STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: PETITION OF DEBRA, INC., ) TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY )
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ) CASE NO. 82-1566DRI PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 190, )
FLORIDA STATUTES. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was conducted in this matter on August 19 and September 9 and 10, 1982, in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner Miranda Franks, Esquire
Debra, Inc.,: Maguire, Voorhis, & Wells, P.A.
Two South Orange Plaza Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida
For Intervenor Thomas Wilkes, Esquire Orange County: Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire
James F. Page, Esquire
Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A.
201 East Pine Street, Suite 1200 Orlando, Florida 32802
Various persons appeared on behalf of themselves as public witnesses, including the City of Orlando, which appeared through its Director of Planning and Development.
On or about April 26, 1982, the Petitioner, Debra, Inc., filed a "Petition to Establish a Community Development District" with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. On June 8, 1982, the Commission forwarded the matter to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings with a request that a Hearing Officer be appointed and a hearing scheduled. The final hearing was scheduled to be conducted on August 19, 1982. On August 13, 192, Orange County filed a Motion to Intervene in the proceeding and a Motion for Continuance of the Hearing or Abatement of the Proceedings. The Motion to Intervene was granted, and the Motion for Continuance or Abatement was denied by Order entered August 18, 1982.
At the hearing, the City of Orlando filed a Motion to Intervene in the proceeding. It was not the City's intention to participate as a full party to the proceeding, presenting testimony of various witnesses and cross-examining witnesses, but rather to make the City's position with respect to Petitioner's application a matter of record. The motion was granted for that purpose.
The hearing convened on August 19, but it was not possible to complete the hearing as scheduled. A continuation of the final hearing was scheduled and
conducted on September 9 and 10, with the concurrence of the parties. On September 9, Cecil Beugnot appeared for the first time during the course of the proceeding and moved to intervene. The motion was not granted because it had not been filed in a timely manner. Mr. Beugnot was permitted, however, to testify as a member of the public at large.
The following witnesses testified on behalf of the Petitioner: Aaron H. Dowd, the Petitioner's vice president; Charles M. Brennan, the President of AgriCenter International Development Corporation; James Nicholas, a professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University; Andrew Moses, the Vice President of AgriCenter International Development Corporation; Charles E. Curtis, a private consultant respecting ad valorem taxation matters; Allen E. Arthur, Jr., a member of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners; Earl M. Starnes, a professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Florida; Howard Altman, a private land use planner and architect; and Richard Craig Batterson, a civil engineer.
The following witnesses testified on behalf of Orange County: Aaron Dowd; Andrew Moses; Henry H. Fishkind, a professor of economics at the University of Florida; David M. Currie, an associate professor of finance at Rollins College; Thomas M. Hastings, the County's Director of Public Works; Keith T. Denton, Orange County's Assistant County Administrator; and James L. Harris, the County Administrator.
Richard C. Birnhart, the Director of Planning and Development for the City of Orlando, appeared and testified on behalf of the City of Orlando. The following interested members of the public at large appeared and gave testimony: J. Brailey Odham, a land developer and resident of Orange County; Cecil Beugnot, an owner of property which is adjacent to the proposed community development district; and Mrs. John Szarowicz, a resident of Orange County.
Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 19 and 21 through 31, Orange County Exhibits 1 through 23, City of Orlando Exhibit 1, and Public Exhibit 1 were offered into evidence and received. Petitioner's Exhibits 20, 32, 33, and 34; and Orange County Exhibits 24 and 25 were offered into evidence and rejected.
The parties agreed upon a schedule for submitting post-hearing memoranda which ran from the filing of a transcript of the hearing. Post-hearing memoranda submitted by the parties include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rulings upon the proposed findings and conclusions in accordance with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, are set out in an appendix to this Recommended Order.
ISSUES
The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the petition of Debra, Inc., for the establishment of a community development district should be granted or denied. Petitioner contends that it meets all the criteria set out at Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for the formation of such a district and that the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should adopt a rule establishing the community development district requested in the petition.
