Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File which relinquishes jurisdiction to the Department of Community Affairs (“Department”) of all of the issues raised in the Petition. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the petition to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District. The proposed District consists of approximately 1,015 acres located within unincorporated St. Johns County, Florida. There are two out-parcels, totaling 3.7 acres, within the areas to be included in the District. No adverse impact on these out parcels is expected from the establishment of the district. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District was included in the Petition. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. Witnesses Maier, Walters, Boring, and Fishkind each stated that he had reviewed portions of the contents of the petition and its attachments and affirmed the petitions findings. Witness Maier testified that the Petitioner has written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the lands to be included in the District. Witness Maier also presented deeds for parcels of land within the boundaries of the proposed District which have been acquired by the Petitioner or its subsidiaries, as well as consent forms from the Petitioner's subsidiaries. The Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct, with the addition of the deeds showing land ownership and owners' consent as specified above. Witnesses Walters and Fishkind reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Witness Walters also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. From a planning and economic perspective, four subjects, subject 16, 18, 21, and 26, of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 16, titled Land Use, of the State Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District will: have the fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services and facilities to the population in the designated growth area; help provide infrastructure to development the County, thereby helping limit unintended, unplanned sprawl; facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and services to assist in fulfilling the community plan. Subject 18, titled Public Facilities of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient manner. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the District will: plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities needed for the development of lands within the District in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner; provide the infrastructure systems and facilities within the District with the landowners and residents benefiting from the new public facilities bearing the costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities; act in a type of 'infrastructure partnership' with St. Johns County; have financial self-sufficiency through the use of special assessments, as well as user charges or fees, to provide public facilities; provide a consistent, innovative and fiscally sound alternative for financing public facilities by bringing the cost of managing and financing public facilities down to a level of government closest to its beneficiaries and connecting those who pay for facilities with those who directly benefit from those facilities and services; and be structured to assure secure revenue sources capable of meeting District responsibilities. Subject 21, titled Governmental Efficiency of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will: cooperate with other levels of Florida government, such as through entering into interlocal agreement to address maintenance issues for certain roads; be established under uniform general law standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes; be professionally managed, financed, and governed by those whose property directly receives the benefits; not burden the general taxpayer with costs for services or facilities inside the District; and plan and implement cost efficient solutions for the required public infrastructure and assure delivery of selected services to residents. Subject 26, titled Plan Implementation of the State Comprehensive Plan, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement. The proposed District is consistent with this element of the State Comprehensive Plan because: the proposed District will systematically plan for the construction, operation and maintenance of the public improvements and the community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations; the District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all District property owners and residents can be involved in planning for improvements; Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file and update public facilities reports with the County, which it may rely upon in any revisions to the local comprehensive plan. Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Witness Walters testified that since St. Johns County has already found the development within the proposed District to be not inconsistent with the St. Johns County local comprehensive plan, the establishment of a community development district would not cause any inconsistency and would be in furtherance of four of the plan's policies, goals and objectives: Policy H.1.3.4 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that 'DRI's planned unit subdivisions, and other large developments shall provide for the dedication of parks and open space to be generated by the development according to the level of service standards.' The proposed District will finance the construction of, and ultimately own and maintain, a community recreational facility. Goal J.1 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that St. Johns County is to ensure the orderly and efficient provision of infrastructure facilities and services such as roads, utilities, recreation, and drainage. The proposed District will serve as an alternative provider of these infrastructure systems and services to meet the needs of the lands within its boundaries; Objective J.1.7 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that the County shall manage fiscal resources to ensure the provision of needed infrastructure. The proposed District will provide the infrastructure facilities and services needed for its lands without burdening the fiscal resources of the County or impacting the bonding limits contained in Policy J.1.7.; Objective K.1.6 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan calls for St. Johns County to work cooperatively with other units of government to address issues and concerns. The proposed District may be expected to enter into interlocal agreements with the County to provide certain enhanced maintenance. Additionally, over the long term, the establishment of the proposed District will provide another unit of local government in place and able to cooperate with the County on future issues and concerns. The State of Florida Department of Community Affairs also reviewed the petition to establish the proposed District and concluded that the petition was consistent with the local comprehensive plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the local comprehensive plan, and will in fact further the goals provided. Most of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval issued by St. Johns County. The PUD was approved on February 10, 1998. The PUD is found in St. Johns County Ordinance No. 98-7. Section 6 of the PUD Application, which is incorporated into Ordinance 98-7 by reference, explicitly states that a community development district will be established and requires the establishment of the District prior to the sale of the first lot within the development. Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the District as a single master-planned community. Witness Walters testified that functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function requires a management capability, funding source and an understanding of the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and development of the community. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,105 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a functionally inter-related community. The compact configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure facilities in a long-term cost efficient manner. The property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. The size of the proposed community within the District provides a sufficient economic base to absorb the debt costs and annual operating costs for the proposed District. There will be no economic disincentives to the provision of the infrastructure facilities contemplated. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or provision of certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the petition. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the District is expected to be financed by bonds and repaid through the imposition of special assessments on benefited property within the District. Use of such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to the use of the proposed District were identified. First, the County might provide facilities and services from its general fund or through a MSTU. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, without public bidding, with maintenance delegated to a homeowners association (HOA). The District exceeds the available alternatives at focusing attention to when and where and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served. Only a community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a community development district allows district residents to completely control the district. All of the other alternatives do not have these characteristics. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities because it is a long-term stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life. From planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the are that will be served by the District. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the proposed boundaries will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to be included within the District. Therefore, the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. As cited previously, from planning, economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The lands to be included within the proposed District have a need for the basic infrastructure being provided. From an engineering perspective, the area within the proposed District is also large enough to support a staff necessary to operate and maintain the proposed infrastructure systems and facilities. Based upon these characteristics, the proposed District is expected to be financially viable. From planning, engineering, economic, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the intended District is amenable to separate special-district government. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains such a description. Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, also requires a description of any real property within the external boundaries which is to be excluded from the District and the last known address of the owners of such properties. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains the required information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the petition contain the proposed timetable for the construction of any district services and the estimated construction costs for those services as well as the designation of the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private land uses proposed for the area by the future land use element of the adopted local government comprehensive plan. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of one-hundred percent of the real property to be included within the proposed District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information which was supplemented by Petitioner at hearing, as it or its subsidiaries acquired title to the lands proposed to be included within the District. Sections 190.005 and 190.006, Florida Statutes, require that each member of a board of supervisors be a resident of Florida and a citizen of the United States. The proposed board members meet these criteria. Section 109.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The petition contains a SERC. It meets all requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, the country and its citizens, Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but is nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the County will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the proposed District except for those it chooses to accept. Consumers will pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. Location within the District is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the community development district will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that St. Johns County was paid the requisite filing fees. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in St. Johns County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in St. Johns County (the St. Augustine Record) for four consecutive weeks on March 13, 2000, March 20, 2000, March 27, 2000, and April 3, 2000. All publications were prior to the hearing. Mr. Stephenson, on behalf of the County's community development district processing group formed in accordance with Section 5.06.00 of the St. Johns County Land Development Code, presented the following proposed findings regarding the approval of the development within the proposed District: On October 28, 1999, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners entered into an Impact Fee Agreement with St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc., and A & S Land Development Company to widen a portion of CR 210 in order to meet concurrency requirements for two projects. St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc. is the developer of the property contained within the Sampson Creek CDD Petition. The project is approved with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning and contains 799 single family residential dwelling units and associated roadways, retention areas, common areas, sales and recreation complex, and an 18-hole golf course. St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners approved the PUB on February 10, 1998. The PUD provides that a CDD will be established and will be in place prior to the sale of the first lot so that purchasers will be aware of their participation and membership in the CDD and of their obligation to pay any taxes that may be levied by the CDD. The PUD and Impact Fee Agreement are separate County approved documents and the creation and operation of a CDD does not in any way affect these documents or their approval without further review by the St. Johns County Board of Commissioners. Impact fee credits shall be awarded in accordance with approved Impact Fee Agreement which ensures that the credits are awarded to the appropriate entity. The CDD processing group finds no inconsistencies with the six factors as described in Section 190.005(6), Florida Statutes. With these findings, Mr. Stephenson testified that St. Johns County has no objection to the establishment of the proposed District.
Conclusions On Monday April 10, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., the local public hearing for the Petition to Establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Cleavinger, at the St. Johns County Public Library, 950 Davis Pond Boulevard, in St. Johns County, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony, public comment, and receiving exhibits on the petition of the St. Joe/Arvida Company, L.P. (Petitioner) to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District (District) in northern St. Johns County, Florida. This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120, and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District as requested by Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule, after inclusion of the legal description, in substantially the form attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Attachment 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Daniel Woodring, Esquire Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Conclusions On Tuesday, October 11, 1994, the local public hearing in this proceeding was held before the Honorable Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. The hearing was held in Room 290, City Commission Chambers, City of Daytona Beach City Hall, 301 South Ridgewood Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the petition of Indigo Development Inc. ("Petitioner") to establish the Indigo Community Development District ("District"). This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission ("Commission") pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code. Statement of the Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the petition to establish the Indigo Community Development District meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. Appearances Appearances on behalf of the Petitioner were entered by: Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Preliminary Statement The Petitioner filed the petition to establish the Indigo Community Development District with the Secretary of the Commission on August 2, 1994. On August 1, 1994, the Petitioner delivered a copy of the petition and exhibits, together with a filing fee, to Frank Gummey, City Attorney for the City of Daytona Beach. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of the petition and exhibits, along with a filing fee to Volusia County. A copy of the petition, including its attached exhibits, was received into evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A. On August 10, 1994, the Secretary of the Commission certified that the petition contained all required elements and forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer. The Commission published a notice of receipt of petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 16, 1994, as required by Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the notice of receipt of petition was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit B. By order of the undersigned, the local public hearing was scheduled in Daytona Beach, Florida, for Tuesday, October 11, 1994. The Petitioner published notice of the hearing in accordance with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code, and provided additional individual notice to others as provided in Rule 42-1.011(1)(b). Copies of return receipts from certified mailing of notices were received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit E. The Petitioner also filed the prepared testimony of four witnesses, together with attached exhibits, on October 4, 1994. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that a local government has the option to hold a public hearing within 45 days of the filing of a petition. The City Commission of the City of Daytona Beach ("City") held a public hearing on the petition on August 17, 1994, and adopted Resolution No. 94-412 supporting establishment of the District. The County Council of Volusia County also expressed support for the establishment of the District, adopting Resolution 94-230 on September 15, 1994. Certified copies of both resolutions were received into evidence respectively as Petitioner's Exhibits F and G. At the local public hearing on October 11, 1994, the Petitioner presented the testimony of William H. McMunn, President of Indigo Development Inc., and agent of the Petitioner in this proceeding; Fred A. Greene, an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis in public infrastructure design, permitting, cost estimation, and construction administration for special districts; Allen E. Salowe, a development economist and managing principal in the firm of A.E. Salowe & Associates, an expert in planning and economic development and analysis; and Gary R. Walters, President of Gary Walters and Associates, a community planning and management consulting firm providing services in conjunction with Gary L. Moyer, P.A., and an expert in special district operations and management. Their full names and addresses are attached to this report as Exhibit 1. The Petitioner offered Petitioner's Exhibits A-J, which were received into evidence at the hearing. A