STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION FOR RULE ) CREATION – SARASOTA NATIONAL ) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT )

Case No. 06-0373

)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S REPORT TO

THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, Robert S. Cohen, Administrative Law Judge, conducted a local public hearing, in Sarasota County, Florida, on April 5, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., for the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the Petition of Tuscano, LLC, to establish the Sarasota National Community Development District.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Michael H. Krul, Esquire

Elana Sbarro, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith,

Schuster & Russell, P.A.

200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

At issue in this hearing was the Petition to Establish the Sarasota National Community Development District filed on January 20, 2006. The Petition, filed by Tuscano, LLC, requested that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (“Commission”) adopt a rule to establish a state-

chartered uniform community development district, to be called the Sarasota National Development District, on certain property in Sarasota County, Florida. The hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Commission.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. On January 20, 2006, the Petitioner filed the Petition to Establish the Tuscano Community Development District with the Secretary of the Commission. Prior to this time, on January 19, 2006, the Petitioner delivered a copy of the Petition and its exhibits, along with the requisite filing fee, to Sarasota County. The Petitioner also delivered a copy of the Petition and its exhibits to the City of North Port. A copy of the Petition, including its exhibits, was received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit A(1).

2. Subsequent to the filing of the Petition, the Petitioner determined that it had inadvertently included within the proposed district boundaries certain land that was along the perimeter boundary intended to be omitted from the District. On February 3, 2006, the Petitioner filed amendments to the Petition. Amendments to pages 1 and 5 of the Petition corrected the acreage of district lands from 2,375.12 to 2,353.80; Amendments to Exhibits 1 and 4 of the Petition replaced the maps to reflect the deletion of the inadvertently included land;

   Amendments to Exhibit 7 of the Petition corrected the acreage amount in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 and corrected the estimated number of units in Section 1.2; Amendments to Exhibit 8(a) of the Petition replaced pages 1 and 6 to reflect the reduced acreage in the district; and Amendments to Exhibit 8(b) of the Petition replaced pages 2 and 10 to reflect the reduced acreage in the district. A copy of the Amendments to the Petition and Exhibits was received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit A(2).

3. On January 30, 2006, the Secretary of the Commission certified that the Petition contained all required elements, as defined in Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purposes of holding the public hearing required under Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes. A copy of this letter was received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit B.

4. On January 30, 2006, the Secretary of the Commission forwarded the Petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”) for review and comment. A copy of this letter was received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit C.

5. On January 30, 2006, the Secretary of the Commission forwarded the Petition to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council for review. A copy of this letter was received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit D.

6. On February 20, 2006, the Growth Management Administrator for the DCA forwarded its comments on the Petition to the Secretary of the Commission. A copy of this letter was received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit E.

7. The Commission published a Notice of Receipt of the Petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 17, 2006. A copy of this Notice was received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit F.

8. On March 29, 2006, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend the Petition to change the names of two of the individuals who were designated to serve on the initial Board of Supervisors of the district. An Order granting the Motion to Amend was entered on March 30, 2006. Amendments to page 4 of the Petition replaced Andrew J. Goulish with Seth Boots and replaced

   Scott Benett with Chris Vanzant. A copy of the Amendment to the Petition was received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit A(3). Petitioner’s Exhibit A(1) consists of the Petition and exhibits as initially filed, plus the amendments contained in Petitioner’s Exhibits A(2) and A(3), combined to form Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit A, the Petition, as referenced hereafter.

9. The local public hearing was scheduled in Sarasota County, Florida, for Tuesday, April 5, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. The Petitioner published notice of the hearing in accordance with

   Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Proof of Publication of the Notice of Local Public Hearing was received into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit G.

10. At the local public hearing on April 5, 2006, the Petitioner presented testimony from the following witnesses: James P. Ward, a consultant retained by Petitioner to assist in the preparation of the Petition; R. Scott Griffith, the Manager and President of Petitioner Tuscano, LLC; J.P. Marchand, of Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., an expert in civil engineering and infrastructures; Alan Maio, of Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., an expert in the field of land planning and development; and Craig A. Wrathell, of Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates, LLC, an expert in local government economics and finance. The names and addresses of Petitioner’s witnesses are listed in Appendix A to this Report. Petitioner’s Exhibits A through I, described in Appendix B of this Report, were received into evidence at the hearing.

11. No other person or entity presented any witnesses or exhibits. No other members of the public attended the public hearing.

12. On April 10, 2006, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend the Petition to change the name of the District from Tuscano Community Development District to Sarasota National

    Community Development District. That Motion was granted by Order dated April 11, 2006.

13. The one-volume Transcript of the local public hearing was filed on April 14, 2006, with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

    OVERVIEW

    
    

14. The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district (“CDD”) proposed to consist of approximately 2,354 acres located wholly within the boundaries of unincorporated Sarasota County. The name for the proposed District is the Sarasota National Community Development District.

15. There are no parcels of land within the external boundaries of the proposed District which are to be excluded from the District. The area to be served by the proposed District is a contiguous parcel with no enclaves.

16. 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. It is anticipated that the proposed District will finance and construct water and sewer lines to be dedicated to the County, public roads both on and off-site, water management facilities and environmental improvements.

    SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY

    
    

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

       
       

17. Petitioner’s Composite Exhibit A consists of the Petition and its Exhibits, as amended in each case, through the date of the local public hearing.

18. Mr. Griffith testified that he was familiar with the Petition as initially filed and as amended. Mr. Griffith also generally described the exhibits to the Petition. Finally, Mr. Griffith testified that he had reviewed the content of the Petition as amended and that the factual contents in the Petition were true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

19. Mr. Griffith testified that the Petition was prepared by his office or under his supervision. Mr. Griffith further testified that he retained the firm of Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates to prepare the statement of regulatory costs.