Orange County contends that the economic impact statement offered by Petitioner is inadequate to support the adoption of a rule, and that Petitioner has failed to meet the substantive requirements of the statute.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner is a Florida corporation. Petitioner is the owner of approximately 1,800 contiguous acres of land, a portion of which lies within the southwestern corner of the city of Orlando. Approximately 207 acres of land are within the boundaries of the city of Orlando. The balance lies within the unincorporated areas of Orange County. The area is currently undeveloped except for a few rural residences. A precise legal description of Petitioner's property is set out in Petitioner's Exhibit 11, which was received into evidence at the hearing. There is one "out-parcel" of land containing approximately five acres which is located completely within the boundaries of Petitioner's property. This out-parcel is owned by Cecil and Marcia A. Beugnot.
Petitioner is proposing a planned unit development on its property which would include numerous land uses. The project would include approximately 4,500 residential units, offices, hotels, commercial facilities, open space, golf courses and other recreational areas, and municipal service areas. The most striking feature of the project is the proposed "Agriplex" facility. Agriplex is a proposed world trade center for agribusiness marketers. It would be developed on 400 acres of Petitioner's land and would include a structure more than seven million square feet in size. It would include agricultural exhibits, theaters, arenas, hotels, restaurants, and the like. Development of the proposed project is planned over a period of fifteen years. It is a massive project with a projected total cost in excess of one billion dollars. Agriplex would be developed on a portion of the property by a corporation named "AgriCenter International Development Corporation," which has been formed for that specific purpose. Other aspects of the development would be developed by various entities, including Petitioner. Petitioner has filed applications for development approval and rezoning with the City of Orlando and Orange County. These proceedings are being pursued simultaneously with this proceeding.
In order to develop the "infrastructure" for its proposed project, Petitioner is seeking to establish a community development district. The district would encompass all of the area within Petitioner's property boundaries except for the single out-parcel. All of the property that would lie within the district is owned by Petitioner. The proposed name of the district is the "Project Debra Community Development District." Petitioner is proposing that the district construct a subregional wastewater treatment facility, on-site major arterial roads, storm drainage facilities that would be located in the major road rights-of-way, street lighting, and possibly a fire and police substation. These facilities would provide the "infrastructure" for the proposed development. The estimated cost of the facilities is approximately twenty-three million dollars. The district would finance construction of the facilities by issuing bonds. The bonded indebtedness would be paid off either through ad valorem taxes that the district would impose upon property owners within the district, or by imposing fees on property owners within the district. The Petitioner's present intention is to turn operation of these facilities over to the appropriate general-purpose, local governmental unit after construction. If the local government entities are not disposed toward accepting that responsibility, the facilities would be operated and maintained by the community development district. All of the facilities proposed to be constructed by the district are projected to be completed during the first phase of development, by approximately 1986.
Five persons have been designated to serve as initial members of the board of supervisors of the proposed district. They are: Aaron H. Dowd;
Richard A. Petterson; James C. Ferris; J. Lindsay Builder, Jr.; and Charles M. Brennan.
In order to create the proposed community development district, Petitioner has filed a "Petition to Establish a Community Development District" with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The petition has been deemed complete by the Secretary of the Commission and forwarded to the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Notice of the hearing that was conducted on August 19 and September 9 and 10, 1982, was duly published in the Florida Administrative Weekly and in a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County, Florida.
Neither the City of Orlando nor Orange County oppose the proposed Debra project. Both local governmental entities appear to be of the opinion that the proposed project is the sort of development that would be an asset to the area and that it would help to lead to orderly growth within the region. The City of Orlando has reservation about the creation of a community development district in view of its responsibilities to provide municipal services to areas adjacent to the proposed project. Orange County opposes creation of the district because it contends that it would be an inappropriate means for accomplishing financing of development infrastructure within Orange County.
