The Issue The issues in these cases are whether two community development district petitions should be granted: the first, a Petition to Contract Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2; and the second, a Petition to Establish Rule [sic] for Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 5.
Conclusions Under Section 190.003(6), Florida Statutes (2000), a "community development district" (CDD) is "a local unit of special-purpose government which is created pursuant to this act and limited to the performance of those specialized functions authorized by this act; the boundaries of which are contained wholly within a single county; the governing head of which is a body created, organized, and constituted and authorized to function specifically as prescribed in this act for the delivery of urban community development services; and the formation, powers, governing body, operation, duration, accountability, requirements for disclosure, and termination of which are as required by general law." (All of the following statutory citations are to the year 2000 codification of the Florida Statutes.) Sections 190.006 through 190.046 constitute the uniform general law charter of all CDDs, which can be amended only by the Florida Legislature. Section 190.011 enumerates the general powers of CDDs. These powers include the power of eminent domain inside the district and, with the approval of the governing body of the applicable county or municipality, outside the district for purposes related solely to water, sewer, district roads, and water management. Section 190.012 lists special powers of CDDs. Subject to the regulatory power of all applicable government agencies, CDDs may plan, finance, acquire, construct, enlarge, operate, and maintain systems, facilities, and basic infrastructures for: water management; water supply, sewer, and wastewater management; needed bridges and culverts; CDD roads meeting minimum county specifications, street lights, and certain mass transit facilities; investigation and remediation costs associated with cleanup of environmental contamination; conservation, mitigation, and wildlife habitat areas; and certain projects within or without the CDD pursuant to development orders from local governments. After obtaining the consent of the applicable local government, a CDD may have the same powers with respect to the following "additional" systems and facilities: parks and recreation; fire prevention; school buildings; security; mosquito control; and waste collection and disposal. Section 190.046(1) provides for the filing of a petition for contraction of a CDD. Under paragraphs (f) and (g) of Section 190.046(1), petitions to contract a CDD by more than 250 acres "shall be considered petitions to establish a new district and shall follow all of the procedures specified in s. 190.005." Section 190.005(1)(a) requires that the petition to establish a CDD be filed with FLAWAC and submitted to the County. The petition must describe by metes and bounds the proposed area to be serviced by the CDD with a specific description of real property to be excluded from the district. The petition must set forth that the petitioner has the written consent of the owners of all of the proposed real property in the CDD, or has control by "deed, trust agreement, contract or option" of all of the proposed real property. The petition must designate the five initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the CDD and the district’s name. The petition must contain a map showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if any. Both the petition to contract District 2 and the petition to establish District 5 meet those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires that the petition propose a timetable for construction and an estimate of construction costs. The petition must designate future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land in the future land-use element of the appropriate local government. The petition must also contain a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost. Both the petition to contract District 2 and the petition to establish District 5 meet those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires the petitioner to provide a copy of the local government’s growth management plan (the local government comprehensive plan). District 2 and SMR have done so. Section 190.005(1)(b) requires that the petitioner pay a filing fee of $15,000 to the county and to each municipality whose boundaries are within or contiguous to the CDD. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on those local governments, as well. District 2 and SMR have met those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(c) permits the county and each municipality described in the preceding paragraph to conduct an optional public hearing on the petition. Such local governments may then present resolutions to FLAWAC as to the proposed property for the CDD. Manatee County has exercised this option and has adopted a resolution in support of the contraction of District 2 and establishment of District 5. Section 190.005(1)(d) requires a DOAH ALJ to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The hearing "shall include oral and written comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in paragraph (e)." Section 190.005(1)(d) specifies that the petitioner must publish notice of the local public hearing once a week for the four successive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. District 2 and SMR have met those requirements. Under Section 190.005(1)(e), FLAWAC must consider the following factors in determining whether to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a CDD: Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be 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. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. Whether the community development services and facilities will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. Factor 1 Some statements in the original petition to contract District 2 were not true and correct and had to be revised. As revised, all statements in the petition were shown by the evidence to be true and correct. All statements in the petition to establish District 5 were shown by the evidence to be true and correct. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 2 In these cases, the evidence was that the proposed contraction of District 2 and establishment of District 5 are not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the local government comprehensive plan. There was no evidence to the contrary. (A different and more detailed review is required to determine that future development within the proposed CDDs will be consistent with all applicable laws and local ordinances and the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. Establishment of a CDD does not constitute and should not be construed as a development order or any other kind of approval of the development anticipated in the CDD. Such determinations are made in other proceedings.) Factor 3 In these cases, the evidence was that the areas of land within District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and within proposed District 5 are of sufficient size, are sufficiently compact, and are sufficiently contiguous for each proposed CDD to be developable as a functional, interrelated community. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 4 In these cases, the evidence was that District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and proposed District 5 are the best alternatives available for delivering community development services and facilities to the areas that will be served by those two proposed CDDs. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 5 In these cases, the evidence was that the proposed community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 6 In these cases, the evidence was that the areas to be served by District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and proposed District 5 are amenable to separate special-district government. There was no evidence to the contrary. REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED this 22nd day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Erin McCormick Larrinaga, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601-1438 Jose Luis Rodriguez, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capital, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2105 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ann Storck Center, Inc., is a non-profit agency with a volunteer Board of Directors which began in 1956 when Ann Storck opened her first group home in Broward County to assist children with mental retardation. Petitioner serves children and young adults with developmental disabilities by providing preschool, developmental training, prevocational training, and residential services in several intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded (ICF/MR). The individuals served by Petitioner at the Pembroke Pines cluster are within the severe to profound range of mental retardation and have significant secondary disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, autism, and epilepsy. There are medically fragile and developmentally disabled individuals at the Pembroke Pines cluster facility. Several of them are tube fed and have significant seizure problems or renal problems. Other than reimbursement under the Medicaid laws and other funds from government agencies, Petitioner obtains its funds from charitable endeavors such as the operation of a thrift shop six days per week, every week for the past seventeen years, together with numerous other fund raising efforts. Petitioner's budget for providing services to individuals with developmental disabilities is $300,000 to $400,000 in excess of the Medicaid and other government funding which is provided each year. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990, which is the subject of the cost report and desk audit involved in this proceeding, Petitioner had a deficit of almost $120,000 dollars at the Pembroke Pines cluster. Petitioner does not have cash reserves. If, in addition to that deficit, Petitioner is required to pay back money to the Department and have a reduced Medicaid reimbursement rate at the present time, Petitioner cannot survive the consequences. Although Petitioner is the provider of all ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster facility, the Department holds the Medicaid provider number. Medicaid cost reports are filed by Petitioner every year, using the Department's provider number. In those cost reports, Petitioner includes cost figures provided to it by the Department for the Department's costs related to the Pembroke Pines cluster facility. The same certified public accountant has been filing the Medicaid cost reports for the Pembroke Pines facility on Petitioner's behalf since 1984. Although he performs the facility's monthly accountings and performs an annual audit, that C.P.A. is not in a position to verify the figures provided to Petitioner by the Department. Accordingly, each year's cost report contains a disclaimer letter from him, and the Department has never raised any concerns regarding that letter. Each year's cost report has been completed in accordance with the Department's directions to Petitioner. Specifically, Petitioner includes all costs of rendering ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster. The Department then uses each June 30 cost report to obtain Medicaid funds from the federal government. Those funds have been paid to the Department and not to Petitioner since the Department considers itself to be the provider of ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster. Prior to 1991, the Department did not reimburse Petitioner pursuant to the Medicaid cost reports filed by Petitioner representing the actual costs which Petitioner had expended in providing ICF/MR services. Rather, the Department established Petitioner's Medicaid per diem reimbursement rate pursuant to a fixed rate contract. By doing so, the Department reimbursed Petitioner for services rendered at a rate less than Petitioner's actual costs and less than the money the Department received from the federal government utilizing Petitioner's cost report. The Department retained those additional monies. Although audit reports were drafted by the Department as far back as 1987 and as far back as for the fiscal 1985 cost report for the Pembroke Pines cluster, the Department held back those audit reports until June of 1991 because the Department had not established procedures for conducting audits of the cluster facilities and had not trained staff to perform those audits until that time. The Department's policies on how to process desk audits, even when finalized in 1991, were never published as a rule, were not generally made available to persons other than the Department employees who attended the training meetings, and were not explained during the final hearing in this cause. In 1989, Petitioner, other providers of ICF/MR services, and a trade association representing ICF/MR providers filed a lawsuit against the Department and against two Department officials in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the manner in which the Department reimbursed providers of ICF/MR services did not comply with federal law. On June 17, 1991, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that a preliminary injunction be entered against the Department. Based on that Report, oral argument, and an independent review of the file, the United States District Judge entered an Order Granting Preliminary Injunction on September 13, 1991. The 17-page Order Granting Preliminary Injunction was both mandatory and prohibitory. It was held that the Department's method of reimbursing operators of cluster facilities such as Petitioner pursuant to a fixed-rate contract rather than pursuant to a reimbursement plan for providers of ICF/MR services violated Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1396(a)(13), known as the Boren Amendment to the Medicaid Act. Pursuant to the Boren Amendment, the Department was required to have established reimbursement rates which are "reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards." The federal court ordered the Department to cease reimbursing its cluster providers pursuant to a fixed-rate contract and ordered the Department to formulate a new reimbursement plan which complied with the substantive requirements of the Boren Amendment. The federal court ordered the Department to file its new plan by October 4, 1991, with the rates of reimbursement established under that plan to be retroactive to September 4, 1991. The court specifically held that the Department's argument that it was the provider of ICF/MR services because it held the provider number was ". . .false to the point of absurdity. . . ." The Department responded with an amended reimbursement plan for providers of ICF/MR services effective July 1, 1991. Medicaid is a prospective cost reimbursement system. The reimbursement rate is set prospectively based upon historic data. In Florida there are two rate semesters each