list of Petitioner's exhibits in this proceeding is attached to this report as Exhibit 2. Neither the City nor Volusia County presented any witnesses or exhibits. No public comment was received at the hearing. In accordance with Rule 42-1.012(3), Florida Administrative Code, the record in this matter was left open until October 21, 1994, to allow for the submission of additional written comments or materials. With the exception of a copy of the Petitioner's letter transmitting proof of publication of the notice of hearing to the Secretary of the Commission in accordance with Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, no additional written comments or materials were filed. A transcript of the local public hearing was filed by the Petitioner with the undersigned hearing officer on October 21, 1994. A copy of the transcript is being transmitted with this Report of Findings and Conclusions. At hearing, the Petitioner was given leave to file a Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions no later than October 31, 1994. The Petitioner timely filed such Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions. Overview The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district of approximately 2,480 acres located entirely within the City. It would be located generally west of I-95, south and east of LPGA Boulevard (formerly 11th Street), and north of U.S. 92. 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. Currently the lands to be included within the District are principally undeveloped. Neighboring lands are also principally undeveloped, although currently existing uses include the City's sewage treatment plant, a municipally-owned stadium and a privately-owned horse farm. In May, 1992, an Application for Development Approval ("ADA") for the Ladies Professional Golf Association Development of Regional Impact ("LPGA DRI") encompassing all of the real property located within the external boundaries of the proposed District was submitted to the City. The ADA requested DRI review and approval of a development consisting of no more than 6,018 residential units and related commercial, institutional, recreational, and other uses. The ADA, as amended, also included lands east of I-95 which are not included in the proposed District. All lands within the District will be developed as a mixed-use project pursuant to the LPGA DRI Development Order issued August 18, 1993, by the City. The LPGA DRI is a development which is consistent in all respects with the City's duly adopted local comprehensive plan and development regulations. The proposed development plan for the lands within the District contemplates the construction of approximately 4,035 single family dwelling units, 856,999 square feet of commercial space, 321,082 square feet of office space, 238,752 square feet of industrial space, and 1,566 multi family and hotel units in four phases over a 23-year period. There are presently no residents living within the District. There are five parcels within the external boundaries of the proposed District which are excluded from the District. These parcels are: (1) the Ladies Professional Golf Association golf course which is owned by the City, (2) the Phase I Entrance Road which is owned by the City, (3) the road connecting the Phase IIA Entrance Road to the City's maintenance facility, which is owned by the City, (4) a sub-station site which is presently owned by Florida Power & Light Company, and (5) the state sovereignty lands underlying the Tomoka River. These exclusions do not affect the contiguity or compactness of the proposed district or interfere with the ability of the proposed District to serve as one functional interrelated community. The Petitioner currently intends for the District to participate in the acquisition or construction of certain road improvements, potable water distribution, wastewater collection, and reuse systems. Capital costs of these improvements will be borne by the District. Once completed, these improvements will be dedicated to the City and the ownership and operation of these improvements will become the responsibility of the City. The City will also be responsible for maintenance of these improvements, except as to roadway landscape maintenance which will be performed by the District. The Petitioner intends for the District to provide maintenance for the seven entrances to the District and certain roadway landscaping, including participation in landscape maintenance at the proposed LPGA Boulevard and I-95 interchange. This maintenance may include provision of appropriate landscaping, irrigation and/or mowing services. The Petitioner also intends for the District to construct a street lighting system, the capital costs of which will be borne by the District. Upon completion, portions of this system will be dedicated to the City, and ownership, operation and maintenance of those portions of the system will become the City's responsibility. The remaining portions of the street lighting system will be owned, operated and maintained by the District. The Petitioner also presently intends for the District to construct or acquire portions of the water management system. Once complete, certain portions of the water management system may be dedicated to the City, while other portions of the system may be owned, operated and maintained by the District. Responsibility for maintenance of the water management systems will be divided between the District and the City and any applicable homeowners' association. The Petitioner intends, in addition, for the District to provide maintenance for certain open space, recreation and conservation areas, as well as the Thayer and Bayless canals which run roughly east-west through the proposed District. It is intended, after establishment of the District, that the District and the City will enter into interlocal agreements which will further define the relationship between them. The estimated cost in 1993 dollars for all identified capital improvements is $30,656,000 with construction scheduled to take place from 1995 through 2018. 