Petitioner has prepared an economic impact statement in support of its petition. The statement adequately details the data and methodology used and adequately estimates the costs that would be incurred by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission in implementing a rule creating the district. In several material respects, however, the statement fails to adequately estimate the cost of creating a community development district to all persons who would be directly affected by it and the impact of the proposed district on competition. In estimating the costs of creating a community development district that might be incurred by Orange County, the economic impact statement provides:
Any costs to Orange County resulting from the project are expected to be more than offset by annual property tax revenues of $18.8 million (current dollars) at project buildout.
Sales tax and occupational license fees will also provide considerable contributions. . .
This conclusion is supported by an analysis of property tax revenues that would be generated by the project at buildout. The analysis conservatively estimates tax assessment values of the property at buildout by combining building costs and land costs. The analysis estimates the amount of tax revenues that would be generated by applying present millage rates to these assessment estimates. It concludes that Orange County, the Orange County School District, and pertinent special districts would realize approximately $18.8 million in ad valorem tax revenues annually. This constitutes a fair, and even conservative, estimate.
The conclusion in the economic impact statement, however, that these revenues would more than offset any costs to Orange County is totally unsupported by any data that was offered into evidence at the hearing. The conclusion appears to have been based upon an assumption that since property taxes presently imposed by the County are sufficient for the County to meet costs that it incurs, the same would be true in a proposed project with infrastructure developed by a community development district. The assumption is not necessarily valid. It
may or may not be true that costs that Orange County would incur as a result of creation of the community development district would be offset by property tax revenues. There is no evidence in the record to support the conclusion.
Clearly, there would be such costs. Costs for schools, police and fire protection, public transportation, and in the event that the County took over operation of facilities constructed by the community development district, the cost of the district's debt, are all matters that would need to be analyzed in order to accept the unsupported conclusions set out in the economic impact statement.
Under the heading "Future Property Owners," the economic impact statement purports to analyze the impact that financing of infrastructure through a community development district would have upon ultimate property owners within the district. It is stated that financing through tax-free community development district bonds would result in a savings in the construction of residential units and that the cost of the residential units would accordingly be reduced. This statement is contrary to the evidence in this record. The costs of residential property within the Petitioner's proposed development, and indeed within any development, will be set by supply and demand within the marketplace. It appears accurate that creation of a community development district will reduce the developer's cost of providing infrastructure and therefore will reduce the developer's cost of building a dwelling. The developer will not, however, be in any manner obliged to pass that savings on to the consuming public. Whether the developer does that or not will depend upon supply and demand. The statement in the economic impact statement to the effect that the costs of dwelling units would be reduced by creation of a community development district is erroneous.
The developer's costs would be reduced by creation of a community development district. Rather than having to finance the construction of infrastructure through conventional means, tax-free revenue sources would become available. This would result in a considerable savings to the developer. The economic impact statement contains no analysis of the effect upon competition that would result from the Petitioner gaining this competitive advantage.
A map of the proposed community development district showing major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls has been provided in Petitioner's Exhibit 28. No water or sewer lines or mains presently extend into the property that would encompass the district.
Creation of the proposed community development district is not inconsistent with any applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan nor with any applicable elements of the comprehensive plan that has been adopted by the City of Orlando.
Orange County has adopted a comprehensive plan in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. A copy of this plan, which has been designated the County's Growth Management Policy," was received in evidence at the hearing as Joint Exhibit 1. Financing the infrastructure for a large-scale development such as proposed by Petitioner through a community development district is contrary to the Orange County growth management plan, which contemplates that such facilities will be provided by the developer. Policy 5.0.1 of the plan provides:
All residential development in the Urban Service Area shall be located in areas where adequate public and
private facilities and services already exist, or may be located in areas where such services are planned
in the appropriate capital improvements program of Orange County, or in areas where such facilities and services
will be provided by the private developer.