year. Therefore, April 1, 1991, would be the first rate period affected by the Department's audit of the Pembroke Pines cluster cost report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990. The Department began its calculations relative to its audit of the Pembroke Pines cost report in approximately February of 1991. The calculations were not completed until June of 1992. The Department's June 12, 1992, letter memorializing the results of the Department's desk audit notified the Department and Petitioner as to the per diem reimbursement rate for the Prembroke Pines cluster facility effective with the April 1, 1991, rate semester; with a recalculation effective July 1, 1991, (the effective date of the new reimbursement plan ordered by the federal court); and with a recalculated rate effective September 1, 1991 (for some unexplained reason). When those rates were calculated and disclosed pursuant to the June 12, 1992, letter some nine months after the federal judge had rejected the Department's position that the Department was the provider of ICF/MR services because it held the provider number, the calculations were done and the reimbursement rate was established as though the Department was the provider of ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster. In conjunction with the Department continuing to maintain that position in spite of the federal injunction against it, the audit letter explaining the audit adjustments and establishing the new reimbursement rates was sent by the Department's Tallahassee office to the Department's Fort Lauderdale office. When the Department's Residential Services Director for District 10 received the audit letter, he contacted the Tallahassee office of the Department. He requested, as he had done on a number of occasions previously, that Petitioner be reimbursed for excess costs above what the Department was allowing or that Petitioner receive an interim rate increase. That renewed request was denied by the Tallahassee office. The Residential Services Director was aware that Petitioner had been losing money operating the Pembroke Pines facility, that Petitioner was not being reimbursed for expenditures above the amount paid under the old fixed-rate contract system, and that Petitioner supplemented its reimbursement from the Department through fund raising activities by necessity. Since he, as part of his duties, attended admission and discharge meetings, attended licensure surveys, and had been involved with physical plant repairs and maintenance to the Pembroke Pines facility since 1987, he was familiar with the excellent survey reports which Petitioner receives regarding its operation of the facility, was familiar with Petitioner's excellent quality of care, and with Petitioner's efficient manner of providing services. The desk audit contained one positive adjustment. It increased Petitioner's operating expenses by $29,841. The reason for that positive adjustment was that the Department had provided to Petitioner an incorrect figure for the Department's costs related to the facility during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990. That positive adjustment is a correct figure and increases the total allowable operating expenses for the Pembroke Pines cluster facility for the fiscal year to $1,619,888. Each cost item within the total allowable operating expenses of $1,619,888 is a reasonable, necessary, and ordinary cost incurred and expended for the operation of the Pembroke Pines cluster facility in an efficient and economical manner. The audit letter contained 9 negative adjustments for a total negative adjustment of $50,979. Each of those 9 negative adjustments is incorrect and is without basis. Each negative adjustment simply reduces the total cost in that particular category by an arbitrary percentage, and none of those negative adjustments is in accordance with the reimbursement plan governing providers of ICF/MR services. The erroneous negative adjustments made during the desk audit of the June 30, 1990, cost report resulted in a Medicaid reimbursement per diem rate of $184.91 for the rate period effective April 1, 1991, for level 8 and level 9 patients, which are the most severely disabled patients and are the only types of patients who receive ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster facility. That per diem rate is incorrect. The correct Medicaid reimbursement per diem rate based upon proper auditing procedures and based upon the reimbursement rate plan is $191.36. Those proper auditing procedures include, for example, using the reimbursement plan in effect at the time the rates are to be calculated, something not done by the Department which used the reimbursement plan effective July 1, 1991, to compute the rates effective April 1, 1991. The errors made in the desk audit of the June 30, 1990, cost report are still causing Petitioner to be underpaid for its ICF/MR services. The June 30, 1990, cost report determines the base rate, for example, for the October 1, 1992, rate semester, during which semester the final hearing in this cause was conducted. The Department has been reimbursing Petitioner during the October 1, 1992, rate semester using a per diem rate of $212.05 rather than the correct figure of $216.12 per day per patient. The erroneous negative adjustments made during the desk audit were caused by the Department's use of the fixed-price contract rather than the ICF/MR rate plan to establish Petitioner's reimbursement rate. The desk audit report itself refers to the 9 negative adjustments as being contract adjustments. Further, the person who performed the audit testified at the final hearing that although all of the expenses would have been allowed under the published rate plan, without the negative adjustments, the audit was performed pursuant to instructions given to her by other Department employees to make adjustments pursuant to the fixed-rate contract because the per diem rate was to be established based on the Department's total costs as a District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding the positive audit adjustment to have been properly made; Finding the negative audit adjustments to have been improperly made; Determining the total allowable operating expenses for the Pembroke Pines cluster facility for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990, to be $1,619,888; Establishing the reimbursement rate for the facility's level 8 and level 9 care for the April 1, 1991, rate semester to be $191.36 per patient per day; Establishing the reimbursement rate for the facility's level 8 and level 9 care for the October 1, 1992, rate semester to be $216.12; and Recalculating the reimbursement rate for the other rate semesters subsequent to April 1, 1991, in accordance with this Recommended Order. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered A, C, D, F-O, Q, R, T- W, Y-AH, AK, AN, AQ, AR, AT-AW, AZ, BC-BE, BG-BI, BM, BP-BS, BU-BX, BZ, CA, CC- CF, CH-CJ, CM-CO, CQ, and CS-DA have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered B, E, P, S, X, AM, AO, AS, AX, BF, BJ, BL, BO, BY, CG, CK, CL, CR, and DC-DE have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered AY, BA, BB, and CP have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered AI, AJ, BN, BT, and DB have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered AL, AP, BK, and CB have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 10, and 13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 9, and 11 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-5, 12, 14-20, 24, and have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 8, and 21-23 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban & Weinger, P.A. Second Floor 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Karel Baarslag, Esquire HRS Medicaid Office Building Six, Room 234 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
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:
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Arborwood Community Development District (Petition), dated November 17, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
Conclusions On May 6, 1994, a public hearing was held in this cause in St. Augustine, Florida, for the purpose of considering the petition of Atlantic Gulf Communities Corporation (Petitioner) to adopt a rule authorizing the establishment of the Julington Creek Plantation Community District (District) in St. Johns County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. At hearing, petitioner was represented by Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire, and David L. Powell, Esquire. An appearance was also entered by Daniel J. Bosanko, Esquire, for St. Johns County. Petitioner presented the testimony of J. Thomas Gillette, III, vice president of Atlantic Gulf Communities Corporation, general manager of Julington Creek Plantation, and agent of petitioner in this proceeding, Douglas C. Miller, an expert in civil engineering with emphasis in public infrastructure design, public infrastructure prmitting, public infrastructure cost estimation, construction administration and survey, and Gary R. Walters, an expert in planning with emphasis in long-range community planning, economic development, and special district establishment and management. Offering testimony in the role of public witnesses were Kathleen T. Minnis and John R. Sanders. The names and addresses of all witnesses are set forth in Appendix A attached to this Report and a summary of their testimony is contained in the findings set forth in a subsequent part of this Report. Petitioner offered exhibits 1-14 which were accepted and made a part of this record. Also, two late-filed exhibits have been received as petitioner's exhibits 15 and 16. A list of the exhibits is contained in Appendix B attached to this Report. A posthearing comment in the form of a letter was filed by Kathleen T. Minnis, who testified at the public hearing. A response to the letter has been filed by petitioner. Both documents have been considered by the undersigned. Finally, a copy of the text of the rule is contained in Appendix C attached to this Report. This Report and Conclusions is submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code. PRELIMARY STATEMENT This proceeding began when petitioner filed a petition with the Secretary of the Commission on March 2, 1994, seeking authorization to establish a community development district in an unincorporated area of St. Johns County, Florida. The contents of the petition are found in petitioner's exhibit 1 accepted into the record. After certifying that all elements and contents of the petition were complete, the Secretary forwarded the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 11, 1994. A notice of public hearing was issued setting this matter for hearing on May 6, 1994, in St. Augustine, Florida. In addition, petitioner was required to publish notice of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area. Such notice was published in the St. Augustine Record, a daily newspaper in St. Augustine, Florida, on April 4, 11, 18, and 25, 1994. Proof of publication is found in petitioner's exhibit 7 accepted into the record. As required by Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code, a copy of said notice was also served on the Department of Community Affairs. Finally, notice of the hearing was published by the Secretary in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 22, 1994, as required by Rule 42-1.010(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A copy of said notice is found in petitioner's exhibit 2 accepted into the record. Petitioner also filed a copy of the petition with the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners and paid the required $15,000 filing fee to that body. A public hearing on the petition was held by the Economic Development Committee of the County Commission on April 5, 1994. The Board of County Commissioners held optional public hearings on April 12 and 26, 1994. After the hearings were concluded, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution supporting the establishment of the District. A copy of the resolution has been received into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 3. The hearing in this matter was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. A transcript of the proceeding was filed with the undersigned on May 23, 1994, and is being transmitted with the Report and Conclusions. Finally, petitioner submitted a proposed report of findings and conclusions which has been considered by the undersigned. Overview of the Case Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district of approximately 4,119 acres in northwestern St. Johns County, located about fifteen miles from St. Augustine. If established, the District will be an independent special district authorized pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. The District will have all powers set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, including but not limited to the ability to finance, own, operate and maintain certain community facilities and services. Generally, the property is bounded by low density residential development and Julington Creek to the north, agricultural lands and low density residential development to the south, and low density residential development to the west. The lands within the proposed District are largely undeveloped, except for an eighteen-hole golf course. All land within the District will be developed as a mixed-use project pursuant to St. Johns County Ordinance No. 93-43, the development order for the Julington Creek Plantation Planned Unit Development (PUD), and St. Johns County Resolution No. 93-159, the development order for the Julington Creek Development of Regional Impact (DRI), both adopted by the St. Johns Board of County Commissioners (Board) on September 28, 1993. The Julington Creek Plantation community will be primarily a residential development. The approved plan of development authorizes approximately 6,400 residential dwelling units as well as commercial, recreational and utility land uses within the project in three phases. Petitioner at present contemplates the construction of approximately 5,700 dwelling units, 41.9 acres of commercial space, and other authorized development within the District in three phases. At present there are approximately 24 households within the District. Petitioner presently intends for the District to participate in the construction of certain road improvements as required by the current DRI development order. These road improvements include portions of Racetrack Road and State Road 13. The District also will assist in financing the improvement of Russell Sampson Road, located one-half mile east of the Julington Creek Plantation community, connecting Racetrack Road with County Road 210 and Interstate Highway 95. Petitioner further presently intends for the District to finance, construct, own, operate, and maintain a multi-purpose recreational facility within its boundaries. The estimated cost in 1993 dollars for these capital improvements is $11,431,515, with construction scheduled to take place from 1995 through 1998. Actual construction costs and timetables may vary for a variety of reasons, including final design and permitting criteria, and future changes in economic conditions upon labor, services, materials, interest and general market circumstances. Petitioner proposes that the District utilize special assessment or revenue bonds to finance the planned infrastructure. The bonds are expected to be repaid through non-ad valorem assessments on the land within the District, or rates and charges established by the District. Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. Petitioner proposes for the District to impose user charges for use of the recreation center. Petitioner presently proposes for the District to maintain certain arterial and subdivision roadway lighting. Petitioner also intends for the District to maintain the water management system and wetland and conservation areas to be constructed or established by others. Maintenance of State Road 13, Racetrack Road and Russell Sampson Road will be by state or county transportation agencies. The Board concluded that, so far as the County is concerned, the District would satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e)2.-6., Florida Statutes, and recommended that the Commission adopt a rule to establish the District as proposed by Petitioner. The sole purpose of this proceeding is to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by Petitioner to provide the community development facilities and services for the Julington Creek Plantation community as approved by the County. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. Gillette identified Petitioner's Exhibit 1 as a copy of the petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. At the hearing, he provided a revised legal description to more accurately describe the area to be included within the District. This revised legal description expressly excluded an additional area, identified as "Exception (10)," from the boundaries of the District and omitted unnecessary preamble language. Gillette provided a revised map of the area described in the legal description. The revised legal description and map were substituted for the legal description and map included as attachment 2 to the petition as filed. Gillette also corrected the petition to specify that approximately 4,119 acres would be included within the District, rather than the 4,125 stated in the petition as filed. This revised figure was calculated to account for the deletion of "Exception (10)," which totalled 5.73 acres. Gillette provided additional consent and joinder forms from landowners who had purchased property within the District subsequent to the filing of the petition. These consent and joinder forms supplemented the forms submitted with the petition. Walters testified that two changes were necessary for the economic impact statement (EIS) submitted with the petition as Petition Exhibit 9. First, acreage figures in the EIS must be corrected. The total acreage in the District is approximately 4,119. The land use mix, as corrected, includes 1,639 acres for open space, conservation, rights of way, golf course and parks. Approximately 2,480 acres are to be used for residential, neighborhood and community commercial land uses. Second, Walters clarified the District's proposed maintenance duties for street lighting. The District will pay for electric service for street lighting. Physical maintenance will be performed by the Jacksonville Electric Authority. With the changes and additions set forth in paragraphs 26-30, all statements in the petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Walters reviewed the District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the 1990-2005 St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (Local Comprehensive Plan). In addition, the Board and the Department of Community Affairs reviewed the District in light of the requirements of the Local Comprehensive Plan. State Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, four goals of the State Comprehensive Plan, and policies supporting those goals, apply directly to the District. From an economics perspective, three goals and policies supporting those goals apply directly to the District. Goal 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. From both a planning and an economic perspective, the District will have the fiscal capacity to provide a range of services to a population in a designated growth area of northwestern St. Johns County. Goal 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. From both a planning and an economics perspective, the District will provide capital improvements to designated portions of a state and two county roads and a recreational center in the Julington Creek Plantation community at no cost to the County, allowing County resources to be devoted to needs of the population outside the District. Goal 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services desired by the public. From both a planning and an economics perspective, the District would provide services and facilities to residents and property owners of the District at a level and quality demanded by them. Goal 26, Plan Implementation, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination. From a planning perspective, all District board meetings will be publicly noticed and open to the public, therefore, all citizens may participate. In addition, Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file annual public facilities reports with the County which the County may use and rely on in any revisions to the Local Comprehensive Plan. From both a planning and economics perspective, the District would not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Local Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, the Future Land Use Element and Map and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Local Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the District. From an economics perspective, the Capital Improvements Element applies directly to the District. The Future Land Use Element, Goal A.1 and supporting policies, seeks to manage growth and development by designating areas of anticipated future development which satisfy demand in a cost-efficient and environmentally acceptable manner. From a planning perspective, the District would further this goal by means of effective infrastructure planning, public finance, and community-wide maintenance. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Goal I.1 and supporting objectives and policies, acknowledges the need for alternative providers of facilities and services and requires appropriate mechanisms to coordinate, monitor, and evaluate their activities where such activities have a bearing on required levels of service and land planning decisions by the County. From a planning perspective, the District satisfies that need. The Capital Improvements Element, Goal J.1 and supporting policies and objectives, is intended to ensure the orderly and efficient provision of certain public facilities and services, including roads and park and recreation facilities. From an economics perspective, the District furthers that intent because it would finance and/or construct road improvements and a recreation center to serve the community. Nothing in the Local Comprehensive Plan precludes the establishment of a community development district in St. Johns County. The Local Comprehensive Plan is mostly silent on the powers of such districts but it does not prevent a community development district from exercising any of the general or optional powers set forth in Sections 190.011 and 190.012, Florida Statutes. The Board concluded the District would not be inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the Local Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Community Affairs concluded that the District would not be inconsistent with the Local Comprehensive Plan. From both a planning and an economics perspective, the District would not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the Local Comprehensive Plan. Whether the area of land within the 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 Gillette, Miller and Walters. The lands that comprise the District consist of approximately 4,119 acres bounded to the north by Julington Creek and Durbin Creek, to the southwest partially be Cunningham Creek, and to the west by State Road 13. The site is transected east-to-west by Racetrack Road. The southernmost portion of the District, called "Mill Creek," is located west of State Road 13 and is bordered by Mill Creek and Cunningham Creek. The approved plan of development for the area within the District includes approximately 2,480 acres comprised of predominantly single-family residential homes and selected multi- family residential areas supported by both neighborhood and community-wide commercial. Within the District, the approved plan of development also includes approximately 1,639 acres of open space, conservation, rights of way, golf course, and parks. It is designed as a functionally interrelated residential community that will provide its residents with a complete range of facilities, services and amenities in a secluded setting. The land use plan for the area to be included within the District is set forth in the development order for the Julington Creek Development of Regional Impact, which was approved on September 28, 1993, pursuant to St. Johns County Resolution No. 93- 159, amending and replacing St. Johns County Resolution No. 82-37, as amended. All of the land in the District is subject to the development order. The DRI development order specifies that it governs approximately 4,150 acres. A surveyor hired by Petitioner concluded that the area governed by the DRI development order is 4,263.81 acres, with the discrepancy ascribed primarily to interpretations of meandered boundaries on Durbin and Cunningham creeks. Based on these figures, approximately 144 acres covered by the DRI development order would be outside the District. These areas were developed prior to commencement in 1993 of the process to establish the District. The portions of Julington Creek Plantation excluded from the District include approximately 300 residential lots, located in previously developed subdivisions identified as The Greens, Timber Trace and Oak Pointe I, of which approximately 290 had been sold to third parties as of the date of the local public hearing. Petitioner concluded it would not be practical to seek the consent of those owners to creation of the District, as required by law if they were to be included. There was no agreement between Petitioner and its predecessor, General Development Corporation, or residents of these areas with respect to establishment of the District. Functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual relationship to one another. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or maintenance of the larger whole, in this case, the Julington Creek Plantation community. 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. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 4,119 acres. From a planning perspective, this size is sufficient to constitute a functionally interrelated community. The Julington Creek Plantation community will have sufficient population density and property size to require all the basic facilities and services of a community. These facilities require adequate planning, design, financing, construction and maintenance. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. From a planning perspective, the property that comprises this community is compact because all the property is part of a single project, is close together, and has no barriers separating it. Contiguous means touching along a boundary or point. From a planning perspective, the property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are separated by no more than a roadway. All parts must be close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The land need not be functionally connected, especially when planning specialized governmental systems, facilities and services. Nor need it be actually touching to be sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes. The Julington Creek Plantation community is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. From an engineering perspective, the area is designed to function as one interrelated community. All of the systems and facilities to be constructed or maintained by the District will be integrated into the overall design of the community. From an economics perspective, the physical configuration of the District is ideal. The area to be included in the District is compact and contiguous. The size of the District allows economical construction of road improvements and maintenance of the water management and wetlands conservation system in a long-term cost-effective manner. The Board concluded that the area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a single functional interrelated community. From planning, economics and engineering perspectives, the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. The community development services and facilities expected to be delivered by the District include ownership, operation and maintenance of the water management and wetlands conservation system and the community recreation center, and to pay the operating costs of the collector and subdivision road lighting system. In addition, the District plans to finance improvements for portions of State Road 13 and two County roads, Racetrack Road and Russell Sampson Road. Capital costs for the road improvements are expected to be defrayed through non-ad valorem assessments levied on all benefitted property in the District. Capital costs for the recreation center are expected to be defrayed through non-ad valorem assessments. Expenses for operation and maintenance of District facilities are expected to be paid through maintenance assessments and/or user fees. Three alternative methods were identified for delivering community development facilities and services to the Julington Creek Plantation community -- County delivery, including use of a dependent special district, County delivery through a municipal service taxing unit, and private delivery by the developer or a property owners association. In evaluating alternative methods for delivering community development facilities and services, factors to consider include whether an alternative can deliver the best focused service and facilities; whether the alternative has an entity to manage the delivery; whether the alternative can provide a long-term perspective; whether the alternative is a stable provider; and whether the alternative can secure low-cost long-term financing to pay for all benefits at a sustained level of quality. Delivery by the County or a Dependent Special District The County, either directly or through a dependent special district, can provide a long-term perspective and is stable. Further, it can provide low- cost financing at sustained levels of quality. However, the County has substantial demands over a broad geographic area which places a heavy management load on its staff. Any financing by the County, including through a dependent special district, would