20. Mr. Marchand testified that he observed the site of the proposed District and he reviewed the Petition.

    Mr. Marchand also testified that the statements contained in the Petition were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and that there were no special engineering problems evident from his review.

21. Mr. Maio also testified that he observed the site of the proposed District and he reviewed the Petition as amended.

    Mr. Maio also testified that the statements contained in the Petition were true and correct to the best of his knowledge and that there were no special planning problems evident from his review.

22. Mr. Wrathell testified that he prepared Exhibit 7 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (“SERC”) and that he provided consulting services to the Petitioner with respect to the formation of the proposed District. Mr. Wrathell also testified that the SERC submitted as Exhibit 7 to the Petition was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Finally, Mr. Wrathell testified that he is familiar with the Petition and that the contents of the Petition and the attached exhibits are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

23. The Petition included 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 proposed District. Mr. Griffith testified that the Petitioner is the sole owner of the property to be included within the proposed District

24. The Petition includes the identity of the five persons designated to serve as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors.

25. Based on the foregoing, the evidence shows that the Petition and its Exhibits, in each case as amended, are true and

    correct.

    
    

    1. Whether the establishment of the proposed District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective local government comprehensive plan.

       
       

26. A copy of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, was entered into the record as Petitioner’s Exhibit H. A copy of Chapter 9: Future Land Use, Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, was entered into the record as Petitioner’s Exhibit I. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Mr. Marchand, Mr. Maio and Mr. Wrathell.

27. Each of the three witnesses examined the goals, policies and objectives set forth in the State and Sarasota County Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Marchand reviewed this factor from an engineering perspective; Mr. Maio reviewed it from a planning perspective; and Mr. Wrathell reviewed it from an economic perspective. In each case, each of the three witness concluded that the establishment of the proposed District is not inconsistent with any applicable goal, policy or objective of the State Comprehensive Plan or the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. To the contrary, the proposed District would be consistent with, and further, many of the goals, policies and objectives of the State’s and Sarasota County’s

    Comprehensive Plans. Since the testimony relating to this factor was so lengthy, a summary of this evidence is set forth in Appendix C to this Report.

28. The DCA was notified of the Petition and reviewed it for compliance with its various programs and responsibilities. After conducting a review of the Petition for consistency with Florida’s growth management laws, Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, and the approved comprehensive plan, the DCA found no potential inconsistency with Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, and determined that the proposed land uses within the proposed District are consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.

29. Based upon 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 or the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.

    1. 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.

       
       

30. The proposed District will include approximately 2,354 acres, located entirely in unincorporated Sarasota County.

31. All of the land in the proposed District will be part of a golf course residential community.

32. A “functional interrelated” community from an engineering standpoint essentially means that a community can be efficiently and effectively served by what are commonly referred to as public works systems, facilities and services. These public works systems, facilities and services include roadways, water systems, sewer systems and water management systems. A relatively compact and contiguous area can be served by efficiently designed and constructed improvements and facilities.

33. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 2,354 acres. From a planning perspective, this is of sufficient size to function as an interrelated and self-sustaining community. The community systems, facilities and services can be physically located within the area in an efficient manner.

34. Compactness relates to the location in distance between lands and land uses within a community. The proposed land of the proposed District has a gross residential density of

    0.67 dwelling units per acre, arranged in compact clusters of distinct neighborhoods. The proposed District is sufficiently compact not to present any inefficiencies in providing for the functional needs of the community.

35. The proposed District is favorable to development of a functional interrelated community because it is one contiguous

    area defined by U.S. 41 and Manasota Beach Road right-of-way, a residential subdivision and the City of North Port.

36. Mr. Marchand, Mr. Maio and Mr. Wrathell all testified that the proposed District is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be developed as a functional interrelated community.

37. The evidence shows that from engineering, land planning and development and economics 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.

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

       
       

38. It is presently anticipated that the proposed District will construct or provide for certain infrastructures, which include public roads, provisions for water and sewer facilities and water management facilities.

39. It is anticipated that the proposed District will finance these improvements by levying non-ad valorem special assessments against the developable benefited property within the proposed District, then issuing tax-exempt bonds which will be payable from those assessments proceeds in order to fund

    construction of the improvements. There will be no bond obligation of Sarasota County or the State.

40. Alternatives to the use of a CDD district were identified. Facilities and services might be provided by private means such as a homeowner’s association (“HOA”). Sarasota County might provide facilities and services through county government, or funded through a Municipal Services Taxing Unit or Municipal Service Benefit Unit, or managed and financed by a dependent district on behalf of the county. Information was provided as to each alternative, analyzing each from a planning and development perspective, an engineering perspective and a financial perspective.

41. From a planning perspective, the following considerations are used to judge the best alternatives to the use of a CDD: (1) anticipated quality of facilities and services; (2) responsiveness to community needs for facilities and services; (3) long-term commitment to the community; and (4) ability to appropriately and adequately manage and fund community facilities and services.

42. Relative to planning consideration 1, anticipated quality of facilities and services, the proposed District is the best option because of its local nature and knowledge of the local systems, facilities and services. While a HOA would also be considered local, it usually does not have the expertise

    available to provide the needed services. A county government does possess the necessary expertise, but it lacks the quality of service attainable by a local, focused organization.

    Mr. Maio testified that from a planning perspective, focused management enhances the intrinsic value of the property.

43. As to planning consideration 2, responsiveness to community needs for facilities and services, the proposed District is the best alternative because the supervisors of the proposed District are initially elected by the property owners and then by the residents of the proposed District and therefore need be responsive only to them.