In relation to sewer and water facilities, the plan provides at Paragraph 1.3.2:
New subdivisions . . . and new development which will depend on central sewer
and water systems should be approved only in areas where adequate public or
approved private facilities are available, under construction or designated for construction under the most current
Sewer and Water Facilities Capital Improvements Program. Adequate public facilities may be provided by private enterprise in compliance with this
policy for growth in areas not considered in the County Sewer and Water Facilities Capital Improvements Program, except
in areas designated for conservation.
Paragraph 2.3.3 of the Growth Management Policy provides:
Where septic tanks or private wells are pot utilized, developers should be required to install wastewater collection and water distribution
systems and provide for the connection
to present or future area-wide wastewater systems. Oversizing of water and
sewer distribution systems will be paid for by Orange County.
At Policy 2.4.2 it is provided:
Public or approved private water and wastewater systems in Orange County shall be self-supporting and not utilize ad valorem taxation.
All of these policies clearly contemplate that the developer will provide necessary facilities to support the development.
While the term "developer" does not appear to be defined in the Orange County Growth Management Policy, the term could not contemplate a community development district created for the sole purpose of not developing a project, but of providing infrastructure to support development. While a governmental entity, including perhaps a community development district, could be a developer, the Petitioner in this matter is proposing to form the district solely to finance construction of infrastructure, and if necessary to operate
necessary facilities. Clearly, the community development district is not a developer within the contemplation of the County's Growth Management Policy.
The County has interpreted its Growth Management Policy uniformly as requiring developers to pay for the costs of needed facilities as a condition to undertaking a large-scale development. Such a policy is not unreasonable given the context of growth that exists in Orange County. Orange County has experienced very provocative growth in recent years. Numerous developers have a1ready undertaken large-scale planned unit developments, and numerous others are in the planning stages. If public facilities that are required in order to support such developments are uniformly financed through creation of community development districts, the County could be faced with a proliferation of such districts. Assuming that all goes well with the projects, this would result in managerial headaches for the County. Assuming that developments do not meet with success, the consequences for the County in terms of chaotic growth patterns and potentially difficult financial circumstances would be serious.
Orange County has contended that the proposed community development would be inconsistent with its Growth Management Policy in two other respects. The County contends that creation of the district would be incompatible with the Policy 2.4.3, which provides:
Fire stations should be located so as
to promote a county-wide fire protection system.
It does not appear that creation of a community development district would offend this policy. While the district could construct a fire station, it could not operate it, and could construct it only with the approval of the County through appropriate development orders. The County would thus maintain control of the location of any fire station facilities and could locate it in such a manner as to promote its county-wide system. Policy 1.2.3 provides:
Orange County will continue to investigate alternative management systems such
as consolidation or the creation
of an authority for the delivery of wastewater and water service.
Creation of a community development district would not offend this policy. The sewer and water treatment facilities proposed by the Petitioner to be financed by the community development district are the same facilities that were recommended by Orange County.
The area proposed for development is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. The five acre out-parcel which is surrounded by the Petitioner's property and would be surrounded by the proposed community development district does not render the property too small, incompact, or incontiguous for development. The owner of the out-parcel testified as to difficulties that he has had as a result of owning property that is completely surrounded by property owned by Petitioners. This testimony, however, has nothing to do with any impact that would accrue to the property should a community development district be formed.
There are four potential alternatives available for financing and providing the infrastructure that is required to accommodate the proposed
development. One of them is the proposed community development district. A second possibility would be creation of a dependent district known as a municipal services taxing unit under the provisions of Chapter 125, Florida Statutes. A third alternative would be to have the public facilities financed and constructed by the local government with jurisdiction over the area. A fourth alternative would be for the developer to pay for the services itself either out of funds that it has on hand or through private financing arrangements. The second and third alternatives are not practically available to the Petitioner in connection with this project. Orange County has taken a very firm policy position against providing such services itself. It has expressly declined to do so in the case of Petitioner's project. As to formation of a municipal services taxing unit, these units would be governed by the local government having jurisdiction over the area. Since the Petitioner's property lies in part within the city of Orlando and in part within the unincorporated area of Orange County, two separate municipal services taxing units would need to be created with attendant administrative inefficiency.
