The Issue The issue in this case is whether Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2002-02, adopted by the Town of Jupiter (Town) as Ordinance 62-02, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Anna Current, resides at property on the Jupiter River in the Town of Jupiter at 711 Ryan Road, Jupiter, Florida 33477. The Town of Jupiter (Town) is a municipality of the State of Florida whose address is 210 Military Trail, Jupiter, Florida. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency with the duty to review comprehensive plan amendments pursuant to Sections 163.3164(20) and 163.3184. The Amendment Amendment 2002-02 (Amendment), which was adopted by the Town's Ordinance 62-02, consists of four text amendments, one amendment to the Transportation Map Series, and one amendment to the future land use map (FLUM) element. The first text amendment amends the Transportation Element by adding Policy 2.2.6. Policy 2.2.6 requires updates to the Town's Bicycle Transportation Master Plan. The second text amendment amends the text of the Conservation Element. Specifically, it amends Policy 1.2.5 to reference the June 2000 as opposed to the December 1985 version of the "Loxahatchee River National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan." The third text amendment adds two new policies to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. These policies reference and adopt certain parameters for the Western Corridor Interlocal Agreement, an interlocal agreement between the Town, Palm Beach County and Martin County. The fourth text amendment amends certain tables related to Level of Service and Capacity Standards in the Public School Facilities Element. The fifth change adds Figures 10 and 10a and amends Figures 5, 6 and 7 of the Transportation Map Series. The sixth and final section of the Amendment changes the Future Land Use Map for the Town of Jupiter. Specifically, it redesignates 12.3 acres in Jupiter Community Park from the recreation land use category to the conservation land use category. The Adoption Process On August 13, 2002, the Town's Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as the local planning agency (LPA), held a public hearing and recommended that the Jupiter Town Council approve seven separate comprehensive plan amendments. These amendments consisted of five text amendments, an amendment to the Transportation Map Series (with modifications), and a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment. Petitioner testified that this LPA public hearing was not advertised in advance. The Town's witness, David Kemp, who is the Town's Principal Long Range Planner, did not dispute Petitioner's testimony; instead, he testified that he did not recall whether this LPA public hearing was advertised. There was documentary evidence that, on July 7, 2003, the Town Planner sent an e-mail message to the Town's Clerk informing her that, with regard to Petitioner's request for "proof of publication" of the advertisement for the LPA meeting on August 13, 2002, the Town Planner's staff had reviewed all relevant files and was unable to locate the requested public records. There also was documentary evidence that the Town's Records and Archives Manager notified the Town's Clerk by e- mail on April 29, 2003, that Petitioner had requested a copy of the "proof of publication" of the advertisement for the LPA public hearing on August 13, 2002, and had been informed that no advertisement was necessary since it was a regular meeting of the LPA. The minutes of the LPA's meeting on August 13, 2002, show that the six component parts being considered as part of the proposed Amendment 2002-02 were on the LPA's regular meeting consent agenda. The minutes indicate that two of the components were "pulled" from the consent agenda. The minutes also indicate that no one in attendance at the meeting spoke on the proposed amendments. The minutes do not reflect that the LPA or any of its members invited public participation before a vote was taken on the six components of the proposed amendments. Neither the Town nor DCA introduced evidence of an advertisement for the LPA's meeting on August 13, 2002, notwithstanding their listing of proof of publication of the advertisement as a joint exhibit of the DCA and the Town in their Joint Prehearing Statement, and Petitioner's stipulation to its admissibility. The minutes of the LPA meeting on August 13, 2002, reflect that Petitioner was not present during the consent agenda portion of the meeting. They indicate that she appeared later for the regular agenda portion of the meeting and spoke in favor of a site plan/special exception/PUD application being considered during that portion of the meeting. On Tuesday, September 3, and Tuesday, September 17, 2002, the Jupiter Town Council held public hearings and approved the transmittal of Ordinance 62-02, consisting of all seven of the proposed plan amendments recommended by the LPA, to DCA. The transmittal public hearing was held on a weekday at least seven days after the advertisement for the public hearing, which appeared in the Palm Beach Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town, on August 25, 2002. The advertisement included the title of the proposed Ordinance 62- 02, in bold: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN . . . AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 57-89, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE TOWN . . . ; AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CONSERVATION, FUTURE LAND USE, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENTS; AMENDING THE TEXT AND MAP SERIES OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT; PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 12.3 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE TOWN'S COMMUNITY PARK AT 3377 CHURCH STREET FROM A RECREATION DESIGNATION TO A CONSERVATION DESIGNATION; . . . . The advertisement also included a map showing the location of the 12.3-acre property. At the transmittal hearing, the public was invited to comment, and three individuals offered public comments. On September 26, 2002, DCA received the proposed amendments. Although the Town requested that DCA not review the Amendment or issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC report), Petitioner requested a review and ORC report, and DCA determined that a review and ORC report were necessary, even if not requested by Petitioner. DCA conducted a review of the proposed amendments for consistency with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Strategic Policy Plan, and Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (the State Comprehensive Plan), and issued an ORC report to the Town of Jupiter on November 27, 2002. The ORC report raised only one objection, specifically to a text amendment that would allow for increased densities in the Coastal High Hazard Area. The Town Council held a public hearing on December 17, 2002, at which six of the seven proposed changes contemplated by the transmitted proposed amendments were adopted. (The Town did not adopt the amendment to which DCA has objected in the ORC report.) This adoption hearing was held on a weekday at least five days after the advertisement for the public hearing appeared in the Palm Beach Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the Town. The advertising appeared on December 10, 2002. The advertisement included, in bold, the same title of the proposed Ordinance 62-02 as the transmittal hearing advertisement, except that reference to the text change to the Future Land Use Element was omitted. The advertisement also included a map showing the location of the 12.3-acre property (as well as other properties affected by other ordinances being advertised at the same time). At the adoption hearing, Petitioner offered written comments. There were no other comments or objections. Petitioner attempted to prove that the Town failed to meet a statutory requirement to provide sign-forms for comprehensive plan amendment hearings. She proved that no sign-in forms were provided for the LPA hearing on August 13, 2002. She did not prove that no sign-in forms were provided for the transmittal hearings in September 2002 or for the adoption hearing in December 2002. On December 23, 2002, DCA received the Town’s adopted Amendment 2002-02 for review. DCA conducted a review of adopted Amendment 2002-02 for consistency with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-5, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Strategic Policy Plan, and Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (the State Comprehensive Plan). Amendment 2002-02 was found to be "in compliance." DCA's witness, Senior Planner, Dr. Joseph Addae- Mensa, testified that DCA's review of an adopted plan amendment includes verification that the local government held the required advertised transmittal and adoption hearings. According to his testimony, this ordinarily is accomplished by a simple review to ascertain that the local government included the usual statement in its submission to DCA to the effect that the required advertised public hearings had been held. In this case, the Town's submission included such a statement, and DCA's review went no further. Town's Public Participation and Advertising Requirements Petitioner asserts that the Town's adoption of Resolution No. 58-87 on December 1, 1987, specified additional or more stringent public participation and notice procedures for the consideration and recommendation of comprehensive plans and amendments by the Town's LPA and for the adoption of such plans by the Town's governing body. However, Section 1 of the Resolution stated: The Town of Jupiter hereby adopts the following procedures [for the LPA and Town Council] to implement . . . [minimum] criteria as established by [DCA] . . . pending the enactment of permanent provisions by Ordinance, provided, however, that any failure by the Town to fully comply with the technical requirements hereof shall not be cause to invalidate the adoption of any Amendments to the Jupiter Comprehensive Plan which otherwise meet the requirements of law . . . . In addition, on March 3, 1998, the Town's new home-rule charter became effective. It provided in Article VI that "procedures for the adoption of ordinances and resolutions for the Town of Jupiter shall be as made and provided by the Florida Statutes, as may be hereafter amended and revised" and that the Town Council "may provide, by appropriate action, requirements for the adoption of ordinances and resolutions which are more stringent than those set forth in the Florida Statutes." There was no evidence of any subsequent "appropriate action" to establish procedures that are "more stringent . . . than those set forth in the Florida Statutes." Resolution 58-87 was neither repealed nor re-enacted after the effective date of the home-rule charter. However, it appears that the home-rule charter should be viewed as repealing or superseding Resolution 58-87. In any event, for purposes of this proceeding, as indicated, Resolution 58-87 did not add any compliance review criteria to the "requirements of law." Data and Analysis for the Conservation Element Petitioner attempted to challenge the text amendment to the Conservation Element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The Amended Petition states: "The restrictions placed on the Loxahatchee River Buffer were hastily prepared, flawed, and dubious in value. It was submitted without valid data and analysis." It was determined at the hearing that Petitioner actually mistakenly was seeking to challenge either a subsequent FLUM amendment considered by the Town Council in July, 2003, or land development regulations that were considered by the Town Council in February, 2003. These are not the changes to the Conservation Element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan adopted in Amendment 2002-02. The amendment at issue here merely changed a reference from the December 1985 version of the "Loxahatchee River National Wild and Scenic River Management Plan" to the June 2000 plan. Submitted with the Amendment was data and analysis in the form of a staff report describing the procedural process used to adopt the amendment to the Conservation Element, staff analysis, and a narrative explanation of why this essentially housekeeping item was needed. Petitioner presented no evidence at hearing that this minor change to the Conservation Element was submitted without adequate valid data and analysis. Data and Analysis for the Transportation Element Petitioner challenged the modification of Transportation Map Series figures 5, 6 and 7, and on the basis that they were supported by old data from 1999. DCA did not raise this as an objection in their ORC report. The Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") did raise the issue of old data as an objection in its comment letter to DCA dated October 21, 2002. After receipt of the comment letter, however, Town Staff contacted FDOT regarding the objection. Town Staff explained that the Town was completing a transportation study related to the Indiantown Road Corridor and indicated the Town's commitment to incorporating the data and analysis contained in the final transportation study into the Transportation Element in a subsequent round of comprehensive plan amendments. At the final hearing, David Kemp, Principle Long Range Planner for the Town, testified that the Transportation Map Series amendments were to reflect only the possible alignment of a future roadway, that the Town had utilized the most current data based on the interlocal agreement and the alignments shown in the interlocal agreement, and that the Town had resolved the FDOT's concerns regarding the data. Submitted with the Amendment was data and analysis in the form of a staff report describing the procedural process used to adopt the amendment to the Transportation Element and Map Series, staff analysis which responded to FDOT's objections, and a narrative explanation describing the changes and why they were needed. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Transportation Map Series amendment was not supported by data and analysis. Other Substantive Issues Other issues Petitioner may have raised in her challenge to the compliance determination in this case either were dropped or were unfounded, some having been mistakenly directed to Town action other than the Amendment at issue in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DCA enter a final order finding the Town's Amendment 2002-02 to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S __________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 24th day of October, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City's comprehensive plan is "in compliance" under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Specifically, the Intervenors allege that the City gave legally insufficient notice of the public hearings required for adoption of its comprehensive plan.
Findings Of Fact The City of Bartow scheduled a public hearing on November 5, 1990, to consider a proposed comprehensive plan for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (the DCA). The City caused an advertisement entitled NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF BARTOW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE to be published in the Polk County Democrat, on October 25, 1990. The advertisement gave notice that "Future Land Use" would be discussed, and it invited "all property owners and interested citizens" to "attend and provide written and/or verbal comments on the proposed plan." It indicated that copies of the plan were available for public inspection at City Hall during the week prior to the hearing. The advertisement also included a map of the entire City that did not highlight any particular part of the City. The plan available for public inspection at the November 5, 1990, public hearing, and during the week preceding it, included a Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The map was based on information that was in part obsolete. In the case of approximately six parcels of land, it portrayed future land use that was inconsistent with existing land use. For example, it showed a parcel on the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 17 and Georgia Street as part low density residential when, in fact, the entire parcel was being used for commercial purposes. A Food Lion shopping center occupied the entire site, the Food Lion was planning a grand opening for the end of the month. At least one of the Intervenors, who are owners of residential property in the vicinity of the new Food Lion shopping center who opposed commercial development in the area, including the Food Lion shopping center, viewed the FLUM during the public hearing on November 5, 1990, and was satisfied with what it portrayed. Notwithstanding the inconsistency between parts of the FLUM and some of the existing uses in the City, the City Commission voted to transmit the proposed plan to the DCA. On or about February 22, 1991, the DCA sent its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) to the City. The FLUM in the City's proposed plan was not among the issues contained in the ORC. At some point in time, not clear in the record, during the process of addressing the issues contained in the ORC, the City also began the process of correcting the inconsistencies between the FLUM and existing land uses. The six corrections included changing the entire Food Lion parcel at the corner of U.S. Highway 17 and Georgia Street from low density residential to highway commercial. On July 10, 1991, the City of Bartow Zoning Commission (Zoning) met for final consideration of changes to the proposed comprehensive plan designed to address both the issues contained in the ORC and the inconsistencies between the FLUM and existing land uses. At the time of the Zoning meeting, the new FLUM was not yet available. However, among other things, Zoning generally discussed the need to conform the FLUM to existing uses, and it approved the proposed plan, as amended, with the understanding that the corrected FLUM would be included in the amended proposed plan to be considered for adoption by the City, through its Board of Commissioners (the Commission). The City scheduled a public hearing on August 5, 1991, for consideration and adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan, as amended. The City caused an advertisement entitled NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE OF LAND USE AND A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF BARTOW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN to be published in the Polk County Democrat, on July 18, and again on July 22, 1991. The advertisement gave notice that the City proposed to "change, by adopting a new City of Bartow Comprehensive Plan, the use of land within the incorporated area of the City of Bartow as shown on the map in this advertisement." It included a map of the entire City that did not highlight any particular part of the City. The advertisement also gave notice that the proposed plan included a "Future Land Use" element. "Interested persons" were invited to appear at the hearing and be heard regarding the adoption of the [plan]." The advertisement also stated that both the proposed plan and the DCA's ORC were available for public inspection at the City Hall. In fact, the City's planning consultant, the Central Florida Regional Planning Council, did not send the corrected FLUM to the City until the end of July, 1991, and it did not arrive and was not available for inspection until approximately August 1, 1991. However, no one asked to see the proposed plan, as amended, between July 18 and August 5, 1991. The City Commission met as scheduled, held the public hearing, and voted to adopt the proposed comprehensive plan, as amended. None of the Intervenors appeared at the public hearing. On August 8, 1991, the City officially adopted its comprehensive plan. The public participation procedures contained in the City's adopted comprehensive plan require the local planning agency (i.e., in Bartow, the Zoning Commission) to hold "public workshops or meetings to solicit the views, opinions, ideas, and concerns of the public . . .." In addition, they provide that the "local planning agency will hold a minimum of one (1) public hearing for the purpose of receiving public comments prior to recommending the adoption of the comprehensive plan" and that the City Commission "will hold a minimum of two (2) public hearings prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan " The adopted procedures require the publication of notice of the public workshops and hearings by advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation and by posting at the City Hall. Provision is made for the receipt and recording of written and verbal public comment. Finally, the procedures provide: "At such a time as it become[s] available, the Comprehensive Plan will be available for public inspection at City Hall, during normal business hours." (Emphasis added.) On or about December 19, 1991, the DCA determined, for reasons unrelated to the FLUM or to the notices of the public hearings or to the extent of public participation in the plan adoption process, that the City of Bartow comprehensive plan was not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). On or about June 16, 1993, lengthy compliance agreement negotiations between the DCA and the City culminated in the execution of a Stipulated Settlement Agreement. On or about August 2, 1993, the City adopted remedial amendments in accordance with the compliance agreement. The DCA determined that the City plan, as amended, was "in compliance" and, on or about September 23, 1993, issued a cumulative notice of intent under Section 163.3184(16)(e), Fla. Stat. (1993). On October 7, 1993, the DCA filed a Motion to Dismiss Formal Proceedings. Primarily because the City failed to serve the Intervenors with a copy of the remedial amendments within ten working days of their adoption, as required by Section 163.3184(16)(d), Fla. Stat. (1993), an Order Denying Motion to Dismiss was entered on December 15, 1993, and the final hearing in this case was held on the issues raised in the Petition to Intervene.