STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: A RULE TO ESTABLISH )

THE SAMPSON CREEK COMMUNITY )

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ) Case No. 00-0849

)

REPORT OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

On Monday April 10, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., the local public hearing for the Petition to Establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Cleavinger, at the St. Johns County Public Library, 950 Davis Pond Boulevard, in St. Johns County, Florida.

The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony, public comment, and receiving exhibits on the petition of the St.

Joe/Arvida Company, L.P. (Petitioner) to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District (District) in northern St. Johns County, Florida.

This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this proceeding is whether the petition to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 14, 2000, Petitioner filed a petition to establish a community development district, with attached Exhibits 1 through 9, with the Secretary of Commission. Prior to this time, Petitioner delivered a copy of the petition and exhibits, along with a filing fee, to St. Johns County. A copy of the petition, including its attached exhibits, was received into evidence as Petitioner's Composite Hearing Exhibit 1.

On February 23, 2000, the Secretary of the Commission certified that the petition contained all required elements and forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of holding the public hearing required under Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The commission published a Notice of Receipt of Petition in the Florida Administrative

Weekly on March 24, 2000. A copy of the Notice of Receipt of

Petition was received into evidence as Hearing Exhibit 4.

The local public hearing was scheduled in St. Johns County, Florida, for Monday, April 10, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. The Petitioner published notice of the hearing in accordance with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

St. Johns County, as the County in which the proposed district is contained, elected not to hold a separate public hearing within 45 days of the filing of the Petition. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes. The County directed its staff to address impact fee credit issues at the local hearing.

At the local public hearing on April 10, 2000, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Douglas G. Maier, Director of Development of Arvida, a St. Joe Company; Gary R. Walters, President of Gary Walters and Associates, a community planning and management consulting firm and an expert in land use and comprehensive planning, and in community development district operations and management; Sessel Boring, President of Hill, Boring and Dunn and an expert in civil engineering for community developments; and Henry H. Fishkind, Ph.D., President of Fishkind and Associates, Inc., an economic and financial and consulting firm, and an expert in economics. Their full names and addresses are attached to this report as Attachment 1. The Petitioner offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 14, which

were received into evidence at the hearing. St. Johns County offered Exhibit 15, which was also received into evidence at the hearing. A list of the exhibits in this proceeding is attached to this report as Attachment 2.

Mr. Joseph Stephenson, on behalf of St. Johns County, presented testimony and one exhibit during the public comment portion of the hearing. No other persons or entity presented any witnesses or exhibits at the final hearing, nor did any members of the public in attendance provide comment. No persons or entities, including the County, sought party status. While the record to the local public hearing was held open until April 20, 2000, no further written comment or evidence was submitted during this open time period.

On April 21, 2000, a transcript of the local public hearing was prepared and filed by the Petitioner. A copy of the transcript is being transmitted with this Report of Findings and Conclusions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District. The proposed District consists of approximately 1,015 acres located within unincorporated St. Johns County, Florida.

2. There are two out-parcels, totaling 3.7 acres, within the areas to be included in the District. No adverse impact on

   these out parcels is expected from the establishment of the district.

3. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District was included in the Petition.

4. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. Witnesses Maier, Walters, Boring, and Fishkind each stated that he had reviewed portions of the contents of the petition and its attachments and affirmed the petitions findings.

5. Witness Maier testified that the Petitioner has written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the lands to be included in the District. Witness Maier also presented deeds for parcels of land within the boundaries of the proposed District which have been acquired by the Petitioner or its subsidiaries, as well as consent forms from the Petitioner's subsidiaries.

6. The Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct, with the addition of the deeds showing land ownership and owners' consent as specified above.

7. Witnesses Walters and Fishkind reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive

   Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Witness Walters also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan.

8. From a planning and economic perspective, four subjects, subject 16, 18, 21, and 26, of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District as do the policies supporting those subjects.

9. Subject 16, titled Land Use, of the State Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District will:

   have the fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services and facilities to the population in the designated growth area;

   
   

   help provide infrastructure to development the County, thereby helping limit unintended, unplanned sprawl;

   
   

   facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and services to assist in fulfilling the community plan.