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. The Petitioner expects that the District will finance such services and improvements through the use of long-term loans or through issuance of tax exempt bonds. The debt issued by the District is expected to be retired by non- ad valorem or special assessments on benefitted property within the District. Certain construction costs associated with potable water distribution, wastewater collection and reuse systems may be financed through the imposition of connection charges, rates and fees pursuant to Section 190.035, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. The City adopted Resolution 94-412 in which it consents to the exercise by the District of special powers, as authorized by Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing facilities for parks, indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses pursuant to Section 190.012(2)(a), and for security as provided in Section 190.012(2)(d). The City, in adopting Resolution 94-412, also found that the District is not inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Additional findings by the City indicate that the land area within the District is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be developable as one functional, interrelated community, and that the District is the best alternative for timely delivering community development systems, services and facilities to the area that will be served. The City also determined 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, and that the area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government. The City's Resolution 94-412 further recommends that the Commission adopt a rule to establish the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Volusia County adopted Resolution 94-230 which, based upon findings that the proposed District is located wholly within the boundaries of the City and that establishment of the District is not inconsistent with any County facilities or services, expresses County support for the City's recommendation as to the establishment of the District. 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 attachments as filed with the Commission. McMunn stated that he had reviewed the contents of the petition and approved its findings, then generally described each of the attachments. Both McMunn and Salowe indicated that Attachment 10, page 3, second paragraph, should read "1993 dollars" and that the same change should be made in Table 2 of that document. McMunn testified further that ownership of the land within the proposed District had not changed since submission of his prefiled direct testimony, which testimony indicated that the Petitioner either owns or has written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the District. With the correction to the EIS by McMunn and Salowe, 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. Salowe reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the City of Daytona Beach Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes ("Local Comprehensive Plan"). In addition, the City Commission, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and the Department of Community Affairs reviewed the proposed District for consistency with applicable elements or portions of the state and effective local comprehensive plans. The City concluded that the District would not be inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the Local Comprehensive Plan. The Regional Planning Council concluded that the proposed District is consistent with its adopted policies and with applicable portions of both state and local comprehensive plans. The Department of Community Affairs reviewed the Petition from the standpoint of its programs and responsibilities and the requirements of Section 190.005(e)2-6, Florida Statutes, and, based on this review, stated that the establishment of the District would not be incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. State Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, two goals of the State Comprehensive Plan, and policies supporting those goals, apply directly to the District. From an economics perspective, two 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 a planning perspective, the District will have the fiscal capacity to provide a wide range of services and facilities to a population in a designated growth area lying within the City. 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 City which the City may use and rely on in any revisions to the Local Comprehensive Plan. 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 an economics perspective, the proposed District will provide designated improvements and services at no cost to the local government. These actions allow local government resources to be focused on the public facilities needs outside of the District and so contribute to the timely, orderly and efficient provision of services to all City residents. Goal 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District would finance and deliver quality public services and facilities at a level demanded by residents and property owners of the District who directly benefit and pay for those services and facilities. Based on the testimony in the record, the proposed 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 and supporting policies, seek to achieve a future land use pattern that provides for a sufficient supply of land to meet growth demands and insure that land uses are located in a rational and efficient manner. From a planning perspective, the proposed District would further this goal by means of effective infrastructure planning, public finance, and community-wide maintenance. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element and supporting policies acknowledge the need for alternative providers of facilities and services and require 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 City. From a planning perspective, the District satisfies that need. The Capital Improvements Element is intended to accommodate new development within sound fiscal practices. From an economics perspective, the District furthers that intent because it provides an additional source of public funding and revenue to satisfy the LPGA DRI capital improvements requirements without burdening the borrowing capacity or indebtedness of the City. Nothing in the Local Comprehensive Plan precludes the establishment of a community development district. 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 City concluded the District would not be inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the Local Comprehensive Plan. Based on the evidence in this record, 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 Greene, Salowe and Walters. The lands that comprise the District consist of approximately 2,480 acres, located entirely within the City, and generally west of I-95, south and east of LPGA Boulevard, and north of U.S. 92. All of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community which is included in the LPGA DRI Development Order approved August 18, 1993, which Development Order contemplates the possible establishment of such a district. Although five parcels of land within the external boundaries of the proposed District are excluded from the District because they are owned by governmental entities or utilities, their exclusion will not affect the contiguity or compactness of the proposed District or otherwise interfere with the ability of the District to serve as one functional interrelated community. The proposed development plan for lands within the District is focused largely on construction of single-family residences and selected multi-family residential areas supported both by both neighborhood and community-wide commercial development. Much as in other similarly-sized projects which lie adjacent to I-95 and have been approved as DRIs, the proposed district facilities can be provided in an efficient, functional, and integrated manner. Functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or maintenance of the larger whole. 