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administration Commission enter a final order denying the Petition to Intervene in this case and determining that the City of Bartow comprehensive plan is "in compliance." RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0011GM To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact. Argument; subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 3.-5. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. As the notices indicated, the City proposed to adopt its initial comprehensive plan under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Accordingly, the entire City was subject to the proposal. The changes in the FLUM were to correct errors in the proposed plan, as transmitted to the DCA. Accepted and incorporated. DCA and City Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. 3. Accepted and incorporated. 4.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being conclusion of law. Except that it was the Polk County Democrat, the rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 9.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being conclusion of law. Except that it was the Polk County Democrat, the rest is accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 13.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being argument and as being subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. (The videotape of the Zoning Commission meeting on July 10, 1991, indicates that the corrected FLUM had not yet been received. See City Exhibit 6. The corrected FLUM was mailed the end of July but was not received until August 1, 1991.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being conclusion of law. Last sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is accepted and incorporated. 21.-22. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Mark N. Miller, Esquire Hahn, Breathitt, Watson & Miller, P.A. Post Office Box 38 Lakeland, Florida 33802-0038 George Dunlap, Esquire City Attorney Post Office Box 1069 Bartow, Florida 33830 Susan W. Fox, Esquire MacFarlane Ferguson Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor Attn: Kelly Tucker Room 426 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue There are four issues in this proceeding. Whether the Petitioner, Edgewater Beach Owners Association, Inc. (the Association) has been denied a right to a quasi-judicial proceeding regarding Walton County Resolution 95-82 (the December 1995 Amendment). Whether the December 1995 Amendment improperly revives a development of regional impact development order. Whether the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment is vested from compliance with the local comprehensive plan adopted by the County in April 1993 (the 1993 Comp Plan). If not vested, whether the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment is consistent with the 1993 Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact Background The Association, a Florida condominium association, is the owner of property developed pursuant to a development of regional impact (DRI) order, Walton County Resolution Number 82-12 (Original D.O.), issued by the County on June 8, 1982. The Original D.O. stated that it would remain in effect for ten years or until development was completed, whichever occurred first. It also stated that, upon application of the developer, the duration of the development order could be extended by the County. The Original D.O. authorized the construction of a six-phase condominium development, to consist of 476 residential units and associated recreational amenities. Phases I and II of the proposed six phase development were completed in 1984 and consist of 175 residential (both ownership and rental) units with associated amenities. Phase I and II consists of one building ranging, in a staircase fashion, from nineteen stories to three stories, with the lower portion of the building being located closest to the beach. This building is located on property now owned by the Association. In 1987, before any construction on the remaining four phases began, the original developer lost its interest in the undeveloped property through foreclosure. The Respondent, KPM, Ltd. Company (KPM), which is a Florida limited liability company, acquired title to the undeveloped property in March 1992. On May 25, 1992, in response to a request from KPM, the County voted to extend the termination date of the Original D.O. However, the Florida Department of Community Affairs subsequently informed the County and KPM that, in order to effect such an extension, the developer would be required to file a formal notice of proposed change and undergo further review pursuant to chapter 380, Florida Statutes. In September 1992, KPM filed a notice of proposed change asking the County to revive the Original D.O. KPM subsequently amended its notice to request a reduction in the number of units to be included in Phase III. In January 1993, the County approved KPM's proposed changes, revived the Original D.O., and extended the duration of the development order to January 1, 1999. This approval was formalized in Walton County Resolution Number 93-2 (the 1993 Amendment) and included the proviso that KPM submit an updated traffic analysis before Phases IV through V could be constructed. The Association filed a Section 380.07 appeal of the 1993 Amendment (EBOAI) and, in that appeal, specifically challenged the County's authority to revive the Original D.O. Following a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, FLWAC entered a final order dismissing EBOA's appeal of the 1993 Amendment on October 24, 1995. The FLWAC final order is presently pending on appeal before the First District Court of Appeal. Neither FLWAC nor the court have entered an order staying the effectiveness of the final order. In April, 1993, the County adopted the 1993 Comp Plan. KPM submitted a second notice of proposed change in January 1995, requesting certain changes in the phasing of the project. Included with the materials submitted to the County was the updated traffic analysis required by the county as a precondition to the approval of future phases III and IV to 71 and 124, respectively. The number of units included in Phase V was reduced to 86 and Phase VI was deleted altogether. The net effect was that the total number of units to be included in the undeveloped phases of the project remained at 281. The Association filed a FLWAC appeal challenging the April 1995 Amendment. Since the April 1995 Amendment is pending on appeal to FLWAC, it is not yet effective. The Association also brought two separate suits challenging the April 1995 Amendment in circuit court, one under Section 163.3215, Florida Statues, and the other under common law certiorari. All three actions have been abated and remain pending. In June 1995, KPM transferred its interest in the undeveloped property to the Respondent, Grand Dunes, Ltd. (Grand Dunes). Grand Dunes is a limited partnership, of which KPM is a limited partner. In addition, KPM retains the right to reacquire the undeveloped property should Grand Dunes decide against developing it. On or about October 5, 1995, the Developers jointly filed another notice of proposed change, through which they sought authorization to increase the number of units in Phase III to 89, decrease the number in Phase IV to 89, and delete Phases V and VI altogether. The net effect of the proposed change is a reduction in the total number of units in the undeveloped phases from 281 to 178. The December 1995 Amendment, which is the subject of this proceeding, reflects the County's approval of these proposed changes. Quasi-judicial Proceedings The Association asserts that the County's December 12, 1995, hearing (the County hearing) was deficient in two respects: 1/ 1) the transportation report appended to the notice of proposed change was not competent substantial evidence; and 2) the Association was not afforded appropriate procedural rights. The Transportation Report The transportation analysis submitted by the Developers as part of their notice of proposed change was dated October 7, 1994, and was identical to the report submitted in support of the April 1995 Amendment. No further updated transportation information was provided to the County by either the Developers or the Association prior to or during the County hearing. The author of that report, David Muntean, is an expert in transportation engineering. Muntean explained at final hearing that the purpose of the analysis reflected in the report was to determine whether the development changes being considered by KPM in the fall of 1994--ultimately embodied in the April 1995 Amendment--would have a significant impact on area roadways. Two specific issues are addressed in making this determination: 1) at build-out (1998), whether traffic generated by the proposed development, considered together with the already built Phases I and II and all other traffic on an area roadway, will result in traffic volumes that exceed the traffic capacity recommended for the roadway (i.e. cause a degradation in the level of service); and 2) at build-out, whether the proposed development, together with Phases I and II, will generate five (5) percent or more of the traffic volume recommended for a roadway. In order to determine whether there may be a degradation in the level of service, Muntean made a projection of the volume of traffic that would be generated by sources other than the proposed development (the background traffic) in 1998. He accomplished this by extrapolating between the background traffic reflected in the latest Department of Transportation traffic figures then available (1993) and the projected traffic volume for the year 2015, as calculated in the Fort Walton Beach Urban Area Transportation Update. Since Phase I and II of the Original D.O.-- the Association's buildings-- were completed back in 1984, traffic generated by those phases was included in the calculation of background traffic. Muntean then projected the number of trips that would be generated by the proposed development itself, using data supplied by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This source provides a formula for calculating projected numbers of vehicular trips based upon the type of development being proposed. Once a raw figure was calculated using the ITE formula, certain adjustment factors were applied. These included adjustments for household size and for internal capture. Internal capture represents the number of trips that might otherwise be generated by a project if not for amenities available within the project itself that reduce the number of vehicular trips taken off the project premises. The adjustment factor used for internal capture was conservative, in order to ensure that the number of trips generated by the project would not be underestimated. In calculating the number of trips projected to be generated by the project, Muntean included not only those trips that would originate from the proposed new development, but also those trips that could be expected to originate from the already developed Phases I and II. Since the traffic from those completed phases was also included in the calculation of projected background traffic, Muntean's analysis double counts the Phases I and II traffic. The result is another overestimation of the traffic impacts of the project. Based upon a total development of 456 units, the traffic report established that there are projected to be two roadway segments which will operate below their recommended level of service at build-out. However, the trips generated by a 456 unit development was projected to account for less than five percent of the assigned level of service. (i.e. the maximum recommended traffic volume). Similarly, the report projects that, at build-out, trips generated by a 456 unit development would account for more than five percent of the maximum recommended traffic volume for two roadway segments. Those two roadways, however, will continue to operate well within their assigned levels of service. While the initial report projects the traffic impacts of a 456 unit development, the development approved by the December 1995 Amendment will have fewer total units--only 353. (The 175 already constructed units owned by the Association and 178 to be built by the Developers). The Association offered no evidence suggesting that the conclusions reflected in the initial traffic report were faulty or inapplicable to the development at hand. Nor did the Association offer any reports or analysis of its own. While the projections reflected in the report may not predict 1998 traffic with absolute accuracy, it reflects a best estimate of the traffic impacts of the development. Accordingly, the initial traffic report constitutes competent substantial evidence. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the initial report also supplies a sufficient evidentiary basis on which to make a finding regarding traffic impacts. However, the Developers provided further support by commissioning Muntean to prepare a second traffic report, based upon the most up-to-date traffic information. Muntean used basically the same methodology utilized for the previous report. 2/ However, in the second report, Muntean did decrease the total number of units being analyzed for traffic impacts to reflect the 353 that the County actually approved during the County hearing. The conclusions reflected in the second report do not deviate significantly from those reported in the first. At build-out, three roadway segments are projected to operate below their assigned levels of service, but, in each case, the traffic from the 353 unit development will account for less than five percent of the maximum capacity allowable under the assigned level of service. On one other roadway segment, traffic from the total project is projected to account for more than five percent of the maximum allowable volume for the roadway's assigned level of service, but that roadway will continue to operate well within its assigned level of service, even with the build-out development's traffic. The evidence presented by the Developers establishes that the proposed development, even when considered together with the already constructed phases now owned by the Association, will not significantly impact any area roadway. Consequently, the County's determination, that the proposed development does not constitute a substantial deviation, is supported by competent substantial evidence. Procedural Opportunities The County hearing was preceded by notice published in a local newspaper on November 16, 1995. That notice clearly identifies the date and time of the hearing regarding the Developers' proposed changes. The Association has not alleged that it failed to receive said notice. As is the practice of the County for all agenda items, the agenda indicated that ten minutes were set aside for consideration of the Developers' proposed changes. However, the transcript of that hearing indicates that both the Developers and the Association were afforded as much time as they desired to make arguments or present evidence. Both the Association and the Developers were represented at the County hearing by their attorneys, but neither offered any live testimony, even though the transcript clearly establishes that both the Association and the Developers were afforded that opportunity. Counsel for the Association did have one exhibit admitted into the record. In addition, the only documentary evidence admitted into the record consisted of the documents filed as part of the notice of proposed change itself, supplements to the notice submitted by the Developer prior to the County hearing, the reports and comments of regulatory agencies, and the general warranty deed reflecting transfer of the property from KPM to Grand Dunes. The record is devoid of any evidence establishing that the Association requested either the Developers or the County to make witnesses available at the County hearing for cross-examination. Nor does the record include any evidence that, prior to the County hearing, the Association requested that it be made a party to the proceeding. There can be no question that, even if all appropriate procedural rights were not already offered to the Association at the County hearing, the present proceeding provided ample opportunity for the Association to offer evidence, either in the form of documents or testimony, and to cross-examine the Developers' witnesses. Notably, the exhibits entered into the record before the County, were admitted as joint exhibits in this proceeding, without any limitation as to their weight or relevance. Revival of the Original D. O. Even the closest scrutiny of the December 1995 Amendment reveals the complete absence of any provision extending the termination date of the Original D.O. In essence, the Association attempts, through this proceeding, to obtain review of action taken by the County in January, 1993, while stipulating that the County revived the Original D.O. in January 1993. Since the Original D.O. had already been revived, approval of the December 1995 Amendment did not require the County to revive anything. Vesting and Consistency with the Local Comprehensive Plan The development approved by the December 1995 Amendment will include eighteen stories of living space, with two stories of parking underneath. The resulting density will exceed twelve units per acre. The December 1995 Amendment expressly states that the proposed development is not subject to the height and density requirements of the 1993 Walton County Local Comprehensive Plan (the 1993 Comp Plan). The County has consistently treated DRI developments as vested from compliance with the 1993 Comp Plan, even when there has been a change in ownership. This position has been endorsed by the Department of Community Affairs. When the 1993 Comp Plan was being drafted, the County staff specifically intended that the height and density limitations in that plan not apply to already approved DRI developments. Approved DRIs were seen as sources of tax revenue that would alleviate losses attributable to the development restrictions imposed by the 1993 Comp Plan. The Department of Community Affairs has taken the position, and has consistently advised local governments, that, if a DRI development order is amended to reflect a decrease in the intensity of the project -- a decrease in the number of units, for example -- the development would not lose its statutory vesting. The Association's Purpose for Commencing This Proceeding The association's president repeatedly stated in her deposition that the Association's membership intend to do everything that they can to prevent the revival of the Original D.O. and to ensure that, whatever the Developers build, it is consistent with the 1993 Comp Plan. In addition to the present proceeding, the Association has also initiated six other legal proceedings challenging development proposed for the Developers property, Section 380.07, Florida Statutes appeals of both the 1993 and the April 1995 Amendments, two actions for certiorari challenging both of the April and the December 1995 Amendments, and two actions under Section 163.2115, Florida Statutes, challenging both of the 1995 Amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order approving the development proposed by the Developers and dismissing the Association's appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission (Planning Commission) should approve, approve with conditions, or deny the site plan application filed by the School of Arts and Sciences Foundation, Inc. (SAS). § 9-153, LDC.