44. Relative to planning condition 3, long-term commitment to provide and serve the facility needs of the community, the proposed District is the best alternative because it will provide personal concern, interest and commitment to the long- term welfare of the community with the backing of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. While a HOA could provide this intimate commitment to the long-term welfare of the community, it does not possess statutory duties and powers. It would be difficult for a county government to provide such intimate commitment to the long-term welfare of the community.

45. Regarding planning condition 4, ability to appropriately and adequately manage and fund community facilities and services, the proposed District is the best

    alternative because it has the statutory powers to manage projects, raise funds and finance projects. Furthermore, the proposed District could be eligible for state funding programs for which private entities could not be eligible.

46. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative for providing community facilities and services because: (1) the proposed area’s size, compact and contiguous nature, and land features are amenable to construction and maintenance of efficient and effective community services systems; (2) the costs of the community systems, services and facilities would be born by the users;

    1. the costs can be appropriately apportioned among the users;

       
       

    2. revenue generated by the proposed District will be used only to provide community services and facilities to the users;

    3. the proposed District’s Board of Supervisors is elected by the landowners to make the decisions regarding their community systems, services and facilities; (6) the proposed District has sufficient powers to ensure appropriate maintenance and funding of the community systems, services and facilities; (7) the proposed District has more local, detailed knowledge of and the duty to provide the community systems, services and facilities;

    (8) the proposed District will be more responsive to the community needs due to its concentrated location and specific responsibilities for all indicated systems, services and

    facilities; and (9) some of the proposed District’s community systems, services and facilities are unique to the community and best served by a local, knowledgeable entity.

47. From an economic perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative for providing community facilities, infrastructures and services because it can access the tax- exempt public capital markets, thus funding at a lower cost than the alternative of developer funding. Furthermore, a CDD can fund large capital improvement programs by assessing property and collecting other revenue, which a HOA cannot. With regard to the operations and maintenance of community facilities and services, the proposed District is preferable over a HOA because it collects funds directly from assessments collected with property taxes, which make for a more assured income. Furthermore, the proposed District is preferable over a HOA because the proposed District, as a unit of local government, must hold public meetings and bid out its contracts. A county government, with its competing interests and broad responsibilities, lacks the level of focus to provide the community with services, facilities and maintenance.

48. Mr. Marchand, Mr. Maio, Mr. Wrathell and Mr. Griffith all testified that a CDD is the best alternative to providing community facilities and services to the Tuscano community.

49. The evidence shows that from planning and development, engineering and financial perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the proposed District.

    1. Whether the community development services and facilities of the proposed District will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.

       
       

50. The systems, services and facilities that will be created within the proposed District are not incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community facilities. Particularly, the existing roadways adjacent to the proposed District will be modified and right-of-ways will be constructed on Venice East Boulevard and Manasota Beach Road. The existing water and wastewater lines are of adequate size to support the proposed District. Furthermore, the future stormwater facilities are designed and engineered as to not have any adverse effects on existing facilities.

51. Sarasota County will operate and maintain the water and sewer systems, facilities and services while the proposed District will manage District roadways and other community facilities. This arrangement is consistent with the policies addressed in the Sarasota Comprehensive Plan.

52. There is no duplication of the proposed District’s services or facilities with any available regional service or facilities within the proposed District.

53. The evidence shows that 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.

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

    
    

54. From a planning perspective, the land area to be included in the proposed District is sufficiently compact, contiguous and of sufficient size to be developed as one functional interrelated community, and it is compatible with existing or proposed local or regional facilities.

55. From an engineering perspective, a review of the land contained in the proposed District calls for consideration of special features of the area, beyond size or shape, that would present any special difficulty in developing and providing community improvements and facilities such as water, sewer and roads. There are no special or unusual difficulties with providing the improvements and facilities and a separate special district government will be capable of providing local, responsive services to meet the needs of the proposed District.

56. From a professional management perspective, the area to be serviced in the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district governance because the area of land included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, of sufficient compactness and of sufficient continuity.

57. The evidence shows from planning and development, engineering and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government.

    Other requirements imposed by statute or rule.

    
    

58. The Commission has certified that the Petition to Establish the Sarasota National Community Development District meets all of the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

59. The Petition contains a SERC. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District, including the State of Florida, Sarasota County, the Petitioner, and consumers.

60. The State will only incur modest costs from establishing the proposed District. These costs relate strictly to the receipt and processing of various reports that the proposed District is required to file with the State and its various entities. The costs to the State agencies that receive

    and process the various reports are very small and are offset by the annual fee the proposed District must pay to the DCA.

61. Costs incurred by Sarasota County are modest. These modest costs are offset by the required filing fee to Sarasota County. The only annual costs Sarasota County faces are the minimal costs of receiving and reviewing the various reports that the District is required to provide to the County.

62. Future landowners may be required to pay non-ad valorem special assessments for certain facilities or operations and maintenance and secure to any debt incurred through bond issuance. Location in the proposed District by new residents is voluntary. Benefits to consumers in the area within the CDD will include a higher level of public services, which in most cases will be sustained over a longer period of time than would otherwise be the case, assurance that the community services will be completed concurrently with the development of lands, and assurance of a sustained level of service of community infrastructures.

63. A copy of the Petition was filed with Sarasota County with the $15,000 filing fee.

64. Petitioner published notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general paid circulation in Sarasota

    County, Sarasota Herald Tribune, for four consecutive weeks, on March 11, 2006, March 15, 2006, March 22, 2006 and March 29,

    2006.

    
    

    SUMMARY OF LAW

    
    

    General

    
    

65. Under Section 190.003(6), 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.

66. Section 190.012 lists special powers of CDDs. Subject to the regulatory power of all applicable government agencies, CDDs 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.

67. Section 190.005(1) provides that the sole means for establishing a CDD of 1000 acres or more shall be by rule adopted by the Commission granting a petition for the establishment of a CDD.