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 2,480 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate roads, drainage, water, sewer, lighting, security, parks and recreation, and other basic facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. With adequate planning, design, financing, construction and maintenance, provision of these facilities and services will contribute to the development of a functional interrelated community. 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 of the property is part of a single project, is close together, and, with the exception of the municipally- owned LPGA golf course, has no barriers segregating one portion of the project from any of the others. Contiguity has to do with whether all parts of the project are 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 close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The land need not be physically connected in order to be functionally connected, especially when planning specialized governmental systems, facilities and services. However, all parts of the project do need to be spatially imminent so that the facilities and services can be provided in a cost-effective manner and can be properly maintained with minimum difficulty. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. From an economics perspective, the physical configuration of the proposed District is ideal. The area to be included in the District is compact and contiguous. The size and physical configuration of the District allows economical construction of road and lighting improvements, and maintenance of the water management and wetlands conservation and open space systems in a long- term cost-effective manner. The cost efficient delivery of potable water distribution, wastewater collection, and reuse lines is also enhanced by the compactness and contiguity of the site. The area to be included within the proposed District can be expected to succeed as a functional, interrelated community from a district management perspective because the characteristics of compactness, contiguity and size ensure that the delivery of services and facilities will not be unnecessarily impeded by distance, physical barriers or other spacial problems. The City 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, engineering and management 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. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or acquisition of certain road improvements, potable water distribution, wastewater collection, reuse, and lighting systems. Capital costs of these improvements will be borne by the District. Once completed, certain of these improvements will be dedicated, in whole or in part, to the City and the ownership and operation of the dedicated improvements will become the City's responsibility. The City will also be responsible for maintenance of these improvements, except as to roadway landscape maintenance which will be performed by the District. It is intended that the proposed District will own, operate, and maintain the seven entrances to the District. The District will also provide roadway landscape maintenance, including participation in landscape maintenance at the proposed LPGA Boulevard and I-95 Interchange. It is intended in addition that the District will provide maintenance for certain open space, recreation and conservation areas, as well as the Thayer and Bayless canals. The proposed District would also construct or acquire portions of the water management system. Upon completion, certain portions of the water management system may be dedicated to the City, while other portions of the system may be owned, operated, and maintained by the District. Responsibility for maintenance of the water management systems will be apportioned between the District and the City and any applicable homeowners' association. It is expected that the District will finance these services and improvements through use of long-term loans or through issuance of tax exempt bonds. The debt issued by the District is expected to be retired by non-ad valorem or special assessments on benefitted property within the District. Certain construction costs associated with potable water distribution, wastewater collection and reuse systems may be financed through the imposition of connection charges, rates and fees pursuant to Section 190.035, Florida Statutes. Use of non-ad valorem or special assessments and user fees will ensure that the real property benefitting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to establishment of the proposed District were identified. First, the City might provide facilities and services from its general fund. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, generally either through a private developer dependent upon commercial loans or through a community-wide property owners' association. In evaluating alternative methods for delivering community development facilities and services, factors to consider include whether an alternative is able to provide 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 Local General Purpose Government The City is a perpetual entity capable of providing services at sustained levels. It can also provide a relatively low-cost source of financing. There are, however, already substantial demands upon the City's financial and staff resources, the response to which will inevitably be dispersed over an expanding population residing within a very broad geographic area. Delivery by Private Means 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 or necessarily qualify as a low-cost source of financing. A property owners' association might satisfy demands for focused service and facilities and managed delivery. However, such associations lack the capability to issue bonds or other forms of long-term debt. They also frequently experience difficulty in collecting maintenance assessments. Consequently, a property owners' association could not effectively plan, finance, construct, operate and maintain the necessary infrastructure. While a private developer might provide community development services and facilities by utilizing long-term financing from private lenders, such financing, if obtainable, is likely to be more expensive than financing through a public entity. Moreover, only a public entity can guarantee long-term maintenance. 