Exhibit 5 - Designation of the Future General Distribution, Location and Extent of

   Public and Private Uses of Land Within the District

   Exhibit 6A - Future Land Use Map of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan

   Exhibit 6B - Future Land Use Element and Appendix 2.130 of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan

   Exhibit 7 - Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (including Appendix A)

   
   

5. Letter dated April 19, 1999, from Teresa J. Moore transmitting Petition to Polk County.

   
   

6. Copy of receipt for $15,000 check representing filing and processing fee paid by Petitioner to Polk County.

   
   

7. Letter dated April 20, 1999, from Teresa J. Moore transmitting Petition to FLWAC.

   
   

8. Letter dated July 1, 1999, from FLWAC acknowledging receipt of Petition.

   
   

9. Letter dated May 5, 1999 from FLWAC to Central Florida Regional Planning Council asking for review of Petition.

   
   

10. Letter dated May 5, 1999, from FLWAC to Department of Community Affairs asking for review of Petition.

    
    

11. Memorandum dated June 7, 1999, from Department of Community Affairs to FLWAC containing comments regarding its review of Petition.

    
    

12. Letter dated May 5, 1999, from FLWAC to Division of Administrative Hearings certifying Petition is in compliance.

    
    

13. Initial Order dated May 12, 1999.

    
    

14. Response to Initial Order dated May 24, 1999.

    
    

15. Affidavit and tear sheet from Orlando Sentinel constituting proof of publication for four weeks’ notice.

    
    

16. Affidavit and tear sheet from Lakeland Ledger constituting proof of publication for four weeks’ notice.

    
    

17. Amended Petition and Exhibits (composite exhibit) Exhibit 1 - Location of Land Are to be Serviced

    Exhibit 2 - Amended Metes and Bounds Legal Description

    Exhibit	3	-
    Exhibit	4	-
    Exhibit	5	-

    Amended Documentation of Consent of 1005 of Landowners to Establishment of District Documentation of Proposed Timetables for Construction of District Services and Estimated Cost of Constructing the Proposed Services

    Amended Designation of the Future General Distribution, Location and Extent of Public and Private Uses of Land Within the District

    Exhibit 6A - Future Land Use Map of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan

    Exhibit 6B - Future Land User Element and

    Appendix 2.130 of the Polk County Comprehensive Plan

    Exhibit 7 - Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (including Appendix A)

18. Land Use Approvals (composite exhibit)

    Exhibit A - Letter dated September 21, 1998, providing for Concept Plan approval for Phases I and II and Tentative Plan approval for Phase I.

    Exhibit B - Letter dated December 16, 1998, providing for Tentative Approval for Phase II.

    Exhibit C - Letter dated April 21, 1999, providing for Final Approval for Phases I and IA.

    Exhibit D - Binding Letter of Interpretation of Vested Rights Status (File No. BLIVR 783-002), dated

    May 17, 1983.

    Exhibit E - Binding Letter of Interpretation for a Modification to a DRI with Vested Rights Status.

    Exhibit E(1) Final Order No. DCA 98-BL-169 dated September 23, 1998.

    Exhibit E(2) Minor Correction Letter dated November 3, 1998.

    Exhibit F - Concept Plan.

    
    

    Exhibit G - Tentative Plan for Phase I. Exhibit H - Tentative Plan for Phase II.

    
    

19. Poinciana System Water and Wastewater Capacity Expansion Agreement by and between Florida Governmental Utility Authority and Avatar Properties, Inc., dated April 1, 1999.

    
    

20. Resume of Reginald Tisdale.

    
    

21. Resume of Brian Canin.

    
    

22. Resume of Henry Fishkind.

23. Resume of Gary Moyer.

    
    

24. Polk County Comprehensive Plan.

APPENDIX C

Association of Poinciana Villages Witnesses: Tony DePalma

Employee of Association of Poinciana Villages Address unstated

Jerry Schmitz

Employee of Association of Poinciana Villages Address unstated

Laura B. Belflower Frank & Gramling Post Office Box 1991

Tampa, Florida 33601-1991

APPENDIX D

Association of Poinciana Villages Exhibits:

1. Policy Memorandum dated September 8, 1982, and First Addendum to Policy Memorandum dated March 20, 1990 (PROFFER).

   
   

2. Deed Restrictions (PROFFER).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Growth Management and Strategic Planning 2105 The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Donna Arduin, Secretary

Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive office of the Governor

1601 The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Carol Licko, General Counsel

Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive office of the Governor

1601 The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Phillip C. Gildan Teresa J. Moore Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Palmer Davis

Assistant Polk County Attorney Post Office Box 9005, Drawer AT01 Bartow, Florida 33831

Laura B. Belflower Frank & Gramling Post Office Box 1991

Tampa, Florida 33601-1991

Michael P. Sampson Holland & Knight LLP Post Office Box 1526

Orlando, Florida 32802-1526

Docket for Case No: 99-002113

Orders for Case No: 99-002113