68. Section 190.005(1)(a) requires that a petition be filed with the Commission. The petition must describe by metes and bounds the area of the proposed land within the CDD 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 the real property in the CDD, or has control by “deed, trust agreement, contract or option” of the real property. The petition must designate the five initial members of the board of supervisors of the CDD and the district’s name. The petition must contain a map showing current major trunk water mains and sewer mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if any. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, also requires that the petition propose a timetable for construction and 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 general purpose local

    government. The petition must contain an economic impact statement.

69. Florida Administrative Code Rule 42-1.008 requires that the Petitioner also provide a copy of the general purpose local government’s growth management plan.

70. Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that the petitioner submit a copy of the petition, with a $15,000 filing fee, to the county and each municipality whose boundaries are within or contiguous to the proposed land within the boundary of the CDD. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on those general purpose local governments, as well.

71. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, permits the county and each municipality described in the preceding paragraph to conduct a public hearing on the petition. Such general purpose local governments may then present resolutions to the Commission as to establishing the CDD on the property as proposed in the petition.

72. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, in order to consider information produced on the record about the six factors for purposes of reporting a conclusion. The hearing “shall include oral and written comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in paragraph (e).” Section 190.005(1)(d),

    Florida Statutes, specifies that the petitioner publish notice of the local public hearing once a week for the four successive weeks immediately prior to the hearing.

    Facts for Granting or Denying the Petition

    
    

73. Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Commission consider the entire record of the local public 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 CDD:

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

       
       

    2. Whether the establishment of the proposed District is inconsistent with any applicable element of the effective local governmental 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government.

       
       

74. Consideration of factors in a rule-making hearing is quasi-legislative, not adjudicatory and not quasi-judicial. Sworn testimony may be used and entered into “evidence,” but only for purposes of the information in the report leading to the conclusion to assist the Governor and Cabinet and promulgating a rule as quasi-legislative proceeding.

    Six Factors of Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes

    
    

75. The statements in the Petition are correct.

    
    

76. The establishment of the proposed District would not be inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan nor the effective local government comprehensive plan of Sarasota County.

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

78. Establishing a CDD on the property as proposed in the Petition is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area of the CDD.

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

80. The area to be serviced by the proposed CDD is amendable to separate special-district government.

    CONCLUSION

    
    

    Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, provides that the local public hearing "shall be conducted . . . in conformance with the applicable requirements and procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act." However, this is not a quasi- judicial, adversarial proceeding under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. Rather, it is a quasi-legislative, information-gathering hearing that is part of the rule-making process. Section 120.54(8)(c), Florida Statutes, describes the rule-making record as including: "A written summary of hearings on the proposed rule." For these reasons, a recommended order is not appropriate. Instead, the Administrative Law Judge files a report which constitutes the hearing summary portion of the rule-making record under Section 120.54(8)(c), Florida Statutes. Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, states that the Commission "shall consider the entire record of the local hearing, the transcript of the hearing, resolutions adopted by local general-purpose governments," and the factors listed in that subparagraph. Based upon the record evidence, the Petition meets all statutory requirements, and there appears to be no reason not to grant the Petition and establish the proposed Sarasota National Community Development District by rule. For

    purposes of drafting such a rule, the Petitioner's proposed rule, with a metes and bounds description of the proposed Sarasota National Community Development District, is included in Appendix D attached to this Report, along with a proposed rule listing the names of the five persons designated in the Petition to serve as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the Sarasota National Community Development District.

    DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

    
    

    S

    ROBERT S. COHEN

    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 21st day of April, 2006.

    
    

    COPIES FURNISHED:

    
    

    Michael P. Hansen, Secretary Florida Land and Water

    Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Room 2105

    Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

    Barbara Leighty, Clerk

    Growth Management and Strategic Planning

    The Capitol, Room 1802 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

    
    

    Raquel A. Rodriguez, General Counsel Office of the Governor

    The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

    
    

    Michael H. Krul, Esquire Elana Sbarro, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith,

    Schuster & Russell, P.A.

    200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

    Appendix.A

    
    

    James P. Ward

    134 NE 16th Terrace

    Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

    
    

    R. Scott Griffith

    10329 Cross Creek Boulevard SuiteM

    Tampa, Florida 33647

    
    

    J.P. Marchand, P.E.

    IGmley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2601 Cattlemen Road

    Suite 500

    Sarasota, Florida 34232

    
    

    Alan Maio, AICP

    IGmley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2601 Cattlemen Road

    Suite 500

    Sarasota, Florida 34232

    
    

    Craig A. Wratbell, Managing Partner Wratbell, Hart, Hunt & Associates, LLC 1200 NW 17th Avenue

    Suite 13

    Delray Beach, Florida 33445

    
    

    FTL:1733134:2

    AppendixB

    
    

    Petitioner's Exhibits Composite Exhibit A:

    1. Copy of the original petition and exhibits filed with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("Commission")

    2. Copy of February 3, 2006 Amendments to the petition A-3 Copy ofMarch 29, 2006 Amendment to the petition

Exhibit B: Letter dated January 30, 2006, from Michael P. Hansen, Secretary of the Commission, transmitting the petition, certifying compliance, to Honorable Robert S. Cohen, Executive Director and Chief Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.

Exhibit C: Letter of notification dated January 30, 2006, from Michael P. Hansen, Secretary of the Commission to Ray Eubanks, Administrator, Department of Community Affairs for review of the Petition.

Exhibit D: Letter of notification dated January 30, 2006, from Michael P. Hansen, Secretary of the Commission to David Burr, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council for review of the petition.

Exhibit E: Letter dated February 20, 2006, from Mike McDaniel, Growth Management Administrator, Department of Community Affairs citing consistency of the petition with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.