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 benefitted properties and residents. It has limited powers and jurisdiction. The District 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. Sources of funding assure that District services and facilities will be adequately managed at sustained levels of quality. From an engineering perspective, the District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities because it is a long-term, stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life. Knowing when, where and how infrastructure will be needed to service a projected population allows for more efficient delivery. The proposed District is better able than the other available alternatives to focus attention on when and where and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a more complete utilization of existing facilities. The LPGA DRI development order acknowledges the possible establishment of the District and further describes and defines the intended services and facilities to be provided by the District. The City has concluded that the proposed District is the best alternative for the timely delivery of community development systems, services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. From planning, economics, engineering, and management 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. 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. Establishment of the proposed District and the compatibility of district services and facilities with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities was considered during the LPGA DRI approval process. The services and facilities to be provided by the proposed District, none of which is presently in existence, are required by the LPGA DRI. The land area of the proposed District is isolated in part, and buffered by, major City roadways and by conservation areas. Although there are existing sewer and water trunk lines on the site which are owned and operated by the City, the services and facilities of the proposed District are, from a planning perspective, fully compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local or regional community development services and facilities. Moreover, none of the supplemental services and facilities which have been or later may be authorized by consent of the City following establishment of the District are presently existing on the site or provided to the LPGA International community. From an economics perspective, the proposed District will finance the water distribution, wastewater collection, and reuse systems, as well as certain roadways and street lighting. It will also maintain the entrances, landscaping and signage, as well as portions of the water management system, conservation, recreation, and open space areas in perpetuity. Maintenance of the water management system will be divided between the District and the City and any applicable homeowners' association. The management and operation of District facilities will be coordinated with the City. The proposed District will not only provide operation and maintenance services not currently available, but the City, developers, builders and residents will all benefit through increased access, traffic flow, safety, and general enhancement of the affected property. The City has 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. From planning, economics, engineering, and management 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. Considering the first of these criteria from planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, it is clear that 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. From an engineering perspective, the area within the proposed District is also large enough to support a staff necessary to operate and maintain the proposed systems. As for an evaluation based on the second of the abovementioned criteria, the infrastructure needs of the area within the proposed District are spelled out in the development order issued for the project. All of the proposed District facilities and services are contemplated in the LPGA DRI Development Order and are thus needed for development of the area. The land within the proposed District also needs supplemental services and facilities that can be provided by the District, including, but not limited to, roadway landscaping and maintenance of entrances, open space, recreation and conservation areas. The construction and maintenance of these services and facilities will benefit both owners and residents of lands within the District. The City has concluded that the area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special district government. From planning, engineering, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. 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 Composite Exhibit A 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 Composite Exhibit A contains the consent of Patricia Lagoni who, as Trustee under Trust No. IDI-3, dated June 7, 1991, and under Trust No. IDI-2, dated June 27, 1989, is the sole owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the proposed 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: Joseph Benedict, III 695 Airport Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Patricia Lagoni 131 Muirfield Drive Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Gary Moothart 3 Broadriver Road Ormond Beach, FL 32174 William H. McMunn 3 South Ravinsfield Lane Ormond Beach, FL 32174 Bruce W. Teeters 10 Broadriver Road Ormond Beach, FL 32174 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 "Indigo 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's Composite Exhibit A 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 Composite Exhibit A 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 economic impact statement ("EIS") which meets the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. The petition contains an EIS. 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 and least intrusive method to deliver a given public improvement and to provide beneficial maintenance. An entity that is directly accountable to its users for costs and delivery of benefits is more likely to achieve the desired result. The District is such an entity. The District is a limited and highly specialized unit of local government. It is a special purpose unit of local government with a single purpose: the provision of infrastructure and services for planned new communities. Its economic benefits exceed its economic cost to all affected parties. The Petitioner proposes that the District utilize special assessment or revenue bonds or other forms of long-term indebtedness for capital to provide planned public infrastructure. The indebtedness will be repaid through non-ad valorem assessments on the land within the District, or rates and charges established by the District. The Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. The EIS contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District . 