The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to establish the Double Branch Community Development 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 establish a community development district proposed to consist of approximately 1,203 acres located within the boundaries of unincorporated Clay County. The suggested name for the proposed District is the Double Branch Community Development District. The Petition notes that the proposed District covers approximately 1,203 acres. Hinson testified that the approximate acreage of the proposed District remains 1,203 acres; however, the metes and bounds description contained in the Petition has been revised since the time of the filing of the Petition. The revised metes and bounds description was, without objection, admitted into evidence. There are no out-parcels within the area to be included in the proposed District. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District was included in the Petition. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment 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 A was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. Hinson testified that he had reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its findings. Hinson also generally described the exhibits to the Petition. Hinson testified that the Petition and its exhibits, as modified by the revised metes and bounds description admitted into evidence as Exhibit B, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Miller testified that he had assisted in the preparation of portions of the Petition and its exhibits. Miller also generally described several exhibits to the Petition which he or his office had prepared. Miller testified that the exhibits to the Petition, prepared by England, Thims & Miller, Inc., and admitted into evidence, were true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Walters testified that he had prepared Exhibit 11 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC). Walters also testified that Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs submitted as Exhibit 11 to Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Hinson also testified that the consent by the owner of the lands to be included within the proposed District is still in full force and effect. The Petition included written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the real property located within the lands to be included in the proposed District. There have been no sales of these lands thus far. Based upon the foregoing, the Petition and its exhibits are true and correct. Whether the establishment of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Walters reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Walters also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the Clay County Comprehensive Plan. From a planning and economic perspective, four (4) subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District will have the fiscal ability to provide services and facilities to the population in the designated growth area and help provide infrastructure in an area which can accommodate development within Clay County in a fiscally responsible manner. Subject 18, Public Facilities, provides that the State shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the District will plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities needed for the development of lands within the District at no capital cost to Clay County. Subject 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will finance and deliver those public services and facilities as needed by the District's residents and property owners. The proposed District will be established under uniform general law standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. Creating a District does not burden the general taxpayer with the costs for the services or facilities inside the proposed District. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the state or its citizens. Subject 26, Plan Implementation, provides that systematic planning capabilities be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on improving intergovernmental coordination. The proposed District is consistent with this element of the State Comprehensive Plan because the proposed District, by and through a separate and distinct Board of Supervisors, will systematically plan for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the public improvements and the community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Additionally, the District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all District property owners and residents can be involved in planning for improvements. Finally, Section 189.415(2), Florida Statutes, requires the District to file and update public facilities reports with the county or city, which they may rely upon in any revisions to the local 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 Clay County Comprehensive Plan contains thirteen (13) elements which are supported by numerous goals and objectives. Walters testified that portions of three (3) of these elements are relevant when determining whether or not the proposed District is inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan. There are Goals and Objectives within the Future Land Use Element which are targeted to effectively manage growth in areas designated to accommodate future development and provide services in a cost-efficient manner. The proposed District is within the County's Planned Urban Service Area, and is part of a Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, development order vested in the County Land Use Plan. The proposed District is a recognized vehicle to provide the necessary services and facilities to the lands within the boundaries of the proposed District. The goal of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is to establish processes among various governmental, public and private entities to coordinate development activities, preservation of the quality of life, and the efficient use of available resources. The proposed District will assist in the coordination process by providing and maintaining community infrastructure in a way that is not inconsistent with the plans and activities of related public and private agencies. The Capital Improvements Element is intended to provide necessary infrastructure in a timely and orderly manner. The proposed District will expand the areas that enjoy infrastructure in a manner consistent with the Clay County Comprehensive Plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the Local Comprehensive Plan, and will in fact further the goals provided. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) reviewed the Petition for compliance with its various programs and responsibilities. DCA also discussed the contents of the Petition with the Clay County Planning Department and the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council. After conducting its own review and conferring with local governmental entities, DCA concluded that it had no objection to the establishment of the Double Branch Community Development District. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Miller and Walters. The lands that comprise the proposed District will consist of approximately 1,203 acres, located within the borders of unincorporated Clay County. All of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in the Villages of Argyle Forest Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function requires a management capability, funding source, and an understanding of the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and development of the community. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,203 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. The proposed facilities and services require adequate planning, design, financing, construction, and maintenance to provide the community with appropriate infrastructure. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a functionally inter-related community. The compact configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure in a long- term, cost-efficient manner. The Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the District as a single master-planned community. All of these lands are governed by the Villages of Argyle Forest Development of Regional Impact Development Order issued by Clay County. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the proposed district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the proposed district. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or provision of certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the Petition. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the District is expected to be financed through the issuance of tax exempt bonds and the debt retired by "non-ad valorem" or "special" assessments on benefited property within the proposed District. Expenses for operations and maintenance are expected to be paid through maintenance assessments. Use of such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to the use of the District were identified. First, the County might provide facilities and services from its general fund. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, with maintenance delegated to a property owners' association (POA) or a home owners' association (HOA). The District is preferable to the available alternatives at focusing attention on when, where, and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served. The District will construct certain infrastructure and community facilities which will be needed by the property owners and residents of the project. Expenses for the operations and maintenance are expected to be paid through maintenance assessments to ensure that the property or person receiving the benefit of the district services is the same property or person to pay for those services. Only a community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations and maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a community development district allows district residents to completely control the district. The other alternatives do not have these characteristics. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities to the land included in the proposed District because it is a long-term, stable, perpetual entity capable of funding, constructing, and in some cases, maintaining the facilities over their expected life. From planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Whether the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the proposed boundaries will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to be included within the District. Therefore, the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. As cited previously, from planning, economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The community to be included in the District has need for basic infrastructure systems to be provided. From planning, 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 Establish the Double Branch Community Development District meets all of the requirements 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 establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, the County and its citizens, the City and its citizens, the Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which are difficult to quantify, but nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the County will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the proposed District except for those it chooses to accept. Consumers will pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. Location in the District by new residents is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the CDD will include the option of having a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires 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 Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, in that Clay County was paid the requisite filing fees. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Clay County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in The County Line section of The Florida Times-Union, a newspaper of general circulation in Clay County for four consecutive weeks, on February 13, 2002, February 20, 2002, February 27, 2002, and March 6, 2002. Clay County Support for Establishment Pursuant to the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition and the $15,000 filing fee with Clay County prior to filing the Petition with the Commission. As permitted by Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the Clay County Commission held a public hearing on February 26, 2002, to consider the establishment of the Double Branch Community Development District. At the conclusion of its public hearing on February 26, 2002, the Clay County Commission adopted Resolution No. 01/02-42, expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule establishing the Double Branch Community Development District. The Clay County Resolution specifically found that all six (6) of the statutory factors for evaluating the establishment of community development districts found in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, had been met by the Petition in this matter.
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, establish the Double Branch Community Development District as requested by the Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report as Exhibit 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 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) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2002. Exhibit 1 Petitioner's Witnesses at Public Hearing Donald P. Hinson OakLeaf Plantation, L.L.C 3020 Hartley Road, Suite 100 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Douglas C. Miller, P.E. England Thims & Miller, Inc. 14775 St. Augustine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32258 Gary R. Walters Gary Walters and Associates 12 Crooked Tree Trail Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Exhibit 2 List of Petitioner's Exhibits Letter Description Composite Exhibit (Petition with twelve (12) exhibits) B-1 Pre-filed Testimony of Donald P. Hinson (11 pages) Revised legal description for lands to be included within the boundaries of the proposed District Commission Notice of Receipt of Petition Letter to Division of Administrative Hearings from Commission Letter to Department of Community Affairs from Commission Correspondence from Department of Community Affairs to the Commission Clay County Resolution 01/02-42 Development Order (No. 99-45) for Villages of Argyle Forest Development of Regional Impact Florida Times-Union Proof of Publication of Notice of Local Public Hearing Pre-filed Testimony of Douglas C. Miller, P.E. (8 pages) Pre-filed Testimony of Gary R. Walters (21 pages) Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (23 pages) Exhibit 3 Text of Proposed Rule CHAPTER 42___-1 DOUBLE BRANCH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42___-1.001 Establishment. 42___-1.002 Boundary. 42___-1.003 Supervisors. 42____-1.001 Creation. The Double Branch Community Development District is hereby established. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.005 FS. History-New 42____-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the District are as follows: A parcel of land lying in the being part of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, Township 4 South, Range 25 East, Clay County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 4, also being the Northeast corner of said Section 5; thence, on the West line of said Section 4, South 00 degrees 10 minutes 14 seconds East, 5.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence, parallel with and 5.0 feet South from the North line of said Section 4, also being the line dividing Clay County and Duval County, and the North line of said Township 4 South, North 89 degrees 50 minutes 04 seconds East, 2039.14 feet to the West line of Deerfield Pointe, as recorded in Plat Book 22, Pages 62 through 65, of the public records of said Clay County; thence, on said West line, South 00 degrees 20 minutes 13 seconds West, 1354.17 feet to the South line of said Deerfield Pointe; thence, on said South line, North 89 degrees 51 minutes 50 seconds East, 675.62 feet to the West line of Spencer’s Crossing Unit 1, as recorded in Plat Book 18, Pages 18 through 22, of said public records; thence, on said West line, the West line of Spencer’s Crossing Unit 5, as recorded in Plat Book 27, Pages 19 through 22, the West line of Sweetbriar, as recorded in Plat Book 32, Pages 61 through 64, the West line of lands recorded in Official Records Book 1603, Page 1212, and the West line of a 20 foot right-of-way recorded in Official Records Book 1603, Page 1220, all being recorded in the public records of said county, said line also being the East line of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter and the Southwest quarter of said Section 4, South 00 degrees 31 minutes 32 seconds West, 4050.46 feet to the South line of said Section 4; thence, on said South line, North 89 degrees 51 minutes 57 seconds West, 662.62 feet to the West line of lands described in Official Records Book 1603, page 1212, of said public records, also being the East line of the West half of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on last said line, South 00 degrees 11 minutes 52 seconds East, 1388.96 feet to the South line of said Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on said South line, South 89 degrees 09 minutes 05 seconds West, 662.36 feet to the East line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on said East line, South 00 degrees 21 minutes 15 seconds East, 699.95 feet to the South line of the North half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 9; thence, on said South line, South 88 degrees 36 minutes 38 seconds West, 1327.66 feet to the West line of said Section 9, also being the East line of said Section 8; thence, on the South line of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 8, North 88 degrees 34 minutes 52 seconds West, 1335.51 feet to the East line of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 8; thence, on said East line, South 00 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds East, 700.93 feet to the South line of said Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 8; thence, on said South line, North 88 degrees 09 minutes 42 seconds West, 1156 feet, more or less, to the centerline of the North prong of Double Branch; thence, in a Northwesterly direction, by and along said centerline and following the meanderings thereof, 12,053 feet, more or less, to a point bearing South 89 degrees 49 minutes 27 seconds West from the point of beginning; thence, parallel with and 5.0 feet South from the North line of said Section 5, North 89 degrees 49 minutes 27 seconds East, 5043 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. said parcel containing 1203 acres, more or less. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005 FS. History-New 42____-1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designed as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Donald P. Hinson, James T. O’Riley, Donald E. Brown, Charles W. Arnold, III, and Gary F. Hannon. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History - New COPIES FURNISHED: Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Jennifer A. Tschetter, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Charles Canady, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs 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
The Issue The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to establish the District meets the criteria set forth in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. For the Petitioner:
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. The area encompassed by the proposed District is 30,637+- acres located within unincorporated areas of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida (Exhibit 7). The external boundaries of the District are coterminous with the external boundaries of General Development Corporation's Port LaBelle development. Within these boundaries but excluded from the District are several out parcels that were never part of the original Villages of Port LaBelle development, as well as four Port LaBelle plat units where there are currently numerous property owners. The property within the District to be excluded from the community development district is described in Exhibit 10. General Development Corporation, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, is the major landowner within the proposed District (Exhibits 8 and 9A). Four other property owners owning seven parcels within the proposed District have joined in the Petition (Exhibit 9B). Installment lot contract purchasers within the areas to be included within the District who had not received a Property Offering Statement from GDC indicating the possibility of the formation of a special taxing district were separately notified by mail of the time and place of hearing and provided with information on the functions of the proposed District. Out of a total of 10,270 letters sent, only six lot purchasers made further inquiries, and those inquiries were not related to the formation of the District, but were related to property values. (Testimony of Lawrence W. Mobley. Affidavit of Mark Billson, Exhibits 19A and B.) The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functionally interrelated community. This finding is based in part on the fact that the area to be included within the proposed District contains approximately 30,637+- acres. Property within the proposed District includes "vested" areas and areas which have been and continue to be subject to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, review and is planned to be developed as a functional, interrelated community with a variety of land uses, including commercial, institutional, residential, and recreational. The District is ultimately projected to include 49,646 dwelling units. The area encompassed by the proposed District was subject to a Master Application for Development Approval. The Master Land Use Plan depicting uses is shown in Exhibit 13A. Master Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties in 1974, subject to further incremental review as detailed technical data became available (Exhibits 13A, B, C and D). In 1980, Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties for Increment II (Exhibits 14A and B). Portions of the remaining property will be subject to further incremental review (Exhibit 15A). The area subject to further review contains approximately 13,690+- acres and includes residential villages and a town center as well as a variety of other land uses. The projected population for this area is 48,700 (Exhibit 15B). The proposed designation of the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses within the District is shown in Exhibit 15A. All mandatory elements of the local government comprehensive plans for both Glades and Hendry Counties have been adopted in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Exhibits 17A, 17A1, 17B and 17B1) The proposed creation of the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan. The proposed District is not inconsistent with the applicable elements of the Glades and Hendry Counties Comprehensive Plans, as evidenced by the fact that the Planning Director for each county has indicated that the establishment of the District is not incompatible with applicable elements of the local government comprehensive plans (Petitioner's Exhibits 18A and 18B). The five persons proposed to be the initial members of the board of supervisors who shall serve in that office until replaced by elected members as provided by Section 190.006, Florida Statutes, are: C. C. Crump Senior Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, --Florida -33131 (305) 350-1525 Arthur L. Harper, Jr. Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1533 James E. Clark Assistant Vice President 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1531 Wayne L. Allen Vice President and General Counsel General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1261 Lawrence W. Mobley Assistant Vice President General Development Corporation Highway 80 East Birchwood Boulevard LaBelle, Florida 33595 (813) 675-1712 The proposed name of the District is the Port LaBelle Community Development District. A map of the proposed District showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls have been provided in Exhibits 11A and B. No water distribution and collection systems are proposed to be constructed, operated or maintained by the District. Facilities are to be constructed by the District over a period of 40 years. The timetable for construction indicates that all facilities should be completed by the year 2020 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). The total costs associated with the capital facilities to be constructed are estimated in good faith to be $5,433,000.00 (Exhibit 22). Glades County Resolution 80-9 (Exhibit 14A) and Hendry County Resolution 80-37 (Exhibit 14B) requested that the applicant, GDC, work together with each county to investigate the feasibility of establishing certain special taxing districts. As a result of these conditions, GDC filed a petition for establishing a community development district. The applicable local governments, the Board of County Commissioners of Glades and Hendry Counties have evidenced their support of Petitioner's request to have a District established by rule by passing Resolution 81-62, dated September 8, 1981, by Hendry County, and Resolution 81-17, dated September 14, 1981, by Glades County (Exhibits 20A and B, respectively). The District is the best available alternative for providing and delivering community services and facilities to the area to be serviced by the District. This finding is supported by the Resolutions of the Board of County Commissioners of Glades County and Hendry County acknowledging that neither county is presently in a position to provide any of the essential services required by a community of this size. The Community Development District will be able to provide reliable long-term maintenance of the services and facilities not otherwise provided by the counties or other appropriate units of local government (Exhibits 20A and B). The Barron Water Control District, a district established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, within the area of the proposed District, has also evidenced its support of Petitioner's request to establish a Community Development District by rule (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). The Community Development District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature, location, and size of the proposed Port LaBelle Community Development District would make it amenable to separate district government. Members of the public testifying at hearing had no complaints that related to the specifics of the petition filed in this cause. Instead, their concerns related to the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, in the first instance, and the witnesses' desires that the Act be repealed as soon as possible. These concerns are, of course, outside the scope of issues properly involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereby submitted, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of General Development Corporation, and adopt a rule which will establish the Port LaBelle Community Development District. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS 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 9th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy H. Roen, Esquire General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Ms. Miriam Schreiner Post Office Box 1288 LaBelle, Florida Mayor Joan Jefferson City of Stuart Stuart, Florida 33495 Robert Miller, Chairman Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2395 Stuart, Florida 33495 Honorable Bob Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John T. Herndon Director of the Office of Planning and Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 28-20.110, 28-20.120, and 28-18.210 are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc. ("FKCC"), is a non-profit Florida corporation whose address is 10800 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050. The primary purpose of FKCC is to "protect the quality of life of the citizens of the Florida Keys." The primary emphasis of the organization involves issues related to the carrying capacity, the limits of the infrastructure, and the environmental qualities of the Florida Keys. Consistent with its purpose, FKCC opposes regulations which it believes will diminish the quality of the natural habitat in Monroe County and the City of Marathon and hinder safe and efficient emergency evacuation. FKCC has been involved in previous Monroe County litigation, including participating as a party to at least two formal administrative challenges to the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Monroe County Comprehensive Plan). Petitioner, Last Stand, Inc., is a non-profit Florida corporation whose address is Post Office Box 146, Key West, Florida 33041-0146. The primary purpose of Last Stand is to preserve and protect the quality of life in the City of Key West, the Florida Keys, and their environs, with particular emphasis on the natural environment. To that end, Last Stand opposes regulations that it believes diminishes the quality of the natural habitat in the Florida Keys and regulations that hinder safe and efficient emergency evacuation in the Florida Keys. Last Stand is an organizational member of FKCC. Moreover, many individual members of Last Stand are also members of FKCC. A substantial number of members of both FKCC and Last Stand live, work, and/or engage in various recreational activities in the City of Marathon or in nearby areas. For example, a substantial number of members of both of those organizations regularly use and enjoy the nearshore waters of Monroe County for recreational water activities, such as boating, diving, snorkeling, and/or swimming.3 A substantial number of members of both organizations also regularly use and enjoy terrestrial habitats in Monroe County, including the City of Marathon, for recreational activities such as hiking and bird-watching. A substantial number of the members of both FKCC and Last Stand may be adversely affected or impacted by the issues which are in dispute in this proceeding. Moreover, the issues in this proceeding are germane to the purposes of both FKCC and Last Stand. Also, both FKCC and Last Stand regularly represent their members' interests in formal administrative hearings and local commission meetings relative to environmental and growth management issues. Respondent, Administration Commission, consists of the Governor and Cabinet and is empowered to adopt, by rule, any enactment, amendment, or rescission of a land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan in the Florida Keys area. Respondent, Monroe County, is a local county government within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern ("ACSC"). Respondent, City of Marathon, is a municipality within the Florida Keys ACSC. Intervenor, the DCA, is the state land planning agency responsible for the general supervision of the administration and enforcement of the ACSC program. As the state planning agency, the DCA is authorized to propose changes to local comprehensive plans and land development regulations within an ACSC for adoption by the Administration Commission. Economic Base of Florida Keys Tourism is the economic base of the Florida Keys. Moreover, the basis for the Florida Keys' tourism is a healthy natural environment that supports fishing, diving, water sports, boating, bird-watching habitat, visiting endangered species habitat, and other related activities. History of the Florida Keys ACSC The Florida Keys area is designated as an ACSC and consists of, unincorporated, Monroe County, the City of Layton, the City of Key Colony Beach, the Village of Islamorada, and the City of Marathon. See § 380.0552(3), Fla. Stat. (2004).4 The City of Key West has been separately designated as an ACSC pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 28-36. The Florida Keys were originally designated by the Administration Commission in 1975 and re-designated by the Legislature in 1986. The legislative intent section and the Principles for Guiding Development, as set forth in Subsections 380.0552(2) and (7), Florida Statutes, together require an effective land use management system that protects the natural environment and character of the Florida Keys, maintains acceptable water quality conditions, ensures adequate public facility capacity and services, provides adequate affordable housing, supports a sound economic base, protects constitutional property rights, and requires adequate emergency and post- disaster planning to ensure public safety. During the past 20 years, the growth management process has been implemented in essentially two phases. The first phase involved developing, adopting, and implementing the first comprehensive plans and regulations under the new designation. These plans and regulations were adopted by the county and cities in the mid-1980s. The 1986 plan established a growth management system that substantially increased protection of natural resources and began to reduce the over-allocation of density in the Florida Keys. It also achieved the long-term protection of North Key Largo. However, several major problems were not adequately addressed by the 1986 plan, including maintaining evacuation capability, water quality protection, sewage treatment, stormwater treatment, and community character. In addition, although the plan required a focal point plan for Big Pine Key, this planning process did not result in a viable plan that adequately protected the Florida Keys deer. The required open space ratios proved difficult to maintain within habitats once development occurred, resulting in fragmentation of habitat. The second phase involved the planning process undertaken in the early 1990s to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act and to update the plan based on lessons learned in implementing the 1986 plan. In developing, reviewing, and litigating the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the following critical issues emerged involving how to: maintain acceptable hurricane evacuation capability; retrofit existing development and provide new development with adequate wastewater and storm water facilities, including, where appropriate, upgrading of on-site systems; determine the carrying capacity of the Keys to withstand the impacts of additional land development and modify state and local plans, regulations and programs so that the carrying capacity is not exceeded; provide an adequate supply of affordable housing while maintaining acceptable hurricane evacuation and protecting the environment. In 1996, the Administration Commission adopted a rule which included a cap of 255 residential units per year for Monroe County. The rule also adopted a five-year Work Program into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan with the local governments to construct sewage treatment facilities, replace cesspits, and purchase land to protect natural habitat. Monroe County, the City of Marathon, and the DCA were required to submit reports to the Administration Commission each year "documenting the degree to which the Work Program objectives for that year [had] been achieved." The rule contemplated that if the local governments did not make "substantial progress" towards accomplishing the tasks of the Work Program, the unit cap for new residential permits would be reduced by at least 20 percent for the following year. The Administration Commission found a lack of "substantial progress" in 1999 and adopted a rule which reduced the annual allocation of residential permits by 20 percent and extended the five-year Work Program to seven years. The Administration Commission found "substantial progress" had been accomplished in 2001 and began rulemaking to restore the permit allocation. However, the rule was challenged, and since the Administration Commission found a lack of "substantial progress" in 2002, the Commission adopted a revised rule which did not restore permits. The Carrying Capacity Study The 1996 Administration Commission rule amended the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to require the completion of a carrying capacity analysis. The carrying capacity analysis shall be designed to determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem, and the various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land development activities. The analysis shall be based upon the findings adopted by the Administration Commission on December 12, 1995, or more recent data that may become available in the course of the study, and shall be based upon the benchmarks of, and all adverse impacts to, the Keys land and water natural systems, in addition to the impact of nutrients on marine resources. The carrying capacity analysis shall consider aesthetic, socioeconomic (including sustainable tourism), quality of life and community character issues, including the concentration of population, the amount of open space, diversity of habitats, and species richness. The analysis shall reflect the interconnected nature of the Florida Keys' natural systems, but may consider and analyze the carrying capacity of specific islands or groups of islands and specific ecosystems or habitats, including distinct parts of the Keys' marine system. (Ref. 1991 Stip. Settlement Agreement). Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, GFC, SFWMD, NMS, SFRPC, EPA, USFWS, Army COE, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental organizations and development interests. The Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study ("FKCCS") was completed over a period of six years. Six million dollars was allocated by the DCA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers to produce the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, the Stormwater Management Plan, and the FKCCS. The contractor, URS Corporation, completed the FKCCS and the Carrying Capacity/Impact Assessment Model ("CCIAM"), a separate component to be used in forecasting land use scenarios. A panel of external experts was used to peer review the scope of work. In September 2002, the study was completed. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences ("Council") reviewed the CCIAM and FKCCS and, as a result of its review, adjustments were made to the CCIAM. The Council's review concluded that overall, due to data constraints and other issues in certain portions of the CCIAM, the model proved insufficient to develop a comprehensive carrying capacity framework that would allow for undisputable determinations of whether future development scenarios fall within the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys. The marine module, the most data- deficient, was subsequently removed from the CCIAM. The FKCCS recommended four main guidelines for future development in the Florida Keys: Prevent encroachment into native habitat. A wealth of evidence shows that terrestrial habitats and species have been severely affected by development and further impacts would only exacerbate an already untenable condition. Continue and intensify existing programs. Many initiatives to improve environmental conditions and quality of life exist in the Florida Keys. They include land acquisition programs, the wastewater and stormwater master plans, ongoing research and management activities in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and restoration efforts throughout the Florida Keys. If further development is to occur, focus on redevelopment and infill. Opportunities for additional growth with small, potentially acceptable, additional environmental impacts may occur in areas ripe for redevelopment or already disturbed. Increase efforts to manage the resources. Habitat management efforts in the Keys could increase to effectively preserve and improve the ecological values of remaining terrestrial ecosystems. Partnership Agreement While preparing the Assessment Report for 2003, the DCA Secretary concluded that the existing policy direction, consisting of imposition of the Work Program by the Administration Commission and reduction of residential permits, due to lack of substantial progress, was not sufficient to solve the problems facing the Florida Keys. The Assessment Report described difficulties and delays in implementing the Work Program. Most of the sewage treatment facilities contemplated by the Work Program were not constructed and valuable upland habitat continued to be developed. On December 16, 2003, the Administration Commission concluded that Monroe County had not made substantial progress and directed the DCA "to determine changes that would be necessary to the comprehensive plan to fully implement the requirements of the Work Program[,] as well as habitat protection provisions." The Administration Commission also accepted the staff recommendation that it "determine substantial progress has been made for the City of Marathon, and that some permits will be provided back to the City of Marathon," the number to be determined at the Administration Commission's January 27, 2004, meeting. The DCA approached the Florida Keys local governments and community-based organizations and proposed a Partnership Agreement to "begin implementation of the Work Program associated with the Florida Keys Protection Act." The DCA Secretary addressed the governing boards of the Florida Keys' local governments concerning the proposed Partnership Agreement. Monroe County, the City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada adopted resolutions supporting the partnership proposal. By letter dated February 25, 2004, the DCA Secretary requested that the Governor, as a member of the Administration Commission, authorize the Administration Commission staff to initiate rulemaking to amend the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon. According to the letter, this action was requested based upon a series of significant commitments made by each of these local governments which addressed issues related to habitat protection, affordable housing, wastewater and stormwater management projects, land acquisition, and nutrient credits. The letter also noted the following: A complete follow-through on these commitments would mean over $410 million would be spent in the coming years to address these issues in the Florida Keys. Habitat protection will be increased, environmentally-sensitive hammock and pinelands would be purchased, new wastewater and stormwater management projects would be initiated, and 230 units of affordable housing would be made available for residents of the Florida Keys. * * * In essence, we have developed proposals that allow additional units primarily for affordable housing in the Florida Keys, but also would ensure the most pressing issues will be jointly addressed by local and state government. Consistent with the February 25, 2004, letter, the Partnership Agreement consists of commitments by the Florida Keys' local governments and several state agencies to address habitat protection, wastewater and stormwater treatment, affordable housing, and hurricane evacuation. At its March 9, 2004, meeting, the Administration Commission accepted the DCA's recommendation to initiate rulemaking to implement the Partnership Agreement. The Proposed Rules 29. Proposed Rules 28-18.210, 28-20.110, and 28-20.120 were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on July 16, 2004.5 According to the published notice, the purpose of Proposed Rule 28-18.210 is to amend Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan to address building permit allocations by increasing the annual residential permitting cap and specifying allocations authorized for market rate and affordable housing, restoring certain allocations authorized for market rate and affordable housing, authorizing certain unused rate of growth ordinance allocations to roll forward, and deleting the requirement for nutrient credits upon a date certain. The notice also provides that the Proposed Rule amends the Work Program set forth in Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan to establish Year Eight and Year Nine to address tasks not yet completed in the original Work Program. The published notice states that the purpose of Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-20.120 is to amend Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to address building permit allocations by increasing the annual residential permitting cap and specifying allocations authorized for market rate and affordable housing, restoring certain allocations previously reduced to be targeted for affordable housing, authorizing certain unused rate of growth ordinance allocations to roll forward, and deleting the requirement for nutrient reduction credits upon a date certain. The notice also provides that the proposed rules amend the Work Program in Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to establish Work Program provisions for Year Eight, Year Nine, and Year Ten to address tasks not yet completed in the original Work Program. Finally, the notice states that the Proposed Rule amendments address the adoption of necessary land development regulations. The published notice cites Subsection 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes, as the specific authority for the Administration Commission's promulgating the Proposed Rules and Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, as the law implemented. Petitioners challenge portions of Proposed Rule 28-18.210, which will amend the Marathon Comprehensive Plan and portions of Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-20.120,6 which will amend the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Regulations on the basis that they constituted invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners contend that the proposed rules should comply with Section 380.0552 and Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, should be analyzed for such compliance in this proceeding. Notwithstanding Petitioners contention to the contrary, for the reason stated in paragraph 199 below, Proposed Rules 28-18.210, 28-20.110, and 28-20.120 will be analyzed based on their consistency with Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, because that is the provision which the proposed rules explicitly purport to implement. The published notice does not specify the subsection of Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, that the proposed rules implement. However, the parties agree that the proposed rules must be consistent with Subsection 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, which set forth the Principles for Guiding Development. Restoration/Increase of ROGO Allocations The Comprehensive Plans for Monroe County and the City of Marathon include a Permit Allocation System, under which Monroe County was originally allocated 255 permits per year for new residential units. As noted in paragraph 18 above, in 1999, the Administration Commission determined that substantial progress on the Work Program had not been accomplished and adopted a rule reducing the annual allocation of permits by 20 percent. After the incorporation of the Village of Islamorada and Marathon, and a voluntary reduction by the Village of Islamorada, the current annual allocation of residential development permits is 158 for Monroe County, 24 for Marathon, and 14 for the Village of Islamorada. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(1) amends Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by increasing the annual unit cap of 158 to 197, thereby restoring the original level of permits issued for new residential development under the Rate of Growth Ordinance ("ROGO"). The proposed rule requires that "[e]ach year's ROGO allocation of 197 new units shall be split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate allocations not to exceed 126 new units per year." Proposed Rule 28-18.210 amends Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan by increasing the maximum number of permits for new residential units from 24 to 30 per year, thereby, restoring the original level of permits per year for new residential development under ROGO. The proposed rule requires that "[e]ach year's ROGO allocation of 30 units shall consist of 24 market rate and 6 affordable units" and that the affordable housing "remain as affordable housing in perpetuity." In addition to restoring the number of permits for new development to the original levels, Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and Marathon to restore available permit allocations that were unused in previous years and to allow unused ROGO allocations to be allocated in subsequent years. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 adds a new provision to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, providing that "effective July 12, 2004, 140 ROGO allocations, which represent unused reductions for ROGO Years Nine through 12, and 25 units lost in Year Ten due to lack of nutrient credits, are reallocated to the County exclusively for affordable housing purposes." Proposed Rule 28-18.210 adds a provision to the Marathon Comprehensive Plan that "effective July 12, 2004, 65 ROGO allocations, which represent unused ROGO allocations for ROGO Years 9 through 12, are to be reallocated to the City exclusively for affordable housing." Advancing/Borrowing Nutrient Credits The existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon include a nutrient credit system. According to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, nutrient reduction credits are earned when existing treatment systems are upgraded. The amount of nutrient reduction credits earned correlate to the type of treatment system to which an old system is upgraded. Thus, if a treatment system is upgraded to the "best centralized system" or the "advanced wastewater treatment system," Monroe County would earn the most nutrient credits possible. For example, elimination of a cesspit by connection to a centralized advanced wastewater treatment system earns 1.5 nutrient credits, and the elimination of a substandard on-site disposal system by connection to a centralized secondary treatment system earns 0.5 nutrient credits. Under the existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon, development permits for new residential development can only be issued if a nutrient reduction credit has been earned. The requirement that adequate nutrient credits be earned prior to issuance of permits is to mitigate for nutrient impacts of new residential development. However, Proposed Rules 28-18.210 and 28-20.110 provide that Monroe County and the City of Marathon will be permitted to "borrow" nutrient credits from the pool of nutrient credits that are anticipated from the construction and/or completing of sewage treatment facilities. The existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon provide that nutrient reduction credits are earned by the construction of the Little Venice system according to the schedules prescribed in the Comprehensive Plans. The schedules in the Comprehensive Plans provide that "213 of the total credits estimated to be available from the full operation of the system shall be earned when the wastewater permit is issued, the design/build contract for the system has been fully executed and construction of the system has commenced." The Comprehensive Plans also provide that all the remaining available credits shall be earned when the construction of the Little Venice System is complete, the collection system lines have been installed, and the final total of credits available from the operation of the systems has been calculated. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 amend the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and Marathon by allowing 213 of the total credits estimated to be available from the full operation of the Little Venice system to be earned, effective July 13, 2003. The proposed rules also provide that when the Little Venice system is completed, "[t]he total credits available shall be reduced by the 213 [credits] advanced in the year 2003." Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by allocating 41 nutrient credits for market rate units and 193 nutrient credits for affordable housing units to Monroe County. The Proposed Rule 28-20.110 provides that the 41 nutrient credits will be subtracted from the nutrient credits subsequently earned from hookups to the Key West Resort Utilities Wastewater Facility ("Key West Resort Utilities"). The 193 nutrient credits will be subtracted from hookups to the Key West Resort Utilities, Bay Point, and Key Largo Wastewater Facilities. Repeal of Nutrient Reduction Provision As described in paragraph 42 above, the existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon have mandatory nutrient provisions that require nutrient credits to be earned prior to issuance of a permit for new residential units. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 amend the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon by repealing the mandatory nutrient credit provisions. Pursuant to the proposed rules, "effective July 13, 2005, no nutrient credits shall be required if the local government has made satisfactory progress as determined by the Administration Commission in meeting the deadlines established by the Work Program as adopted by rule after March 15, 2004." Challenges to Increase/Restoration of Permits, Advancing Nutrient Credits, and Repeal of Nutrient Reduction Provision Petitioners contend that the increase in new residential permits is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it will increase development even though the identified thresholds for growth in the Florida Keys--water quality, terrestrial habitat, and evacuation times-- have been exceeded and will "worsen" the water quality. Petitioners challenge the provision which allows the borrowing or awarding of nutrient credits before wastewater projects are completed as arbitrary and capricious, because it will allow a net increase in the nutrient impacts into the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys and will "worsen" the water quality. Proposed Rules 28-20.110(1) and 28-18.210 increase the number of permits for new residential units from the preceding years. However, the number of permits to be issued under the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has not increased. Rather, the permits will be issued in a shorter time frame and without being subject to the previous conditions. Even though increased development could result in an increase in the nutrient impacts into the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys, the adverse effect of such nutrient loading is offset by the adequate treatment of wastewater and stormwater runoff. To address the problem of nutrient loading, the Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 extend the years of the Work Programs and include in those programs tasks, such as construction and completion of wastewater facilities, as well as financing for those projects. Based on the commitments of Monroe County and the City of Marathon in the Partnership Agreement, there is a reasonable expectation that the projects included in the Work Program of the Proposed Rules will be completed. When completed, the wastewater treatment facilities will provide nutrient credits. In anticipation of the completion of the wastewater treatment facilities, Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 restore the annual permits for new residential units to their original levels and allow previous unused ROGO allocations to be allocated. The Proposed Rules provide that the nutrient credits for these allocations will be borrowed from the pool of nutrient credits that are anticipated from the planned construction and completion of wastewater facilities. Petitioners' contention that the repeal of the mandatory nutrient reduction credit provision is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because such repeal allows the water quality to worsen, is inconsistent with the "no net nutrient" provision of the Comprehensive Plans and is unjustified given that the nutrient pollution has increased since the nutrient credit provisions were adopted. Petitioners also contend that the repeal of the nutrient credit provision is arbitrary and capricious because the repeal is effective on a date certain without further action and without regard for whether it is justified. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28.18-210 repeal the mandatory nutrient reduction credit provisions of the Comprehensive Plans, but the condition precedent to the repeal is the Administration Commission's making a determination that Monroe County and the City of Marathon have "made satisfactory progress . . . in meeting deadlines established by the [new] Work Program." This determination must be made prior to the repeal going into effect. Presumably, the tasks in the Work Program for which satisfactory progress must be made are those relevant and reasonably related to and which result in nutrient credits. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the repeal of the mandatory nutrient credit provision does not automatically become effective on the date prescribed in the proposed amendments. Instead, the repeal is contingent on Monroe County's and the City of Marathon's making "satisfactory progress." The term "satisfactory" is not vague as asserted by Petitioners. In the context of Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210, "satisfactory" would be given its common and ordinary meaning, which is "sufficient to meet a demand or requirement."7 Annual Reporting Requirement The existing Comprehensive Plans for Monroe County and the City of Marathon provide that "beginning September 30, 2003, and each year thereafter, [the respective local government] Monroe County and the [DCA] shall report to the Administration Commission documenting the degree to which the Work Program objectives have been achieved." Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210, will modify the annual reporting requirements in the Monroe County and Marathon Comprehensive Plans. The proposed amended provision, which is underlined, and the existing provision are as follows: Beginning September 30, 2003, and each year of the work program thereafter, Monroe County and the Department of Community Affairs shall report to the Administration Commission documenting the degree to which the work program objectives for that year have been achieved. The report for years seven and eight shall be combined and provided to the Administration Commission by September 30, 2005. The Commission shall consider the findings and recommendations provided in those reports and shall determine whether substantial progress has been achieved toward accomplishing the tasks of the work program. Petitioners contend that the proposed rules, which delete the requirement for Monroe County and for the City of Marathon to submit the September 2004 progress report to the Administration Commission, are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners assert that by deleting the requirement for the 2004 annual progress report, the proposed rules fail to establish an annual safeguard that is required to ensure that the environmental conditions and infrastructure limitation that the annual Work Program is designed to resolve, do not worsen. The proposed rules delete the requirement that Monroe County and Marathon submit their respective reports in September 2004 and delay submission of that report by a year. The time spent negotiating the Partnership Agreement and the proposed changes to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plans and the Land Development Regulations left little time for Monroe County and the City of Marathon to implement the new Work Programs. Moreover, the DCA and the Administration Commission would have had too short a time period in which to judge whether Monroe County and Marathon had made substantial progress. By combining the reports for Years Seven and Eight of the Work Program, the Administration Commission can expect a meaningful report on Monroe County's and the City of Marathon's progress in implementing their respective Work Programs. Monroe County Work Program Under Proposed Rules Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends the Work Program Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by adding Years Eight, Nine, and Ten to the existing Work Program. Many of the tasks included therein address and are related to wastewater facilities, habitat protection, affordable housing, and hurricane evacuation and implement the Partnership Agreement. Year Eight of the Work Program requires that Monroe County and other designated agencies perform the specified tasks and provide, in relevant part, the following: Year Eight (July 13, 2004 through July 12, 2005) Review and revise (as necessary) the Conservation and Natural Areas Map. Initiate acquisition strategy for lands identified outside the Conservation and Natural Areas identified as worthy of protection. Begin public hearings for Conservation and Natural Areas boundaries. Conclude public hearings for the adoption of the amended Conservation and Natural Areas Boundaries. Adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involves the clearing of any portion of an upland tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two or more acres in size located within a Conservation and Natural Area. Adopt amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to enact overlay designations, and eliminate or revise the Habitat Evaluation Index, and modify the ROGO/NROGO system to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands. Amend land development regulations to prohibit the designation of Conservation and Natural Areas (Tier 1) as a receiver site for ROGO exempt development from sender sites; and to further limit clearing of upland native habitat that may occur in the Natural Areas (Tier I) and the Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II) upon designation by the County. Develop Land Acquisition and Management Master Plan and address both funding and management strategies. Provide $40 million in financing secured by infrastructure tax for wastewater facilities. Begin construction of wastewater plants or laying of collection lines for Baypoint, Conch Key and Key Largo Trailer Village/Key Largo Park. Ensure the connection for up to 1,350 EDUs [equivalent development units] at Stock Island to Key West Resort Utilities. Complete the Lower Keys and Key Largo feasibility study. Complete projects identified in the Storm Water Management Master Plan. Evaluate and implement strategies to ensure that affordable housing remains affordable in perpetuity for future generations. Establish a partnership with non-profit organizations in order to construct affordable housing using additional state funds. Identify potential acquisition sites for affordable housing proposals and include in the Land Acquisition Master Plan. Provide up to $10 million in bond financing from the Tourist Impact Tax for acquisition of land for workforce housing and affordable housing sites. Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and, thereby, reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes. As discussed below, several of the tasks in Year Eight of the Work Program implement parts of Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Goal 105 reads: Monroe County shall undertake a comprehensive land acquisition program and smart growth initiatives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program in a manner that recognizes the finite capacity for new development in the Florida Keys by providing economic and housing opportunities for residents without compromising the biodiversity of the natural environment and the continued ability of the natural and man-made systems to sustain livable communities in the Florida Keys for future generations. Goal 105, also referred to as the "Smart Growth Goal," provides a framework to implement the FKCCS and a 20-year land acquisition program. The initial phase of implementing Goal 105 calls for the drafting and adoption of "Tier Maps" to be used as guidance for the Monroe County's Land Acquisition Program. Pursuant to Policy 105.2.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the Tier maps will designate and map properties into one of the following three general categories for purposes of Monroe County's Land Acquisition Program and the smart growth initiatives: Natural Area (Tier I); Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II); and Infill Area (Tier III). Tier I property is property where all or a significant portion of the land is characterized as environmentally sensitive by policies of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and applicable habitat conservation plan. Tier I is to be designated as a Natural Area. New development is to be severely restricted in Tier I. Tier II is any geographic property where scattered groups and fragments of environmentally-sensitive lands, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan, may be found and where subdivisions are not predominantly developed. New development is to be discouraged in Tier II, which is to be designated as Transition and Sprawl Area. Tier III is property where a significant portion of land is not characterized as environmentally sensitive, as defined by the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, where existing platted subdivisions are substantially developed, served by complete infrastructure facilities, within close proximity to established commercial areas or where a concentration of non-residential uses exist. New development and re-development are to be highly encouraged in Tier III, which is to be designated as Infill Area. Petitioners contend that Task A, which requires Monroe County to "review and revise [as necessary] the Conservation and Natural Areas ["CNA"] Map, vests unbridled discretion to the County to amend the CNA map without adequate standards or criteria." Further, Petitioners assert that Task A does not identify the purpose for which the CNA map is to be used. Based on this assertion, Petitioners contend that Task A is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes law. Task A will assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan by requiring Monroe County to review and revise the CNA map. In reviewing Task A, it is clear that the county must adhere to the criteria prescribed in Goal 105 of the existing Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. When Task A is read together with Goal 105 and its related policies, it is clear that the purpose of Task A is to provide guidance for the Monroe County Land Acquisition Program. As a part of the review and revision process, the Partnership Agreement, which Task A implements, provides that the Monroe County staff should prepare the CNA map utilizing Florida Marine Source Resources Institute ADID maps, the most recent aerial photographs, site visits as necessary, and obtain input from DCA and the public. Moreover, when Task A is read with Task B, and other relevant parts of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, it is clear that a CNA map is to be used to implement Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, which is related to land acquisition and "smart growth initiatives." Petitioners assert that Task B, which requires Monroe County to "initiate acquisition strategy for lands identified outside the [CNA] boundaries," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it provides no standards or criteria. Task B is consistent with Policy 105.2.1 of Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The Partnership Agreement consistent with Goal 105 provides that Monroe County will identify lands outside the CNA boundaries for acquisition and target for purchase appropriate environmentally-sensitive lands that are contained within upland habitat of two acres or more outside the CNA. Task C requires Monroe County to "begin public hearings for [CNA]." Task D requires Monroe County to conclude the public hearings for adoption of the amended [CNA] boundaries. Petitioners contend that Tasks C and D are arbitrary and capricious and contravene the law implemented, because they do not require that an end result be achieved as a result of these public meetings. When the provisions of Task C and Task D are read together, with Goal 105 and the relevant provisions of the Partnership Agreement, it is clear that the end result sought as a result of the public hearings is to receive public comment regarding the identification of lands to be included in the CNA. Furthermore, this is a reasonable meaning of Tasks C and D in light of the well-known purpose of public hearings. Petitioners challenge Task E, which requires Monroe County to "adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involves the clearing of any portion of an upland tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two or more acres in size located within a [CNA]." The purpose of the moratorium is to prevent impacts to native habitat until Monroe County adopts permanent regulations and amendments. Petitioners contend that Task E of Year Eight of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involve the clearing of any portion of an upland hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two acres or more . . . within a [CNA]," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners assert that the criteria for the interim ordinance required fails to protect all hammock and pineland, does not protect enough hammock to ensure that the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys terrestrial habitat to sustain degradation and loss is not exceeded, does not require that the interim protections last until replaced by permanent ones, and does not apply to ROGO-exempt allocations. The criteria for the interim ordinance required by Task E is reasonable and will result in strengthening habitat protection in the areas specified in that provision. The fact that Task E authorizes the adoption of an ordinance that protects less than "all" hammock and pineland, does not make the proposed rule arbitrary and capricious, nor does the proposed rule contravene the law implemented. Petitioners contend that Task F, which requires Monroe County to "[a]dopt amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to enact overlay designations, and eliminate or revise the Habitat Evaluation Index ["HEI"], and modify the ROGO/NROGO system to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners claim that the standard set forth in Task F, "to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands," is no more specific than is statutory language. Petitioners assert that the proposed rule should specify (1) habitat types, patch sizes and other characteristics of the areas to which regulations will apply, and (2) the exact nature of the regulation (i.e. a prohibition on direct or secondary impacts, the application of negative points or open space rations, etc.) that will be relied upon to guide development away from such areas. Task F requires Monroe County to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations to enact the overlay designations requiring Monroe County to implement Policy 105.2.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Task F will implement Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. This task will identify areas to which future development will be directed. Also, the overlay designations will give property owners more certainty with respect to whether they can or cannot develop their property. The requirement in Task F, that the HEI be reviewed or eliminated, is reasonable in light of Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The HEI is currently used by Monroe County to evaluate the environmental sensitivity of land and its suitability for development and acquisition. The HEI requires lot-by-lot evaluations, which fail to take into account secondary impact of development and has resulted in the loss of valuable habitat. The Tier System in Goal 105 is designed to move Monroe County away from the existing HEI. Implementation of Goal 105 requires that the existing HEI be eliminated or revised. Task G of Year Eight of the Work Program requires Monroe County to "amend land development regulations to prohibit the designation of [CNA] (Tier 1) as a receiver site for ROGO exempt development from sender sites; and to further limit clearing of upland native habitat that may occur in the [CNA] (Tier I) and the Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II) upon designation by the County." Petitioners contend that Task G is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it fails to permanently protect even that habitat which Monroe County claims is most important to protect, allows the geographic scope of the contemplated rules to be defined in the future without stated criteria or standards, and allows an unnecessary delay in the adoption of protections which the data and legal requirements demonstrate should have been adopted two years earlier. Task G is intended to strengthen protection of habitat by adopting land development regulations to prohibit development in specified areas and to further limit clearing in designated areas. Goal 105, specifically, provides guidance as to the standards that such regulations must follow in Policy 105.2.