Exhibit F: Copy of the March 17, 2006, Florida Administrative Weeldy, page 1210, Notice of Receipt of Petition.

Exhibit G: Bobbie Clark, affidavit and tear sheet from the Sarasota Herald Tribune constituting proof of publication for the first, second, third and fourth week of notice.

Exhibit H: Copy of the state comprehensive plan as it appears codified in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (2006).

Exhibit I: Copy of Chapter 9: Future Land Use, Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.

FTL.!1733134:2

AppenrnxC

1. Mr. Marchand reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. (Tr. page 46, lines 15-18)

2. From an engineering perspective, several goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan specifically apply to the District. (Tr. page 46, lines 18-20)

3. Goal (l 7)(a), Public Facilities, relates to protecting the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and planning for and financing new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. (Tr. page 47, lines 6-101; Pet. Ex. H, Section 187.201(17)(a), Florida Statutes). The proposed District will protect the public investment in already existing public systems, services and facilities by providing a new revenue source for development and maintenance of new public systems, services and facilities witlrin the proposed District. (Tr. page 47, lines 14-19) The proposed District will allocate the cost of the new systems, facilities and services to the existing and future property owners that will use these systems, facilities and services. (Tr. page 47, lines 21-24) "By its very nature, establishing the District also helps provide for timely, orderly and efficient planning and financing of these new systems, facilities and services." (Tr. page 47, line 24 through page 48, line 2)

4. Policy 3 of Goal (l 7)(a) allocates the costs of new public facilit.ies on the basis

   of the benefits received by existing and future residents. (Tr. page 48, lines 3-5; Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(17)(a)(3), Florida Statutes) Only the properties benefited by such systems, facilities and services within the proposed District will be assessed costs, which specifically exclude deductions from the Sarasota County general fund or those that will not receive a direct benefit." (Tr. page 48, lines 9-14)

   1 Mr. Marchand's pre-filed testimony inadvertently refers to Goal (I 7)(a) as Gani (IBJ(a).

5. Policy 7 of Goal (l 7)(a) encourages the development, use and coordination of capital improvement plans by all levels of government. (Tr. page 48, lines 15-17; Pet. Ex. H, Section 187.201(17)(a)(7), Florida Statutes) Special districts are required under Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, to coordinate with local general-purpose government and to submit a public systems, facilities and services report, which they may rely upon for future forecasts and planning. (Tr. page 48, line 18 through page 49, line 1) Additionally, Sarasota County can rely on the proposed District's report in making concurrency compliance determinations. (Tr. page 49, lines 1-3)

6. Policy 9 of Goal (l 7)(a) seeks to identify and use stable revenue sources which are also responsive to growth for financing public facilities. (Tr. page 4, lines 4-6; Pet. Ex. H, Section l 87.201(17)(a)(9)) "The CDD will assess property owners within the District boundaries; these funds will be used to install and maintain infrastructures and services required by the growth occurring within the CDD." (Tr. page 49, lines 10-13)

7. Goal (I 9)(a), Transportation, provides that Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes. (Tr. page 49, lines 14-182; Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(19)(a), Florida Statutes) Policy 6 of Goal (19)(a) promotes timely resurfacing and repair of roads and bridges to minimize costly reconstruction and to enhance safety. (Tr. page 49, lines 19-21; Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(19)(a)(6), Florida Statutes) The proposed District is a local government with a stable revenue source that will be used for the maintenance of roadways within its boundaries in the long term at sustained levels of quality. (Tr. page 50, lines 2-5) The

   proposed District will establish and implement routine and regular road repair and

   
   

   1 Mr. Mnrchand's pre-filed testimony inadvertently refers to Goal (19J(a) as Goal (20J(a).

   resurfacing at or above Sarasota Connty standards or specifications through a reliable management body that focuses only on the lands within its bonndaries. (Tr. page 50, lines 5-9)

8. Based on bis engineering review, Mr. Marchand testified that establishing the proposed District on the proposed property is not inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. (Tr. page 53, lines 7-9)

9. Mr. Maio reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. (Tr. page 67, lines 8-10) Mr. Maio based Iris review from a planning and development perspective (Tr. page 88, lines 16-18)

10. Mr. Maio testified that the proposed District is consistent with Policy 3 of Goal (l 7)(a) of the State Comprehensive Plan because the proposed District will allocate the cost of new systems, facilities and services to the users of such facilities, specifically the owners ofpropertywitbin its bonndaries. (Tr. page 68, lines 7-103)

11. Policy 4 of Goal (l 7)(a) calls to create a partnership among state government, local governments, private sector winch would identify and build needed public facilities and allocate the costs of such facilities among the partners in proportion to the benefits accruing to each of them. (Tr. page 68, lines 11-15, Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(17)(a)(4), Florida Statutes) The establishment of the proposed District will create a partnership between the proposed District, Sarasota Connty and the developer for the management and funding of the community systems, facilities and services and the allocation of their costs to facility users. (Tr. page 68, lines 16-20)

    
    

    'Mr. Maio's pre-filed testimony inadvertently refers to Goal {J7){a) as Goal (IB}{a).