count against the County's bonding capabilities and further limit the County's ability to provide infrastructure to other portions of St. Johns County. Delivery by a Municipal Service Taxing Unit The area to be served by the District is currently served by the Julington Creek Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU), established by St. Johns County on April 13, 1982, by Ordinance No. 82-17. It is currently responsible for paying for electricity for street lighting and for maintaining lakes in the Julington Creek Plantation community. To date, the MSTU has not met all the facility and service needs of the area to be included in the District. If the District is created, it will assume responsibility for providing street lighting and maintaining lakes within the portion of the community included within the District. In the few areas of the community outside the District, those responsibilities will be taken over by the property owners association. Petitioner will request that St. Johns County abandon the MSTU. The County anticipates this request from Petitioner. The MSTU can provide focused, though limited, service delivery to an area with the direct attention of the County staff and eventual policy direction by the Board. It can also provide low-cost financing. However, any debt incurred by the MSTU would count against the debt capacity of the County. Further, the County would incur direct costs for planning, financing and building infrastructure with its own revenues and staff. Compared to the District, the MSTU also would provide a more limited means for providing additional facilities and services to the community, in the event the residents of Julington Creek Plantation decide later to seek and pay for such facilities and services. Private Delivery Private means for delivering community development services and facilities include delivery through a master neighborhood-type property owners association or by a private developer. Either of these means can satisfy the demand for focused service and facilities and managed delivery. However, neither can assure a long-term perspective, act as a stable provider of services and facilities, or qualify as a low-cost source of financing. A property owners association could provide staffing and decisionmaking for these services and facilities, but such associations lack the capability to issue bonds or other forms of long-term debt. Therefore, it could not effectively finance the necessary infrastructure. The developer could provide community development services and facilities by utilizing long-term financing from private lenders, however, such financing would be more expensive than financing through a public entity. In addition, a private developer generally is not the long-term stable entity which can maintain necessary facilities. Delivery by the District The District is an independent special purpose unit of local government designed to focus its attention on providing the best long-term services to its specific benefitting properties and residents. It has limited powers and jurisdiction. It will be governed by its own board of supervisors and managed by those whose sole purpose is to provide long-term planning, financing and management of services and facilities for the District. Sources of funding assure that District services and facilities will be adequately managed at sustained levels of quality. The District will focus most directly on the proposed capital improvement needs of the area. Its attention will not be diverted by numerous other activities and projects, which will help ensure timely and cost effective completion. Construction of the road improvements, if undertaken by the District, will be completed sooner than otherwise required. That would be a distinct benefit from an engineering standpoint. The District is the only alternative that has all the advantages of each of the other alternatives without any of the disadvantages of any one of the alternatives. The Board expressly contemplated the establishment of a community development district when it authorized the Julington Creek Plantation community in a restated DRI development order in 1993. The DRI development order provides: If a Community Development District is established by the Developer pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, it may finance, fund, plan, establish, acquire, construct or reconstruct, enlarge or extend, equip, operate and maintain projects, systems and facilities for the purposes set forth in Chapter 190, F.S. (1991). St. Johns County expressly approves and consents to the construction or funding by the District of all such projects within or without the boundaries of the District required by this development order or necessary to serve the development approved by this development order. If the Developer is required by this development order to provide, pay for or otherwise cause to be provided infrastructure, projects, systems or facilities set forth in Chapter 190, F.S., including without limitation those in Section 190.012(1) and (2), F.S. (1991), then it is intended that the Community Development District independently may satisfy such obligations and St. Johns County consents to the District's role. To the extent any such obligation under this development order is met or performed by the District, then the Developer shall no longer be subject to the obligation. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as approval of or consent by the County to the establishment of a Community Development District (CDD) by the Developer pursuant to Chapter 190, F.S., and the County expressly maintains all rights available to it pursuant to Chapter 190, F.S., related to the proposed establishment of a CDD by the Developer. The Board subsequently concluded that the District appears to be a viable alternative so far as County matters and interests are concerned for delivering community development systems, services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District in a timely manner. From planning, economics and engineering perspectives, the District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. It is the best way to assure that growth will pay for itself. Whether the community development services and facilities of the district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The land area of the District is relatively isolated within the County and in part surrounded by conservation areas. There are no local or regional facilities within the area served by the District which duplicate proposed facilities of the District. The road improvements and recreational center do not yet exist. Petitioner plans for the District to maintain the water management system and wetlands conservation areas in perpetuity. Two arterial roads are to be improved with the assistance of the District. These projects include the four-laning of State Road 13 from Racetrack Road to Davis Pond Boulevard, and the four- laning of Racetrack Road from State Road 13 to Russell Sampson Road, which lies east of the District. In addition, the District proposes to participate in financing improvements to Russell Sampson Road. All these improvements are required by the DRI development order. None are currently funded by any governmental entity. State Road 13 will be maintained by the Department of Transportation. St. Johns County will maintain Racetrack Road and Russell Sampson Road. Maintenance by these agencies will include paying for electricity for road lighting. Internal roads within the District are proposed to be developed, constructed and financed by Petitioner. Road lighting within the District will be constructed and owned by the County, but the District will be responsible for electrical costs for those lights. Facilities proposed to be financed or constructed by the District have not been undertaken by the MSTU, so the MSTU would not duplicate any of those services or facilities. The MSTU currently provides certain street light and lake maintenance services, but Petitioner intends to request that the County abandon the MSTU after creation of the District to avoid even the potential for duplication. Petitioner intends for the District to plan, finance and construct the master recreation center. The facility will include an adult pool, junior olympic pool, and ancillary facilities. In addition, a volleyball court, basketball court, snack bar, restrooms, parking and reception/office facilities are expected to be included. The District will maintain the water management system and wetlands conservation areas. The facilities and services to be provided by the District will accelerate local and regional improvements and provide operation and maintenance services not currently provided. The Board concluded that the community development systems, services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing community development services and facilities so far as County considerations are concerned. From planning and engineering perspectives, the services and facilities to be provided by the 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. Two criteria are needed to evaluate a land area for suitability for separate special district governance. They are whether the area is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be the basis for a functional interrelated community, and whether the land area needs, and the owners and residents will benefit from, the community development services and facilities. From planning, economic and engineering perspectives, the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. The Julington Creek Plantation community needs basic infrastructure and services including maintenance of the water management system for drainage, maintenance of wetland conservation areas, roadway improvements as required by the DRI development order, electricity for street lights, and recreational facilities. The District will undertake those services on a perpetual basis. The Board concluded that the area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government so far as the County is apprised. From planning and engineering perspectives, the area that will be served by the 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 Section 190.005(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, as corrected at hearing by Petitioner's Exhibit 6, contains such a description. Section 190.005(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, as amended and supplemented at hearing by Petitioner's Exhibit 13, contains consents from a total 14 persons. All landowners within the District as of the date of the local public hearing have consented to being included in the District. Section 190.005(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain the names of five persons, all residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States, to serve on the initial board of supervisors. The five persons designated in the petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Kimball D. Woodbury 7500 SW 75th Street Miami, Florida 33143 David A. Branson 6641 Wedgewood Avenue Davie, Florida 33331 John H. Fischer 9500 SW 94th Court Miami, Florida 33176 J. Thomas Gillette, III 9965 Richfield Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Terrell R. Jones 9334 SW 172nd Terrace Miami, Florida 33157 All of the designees are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Section 190.005(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to propose a name for the District. The petition proposes the name "Julington Creek Plantation Community Development District." Section 190.005(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, requires that the petition show current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls if in existence. Petition Exhibit 7 shows the location of those facilities within the District. Section 190.005(1)(a)6., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to set forth the proposed timetable for construction of services and facilities and estimated cost for such construction. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 provides such a timetable and estimate. Section 190.005(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to designate the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses of land. The petition provides that information. Section 190.005(1)(a)8., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include an EIS which meets the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. The petition contains an EIS and it meets all requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. Economic Impact Statement The EIS assumes it is socially desirable to use the least expensive, least intrusive, most responsive method to achieve delivery of any given public improvement and to provide selected system maintenance. An entity that is directly accountable for costs and derives the benefits is more likely to achieve the desired result. The District is such an entity. The District is a severely limited and highly specialized unit of local government which serves as an important tool for the County under Florida's growth management laws. It is a special unit of local government with a single purpose: the provision of infrastructure and services for new communities. Its economic benefits exceed its economic cost to all affected parties. Petitioner proposes that the District utilize special assessment or revenue bonds for capital to provide planned infrastructure. The bonds will be repaid through non-ad valorem assessments on the land within the District, or rates and charges established by the District. Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. Such bonds may not be issued or taxes be imposed until after District residents elect the District Board of Supervisors on a one-person, one-vote basis. The EIS 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, St. Johns County and its citizens, Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will incur no costs from establishment of the District. The District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but substantial nevertheless. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be more than offset by the $15,000 filing fee paid by Petitioner. 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 District except for those it chooses to accept. Petitioner incurred substantial costs in seeking establishment of the District and will be required to provide technical assistance to the District after establishment. As a landowner, Petitioner will pay substantial sums in non-ad valorem assessments for property within the District. These sums in the initial period amount to more than $9 million. Benefits to Petitioner include public bond financing for certain improvements and a long-term stable source of capital, which will benefit Petitioner's development project. In addition, needed infrastructure will be in place earlier than might otherwise be possible, and consistently high levels of quality should be maintained. Consumers will pay District special assessments or fees for certain facilities, however, the District's facilities would be required even in the absence of the District itself. The cost would have to be recovered in some other way. Generally, district financing may be no more expensive than the alternative of an MSTU and, in most cases, may be less expensive than a property owners association or developer-financed loans. Benefits to consumers will include a higher level of public services and amenities than otherwise would be the case, completion of District-sponsored improvements on a timely basis and earlier than otherwise expected, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities. The EIS concluded that the benefits from the District would outweigh the costs to each affected person or class of persons. Other Requirements Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to pay a $15,000 filing fee to the County. Petitioner paid the fee. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires 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 the St. Augustine Record for four consecutive weeks, on Mondays, starting April 4, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires Petitioner to furnish proofs of publication of the notice of local public hearing to the Secretary of the Commission. The original proofs of publication were furnished to the Secretary on May 11, 1994, as required. Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires Petitioner to mail a copy of the notice of local public hearing to all persons named in the proposed rule, the affected local government, and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. Such individual notice was mailed as required by the rule. Petitioner voluntarily mailed individual written notice of the local public hearing, together with information on community development districts, to all persons residing in the District or under contract to purchase a lot in the District prior to May 6, 1994. Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that the District may exercise certain powers with respect to parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses with the consent of the local general-purpose government. On April 26, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-78, the Board consented to the District exercising all powers pursuant to Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, necessary to finance, construct, own, operate, and maintain parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor, recreational, cultural and educational uses effective upon adoption, within 45 days of establishment of the District, of a resolution by the District's Board of Supervisors confirming its intention to utilize such authority. Questions by Kathleen P. Minnis, a resident of the area to be included in the District, in a letter dated May 15, 1994. During the period allowed for post-hearing submittals, Kathleen P. Minnis, a resident of the area to be included within the District, submitted a letter to the Hearing Officer, dated May 15, 1994, with a series of questions regarding the District. John P. Sanders, who has a contract to purchase a lot within the District but does not live in the District at the present time, also raised some of the same questions in his testimony at the public hearing. Petitioner addressed these issues at the hearing with testimony by Gillette and Walters, and in a post-hearing submittal, dated May 26, 1994. That submittal has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 16. Some of Ms. Minnis' questions were legal questions which can be answered by reference to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. In her letter, Ms. Minnis' questions centered on special assessments and fees to be imposed by the District -- who would establish them, when they would begin, how they would be set, how much they would be, what measures would exist to preclude increased assessments, whether there would be a maximum, and how fees would be set for nonresident use of the recreation center. Ms. Minnis also asked whether the District would begin the transition to the one-person, one-vote system for the Board of Supervisors on the schedule set forth in Section 190.006(3)(a)2.b., Florida Statutes. The fiscal powers of the District will be governed by Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. (Tr. 69) The Board of Supervisors will levy all special assessments and fees for District facilities, including the recreation center. See 190.035(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). Neither the County nor Petitioner will levy assessments or fees for the District. Petitioner has not proposed a date for assessments to begin, but Petitioner does not expect the District to levy assessments in 1994. Assessments and fees will be levied in order to finance the District's capital improvements, which Petitioner has estimated will cost approximately $11.4 million in 1993 dollars. Petitioner proposes that these capital improvements be financed with twenty- year revenue bonds to be repaid by assessments levied on property within the District and, in the case of the recreation center, user fees. Operation and maintenance costs of District improvements would be paid by similar assessments and fees. Petitioner proposes that the District levy a special assessment on each lot or parcel based on the benefit it receives from the facilities and services. Once the debt attributable to that parcel or lot is paid, the homeowner or landowner cannot be made to pay debt-related assessments for other parcels or lots. The bondholder accepts the risk that some assessments may not be paid. This method of financing will protect each homeowner or landowner from paying more than his or her fair share. Petitioner does not intend to propose that the District levy assessments based on the assessed value of the land. That would constitute an ad valorem tax, which may not be levied by the District until the Board of Supervisors is elected by and composed of registered voters residing in the District. See 190.006(3)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (1993). Therefore, the cost of a home or lot, or the assessed value of developed or undeveloped land, would not be the basis for determining the amount of assessments. Just as no one can determine how much a homeowner within the District will pay in taxes to St. Johns County in future years, no one can definitely determine how much such a homeowner will pay in special assessments to the District. As a practical matter, Petitioner will share with homeowners such as Ms. Minnis an interest in holding special assessments to a minimum consistent with the requirement or need for certain facilities. Because Petitioner owns the vast majority of the land during the initial years of the development, it will pay the vast majority of the assessments during those years. In addition, Petitioner is interested in holding down the amount of special assessments so that the land it seeks to sell will be competitively priced. With respect to nonresident use of the recreation center, Section 190.035(3), Florida Statutes, provides that rates, fees and charges must be "just and equitable and uniform for users of the same class." The District may not unjustly or unfairly discriminate in access to or charges for its facilities, including the recreation center. See 190.035(1), (3), Fla. Stat. (1993). At present, Petitioner intends to ask the Board of Supervisors to establish a fee for nonresident use that would approximate the operation and maintenance assessment to be paid by District residents. In the initial years, the Board of Supervisors will be elected by landowners on a one-acre, one-vote basis as provided by law. See 190.006(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993). Section 190.006(3)(a)2.b., Florida Statutes, provides that if there are 250 registered voters residing in the District six years after its creation, the method of selecting the Board of Supervisors will change on a phased schedule from election by landowners to election by registered voters within the District. Petitioner expects there will be 250 households occupied within the District six years after establishment. Whether that will result in 250 registered voters within the District is beyond Petitioner's ability to know or control. Finally, Ms. Minnis said in her letter that, when purchasing her home in the Willow Pond I subdivision, she was misled by a real estate agent affiliated with Panitz Homes regarding assessments that might be imposed by the District. However, the real estate agents were not affiliated in any way with Petitioner, and Petitioner was unaware of any misrepresentation, if one occurred. Petitioner's intention to propose establishment of the District was disclosed to Ms. Minnis prior to the purchase, as demonstrated by her signing the Addendum for Ultimate Consumer. In addition, Petitioner's intention to propose establishment of the District was set forth in the recorded declaration of covenants and restrictions for the Willow Pond I subdivision. That disclosure included a statement describing the facilities and services which the District might undertake. Conclusions Based upon the record of this proceeding, it is concluded that: The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by publication of an advertisement in a newspaper of general paid circulation in St. Johns County and of general interest and readership once each week for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. As required by Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Petitioner paid St. Johns County a $15,000 filing fee intended to offset the County's costs in reviewing the petition. All portions of the petition and other submittals have been completed and filed as required by law. All statements contained within the petition as corrected and supplemented at the hearing are true and correct. The creation of the District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the 1990-2005 St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. The District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The community development services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administative Hearings DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire David L. Powell, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Daniel J. Bosanko, Esquire P. O. Box 349 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-0349 APPENDIX A Names and Addresses of Witnesses J. Thomas Gillette, III 1111 Durbin Creek Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32259 Douglas C. Miller 3131 St. Johns Bluff Road South Jacksonville, Florida 32246 Gary R. Walters 12 Crooked Tree Trail Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Kathleen T. Minnis 317 Chickasaw Court Jacksonville, Florida 32259 John P. Sanders 11247 San Jose Boulevard, Apt. 1805 Jacksonville, Florida 32223 APPENDIX B List of Petitioner's Exhibits Number Description Petition to Establish the Julington Creek Plantation Community Development District Notice of Receipt of Petition by Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, Published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, on April 22, 1994 St. Johns County Resolution No. 94-78, in Support of Establishment of the Julington Creek Plantation Community Development District, Adopted on April 26, 1994 Revised Map of Existing Land Uses Within and Adjacent to the District (Exhibit 4 to the Petition) Letter from Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary, Department of Community Affairs, to David K. Coburn, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, dated April 6, 1994 Revised Legal Description by Metes and Bounds of Area to be Included Within the District (Exhibit 2 to the Petition) Copies of Proofs of Publication of Notice of Local Hearing, Published in the St. Augustine Record on April 4, 11, 18 and 25, 1994 Receipts for Certified Mail of Copies of Notice of Local Public Hearing to Persons Specified in Rule 42-1.011(b), F.A.C. Copy of Check for Filing Fee Submitted to St. Johns County on March 2, 1994 Affidavits of Citizenship and Residency for the Initial Board of Supervisors DRI Development Order and Planned Unit Development Development Order for Julington Creek Plantation as Adopted on September 28, 1993 Copies of Individual Notices Voluntarily Sent by Petitioner to Residents and Purchasers in Julington Creek Plantation Within the District, with Attachment Additional Consent and Joinder Forms Copies of Additional Individual Notices Voluntarily Sent by Petitioner to Residents and Purchasers in Julington Creek Plantation Within the District Letter Transmitting Original Proofs of Publication of Notice of Local Public Hearing to Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission as Required by Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), F.A.C. Letter from Cheryl G. Stuart and David L. Powell, attorneys for Petitioner, to Donald R. Alexander, Hearing Officer, dated May 26, 1994, with attachments Appendix C APPENDIX C Text of Proposed Rule CHAPTER 42_-1 JULINGTON CREEK PLANTATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42_-1.001 Creation. 42_-1.002 Boundary. 42_-1.003 Supervisors. 42_-1.001 Creation. The Julington Creek Plantation Community Development District is hereby created. Specific Authority 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.005 FS. History--New _- - . 