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners contend that Task K of Year Eight of the Work Program requiring Monroe County to ensure the connection for up to 1,350 units at Stock Island to Key West Resort Utilities, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners charge that the requirement in the proposed rule is vague and could be met by simply connecting one home to the referenced wastewater utility to remedy a documented, serious water quality problem. When the purpose of Task K is considered, the reasonable meaning of the provision is that the task requires that Monroe County connect approximately 1,350 units to the designated facility. Petitioners contend that Task M of Year Eight of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "complete projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. In support of this contention, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule does not identify the name or number of stormwater projects that are to be completed. Petitioners argue that by referring only to "projects," without specifying the name or number of the projects to be completed, the Proposed Rule may require that only a minimum of two projects be completed. The reasonable interpretation of Task M is that Monroe County is required to complete all the remaining projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan. This meaning is supported by a review of related tasks in the previous years of the Work Program. For example, Year Six of the Work Program required Monroe County and other designated agencies to "initiate construction of selected projects as identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan." Year Seven of the Work Program required that Monroe County and other agencies "continue implementing selected projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan." Petitioners contend that Task P in Year Eight of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "provide up to $10 million in bond financing from the Tourist Impact Tax for acquisition of land for workforce housing and affordable housing sites," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. As a basis for this contention, Petitioners claim that Task P sets a vague requirement which could be met by simply providing $1.00 in bond financing to provide a need which the State and Monroe County claim is important enough to justify the permitting increase allowed by Proposed Rules 28-18.210 and 28-20.110. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, the requirement to provide $10 million in bond financing could not be met by providing $1.00 in bond financing. The $10 million figure represents the approximate amount of bond financing that will be provided. For the reasons stated above, it is not possible to include an exact amount in this Work Program requirement. The Work Program for Year Nine provides that the following tasks be done between July 13, 2005, through July 12, 2006: In coordination with the Florida Key Aquaduct Authority and Key Largo Sewer District, initiate the process to obtain $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees. Secure site for lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. Petitioners contend that Task A for Year Nine for the Work Program, which requires that Monroe County, "in coordination with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Key Largo Sewer District, initiate the process to obtain $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners contend that Task A, which requires that Monroe County only "initiate" the process necessary to obtain the required bond financing, and does not require that the funds be secured and dedicated to actual improvements, delays funding to remedy a critical water quality problem. The reasonable meaning of the provision in Task A, that Monroe County will initiate the process to obtain "80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees," is that Monroe County will take all steps legally necessary to accomplish obtaining the bond financing. Petitioners contend that Task B of Year Nine of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "secure a site for lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it delays an important remedy to a critical water quality problem. Task B reasonably requires that one of the first steps that must be taken prior to constructing any wastewater facility is to secure a site. Irrespective of the need for the wastewater facilities specified in Task B, unless a site is secured, no construction can occur. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(1), which amends Policy of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by adding Year Ten to the Work Program, provides the following: Year Ten (July 13, 2006 through July 12, 2007) Award Contract for design, construction, and operation of lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. Begin construction of the lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater plants. Initiate connections to lower keys and Key Largo wastewater systems. Complete construction and hookups for Bay Point, Conch Key and Key Largo Trailer Village/Key Largo Park. Obtain $80M in bond financing secured by connection fees Petitioners contend that Task A, which requires Monroe County to award a contract for design, construction, and operation of the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it delays an important remedy to a critical water quality problem. Petitioners also contend that Task D, which requires that construction and hookups for specified areas be completed, and Task E, which requires Monroe County to obtain $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees, are arbitrary and capricious and contravene the law implemented. That Tasks A, D, and E are required to be completed in Year Ten of the Work Program, between July 13, 2006, and July 12, 2007, is reasonable in view of the steps that must be taken prior to completing the responsibilities provided in those tasks. Petitioners contend that Task B, which requires Monroe County to "begin construction of the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo Trailer Village/Key Largo Park wastewater plants" between July 13, 2006, and July 12, 2007, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners assert that this portion of Proposed Rule 28-20.110 delays an important remedy to a critical water quality problem and does not require the completion of construction or the hookup and operation of the necessary facility. Task B of the Work Program, to begin construction of the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater plants, reasonably and logically follows the task in the preceding work year that required Monroe County to secure a site for the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. Given this chronology, it is reasonable that Task B does not require that the specified wastewater facilities be completed and fully operational the same year that construction begins. Petitioners contend that Task C of Year Ten of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County and Largo Sewer District to "initiate connections to lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater systems," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. As a basis for this contention, Petitioners assert that Task C does not require the completion of connections and operation of the system, but requires only the undefined "initiation" of connections. Task C, which requires Monroe County to "initiate connections" to the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities, is not arbitrary and capricious. Given the purpose of this task, this provision reasonably requires Monroe County to begin connecting units to the wastewater facilities. Even without a precise number, the reviewing agencies can evaluate the Work Program for Year Ten, including Task C, and determine if Monroe County has made substantial progress. City of Marathon Work Program Under Proposed Rules Proposed Rule 28-18.210 adds Year Eight and Year Nine to the existing Work Program in Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan. The tasks in the Work Program, many of which implement the Partnership Agreement, include tasks related to the construction of wastewater facilities, affordable housing, and hurricane evacuation. Year Eight of the Work Program of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan include, in relevant, part the following tasks: Year Eight (July 12, 2004 through July 12, 2005) Begin construction of wastewater collection lines for Little Venice Phase II by December 2004. Work with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to initiate bond financing for citywide sewer facilities and to develop a schedule of events necessary to initiate process by December 2004. Develop and advertise a Request for Proposal for the design, construction, operation of Marathon Central Wastewater System by December 2004. Obtain necessary bond financing (60% of projected sewer cost) secured by connection fees by December 2004. Award contract for design, construction and operation of Marathon Central Wastewater System by December 2004. By January 2005, identify potential acquisition sites for affordable work force housing. Establish a partnership with non- profit organizations in order to construct affordable housing using additional state funds. Evaluate strategies to increase the time that affordable housing remains affordable; establish a maximum sales price for work force housing and establish a ceiling on down payments that are not subsidized by public programs; and amend comprehensive plan and/or land development regulations. * * * Develop a map or list of real estate numbers of lots containing environmentally sensitive lands in need of acquisition and submit to the Department of Community Affairs by July 2004. Assist the state in land acquisition efforts by establishing a land acquisition advisory committee to prioritize proposed acquisitions by July 2004. Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and thereby reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes. Year Nine of the Work Program of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan includes in relevant part the following tasks: Year Nine (July 13, 2005 through July 12, 2006) Begin construction of Phase I of Marathon Central Wastewater System by January 2006. Evaluate wastewater master plan and indicate areas, if any, that will not receive central sewer. For any area that will not be served by central sewer, develop a septic tank inspection program and begin implementation of the program by September 2005. * * * E. Develop and implement a Building Permit Allocation System that discourages and limits development in environmentally sensitive areas within the proposed Marathon comprehensive plan by July 2005. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-18.210(1), which establishes the Work Program for Years Eight and Nine, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it fails to adopt regulation and plan changes, or requires same, to protect terrestrial habitat to the extent shown necessary in the Carrying Capacity Study. The mere fact that the proposed Work Plan for Years Eight and Nine of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan does not address habitat protection, does not make those provisions arbitrary or capricious. Neither does it mean that they contravene law. In this case, it reflects that the Work Plan emphasizes other issues relevant to the City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan. Siting Utilities and Public Facilities The siting of public facilities in Monroe County is governed by existing Policy 101.12.4 in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. According to that policy, Monroe County requires that an "analyses be undertaken prior to finalizing plans for the siting of any new or significant expansion (greater than 25 percent) of any existing public facility," and that the analyses include "an assessment of needs, evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the selected sites and assessment of direct and secondary impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources." With regard to the assessment impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources, existing Policy 101.12.4 provides the following: The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally sensitive areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands, undisturbed beach berm areas, units of the coastal barrier resources system, undisturbed uplands (particularly high quality hammock and pinelands), habitats of species considered to be threatened or endangered by the state and/or federal governments, consistent with 105.2.1 offshore islands, and Conservation Land Protection Areas. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(2) amends existing Policy 101.12.4, which deletes the term "Conservation Land Protection Areas" from the category of areas included as environmentally sensitive areas, as quoted above, and replaces it with the term, "Natural Areas (Tier I)." Proposed Rule 28-20.110(2) also adds the following provision to existing Policy 101.12.4. Except for passive recreational facilities on publicly owned land, no new public community or utility facility other than water distribution and sewer collection lines or lift stations, and the existing Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility, shall be allowed within the Natural Areas (Tier I) unless it can be accomplished without clearing of hammock or pinelands. Exceptions to this requirement may be made to protect the public health, safety and welfare, if all the following criteria are met: No reasonable alternatives exist to the proposed location; and The proposed location is approved by a super-majority of the Board of County Commissioners. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-20.110(2), discussed above, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule allows the siting of public facilities in terrestrial habitats (CNA or Tier I) and also allows water distribution and sewer collection lines or lift stations to be built as a matter of right in a CNA or Tier I, contrary to the findings of the Carrying Capacity Study. Petitioners also contend that the provision in the Proposed Rule, discussed above, is vague, because it refers to the term "natural areas," but is intended to mean CNAs. In the recent past, a decision to site a sewage treatment facility in an environmentally sensitive hammock elicited considerable controversy. Ultimately, Monroe County and the DCA agreed that public facilities should not be located on environmentally sensitive land. The proposed change to Policy 101.12.4 strengthens the policy by requiring approval of a super majority of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County Commission) for an exemption. This also adds specificity to the policy and provides more protection for natural areas and, thus, improves protection of environmentally- sensitive habitat. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the term "natural area" is not vague. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan currently includes Goal 105, which describes a detailed land classification system. "Natural Area (Tier I)" represents natural areas that can be targeted for acquisition and is an updated term. On the other hand, the term "Conservation Land Protection Areas" refers to lands targeted for acquisition by federal and state agencies. ROGO Exemption for Public Facilities Both Monroe County and Marathon have a "Rate of Growth Ordinance," also known as ROGO. A site proposed for development is ranked based on the environmental sensitivity of the property and receives negative points for greater environmental sensitivity. A site proposed for development can also receive positive points for such things as providing its own water system or elevation above the minimum flood insurance elevation. Monroe County and the City of Marathon award their annual allocation of development permits to the top-scoring sites. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 will make several modifications to the ROGO point allocation system in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Existing Policy 101.3.4 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provides that "public facilities shall be exempted from the requirements of the Permit Allocation System for new non-residential development." The existing policy also provides that certain development activity by enumerated federally tax-exempt, not-for-profit organizations "may be exempted from the Permit Allocation System by the County Commission after review by the Planning Commission upon a finding that such activity will predominantly serve the County's non- transient population." Proposed Rule 28-20.110(3) amends existing Policy 101.3.4 by requiring that the County Commission make an additional finding as a condition of exempting certain development activity by certain federally tax-exempt not-for- profit organizations from the Permit Allocation System. Pursuant to the proposed rule, the County Commission must also find that the "development activity is not planned within an area proposed for acquisition by governmental agencies for the purpose of resource protection." Petitioners contend that the provision of Proposed Rule 28-20.110(3), discussed above, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented in that the development activities of the federally tax-exempt, not-for-profit organizations covered by the proposed rule allows development activity on some environmentally-sensitive areas and is inconsistent with the Carrying Capacity Study. Existing Policy 101.3.4 allows development activity by not-for-profit organizations without a permit allocation because such development does not include overnight accommodations which might impact hurricane evacuation. Since a permit allocation was not necessary, such development was not affected by the negative points awarded for development in an area proposed for acquisition for resource protection. However, some not-for- profit organizations proposed development in environmentally- sensitive areas. The proposed change will prevent ROGO-exempt development on such lands and improve the protection of environmentally-sensitive habitat. Lot Aggregation Existing Policy 101.5.4, of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue of lot aggregation and provides that "points shall be assigned to Allocation Applications for proposed dwelling units, which include a voluntary reduction of density permitted as of right within subdivisions (residential units per legally platted, buildable lots) by aggregating vacant, legally platted, buildable lots." This policy sought to reduce density within subdivisions by awarding or assigning positive points to applicants who aggregated two or more contiguous, vacant, legally buildable lots. The existing policy motivated and allowed applicants to purchase any contiguous property in order to be awarded additional points and, thus, increased their chances of receiving an allocation, even if the lots were in areas targeted for public acquisition for resource protection. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(4) amends Policy 101.5.4, Subsection 3, by prohibiting the awarding of points to Allocation Applications "for lot aggregation within those areas proposed for acquisition by public agencies for the purpose of resource protection." Petitioners assert that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it fails to adequately protect terrestrial habitat to the extent shown necessary in the Carrying Capacity Study. The basis of Petitioners' assertion is that under Proposed Rule 28-20.110(4), an applicant can get positive points for aggregating habitat, if the area is not proposed for acquisition by public agencies for the purpose of resource protection. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(4) will direct applicants seeking to be awarded additional points for "lot aggregation away from areas proposed for acquisition by public agencies for resource protection and, thereby, improve protection of terrestrial habitat. Clearing of Native Vegetation Existing Policy 205.2.7 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provides that the "clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the immediate development area." Under the existing policy, an applicant with aggregated lots would demand to clear a portion of both lots, so that a large portion of all of the lots would be cleared. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends existing Policy 205.27.7 by adding the following provision relating to the clearing of vegetation areas where Allocation Applications have received points for lot aggregation: For applications that receive points for lot aggregation under the Permit Allocation System for residential development, clearing of vegetation shall be limited to the open space ratios in Policy 205.2.6 or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less. The clearing of vegetation for ROGO applications that receive points for lot aggregation is also addressed in Proposed Rules 28-20.120(4), which adds a new provision, Regulation 9.5-347(e), to the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. That new provision is as follows: Section 9.5-347 (e) Lot Aggregation and Clearing: For ROGO applications that receive points for lot aggregation under Section 9.5-122.3 (a)(3), clearing of vegetation shall be limited to the open space ratios in paragraph (b) above or five-thousand (5,000) square feet, whichever is less. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rules 28-20.110(b) and 28-20.120(4) are arbitrary and capricious and contravene the law implemented, because they do not prohibit clearing of aggregated lots and are inconsistent with the Principles Guiding Development and with the Carrying Capacity Study. Notwithstanding Petitioners' assertions, even though the proposed rules do not prohibit all clearing of native vegetation, they will limit the amount of clearing for applicants who receive a ROGO allocation based upon lot aggregation. Under Proposed Rule 28-20.120(4), the clearing will be limited to an amount necessary to construct a reasonably-sized house. Technical Coordination Letter Proposed Rule 28-20.110(5), which will add a new policy, Policy 101.5.11, to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, provides the following: If not listed in the document "Parcels Not Located in Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat and Not Subject to FWS Consultation", or involving minor development activity exempted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)", any application for a ROGO or NROGO allocation shall contain a technical coordination letter from the USFWS. The County shall consider the recommendations of the USFWS's technical coordination letter in the issuance of the subject permit, except that if a low-effect habitat conservation plan is required by USFWS, the mitigation requirements of that plan shall be incorporated in the conditions of the permit. As a result of federal litigation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") created a list of "Parcels Not Located in Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat and Not Subject to FWS Consultation." Monroe County and the DCA have developed the practice of requiring a technical coordination letter from the USFWS for development on parcels that are not on that list or are not otherwise exempt from USFWS review. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(5) incorporates into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan a current practice that resulted from federal litigation. Monroe County Land Development Regulation 9.5-120 Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1) adds the phrase "species of special concern" to the following terms defined in Section 9.5-120(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulation as shown by the underlining: (1) "Known habitat of threatened/endangered animal species or species of special concern"; (2) "Potential habitat of threatened/endangered animal species" or species of special concern; and (3) Wide-ranging threatened/endangered animal species or species of special concern. This proposed change will conform the land development regulations to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by expanding the list of species that result in negative points under the Permit Allocation System to include "species of special concern." Existing Regulation 9.5-120(b) includes in the definitions of "known habitat of threatened/endangered animal species" and "potential habitat of threatened/endangered species" the sentence, "The county's threatened and endangered species maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of the species unless determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources." The definition of "wide-ranging threatened/endangered animal species" includes the sentence, "The county's threatened and endangered species maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of wide-ranging threatened or endangered species unless determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources."8 Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1) amends Section 9.5-120(b) by deleting the phrase, "unless determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources" from the sentences quoted above. Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1)(a) adds the following provision to the section of Regulation 9.5-120, which defines the term "known habitat of threatened/endangered species or species of special concern": (1) . . . The county's threatened and endangered species maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of the species. Within areas designated for public acquisition for the purposes of resource protection, any threatened, endangered or species of special concern species observed on site while conducting a habitat evaluation shall be noted on the adopted Threatened and Endangered Species Maps. Such observations noted while conducting a habitat evaluation by County Staff Biologists, consultants certified by the County, conducting habitat evaluations, or state or federal agency representatives conducting field inspections shall also constitute evidence of species. Petitioners contend that the portion of Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1)(a), quoted above, is arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule fails to account for potential observations of "known habitat of threatened/endangered animal species" on parcels that are not within "areas designated for public acquisition for purposes of resource protection." Also, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule limits observations of species required to be noted on the adopted threatened and endangered species maps to consultants or scientists on the parcel specifically to conduct an HEI analysis and fails to require field verification of the parcel. Proposed Rule 28.20.120(1)(a) will expand the circumstances in which observations of listed species will cause modification of the adopted threatened and endangered species maps. Under the present land development regulations, Monroe County modified the maps only if a county staff biologist observed a listed species and did not take into account other professional observations. Monroe County Land Development Regulation 9.5-122.3 Regulation 9.5-122.3(a)(8) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations establishes and assigns evaluation criteria and point assignment for applications for proposed dwelling units in Monroe County. The existing regulation requires that negative points be assigned to applications that propose a dwelling unit within a "known habitat of a documented threatened/endangered species" and a "potential habitat of threatened/endangered species." Proposed Rule 28-20.120(2) adds the following language to Section 9.5-122.3.(a)(8),9 as shown by the underlined provisions: Point Assignment: Criteria: -10 An application which proposes a dwelling unit within a known habitat of a threatened/endangered species or a species of special concern. For species of special concern, negative points shall only be applied to areas designated for public acquisition for the purpose of resource protection. -5 An application which proposes a dwelling unit within a potential habitat of a threatened/endangered species or a species of special concern. For species of special concern, negative points shall only be applied to areas designated for public acquisition purposes of resource protection. Regulation 9.5-1223.(a)(8), as amended, adds "species of special concern" to the species covered by the existing regulation. Also, the amended regulation requires that negative points be assigned to applications that propose dwelling units in a habitat of a species of special concern, if the area is designated for public acquisition for purposes of resource protection. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-20.120(2), which amends Regulation 9.5-122.3(a)(8), is arbitrary and capricious. As a basis for this contention, Petitioners assert that even though the Proposed Rule increases situations where an application is awarded negative points, it decreases protection of habitat by limiting the negative point award only to habitat of special concern that have been designated for public acquisition. Proposed Rule 28-20.120(2) increases situations in which an application will be awarded negative points by adding "species of special concern" to the species covered by Regulation 9.5-122.3(a)(8). By awarding negative points as provided in the proposed rule, there is increased protection of habitat for species of special concern. Monroe County Land Development Regulation 9.5-336 Proposed Rule 28-20.120(3) amends Section 9.5-336(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations as follows: (b) Review and Amendment: The existing conditions map may be refined to reflect conditions legally in existence on February 28, 1986. Such refinements shall be made pursuant to the procedures for typographical and drafting errors in section 9.5-511(e). The existing conditions map as referenced throughout this chapter is intended only to serve as a general guide to habitat types for the purpose of preliminary determination of regulatory requirements. The county biologist shall make the final determination of habitat type based upon field verification, except that existing conditions that reflect disturbed with hammock shall be classified as a low quality hammock. Unlawful conditions shall not be recognized when determining regulatory requirements. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-20.120(3) is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it does not protect all habitat. The existing conditions map was prepared in the 1980s. Many of the sites designated on the map as "disturbed with hammock" have re-vegetated since then. The proposed change will protect those sites by requiring clustering away from the hammock and by controlling the amount of allowed clearing. Hurricane Evacuation Monroe County and Marathon face a unique hurricane evacuation challenge. There is only one road out of the Florida Keys, and everyone must use that road to evacuate. For a Category 3 or greater hurricane, all areas of the Florida Keys must be evacuated because of the low elevations, the vulnerability to storm surge, and the logistics of post-disaster recovery. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Marathon Comprehensive Plan currently state that each ". . . shall reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times to 24 hours by the year 2010." The 24-hour standard was adopted by the Administration Commission at the conclusion of prior litigation over the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The term "hurricane evacuation clearance time" refers to the time that the emergency managers must call the evacuation before the arrival of tropical storm force winds. Hurricane evacuation clearance time includes both the time for citizens to mobilize (i.e., get their affairs in order, shelter their houses, take care of their belongings), and the time to evacuate the vehicles from the roadway. Tropical storm force winds typically arrive eight to 12 hours before the eye of the storm. In order to achieve a 24-hour hurricane evacuation clearance time, emergency managers must call the evacuation 32 to 36 hours before the arrival of the eye. The DCA contracted with Miller Consulting, Inc., to create a computer model to estimate the actual hurricane evacuation clearance time for the Florida Keys. The Miller model provides the best available data and analysis for estimating the clearance time. The latest run of the Miller model performed by the DCA using 2000 Census data, supplemented with development permit data up to August 2004, provides the best estimate of clearance time. This run of the Miller model estimates a hurricane evacuation time of 23 hours and 56 minutes to reach the beginning of the Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike on the mainland, and 24 hours and 48 minutes to reach the hurricane shelter at Florida International University ("FIU"). The beginning of the Florida Turnpike in Florida City is the appropriate endpoint for hurricane evacuation clearance time estimates. Florida City is a point of relative safety outside of the Category 3 vulnerability zone. Florida City is also the point of dispersal for the Florida Keys, where evacuees disperse to any number of destinations, such as South Dade, the FIU shelter, or a hotel in Orlando. The Miller model estimates that if those permit allocations are restored and the annual allocation is increased as described above, the hurricane evacuation clearance time next year will be 24 hours and four minutes. This exceeds the 24-hour standard adopted by the Administration Commission. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 adds the following requirement to Year Eight of the Work Program in Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Policy 101.2.12 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan: "Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and thereby reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes." The Florida Keys' local governments have begun the comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues by convening a workgroup comprised of local government-elected officials and staffed by the DCA. The hurricane workgroup is considering alternative strategies to reduce clearance times, such as constructing an additional outbound lane, using transportation system management to create a temporary outbound lane, updating the assumptions for the Miller model, reducing transient occupancy, or calling the evacuation earlier. The working group must develop a strategy that balances or accommodates development and also addresses hurricane clearance times. The hurricane workgroup must do much more than simply squeeze a few more minutes out of the Miller model. There are currently 13,000 to 14,000 vacant platted lots in the Florida Keys, which must be allowed to develop or must be purchased by government. On average, 3,000 dwelling units generates about one hour of clearance time. As an example, if 8,000 or so lots were purchased for habitat protection, then two more hours of clearance time will be needed to accommodate the remaining 5,000 or 6,000 lots. The hurricane workgroup must develop a strategy to handle the amount of development permitting that can be expected and a program to acquire the balance of the vacant lots. Affordable and Workforce Housing There is an affordable housing crisis in the Florida Keys. The geography of the Florida Keys hinders the ability of working families in the Florida Keys to find affordable housing. Unlike other expensive areas, such as Boca Raton, working families cannot find affordable housing nearby; the nearest area where housing prices are affordable is the mainland in Dade County. From 1999 to 2003, there were 693 allocations for affordable housing units in the Florida Keys. This amount includes all the allocations for affordable housing units for that time period, even those allocations for which affordable housing units were not constructed. The number of affordable housing allocations issued from 1999 to 2003 and the number being issued under the existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon, are not sufficient to address the need for affordable housing. The Partnership Agreements recognize and address the affordable housing shortfall by increasing the number of annual affordable housing allocations, restoring residential allocations lost in previous years, and providing funding for the acquisition of land and the construction of workforce housing. As discussed above, Proposed Rule 28-20.110 implements the provisions of the Partnership Agreement by amending the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as follows: increasing the number of annual affordable housing allocations from 32 to 71; (2) reallocating 140 unused allocations to affordable housing; and (3) requiring that the affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Additionally, as specified in paragraph 60, the Work Program in Proposed Rule 28-20.110 requires Monroe County to complete tasks which will be an improvement of the affordable housing situation in Monroe County. As discussed above, Proposed Rule 28-18.210 implements the Partnership Agreement by amending the City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan as follows: (1) increases the overall number, though not the percentage, of allocations for affordable housing to six; (2) restoring 65 unused allocations for affordable housing; and (3) requiring that the affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Also, as specified in paragraph 101, Proposed Rule 28-18.210 requires the City of Marathon to complete tasks that will result in improving the affordable housing issues in the City of Marathon. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 only partially address the affordable housing shortage in the Florida Keys. Nonetheless, the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon will improve the current affordable housing shortage by increasing the number of affordable houses and providing the financial resources to make that more likely to occur. The Principles Guiding Development Subsection 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes (2004), provides in relevant part: PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT.- -State, regional, and local agencies and units of government in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for guiding development . . . . For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. . . . [T]he following shall be the principles with which any plan amendments must be consistent: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. In determining whether the Proposed Rules are consistent with the principles, the principles should be considered as a whole. No specific provision should be construed or applied in isolation from other provisions. Ability to Manage Land Use and Development Principle A, set forth in Subsection 380.0552(7)(a), Florida Statutes, is "to strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation." Monroe County and the City of Marathon have evidenced a willingness and commitment to provide the funding required to meet the objectives of the Principles Guiding Development. Both local governments have included in the Proposed Rules tasks which reflect their understanding of the need to provide critical facilities, such as wastewater treatment facilities. While the need for such facilities has previously been acknowledged, the Proposed Rules provide a specific source of revenue to provide the needed facilities. Moreover, with regard to Monroe County, the proposed rules/regulations at issue in this proceeding strengthen the environmental protections measures in the Comprehensive Plans while allowing reasonable development. The proposed rules for Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle A. Environmental Issues Subsections 380.0552(7)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes, are principles which require consideration of the impacts on the environment of the Florida Keys. Principle B is "to protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife and their habitat." Principle C is "to protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife and their habitat." Principle E is "to limit the adverse impacts of development on the water quality of water throughout the Florida Keys." Principle I is "to limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys." The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon include amendments to the Work Program which provide significant funding for sewage treatment systems that will enhance the protection of the shoreline and marine resources. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle B. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County improve protection of terrestrial habitat, limit clearing of native vegetation, and provide safeguards to ensure that parcels in threatened and endangered species habitat are protected. The proposed rules of Monroe County are consistent with Principle C. The portions of the Proposed Rules of the City of Marathon that are the subject of this proceeding do not specifically address Principle C. However, the Proposed Rules of the City of Marathon are not inconsistent with Principle C. Accordingly, the proposed rules of the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle C. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys by the funding commitments that will hasten the construction of the sewage treatment facilities. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle E. The Proposed Rules do not encourage any public investment that would have an adverse impact on environmental resources. To the contrary, the Monroe County and the City of Marathon Proposed Rules provide for public investments in waste water improvements that are accelerated. Also, the Monroe County Proposed Rules prevent the construction of public facilities within a hammock area. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle I. Economic Development Principle D in Subsection 380.0552(7)(d), Florida Statutes, is "to ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. The basis of the Florida Keys' economy is tourism, which is attracted by a clean and healthy environment. The increased protection of water quality that should be achieved by the hastened construction of sewage treatment facilities and the improved protection of habitat will strengthen the economy of the Florida Keys and provide the basis for a sound economic development. Also, the Proposed Rules balance environmental protection with property rights. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle D. Historical Character and Heritage Principle F in Subsection 380.0552(7)(f), Florida Statutes, is "to enhance natural and scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys." Principle G in Subsection 380.0552(7)(g), Florida Statutes, is "to protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys." The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon will have little or no impact on the historic character and historical heritage of the Florida Keys. Thus, the Proposed Rules do no harm to either the historic character or historical heritage of Monroe County or the City of Marathon. Public Investments Principle H in Subsection 380.0552(7)(h), Florida Statutes, is "to protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major life investments," including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. . . . The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon do nothing to undermine the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness or amortized life of existing major investments. Rather, the Proposed Rules will result in funding and timely construction of the major sewage and disposal facilities that are already contemplated by Monroe County and the City of Marathon's existing Comprehensive Plans. Affordable Housing Principle J in Subsection 380.0552(7)(j), Florida Statutes, is "to make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys." The Proposed Rules include a one-time allocation of 165 permits for affordable housing in Monroe County and 65 permits for affordable housing in Marathon. The Proposed Rules will require all future affordable housing to remain as affordable in perpetuity, rather for a limited time frame. The Propose Rules are consistent with Principle J. Natural or Man-made Disaster and Post-Disaster Relief Principle K in Subsection 380.0552(7)(k), Florida Statutes, is "to provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural disaster or man[-]made disaster and for a post[-]disaster reconstruction plan." The Proposed Rules require officials of Monroe County and the City of Marathon to participate with other Florida Keys' local governments in a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues. The Proposed Rules are consistent with Principle K. Health, Safety, and Welfare of Citizens and Maintenance of Florida Keys as Unique Resource Principle L in Subsection 380.0552(7)(l), Florida Statutes, is "to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource." The Proposed Rules of Monroe County include provisions that increase protection of upland habitat and require a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications in hammocks and pinelands, revisions to the CNA maps, and amendments to the land development regulations. The Proposed Rules for Monroe County and the City of Marathon will improve the water quality by providing funding for and hastening the construction of sewage treatment facilities. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon will provide more permit allocations for affordable housing, require Monroe County to approve bond funding for the construction of affordable housing, and provide that all future affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Also, the Proposed Rules require Monroe County and the City of Marathon to participate in a Florida Keys wide analysis and solution to the hurricane evacuation problem. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon further the objective of and are consistent with Principle K. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle L.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the petition to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District. The proposed District consists of approximately 1,015 acres located within unincorporated St. Johns County, Florida. There are two out-parcels, totaling 3.7 acres, within the areas to be included in the District. No adverse impact on these out parcels is expected from the establishment of the district. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District was included in the Petition. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. Witnesses Maier, Walters, Boring, and Fishkind each stated that he had reviewed portions of the contents of the petition and its attachments and affirmed the petitions findings. Witness Maier testified that the Petitioner has written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the lands to be included in the District. Witness Maier also presented deeds for parcels of land within the boundaries of the proposed District which have been acquired by the Petitioner or its subsidiaries, as well as consent forms from the Petitioner's subsidiaries. The Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct, with the addition of the deeds showing land ownership and owners' consent as specified above. Witnesses Walters and Fishkind reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Witness Walters also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. From a planning and economic perspective, four subjects, subject 16, 18, 21, and 26, of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 16, titled Land Use, of the State Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District will: have the fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services and facilities to the population in the designated growth area; help provide infrastructure to development the County, thereby helping limit unintended, unplanned sprawl; facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and services to assist in fulfilling the community plan. Subject 18, titled Public Facilities of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient manner. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the District will: plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities needed for the development of lands within the District in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner; provide the infrastructure systems and facilities within the District with the landowners and residents benefiting from the new public facilities bearing the costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities; act in a type of 'infrastructure partnership' with St. Johns County; have financial self-sufficiency through the use of special assessments, as well as user charges or fees, to provide public facilities; provide a consistent, innovative and fiscally sound alternative for financing public facilities by bringing the cost of managing and financing public facilities down to a level of government closest to its beneficiaries and connecting those who pay for facilities with those who directly benefit from those facilities and services; and be structured to assure secure revenue sources capable of meeting District responsibilities. Subject 21, titled Governmental Efficiency of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will: cooperate with other levels of Florida government, such as through entering into interlocal agreement to address maintenance issues for certain roads; be established under uniform general law standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes; be professionally managed, financed, and governed by those whose property directly receives the benefits; not burden the general taxpayer with costs for services or facilities inside the District; and plan and implement cost efficient solutions for the required public infrastructure and assure delivery of selected services to residents. Subject 26, titled Plan Implementation of the State Comprehensive Plan, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement. The proposed District is consistent with this element of the State Comprehensive Plan because: the proposed District will systematically plan for the construction, operation and maintenance of the public improvements and the community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations; the District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all District property owners and residents can be involved in planning for improvements; Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file and update public facilities reports with the County, which it may rely upon in any revisions to the local comprehensive plan. 