12. Policy 5 of Goal (17)(a) seeks to encourage local government financial self­ sufficiency in providing public facilities. (Tr. page 68, lines 21-22; Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(l 7)(a)(5)) The proposed District will be a financially self-sufficient specialized local governmental entity with charter power to provide for the community systems, facilities and services within its boundaries. (Tr. page 86 line 23 through page 69, line 2)

13. Policy 6 of Goal (17)(a) seeks to identify and implement innovative but fiscally sound and cost-effective community facility financing techniques. (Tr. page 69, lines 3-5; Pet. Ex. H, l87.201(17)(a)(6), Florida Statutes) The proposed District is consistent with this policy by assessing the cost of systems, facilities and services directly to the property owners, who are also the specific users, within the proposed District. (Tr. page 69, lines 6-11)

14. Policy 7 of Goal (17)(a) seeks to encourage the development, use and coordination of capital improvement plans by all levels of government. (Tr. page 69, lines 12-14; Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(17)(a)(7)) Under Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, special districts are reqnired to coordinate with local general-purpose government and to submit a public systems, facilities and services report, which they may use and rely upon to evaluate infrastructure and facility levels of service to determine if these are provided concurrent with development. (Tr. page 69, lines 15-25)

15. Policy 9 of Goal (17)(a) seeks to identify and use stable resources which are also responsive to growth for financing public facilities. (Tr. page 70, lines 1-3; Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(17)(a)(9)) As the proposed District is developed, the Board of Supervisors may elect to assess fees to property owners, which fees would be collected to finance the management and maintenance of community infrastructure and amenities. (Tr. page 70,

    lines 6-9) The proposed District will provide stable co=unity revenue sources that are directly responsive to growth. (Tr. page 70, lines 4-5)

16. Mr. Maio testified that the proposed District is consistent with Policy 6 of Goal (19)(a) of the State Comprehensive Plan because the proposed District will include a Board of Supervisors that will own property within the proposed District and therefore wiJJ be focused on efficient management of roadway maintenance. (Tr. page 70, lines

    
    

17. Goal (20)(a), Governmental Efficiency, provides that Florida governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. (Tr. page 70, line 24 through page 71, line I\ Pet. Ex. H, Section 187.201(20)(a)) Policy 2 of Goal (20)(a) supports the creation ofan independent special taxing district which has uniform general Jaw standards and procedures and does not overburden other governments and their taxpayers while preventing the proliferation of independent special taxing districts which do not meet these standards. (Tr. page 71, lines 2-7; Pet. Ex. H, Section 187.201(20)(a)(2)) The proposed District is a direct application of this policy because tl1e Board of Supervisors may elect to impose special assessments on the properties located within the proposed District, to specifically benefit users within the proposed District, thus lessening financial demand on Sarasota County's general fund. (Tr. page 71, lines 8-15)

18. Policy 8 of Goal (20)(a) seeks lo replace multiple, small scale, economically inefficient local public facilities with regional facilities where tlley are proven to be more economical, particularly in terms of energy, efficiency, and yet can retain tlle quality of

    
    

    ' Mr. Maia's pre-filed testimony inadvertently refers to Gaal (19) as Goal (20).

    5 Mr. Maia's pre-filed testimony inadvertently refers to Gaal (20) as Goal (21).

    FrL:1733134:2

    service expected by _the public. (Tr. page 71, lines 16-21; Pet. Ex. H, Section 187.201(20)(a)(8)) The proposed District "provides for use of regional systems, facilities and services for potable water supply and sewage treatment. At the same time, the CDD will provide local, quality, responsive maintenance services for the local infrastructure and facilities such as roadways and water management facilities." (Tr. page 71, line 22 through page 72, line 2)

    ;

19. Goal (25)(a), Plan Implementation, provides that systematic planning capabilities shall be integrated into al] levels of gove=ent in Florida with particular emphasis on improving intergove=ental coordination and maximizing citizen involvement. (Tr. page 72, lines 3-76 Pet. Ex. H, Section 187.201(25)(a)) Policy 6 of Goal (25)(a) encourages citizen participation at all levels of policy development, planning and operations. (Tr. page 72, lines 8-9; Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(25)(a)(6)) The proposed District will ensure that the local citizens in the proposed District actively participate in the operations of the community systems, facilities and services. (Tr. page 72, lines 10- 13)

20. Based upon Iris review, Mr. Maio testified that the proposed District is not inconsistent with applicable elements or portions of the State Comprehensive Plan. (Tr. page 67, lines 12-15)

21. Mr. Wrathell reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. (Tr. page 109, lines 21-23)

22. He discussed four (4) subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan that are relevant to the establishment of the proposed District. (Tr. page 110, lines 2-5)

    
    

    'Mr. Maio's pre-filed testimony inadvertently refers to Goal (25) as Goal (26).

    
    

    FfL:1733134:2

23. Subject 15, Land Use, recognizes the importance oflocating development in areas that have the fiscal abilities and service capacity to accommodate growth. (Tr. page 110, lines 8-11; Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(15)) CDDs are designed to provide infrastructure services and facilities in a :fiscally responsible manner to the areas which can accommodate development. (Tr. page 110, lines 11-14) The establishment of the proposed District will not be inconsistent with this goal because the proposed District will have the fiscal capability to provide the specific services and facilities within its boundaries. (Tr. page 110, lines 14-19)

24. Subject 20, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. (Tr. page 111, lines 1-7; Pet. Ex. H, 187.201(20)) The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will continue to: (i) cooperate with other levels of Florida government; (ii) be established under uniform general standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes; (iii) be professionally managed, financed and governed by those whose property directly receives the benefits; (iv) not burden tlie general taxpayer with costs for services or facilities inside the District; and (v) plan and implement cost-efficient solutions for the required public infrastructure and assure delivery of selected services to residents. (Tr. page 111, lines 5-21)

25. Subject 25, Plan Implementation, calls for systematic planoing capabilities to be integrated into all levels of government throughout the state, with particular emphasis on improving intergovernmental coordination and maximizing citizen involvement. (Tr. page 111, line 24 through page 112, line 3; Pet. Ex. H, Section 187.201(25)) Mr. Wratl1ell testified that tl1e proposed District will be consistent with this element because:

    (i) 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 development regulations; (ii) the proposed District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all property owners and residents ca□ be involved in planning for improvements; and (iii) Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the proposed District to file and update public facilities reports with the Collllty, which it may rely upon in aoy revisions to the local comprehensive plan. (Tr. page 112, lines 4-22)

26. Mr. Wrathell testified that the establishment of the proposed District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. (Tr. page 109, lines 16-19)

27. Mr. Marchand also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the Sarasota Collllty Comprehensive Piao. (Tr. page 46, lines 15-18). From a□ engineering perspective, several goals and policies of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Piao specifically apply to the District. (Tr. page 46, lines 18-20)

28. The goal of the Traosportation Element is to develop aod maintain a safe, convenient, efficient transportation system in Sarasota Collllty. (Tr. page 50, lines 11-14) Objective 1.1 of the Transportation element promotes development of a future thoroughfare system, consistent with the adopted Future Thoroughfare Piao and Maps, proposed population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses, shall be based on the Future Land Use Plan and coordinated with tbe plaos of adjacent jurisdictions. (Tr. page 50, line 21 through page 51, line 2) The proposed District

    provides for the construction of turn lanes on U.S. 41 and construction of sections of Venice East Boulevard and Manasota Beach Road. (Tr. page 51, lines 3-6) The proposed District makes this capital improvement financially feasible, which will improve regional travel and ultimately implement a portion of Sarasota County's long range plan. (Tr. page 51, lines 6-9)

29. Objective 1.2 of the Transportation Element provides for the protection and acquisition of existing and future right-of-way including mass transit right-of-way and exclusive mass transit corridors. (Tr. page 51, lines 10-14) Policy 1.2.3 of Objective 1.2 directs Sarasota County to maintain a program to protect existing and future right-of-way. (Tr. page 51, lines 15-17) The proposed District makes it possible to finance improvements to or expansions of County roadways to the District. (Tr. page 51, lines 18-21)

30. The Capital Improvements Plan Element is intended to "provide and maintain, in a timely and efficient manner, adequate public systems, facilities and services for both existing and future populations, consistent with available financial resources." (Tr. page 51, line 22 through page 52, line 1) Objective 1.3 of the Capital Improvements Plan Element provides that the issuance of development orders and building permits shall be conditioned upon the availability of those public facility types explicitly required in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code and maintenance of adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards. (Tr. page 52, lines 2-7) Policy 1.3.2 of Objective 1.3 directs the County's Concurrency Management System to require that all development orders and permits are to be evaluated for concurrency consistent with the adopted levels of service identified in Policy 1.3.1. (Tr. page 52, lines 8-12) The proposed District will

    allow on-site storm water management facilities, off-site sewer and potable water line extensions, and off-site roadway improvements to occur at fue initial stages of development and achieve fue adopted levels of service by creating a funding source for such installations. (Tr. page 52, lines 13-20)

31. Objective 1.4 of the Capital Improvements Plan Element ensures that future development pays a proportionate share of the costs of capital facility capacity needed to accommodate new development and to assist in maintaining adopted level of service standards, via impact fees and other legally available and appropriate methods. (Tr. page 52, line 21 through page 53, line 1) The proposed District will be governed by a public managing body which may assess for capital facilities directly to the users and those that have generated the need for such improvements. (Tr. page 53, lines 3-6)

32. Based on his engiueeriug review, Mr. Marchand testified that establishing the proposed District on the proposed property is not inconsistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. (Tr. page 53, lines 7-9)

33. Mr. Maio also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan (Tr. page 67, lines 8-10). Mr. Maio based his review from a planning and development perspective. (Tr. page 88, lines 16-18)

34. Mr. Maio testified that Policy 1.1.l of Objective 1.1 of the Transportation Element of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan directs the development of a countywide road construction and maintenance program to provide for the construction and maintenance of a thoroughfare system with the adopted Future Thoroughfare Plan and Maps. (Tr. page 73, lines 7-14) The proposed District will help implement portions of fue Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan by extending Venice East Boulevard and

    
    

    FTl.:1733134:2

    Manasota Beach Road, constructing turn lanes on U.S. 41 and creating the financial means to construct these improvements as well as the initial community roadway construction. (Tr. page 73, lines 15-23)

35. Mr. Maio testified that the proposed District implements Policy 1.2.3 of Objective 1.2 of the Transportation Element by providing a project design that includes right-of-way set aside for portions of Venice East Boulevard and Manasota Beach Road. (Tr. page 74, lines 7-10)

36. Objective 1.7 of the Transportation Element seeks to consider the aesthetics of roadway corridors in the development of roadway projects. (Tr. page 74, lines 11-12) Policy 1.7.3 of Objective 1.7 ensures that right-of-way acquisition for arterial roadways shall include, where feasible, sufficient land for either preservation or development of buffers. (Tr. page 74, lines 13-15) The proposed District's designs for the construction of Venice East Boulevard and Manasota Beach Road includes open space for landscaping and the proposed District provides a reliable management and financing public entity to ensure proper installation and maintenance of landscaping, thus improving the aesthetics of the roadway corridor. (Tr. page 74, lines 21 through page 75, line 3)

37. The goal of the Future Land Use Element is to "preserve, protect and restore the integrity of the natural environment, historic and archaeological resources and preserve agricultural uses consistent with resource protection." (Tr. page 75, lines 4-9) Objective 1.6 of the Future Land Use Element seeks to protect environmentally sensitive lands, conserve natural resources, protect floodplains, maintain water quality, and open space, and conserve and protect historic and archeological resources. (Tr. page 75, lines 10-14) Policy 1.1.1 of Objective 1.1 directs that all development proposals must conform

    to the appropriate portions of the Environmental Chapter's Primary Components and Guiding Principles before such proposals can be considered to be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. (Tr. page 75, lines 15-19) Tiie proposed District includes several conservation, preservation and open space tracts and can provide for a local, responsible entity to manage these areas in terms of environmental quality, stormwater management and enforcement of rules and regulations. (Tr. page 75, lines 20-24)