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Leewood Neighborhood Petitioner, Maye Walker, lives in Leewood Hills at 1305 Covington Drive. The "Leewood Neighborhood" consists of three small subdivisions: Leewood Hills; Lisa Park; and Piedmont Forest. The sole access into or out of the Leewood Neighborhood is Leewood Drive, which intersects with Thomasville Road at its eastern end. Cabot Road is a short road running from Leewood Drive to the eastern end of Covington Drive, which parallels Leewood Drive. Lisa Court is a short, dead-end street running from Covington Drive to the north in Lisa Park. Atwood Road is a somewhat longer, dead-end street running north from the western end of Leewood Drive and past the western end of Covington Drive to where it dead-ends in Piedmont Forest. School of Arts and Sciences SAS is located on a 4.03-acre campus at 3208 Thomasville Road. Thomasville Road is the eastern border of the SAS property. The Leewood Neighborhood lies to the south and west of SAS. To the north of SAS is the Piedmont Park Alliance Church. To the east, across Thomasville Road, is the Thomasville Road Baptist Church and Oven Park. SAS is a public charter school sponsored by the Leon County School District. The charter for the School was first approved by the Leon County School Board in April of 1998. By the terms of its charter, SAS may operate a K-12 school with up to 350 students. SAS actually operates as a K-8 school. When it opened, it had approximately 175 students, but enrollment has gone up since then. SAS students come from all over the Leon County School District. SAS's hours of operation are 9:30 a.m. to 3:35 p.m. with an extended day program available beginning at 7:30 a.m. and ending at 6 p.m. SAS operates on the former site of the Epiphany Lutheran Church and Day School. SAS initially leased the site in 1998 with an option to purchase. One of the conditions of purchase was obtaining necessary authorizations from the City for use of the site as a charter school. The City issued a land use compliance certificate (LUCC) on January 5, 1999, which confirmed the ability of SAS to use the Epiphany Lutheran Church and Day School site "for a K-12 Public Charter School." The LUCC also put SAS on notice that its school would be subject to the Education Element of the Comprehensive Plan and that a Type B site plan review would be the process required for adding buildings to the SAS site. (Normally, the type of addition requested by SAS would go through Type A site plan review, but exercising the discretion granted by the City Code, the City's Growth Management Department required a Type B site plan review, which adds a requirement for public notice to the review process.) All buildings currently in use by SAS existed on the site when SAS occupied it. Likewise, the playground on the southern side of the property and the asphalt, outdoor basketball court on the western side of the property were constructed by the Epiphany Lutheran Church and in existence when SAS occupied the site. When the Epiphany Lutheran Church occupied the site, school traffic entered the site from Leewood Drive and Cabot Road, exiting onto Thomasville Road. That traffic circulation pattern caused traffic to back up along Cabot Road and obstruct driveways when parents dropped off and picked up their children, which generated complaints from residents of the Leewood Neighborhood. In response to those complaints, SAS changed the traffic circulation pattern when it occupied the site and began operating. On Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., SAS used a one-way traffic flow through the SAS property, with vehicles entering from Thomasville Road and exiting the school south along Cabot Road to Leewood Drive then left to the intersection with Thomasville Road. A speed bump and stop sign exist at the exit from the SAS property onto Cabot. This change eliminated the traffic backups on Cabot Drive, shifting them to the interior of the SAS property. The traffic circulation pattern used by SAS has been posted on signs at the entrance to and exit from SAS. SAS also has made on an on-going effort to educate its parents as to proper traffic circulation, the need to observe stop signs and no parking signs, and the need to give neighborhood traffic the right-of-way. Unfortunately, not all parents have been compliant, and SAS's efforts have not been able to eliminate problems between parents of school children and residents of the Leewood Neighborhood. On weekends, the site is used by the Thomasville Road Baptist Church for overflow parking, and SAS's auditorium is used on some evenings for performances or other gatherings. For Sunday and evening use, traffic enters and exits onto Thomasville Road. This use of the SAS site does not cause traffic problems for the Leewood Neighborhood. SAS's charter requires it to offer bus service to the students of the school. Bus service is provided by the Leon County Public School District, and the bus number and schedule are determined by the school district based on a number of logistical factors. Currently, eight buses serve the school in the morning and six serve it in the afternoon. SAS's First Addition Proposal On January 6, 2001, SAS obtained another LUCC, which identified the site as "potentially eligible for a 16,559 square foot addition to the existing 15,077 square foot Arts & Sciences Charter School" and identified the applicable review process. It is not clear from the evidence whether SAS ever intended to add 16,559 square feet of building space to its existing campus, as opposed to adding a net of 1,482 square feet for a total of 16,559. In any event, no application was filed to add 16,559 square feet. Instead, a site plan application was filed to add approximately 2,000 square feet of space for a media center and additional classroom. The site plan was designed to accommodate a total of 225 students.4 It is not clear from the evidence what student enrollment at SAS was at the time of this application. However, the evidence was that student enrollment was 211 in February 2002. Although the evidence was that student enrollment can vary during a school year, it probably was approximately 211 during the 2001/2002 school year. During the process of the Type B site plan review of this application, it came to the attention of the City that SAS was not in compliance with vegetation buffers imposed by a Leon County environmental permit issued to the Epiphany Lutheran Church prior to October 1, 1990. SAS was not aware of the requirement before the City required compliance in the spring of 2002. In response, SAS spent approximately $16,000 replacing vegetation buffer along the western boundary of its property and along the southern boundary extending to the east as far as the driveway access to Cabot Road. SAS also added an eight-foot high wood fence along the western boundary line and replaced a low, chain-link fence along the southern boundary, to the east of the driveway access to Cabot Road, adjacent to a residential lot fronting on the east side of Cabot Road, and separating the lot from a kindergarten playground, with an eight-foot high wood fence. It is not clear from the evidence whether an eight-foot high wood fence also was placed along the southern boundary of SAS's property, just north of Covington Drive, west of the driveway access to Cabot Road. There was testimony suggesting that this was done, but the revised site plan under review does not show it.5 In April 2002, the DRC denied SAS's site plan application. Although other grounds for denial were cited as well, one ground for denial was that comprehensive plan and land development regulation provisions for school siting were applicable and precluded site plan approval. When SAS learned it was being denied on that ground, it consulted Dr. Jim Croteau, now Acting Assistant Superintendent for Business Services and Executive Director for Planning and Policy at the Leon County School District. Dr. Croteau was the School Board’s lead on the Education Element of the comprehensive plan, and was the primary drafter of the Education Element. He explained to the City's Planning Department staff that the Education Element applied only to new facilities. Based on these discussions, the City's Planning Department staff reexamined the issue and agreed with Dr. Croteau. SAS was informed of the re-evaluation of the application of the Education Element but was told it had to reapply for site plan approval. SAS's Second Addition Proposal (at Issue) At this juncture in the application process, SAS attempted to further alleviate traffic impacts to the Leewood Neighborhood by proposing a new traffic circulation pattern that would not use Cabot Drive at all. But while SAS thought it possible to have passenger cars enter and exit the site via the Thomasville Road driveway access, it was impossible to devise a way for school buses to also use such a traffic circulation pattern. Then, the City and SAS approached the Piedmont Alliance Church to the north in an attempt to share driveways with SAS, but those efforts ultimately were rejected by the Church. As a result, SAS redesigned its project to turn cars around on the site so that they would enter and exit at Thomasville Road, but with bus traffic routing remaining unchanged. On August 9, 2002, SAS filed a new application with the City for approval of the new site plan. Similar if not identical to the previously denied application, the site plan proposed to add an approximately 1,043 square-foot building for a media center and additional classroom at its campus. (The building being added had two floors, so the additional floor area was twice the square-footage of the building, actually 2,238 square feet.) However, the new traffic circle was proposed as part of this application. It is not clear from the evidence what student enrollment at SAS was at the time of this new application. However, the evidence was that student enrollment was 226 at the end of the 2002/2003 school year. Although the evidence was that student enrollment can vary during a school year, it probably was approximately 225 during the 2002/2003 school year. City staff had numerous concerns with the new site plan, including the potential for dangerous conflict between pedestrians and car and bus traffic. In addition, the redesigned project would require changes to the driveway that would impact stormwater treatment and require the placement of stormwater facilities within the 25-year floodplain. On January 27, 2003, the City's (DRC) denied the applications, as submitted. After further discussion with the City's staff, SAS submitted a revised site plan application on March 8, 2004, which reverted to the one-way, flow-through traffic circulation that has been in effect since SAS has been in operation on the site (and eliminated the need to impact stormwater treatment or require the placement of stormwater facilities within the 25-year floodplain). On March 23, 2004, the DRC approved the revised site plan, with conditions, including a 225 cap on student enrollment. While SAS's site plan application is to add a two-story building addition to provide an additional classroom, as well as a media center, SAS intends to utilize the new classroom instead of an existing undersized classroom, which will become a conference room, so that the number of classrooms will not increase. SAS's representatives testified that the purpose of the addition was not to increase the student population, and SAS agreed to the 225-student cap as a condition of site plan approval, even though current enrollment is approximately 230. School Siting Provisions Inapplicable The evidence was clear that, while some City officials have suggested at earlier points in the site plan review process that compliance with comprehensive plan and land development regulation provisions for school siting were applicable and precluded site plan approval, those provisions actually do not apply to site plans for additions to existing schools. As stated in the City's Planning Department staff report dated March 17, 2004: "The proposed development is not inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Education Element of the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan. The provisions of this element include requirements for determining the appropriate locations for new educational facilities but do not address the expansion or modification of existing, established educational facilities." The wording of the Education Element, Objectives 1.2, Policies 1.2.1, 1.2.5, 1.2.7 and 1.3.1 illustrate the intent to apply only to new facilities. If the Education Element applied to existing facilities, many capital improvements, including some planned with sales tax money, would not be able to proceed on many existing schools. As many as half of the District's existing school sites would not be in compliance with the Education Element of the Comprehensive Plan. SAS's property is categorized as Residential Preservation land use on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is located in a Residential Preservation 1 zoning district. Schools are an allowable use in these comprehensive plan and zoning categories. The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC contain similar identical matrices which prohibit connection of a community service facility to a local road and require planned unit development (PUD) review. But the evidence was clear that those provisions apply only new land uses, not to evaluation of an existing use. Traffic and Noise Impacts of Proposal at Issue The evidence was that, in order of preference, the Piedmont Park Alliance Church driveway was the best for sight distance, with Leewood Drive being almost as good. From a traffic safety standpoint, exiting cars back onto Thomasville Road at the existing SAS driveway was the worst option for two reasons: it had the poorest sight distance of the alternatives; and the median opening on Thomasville Road allowed for the interaction of vehicles from two opposing driveways (SAS's and Thomasville Road Baptist Church's). The evidence suggested that, in May 2004, SAS was adding approximately 300 car and bus trips a day to other neighborhood traffic traveling south on Cabot Drive and east on Leewood Drive to Thomasville Road. Even so, the one-way SAS traffic flowing through the campus and exiting at Cabot Drive tends to be fairly-well spread out. Students beginning to arrive from 7:30 a.m. for the extended day program up through the beginning of the official school day at 9:30 a.m., spaced at an average of 2- to 5-minute intervals, but with a more concentrated peak traffic between 8:45 and 9:30 a.m. In the afternoon and evening, students seemed to be picked up between 3:30 and 6 p.m., with two separate peaks, one between 3:30 and 4 p.m. and another between 5:30 and 6 p.m., but otherwise sporadically. A certain amount of noise generated by SAS's operations impacts at least parts of the neighborhood. There was some evidence to suggest that the proposed two-story addition would add to noise impacts of the basketball court and play area on the western end of the campus by adding to the echo chamber effect of existing building being added to (identified as the former parsonage of the Epiphany Lutheran Church). But at the hearing, SAS committed to construction in accordance with plan elevations placed in evidence as SAS Exhibit j, so that the proposed two- story addition would be attached to the east side of the existing building with a roofline that matches the roofline of the existing building to the west. As a result, while the significant noise impacts to the residents in the home to the immediate west of SAS are not to be taken lightly, the second story of SAS's proposed addition would not add to noise impacts. Because the proposed addition is not anticipated to increase the student population, the addition itself is not expected to increase traffic impacts--either through additional traffic or a different traffic pattern. For the same reason, the addition itself is not expected to increase noise impacts or other disturbances to the Leewood Neighborhood. However, it should be recognized that the purpose of the addition is to enable SAS to better accommodate an increase in student population from 175 when it first opened to 225 under the cap, which was allowed under the LUCC issued in January 1999. For this reason, for the protection of the Leewood Neighborhood, it is imperative that the 225 cap be strictly enforced. The evidence suggested that one way to do this would be to require SAS to report to the appropriate City enforcement officials if enrollment ever exceeds the 225 cap. Visual Impacts and Buffers As for alleged visual impacts from the addition on the residents in the home to the immediate west of SAS (especially from their second story), if constructed in accordance with SAS Exhibit j, not only would the second story of SAS's proposed addition not add to noise impacts, it would not be visible at all from the west. From the south (from sightlines along Covington Drive), even if no eight-foot wooden fence has been erected in that location, the existing vegetation buffer would remain and provide some visual buffer--approximately the same visual buffer that the vegetation was providing for the existing building (the old parsonage). To the extent that Petitioner raised a question as to efficacy of the vegetation buffer in that location, there was no persuasive evidence that the vegetation buffer was inadequate for the addition. From sightline through SAS's driveway access at Cabot Drive, the addition would be visible, but the existing building (the old parsonage) also is visible along those sightlines. A question also was raised as to the SAS's compliance with the vegetation buffer requirements--specifically, that some of the buffer has been removed improperly. Vegetation was removed in the area of the kindergarten playground, but that vegetation buffer was replaced by a privacy fence acceptable to the adjacent resident and by additional vegetation buffer farther to the east. Some vegetation also was removed incidental to installation of a privacy fence in the vicinity of the basketball court.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Planning Commission approve SAS's site plan application, with the conditions recommended by the DRC, together with additional conditions: to report to the appropriate City code enforcement officials if SAS's student enrollment ever exceeds 225; and to limit the height of the proposed addition to the roofline of the existing building, as depicted in SAS Exhibit j. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 October, 2004.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent. The Respondent, Gerald S. Rehm, served as Mayor of the City of Dunedin, Florida, from 1965 to 1972. The Respondent served in the Florida Senate from 1980 to 1984. Among other duties, the Respondent served on the Senate Transportation Committee. The Respondent served as a Florida state representative from November 4, 1986, through November 6, 1990. (Stipulated Fact). At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent served as a public official. During the time that the Respondent served as a Florida state representative, he served on the House Transportation Committee and House Appropriations Committees. At some time during his service as a Florida state representative the Respondent asked to be removed from the House Transportation Committee. This request was granted. The Top of The Bay Road Improvement Task Force. The Top of the Bay Road Improvement Task Force (hereinafter referred to as the "Task Force"), was a private, not-for-profit organization incorporated on June 14, 1985. It was dissolved in late 1990. (Stipulated Fact). The original and primary purpose of the Task Force was to expedite the widening of State Road 580/584 (hereinafter referred to as the "580/584 Project"). The Task Force endeavored to obtain donations of right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor to accomplish its goal. Over time, the purpose of the Task Force expanded to include the tracking of road development in northern Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, to the extent that other roads and projects impacted on the 580/584 Project. (Stipulated Fact). The 580/584 Project included roads of Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and the State of Florida. Therefore, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and the State were involved in the 580/584 Project. The Task Force hoped to insure that all three government bodies were communicating about the 580/584 Project. The Task Force believed that the 580/584 Project would not be completed until as late as the year 2010. By providing coordination and obtaining donations of right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor, the Task Force hoped to facilitate the completion of the 580/584 Project sooner. The Task Force was aware that if needed right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor was donated, it could take only a day to complete the donation instead of taking as long as two years to acquire the same right-of-way by eminent domain. Acquiring right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor by eminent domain was inconsistent with the purpose of the Task Force. The poor condition of highways 580 and 584 was adversely affecting business interests along these highways. The Task Force was formed to correct this problem as soon as possible. The completion of the 580/584 Project was also necessary for some land owners along the 580/584 Project corridor to be able to obtain DRI (Development of Regional Impact) permits necessary to develop their property. When first conceived, it was believed that the Task Force would be needed only for a short period of time. The Task Force was continued beyond the period of time originally contemplated because it was believed that the government agencies involved would believe that they were being "watched" if the Task Force remained active. The Task Force received most of its funding from large land owners and developers. (Stipulated Fact). About 12 to 15 major landowners, businesses and developers provided most of the Task Force's funding. The goals of the Task Force were the goals of those who contributed the Task Force's funds. The Respondent's Involvement with the Task Force. The Respondent served as the executive director of the Task Force from its inception in 1985 until November 13, 1989. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent's involvement with the Task Force began before, and continued after, he became a Florida state representative. The Respondent's duties as executive director of the Task Force included working with the Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") to ensure that donations of right-of-way adjacent to State Road 580/584 met the Department's legal and technical requirements. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent's duties as executive director of the Task Force also included gathering information about the Department's progress and decisions pertaining to the 580/584 Project, so that the proper right-of-way donations could be obtained. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent characterized his relationship with the Task Force as that of a "consultant." The Respondent spoke with the Task Force's general counsel prior to becoming a Florida state representative. Based upon his discussion with the general counsel, the Respondent concluded that he had not been doing anything on behalf of the Task Force that would cause a conflict of interest if he continued his involvement after becoming a Florida state representative. The nature of the Respondent's activities on behalf of the Task Force did not materially change after he became a Florida state representative. He continued to perform his duties in an effort to assist the Task Force to achieve its goals of seeing a quick conclusion of the 580/584 Project which was in the interest of the Task Force and those who had created it, and the other goals of the Task Force. The Respondent's duties as executive director of the Task Force also included production of what were known as "Task Force Monitor Maps." A man by the name of Dick Vaugier, however, also was involved in the preparation of the Task Force Monitor Maps and may have actually performed the physical creation of the maps. The maps tracked the status of all road projects and provided projected completion dates and other information of interest to the Task Force. (Stipulated Facts). Some of the information required to produce the Task Force Monitor Maps was obtained by the Respondent from the Department. (Stipulated Fact). Task Force Monitor Maps underwent several revisions as road projects progressed. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent provided copies of the completed Task Force Monitor Maps to the Department. (Stipulated Fact). Copies of the maps were also kept at an office of the Respondent where interested persons could review them. The Respondent's Contacts with the Department of Transportation. During the period of time that the Respondent served in the Florida House of Representatives, he had numerous contacts by telephone and in person with employees of the Department concerning the 580/584 Project. The Respondent had three contacts with Gene Dorzback, Department Assistant Project Development and Environmental Administrator, concerning the 580/584 Project. Ms. Dorzback worked in the Department's District 7. Ms. Dorzback worked for the Department from May, 1988, to October, 1990. All of her contacts with the Respondent were during the period of time that he was a Florida state representative. The Respondent discussed the 580/584 Project with Ms. Dorzback on June 15, 1989, during a public hearing on the 580/584 Project. During this conversation, the Respondent expressed his disapproval and frustration over the alignment of the 580/584 Project which the Department had established prior to the public meeting and which the Department had discussed with the public during the public hearing. The Respondent also questioned Ms. Dorzback about why the Department had decided on the alignment presented. Alignment of a road project involves the decision of which side(s) of the road additional right-of-way necessary to complete a road-widening project will be taken from and the amount of right-of-way necessary. Alignment of the 580/584 Project was determinative of the right-of-way which would have to be donated in order to achieve the Task Force's goals. The Respondent's concern over the alignment for the 580/584 Project was over the fact that the alignment would require obtaining right-of-way from property owners that had not agreed to donate right-of-way, and ignored some property owners that were willing to donate right-of-way. Although the Respondent did not specifically suggest that a particular alignment be used by the Department, he did suggest that the Department consider using the right-of- way which property owners were willing to donate. In order for the Department to accept this suggestion the Department would have been required a change the alignment of the 580/584 Project. At some time after the June 15, 1989, public hearing, the Respondent also telephoned Ms. Dorzback and inquired whether she had been provided with certain survey information concerning the 580/584 Project from the District 7 Survey Administrator, Larry Jones. The information involved property of owners who were willing to donate right-of-way. Although the Respondent did not specifically suggest any particular alignment, it was evident from the Respondent's comments to Ms. Dorzback that he believed that accepting donated right-of-way would speed up completion of the 580/584 Project. Ms. Dorzback explained to the Respondent why she did not believe that completion of the project would necessarily be speeded up by accepting donated right-of-way. The third conversation Ms. Dorzback had with the Respondent involved an inquiry from the Respondent concerning whether she had received the survey information he had previously inquired about. At the time of the Respondent's contacts with Ms. Dorzback, she was aware that he was a Florida state representative. Ms. Dorzback was consequently intimidated by the Respondent's criticisms. She was not initially aware of his connection with the Task Force. The Respondent also had contacts with Teresa Estes. Ms. Estes was a Project Manager in the Department's District 7 Project Development and Environmental Section. The Respondent's contacts with Ms. Estes occurred approximately once every three or four months over a two-year period of time when the Respondent was a Florida state representative. Some of the contacts Ms. Estes had with the Respondent involved the 580/584 Project. The contacts took place in the Department's offices. During the Respondent's contacts with Ms. Estes, he inquired about, and they discussed, the progress on an environmental study required for the 580/584 Project. The Respondent requested information from Ms. Estes concerning the 580/584 Project, which she provided to him. The approximately $210,000.00 cost of the environmental study for the 580/584 Project was paid for by two corporations, the Millford Corporation and the Hollywood Corporation. The weight of the evidence failed to prove if these corporations were involved with the Task Force. Ms. Estes knew that the Respondent was a Florida state representative when some of the contacts she had with him occurred. The Respondent informed Ms. Estes that he was a Florida state representative, that he was interested in the 580/584 Project and that he worked with the Task Force. The evidence, however, failed to prove when the Respondent told Ms. Estes that he worked with the Task Force. The Respondent also had at least three or four contacts with James Edwards. Mr. Edwards was the District 7 Public Transportation Manager for the Department from February, 1987, through the present. The Respondent contacted Mr. Edwards by telephone or in person to inquire about the status of the 580/584 Project, right-of-way donations, and other issues or aspects germane to specific projects in the area of the 580/584 Project. Mr. Edwards had at least one other meeting with the Respondent which did not involve the 580/584 Project. Mr. Edwards had to gather information concerning the 580/584 Project prior to his meetings with the Respondent and he provided that information to the Respondent. The Respondent also met three or four times with Ronald G. Pscion, the Department's District 7 Director of Planning and Programs. During one of the Respondent's contacts with Mr. Pscion, the Respondent inquired about the status of the 580/584 Project's work program and how the work on the 580/584 Project was scheduled. Mr. Pscion knew that the Respondent was working with property owners that wanted to donate right-of-way for the 580/584 Project and that one donation was dependent on a particular construction job on the 580/584 Project being completed by fiscal year '91-92. During another contact with Mr. Pscion, the Respondent wanted to insure that the Department was aware of other developments in the area of the 580/584 Project which could impact the project. The Respondent wanted to be sure that traffic in the area could be handled by the 580/584 Project. During a third conversation with Mr. Pscion, the Respondent inquired about the status of the 580/584 Project. The Respondent requested that Mr. Pscion let him know if there was any change in the work program for the 580/584 Project. The Respondent provided a copy of the Task Force Monitor Map prepared for the Task Force to Mr. Pscion. The Respondent also had contacts with Mr. Pscion concerning other road projects of the Department. Mr. Pscion was aware that the Respondent was a Florida state representative but was not aware of his relationship with the Task Force. The Respondent also had more than ten contacts with John H. DeWinkler, the Department's District 1 Director of Production. Mr. DeWinkler worked with the Respondent to achieve the Task Force's objective of trying to speed up the 580/584 Project without having to go through a lengthy process to complete the project. The property owners that were willing to donate right-of-way were entitled to certain rights. Mr. DeWinkler wanted to insure that those rights were not violated. Contacts concerning the 580/584 Project were made by the Respondent with Mr. DeWinkler at or near the time that what is now the Department's District 7 was separated from the Department's District 1. That split occurred in approximately October, 1988, after the Respondent became a Florida state representative. Therefore, some of the Respondent's contacts with Mr. DeWinkler took place when the Respondent was a Florida state representative. The Respondent had at least two contacts concerning the 580/584 Project with Joseph R. Brandenburg. These contacts occurred while the Respondent was a Florida state representative. Mr. Brandenburg was a Department District 7 Right-of-Way Surveyor from September, 1986, through July, 1988. One contact between the Respondent and Mr. Brandenburg involving the 580/584 Project was a meeting which was also attended by Mr. DeWinkler and Derrick Vardy, the Department's District 1 Right-of Way Administrator. During this meeting the Respondent inquired about areas along the 580/584 Project corridor for which right-of-way donations were still needed. As a result of this meeting, Mr. Brandenburg was to provide right-of-way maps and property legal descriptions concerning the 580/584 Project to the Respondent. The other contact which Mr. Brandenburg had with the Respondent was a telephone conversation during which the Respondent inquired about the information he was to be provided as a result of the meeting described in finding of fact 53. Mr. Brandenburg, subsequent to his two contacts with the Respondent, provided the right-of-way maps and property legal descriptions concerning the 580/584 Project to the Respondent. This information was to facilitate the donations of certain right-of-ways along the 580/590 Project corridor. Between February, 1988, and February, 1989, the Respondent also had three contacts with Larry R. Jones. Mr. Jones at that time was Department District 7 Right-of-Way Surveyor. The first contact between the Respondent and Mr. Jones took place shortly after Mr. Jones was employed by the Department. Mr. Jones and the Respondent argued about the width of the right-of-way needed for the 580/584 Project. Their difference of opinion was clarified by Mr. Jones' supervisor. The second contact between the Respondent and Mr. Jones occurred after a telephone call from the Respondent informing Mr. Jones that he was going to come by and pick up title search information concerning the 580/584 Project which was being provided by Pinellas County, Florida. The Respondent did come by and pick up the information. During the third contact between the Respondent and Mr. Jones, they discussed the impact of Murphy Act Deeds on the 580/584 Project. The Respondent suggested that any interest the State might have pursuant to the Murphy Act Deeds should be released to property owners who donated right-of-way for the 580/584 Project. Mr. Jones explained to the Respondent why this should not be done. Mr. Jones testified as to what a Murphy Act Deed, which is also known as "TIITF Reservation", is and the reason why the Department could not take the action the Respondent was suggesting, as follows: Basically a TIITF Reservation was something out of the '30's and '40's. If a tax collector seized a piece of property and sold it for the back taxes, they would reserve a strip of land for road purposes. And in this case 584 had some of these TIITF Reservations on them. That land is usable by the State Road Department. We have to go to DNR to get an easement, not the property owner. We don't pay for them. And by releasing the remainder over from what the PD&E study called for, we'd be in a position if we had to have more right-or-way, we would be back in an acquisition condemnation scenario, we'd be dealing with the property owners instead of DNR. Lines 2-15, page 103, Transcript of the September 4, 1991, Formal Hearing. At the time of the contacts with the Respondent, Mr. Jones was aware that the Respondent was a Florida state representative. The Respondent also represented to Mr. Jones that he was working for the Task Force. James G. Kennedy was the District Secretary for the Department's District 7 from 1987 until May, 1990. From 1984 until 1987, Mr. Kennedy was the Urban Office Director for the Department's District 1. Prior to and after the Respondent became a Florida state representative, Mr. Kennedy had numerous contacts with the Respondent about various transportation matters, including the 580/584 Project. During the Respondent's contacts with Mr. Kennedy after the Respondent became a state representative, the Respondent inquired about the 580/584 Project. In particular, the Respondent asked for information concerning the manner in which the Department acquired right-of-way and the progress on the project. Mr. Kennedy made his staff available to the Respondent. The degree of support given to the Respondent was in part attributable to the Respondent's position as a Florida state representative. The degree of contact Mr. Kennedy and his staff had with the Respondent was significant enough that Mr. Kennedy reported the situation to the Department's Secretary at the time, Kay Henderson. Secretary Henderson merely suggested that Mr. Kennedy use his best judgement to handle the matter. Mr. Kennedy was aware of the Respondent's involvement with the Task Force. Mr. Kennedy had been told by the Respondent that the Respondent was the leader of the Task Force. Mr. Kennedy was concerned enough about the Respondent's relationship with the Task Force that he asked the Respondent whether the Respondent thought there was a conflict of interest with his position as a Florida state representative. Mr. Kennedy was aware that the purpose of the Task Force was to obtain donations of right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor to speed up the completion of that project. Mr. Kennedy made his Department available to the Respondent to assist the Respondent in his efforts to insure that the donation of right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor was handled properly. The Respondent provided Mr. Kennedy with up-to-date Task Force Monitor Maps. Derrick Vardy was a Department District 1 Right-of-Way Administrator. Mr. Vardy had two telephone conversations with the Respondent and approximately two or three face-to-face meetings with him concerning the 580/584 Project. Some of these contacts occurred in August, 1987. Mr. Vardy attempted to assist the Respondent with documents needed to acquire donations of right-of-way for the 580/584 Project. All of the information which the Respondent obtained from employees of the Department was information which was available to the public. The information was obtained, however, on behalf of the Task Force and not in the Respondent's capacity as a Florida state representative or as a member of the public. The Respondent's contacts with the Department while he was a Florida state representative were made to further the goals of the Task Force and were made on behalf of the Task Force. Compensation. Beginning in 1985, when the Respondent began to perform services for the Task Force, and continuing until November, 1986, the Respondent was paid a consulting fee for his services as executive director of the Task Force. After the Respondent's election as a Florida state representative in November, 1986, the payments from the Task Force that had been made directly to the Respondent were made to Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc. Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc., is a closely held corporation, the stock of which was owned by the Respondent. From 1985 until sometime during 1987, the Task Force paid $2,000.00 a month to the Respondent and later Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc. The amount paid by the Task Force to Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc., was increased in 1987 to $3,000.00 and the corporation began "absorbing expenses" according to the Respondent. The payments to Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc., were made in payment for services of the Respondent. Those services were the same services the Respondent performed for which payments were made directly to the Respondent before he become a Florida state representative. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the payments made by the Task Force to Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc., were merely reimbursements of expenses of the corporation. The Respondent testified that the payments his corporation received while he was a Florida state representative were reimbursements of expenses. This testimony was not credible. The Respondent characterized the payments he had received prior to his election as a Florida state representative as consulting fees. He did not characterize the payments he received before his election as a reimbursement of expenses. The Respondent admitted that his services were essentially the same before and after he became a Florida state representative. Therefore, since his services did not change and the amount of the payments did not change after he became a Florida state representative, it is not credible to believe that the payments after he became a Florida state representative were merely intended as a reimbursement of expenses. Additionally, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that there was any connection between the expenses that the Respondent or his corporation incurred and the amount of the payments he or his corporation received. Finally, the Respondent testified that the increase from $2,000.00 per month to $3,000.00 per month which occurred in 1987 was to cover expenses. Therefore, based upon the Respondent's own testimony, only $1,000.00 of the $3,000.00 monthly payments were for expenses.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that the Respondent, Gerald S. Rehm, violated Section 8(e), Article II, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, as alleged in Complaint No. 90-50. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection A. General 1 3-4. 2 1. 3-4 2. 5 5. B. Top of the Bay Task Force 1 6. 2 7. 3 8. 4 9-10. 5 12. 6 13. 7 11 and 13. 8 7 and 9-11. C. The Respondent's Relationship with the Task Force 1 14. 2 Hereby accepted. 3-4 17. 5-6 21. 7 22. 8 23-24. 9 15. 10 19-20. 11 73-75. 12 76-77. 13 75. D. Respondent's Contacts with the Department of Transportation 1 See 26-27. 2 27-29. 3 28-29. 4 32. 5 30. 6 See 30. 7 31. 8 See 32. 9 26. 10 33. 11 33. The weight of the evidence failed to prove when Ms. Estes was employed with the Department. It is not, therefore, possible to tell whether his contacts with Ms. Estes were during his term as a Florida state representative based upon when he served. Ms. Estes did testify, however, that she knew the Respondent was a Florida state representative. Based upon this testimony, it has been concluded that the Respondent had contacts with Ms. Estes while he was a Florida state representative. 12 34-35. 13 38. 14 39. 15 39-41. 16 See 39-41. 17 Not relevant. The evidence failed to prove who the "developer" was or what relationship, if any, the "developer" had with the Task Force or the Respondent. 18 41. 19 42. 20 42-43. 21 44. 22 45. 23 See 48. 24 46. 25 49. 26 Hereby accepted. 27 50. 28-29 51. 30-31 50. 32 52. 33 52-54. 34 53. 35 54. 36-37 55. 38 56. 39 See 56-57. 40 58. 41-42 59. 43 60. 44 59. 45 61. 46 66. 47 Hereby accepted. 48 62-63. 49 64. 50 68. 51 Hereby accepted. 52 69. 53 70. 54-55 69. 56 See 71. 57 Hereby accepted. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3. The evidence proved that the Respondent dropped the title of "President." The evidence also proved that the Respondent's duties after becoming a Florida state representative did not materially change. 2 14. 3 6. 4 7. 5 7 and 10. 6 See 7. 7 15-16. 8 The meeting referred to in this proposed finding of fact is not relevant. It occurred before the Respondent became a Florida state representative. See 50, 52-53 and 69. 9 17. 10 See 25-27 and 30-32. See 28-29 with regard to the 6th and 7th sentences. 11 33-34 and 36. 12 39-40 and 71. 13 52-55. The last sentence is not relevant. 14 42, 48 and 71. See 43-45. 15 56-59. 61-63 and 71. The 4th and 5th sentences are generally true, but see 64-67. Although correct (except the value of the right-of-way, which the weight of the evidence failed to prove), not relevant to this proceeding. 18 See 21-24. But see 16-20. 22 and hereby accepted. 47, 68 and hereby accepted. 21 13. 22 74-77. 74. The 2d sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence; see 80. 74. See 25-71. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire Bonnie J. Williams J. B. Donnelly, Esquire Executive Director Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson Commission on Ethics & Moffit The Capitol, Room 2105 216 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 6 Suite 300 Tallahassee, FL 32302-0006 Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2555