Furthermore, in view of Orange County's firm policy in opposition to providing infrastructure to support developments, it is unlikely that it would support the formation of a municipal services taxing unit
There are thus two alternatives available: private financing and formation of a community development district. The primary advantage that would result from financing the infrastructure through a community development district is that the cost would be reduced. The reduction in cost would serve as a benefit primarily to the developer. The developer would either reap higher profits in its sales or gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace by being able to reduce prices in response to its reduced costs. Given the fact that the price of property to the ultimate consumer, the home buyer, is likely to be governed by market conditions which are not relevant to whether a community development district is formed or not, it is unlikely that the benefits of reduced costs will flow to that consumer. A primary purpose for allowing developers to finance infrastructure through a community development district is to encourage large-scale planned unit developments which result in orderly growth patterns. The Orange County area, however, has experienced no lack of enthusiasm for such projects on the part of private developers. Orange County has in the past experienced administrative difficulties as a result of special taxing districts that already exist in the county. Because of that experience and because there is considerable private interest in large-scale developments, the County has adopted a policy which favors requiring developers to pay the costs of providing necessary facilities to support a development at the outset and to pass these costs on to consumers. In the context of Orange County, the best method available for financing needed facilities is private financing. It will result in fewer administrative difficulties for the County, will not result in increased costs to consumers and, in the context of a rapid growth area, will not frustrate development.
The services and facilities which Petitioner proposes to develop through the community development district would not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. It appears from the evidence that Petitioner has followed the advice of local government personnel in developing its plans for needed facilities and that the plans accord with local policies except in connection with financing arrangements.
The area that would be served by the proposed community development district is physically amenable to separate special district government. The proposed area is sufficiently large and compact, the development is sufficiently
broad based, and the services that would be provided are varied. While the area is physically amenable to such government, it will be preferable to finance facilities that are needed to accommodate the development through private methods. See: Findings of Fact 12 and 15 above.
Except with respect to the economic impact statement as set out in Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above, and as set out in Findings of Fact 12 and 15 above, the statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and in accordance with the request submitted by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the scheduling of a hearing.
Petitioner filed a valid Petition for the Establishment of a Community Development District. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The notice scheduling the hearing in this matter was duly published in the Florida Administrative Weekly and in a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County, Florida. Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
This is a rule making proceeding. The Uniform Community Development District Act of 1980, Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to establish community development districts by adopting rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In addition to the specific procedural and substantive requirements of Chapter 190, therefore, it is necessary that the procedural requirements for adopting rules set but at Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, be followed. Section 120.54(2) provides that prior to the adoption of any rule, an agency must prepare a detailed economic impact statement. Failure to provide an adequate economic impact statement is grounds for holding a rule invalid. Section 120.54(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Under Section 120.54(2)(a), the economic impact statement must include:
An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork;
An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action;
An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition in the open market for employment, if applicable; and
A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates.
The economic impact statement prepared by Petitioner does not comport with these requirements. The statement does not adequately estimate the potential costs of establishing a community development district that might be incurred by Orange
County and does not estimate the impact on competition that would result from Petitioner gaining the advantage of reduced development costs.
Petitioner contends that any defects in its economic impact statement should not cause its petition to be denied. Petitioner contends that the requirement for preparing an economic impact statement lies with the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission in the formal rule making proceeding rather than with Petitioner. While it is true that the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission is obliged to follow the requirements of Section 120.54 in adopting rules and that that responsibility lies with the Commission, in the context of this proceeding, the burden lies with Petitioner to provide the Commission with sufficient data to prepare a valid economic impact statement. Rules that the Commission has recently adopted clearly impose the burden of preparing an adequate economic impact statement upon Petitioner. Rule 42-1.08(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. These rules did not become effective until after the instant petition was filed and forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The rules do not therefore conclusively govern the issue of whether the petition should be denied on account of the inadequacy of the economic impact statement. While not conclusive, the rules do persuasively place the responsibility of providing data for the formulation of an adequate economic impact statement upon Petitioner. Certainly, it is not the duty of the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to retain experts to gather data and prepare an adequate economic impact statement. That burden properly lies with Petitioner. The record in this matter does not include data from which a valid economic impact statement could be prepared, and the petition should accordingly be denied.