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. Witness Walters testified that since St. Johns County has already found the development within the proposed District to be not inconsistent with the St. Johns County local comprehensive plan, the establishment of a community development district would not cause any inconsistency and would be in furtherance of four of the plan's policies, goals and objectives: Policy H.1.3.4 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that 'DRI's planned unit subdivisions, and other large developments shall provide for the dedication of parks and open space to be generated by the development according to the level of service standards.' The proposed District will finance the construction of, and ultimately own and maintain, a community recreational facility. Goal J.1 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that St. Johns County is to ensure the orderly and efficient provision of infrastructure facilities and services such as roads, utilities, recreation, and drainage. The proposed District will serve as an alternative provider of these infrastructure systems and services to meet the needs of the lands within its boundaries; Objective J.1.7 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that the County shall manage fiscal resources to ensure the provision of needed infrastructure. The proposed District will provide the infrastructure facilities and services needed for its lands without burdening the fiscal resources of the County or impacting the bonding limits contained in Policy J.1.7.; Objective K.1.6 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan calls for St. Johns County to work cooperatively with other units of government to address issues and concerns. The proposed District may be expected to enter into interlocal agreements with the County to provide certain enhanced maintenance. Additionally, over the long term, the establishment of the proposed District will provide another unit of local government in place and able to cooperate with the County on future issues and concerns. The State of Florida Department of Community Affairs also reviewed the petition to establish the proposed District and concluded that the petition was consistent with the local comprehensive plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the local comprehensive plan, and will in fact further the goals provided. Most of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval issued by St. Johns County. The PUD was approved on February 10, 1998. The PUD is found in St. Johns County Ordinance No. 98-7. Section 6 of the PUD Application, which is incorporated into Ordinance 98-7 by reference, explicitly states that a community development district will be established and requires the establishment of the District prior to the sale of the first lot within the development. Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the District as a single master-planned community. Witness Walters testified that functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function requires a management capability, funding source and an understanding of the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and development of the community. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,105 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a functionally inter-related community. The compact configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure facilities in a long-term cost efficient manner. The property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. The size of the proposed community within the District provides a sufficient economic base to absorb the debt costs and annual operating costs for the proposed District. There will be no economic disincentives to the provision of the infrastructure facilities contemplated. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or provision of certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the petition. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the District is expected to be financed by bonds and repaid through the imposition of special assessments on benefited property within the District. Use of such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to the use of the proposed District were identified. First, the County might provide facilities and services from its general fund or through a MSTU. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, without public bidding, with maintenance delegated to a homeowners association (HOA). The District exceeds the available alternatives at focusing attention to when and where and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served. Only a community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a community development district allows district residents to completely control the district. All of the other alternatives do not have these characteristics. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities because it is a long-term stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life. From planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the are that will be served by the District. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the proposed boundaries will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to be included within the District. Therefore, the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. As cited previously, from planning, economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The lands to be included within the proposed District have a need for the basic infrastructure being provided. From an engineering perspective, the area within the proposed District is also large enough to support a staff necessary to operate and maintain the proposed infrastructure systems and facilities. Based upon these characteristics, the proposed District is expected to be financially viable. From planning, engineering, economic, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the intended District is amenable to separate special-district government. 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. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains such a description. Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, also requires a description of any real property within the external boundaries which is to be excluded from the District and the last known address of the owners of such properties. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains the required information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the petition contain the proposed timetable for the construction of any district services and the estimated construction costs for those services as well as the designation of the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private land uses proposed for the area by the future land use element of the adopted local government comprehensive plan. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of one-hundred percent of the real property to be included within the proposed District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information which was supplemented by Petitioner at hearing, as it or its subsidiaries acquired title to the lands proposed to be included within the District. Sections 190.005 and 190.006, Florida Statutes, require that each member of a board of supervisors be a resident of Florida and a citizen of the United States. The proposed board members meet these criteria. Section 109.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The petition contains a SERC. It meets all requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, the country and its citizens, Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but is nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the County will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the proposed District except for those it chooses to accept. Consumers will pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. Location within the District is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the community development district will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that St. Johns County was paid the requisite filing fees. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in St. Johns County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in St. Johns County (the St. Augustine Record) for four consecutive weeks on March 13, 2000, March 20, 2000, March 27, 2000, and April 3, 2000. All publications were prior to the hearing. Mr. Stephenson, on behalf of the County's community development district processing group formed in accordance with Section 5.06.00 of the St. Johns County Land Development Code, presented the following proposed findings regarding the approval of the development within the proposed District: On October 28, 1999, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners entered into an Impact Fee Agreement with St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc., and A & S Land Development Company to widen a portion of CR 210 in order to meet concurrency requirements for two projects. St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc. is the developer of the property contained within the Sampson Creek CDD Petition. The project is approved with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning and contains 799 single family residential dwelling units and associated roadways, retention areas, common areas, sales and recreation complex, and an 18-hole golf course. St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners approved the PUB on February 10, 1998. The PUD provides that a CDD will be established and will be in place prior to the sale of the first lot so that purchasers will be aware of their participation and membership in the CDD and of their obligation to pay any taxes that may be levied by the CDD. The PUD and Impact Fee Agreement are separate County approved documents and the creation and operation of a CDD does not in any way affect these documents or their approval without further review by the St. Johns County Board of Commissioners. Impact fee credits shall be awarded in accordance with approved Impact Fee Agreement which ensures that the credits are awarded to the appropriate entity. The CDD processing group finds no inconsistencies with the six factors as described in Section 190.005(6), Florida Statutes. With these findings, Mr. Stephenson testified that St. Johns County has no objection to the establishment of the proposed District.
Conclusions On Monday April 10, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., the local public hearing for the Petition to Establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Cleavinger, at the St. Johns County Public Library, 950 Davis Pond Boulevard, in St. Johns County, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony, public comment, and receiving exhibits on the petition of the St. Joe/Arvida Company, L.P. (Petitioner) to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District (District) in northern St. Johns County, Florida. This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120, and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District as requested by Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule, after inclusion of the legal description, in substantially the form attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Attachment 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Daniel Woodring, Esquire Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: THE PARTIES Berkeley is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,500,000 in CDBG Development funding; $2,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $844,699 in non-competitive housing credits. The Berkeley Application, assigned number 2020-017D, was preliminarily deemed ineligible for consideration for funding. Brisas is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $5,000,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,674,839 in non-competitive housing credits. The Brisas Application, assigned number 2020-056D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Northside is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,300,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,588,014 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (“MMRB”). The Northside Application, assigned number 2020-024D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Beacon Place is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,925,500 in CDBG Development funding; $4,320,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,764,203 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in MMRB. The Beacon Place Application, assigned number 2020-045DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bella Vista is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $8,000,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,450,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $609,629 in non-competitive housing credits; and $13,000,000 in MMRB. The Bella Vista Application, assigned number 2020-038DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Solaris is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,420,000 in CDBG Development funding; $4,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $937,232 in non-competitive housing credits. The Solaris Application, assigned number 2020-039D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Metro Grande is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,175,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,041,930 in non-competitive housing credits. The Metro Grande Application, assigned number 2020-041D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Sierra Bay is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,650,000 in CDBG Development funding; $3,300,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,074,173 in non-competitive housing credits; and $16,000,000 in MMRB. The Sierra Bay Application, assigned number 2020-040DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bembridge is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,800,000 in CDBG Development funding; $564,122 in non-competitive housing credits; and $10,100,000 in MMRB. The Bembridge Application, assigned number 2020-046DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. East Pointe is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $4,680,000 in CDBG Development funding and $690,979 in non-competitive housing credits. The East Pointe Application, assigned number 2020-053D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, and, for purposes of these consolidated cases, is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing is tasked with distributing a portion of the CDBG-DR funding allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), pursuant to the State of Florida Action Plan for Disaster Recovery. THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS AND RFA 2019-102 Florida Housing is authorized to allocate low-income housing tax credits and other named funding by section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process. Rule 67-60.009(1) provides that parties wishing to protest any aspect of a Florida Housing competitive solicitation must do so pursuant to section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Funding is made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a request for applications. Rule 67-60.009(4) provides that a request for application is considered a “request for proposal” for purposes of section 120.57(3)(f). The RFA was issued on July 30, 2019, with responses due on August 27, 2019. The RFA was modified four times and the application deadline was extended to September 24, 2019. No challenges were made to the terms and specifications of the RFA. Section Five of the RFA included a list of 48 “eligibility items” that an applicant was required to satisfy to be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. Applications that met the eligibility standards would then be awarded points for satisfying RFA criteria, with the highest scoring applications being selected for funding. No total point items are in dispute. Proximity Point items are contested as to the Beacon Place, East Pointe, and Bembridge Applications. Applicants could select whether they would be evaluated as Priority I, II, or III applications. All of the parties to these consolidated cases identified themselves as Priority I applications. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award an estimated $76,000,000 of CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding to areas impacted by Hurricane Irma, and in areas that experienced a population influx because of migration from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricane Irma. Florida Housing will award up to $66,000,000 for CDBG Development funding and an additional $10,000,000 for CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Applicants were not required to request CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Forty-four applications were submitted in response to the RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible for funding. The Review Committee found 8 applications ineligible, including that of Berkeley. Two applications were withdrawn. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On December 13, 2019, the Board met and accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee. The Board preliminarily awarded funding to 12 applications, including those of Sierra Bay, Solaris, Metro Grande, East Pointe, and Bembridge. Petitioners Berkeley, Brisas, Northside, Beacon Place, and Bella Vista timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. THE BERKELEY APPLICATION As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to identify an Authorized Principal Representative. According to the RFA, the Authorized Principal Representative: must be a natural person Principal of the Applicant listed on the Principal Disclosure Form; must have signature authority to bind the Applicant entity; (c) must sign the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form submitted in this Application; (d) must sign the Site Control Certification form submitted in this Application; and (e) if funded, will be the recipient of all future documentation that requires a signature. As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to submit an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. As an eligibility item, the RFA also required applicants to submit a Site Control Certification form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. In section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A of the RFA, the applicant is directed to enter the contact information of its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley entered the name, organization, and contact information for Jennie D. Lagmay as its Authorized Principal Representative, in response to section 3.e.(1). The name of Jennie D. Lagmay was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form required by the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form and the Site Control Certification form were executed by Jonathan L. Wolf, not Jennie D. Lagmay, the designated Authorized Principal Representative. On both forms, Mr. Wolf is identified as “Manager of Berkeley Landing GP, LLC; General Partner of Berkeley Landing, Ltd.” Jonathan L. Wolf is listed on the Principal Disclosure Form. Aside from section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, Jennie D. Lagmay’s name is not found in the Berkeley Application. Florida Housing determined that the Berkeley Application was ineligible for an award of funding for three reasons: 1) the Authorized Principal Representative listed was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form; 2) the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative; and 3) the Site Control Certification was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Two other applications for this RFA were found ineligible for identical reasons: Thornton Place, Application No. 2020-020D; and Berkshire Square, Application No. 2020-034D. In these, as in the Berkeley Application, Jennie D. Lagmay was named as the Authorized Principal Representative in section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, but Jonathan L. Wolf executed the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form and the Site Control Certification form as the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley concedes it made an error in placing the name of Ms. Lagmay in section 3.e.(1), but argues that this constituted a minor irregularity that should have been waived by Florida Housing. Berkeley contends that the entirety of its Application makes plain that Jonathan D. Wolf is in fact its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley argues that Florida Housing should waive the minor irregularity and determine that the Berkeley Application is eligible for funding. Berkeley points out that only two members of the Review Committee, Rachel Grice and Heather Strickland, scored the portions of the Berkeley Application that led to the ineligibility recommendation. Ms. Grice determined that the Authorized Principal Representative listed in the Berkeley Application was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form. Ms. Strickland determined that neither the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form nor the Site Control Certification form was executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Neither Ms. Grice nor Ms. Strickland conducted a minor irregularity analysis for the Berkeley Application. Rule 67-60.008, titled “Right to Waive Minor Irregularities,” provides as follows: Minor irregularities are those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Berkeley contends that because a minor irregularity analysis was not conducted by the Review Committee members, the Board was deprived of a necessary explanation for the preliminary recommendations of Ms. Grice and Ms. Strickland. Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Allocations, agreed that the Review Committee members did not perform a minor irregularity analysis but testified that none was required given the nature of the discrepancy in the Berkeley Application. Ms. Button performed a minor irregularity analysis as Florida Housing’s corporate representative in this proceeding and concluded that the error could not be waived or corrected without providing an unfair competitive advantage to Berkeley. Ms. Button testified that the fact that the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms could not be considered a minor irregularity because the application demonstrated conflicting and contradictory information, creating uncertainty as to the applicant’s intentions. She stated that Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of the application. Ms. Button stated that Florida Housing cannot take it upon itself to decide what the applicant intended when the information provided in the application is contradictory. Berkeley points to the fact that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form, signed by Mr. Wolf, includes the following language: “The undersigned is authorized to bind the Applicant entity to this certification and warranty of truthfulness and completeness of the Application.” Berkeley argues that it should have been clear to Florida Housing that Mr. Wolf is the person authorized to bind the company and that the inclusion of Ms. Lagmay’s name in section 3.e.(1) was in the nature of a typographical error. Florida Housing points out that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form also includes the following language below the signature line: “NOTE: Provide this form as Attachment 1 to the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Florida Housing notes that the Site Control Certification form includes similar language: “This form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Berkeley contends that Florida Housing was well aware that Jonathan L. Wolf has been the named Authorized Principal Representative on multiple applications filed under the umbrella of Wendover Housing Partners, the general developer behind Berkeley. In at least one of those previous applications, Ms. Lagmay, an employee of Wendover Housing Partners, was identified as the “contact person.” Ms. Button responded that Review Committee members are specifically prohibited from using personal knowledge of a general development entity in a specific application submitted by a single purpose entity. She further testified that if Florida Housing employees were to use their personal knowledge of an experienced developer to waive errors in a specific application, applicants who had not previously submitted applications would be at a competitive disadvantage. Ms. Button testified that Berkeley was established as a single purpose entity in accordance with the RFA’s requirements. She testified that she has known general developers to structure these single purpose entities in different ways, depending on the requirements of an RFA. An applicant might designate an employee, such as Ms. Lagmay, as a principal to give her experience as a developer. Again, Ms. Button emphasized that Florida Housing is not in a position to decide what the applicant “really meant” when there is a discrepancy in the information provided. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing has determined in prior RFAs that an applicant was ineligible because the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms. Florida Housing rightly concluded that there are only two possible ways to interpret the Berkeley Application. If Ms. Lagmay was the Authorized Principal Representative, then the application is nonresponsive because she was not listed on the Principal Disclosure form and she did not sign the required certification forms. If Ms. Lagmay was not the Authorized Principal Representative, the application is nonresponsive because no Authorized Principal Representative was identified. There is no way to tell from the four corners of the application which of these alternatives is the correct one. Florida Housing cannot step in and cure the defect in the application by making its own educated guess as to the intended identity of the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of ineligibility was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA, or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE SIERRA BAY APPLICATION The parties stipulated to the facts regarding the Sierra Bay Application, which are incorporated into this Recommended Order. Florida Housing deemed the Sierra Bay Application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Sierra Bay for funding. In order to demonstrate site control, the RFA required execution of the Site Control Certification form. Site control documentation had to be included in the application. One way to demonstrate site control was to include an “eligible contract.” The RFA required that certain conditions be met in order to be considered an “eligible contract.” One of those requirements was that the contract “must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance.” Sierra Bay acknowledged that the site control documentation included within its application did not meet the “eligible contract” requirement because it failed to include language regarding specific performance as a remedy for the seller’s default. Sierra Bay agreed that the omission of the specific performance language was not a minor irregularity and that Sierra Bay’s Application is ineligible for funding under the terms of the RFA. THE SOLARIS APPLICATION The RFA specified that a Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must hold 100 percent ownership in the land of any qualifying Priority I application. The RFA defined “Community Land Trust” as: A 501(c)(3) which acquires or develops parcels of land for the primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease which retains a preemptive option to purchase any such structural improvement at a price determined by a formula designed to ensure the improvement remains affordable in perpetuity. The RFA provided that if a Community Land Trust is the Land Owner, the Community Land Trust must provide the following documentation as Attachment 2 to the application to demonstrate that it qualifies as a Community Land Trust: The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier and that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is to provide or preserve affordable housing; and The Community Land Trust must provide a list that meets one of the following criteria to demonstrate experience of the Community Land Trust with owning property: (i) at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns; or (ii) one parcel of land that the Community Land Trust owns, consisting of a number of units that equals or exceeds at least 25 percent of the units in the proposed Development. The RFA required that the proposed development must be affordable in perpetuity. For purposes of the RFA, “perpetuity” means 99 years or more. Solaris identified Residential Options of Florida, Inc. (“Residential Options”), as the Community Land Trust owner in its Priority 1 Application. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included the Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Original Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on July 30, 2014. The purpose of the corporation as stated in the Original Articles was as follows: Said corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Amended Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on September 20, 2019. The Amended Articles retained the boilerplate statement of purpose of the Original Articles, but added the following paragraph: This shall include the purpose of empowering individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to successfully obtain and maintain affordable and inclusive housing of their choice and to provide affordable housing and preserve the affordability of housing for low- income or moderate income people, including people with disabilities, in perpetuity. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included the Articles of Incorporation of ROOF Housing Trust, Inc. (“ROOF Housing Trust”) filed with the Division of Corporations on July 17, 2017. The purpose of the corporation as stated in these Articles includes the following: “to acquire land to be held in perpetuity for the primary purpose of providing affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities.” Finally, Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included Articles of Merger, which were filed with the Division of Corporations on September 10, 2019. The Articles of Merger indicated that the Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust had merged, with Residential Options standing as the surviving corporation. The petitioners contesting the Solaris Application raise several issues. The first issue is whether the RFA requires only that the entity named as the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether the entity had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. The Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application, Residential Options, existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. The second issue is whether the June 28, 2018, date applies only to the existence of the Community Land Trust or whether the RFA requires that the Community Land Trust have been in existence and have had a stated purpose to provide or preserve affordable housing and have met the ownership experience criteria as of June 28, 2018. It is questionable whether Solaris would be eligible for funding if the RFA required the latter, because Residential Options did not have a stated purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing prior to its merger with ROOF Housing Trust, at least no such purpose as could be gleaned from the four corners of the Solaris Application. The third issue is whether the RFA’s definition of “Community Land Trust” requires the qualifying entity to have existing ground leases at the time of the application. Florida Housing and Solaris concede that Residential Options did not have operative ground leases at the time Solaris submitted its application. Hurricane Irma struck Puerto Rico and Florida in September 2017. Ms. Button testified that in creating this RFA, Florida Housing wanted to weed out opportunistic community land trusts created only for the purpose of obtaining this funding. Florida Housing initially proposed an RFA requirement that the community land trust have existed as of September 2017, but discovered through workshops with interested parties that the early date would exclude legitimate Community Land Trusts that had been established in response to the storm. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s intent was to make this RFA as inclusive as practicable. Florida Housing therefore selected June 28, 2018, as a date that would exclude opportunists without penalizing the genuine responders to the natural disaster. Both Florida Housing and Solaris point to the text of the RFA requirement to demonstrate that the date of June 28, 2018, should be read to apply only to whether the Community Land Trust existed as of that date. Solaris argues that the RFA states three independent criteria for eligibility: 1) that the Community Land Trust “has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier”; 2) that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is1 to provide or preserve affordable housing; and 3) the Community Land Trust must demonstrate its property ownership experience, one means of doing which is to name at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the first criterion by providing its Articles of Incorporation showing it has existed since July 30, 2014. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the second criterion by providing its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, which stated the purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the third criterion by identifying two properties in Immokalee, Independence Place, and Liberty Place as parcels that it currently owns. Florida Housing thus reached the conclusion that Residential Options met the definition of a Community Land Trust in the RFA as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing argues that, according to the definition in the RFA, a Community Land Trust must be a 501(c)(3) corporation, which Residential Options clearly is. It must acquire or develop parcels of land, which it has done. Finally, it must have the “primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s interpretation of the RFA’s Community Land Trust definition was that if Residential Options had the primary purpose of providing affordable housing in perpetuity through the use of long term ground leases, the definition has been met even if Residential Options had not actually entered into any ground leases at the 1 Both Florida Housing and Solaris emphasize that the second criterion is stated in the present tense, which suggests that it does not intend a backward look to June 28, 2018. time it submitted its application. This is not the only way to read the RFA’s definition, but it is not an unreasonable reading, particularly in light of Florida Housing’s stated intent to make the RFA as inclusive as possible in terms of the participation of legitimate community land trusts. Sheryl Soukup, the Executive Director of Residential Options, testified via deposition. Ms. Soukup testified that in 2017, Residential Options realized there was a need for housing for people with disabilities and decided to become a nonprofit housing developer of properties that would be kept affordable in perpetuity. To that end, ROOF Housing Trust was created to act as the community land trust for the properties developed by Residential Options. The two companies had identical Boards of Directors and Ms. Soukup served as Executive Director of both entities. In its application to the IRS for 501(c)(3) status, ROOF Housing Trust included the following: The organization does not own any property yet. ROOF Housing Trust intends to own vacant land, single family homes, and multi-family units. Some of the units will be provided as rental units. ROOF Housing Trust will sell some of the houses for homeownership, while retaining the land on which they are located. The land will be leased to homeowners at a nominal fee to make the purchase price affordable, using the community land trust model. Ground leases and warranty deeds not been developed yet [sic], but will be based on the sample documents provided by the Florida Community Land Trust Institute.[2] Ms. Soukup described ROOF Housing Trust as “a vehicle by which Residential Options of Florida could act as a community land trust…. [I]t was always the intention of Residential Options of Florida to develop and put into 2 The ROOF Housing Trust 501(c)(3) application was not a part of the Solaris Application. It was included as an exhibit to Ms. Soukup’s deposition. a community land trust property so that it would remain affordable in perpetuity for use by people of intellectual and development [sic] disabilities.” Residential Options acquired the aforementioned Independence Place and Liberty Place properties but never conveyed ownership to ROOF Housing Trust. Residential Options acted as a de facto community land trust. No ground leases have yet been entered into because the properties are at present rented directly by Residential Options to persons with developmental disabilities. Ms. Soukup testified that at the time ROOF Housing Trust was created, the Board of Residential Options was undecided whether to create a separate entity to act as a community land trust or to incorporate that function into the existing entity. The decision to incorporate ROOF Housing Trust was based on the Board’s intuition that a separate corporation would “allow us the most flexibility in the future.” In any event, Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were functionally the same entity. Ms. Soukup testified that plans to merge the two companies emerged from a situation in which Collier County refused to allow Residential Options to convey its two properties to ROOF Housing Trust. The Board that controlled both companies decided that there was no point in maintaining separate legal entities if ROOF Housing Trust could not perform its main function. As noted above, Articles of Merger were filed on September 10, 2019. Northside points to minutes from Residential Options’s Board meetings in August and September 2019, as indicating that the Board itself did not believe that Residential Options was a community land trust prior to the merger with ROOF Housing Trust. Northside contends that the September 2019 merger was initiated and completed mainly because Residential Options had been approached about serving as the Community Land Trust for the applications of Solaris and Sierra Bay in this RFA. Northside points to the “frenzied activity” by Residential Options to create an entity meeting the definition of Community Land Trust in the days just before the September 24, 2019, application deadline. Northside argues that Residential Options is the very kind of opportunistic community land trust that the June 28, 2018, date of creation was intended to weed out. Northside’s argument is not persuasive of itself, but it does point the way to an ultimate finding as to the Solaris Application. Both Florida Housing and Solaris gave great emphasis to Ms. Soukup’s testimony to refute the suggestion that Residential Options acted opportunistically. Ms. Soukup was a credible witness. Her explanation of the process by which Residential Options first created then merged with ROOF Housing Trust dispelled any suggestion that Residential Options was a community land trust created solely to cash in on this RFA. The problem is that Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee when it evaluated the Solaris Application. The only information about Residential Options that the Review Committee possessed was Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application. The dates of the merger documents and Amended Articles certainly give some credence to the suspicions voiced by Northside. However, the undersigned is less persuaded by the implications as to the intentions of Residential Options than by the contradictions between Florida Housing’s statements of intent and its reading of the RFA in relation to the Solaris Application. The decision to find the Solaris Application eligible for funding founders on the first issue stated above: whether the RFA requires only that the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether it had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. Ms. Button testified that the June 28, 2018, date was settled upon as a way of including community land trusts created in the wake of Hurricane Irma, while excluding those created to cash in on this RFA. During cross- examination by counsel for Northside, Ms. Button broadened her statement to say that Florida Housing’s intention was to exclude entities that had not been involved in affordable housing at all prior to June 28, 2018. Nonetheless, the RFA language is limited to Community Land Trusts. The RFA states: “The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating that it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier…” The Solaris Application shows that Residential Options existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. Residential Options did not become a Community Land Trust until it completed its merger with ROOF Housing Trust and filed the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019. Ms. Button’s statement of intent is accepted as consistent with the plain language of the RFA: the date of June 28, 2018, excludes Community Land Trusts created subsequently. It is inconsistent for Florida Housing to also read the RFA language to say that the qualifying entity need not have existed as a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018. It would be arbitrary for Florida Housing to set a date for the creation of Community Land Trusts then turn around and find that the date does not apply to this particular Community Land Trust. Ms. Soukup’s testimony was that Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were effectively a single entity and that Residential Options was in fact operating as a community land trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger. However, Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee, which was limited to one means of ascertaining whether an entity was a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018: the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. Residential Options’s Original Articles included no language demonstrating that it was a Community Land Trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger with ROOF Housing Trust and the filing of the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019.3 As set forth in the discussion of the Berkley Application above, Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of an application. It was contrary to the provisions of the RFA for Florida Housing to find that Residential Options’s mere existence as a legal entity prior to June 28, 2018, satisfied the requirement that the Community Land Trust must demonstrate that it existed prior to June 28, 2018. Ms. Button’s own testimony demonstrated that Florida Housing intended to exclude Community Land Trusts created after June 28, 2018. ROOF Housing Trust existed as a Community Land Trust in 2017, but ROOF Housing Trust was not the Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application. Ms. Soukup’s explanation of the circumstances showed that Residential Options was well intentioned in its actions, but her explanation was not a part of the Solaris Application that was before Florida Housing’s Review Committee. THE METRO GRANDE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Metro Grande Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, the Metro Grande Application was preliminarily selected for funding. Petitioner Brisas contends that the Metro Grande Application should have been found ineligible for failure to include mandatory site control documentation. Metro Grande submitted a Priority I application that was not seeking Land Acquisition Program funding. The site control requirements for such applicants are as follows: 3 This finding also disposes of Solaris’s arguments regarding the legal effect of corporate mergers. The RFA provided one simple way of demonstrating whether an entity was a Community Land Trust as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing’s Review Committee could not be expected to delve into the complexities of corporate mergers to answer this uncomplicated question. The Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must already own the land as the sole grantee and, if funded, the land must be affordable into Perpetuity.[4] Applicants must demonstrate site control as of Application Deadline by providing the properly executed Site Control Certification form (Form Rev. 08-18). Attached to the form must be the following documents: A Deed or Certificate of Title. The deed or certificate of title (in the event the property was acquired through foreclosure) must be recorded in the applicable county and show the Land Owner as the sole Grantee. There are no restrictions on when the land was acquired; and A lease between the Land Owner and the Applicant entity. The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline. Metro Grande did not include a deed or certificate of title in its application. In fact, no deed or certificate of title for the Metro Grande site exists. Miami-Dade County owns the Metro Grande site. Miami-Dade County acquired ownership of the Metro Grande site by eminent domain. The eminent domain process culminated in the entry of four Final Judgments for individual parcels which collectively compose the Metro Grande site. The Final Judgments were not attached to Metro Grande’s Application. There was no requirement in the RFA that Metro Grande include these Final Judgments in its application. The Final Judgments were produced during discovery in this proceeding. In its application, Metro Grande included a Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement Form executed by Maurice L. Kemp, as the Deputy Mayor of Miami-Dade County, stating that the county holds or will hold 100 percent ownership of the land where Metro Grande’s proposed 4 The RFA defined “Perpetuity” as “at least 99 years from the loan closing.” development is located. Additionally, in its application, Metro Grande stated that Miami-Dade County owned the property. The RFA expressly states that Florida Housing “will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation.” Florida Housing reserves the right to rescind an award to any applicant whose site control documents are shown to be insufficient during the credit underwriting process. Thus, the fact that no deed or certificate of title was included with Metro Grande’s site control documents was not considered by Florida Housing during the scoring process. Ms. Button testified that while this was an error in the application, it should be waived as a minor irregularity. The purpose of the documentation requirements was to demonstrate ownership and control of the applicant’s proposed site. There was no question or ambiguity as to the fact that Miami- Dade County owned the Metro Grande site. Florida Housing was not required to resort to information extraneous to the Metro Grande Application to confirm ownership of the site. The Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement form, executed by the Deputy Mayor as the Authorized Land Owner Representative, confirmed ownership of the parcels. Metro Grande’s failure to include a deed or certificate of title, therefore, created no confusion as to who owned the property or whether Miami-Dade County had the authority to lease the property to the applicant. There was no evidence presented that the failure to include a deed or certificate of title resulted in the omission of any material information or provided a competitive advantage over other applicants. Brisas contends that the RFA was clear as to the documents that must be included to satisfy the site control requirements. Metro Grande failed to provide those documents or even an explanation why those documents were not provided. Florida Housing ignored the fact that no deed or certificate of title was provided, instead relying on information found elsewhere in the application. It is found that Metro Grande failed to comply with an eligibility item of the RFA, but that Florida Housing was correct to waive that failure as a minor irregularity that provided Metro Grande no competitive advantage, created no uncertainty as to whether the requirements of the RFA were met, and did not adversely affect the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Brisas has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEACON PLACE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Beacon Place Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Beacon Place was not preliminarily selected for funding. The RFA provides that an application may earn proximity points based on the distance between its Development Location Point and the selected Transit or Community Service. Proximity points are used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference. Beacon Place is a Large County Application that is not eligible for the “Public Housing Authority Proximity Point Boost.” As such, the Beacon Place Application was required to achieve a minimum Transit Point score of 2 to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must also achieve a total Proximity Point score of 10.5 in order to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must achieve a total Proximity Point score of 12.5 or more in order to receive the RFA’s Proximity Funding Preference. Based on the information in its Application, Beacon Place received a Total Proximity Point score of 18 and was deemed eligible for funding and for the Proximity Point Funding Preference. The Beacon Place Application listed a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as its Transit Service. Applying the Transit Service Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 6 Proximity Points for its Transit Service. The Beacon Place Application listed a Grocery Store, a Pharmacy, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart in order to obtain Proximity Points for Community Services. Using the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 4 Proximity Points for each service listed, for a total of 12 Proximity Points for Community Services. Beacon Place has stipulated, however, that the Public School listed in its application does not meet the definition of “Public School” in the RFA and Beacon Place should not receive the 4 Proximity Points for listing a public school. The RFA defines a “Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop” as: [a] fixed location at which passengers may access public transportation via bus. The Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one bus that travels at some point during the route in either a lane or corridor that is exclusively used by buses, and the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one route that has scheduled stops at the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop at least every 20 minutes during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm to 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year- round basis. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. The Beacon Place Application included Metrobus Route 38 (“Route 38”) as a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. Route 38 has scheduled stops at the location identified in the Beacon Place Application at the following times during the period of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. Monday through Friday: 7:01, 7:36, 7:56, 8:11, 8:26, 8:41, and 8:56. Brisas and Northside contend that Route 38 does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop because there is a gap of more than 20 minutes between the 7:01 a.m. bus and the 7:36 a.m. bus. Applicants are not required to include bus schedules in the application. Florida Housing does not attempt to determine whether an identified stop meets the RFA definitions during the scoring process. During discovery in this litigation, Florida Housing changed its position and now agrees that Route 38 does not satisfy the definition. Nonetheless, the standard of review set forth in section 120.57(3) is applicable to Florida Housing’s initial eligibility determination, not its revised position. All parties stipulated that Route 38 meets the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. If the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not also meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., Beacon Place would not be entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and would be ineligible for funding. Beacon Place cannot contest the fact that there is a 35 minute gap between the 7:01 and the 7:36 buses. Beacon Place has attempted to salvage its situation by comparing the language used in the RFA definition of a Public Bus Stop with that used in the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. The RFA defines Public Bus Stop in relevant part as [a] fixed location at which passengers may access one or two routes of public transportation via buses. The Public Bus Stop must service at least one bus route with scheduled stops at least hourly during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm and 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year round basis…. Florida Housing has interpreted the “hourly” requirement of the Public Bus Stop definition to mean that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and at least once between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Beacon Place suggests that Florida Housing should interpret the “every 20 minutes” requirement for a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop similarly, so that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 7:20 a.m., once between 7:20 a.m. and 7:40 a.m., and once between 7:40 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Florida Housing has rejected this interpretation, however, noting that the language in the two definitions is explicitly different. Ms. Button testified that if Florida Housing had intended these two distinct definitions to be interpreted similarly, it could easily have worded them differently. It could have required a Public Bus Stop to have stops “at least every 60 minutes,” rather than “hourly.” It could have required a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop to have “three stops per hour” rather than “every 20 minutes.” Ms. Button observed that the purpose of the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop definition is to award points for serving the potential residents with frequent and regular stops. The idea was to be sure residents had access to the bus during the hours when most people are going to and from work. Florida Housing’s interpretation of “every 20 minutes” is consonant with the plain language of the phrase and reasonably serves the purpose of the definition. Florida Housing also rejected the idea that the failure of the identified stop to meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop in the RFA should be waived as a minor irregularity. Ms. Button testified that allowing one applicant to get points for a stop that did not meet the definition would give it a competitive advantage over other applicants, including some potential applicants who did not apply because they could not satisfy the terms of the definition. Because the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop, Beacon Place is not entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and is thus ineligible for funding. Brisas and Northside have demonstrated that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility for Beacon Place was contrary to the specifications of the RFA. Florida Housing’s original recommendation would have been contrary to the terms of the RFA. THE EAST POINTE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the East Pointe Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, East Pointe was preliminarily selected for funding. Bella Vista challenged Florida Housing’s action alleging that the Medical Facility selected by East Pointe did not meet the definition found in the RFA. East Pointe proposed a Development in Lee County, a Medium County according to the terms of the RFA. Applicants from Medium Counties are not required to attain a minimum number of Transit Service Points to be considered eligible for funding. However, such applicants must achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. The East Pointe Application identified three Public Bus Stops and was awarded 5.5 Proximity Points based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart in Exhibit C to the RFA. However, East Pointe has stipulated that Public Bus Stop 1 listed in its application does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Stop because it does not have the required scheduled stops. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, East Pointe should receive a total of 3.0 Proximity Points for Transit Services for Public Bus Stops 2 and 3. East Pointe listed a Grocery Store, a Medical Facility, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart. Based on the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C to the RFA, East Pointe received 1 Proximity Point for its Grocery Store, 4 Proximity Points for its Medical Facility, and 3 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 8 Proximity Points for Community Services. East Pointe listed Lee Memorial Health System at 3511 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida, as its Medical Facility. The RFA defines “Medical Facility” as follows: A medically licensed facility that (i) employs or has under contractual obligation at least one physician licensed under Chapter 458 or 459, F.S. available to treat patients by walk-in or by appointment; and (ii) provides general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person. Facilities that specialize in treating specific classes of medical conditions or specific classes of patients, including emergency rooms affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals and clinics affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals, will not be accepted. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. If East Pointe’s selected Medical Facility does not meet the definition of “Medical Facility” in the RFA, East Pointe will lose 4 Proximity Points, reducing its total Proximity Points to 7. The East Pointe Application would still be eligible but would not receive the Proximity Funding Preference and, therefore, would fall out of the funding range of the RFA. Bella Vista alleged that East Pointe should not have received Proximity Points for a Medical Facility because the Lee Community Healthcare location specified in its application “only serves adults and therefore only treats a specific group of patients.” Lee Community HealthCare operates nine locations in Lee County, including the “Dunbar” location that East Pointe named in its application. Lee Community Healthcare’s own promotional materials label the Dunbar location as “adults only.” Robert Johns, Executive Director for Lee Community Healthcare, testified by deposition. Mr. Johns testified that as of the RFA application date of September 24, 2019, the Dunbar office provided services primarily to adults 19 years of age or over, by walk-in or by appointment. A parent who walked into the Dunbar office with a sick or injured child could obtain treatment for that child. A parent seeking medical services for his or her child by appointment would be referred to a Lee Community HealthCare office that provided pediatric services. Mr. Johns testified that the Dunbar office would provide general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person who presented at the facility, including children. Children would not be seen by appointment at the Dunbar facility, but they would be treated on a walk-in basis. The RFA requires a Medical Facility to treat patients “by walk-in or by appointment.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing reads this requirement in the disjunctive. A Medical Facility is not required to see any and all patients by walk-in and to see any and all patients by appointment. Florida Housing finds it sufficient for the Medical Facility to see some or all patients by walk-in or by appointment. Ms. Button opined that the Dunbar office met the definition of a Medical Facility because it treated adults by walk-in or appointment and treated children on a walk-in basis. Florida Housing’s reading is consistent with the literal language of the RFA definition. While it would obviously be preferable for the Dunbar facility to see pediatric patients by appointment, the fact that it sees them on a walk-in basis satisfies the letter of the RFA provision. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEMBRIDGE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Bembridge Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Bembridge was preliminarily selected for funding. Bembridge proposed a development in Collier County, a Medium County in RFA terms. As an applicant from a Medium County, Bembridge was required to achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. Medium County applicants are allowed, but not required, to claim both Transit Service points and Community Service points. As to Community Services, the RFA provides that an applicant may receive a “maximum 4 Points for each service, up to 3 services.” The RFA goes on to state: Applicants may provide the location information and distances for three of the following four Community Services on which to base the Application’s Community Services Score.[5] The Community Service Scoring Charts, which reflect the methodology for calculating the points awarded based on the distances, are outlined in Exhibit C. In its Application, Bembridge listed four, not three, Community Services. Bembridge was one of six Applicants that mistakenly submitted four Community Services instead of three. The Review Committee scorer reviewing Community Services in the applications stated on her scoring sheet: “After removing points for the service with the least amount of points, all still met the eligibility requirement.” 5 The four listed Community Services were Grocery Store, Public School, Medical Facility, and Pharmacy. Florida Housing interpreted the RFA as not specifically prohibiting an applicant from listing four Community Services, but as providing that the applicant could receive points for no more than three of them. As to the six applicants who submitted four Community Services, Florida Housing awarded points only for the three Community Services that were nearest the proposed development.6 Bembridge received 3 Proximity points for its Grocery Store, 3.5 Proximity Points for its Pharmacy, and 4 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 10.5 Proximity Points for Community Services. Thus, as originally scored, Bembridge met the Proximity Funding Preference. Florida Housing did not score the Medical Facility listed by Bembridge, which was the farthest Community Service from the proposed development. Ms. Button testified that this fourth Community Service was treated as surplus information, and because it did not conflict with any other information in the application or cause uncertainty about any other information, it was simply not considered. Ms. Button likened this situation to prior RFAs in which applicants included pharmacies as Community Services even though they were not eligible in proposed family developments. Florida Housing disregarded the information as to pharmacies as surplus information. It did not consider disqualifying the applicants for providing extraneous information. Ms. Button also made it clear that if one of the three Community Services nearest the proposed development was found ineligible for some reason, the fourth Community Service submitted by the applicant would not be considered. The fourth Community Service was in all instances to be disregarded as surplusage in evaluating the application. 6 When queried as to whether the fourth Community Service was removed because it was worth the fewest points, as the reviewer’s notes stated, or because it was farthest away from the proposed development, Ms. Button replied that the distinction made no difference because the service that is farthest away is invariably the one that receives the fewest points. Florida Housing did not consider disqualifying Bembridge and the other five Applicants that mistakenly listed an extra Community Service in their applications. Ms. Button stated, “They provided in all of them, Bembridge and the others that were listed in this, they did provide three Community Services. And so I don’t think it is reasonable to throw out those applications for providing a fourth that we would just not consider nor give benefit to for those point values.” Bella Vista contends that Florida Housing should have rejected the Bembridge application rather than award points for the three nearest Community Services. Ms. Button testified that this was not a reasonable approach if only because there was nothing in the RFA stating that an application would be rejected if it identified more Community Services than were required. Ms. Button also noted that this was one of the first RFAs to allow applicants to select among four Community Services. She believed the novelty of this three-out-of-four selection process led to six applications incorrectly listing four Community Services. She implied that the Community Services language would have to be tweaked in future RFAs to prevent a recurrence of this situation, but she did not believe it fair to disqualify these six applicants for their harmless error. The Review Committee scorer did not perform a minor irregularity analysis relating to the fourth Community Service provided by Bembridge and the other applicants. Ms. Button opined that the addition of an extra Community Service amounts to no more than a minor irregularity because it provided no competitive advantage to the applicant and created no uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the RFA have been met. The RFA allows up to six proximity points for Transit Services. It specifically provides: Up to three Public Bus Stops may be selected with a maximum of 2 points awarded for each one. Each Public Bus Stop must meet the definition of Public Bus Stop as defined in Exhibit B, using at least one unique bus route. Up to two of the selected Public Bus Stops may be Sister Stops that serves the same route, as defined in Exhibit B. The RFA defines “Sister Stop” as: two bus stops that (i) individually, each meet the definition of Public Bus Stop, (ii) are separated by a street or intersection from each other, (iii) are within 0.2 miles of each other, (iv) serve at least one of the same bus routes, and (v) the buses travel in different directions. The Bembridge Application listed two Public Bus Stops, the definition of which is set forth at Finding of Fact 107 above. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, Bembridge received a total of 1.0 Proximity Point for Transit Services for its two Public Bus Stops. Numerous questions were asked at the hearing about whether Bembridge’s identified bus stops were “Sister Stops” as defined in the RFA, and the evidence on that point was not definitive. However, whether they are Sister Stops is irrelevant because each stop identified by Bembridge independently met the definition of “Public Bus Stop” in the RFA and was therefore eligible for Transit Proximity Points. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to RFA 2019-102 finding that: The Berkeley Application is ineligible for funding; The Sierra Bay Application is ineligible for funding; The Solaris Application is ineligible for funding; The Metro Grande Application is eligible for funding; The Beacon Place Application is ineligible for funding; The East Pointe Application is eligible for funding and entitled to the Proximity Funding Preference; and The Bembridge Application is eligible for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 6th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Community Development Board (“CDB”) to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2015-10040 filed by Appellee Clearwater Marine Aquarium, Inc. (“the Aquarium”), cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The Aquarium is the owner of a 4.53-acre site, consisting of three parcels, located at 249 Windward Passage in Clearwater, Florida (“the property”). The site is on a small island near Clearwater Beach, known as Island Estates. A single roadway, called Island Way, provides ingress and egress to Island Estates. The Aquarium property is zoned Commercial. The property is designated Commercial General in the Future Land Use Element of the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The area around the Aquarium property is developed with attached dwellings, offices, a marina, an automobile service station, a restaurant, and a retail plaza with building heights ranging from one to six stories. On September 30, 2015, the Aquarium filed a Flexible Development Application for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to develop two buildings, a dolphin pool, and a parking garage. To be approved, the proposed development must meet “flexibility standards” set forth in the City’s Community Development Code. The application required a Level Two approval. Under Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code, a Level Two approval requires that notice of the application be mailed to owners of properties “within a 200-foot radius of the perimeter boundaries of the subject property.” The notice mailed by the City identifies (by parcel number) only one of the three parcels which comprise the Aquarium site. The City Clerk mailed notice of the Aquarium’s application to owners of parcels located within 200 feet of the single parcel identified in the notice. The calculation of 200 feet was not made from the boundaries of the Aquarium’s combined three-parcel property. Whether the mailed notice conformed with Section 4-206 was not an issue raised before the CDB. The record does not show the reason the calculation was made in the manner it was made, whether it was consistent with the City’s interpretation of the applicable code requirement, or whether it was based on the location of the proposed structures. There is no evidence in the record about what additional property owners, if any, would have received notice if the boundaries of the entire site had been used. Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code also requires that a sign be posted on the “parcel proposed for development.” The record does not show whether the sign was posted. Appellant Kohut Family Trust received mailed notice of the Aquarium’s application by and through Peter Kohut at his residential address. On January 12, 2106, Mr. Kohut attended a town hall meeting about the Aquarium’s application, held at St. Brendan’s Church on Island Estates. Mr. Kohut stated that he sent e-mails and through word-of-mouth was able to get about 55 people to attend the town hall meeting. At the town hall meeting, an Aquarium representative presented information about the proposed project and answered questions. On January 19, 2016, the CDB conducted a public hearing on the Aquarium’s application. Mr. Kohut appeared at the public hearing, requested and was granted party status by the CDB, and made a presentation to the CDB. Mr. Kohut did not mention the Kohut Family Trust in his presentation to the CDB and did not request party status for the Kohut Family Trust. Mr. Kohut told the CDB that “the only notification that was given was given by the civic organization to its members.” Because Mr. Kohut knew he had received mailed notice, Mr. Kohut likely meant that the only detailed information about the Aquarium’s proposed project was provided at the town hall meeting. Mr. Kohut was provided an opportunity to present witnesses, introduce evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses at the public hearing. He did not introduce any exhibits or present any witnesses. Mr. Kohut objected, generally, about increased traffic and lowered property values and, specifically, about his desire for curbs and gutters. Mr. Kohut did not identify any specific criterion for approval of the Aquarium’s application that he believed would not be met. The City Planner, Matt Jackson, was accepted by the CDB as an expert witness in the areas of zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and the City’s landscape ordinance. Mr. Jackson discussed the Aquarium’s application and stated his opinion that it complied with all applicable Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan requirements. Mr. Jackson was cross-examined by Mr. Kohut. The Aquarium’s attorney made a presentation to the CDB in support of the application and introduced the testimony of engineers Al Carrier and Robert Pergolizzi. The CDB accepted Mr. Carrier as an expert witness in the areas of civil engineering, land use planning, and planning in general. The CDB accepted Mr. Pergolizzi as an expert witness in the areas of planning, land use, and traffic impact studies. Mr. Pergolizzi was cross-examined by Mr. Kohut. The attorney for Island Way Grill, Inc., obtained party status for his client and made a presentation in support of the Aquarium’s application. Steven Traum obtained party status and made a presentation to the CDB. Mr. Traum did not appear for oral argument on April 8, 2016, and did not file a proposed order. On January 22, 2016, the City entered a Development Order memorializing the CDB’s approval of the Aquarium’s application.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether the Petition to Establish the Three Creeks Community Development District (Petition) meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