The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to contract the Gateway Services District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Overview The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to contract a community development district currently comprised of approximately 5,474 acres located within the boundaries of unincorporated Lee County, Florida and the incorporated City of Fort Myers, Florida. The name for the District, after contraction, will be the Gateway Services Community Development District. At the time the Petition was filed, the District consisted of approximately 5,324 acres. However, on July 29, 2002, a Rule Amendment adopted by the Commission, and filed with the Secretary of State became effective, expanding the District to approximately 5,474 acres. The Petitioner seeks to contract the District by approximately 973 acres. The District, after contraction, will encompass approximately 4,501 acres. All of the property proposed to be contracted out of the District is located within the City of Fort Myers, Florida. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the contraction of the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission, dated January 2002; the Addendum to the Petition, dated March 25, 2002; and the Second Addendum to the Petition, dated July 16, 2002; and the Third Addendum to the Petition, dated July 25, 2002. Ward testified that he had reviewed the contents of the Petition and Exhibits as supplemented and amended by the addenda to the Petition. Ward testified that the Petition and exhibits as supplemented and amended by the addenda, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Tilton testified that he had reviewed Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 of the Petition. Exhibit 1 is the metes and bounds legal description and sketch of the existing District boundaries. Exhibit 2 is the legal description and sketch of the contraction parcels. Exhibit 3 is the amended legal description and sketch of the District, after contraction. Tilton testified that the legal description of the existing CDD boundaries was true and correct, and would be amended by a proposed Rule Amendment filed with the Secretary of State July 9, 2002, and effective July 29, 2002. Tilton testified that Exhibit 2 truly and accurately depicted the legal description of the property proposed for contraction from the District. A Third Addendum to the Petition, filed with the Department of Administrative Hearings on July 29, 2002, identified a scrivener's error in the proposed Rule Amendment filed on July 9, 2002, and included a legal description and sketch of the land within the District, after the contraction. This legal description and sketch amends and replaces Exhibit 3 of the Petition. This legal description was certified as true and accurate by CES Engineering. Garland testified that his office had prepared Exhibit 7 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC). Garland also testified the SERC included with the Petition was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Gnagey testified that at the time of the hearing, Worthington Holdings, Inc. was the owner of all of the lands to be contracted out of the District. Gnagey testified that a portion of the contraction property was under contract for sale. A consent and joinder to the Petition to Contract, executed by the contract purchaser was placed into the record as Exhibit 3. The Petition does not contain the written consent of the owners of all real property to be included in the new District after contraction; nor was there any documentation or other evidence demonstrating that either the District or those giving their written consent to the contraction have control by deed, trust agreement, contract, or option of one-hundred percent (100%) of the real property to be included in the new District, after contraction. See Conclusion of Law 65. Based upon the foregoing, the Petition and its exhibits, as amended and supplemented by the addenda to the Petition, are true and correct. Whether the contraction of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Ward addressed whether the contraction of the District was inconsistent in any way with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Ward also reviewed the contraction of the District, in light of the local government comprehensive plans. Ward testified that the District would continue to assist the local government in providing infrastructure services required pursuant to its locally adopted comprehensive plan. Furthermore, since the State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to provide infrastructure in accordance with locally adopted comprehensive plans, the District would continue to function and assist in meeting this objective of Chapter 187. Resolution No. 2002-11, adopted by the City Council of the City of Fort Myers, Florida, was introduced into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Pursuant to this Resolution, the City Council made a determination that after the contraction, the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements or portions of the State Comprehensive Plan or the City of Fort Myers local comprehensive plan. The Florida Department of Community Affairs reviewed the Petition and provided a letter dated April 16, 2002, which was placed into Evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 7. The letter states that the Petition A "is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of Lee County's Comprehensive Plan.” Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan, the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, or City of Fort Myers Comprehensive Plan. Whether the area of land within the district, after contraction, is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Ward and Tilton. The lands that comprise the District, after contraction, will consist of approximately 4,501 acres, located within the borders of unincorporated Lee County, and the incorporated City of Fort Myers. From a management perspective, the District, after contraction, will continue to be sufficiently sized, compact and contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community. The property remaining within the District will continue to be amenable to receiving services through a community development district. From an engineering perspective, the District, after contraction, will still be larger than other community development districts. It is contiguous and relatively compact. The land remaining within the District can be well- served by water management facilities, water and sewer and irrigation, roads lighting, landscaping and parks provided by the District. From a development planning perspective, the owner of the property, which will be contracted out of the District, intends to market the contraction property for development as three separate, stand-alone communities. This property will be developed independently from the property remaining within the District. Its utility needs will be serviced by the City of Fort Myers. From development planning, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the district, after contraction, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the contracted district. The District currently provides certain infrastructure improvements and facilities to the property which will remain in the District. Currently, no services or facilities are provided by the District to the property to be contracted out of the District. Ward, Tilton, and Garland testified concerning whether the District, as contracted, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area remaining in the District. Ward testified that since the 1980's, the District has provided and maintained infrastructure which services the existing residents of the District, and is also available to service future residents of the District. The District is responsible for financing, operating and maintaining this infrastructure. Based upon its historical track record, and its current activities, the District will continue to serve these purposes. Tilton testified that, from an engineering perspective, the District is an excellent alternative for providing community services and facilities to the property remaining in the District because it provides a higher level of service than would be afforded by Lee County or the City of Fort Myers. This higher level of service meets the desire of the residents within the District. Garland testified that, from an economic perspective, the District as contracted, will still consist of approximately 5,799 equivalent residential units. There will be no financial impact to the landowners remaining in the District because neither the capital assessments nor the operations and maintenance assessments will be affected by the contraction. Currently, the contraction parcel is not taking any of the load for capital assessments or operations and maintenance assessments. Garland also testified that the contraction property is geographically closer to infrastructure facilities available from the City of Fort Myers, than it is to District facilities. Therefore, the District is not the best alternative for providing this infrastructure to the contraction property. From economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the District, after contraction, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will continue to be served by the District. Whether the community development services and facilities of the district, as contracted, will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The services and facilities which will continue to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the boundaries, as contracted, will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to remain within the District. Ward, Tilton, and Garland testified concerning whether the community development services and facilities of the district, as contracted, would be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Ward testified that the District provides services and facilities which compliment the general purpose local governments’ services and facilities. For example, the District has constructed drainage facilities. These services address the requirements for infrastructure of the local government. After contraction, the District will continue to provide these infrastructure services. Tilton testified that the services and facilities provided by the District work very well in concert with the adjacent facilities of the general purpose local government. The roadways, utilities, and water management facilities constructed by the District are integrated into the overall system of the adjacent areas. From a management perspective and an engineering perspective, the facilities and services to be provided by the District, after the contraction, will not be incompatible with the existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district, after contraction, is amenable to separate special district government. As cited previously, from economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The community to be included in the District, after contraction, will continue to require basic infrastructure systems. A determination was made when the District was formed, that the District could best provide these services. This determination will not change as a result of the contraction. From engineering, economic and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the amended District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Elements of the Petition The Commission has certified that the Petition to Contract the Gateway Services District meets all of the required elements of Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to contract the District--the State of Florida and its citizens, the County and its citizens, the City and its citizens, the landowners within the District after contraction, and the Petitioner. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens, are not anticipated to incur any costs from contracting the District. Administrative costs incurred by Lee County and the City of Fort Myers related to this Petition are minimal and should be offset by the filing fees paid by the Petitioner. Landowners remaining within the District will continue to pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. The contraction of District will have no impact on the level of capital assessments or operations and maintenance assessments paid by residents remaining in the District. Benefits to landowners in the District will continue to be a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, construction, operation and maintenance of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. 45. Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, require the Petition to include a SERC which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The Petition contains a SERC. It meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. Other Requirements 46. Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, require the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Lee County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in The News-Press, a newspaper of general circulation in Lee County for four consecutive weeks, on June 18, 2002, June 25, 2002, July 2, 2002, and July 9, 2002. The Affidavit of Publication was placed into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4. Lee County Support for Establishment Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition with the City of Fort Myers and Lee County prior to filing the Petition with the Commission. As permitted by Sections 190.046 and 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the City Council of the City of Fort Myers held a public hearing on March 4, 2002, to consider the contraction of the Gateway Services District. At the conclusion of its public hearing on March 4, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-11 expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule contracting the Gateway Services District. The City of Fort Myers City Council Resolution specifically found that all six (6) of the statutory factors for evaluating the contraction of community development districts found in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, had been met by the Petitioner in this matter. As permitted by Sections 190.046 and 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County held a public hearing on June 25, 2002, to consider the contraction of the Gateway Services District. At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 25, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County adopted Resolution No.02-06-43, expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule contracting the Gateway Services District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, contract the Gateway Services District as requested by the Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed Rule Amendment attached to this Report as Exhibit C. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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) 92106847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Erin McCormick Larrinaga. Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1700 Tampa, Florida 33602 Gregory Munson, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canady, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Exhibit A Petitioner’s Witnesses at Public Hearing John Gnagey The Worthington Group 14291 Metro Parkway, Building 1300 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 James P. Ward Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. 210 N. University Drive, Suite 702 Coral Gables, Florida 33071 Andrew D. Tilton Johnson Engineering, Inc. 2158 Johnson Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Carey Garland Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 11869 High Tech Avenue Orlando, Florida 32817 Exhibit B List of Petitioner’s Exhibits Exhibit Description Exhibit 1: Memorandum from Greg Munson, Staff Attorney for the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to Barbara Leighty, Clerk for the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, dated March 12, 2002 Exhibit 2: Sketch depicting Gateway Services District Boundaries (Parcels marked “A” constitute the Contraction Parcels which Petition seeks to have contracted from the Gateway Services District) Exhibit 3: Consent and Joinder to Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, executed by Pulte Home Corporation on July 16, 2002 Exhibit 4: News-Press Affidavit of Publication, dated July 9, 2002 Exhibit 5: Certified Copy of Resolution No. 2002-11, approved by the City Council of the City of Fort Myers on March 4, 2002 Exhibit 6: Certified Copy of Resolution No. 02-06-43, approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida on June 25, 2002 Exhibit 7: Letter from the Florida Department of Community Affairs to Ms. Donna Arduin, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, dated April 16, 2002 Exhibit 8: Notice of Receipt of Petition, published by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 17, 2002 Composite Exhibit 9: Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated January, 2002 (includes City of Ft. Myers Comprehensive Plan and Lee County Comprehensive Plan); Addendum to the Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated March 25, 2002; Second Addendum to the Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated July 16, 2002; and Third Addendum to the Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated July 25, 2002. Exhibit C THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT IS: 42F-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: A tract or parcel of land lying Section 35, Township 44 South, Range 25 East and in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12, Township 45 South, Range 25 East; Section 31, Township 44 South, Range 26 East and in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19, Township 45 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 35 run N 00__47' 42" W along the west line of the southwest quarter (SW-3) of said Section for 2643.18 feet to the quarter corner on the west line of said section; thence run N 00_ 43' 47" W along the west line of the northwest quarter (NW-3) of said Section for 1361.42 feet; thence run N 35__45' 29" E for 947.82 feet; thence run N 56__15' 44" E for 690.61 feet to the south line of the Colonial Boulevard right-of-way (State Road 884) (250 feet wide); thence run S 89__38' 27" E along said south line for 2763.96 feet to an intersection with the west line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section; thence run S 02__16' 01" E along said west line for 1,168.38 feet to the southwest corner of said fraction; thence run N 89_ 54' 24" E along the south line of said fraction for 1324.86 feet to the southeast corner of said fraction; thence run S 03__20' 25" E for 1284.37 feet to the quarter corner on the east line of said Section; thence run S 00__01' 59" E along said east line for 2635.65 feet to the northwest corner of said Section 1; thence run N 89__28' 42" E along the north line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 1 for 2,642.98 feet to the quarter corner on said north line; thence run S 89__57' 06" E along the north line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section 1 for 2523.38 feet to the northeast corner of said Section; thence run N 00__57' 01" W along the west line of said Section 31 for 2644.12 feet to the quarter corner on said west line; thence run N 00__35' 02" W along said west line of said Section 31 for 1705.47 feet to an intersection with the southwesterly line of Immokalee Road (State Road 82) (200 feet wide); thence run S 46__07' 29" E along said southwesterly line for 6215.51 feet to an intersection with the south line of said Section 31; thence continue S 46__07' 29" E along said southwesterly line for 1227.27 feet to an intersection with a line common to said Sections 5 and 6; thence continue S 46__07' 29" E along said southwesterly line for 1535.36 feet to a point of curvature; thence run Southeasterly along said southwesterly line along the arc of a curve to the left of radius 5824.88 feet (delta 18_ 13' 21") (chord bearing S 55__14' 10" E) (chord 1844.76 feet) for 1852.55 feet to a point of tangency; thence continue along said southwesterly line S 64__20' 50" E for 22.21 feet to an intersection with the east line of the west half (W-1/2) of said Section 5; thence run S 00__06' 33" E along said east line for 2271.81 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 5 and 8; thence run S 01__02' 00" E along the east line of the west half (W-1/2) of said Section 8 for 3,028.35 feet; thence run N 89__33' 57" E for 605.03 feet; thence run S 01__02' 00" E for 1800.10 feet; thence run S 89__33' 57" W for 605.03 feet; thence run S 01__02' 00" E for 500.03 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 8 and 17; thence run S 01__00' 12" E along the east line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 17 for 926.76 feet to an intersection with the northeasterly line of a Florida Power and Light Company substation site as described in deed recorded in Official Record Book 1606 at Page 1286 of the Lee County Records; thence run N 37__57' 04" W along said northeasterly line for 361.70 feet; thence run S 52__02' 56" W along the northwesterly line of said Site for 361.70 feet; thence run S 37__57' 04" E along the southwesterly line of said Site for 741.48 feet to an intersection with the northwesterly line of Daniels Road Extension (200 feet wide) as described in deed recorded at Official Record Book 1644 at Page 1739 of the Lee County Records; thence run N 68__38' 13" E along said northwesterly line for 64.84 feet to an intersection with said easterly line of said northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 17; thence run S 01__00' 12" E along said east line for 1238.52 feet to the southeast corner of said fraction; thence run S 89__30' 38" W along the south line of said fraction and the north line of the Southwest Florida Regional Airport for 2110.83 feet to an intersection with the southeasterly line of said Daniels Road Extension; thence run S 54__00' 05" W through said Sections 17, 18 and 19 along the southeasterly line of a road right-of-way (200 feet wide) for 7032.17 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Section 19; thence run N 00__55' 36" W along said west line for 1,477.45 feet to the northwest corner of said Section; thence run N 00_ 54' 13" W along the west line of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of said Section 18 for 2,643.95 feet to the quarter corner on said west line; thence run N 00_ 39' 39" W along the west