Section 190.005(1)(c) sets out the substantive factors to be considered by the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission in determining whether to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a community development district. The factors are as follows:
Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found
to be true and correct.
Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan.
Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is
sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated
community.
Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district.
Whether the community development services and facilities of the district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.
Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government.
The Petition to establish a Community Development District should be denied because creation of the district as proposed would be inconsistent with applicable provisions of the Orange County growth management plan and because the community development district is not the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the proposed development. The Orange County growth management plan provides that developers should provide services and facilities necessary to support a development. In the context of an area such as Orange County, where rapid growth is occurring, it is appropriate that developers of large-scale projects provide needed services and facilities. In the first place, there is no need to encourage development in such an area, it is already happening. In the second place, it is appropriate that a proliferation of community development districts be avoided. A large number of such districts in an area would inevitably cause administrative confusion and potentially could result in disadvantageous growth patterns.
Several members of the public at large testified during the course of the hearing. The thrust of this testimony was in opposition to the concept of community development districts and to the wisdom of the policies enunciated in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. These concerns are outside the scope of issues in this proceeding.
The Petition to Establish a Community Development District should be denied.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby,
That a final order be entered by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission denying the petition of Debra, Inc., to establish a community development district.
RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1982.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Linda Shelley, Esquire Office of General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Miranda Franks, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. Two South Orange Plaza
Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802
Thomas J. Wilkes, Jr., Esquire James F. Page, Jr., Esquire Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A. Suite 1200
201 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32802
Robert D. Guthrie, Esquire Assistant City Attorney
56 East Pine Street, Suite 300 Post Office Box 1007
Orlando, Florida 32801
Mr. John T. Herndon Secretary
Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission
Office of the Governor The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Honorable Bob Graham Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Honorable Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis State Comptroller
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance
Commissioner The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Appendix I STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: PETITION OF DEBRA, INC.,
TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY CASE NO. 82-1566DRI DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 190, FLORIDA STATUTES.
/
APPENDIX I TO RECOMMENDED ORDER EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR FINDINGS OF FACT
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd and Beugnot; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 11 through 14, and Orange County Exhibit 13.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 2 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Brennan, Altman, and Batterson; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 15, 17, 23 and 24, and Orange County Exhibits 1 and 2.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 3 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Nicholas, Moses and Batterson; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 9, 11, 12 and 13.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 4 are based upon the testimony of the witness Dowd and upon Petitioner's Exhibit 4.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 5 are based upon Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 10.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 6 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Birnhart, Arthur, Hastings, Denton, and Harris; and upon City of Orlando Exhibit 1.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the Recommended Order are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Moses, Nicholas, Curtis and Fishkind; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16 and 17, and Orange County Exhibit 4.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 10 are based upon the testimony of the witness Batterson and upon Petitioner's Exhibit 25.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 11 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Starnes and Altman, and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 21 and 26.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Recommended Order are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Starnes, Altman, Hastings, Denton and Harris; and upon Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibit 31 and Orange County Exhibits 18, 19 and 20.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 14 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Nicholas, Starnes, Altman, Batterson and Beugnot; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 11 through 14, 23 and 24, and Orange County Exhibit 1.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Brennan, Nicholas, Fishkind, Currie, Hastings and Harris; and upon Petitioner's Exhibit 4 and Orange County Exhibits 7 through
15 and 18.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Nicholas, Batterson and Altman; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 9, 28 and 30, and Orange County Exhibit 1.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 17 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Brennan, Nicholas, Starnes, Batterson and Altman; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 11 and 12, and Orange County Exhibit 1.