38. Policy 1.1.6 of Objective I.I ensures that no development order shall be issued which would permit development in I 00 - year floodplains, as designated on Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps or adopted County flood studies, or on floodplain associated soils, defined as Soils of Coastal Islands, Soils of the Hammocks, Soils of Depressions and Sloughs, and Soils of the Floodplains and shown in Figure 2-2, that would adversely affect the function of the floodplains or that would degrade the water quality of water bodies associated with said floodplains in violation of any local, State, or federal regulation, including water quality regulations. (Tr. page 76, lines 4-16) The proposed District is consistent with this plan policy. Floodplain issues are reviewed as part of construction plan approval and drainage measures are pursued as part of the community design. (Tr. page 76, lines 17-19)

39. Objective 1.2 of the Future Land Use Element protects the quality and integrity of established residential neighborhoods from adjacent incompatible development. (Tr. page 76, line 24 through page 77, line 2) Policy 1.2.1 of Objective 1.2 directs that potential incompatibilities between land uses due to the density, intensity, or type of use proposed, shall be mitigated through site and architectural design techniques. (Tr. page 77, lines 3-6) The proposed District is consistent with this policy by the

    installation and maintenance of perimeter landscaping, buffers and berms that are planned to mitigate incompatibilities between surrounding lands. (Tr. page 77, lines 14-17) The proposed District's design includes multiple access points to surrounding roadways in an effort lo distribute vehicle trips and not place an overwhelming burden into one area. (Tr. page 77, lines 17-21) Through its specialized management and related specific financing powers, the proposed District will make it possible to provide multiple roadways and the construction of a future thoroughfare. (Tr. page 77, lines 21-24)

40. Goal 2 of the Future Land Use Element is intended to coordinate future land uses with environmental characteristics and the availability of facilities, and ensure that sufficient acreage is designated for urban uses to accommodate the projected population growth. (Tr. page 77, line 25 through page 78, line 4) Objective 2.2 of the Future Land Use Element is to ensure that adequate public facilities are available concurrent with the impact of development. (Tr. page 78, lines 5-7) Policy 2.2.1 of Objective 2.2 provides that the approval of all development orders shall be subject to the availability of adequate levels of service for roads, mass transit, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, storm water management facilities and parks, as defined in the adopted level of service standards. All future development shall be consistent with the detailed master plans for each drainage basin as they are adopted through the Basin Master Planning Program. (Tr. page 78, lines 8-16) Sarasota County has not provided for these facilities and services in the proposed District. (Tr. page 78, line 24 through page 79, line 1) The proposed District will provide for roadway improvements, new roadway construction, stormwater facilities, potable water line extensions, sanitary sewer line extensions and amenities

    without compromising Sarasota County roadway connections or levels of service standards. (Tr. page 79, lines 1-4)

41. Mr. Maio testified that the proposed District implements Policy 1.3.2 of Objective 1.3 of the Capital Improvements Plan Element by constructing infrastructures and amenities off-site and within the proposed District. (Tr. page 80, lines 3-5) The proposed District will make these capital improvements possible by providing the financial means and management expertise to build the infrastructure. (Tr. page 80, lines 5-8)

42. Mr. Maio testified that the proposed District implements Objective 1.4 of the Capital Improvements Plan Element by allowing for its Board of Supervisors to assess the costs of growth, infrastructure and development to the end user, including amenities and roadways whose construction and maintenance will be managed by the proposed District and will specifically lessen the demands on Sarasota County. (Tr. page 80, lines 16-21)

43. The goal of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is to foster and encourage intergovernmental coordination between the County, its municipalities, and other units oflocal government. (Tr. page 80, line 22 through page 81, line 2) Objective

    1.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element seeks to maintain the establishment of a formal process for intergovernmental coordination between the County, its municipalities and other units oflocal government. (Tr. page 81, lines 2-6) Policy 1.1.3 of Objective 1.1 provides that the County shall establish procedures to identify and implement joint planning areas, municipal incorporation, and joint infrastructure service areas as directed by the Board of County Commissioners. (Tr. page 81, lines 7-10) The

    proposed District directly implements this policy. (Tr. page 81, line 20) The proposed District will function as a local government entity responsible for the facility maintenance and service provider for the land within its boundaries. (Tr. page 81, Jines 11-15) The proposed District's Board of Supervisors and Sarasota County will work together to provide services to the proposed District, while the proposed District will talce the lead role in daily operations and management. (Tr. page 81, lines 15-19)

44. Based upon his review, Mr. Maio testified that the proposed District is not inconsistent with applicable elements or portions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. {Tr. page 67, lines 12-15)

45. Mr. Wrathell also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the Sarasota Comprehensive Plan. (Tr. page 114 Jines, 6-8)

46. Based upon his review of the Future Land Use Element of the Sarasota Comprehensive Plan, the proposed land uses within the proposed District are consistent with the authorized uses contained in this Element. (Tr. page 114, lines 6-10)

AppendixD

Text of Proposed Rule

Chapter 42 - 1

SARASOTA NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRJCT

42_-1.001

42_-1.002

42_-1.003

Establishment.

Boundary.

Supervisors.

42_ - 1.001 Creation. The Sarasota National Community Development District is hereby established.

42_ - 1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the District are as follows:

[see EXHIBIT A]

42_ - 1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: R. Scott Griffith; Seth Boots; Chris Vanzant; John C. Kunkel; and Sally Hall.

Exhibit A

[see attached]

..

'

'

,,

Docket for Case No: 06-000373

Orders for Case No: 06-000373