line of the northwest quarter (NW- 1/4) of said Section 19 for 2,674.35 feet to the northwest corner of said Section; thence run N 00_ 57' 26" W along the west line of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of said Section 7 for 2,645.34 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 7 and 12; thence run S 89_ 55' 12" W along the south line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section 12 for 2,524.67 feet to the west line of the east 2,524.14 feet of said northeast quarter (NE-1/4); thence run N 01_ 05' 33" W along said west line for 2,646.07 feet to the south line of said Section 1; thence run S 89_ 56' 14" W along said south line for 2,663.19 feet to the southwest corner of said Section, passing through the quarter corner on the south line of said Section at 69.26 feet; thence run S 89__03' 50" W along the south line of said Section 2 for 2645.12 feet to the quarter corner on said south line; thence run S 00__08' 50" E line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 11 for 2670.22 feet to the center of said Section; thence run S 88__33' 56" W along the south line of said northwest quarter (NW-1/4) for 2745.77 feet to the quarter corner on the west line of said Section 11; thence run S 89__29' 50" W along the south line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section 10 for 2546.16 feet to the center of said Section; thence run N 00__06' 58" W along the west line of said northeast quarter (NE-1/4) for 2668.79 feet to the quarter corner on the north line of said Section; thence run S 88__57' 32" W along the south line of said Section 3 for 2649.25 feet to the southwest corner of said Section; thence run S 88_ 54' 32" W along the south line of said Section 4 for 2059.99 feet to an intersection with the southeasterly line of the Six Mile Cypress Acquisition Area; thence run Northeasterly along said southeasterly line the following courses and distances: N 31__38' 21" E for 261.19 feet; N 01__23' 47" W for 277.78; N 37__53' 18" E for 246.16 feet; N 18_ 15' 00" E for 91.84 feet; N 56__35' 37" E for 169.92 feet; N 85__38' 45" E for 379.20 feet; N 70__16' 34" E for 105.12 feet; N 06__16' 12" E for 108.95 feet; N 89__11' 29" E for 322.80 feet; N 71_ 11' 39" E for 95.05 feet; N 55__29' 43" E for 156.24 feet; S 86__54' 42" E for 285.36 feet; N 55_ 11' 00" E for 58.82 feet; N 73__00' 08" E for 140.00 feet; N 54__05' 49" E for 115.77 feet; N 10_ 34' 05" E for 104.79 feet; N 24__05' 57" E for 100.09 feet; N 67__22' 01" E for 230.59 feet; S 85__03' 28" E for 211.24 feet; N 05__10' 02" E for 54.09 feet; N 27__24' 58" E for 106.63 feet; N 10__08' 05" E for 139.90 feet; N 44__41' 11" E for 147.83 feet; N 62__35' 02" W for 105.53 feet; N 23__59' 48" E for 476.74 feet; N 15__42' 08" E for 368.41 feet; N 20__55' 23" E for 222.23 feet; N 45__09' 19" E for 183.23 feet; N 31__07' 36" E for 305.01 feet; N 32__55' 08" E for 155.78 feet; N 17__03' 28" E for 110.45 feet; N 26__26' 47" E for 300.81 feet; N 18__42' 17" E for 150.86 feet; N 04__51' 19" W for 340.19 feet; N 12__09' 34" E for 251.79 feet; N 27__12' 34" E for 210.15 feet; N 14__53' 31" E for 323.53 feet and N 35__18' 42" E for 275.49 feet to an intersection with the north line of said Section 3; thence run N 88__37' 17" E along said north line for 530.84 feet to an intersection with the westerly line of State Road No. 93 (Interstate 75) (324 feet wide); thence run S 14_ 49' 52" E along said westerly line for 677.99 feet to an intersection with the east line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 3; thence run S 00__49' 04" E along said east line for 1299.77 feet to the northwest corner of the west half (W-1/2) of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said section; thence run N 88__12' 52" E along the north line of said fraction for 323.06 feet to an intersection with said westerly line of State Road No. 93; thence run S 14__49' 52" E along said westerly line for 2.67 feet to an intersection with the east line of said fraction ; thence run S 00__37' 05" E along said east line for 650.21 feet to the southeast corner of said fraction; thence run N 88__09' 46" E along the north line of the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of said Section 3 for 2250.18 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 2 and 3; thence run N 00__47' 03" E along the west line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 2 for 2605.26 feet to the Point of Beginning. Less and except all that part of the right-of-way for State Road No. 93 (Interstate 75) lying within the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of Section 3 and within the northeast quarter (NE- 1/4) of Section 10, Township 45 South, Range 25 East, Lee County, Florida, as more particularly described in the petition for this rule. Containing 5,474 5324 acres, more or less. PARCEL "A" A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 35 TOWNSHIP 44 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, SECTIONS 1, 2, 11 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 44 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND IN SECTIONS 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35 RUN N 00?47'42" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF SAID SECTION FOR 2643.18 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?43'47" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION FOR 1361.42 FEET; THENCE RUN N 35?45'29" E FOR 947.82 FEET; THENCE RUN N 56?15'44" E FOR 690.61 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE COLONIAL BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY (STATE ROAD 884) (250 FEET WIDE); THENCE RUN S 89?38'27" E ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 539.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE S 89?38'27" E ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2224.05 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN S 02?16'01" E ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1168.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN N 89?54'24" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 1324.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN S 03?20'25" E FOR 1284.37 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN S 00?01'59" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 2635.65 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE RUN N 89?28'42" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 1 FOR 2642.98 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE RUN S 89?57'06" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3) OF SAID SECTION 1 FOR 2523.38 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?57'01" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 FOR 2644.12 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON SAID WEST LINE; THENCE RUN N 00?35'02" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 FOR 1705.47 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (STATE ROAD 82) (200 FEET WIDE); THENCE RUN S 46?07'29" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 6215.51 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE CONTINUE S 46?07'29" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 1227.27 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 5 AND 6; THENCE CONTINUE S 46?07'29" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 1535.36 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 5824.88 FEET (DELTA 18?13'21") (CHORD BEARING S 55?14'10" E) (CHORD 1844.76 FEET) FOR 1852.55 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE S 64?20'50" E FOR 22.21 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF (W 2) OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE RUN S 00?06'33" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 2271.81 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 5 AND 8; THENCE RUN S 01?02'00" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF (W 2) OF SAID SECTION 8 FOR 3028.35 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89?33'57" E FOR 605.03 FEET; THENCE RUN S 01?02'02" E FOR 1800.10 FEET; THENCE S 89?33'57" W FOR 605.03 FEET; THENCE RUN S 01?02'00" E FOR 500.03 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 8 AND 17; THENCE RUN S 01?00'12" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 17 FOR 926.76 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SUBSTATION SITE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1606 AT PAGE 1286, LEE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE RUN N 37?57'04" W ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE FOR 361.70 FEET; THENCE RUN S 52?02'56" W ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SITE FOR 361.70 FEET; THENCE RUN S 37?57'04" E ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SITE FOR 741.48 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF DANIELS ROAD EXTENSION (200 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1644 AT PAGE 1739, LEE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE RUN N 68?38'13" E ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 64.84 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE RUN S 01?00'12" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 1238.52 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN S 89?30'38" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION AND A NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL AIRPORT FOR 2110.83 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID DANIELS ROAD EXTENSION; THENCE RUN S 54?00'05" W THROUGH SAID SECTIONS 17, 18, AND 19 ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (200 FEET WIDE) FOR 7032.17 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN N 00?55'36" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1477.45 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?54'13" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF SAID SECTION 18 FOR 2643.95 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER OF SAID WEST LINE; THENCE RUN N 00?39'39" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 18 FOR 2647.35 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?57'26" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF SAID SECTION 7 FOR 2645.34 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 7 AND 12; THENCE RUN S 89?55'12" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3) OF SAID SECTION 12 FOR 2524.67 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 2524.14 FEET OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3); THENCE RUN N 01?05'33" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 2646.07 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE RUN S 89?56'14" W ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2663.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, PASSING THROUGH THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION AT 69.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89?03'50" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 2 FOR 3096.18 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED TREELINE BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING BEARING AND DISTANCES: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2625.00 FEET (DELTA 29?13'02") (CHORD BEARING S 15?09'16" W) (CHORD 1324.12 FEET) FOR 1338.58 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S 29?45'46" W FOR 618.63 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1487.50 FEET (DELTA 28?50'26") (CHORD BEARING S 15?20'33" W) (CHORD 740.87 FEET) FOR 748.75 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S 00?55'22" W FOR 166.10 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11; THENCE RUN S 88?33'56" W ALONG SAID LINE FOR 125.11 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED TREELINE BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING BEARING AND DISTANCES: THENCE RUN N 00?55'22" E FOR 171.23 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1612.50 FEET (DELTA 28?50'26") (CHORD BEARING N 15?20'33" E) (CHORD 803.13 FEET) FOR 811.67 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 29145"46' E FOR 618.63 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2500.00 FEET (DELTA 33?36'51") (CHORD BEARING N 12?57'22" W) (CHORD 1445.75 FEET) FOR 1466.69 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 03?51'03" W FOR 959.31 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.06 FEET (DELTA 10?24'15") (CHORD BEARING N 01?21'04" E) (CHORD 507.76 FEET) FOR 508.45 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 06?33'12" E FOR 1166.54 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET (DELTA 43?02'49") (CHORD BEARING N 14?58'12" W) (CHORD 733.76 FEET) FOR 751.31 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 36?29'36" W FOR 266.36 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2000.00 FEET (DELTA 37?40'00") (CHORD BEARING N 17?39'36" W) (CHORD 1291.27 FEET) FOR 1314.81 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 01?10'24" E FOR 245.33 FEET; THENCE S 89?25'36" W LEAVING SAID WEST LINE FOR 114.67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF TREELINE BOULEVARD (TO BE RE-ALIGNED) AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1529 BEGINNING AT PAGE 412 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF LEE COUNTY; THENCE N 00?02'17" W FOR 68.31 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 44 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE N 01?00'06" W ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF TREELINE BOULEVARD (TO BE RE-ALIGNED) FOR 2642.68 FEET; THENCE N 00?58'02" W ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF TREELINE BOULEVARD (TO BE RE-ALIGNED) FOR 1048.01 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET AND TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS S 47?49' 01" E; SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2581 BEGINNING AT PAGE 4060 OF THE LEE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET (DELTA 41?49'26") (CHORD BEARING N 21?16'16" E) (CHORD 749.56 FEET) FOR 766.46 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 00?21'33" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 721.50 FEET; THENCE N 45?21'33" E FOR 42.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 4,390 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND RIGHTS- OF-WAY (RECORDED AND UNRECORDED, WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN) BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST AS BEARING S88?57'32"W. TOGETHER WITH: DESCRIPTION SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL "B" A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHICH TRACT OR PARCEL IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3 RUN N 88?37'17" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3 FOR 2477.68 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 75 (I-75) (STATE ROAD NO. 93) (324 FEET WIDE) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN S 14?49'52" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE FOR 677.94 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE RUN S 00?49'05" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 1299.77 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF (W 2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3) OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 88?12'52" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 323.06 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID WESTERLY LINE OF STATE ROAD NO. 93; THENCE RUN S 14?49'52" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE FOR 2.67 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN S 00?37'05" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 650.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN N 88?09'46" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 3) OF SAID SECTION 3 FOR 163.88 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S 14?49'52" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR 1474.99 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT OF RADIUS 22800.31 FEET (CHORD BEARING S 13?33'28" E) (CHORD 1013.23 FEET) (DELTA 02?32'47") FOR 1013.31 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE; THENCE RUN N 82?23'52" W FOR 122.32 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON- TANGENT CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 22685.31 FEET (CHORD BEARING N 13?36'38" W) (CHORD 966.55 FEET) (DELTA 02?26'29") FOR 966.63 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN N 14?49'52" W FOR 542. 01 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 250.00 FEET (CHORD BEARING N 54?04'24" W) (CHORD 316.30 FEET) (DELTA 78?29'05") FOR 342.45 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S 86?41'03" W FOR 1133.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N 02?10'37" W FOR 387.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N 87?40'37" W FOR 838.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 01?19'23" E FOR 243.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 88?09'46" W FOR 190.18 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SIX MILE CYPRESS PRESERVE, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1741 AT PAGE 1241 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN THE FOLLOWING FIFTEEN (13) COURSES ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE; N 15?42'08" E FOR 184.34 FEET; N 20?55'23" E FOR 222.23 FEET; N 45?09'19" E FOR 183.23 FEET; N 31?07'36" E FOR 305.01 FEET; N 32?55'08" E FOR 155.78 FEET; N 17?03'28" E FOR 110.45 FEET; N 26?26'47" E FOR 300.81 FEET; N 18?42'17" E FOR 150.86 FEET; N 04?51'19" W FOR 340.19 FEET; N 12?09'34" E FOR 251.79 FEET; N 27?12'34" E FOR 210.15 FEET; N 14?53'31" E FOR 323.53 FEET; N 35?18'42" E FOR 275.49 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE RUN N 88?37'17" E ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 530.87 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 111.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOTAL AREA FOR BOTH PARCELS 4,501.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS HEREINABOVE MENTIONED ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3 TO BEAR N 88?37'17" W WHICH BEARING IS DERIVED FROM PLANE COORDINATE FOR THE FLORIDA WEST ZONE (1979 ADJUSTMENT). Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005, FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005, FS. History - new 5-22-86, Amended .
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of Contract No. E1G23 to DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. d/b/a DBI Services Corporation (DBI) is contrary to the Department of Transportation’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Findings Of Fact On June 18, 2007, the Department issued RFP No. E1G23, which solicited proposals for “ultra asset maintenance” for Interstate 75 (I-75) and interchanges in Broward, Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Manatee, Desoto, and Sarasota Counties. The Department issued three addenda to the RFP. The addenda did not make any material changes that are pertinent to the issues in this proceeding. The Scope of Services for the RFP stated that for all roadways and facilities covered by the contract, the contractor will be responsible for performing all of the maintenance activities that would otherwise have been performed by the Department, including but not limited to, mowing the right-of- way, maintaining guardrails, fixing potholes, maintaining stormwater management facilities, cleaning and maintaining rest areas, tree trimming, and incident response and management. In the asset management industry, this type of contract is known as a comprehensive asset management contract because the contractor is responsible for all maintenance activities within the right-of-way “from fence to fence, including the fence.” The RFP states that the contract will be awarded to the responsive and responsible vendor whose proposal receives the highest total score, which is composed of a price score and a technical score. The price score is weighted 30 percent, and the technical score is weighted 70 percent. The vendor proposing the lowest price received the full 30 points for the price score. The other vendors’ price scores were calculated through a mathematical formula based upon the percentage that the vendor’s price exceeded the lowest price. The technical score was based upon a subjective evaluation of the proposals in four broad categories: administration plan (weighted 20 points); management and technical plan (weighted 30 points); operation plan (weighted 30 points); and compliance plan (weighted 20 points). There are sub-categories in each of those categories, with a specific number of points assigned to each sub-category. Five evaluators independently reviewed the proposals. The evaluators –- Jennifer Perry, Howard Summers, David Holden, Lance Grace, and Robert Mannix -- were Department employees selected based upon their familiarity with the areas and services covered by the contract. All of the evaluators attended the pre-bid conference, which was mandatory for prospective bidders. No questions or concerns were raised at the pre-bid conference or at any point prior to submittal of the proposals regarding the evaluators having experience with the prior I-75 contract or having been involved in the preparation of the RFP. Three companies -- ICA, DBI, and VMS, Inc. (VMS) -- submitted responses to the RFP. ICA is a Tennessee corporation. DBI is a Pennsylvania corporation. Both companies provide asset management services in Florida and around the country, but ICA has more experience than DBI in providing comprehensive asset management services. The price offered by ICA -- $89,200,300.01 -- was the lowest of the three vendors that responded to the RFP; the price offered by DBI -- $92,630,739 -- was approximately 3.8 percent higher. As a result, ICA received a price score of 30 and DBI received a price score of 28.89. Three of the five evaluators -- Ms. Perry, Mr. Summers, and Mr. Golden -- scored DBI’s proposal the highest. Two of the evaluators -- Mr. Grace and Mr. Mannix -- scored ICA’s proposal higher than DBI’s proposal, but they scored VMS's