   
   

10. Subject 18, titled Public Facilities of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient manner. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the District will:

    plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities needed for the development of lands within the District in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner;

    
    

    provide the infrastructure systems and facilities within the District with the landowners and residents benefiting from the new public facilities bearing the costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities;

    
    

    act in a type of 'infrastructure partnership' with St. Johns County;

    
    

    have financial self-sufficiency through the use of special assessments, as well as user charges or fees, to provide public facilities;

    
    

    provide a consistent, innovative and fiscally sound alternative for financing public facilities by bringing the cost of managing and financing public facilities down to a level of government closest to its beneficiaries and connecting those who pay for facilities with those who directly benefit from those facilities and services; and

    
    

    be structured to assure secure revenue sources capable of meeting District responsibilities.

    
    

11. Subject 21, titled Governmental Efficiency of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will:

    cooperate with other levels of Florida government, such as through entering into interlocal agreement to address maintenance issues for certain roads;

    
    

    be established under uniform general law standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes;

    
    

    be professionally managed, financed, and governed by those whose property directly receives the benefits;

    
    

    not burden the general taxpayer with costs for services or facilities inside the District; and

    
    

    plan and implement cost efficient solutions for the required public infrastructure and assure delivery of selected services to residents.

    
    

12. Subject 26, titled Plan Implementation of the State Comprehensive Plan, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement. The proposed District is consistent with this element of the State Comprehensive Plan because:

    the proposed District will systematically plan for the construction, operation and maintenance of the public improvements and the community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations;

    
    

    the District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all District property owners and

    residents can be involved in planning for improvements;

    
    

    Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file and update public facilities reports with the County, which it may rely upon in any revisions to the local comprehensive plan.

    
    

13. Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan.

14. Witness Walters testified that since St. Johns County has already found the development within the proposed District to be not inconsistent with the St. Johns County local comprehensive plan, the establishment of a community development district would not cause any inconsistency and would be in furtherance of four of the plan's policies, goals and objectives:

    Policy H.1.3.4 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that 'DRI's planned unit subdivisions, and other large developments shall provide for the dedication of parks and open space to be generated by the development according to the level of service standards.' The proposed District will finance the construction of, and ultimately own and maintain, a community recreational facility.

    
    

    Goal J.1 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that St. Johns County is to ensure the orderly and efficient provision of infrastructure facilities and services such as roads, utilities, recreation, and drainage. The proposed District will serve as an

    alternative provider of these infrastructure systems and services to meet the needs of the lands within its boundaries;

    
    

    Objective J.1.7 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that the County shall manage fiscal resources to ensure the provision of needed infrastructure. The proposed District will provide the infrastructure facilities and services needed for its lands without burdening the fiscal resources of the County or impacting the bonding limits contained in Policy J.1.7.;

    
    

    Objective K.1.6 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan calls for St. Johns County to work cooperatively with other units of government to address issues and concerns. The proposed District may be expected to enter into interlocal agreements with the County to provide certain enhanced maintenance. Additionally, over the long term, the establishment of the proposed District will provide another unit of local government in place and able to cooperate with the County on future issues and concerns.

    
    

15. The State of Florida Department of Community Affairs also reviewed the petition to establish the proposed District and concluded that the petition was consistent with the local comprehensive plan.

16. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the local comprehensive plan, and will in fact further the goals provided.

17. Most of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval issued by St. Johns County. The PUD was approved on February 10, 1998. The PUD is found in St. Johns County Ordinance No. 98-7. Section 6 of the PUD Application, which is incorporated into Ordinance 98-7 by reference, explicitly states that a community development district will be established and requires the establishment of the District prior to the sale of the first lot within the development.

18. Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the District as a single master-planned community.

19. Witness Walters testified that functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function requires a management capability, funding source and an understanding of the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and development of the community. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance of the community.

20. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,105 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community.

21. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a functionally inter-related community. The compact configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure facilities in a long-term cost efficient manner.

22. The property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance.

23. The size of the proposed community within the District provides a sufficient economic base to absorb the debt costs and annual operating costs for the proposed District. There will be no economic disincentives to the provision of the infrastructure facilities contemplated.

24. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community.

25. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or provision of certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the petition.

26. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the District is expected to be financed by bonds and repaid through the imposition of special assessments on benefited property within the District. Use of such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting from District services is the same property which pays for them.

27. Two types of alternatives to the use of the proposed District were identified. First, the County might provide facilities and services from its general fund or through a MSTU. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, without public bidding, with maintenance delegated to a homeowners association (HOA).

28. The District exceeds the available alternatives at focusing attention to when and where and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served.

29. Only a community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a

    community development district allows district residents to completely control the district. All of the other alternatives do not have these characteristics.

30. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities because it is a long-term stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life.

31. From planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the are that will be served by the District.

32. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the proposed boundaries will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to be included within the District.

33. Therefore, the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible

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

34. As cited previously, from planning, economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community.

35. The lands to be included within the proposed District have a need for the basic infrastructure being provided. From an engineering perspective, the area within the proposed District is also large enough to support a staff necessary to operate and maintain the proposed infrastructure systems and facilities. Based upon these characteristics, the proposed District is expected to be financially viable.

36. From planning, engineering, economic, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the intended District is amenable to separate special-district government.

37. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission.

38. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the

    external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains such a description.

39. Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, also requires a description of any real property within the external boundaries which is to be excluded from the District and the last known address of the owners of such properties. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains the required information.

40. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the petition contain the proposed timetable for the construction of any district services and the estimated construction costs for those services as well as the designation of the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private land uses proposed for the area by the future land use element of the adopted local government comprehensive plan.

    Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information.

    
    

41. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of one-hundred percent of the real property to be included within the proposed District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information which was supplemented by Petitioner at hearing, as it or its subsidiaries acquired title to the lands proposed to be included within the District.

42. Sections 190.005 and 190.006, Florida Statutes, require that each member of a board of supervisors be a resident of Florida and a citizen of the United States. The proposed board members meet these criteria.

43. Section 109.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The petition contains a SERC. It meets all requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes.

44. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, the country and its citizens, Petitioner, and consumers.

45. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but is nonetheless substantial.

46. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the County will

    include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the proposed District except for those it chooses to accept.

47. Consumers will pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. Location within the District is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the community development district will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area.

48. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that St. Johns County was paid the requisite filing fees.

49. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in St. Johns County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in St. Johns County (the St. Augustine Record) for four consecutive

    weeks on March 13, 2000, March 20, 2000, March 27, 2000, and April 3, 2000. All publications were prior to the hearing.

50. Mr. Stephenson, on behalf of the County's community development district processing group formed in accordance with Section 5.06.00 of the St. Johns County Land Development Code, presented the following proposed findings regarding the approval of the development within the proposed District:

    On October 28, 1999, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners entered into an Impact Fee Agreement with St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc., and A & S Land Development Company to widen a portion of CR 210 in order to meet concurrency requirements for two projects.

    
    

    St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc. is the developer of the property contained within the Sampson Creek CDD Petition. The project is approved with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning and contains 799 single family residential dwelling units and associated roadways, retention areas, common areas, sales and recreation complex, and an 18-hole golf course. St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners approved the PUB on February 10, 1998.

    
    

    The PUD provides that a CDD will be established and will be in place prior to the sale of the first lot so that purchasers will be aware of their participation and membership in the CDD and of their obligation to pay any taxes that may be levied by the CDD.

    
    

    The PUD and Impact Fee Agreement are separate County approved documents and the creation and operation of a CDD does not in any way affect these documents or their approval without further review by the St.

    Johns County Board of Commissioners. Impact fee credits shall be awarded in accordance with approved Impact Fee Agreement which ensures that the credits are awarded to the appropriate entity.

    
    

    The CDD processing group finds no inconsistencies with the six factors as described in Section 190.005(6), Florida Statutes.

    
    

51. With these findings, Mr. Stephenson testified that St.

    
    

    Johns County has no objection to the establishment of the proposed District.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

52. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this subject matter and the parties to this action pursuant to Sections 120.57(1), and 190, Florida Statutes and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.

53. The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, by publication of an advertisement in a newspaper of general paid circulation in St. Johns County and of general interest and readership once each week for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing.

54. Petitioner has met the requirements of Section 109.005, Florida Statutes, regarding the submission of the Petition and satisfaction of filing fee requirements.

55. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth in Section 109.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

56. All portions of the petition and other submittals have been completed and filed as required by law.

57. All statements contained within the petition as corrected and supplemented at the hearing are true and correct.

58. The establishment of the District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan.

59. The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community.

60. The proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District.

61. The community development services and facilities of the proposed District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.

62. The area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special district government.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it

is

RECOMMENDED:

That the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land

and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120, and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District as requested by Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule, after inclusion of the legal description, in substantially the form attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Attachment 3.

DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DIANE CLEAVINGER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(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 16th day of May, 2000.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

Daniel Woodring, Esquire Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Growth Management and Strategic Planning

The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Carol Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 00-000849

Orders for Case No: 00-000849