42_-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: PARCEL "A" A portion of Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 49, 54, and 57, Township 4 South, Range 27 East, St. Johns County, Florida, together with a portion of Sections 2, 4, and 5, Township 5 South, Range 27 East, St. Johns County, Florida, all being more particularly described as follows: For a Point of Beginning, commence at the point of intersection of the Easterly right-of-way line of State Road No. 13, as now established for a width of 100 feet, with the Southwesterly right- of-way line of Racetrack Road, as now established for a width of 66 feet, said point being the Northwest corner of the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit One, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 35 - 51, of the Public Records of the aforementioned St. Johns County, Florida; thence South 76_ 22' 54" East, along said Southwesterly right-of-way line of Racetrack Road, a distance of 876.51 feet; thence North 13_ 37' 06" East, a distance of 66.00 feet to a point lying in the Northeasterly right-of-way line of said Racetrack Road, said point being the most Westerly corner of Tract "A", as shown on the aforementioned plat of Julington Creek Unit Two recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 52 - 63, Public Records, said County; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Tract "A" and Easterly prolongation thereof, North 89_ 13' 56" East, a distance of 1044.60 feet to a point lying in the Westerly boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Two; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Two the following courses: North 00_ 55' 04" West, a distance of 2895.00 feet; thence North 65_ 37' 46" East, a distance of 261.31 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 270.00 feet and a central angle of 56_ 49' 50"; thence 267.81 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 85_ 57' 19" East, a distance of 256.96 feet; thence South 57_ 32' 24" East, a distance of 535.49 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, said curve being concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 530.00 feet and a central angle of 15_ 32' 00"; thence 143.69 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 65_ 18' 24" East, a distance of 143.25 feet; thence South 73_ 04' 24" East, a distance of 287.74 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, said curve being concave to the North, having a radius of 490.40 feet and a central angle of 33_ 03' 19"; thence 282.92 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 89_ 36' 04" East, a distance of 279.02 feet; thence North 73_ 52' 17" East, a distance of 359.21 feet to the Northerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Two and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Three, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 64 - 88, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Three the following courses: North 73_ 52' 17" East, a distance of 116.99 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 470.00 feet and a central angle of 35_ 29' 03"; thence 291.08 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 88_ 23' 11" East, a distance of 286.45 feet; thence South 70_ 38' 40" East, a distance of 1031.69 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 2260.00 feet and a central angle of 04_ 59' 59"; thence 197.21 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 68_ 08' 40" East, a distance of 197.15 feet; thence South 65_ 38' 41" East, a distance of 135.97 feet; thence South 00_ 36' 59" East, a distance of 622.42 feet; thence South 89_ 24' 51" West, a distance of 294.90 feet; thence South 00_ 34' 55" East, a distance of 1624.92 feet; thence South 76_ 25' 30" East, a distance of 1360.52 feet; thence North 00_ 33' 43" West, a distance of 1957.64 feet; thence South 89_ 23' 37" West, a distance of 324.80 feet; thence North 00_ 36' 59" West, a distance of 504.45 feet to a point lying in the Southerly right-of-way line of Bishop Estates Road, as now established for a width of 60 feet; thence along said Southerly right-of-way line, and continuing along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Three, North 72_ 46' 03" East, a distance of 847.61 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 559.55 feet and a central angle of 38_ 38' 26"; thence 377.36 feet Easterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 87_ 54' 44" East, a distance of 370.25 feet; thence South 68_ 35' 31" East, a distance of 1163.87 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 896.04 feet, and a central angle of 14_ 33' 05"; thence 227.57 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 61_ 18' 59" East, a distance of 226.96 feet; thence South 54_ 02' 26" East, a distance of 621.97 feet to the point of curvature of a non-tangent curve to the left, said curve being concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 654.89 feet and a central angle of 35_ 19' 25"; thence 403.75 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 71_ 42' 08" East,a distance of 397.38 feet; thence North 89_ 21' 50" East, a distance of 321.10 feet to the point of curvature of a non-tangent curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 690.01 feet and a central angle of 25_ 21' 57"; thence 305.48 feet Easterly, around the arc of said curve, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 76_ 40' 52" East, a distance of 302.99 feet; thence South 63_ 59' 54" East, a distance of 158.64 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, said curve being concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 1268.20 feet, and a central angle of 42_ 29' 40"; thence 940.59 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to a point of reverse curvature, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 85_ 14' 44" East, a distance of 919.18 feet to said point of reverse curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 228.00 feet and a central angle of 20_ 36' 14"; thence 81.99 feet Northeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears North 83_ 48' 33" East, a distance of 81.55 feet; thence South 85_ 53' 20" East, a distance of 328.46 feet to the Northerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Three and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Four, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 89 - 111, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Four the following courses: South 85_ 53' 20" East, a distance of 171.26 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 690.01 feet, and a central angle of 20_ 15' 14"; thence 243.92 feet Easterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 75_ 45' 43" East, a distance of 242.65 feet; thence South 65_ 38' 06" East, a distance of 299.43 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, said curve being concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 1451.18 feet, and a central angle of 16_ 27' 36"; thence 416.90 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 73_ 51' 54" East, a distance of 415.47 feet; thence South 82_ 05' 42" East, a distance of 616.54 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 1642.47 feet, and a central angle of 00_ 17' 36"; thence 8.41 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 81_ 56' 54" East, a distance of 8.41 feet to a point of intersection with the Southerly prolongation of the most Westerly boundary of the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Six, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 17, Pages 22 - 52, Public Records, said County; thence along and with said Westerly boundary and Southerly prolongation thereof, and along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Six the following courses: North 00_ 36' 03" East, a distance of 319.20 feet to an angle point in the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Six; thence North 03_ 08' 57" West, a distance of 230.12 feet; thence North 02_ 45' 57" West, a distance of 284 feet, more or less, to the mean high water line of Durbin Creek; thence Southeasterly and Easterly, along said mean high water line of Durbin Creek and the meanderings thereof, a distance of 9880 feet, more or less, to the East line of Section 35 of the aforementioned Township 4 South, Range 27 East,; thence South 01_ 33' 04" East, along said East line of Section 35, a distance of 3752 feet, more or less, to a point lying in the aforementioned Northeasterly right- of-way line of Racetrack Road; thence South 76_ 22' 54" East, along said Northeasterly right-of- way line, a distance of 147.01 feet to the most Westerly corner of Tract "A", as shown on the aforementioned plat of Julington Creek Unit Seven recorded in Map Book 18, Pages 6 - 32, Public Records, said County; thence North 89_ 11' 36" East, along the Northerly boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Seven, a distance of 2538.40 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence along the Easterly boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Seven, and along the extension of said Easterly boundary across the aforementioned Racetrack Road, South 00_ 33' 34" East, a distance of 1320.75 feet to a point lying in the line dividing the aforementioned Townships 4 and 5 South, Range 27 East, said point being the Southeast corner of said Julington Creek Unit Seven; thence continue along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Seven the following courses: South 89_ 13' 19" West, a distance of 2656.47 feet to the Southeast corner of the aforementioned Section 35, Township 4 South, Range 27 East; thence South 89_ 15' 04" West, a distance of 660.28 feet; thence North 01_ 36' 48" West, a distance of 1320.37 feet; thence South 89_ 13' 37" West, a distance of feet; thence South 01_ 47' 18" East, a distance of 1320.15 feet; thence South 02_ 14' 04" East, a distance of 1340.96 feet; thence South 89_ 33' 39" West, a distance of 662.34 feet; thence North 02_ 10' 39" West, a distance of 1336.69 feet; thence South 89_ 12' 29" West, a distance of 660.57 feet; thence South 89_ 13' 36" West, a distance of 2641.92 feet; thence South 89_ 14' 24" West, a distance of 2676.55 feet; thence South 89_ 14' 31" West, a distance of 1369.31 feet to the Southerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Seven and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Eight, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 18, Pages 33 through 51, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Eight the following courses: South 89_ 14' 31" West, a distance of 1258.94 feet; thence South 00_ 48' 07" East, a distance of 1331.35 feet; thence South 00_ 47' 45" East, a distance of 2682.06 feet; thence South 89_ 35' 54" West, a distance of 2649.95 feet; thence South 89_ 33' 43" West, a distance of 1328.72 feet; thence South 89_ 31' 34" West, a distance of 1342.28 feet; thence South 89_ 26' 51" West, a distance of 1345.27 feet; thence North 00_ 44' 34" West, a distance of 1341.60 feet; thence North 00_ 39' 54" West, a distance of 295.39 feet to the Westerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Eight and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Nine, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 18, Pages 77 - 121, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Nine the following courses: North 00_ 39' 54" West, a distance of 1024.75 feet; thence North 89_28' 29" East, a distance of 1342.18 feet; thence North 00_ 28' 51" West, a distance of 1322.45 feet; thence South 89_ 28' 29" West, a distance of 1342.18 feet; thence North 00_ 28' 51" West, a distance of 379.92 feet to the centerline of Cunningham Creek; thence Westerly along a meander line that approximates the centerline of said Cunningham Creek as follows: North 58_ 00' 56" West, a distance of 135.23 feet; thence South 88_ 24' 34" West, a distance of 220.36 feet; thence North 70_ 24' 07" West, a distance of 355.69 feet; thence South 76_ 06' 53" West, a distance of 348.16 feet; thence South 89_ 11' 02" West, a distance of 300.67 feet; thence North 83_ 03' 30" West, a distance of 252.48 feet; thence North 80_ 29' 16" West, a distance of 336.30 feet; thence North 88_ 42' 35" West, a distance of 311.27 feet; thence South 71_ 01' 54" West, a distance of 85.28 feet; thence North 85_ 52' 03" West, a distance of 313.97 feet; thence South 58_ 08' 46" West, a distance of 305.31 feet; thence South 88_ 56' 58" West, a distance of 160.43 feet; thence South 68_ 08' 31" West, a distance of 239.34 feet; thence South 88_ 49' 46" West, a distance of 474.71 feet; thence North 38_ 38' 53" West, a distance of 193.24 feet; thence North 87_ 42' 49" West, a distance of 351.51 feet; thence South 70_ 43' 49" West, a distance of 537.95 feet; thence South 59_ 45' 23' West, a distance of 666.17 feet to a point lying in the aforementioned Easterly right-of-way line of State Road No. 13; thence North 04_ 51' 47" East, along said Easterly right-of-way line, a distance of 1961.82 feet to the Westerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Nine and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit One, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 35 - 51, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit One the following courses: North 04_ 51' 47" East, a distance of 2087.46 feet to an angle point in said boundary; thence North 88_ 25' 39" East, departing said Easterly right-of-way line of State Road No. 13, a distance of 191.74 feet; thence North 00_ 18' 11" West, a distance of 833.50 feet; thence North 89_ 13' 41" East, a distance of 676.09 feet; thence South 00_ 17' 20" East, a distance of 160.48 feet; thence North 89_ 15' 59" East, a distance of 670.35 feet; thence North 00_ 16' 32" West, a distance of 660.03 feet; thence South 89_ 17' 37" West, a distance of 670.00 feet; thence South 89_ 17' 50" West, a distance of 747.26 feet to a point lying in the aforementioned Easterly right-of-way line of State Road No. 13; thence North 04_ 51' 47" East, along said Easterly right-of-way line, a distance of 1490.97 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 4,270 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 569, Page 331, and Official Records Volume 790, Page 554, and also lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 910, Page 1091 (including the EXCEPTION mentioned therein), all of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 29.13 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 721, Page 1090, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 5.16 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 716, Page 690, and Official Records Volume 878, Page 92, all of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 10.20 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, the First Replat in Julington Creek Unit One, as recorded in Map Book 26, Pages 82 and 83, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 31.53 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, all of Tracts G-5, G-6 and G-7, all of Lots 1 through 52, Block 5, and all of Lots 1 through 39, Block 6, together with the road rights-of-way known as Larkspur Loop, Canna Court, Catalpa Court, and Calico Court, all as shown on plat of Julington Creek Unit One as recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 35 through 51, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 39.41 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, all of Lots 1 through 11, Block 7, and the road right-of-way known as Little Loop, all as shown on plat of Julington Creek Unit One as recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 35 through 51, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida and containing 6.85 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, all of Tracts G-1, G-2, G-13 and G-14, all of Lots 1 through 21, Block 41, all of Lots 1 through 24, Block 42, all of Lots 1 through 11, Block 43, all of Lots 1 through 20, Block 44, all of Lots 1 through 5, Block 45, and all of Lots 1 through 14, Block 46, together with the road rights-of-way known as Linwood Loop, Castleberry Court, and Chesswood Court, all as shown on plat of Julington Creek Unit Five as recorded in Map Book 17, Pages 1 through 21, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 45.93 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 328, Page 644, and Official Records Volume 443, Page 451, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, together with a parcel of land being bounded on the North by Racetrack Road, as now established for a width of 66 feet, and bounded on the West by the aforementioned lands described in Official Records Volume 443, Page 451, and bounded on the South and the East by the aforementioned lands described in Official Records Volume 328, Page 644, all as recorded in the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 53.94 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 350, Page 229, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 10.80 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, all of Tract F as shown on plat of Julington Creek Unit Five as recorded in Map Book 17, Pages 1 through 21, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 5.73 acres, more or less. AND FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, any portion of the above described lands lying within the rights-of-way of Racetrack Road, as now established for a width of 66 feet, or Bishop Estates Road, as now established for a width of 60 feet, or Orange Street as now established for a width of 60 feet, all of which contain 44.69 acres, more or less. Lands thus described, exclusive of all exceptions therein, contain 3,986 acres, more or less. TOGETHER WITH, PARCEL "B" (Record Description) Part of Section 57, Rebecca Pengree Grant, Township 4 South, Range 27 East, Portions of Section 38., William Harvey Grant, Section 39, F.P. Fatio Grant, Section 42, Rebecca Pengree Grant, all being in Township 5 South, Range 27 East, St. Johns County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: For a Point of Reference, commence at the intersection of the line dividing Section 39 and Section 42 with the Southeasterly line of Section 38 aforementioned; run thence South 40o 10' 48" East along the dividing line of Sections 38 and 39, a distance of 945.12 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, as now established as a 100 foot Right of Way, said point lying and being in a curve concave Westerly, having a radius of 2814.79 feet, for a Point of Beginning; thence in a Northerly direction, along the arc of said radius and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc length of 229.86 feet, said arc being subtended by a chord bearing North 21o 07' 03" East, a chord distance of 229.8 feet; thence North 53o 25' 45" West, a distance of 471.92 feet; thence North 36o 34' 15" East, a distance of 200.0 feet; thence South 53o 25' 45" East, a distance of 399.29 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, aforementioned; thence in a Northerly direction, along the arc of curve having a radius of 2814.79 feet and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc length of 487.38 feet to the P.C. of curve, said arc being subtended by a chord bearing of North 09o 29' 07" East, a chord distance of 486.78 feet; thence North 04o 31' 30" East, along the Westerly Right of way line of State Road No. 13, a distance of 3125 feet, more or less, to the waters of Cunningham Creek; thence in a Southwesterly and Southeasterly direction along the waters following the meandering of Cunningham Creek and Mill Creek respectively, a distance of 8000 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right of Way line of State Road 13, aforementioned, said point being an arc distance of 310 feet, more or less, Southwesterly from the Point of Beginning; thence in a Northeasterly direction, along the arc of a curve having said radius of 2814.79 feet and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc distance of 310 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING that portion of said Sections 39 and 42, Township 5 South, aforementioned, more particularly described as follows: For a Point of Reference, commence at the intersection of the line dividing Section 39 and Section 42, with the Southeasterly line of said Section 38; run thence South 40o 10' 48" East along the dividing line of Sections 38 and 39, a distance of 945.12 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of State Road No. 13, aforementioned, for the Point of Beginning; thence in a Northerly direction, along the arc of said radius and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc length of 167.06 feet, said arc being subtended by a chord bearing North 21o 45' 24" East, a chord distance of 167.03 feet; thence North 53o 25' 45" West, a distance of 100.0 feet; thence South 26o 16' 55" West, a distance of 500 feet, more or less, to the waters of Mill Creek; thence in a Southeasterly direction, along the waters following the meanderings of Mill Creek, a distance of 110 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, aforementioned, said point being an arc distance of 310 feet, more or less, Southwesterly from the Point of Beginning; thence in a Northeasterly direction, along the arc of a curve having said radius of 2814.79 feet and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc distance of 310 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. Lands thus described, exclusive of all exceptions therein, contain 133 acres, more or less. Total Parcel Area 4119 acres, more or less. Specific Authority 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005 FS. History--New _- - . 42_-1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Kimball D. Woodbury; David A. Branson: John H. Fischer; J. Thomas Gillette, III; Terrell R. Jones. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History--New _- - .
The Issue The issue is whether the establishment of the Bellalago Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Bellalago Community Development District The Bellalago Community Development District (the Bellalago CDD) is proposed to be a special purpose unit of local government located in Osceola County (County), Florida. It will consist of approximately 1,313 acres, and the development is proposed to be a mixed use development that will include an upscale residential component of approximately 2,300 units. As special-purpose local governments, community development districts (CDDs) such as the Bellalago CDD possess certain general legal powers similar to cities and counties, such as the right to enter into contracts, to acquire and dispose of real and personal property, to adopt rules and regulations to govern its operations, and to obtain funds either by borrowing, issuing bonds, or levying non-ad valorem assessments and taxes. CDDs also have certain special powers relating to basic public improvements and community facilities such as roads, parks, and water management facilities. CDDs such as the proposed Bellalago CDD do not have other powers common to cities and counties including land planning, zoning, and police powers. This is why the proposed Bellalago CDD is considered a "special-purpose" government. The Bellalago CDD is proposed to finance and construct limited off-site roadway improvements, an extensive and interconnected storm water pond system, and sewer and water lines. It will also be responsible for mitigation associated with the Bellalago Development. Contents of the Petition On March 1, 2002, Petitioner, Avatar Properties Inc. (Petitioner), filed with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission a Petition for Rulemaking to Establish a Uniform Community Development District (Petition). Previously, on February 28, 2002, Petitioner had submitted the Petition with attachments to Osceola County. The Petition proposes the establishment of the Bellalago CDD. The Petition alleges that the land to be served by the proposed CDD is located in the County and consists of approximately 1,313 acres. Exhibit 2 of the Petition provides the metes and bounds legal description of the Bellalago CDD. Exhibit 5 of the Petition reveals that the land to be served by the proposed CDD is a single, contiguous parcel without enclaves. The Petition alleges that the owner of all of the land to be included in the proposed CDD has given written consent to the establishment of the Bellalago CDD. Exhibit 3 of the Petition contains documentation constituting written consent of the landowner to the establishment of the CDD. The Petition designates five persons to serve on the initial Board of Supervisors. Exhibit 4 of the Petition states a proposed timetable and schedule of estimated costs for the construction of the proposed facilities. Total costs projected for the construction period of January 1, 2003, to January 1, 2011, are $35,096,425 for the master stormwater system, off-site roadway improvements, utilities infrastructure, and mitigation. Exhibit 5 of the Petition is a designation of the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land within the CDD. Exhibit 6A of the Petition is the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Osceola County Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit 6B to the Petition is the Future Land Use Element and Appendix 2.130 of the adopted Osceola County Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit 7 of the Petition is a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. Procedural Issues Petitioner paid $15,000 to the County on February 28, 2002, as filing fees, pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The land to be included within the proposed CDD is contained wholly within the boundaries of the County. The land within the external boundaries of the proposed CDD is neither contained within, nor contiguous to, the boundaries of any municipality or any other County. On May 10, 2002, the Osceola County Board of County Commissioners (Board) held an optional local public hearing on the proposed CDD. The Board passed a resolution in support of the proposed CDD as it is specifically proposed in the Petition (that is, financing and constructing off-site roadway improvements, stormwater management system, sewer and water lines, and mitigation) although no written resolution was provided at the local hearing. Petitioner advertised the local public hearing conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings in an appropriate local newspaper in the four weeks immediately prior to the local public hearing. Summary of Evidence from the Local Public Hearing At the local public hearing on May 10, 2002, Petitioner presented the testimony of Anthony S. Iorio, Vice President of Development for Avatar Properties Inc.; Carey Garland, an Associate in the firm of Fishkind & Associates; Larry Walter, President of the consulting civil engineering, land surveying & planning firm of Hanson, Walter & Associates, Inc.; John Adams, Planner with the firm of R.J. Whidden & Associates; and Gary Moyer, Vice President of Severn Trent Services, Inc. Anthony S. Iorio is the Vice President of Development for Avatar Properties Inc. Written, direct testimony of Mr. Iorio was prefiled on May 8, 2002. Mr. Iorio described Bellalago as a 1,313-acre mixed-use development that is planned for 2,300 residential units. Mr. Iorio confirmed that the statements in the Petition were true and correct. Mr. Iorio testified that the proposed CDD was the best available alternative for delivery of proposed services to the development. He further pointed out that Petitioner had evaluated several alternative methods for delivering community services and facilities to the Bellalago Development – specifically County delivery and private delivery by the developer or a property owner’s association. Mr. Iorio established that the County, either directly or through a dependent special district, would not be the best alternative for the provision of services to the Bellalago Development. The County has substantial demands over a broad geographic area which places a heavy management load on its staff and any financing by the County, including through a dependent special district, would count against the County's bonding capabilities and further limit the County's ability to provide infrastructure to other portions of the County. Private means for delivering community development services and facilities include delivery through a master neighborhood-type property owners association or by a private developer, and either can satisfy the demand for focused service, facilities, and managed delivery. However, neither can assure a long-term perspective, act as a stable provider of services and facilities, or qualify as a low-cost source of financing; a property owners association could provide staffing and decision-making for these services and facilities, but such associations lack the capability to issue bonds or other forms of long-term debt. Therefore, neither the developer nor an association could effectively finance the necessary infrastructure. Petitioner could provide community development services and facilities by utilizing long-term financing from private lenders. However, such financing would be more expensive than financing through a public entity; in addition, a private developer generally is not a long-term stable entity which can maintain necessary facilities. Mr. Carey Garland, Associate in the firm of Fishkind & Associates, was qualified without objection as an expert in economic analysis and forecasting in general and in relation to community development districts. Written, direct testimony of Mr. Garland was prefiled on May 8, 2002. Mr. Garland summarized the economic analyses in the Statement of Regulatory Costs contained in Exhibit 7 to the Petition (Statement). Mr. Garland drafted the Statement. The Statement satisfies the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. Mr. Garland opined that the establishment of the Bellalago CDD will have no adverse cost impact on any affected party, and that the cost impact to the State and County is minimal and largely offset by the $15,000 filing fee. Mr. Garland also opined that the establishment of the Bellalago CDD would result in no negative economic impacts on future residents of the CDD or small businesses in the area. Mr. Garland testified that all of the statements that he authored in the Petition and the Statement were true and correct. Larry Walter, President of the consulting civil engineering, land surveying, and planning firm of Hanson, Walter & Associates, Inc., was qualified without objection as an expert in civil engineering, capable of rendering opinions on community development districts. Mr. Walter’s written, direct testimony was prefiled on May 8, 2002. Mr. Walter confirmed that each statement in the Petition regarding engineering issues is true. Mr. Walter reviewed the applicable portions of Osceola County’s Comprehensive Plan and concluded that the proposed CDD is not inconsistent with that plan and the County Land Development Code. More specifically, he opined that the Public Facility section of the Osceola County Comprehensive Plan dealing with potable water, sanitary sewer, and drainage is applicable to the proposed Bellalago CDD and that the proposed CDD is not inconsistent with those specific elements. Mr. Walter found that, from an engineering viewpoint, the proposed CDD is of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functionally interrelated community. Mr. Walter endorsed the proposed CDD from an engineering standpoint as the best means of delivering the community development services and facilities to the land area within the CDD. Based on his extensive experience in the County, Mr. Walter concluded that there is no alternative mechanism available to perform the functions proposed to be performed by the Bellalago CDD, specifically the installation of the infrastructure for the development. Mr. Walter’s analysis encompassed home owners and property owners associations and municipal services taxing units. Mr. Walter further concluded that the proposed CDD services will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities primarily because there are no other service providers in the area of the district. Finally, Mr. Walter testified that the area to be included in the proposed district is amenable to a special district government. John Adams, Planner with the firm of R. J. Whidden & Associates, was qualified without objection as an expert