proposal the highest. None of the evaluators scored ICA’s proposal the highest. DBI’s proposal received an average score of 85.40 from the evaluators, and ICA’s proposal received an average score of 82.96. As result, DBI received a technical score of 59.78, and ICA received a technical score of 58.07. When the price scores and the technical scores were combined, DBI received the highest total score of 88.67. ICA was the second-ranked vendor with a total score of 88.07. VMS was the third-ranked vendor with a total score of 86.12.3 On August 21, 2007, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract to DBI. The initial posting erroneously identified the winning vendor as “DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. T/A Aguagenix, Inc.” rather than DBI. The contract administrator, Cheryl Sanchious, explained that this was a clerical error caused by the Department’s computer system and that it has been corrected in the system. ICA timely filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest challenging the award to DBI. ICA posted a cashier’s check in the statutorily required amount in lieu of a protest bond. After the protest was filed, the Department entered into temporary emergency asset management contracts for the roadways and facilities covered by contract at issue in this case. ICA was given the contract for Broward and Collier Counties because it was already providing asset management in those counties under the predecessor to the contract at issue in this case, No. BC680. DBI was given the contract for the other counties, Sarasota, Lee, Manatee, Charlotte, and Desoto. It is undisputed that ICA’s proposal was responsive to the RFP in all material respects. The focus of ICA’s protest is four-fold. First, ICA contends that DBI’s proposal is not responsive because it did not affirmatively state that it would grant a first right of refusal to RESPECT of Florida (RESPECT). Second ICA contends that DBI is not a “responsible vendor” and that the Department confused the concepts of “responsiveness” and “responsibility” in its review of the proposals. Third, ICA contends that the evaluation committee failed to prepare a technical summary as required by the RFP, and that its failure to do so was material because it would have brought to light the discrepancies in Ms. Perry's scoring. Fourth, ICA contends that Ms. Perry's scoring was flawed and out of sync with the other evaluators in several respects. Each issue is discussed in turn. Responsiveness / RESPECT First Right of Refusal Section 8.2 of the RFP provides that “[a] responsive proposal shall perform the scope of services called for in this Proposal Requirements [sic] and receive a Technical Proposal score of at least seventy (70) percent of the maximum attainable points established for scoring the Technical Proposal.” Section 17.1 of the RFP provides that “[d]uring the process of evaluation, the District Contracts Office will conduct examinations of Proposals for responsiveness to requirements of the Proposal Solicitation. Those determined to be non-responsive will be automatically rejected.” Section 16.5 of the RFP requires the proposal to “[u]se only statements of what the Proposer will or will not accomplish” rather than “words such as may, might, should, etc.” Section 8.5 of the RFP authorizes the Department to “waive minor informalities or irregularities in Proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other Proposers.” That section defines “minor irregularities” as “those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department’s interest and will not affect the price of the Proposal by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Proposers.” The Scope of Services for the RFP requires the contractor to “grant ‘Respect of Florida’ a first right of refusal” to provide maintenance services at rest areas. This was intended by the Department to be a mandatory requirement of the RFP, and was understood as such by ICA and DBI. RESPECT is a not-for-profit organization that employs disabled and disadvantaged individuals. RESPECT employees perform janitorial and grounds maintenance functions at rest areas, including one of the rest areas covered by the RFP. ICA’s proposal expressly states that “ICA will grant Respect of Florida first right of refusal on rest area janitorial work consistent with statewide maintenance practices.” DBI’s proposal does not include an affirmative statement that it will grant RESPECT a first right of refusal. However, DBI stated in its proposal that it “is currently in negotiation with [RESPECT] to expand their existing maintenance responsibilities for rest areas within the project limits” and that “DBI Services believes that expanding [RESPECT’s] responsibilities in the project is the right thing to do.” The absence of an affirmative statement in DBI’s proposal that it will grant RESPECT a first right of refusal was not material to the evaluators. For example, evaluator Robert Mannix testified that he “generally looked for more of the intent to give [RESPECT] the opportunity of making a bid rather than the specific language of right of first refusal.”4 Similarly Ms. Perry testified that she considered granting RESPECT a first right of refusal to be a requirement of the contract whether or not the contractor mentioned it in its proposal. Amy Burlarley-Hyland, director of asset management for DBI, testified that DBI intends to provide a first right of refusal to RESPECT and that, consistent with the statement in DBI’s proposal, DBI is “committed to expanding Respect’s responsibilities on this project.” She explained that she did not include an affirmative statement to that effect in the proposal because it is “a known requirement” that will be part of the contract by virtue of it being in the RFP. Mr. Rader, ICA’s executive vice president, testified that it is more costly to contract with RESPECT to provide maintenance services than to contract with another entity to provide those services. Ms. Hyland disagreed with that testimony, as did Ms. Perry. No documentation was provided to support Mr. Rader’s claim that it is more expensive to contract with RESPECT, and the evidence was not persuasive that DBI received a competitive advantage by not affirmatively stating in its proposal that it will grant a first right of refusal to RESPECT. The RFP does not require the vendor to expressly acknowledge and affirmatively agree to meet each and every mandatory requirement in the RFP. Indeed, if this were the test for responsiveness, ICA’s proposal would be nonresopnsive because it failed to expressly acknowledge and affirmatively agree to meet a number of the mandatory requirements in the RFP. DBI’s proposal complies with the intent of the RFP in regards to RESPECT. Its failure to specifically state that it will grant RESPECT a first right of refusal is, at most, a minor irregularity. Failure to Determine DBI’s Responsibility Responsiveness and responsibility are separate, but related concepts in the competitive procurement context. Section 287.012(24), Florida Statutes, defines “responsible vendor” to mean “a vendor who has the capability in all respects to fully perform the contract requirements and the integrity and reliability that will assure good faith performance.” Section 287.012(26), Florida Statutes, defines “responsive vendor” to mean “a vendor that has submitted a bid, proposal, or reply that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation.” In order to bid on certain Department contracts, a vendor has to be pre-qualified under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 14-22. Pre-qualification serves as an advance determination of the vendor’s responsibility. Pre-qualification is generally not required in order to bid on maintenance contracts; bidders are presumed qualified to bid on such contracts. However, as noted in the Bid Solicitation Notice for the RFP, “certain maintenance contracts will contain specific requirements for maintenance contractor eligibility” if deemed necessary by the Department. This is such a maintenance contract. Section 7.1 of the RFP required the Department to determine whether the proposer is “qualified to perform the services being contracted.” That determination was to be made “based upon the[] Proposal Package demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area.” The RFP did not specify when or by whom this determination was to be made. The Department and DBI contend that the determination required by Section 7.1 is essentially a determination of whether the bidder is responsible, and that the determination is to be made by the evaluators during their scoring of the proposals. In support of that contention, the Department and DBI refer to Section 17.1 of the RFP, which provides that “[p]roposing firms must receive an average technical proposal score of at least (70) percent of the maximum attainable points established for scoring the Technical Proposal to be considered responsive.” Similar language is included in Section 8.2 of the RFP under the heading “Responsiveness of Proposals.” The interpretation of the RFP advocated by the Department and DBI is reasonable, and DBI’s proposal received an average score from the evaluators of 85.40, which exceeds the 70 percent threshold in Section 17.1 of the RFP. Indeed, each of the evaluators gave DBI more than 70 points for its technical proposal. The preponderance of the evidence presented at the final hearing supports the Department's implicit determination that DBI is “qualified to perform the services being contracted,” as required by Section 7.1 of the RFP. DBI has a 29-year history. It employs approximately 700 employees in 34 offices nationwide; it is the largest vegetation management company in the world; and it is ranked in the top five nationally in Pavement Maintenance Magazine. Even though DBI has less experience in comprehensive asset management contracts than does ICA, DBI has extensive experience in managing comprehensive activities under large contracts. DBI has managed over $400 million in performance- based contracts nationwide, including a $9 million comprehensive asset management contract with the Department in District 4 (US 27/Belle Glade area), and DBI’s director of asset management has extensive experience in highway and facility asset management in the private sector with DBI and VMS and in the public sector with the New York Department of Transportation. In sum, a determination that DBI is a responsible bidder was inherent in the Department’s decision to award the contract to DBI, which was based in large part on the technical score of its proposal by the evaluators, and the evidence presented in this de novo proceeding supports that determination. Therefore, even if, as ICA argues, the Department and DBI are improperly construing the word “responsive” in Section 17.1 of the RFP to mean “responsible,” ICA failed to prove that such error is material to the outcome of this proceeding. Failure to Prepare Technical Summary Section 17.1 of the RFP describes the evaluation process as follows: A Technical Evaluation Committee . . . will be established to review and evaluate each Proposal Package submitted in response to this Proposal Solicitation. The Committee will be comprised of at least five persons with background, experience, and/or professional credentials in relative service areas. The District Contracts Office will distribute to each member of the Committee a copy of each technical proposal. The Committee members will independently evaluate the Proposals on the criteria in the section below entitled “Criteria for Evaluation” in order to ensure that the Proposals are uniformly rated. The Committee will then assign points, utilizing the technical evaluation criteria identified herein and complete a technical summary. . . . . (Emphasis supplied). The District Contracts Office and/or the Project Manager/Technical Evaluation Committee will review and evaluate the price packages and prepare a summary of its price evaluation. Points will be assigned based on price evaluation criteria identified herein. During the process of the evaluation, the District Contracts Office will conduct examinations of Proposals for responsiveness to requirements of the Proposal Solicitation. Those determined to be non- responsive will be rejected. ICA contends that the evaluation committee failed to prepare a “technical summary,” which would have brought to light the scoring issues discussed below concerning Ms. Perry. The RFP does not define “technical summary” nor does it specify the form that the summary must take. The RFP does not specify how the evaluation committee as a whole would assign points to the proposals in light of the independent scoring mandated by Section 17.1 of the RFP. The evaluators did not assign points to the proposals as a committee, but rather independently scored the proposals. The evaluators did not meet as a committee to prepare a “technical summary.” Several of the evaluators testified that they considered the evaluation form that they completed for each proposal to be their “technical summary” for the proposal because the form included the scores assigned in each technical review category and summary comments about the proposal. The evaluators did not collectively discuss their scoring of the proposals after they completed their independent evaluations; they simply submitted their completed evaluation forms to Ms. Sanchious. Ms. Sanchious’ office prepared a spreadsheet summarizing the evaluators’ technical scoring of the proposals. The spreadsheet -– Joint Exhibit 33, titled “Proposal Evaluation/Breakdown Sheet” -- lists the scores awarded by each evaluator in each technical review category; calculates the total points awarded by each evaluator for each proposal; and calculates an “overall score” for each proposal by averaging the five evaluators’ scores for each proposal. This spreadsheet is more akin to a “technical summary” than is Joint Exhibit 21, which DBI and the Department contend is the “technical summary.” Indeed, Joint Exhibit 21 only includes the “overall score” and not the underlying data that was used to calculate that score. It was not unreasonable for the Department to calculate an “overall score” for each proposal by simply averaging the five evaluators’ scores for each proposal, and ICA failed to prove that the averaging being done by Ms. Sanchious’ office (instead of the evaluation committee) was a material deviation from the RFP. Indeed, ICA’s contention that discussion amongst the evaluation committee members to prepare the “technical summary” would have changed Ms. Perry’s scoring of ICA’s or DBI’s proposal is speculative, at best, in light of the findings below. In sum, the evaluation committee’s failure to prepare a “technical summary” as required by Section 17.1 of the RFP does not undermine the proposed award to DBI. Scoring by Jennifer Perry Ms. Perry was one of the five evaluators who reviewed the technical proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Ms. Perry is a licensed professional engineer. She has 10 years of work experience with the Department, and she currently serves as the assistant maintenance engineer for District 1. In that capacity, she is responsible for all forms of maintenance contracting in District 1, including routine maintenance and asset maintenance. Ms. Perry served for a time as the project manager for the existing asset management contract for I-75, which was held by ICA. As a result, she had the occasion to work with ICA employees and become familiar with ICA’s performance under that contract. There is no evidence that Ms. Perry is biased against ICA in any way. Indeed, she credibly testified that she had a good working relationship with ICA; that she had no major issues with ICA’s performance under the existing contract; and that she would have had no hesitation recommending that the contract be awarded to ICA if its proposal had received the highest score. Ms. Perry was heavily involved in the preparation of the RFP as a result of her position as assistant maintenance engineer for District 1. She was also involved in the selection of the evaluators. There is no Department rule or policy that prohibits a person from serving as an evaluator if he or she was involved in the preparation of the RFP. Likewise, the fact that Ms. Perry served as the project manager for the asset management contract held by ICA does not preclude her from serving as an evaluator. Indeed, Section 17.1 of the RFP specifically contemplates that the evaluators will have “background, experience, and/or professional credentials in relative service areas.” Similar language is contained in Section 287.057(17)(a), Florida Statutes. Ms. Perry spent between 10½ and 11 hours reviewing and scoring the proposals. She made detailed notes while she was scoring in order to capture her general impressions of each proposal and to serve as a reminder of issues to address with the vendor who was ultimately awarded the contract. Ms. Perry gave ICA’s proposal a score of 74. She gave DBI’s proposal a score of 86. Ms. Perry double-checked her scores before submitting her completed score sheets. She specifically went back over her scoring of ICA’s proposal after she noticed that she scored ICA lower than DBI and VMS because she thought she may have added wrong or overlooked something. She decided not to make changes to give ICA additional points just because she liked working with ICA. The main difference in Ms. Perry’s scoring of DBI's and ICA's proposals relates to Plan for Compliance with Standards (Plan for Compliance) section. She gave ICA 10 points for that section, and she gave DBI 20 points, which is the maximum available for that section. Each of the other evaluators gave ICA and DBI very similar scores in the Plan for Compliance section. The Plan for Compliance section describes the programs that the proposer intends to implement to ensure compliance with the applicable statutes, rules and Department policies. A proposer’s quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program is an important component of its plan for compliance. DBI gave the Plan for Compliance section significant emphasis because of the weight assigned to the section in the RFP. Ms. Burlarly-Hyland rewrote the section to make it more detailed because of her perception of its importance to the Department. ICA did not place as significant of an emphasis on the Plan for Compliance section in its proposal as did DBI. Indeed, ICA’s position in this case is that “a plan for compliance is quite standard and one would expect to see very similar plans and therefore very similar scores among the proposals.” DBI references its QA/QC program several times in the Plan for Compliance section, but the detailed description of the QA/QC program is included in the Management and Technical Plan section of DBI’s proposal. Ms. Perry relied on the description of the QA/QC program in the Management and Technical Plan section of DBI’s proposal in her scoring of the Plan for Compliance section. Similarly, in her scoring of the ICA and VMS proposals Ms. Perry did not limit her scoring of a particular section of the proposal to information presented in that section. Instead, she looked at the proposals in their entirety and “gave them credit . . . in any section that [she] felt it applied to because . . . [i]f they have a good idea, they need credit for it.” Ms. Perry explained that that she scored DBI higher than ICA in the Plan for Compliance section because, even though both proposals discussed their QA/QC program, DBI went into much greater detail about its program and its plan for compliance generally. Ms. Perry viewed the level of detail provided by DBI regarding its QA/QC program and its plan for compliance generally as an indication of the importance of these matters to DBI. Some of the material differences identified by Ms. Perry were DBI’s commitment to do its first QA/QC within the first three months instead of waiting six months as ICA proposed; DBI’s identification of a high-level person, the project manager, as being responsible for compliance; DBI’s commitment to provide its QA/QC reports directly to the Department; DBI’s “corporate culture concept” program that is similar to the Department’s “grassroots” program; DBI’s more detailed description of its training programs; and DBI’s commitment to have all of its herbicide applicators licensed by the state, not just in compliance with state law. Ms. Perry’s rationale for her scoring differences on the Plan for Compliance section is generally consistent with another evaluator’s “overall impression” that “the ICA proposal did not offer a lot of new innovation or continuous quality improvement over the level of performance that we had already experienced and . . . we were hoping to have in reletting the new contract rather than renewing the existing contract ”5 ICA also takes issue with Ms. Perry’s scoring of the ICA and DBI proposals in the DBE/RESPECT/Agency Participation section; the Proposed Facilities Capabilities section; the Routine/Periodic Maintenance Operations section; and the Rest Area Maintenance Operations section. Ms. Perry gave DBI’s proposal five points and ICA’s proposal three points for the DBE/RESPECT/Agency Participation section. She explained that she scored DBI higher than ICA in this section because DBI provided more detail on how it would help develop disadvantaged business subcontractors, including training them on compliance with Department standards and helping them obtain work. She recognized that ICA also had a subcontractor development program, but she was more impressed with DBI's proposal because “DBI really went into a lot more detail in what they were going to do.” Ms. Perry gave DBI’s proposal five points and gave ICA’s proposal three points for the Proposed Facilities Capabilities section. She explained that she scored DBI higher than ICA in this section because of the amount and type of equipment that DBI was going to make available for the contract and because of DBI’s commitment to put an office on the Alligator Alley corridor. Ms. Perry felt that the Alligator office was “very important” because that area is isolated and having an office in the area would make it easier for the contractor to respond quickly to problems. ICA’s proposal did not commit to put an office on the Alligator Alley corridor. Ms. Perry gave DBI’s proposal ten points and gave ICA’s proposal six points for the Routine/Periodic Maintenance Operations section. She explained that she scored DBI higher than ICA in this section because DBI’s proposal included a week- by-week maintenance plan that detailed the specific activities that DBI would be working on each week and it also included detailed charts identifying the efforts that DBI would undertake to meet the requirements of the Department’s maintenance program. The description of the maintenance plan in ICA’s proposal was not nearly as detailed, and Ms. Perry was so impressed with DBI’s maintenance plan that she provided copies of the plan to the other districts’ operation centers as an example of the type of detained planning that she felt the Department should move towards. Ms. Perry scored ICA and DBI the same for the Rest Area Maintenance Operation section. She explained that even though the proposals focused on different aspects of their rest area maintenance plans, the plans were roughly equivalent overall. For example, DBI committed to maintain the rest areas in accordance with the Department’s standard maintenance requirements and, like ICA, DBI will handle customer comment cards from rest areas through its QA/QC program. Ms. Perry scored ICA higher than DBI in areas that she found ICA’s proposal to be better than DBI’s proposal. For example, in the Identification of Key Personnel Section, she gave ICA four points and DBI three points; in the Contractor Experience section, she gave ICA the maximum five points and DBI two points; in the Bridge Inspection section, she gave ICA the maximum 10 points and DBI seven points; in the Incident Response Operations section, she gave ICA nine points and DBI eight points; and in the Bridge Maintenance Operations section, she gave ICA the maximum five points and DBI three points. Ms. Perry’s explanation of her scoring decisions was reasonable and supported by the preponderance of the evidence presented at the final hearing. The evidence fails to establish that Ms. Perry's scoring of the proposals was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing the Formal Protest Petition filed by ICA, and awarding Contract No. E1G23 to DBI. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 14th day of December, 2007.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Pioneer Community Development District (“Pioneer”) is entitled to an individual environmental resource permit (“ERP”) from St. Johns River Water Management District (“District”) for construction of a proposed road.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Tomm Friend is a resident and landowner in Volusia County. He uses the Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve (“Preserve”) for kayaking, canoeing, biking, horseback riding, and observation of flora and fauna. Petitioner Derek LaMontagne is a resident and landowner in Volusia County. He uses the Preserve for hiking, biking, and nature photography. Petitioner/Intervenor Turnbull Bay Community, Inc. (“Turnbull Bay”), is a Florida non-profit corporation. Its mission is to promote a sense of community and preserve the quality of life enjoyed by its residents. It was stipulated that a substantial number of Turnbull Bay’s members use the Preserve for hiking, biking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature photography. Petitioner/Intervenor Friends of Spruce Creek Preserve, Inc. (“Friends, Inc.”) is a Florida non-profit corporation. Its purpose is to promote the acquisition of lands for the Preserve and promote long-term protection and sound management of the Preserve. It was stipulated that a substantial number of Friends, Inc.’s members use the Preserve for hiking, biking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature photography. Respondent Pioneer is a Community Development District (“CDD”) created by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (“FLWAC”) under chapter 190, Florida Statutes. Pioneer is the applicant for the ERP. Respondent District is an independent special district of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities that affect wetlands. The proposed road is within the boundaries of the District. The Proposed Road Pioneer proposes to construct an extension of Williamson Boulevard from its current terminus near Airport Road southward to Pioneer Trail. The road would be constructed on property owned by Pioneer in the City of Port Orange. Pioneer’s interest in constructing the road is to facilitate the development of the property. Long-term plans by Volusia County have called for the phased extension of Williamson Boulevard to the far south part of the County. The road would serve County objectives of creating an alternate route between the cities of Port Orange and New Smyrna Beach to relieve traffic on I-95, and connecting Williamson Boulevard to a large development in the south called Farmton. Pioneer entered into an agreement with Volusia County to design, engineer, and finance the construction of the road. After completion, the road would be purchased by the County. In the ERP application, the proposed road is described as “2.3 miles of county roadway within a 130-foot right-of-way . . . in order to accommodate four travel lanes with on-road bike lanes, [a] closed drainage system, [a] 22-foot wide curbed and grassed median, and a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk on each side of the road. The existing two-lane roadway south of Airport Road will be widened to four lanes.” Existing Site Conditions The parcel of land through which the road would be built is approximately 722 acres. It consists primarily of mesic pine forest uplands and cypress swamp wetlands. The parcel is along the west side of I-95, east of Pioneer’s existing Cypresshead residential development. Across I-95 is the Preserve. The parcel is within the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin. The wetlands located on the west side of the parcel are in “near-pristine” condition. They have healthy hydric periods and ecological functions. These high value wetlands would be avoided by the proposed road alignment. The wetlands located on the east and south sides of the parcel are of lower quality because of human disturbance, including past silvicultural activities. These wetlands are partially drained and their ecological functions are diminished. All of the wetlands on the parcel currently drain to Spruce Creek, some through culverts under I-95. Petitioners contend a section of the old “Kings Highway” runs across the parcel and is a historical resource that would be adversely affected by construction of the proposed road. However, Pioneer conducted an archaeological and historical survey of the parcel and determined the proposed road project would have no effect on cultural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. What Petitioners refer to as “Kings Highway” is the “Fort Kingsbury to Smyrna Road.” The survey concluded that this road no longer has historical physical integrity or can “convey its historical significance.” The Division of Historical Resources within the Florida Department of State reviewed the survey findings and concurred. Impacts to Wetlands A little more than 79 acres will be impacted by the proposed road, including 22.2 acres of wetlands. The proposed road would not follow a straight line. An alignment was chosen to minimize impacts to wetlands. Pioneer’s consultants explored approximately a dozen different alignments for the road before selecting the current proposed alignment. The alignment extends east from its current terminus toward I-95, then runs south approximately parallel to I-95, and then turns back to the southwest to connect to Pioneer Trail. More than a third of the proposed road’s path would occur in disturbed land that was cleared, filled, and is regularly mowed under a power line and otherwise hugs I-95. The east edge of the road would lie within 100 to 125 feet of the west margin of the I-95 pavement. There are “stub-outs” planned for the road in anticipation of future streets. They are proposed for locations that avoid the need for additional wetland impacts. Petitioners argue the road should be limited to two lanes because that would reduce wetland impacts. However, Williamson Boulevard north of Airport Road is a four-lane road. The segment of Williamson from Airport Road to its current terminus is two-lane, but was built on a wide right-of-way in anticipation of a future expansion to four-lanes. The County’s plans for Williamson Boulevard call for four lanes all the way to the ultimate southern terminus at Farmton. Petitioners suggested that building an elevated pier- supported road would lessen wetland impacts. However, Petitioners did not present persuasive evidence that such a design was necessary or practicable. They presented no details. Mitigation of Impacts Pioneer proposes to purchase a total of 44.6 wetland mitigation bank credits to mitigate for the 22.2 acres of wetland impacts that would be caused by construction of the road and stormwater management system. The credits would be purchased from two separate wetland mitigation banks: the Farmton North Mitigation Bank and the Port Orange Mitigation Bank. These mitigation banks support wetland resources similar to those that would be impacted by the road. Petitioners contend that, because the mitigation banks are not in the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin, Pioneer would not be providing adequate mitigation. The mitigation banks are located within the Halifax River Mitigation Basin, also known as drainage basin #17. This mitigation basin includes the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin and Pioneer’s parcel. Pioneer presented persuasive evidence that its mitigation would provide regional ecological value. Petitioners did not dispute that the credits from these two wetland mitigation banks would provide greater long-term ecological value than the wetlands impacted by the proposed road. The Stormwater Management System Under Pioneer’s proposal, the water management functions performed by the wetlands that would be impacted by the road would be replaced by the proposed stormwater system. Runoff from the road would be collected and conveyed via curbs, gutters, inlets, and piping into the stormwater system. Several culverts would be built beneath the road to maintain the existing flow of water and prevent on-site and off- site flooding. The proposed system meets the design standards in the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“Applicant’s Handbook”), including regular and special design criteria intended to prevent degradation of water quality, as discussed in the next section. Water Quality Petitioners contend that pollutants from the road’s construction and operation would degrade the water quality of Spruce Creek. Because Spruce Creek is designated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) as an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the District’s permitting regulations require applicants to provide reasonable assurance that, in addition to the treatment required for discharges to non-OFWs, the system provides 50 percent additional treatment volume and residence time for runoff. Pioneer’s proposed stormwater management system would provide the 50 percent additional treatment volume and residence time before discharging off-site. The proposed project is also subject to special criteria applicable within the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin. Pioneer is required to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater management system will retain more than three inches of runoff from the directly-connected impervious surface area within the Most Effective Recharge Area. The proposed system includes dry retention facilities designed to meet this requirement. DEP is responsible for the total maximum daily load (“TMDL”) program for the State. The program develops TMDLs for water bodies that have impaired water quality. DEP lists Spruce Creek as suffering impairment by nutrients, specifically for phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria. When a proposed receiving water body is listed by DEP as nutrient-impaired, the District will typically require the permit applicant to provide calculations of pre- and post- development loading of the listed nutrient(s). The applicant must then also calculate the removal efficiency of its proposed stormwater treatment system to show the project will not contribute to the impairment of the receiving water. Pioneer calculated pre- and post-development phosphorus loading of Spruce Creek and determined that the phosphorus removal capabilities of the proposed stormwater management system would be sufficient to ensure that construction and operation of the road would not contribute to the nutrient impairment in Spruce Creek. Roads do not generate fecal coliform bacteria. Therefore, the proposed road would not contribute to the fecal coliform bacteria impairment in Spruce Creek. Petitioners contend the proposed road would adversely affect Spruce Creek by altering levels of chloride, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The ERP rules do not require specific analyses of these constituents. Petitioners did not present persuasive evidence that the construction or operation of the road would cause measurable changes in the concentrations of these constituents in Spruce Creek. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioners’ contention that the stormwater management system will not adequately protect water quality is an attempt to rebut the presumption that compliance with the District’s design standards provides reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will be met. Petitioners' evidence fell short of rebutting the presumption. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Petitioners contend that the proposed road is integrally related with the construction of a new I-95 interchange at Pioneer Trail, and the impacts to wetlands caused by the State or Federal Government’s construction of the interchange should have been taken into account as secondary impacts of Pioneer’s road project. There is no current funding agreement in place for the construction of the interchange. The interchange is still in the early stages of review. Volusia County believes that even without an interchange, the extension of Williamson Boulevard to Pioneer Trail is a justified transportation project. Petitioners contend that the proposed alignment of the road, turning back to the southwest away from I-95 before connecting to Pioneer Trail, is proof that the road was designed to accommodate the interchange. However, the alignment at the south end was designed to avoid the raised section of Pioneer Trail which passes over I-95, as well as existing electrical power lines and a utility station. This proposed alignment also avoids impacts to wetlands directly south of Pioneer Trail in the future extension of Williamson Boulevard by the County. CDD Conditions Petitioners contend that “[a] foundational issue that must be answered in order to address the ultimate issue is whether [Pioneer] has met the conditions for its establishment as a Community Development District.” The condition that the Petitioners believe Pioneer has violated comes from the following statement contained in the Recommended Order presented to FLWAC in the proceeding related to Pioneer’s application to establish the CDD: Based on the record evidence, as supplemented and corrected, the Petition appears to meet all statutory requirements, and there appears to be no compelling reason not to grant the Petition, as supplemented and corrected, and establish the proposed Pioneer Community Development District by rule, unless establishment would be at odds with State plans to purchase the 450 acres east of I-95. In re: Petition for Rule Creation – Pioneer Community Development District, Case No. 05-1852 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 21, 2005; FLWAC July 5, 2006). First, this recommendation was not adopted by FLWAC as part of the rule establishing the Pioneer CDD. Second, the parcel of land that was the subject of the recommendation is located east of I-95. Petitioners did not show how Pioneer’s proposed road would impair the State’s ability to acquire that parcel. Petitioners did not call any knowledgeable State employee as a witness to confirm Petitioners’ claim that the proposed road would impede the State’s acquisition efforts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of the ERP to Pioneer, with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report dated November 3, 2014. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Thomas Byrd, Esquire The Byrd Law Group 3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32817 (eServed) Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed) Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A. 245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 150 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4931 (eServed) Hans G. Tanzler, III, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed)
Conclusions On March 10, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File in the above captioned case.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - CALDWELL BUILDING, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS 2 Final Order No. DEO11-0006 FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Economic Opportunity, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this fopllriay of October 2011. : Miriam Snipes, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail: Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Max Lohman, Esquire Corbett and White, P.A; 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, Florida 33462 Brian Joslyn, Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose, Casey, Cikin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O*Connell Northbridge Center, 19th Floor 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4626 By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Final Order No. DEO11-0006
The Issue Whether petitioner was substantially effected by DOT's filing of a maintenance map or maps in Gulf County? Whether she filed a timely petition for hearing? What action DOT should take in the circumstances?
Findings Of Fact The coast road through Gulf County now known as U.S. Highway 98 or State Road 30-A, was once called State Road 10. There is no record that the authorities obtained legal title to the right of way before building the road. In 1934 or 1935, Clint Thursby, a state road department maintenance foreman, Henry Alex Levins, assistant foreman or "little pusher," Wally Collinsworth, J. Dewey Davis, Lewis C. Gay, John Lester McQuaig, James Moore, Warren Northbrook, Earl Pulsar and Edmond Burnice Young transplanted palm trees from Gautier Hamlet to the Gulf side of old State Road 10. Mr. Levins measured 50 feet gulfward from the center line of the road, including the stretch of the road that traverses Yen's Addition to Beacon Hill, and drove stobs every 14 feet or so along the whole length of the road. For many years, the public has made use of the strip of property between the edge of the highway and the line once formed by the palm trees, some of which still stand. DOT MAPS Among DOT's records is a 1938 "right of way map." The original is in its Tallahassee office and a copy is in its district office in Chipley. A copy has also been in the Gulf County Courthouse for many years, although it was never filed in the official records. Together with certain other DOT maps, it was kept separately in a book there. This "right of way map," Joint Exhibit No. 2, depicts the right of way for old State Road 10 through Yon's Addition to Beacon Hill as 150 feet wide. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. The map is not based on any claim to or proof of ownership, but was drawn to reflect "project alignment." (Testimony of Spangenberg) A DOT maintenance map dated May 4, 1981, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, was filed among the official records of Gulf County, Florida, in May of 1981. DOT maintenance maps are used to inform maintenance crews of the width of the road shoulders they are to maintain. DOT sometimes files these maps in official county records, in order to put adjacent landowners and others on notice of the extent of DOT's claim of right of way, in the absence of record proof of conveyance to DOT. The filing of such a map by DOT is the assertion, not the relinquishment of a claim to real property. Between the time DOT's "right of way map" was drawn and the date of the "maintenance map," the area waterward of U.S. Highway 98 in Yon's Addition to Beacon Hill has twice been platted (although only the second plat became a part of the official records of Gulf County), and questions as to ownership of land in the area have been repeatedly litigated in the courts. PETITIONER'S INTEREST Sally Malone lives in a house 190 feet from U.S. Highway 98. She does not own any real property in Gulf County "in [her] own name," but her name appears along with her husband's on an unrecorded deed.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation dismiss the petition filed in this matter. Sally Malone v. Department of Transportation and Cecil G. Costin, Case No. 81-1621. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer 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 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Sally Malone Post Office Box 57 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil G. Costin, Jr. 413 Williams Avenue Port St. Joe, Florida 33456