The Findings of Fact set out in Paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Dowd, Brennan, Nicholas, Batterson and Altman; and upon Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16 and 17.
ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
Appendix II STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN RE: PETITION OF DEBRA, INC.,
TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY CASE NO. 82-1566DRI DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 190, FLORIDA STATUTES.
/
APPENDIX II TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 120.59(2)
The parties have submitted proposed recommended orders which include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rulings upon the proposed findings and conclusions are set out herein in accordance with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Paragraphs 1 through 7, 9 through 14, 16 through 21, 23, 25 and 29 of the findings of fact proposed by Petitioner have been adopted in substance in the Findings of Fact set out in the Recommended Order and are hereby adopted except to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Findings of Fact set out in the Recommended Order.
Paragraphs 22, 24, 26, 27 and 25 of the findings of fact proposed by Petitioner are contrary to the better weight of the evidence, contrary to the Findings of Fact set out in the Recommended Order, and are hereby rejected.
Paragraph 5 of the findings of fact proposed by Petitioner is hereby adopted, except that it is not accurate to state that the City of Orlando has taken no position with respect to creation of a community development district. The City does not oppose the concept; however, the City is concerned that the matters set out in City of Orlando Exhibit 1 be addressed.
Paragraph 15 of the findings of fact proposed by Petitioner does accurately reflect the present intention of Petitioner. Under Chapter 190, however, the question of whether a local government entity can take over the maintenance and operation of facilities of a community development district is not necessarily governed at the sole discretion of the local government entity. The proposed finding is adopted only as a statement of Petitioner's present intention. It is otherwise rejected.
Paragraphs 1 through 7 of the conclusions of law proposed by Petitioner have been substantially adopted in the Recommended Order and are hereby adopted except to the extent that they are contrary to any conclusion of law set out in the Recommended Order.
Paragraph 8 of Petitioner's proposed conclusions of law is contrary to the Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order and is hereby rejected.
Paragraphs A.1, 2 and 4; C.1(a), (b); H.1(a)(the first paragraph), (f); H.3; and H.4(a) of the findings of fact proposed by Orange County have been adopted in substance in the Findings of Fact set out in the Recommended Order and are hereby adopted except to the extent that they conflict with any finding of fact set out in the Recommended Order.
Paragraphs D, E, G, and H.4(b) of the findings of fact proposed by Orange County include a discussion of the County's view of the witnesses' testimony and an argumentative statement of what the County considers the better weight of the evidence to be. To some extent, the proposed findings have been adopted in the Findings of Fact set out in the Recommended Order; however, the paragraphs are so replete with argument that they cannot appropriately be adopted. They are accordingly rejected.
Paragraphs A.3, B.2, F.1, F.2, H.1(g), H.2 and H.6 of the findings of fact proposed by Orange County are contrary to the better weight of the evidence and contrary to the Findings of Fact set out in the Recommended Order. They are accordingly rejected.
Paragraphs B.1; B.3, C.1(b), (c); 5.1(a)(the second paragraph), (b), (c), (d), and (e); H.1(c), and (d); and H.5 appear to be irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding and they are accordingly rejected.
Paragraph C.1(e) of the findings of fact proposed by Orange County is hereby adopted, only insofar as it relates to paragraphs C.1(a) and (d) of the proposed findings. It is otherwise rejected.
Paragraphs A, B, C, and D of the conclusions of law proposed by Orange County have been adopted in substance in the Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order and are hereby adopted except insofar as they are inconsistent with any conclusion of law set out in the Recommended Order.
Paragraph 5 of the conclusions of law proposed by Orange County have been adopted only in part in the Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order. It would be impossible to disentangle that portion of the proposed conclusion which has been rejected in the Recommended Order and the proposed conclusion will accordingly be rejected.
ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Nov. 02, 1982 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 02, 1982 | Recommended Order | Petitioner's economic development plan had an inadequate economic impact statement for issuing the requested rule. Deny petition. |