planner with the ability to testify regarding state and local comprehensive planning and land development regulations, particularly with respect to CDDs. Mr. Adams adopted the written, direct testimony of Robert J. Whidden that was prefiled on May 8, 2002, as his own. Mr. Whidden had a family emergency that precluded him from testifying at the local hearing. Mr. Adams assisted Mr. Whidden in the preparation of the prefiled testimony and thus was able to affirm as to its accuracy. Mr. Adams also reviewed both the State’s Comprehensive Plan and Osceola County’s Comprehensive Plan and concluded that the establishment of the CDD would not be inconsistent with either of those plans. The land uses surrounding the proposed Bellalago CDD are as follows: to the east is the natural boundary of Lake Tohopekaliga; to the north is Suburban Overlay; to the north/south is Suburban Overlay; to the south/west is Suburban Overlay; to the south and southeast is Rural/Agricultural and Conservation associated with a large wetland system; and to the west are the vested land uses of the Poinciana PUD which includes Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Commercial, and Office and Industrial uses. Mr. Adams indicated that the approved land uses surrounding the CDD are consistent with the establishment of the Bellalago CDD. The basis for his opinion is that the establishment of the Bellalago CDD would facilitate infrastructure required for the development and that the proposed development is essentially an infill project. Approval of the CDD would be consistent with the logical pattern of growth in an area where infrastructural elements are existing or planned and would direct growth to an urbanizing area rater than leaving a remnant island of agricultural lands surrounded by urban areas. Mr. Adams confirmed that all statements contained in the Petition regarding planning issues were true and correct. Mr. Adams also found that the proposed CDD is of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functionally interrelated community. The Bellalago Development is the subject of a preliminary development agreement which was issued by the Department of Community Affairs on January 8, 2002, and a pending application for development approval as a development of regional impact. Mr. Adams concluded that the CDD is the best alternative available for the delivery of community development services to the Bellalago Development. Mr. Adams established that the CDD is amenable to separate special district government. Gary Moyer, Vice President of Severn Trent Services, Inc., which is a management consulting firm representing over 100 CDDs throughout Florida, was qualified without objection as an expert in the operation and management of community development districts. Mr. Moyer confirmed that the statements in the Petition were true and correct. Mr. Moyers opined that the establishment of a CDD is the best alternative available for providing infrastructure to the Bellalago Development. The basis for Mr. Moyer’s opinion is that there are three methods of providing infrastructure and the continual maintenance of same: (1) general-purpose local government, (2) the developer and a homeowners association, and (3) a CDD. General-purpose government is reluctant to provide and maintain subdivision-type facilities and to tax the general public for such facilities and services. Further, general-purpose government does not bring the focused management oversight to a new community that is necessary to ensure the property owner/developer that the infrastructure will be provided timely in accordance with the requirements to meet real estate sales demand. Developers cannot access the alternate form of financing that is available to CDDs. The homeowners association, which will ultimately be utilized for the maintenance of infrastructure, cannot utilize the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments, which is provided to a community development district. The CDD is the only method to provide focused management with the ability to access the municipal bond market and to collect its non-ad valorem assessments on the County’s real estate tax bills, assuring that the infrastructure will be properly maintained. Mr. Moyer does not see any problems in administering or managing the Bellalago CDD. Finally, he concluded that the land area is amenable to governance by the CDD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120 and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Bellalago Community Development District, as requested by Petitioner, by formal adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report as Exhibit C. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie P. Kendig-Schrader, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 450 South Orange Avenue, Suite 650 Orlando, Florida 32801-3383 Charles Canady, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Appendix A Petitioner's Witnesses at the Public Hearing Anthony S. Iorio Avatar Properties, Inc. 900 Towne Center Drive Poinciana, Florida 34759 Carey Garland Fishkind & Associates 11869 High Tech Avenue Orlando, Florida 32817 Larry Walter Hanson, Walter & Associates, Inc. 400 West Emmett Street Kissimmee, Florida 34744 John Adams R.J. Whidden and Associates, Inc. 22 West Monument Avenue, Suite 4 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Gary Moyer Severn Trent Services, Inc. 610 Sycamore Street, Suite 140 Celebration, Florida 34747 APPENDIX B List of Petitioner's Exhibits Petition with Exhibits Exhibit 1 - Location of Land Area to be Serviced Exhibit 2 - Metes and Bound Legal Description Exhibit 3 - Documentation of Consent of 100% of Landowners to Establishment of District Exhibit 4 - Documentation of Proposed Timetables for Construction of District Services and Estimated Cost of Constructing the Proposed Services Exhibit 5 - Designation of Future General Distribution, Location and Extent of Public and Private Uses of Land Within the District Exhibit 6A - Future Land Use Map of the Osceola County Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 6B - Future Land Use Element and Appendix 2.130 of the Osceola County Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 7 - Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (including Appendix A) Letter dated February 28, 2002, constituting proof the $15,000 filing fee to Osceola County was satisfied. Letter dated March 15, 2002, executed by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Florida Administrative Weekly Section XII, Volume 28, Number 17, dated April 26, 2002. Letter dated May 7, 2002, confirming advertisement publication of the Bellalago Community Development. Letters dated May 7, 2002, and May 9, 2002, confirming advertisment publication of the Bellalago Community Development District. Newspaper clipping from the Orlando Sentinel constituting proof of publication dated April 20, 2002. Newspaper clipping from the Orlando Sentinel constituting proof of publication dated April 24, 2002. Newspaper clipping from the Orlando Sentinel constituting proof of publication dated May 1, 2002. Newspaper clipping from the Orlando Sentinel constituting proof of publication dated May 8, 2002. Prefiled testimony of Mr. Anthony S. Iorio. Testimony of Mr. Carey Garland. Resume of Mr. Carey Garland. Prefiled testimony of Mr. Larry Walter. Resume of Mr. Larry Walter. Affidavit of Mr. Robert Whiddon. Prefiled testimony of Mr. Robert Whiddon. Resume of Mr. Robert Whiddon. Prefiled testimony of Mr. Gary Moyer. APPENDIX C Text of Proposed Rule CHAPTER 42____-1 BELLALAGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42____-1.001 Establishment. 42____-1.002 Boundary. 42____-1.003 Supervisors. 42____-1.001 Creation. The Bellalago 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: All of Government Lot 4 and that portion of Government Lot 3 lying south of the Osceola County property as described in Deed Book 1174, Page 1288, lying above the high water mark of Lake Tohopekaliga in Section 28, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, Osceola County, Florida. and From the southeast corner of the southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, Osceola County, Florida, run west along the south line of said southwest 1/4, 1545.3 feet to the point of beginning; run thence north at right angles to said south line, 500.0 feet; run thence west, parallel to said south line, 347 feet more or less to the east right of way line of Pleasant Hill Road; run thence southerly along the east right of way line of said road, to the south line of said southwest 1/4; run thence east, 441.41 feet more or less to the point of beginning. and All of the east 1/2, and the northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 32 Township 26, South Range 29 East. and All of the west 1/2, and Government Lots 1 and 2 above the ordinary high water line of Lake Tohopekaliga, of Section 33, Township 26 South, Range 29 East. Less the dipping vat at Edgewater Property being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the northwest corner of Section 33, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, Osceola County, Florida; thence run south 67 degrees 8 minutes 14 seconds east, a distance of 1190.53 feet to the point of beginning; thence run east, a distance of 450.00 feet; thence run south, a distance of 550.00 feet; thence run west, a distance of 450.00 feet; thence run north, a distance of 550.00 feet to the point of beginning. and A parcel of land located in Section 29, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, in Osceola County, Florida; being described as follows: Commence at the northwest corner of the northwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 26 South, Range 29 East; thence north 89 degrees 43 minutes 56 seconds east along the north line of the northwest one-quarter of said Section 29, a distance of 110.00 feet to a point on the easterly right of way line of Pleasant Hill Road (CR-531); thence depart said north line on a bearing of south 1 degree 2 minutes one second east along said right of way line, a distance of 642.58 feet; thence south zero degrees 59 minutes 19 seconds east along said right of way line, a distance of 646.44 feet; thence south zero degrees 7 minutes 22 seconds east along said right of way line, a distance of 835.64 feet to the point of curvature of a curve concave northeasterly, said curve having a radius of 2220.00 feet; thence southeasterly along said curve and said right of way line, a distance of 731.56 feet through a central angle of 18 degrees 52 minutes 51 seconds (chord distance 728.26 feet; chord bearing south 9 degrees 33 minutes 47 seconds east) to the point of tangency; thence south 19 degrees zero minutes 13 seconds east along said right of way line, a distance of 416.25 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue south 19 degrees zero minutes 13 seconds east along said right of way line, a distance of 400.20 feet; thence depart said right of way line on a bearing of north 75 degrees 13 minutes 36 seconds east, a distance of 1000.89 feet; thence north 18 degrees 35 minutes 45 seconds west, a distance of 400.00 feet; thence south 75 degrees 13 minutes 36 seconds west, a distance of 1005.75 feet to the point of beginning. and That portion of the northwest 1/4 and the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, Section 32, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, Osceola County, Florida, lying east of Pleasant Hill Road; less and except: beginning at the northwest corner of said northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 32, thence north 89 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds east, along the north line of said northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, a distance of 420.00 feet; thence south zero degrees 10 minutes 19 seconds east, parallel with the west line of said northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, a distance of 420.00 feet; thence south 89 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds west, parallel with the north line of said northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, a distance of 420.00 feet to the west line of said northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4; thence north zero degrees 10 minutes 19 seconds west, along said west line, a distance of 420.00 feet to the point of beginning. Less the west 60.00 feet thereof for right of way of Pleasant Hill Road. Also less and except: (cemetery encroachment area) Commence at the northwest corner of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, Osceola County, Florida; thence north 89 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds east, along the north line of said northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, a distance of 420.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue north 89 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds east, along said north line, 34.16 feet; thence south zero degrees 6 minutes 59 seconds west, a distance of 437.29 feet; thence south 89 degrees 39 minutes 3 seconds west, a distance of 391.96 feet to the east right of way line of Pleasant Hill Road; thence north zero degrees 10 minutes 19 seconds west, along said east right of way line 19.66 feet; thence north 89 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds east, parallel with the north line of said northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, a distance of 360.00 feet; thence north zero degrees 10 minutes 19 seconds west, parallel with the west line of said northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, a distance of 420.00 feet to the point of beginning. (less property to be deeded to cemetery) Legal description: Commence at the northwest corner of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 26 South, Range 29 East, Osceola County, Florida; thence north 89 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds east, along the north line of said northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4, a distance of 454.16 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue north 89 degrees 59 minutes 51 seconds east, along said north line, 80.00 feet; thence south zero degrees 6 minutes 59 seconds west, a distance of 456.64 feet; thence south 89 degrees 39 minutes 3 seconds west, a distance of 471.79 feet to the east right of way line of Pleasant Hill Road; thence north zero degrees 10 minutes 19 seconds west, along said east right of way line, 20.00 feet; thence north 89 degrees 39 minutes 3 seconds east, a distance of 391.96 feet; thence north zero degrees 6 minutes 59 seconds east, a distance of 437.29 feet to the point of beginning. 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 designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Anthony S. Iorio, Dennis J. Getman, William Cowart, Charles L. McNairy, and Jeffrey S. Mitchem. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History - New
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 issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Tesoro Community Development District (Petition), dated December 22, 2003, as supplemented and corrected. The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