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 nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the City related to rule adoption should be more than offset by the $15,000 filing fee paid by the Petitioner. Benefits to the City 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. The Petitioner incurred substantial costs in seeking establishment of the District and will be required to provide technical assistance to the District after establishment. The Petitioner will pay substantial sums in non- ad valorem assessments on real property within the District. Benefits to the Petitioner include access to public bond financing for certain improvements and a long-term stable source of capital, which will benefit the Petitioner's development project. In addition, 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 will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities. The EIS concludes that the benefits from the District would outweigh the costs to each affected person or class of persons. Other Requirements Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, regarding submission of the Petition and payment of a filing fee to the local general purpose government. 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 Volusia County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in the Daytona Beach News Journal for four consecutive weeks, on Tuesdays, beginning September 13, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires the 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 submitted to the undersigned Hearing Officer at the local public hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit J and are a part of the record. Copies of the proofs of publication were furnished to the Secretary of the Commission as required on October 18, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires the 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. 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. Section 190.012(2)(d) provides that the District may exercise certain powers with respect to security. On August 17, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-412, the City consented to the District's exercise of powers necessary to finance, plan, establish, acquire, own, construct, reconstruct, enlarge, extend, equip, operate, and maintain systems and facilities for parks, indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses pursuant to Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and for security uses as provided in Section 190.012(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Conclusions Based upon the record of this proceeding, it is concluded that: This proceeding is governed by Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. 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 Volusia County and of general interest and readership once each week for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. The Petitioner has met the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, regarding the submission of the Petition and payment of a filing fee. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes. 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 effective City of Daytona Beach 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 28th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 28th day of October, 1994 COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2101 Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Frank Gummey Office of the City Attorney City of Daytona Beach City Hall, Suite 220 Daytona Beach, FL 32095 EXHIBIT 1 PETITIONER'S WITNESSES AT HEARING William H. McMunn Indigo Development Inc. 149C South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Fred A. Greene Gee & Jenson Engineers, Architects, and Planners One Harvard Circle West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Allen E. Salowe A.E. Salowe and Associates 1334 Plantation Oaks Drive, North Jacksonville, FL 32250 Gary R. Walters Gary Walters and Associates 12 Crooked Tree Trail Ormond Beach, FL 32174 EXHIBIT 2 LIST OF PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Number Description Composite Petition to Establish the Indigo Exhibit A Community Development District Notice Published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 16, 1994 Letter from the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council to David Coburn Letter from the Department of Community Affairs to David Coburn Return Receipts from certified mailing of Copies of Notices of Local Public Hearing to Persons Specified in Rule 42-1.011(b), F.A.C. City of Daytona Beach Resolution 94-12, adopted August 17, 1994, recommending that the Indigo Community Development District be established in accordance with the petition of Indigo Development Inc. Resolution of County Council of Volusia County, Florida, adopted September 15, 1994, supporting establishment of proposed Indigo Community Development District LPGA DRI Development Order August 18, 1993 Affidavits of Citizenship and Residency for the Initial Board of Supervisors Copies of Proofs of Publication of Notice of Local Hearing, Published in the Daytona Beach News Journal on September 13, 20, 27 and October 4, 1994 CHAPTER 42_-1 EXHIBIT 3 TEXT OF PROPOSED RULE INDIGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42_-1.001 Creation. 42-1.002 Boundary. 42-1.003 Supervisors. 42_-1.001 Creation. The Indigo 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: A portion of Sections 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34, all being in Township 15 South, Range 32 East, Volusia County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: As a Point of Reference, commence at a concrete monument marking the West one-quarter corner of said Section 9, being also the East one-quarter corner of said Section 8; thence run North 00 degrees 46'29" West, along the West line of said Section 9, being also the East line of said Section 8, a distance of 55.73 feet to a point in the Southerly right-of- way line of the 125-foot wide right-of-way of Eleventh Street, as shown on the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (F.D.O.T.) Right-of-Way Map, Section 79507-2602, sheet 11, revision dated October 29, 1974, said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, said point also lying in a curve, concave Southeasterly, and having a radius of 75.00 feet; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 85.25 feet (85.22 feet per F.D.O.T. map), or through a central angle of 6507'49" (65 degrees 06'15" per F.D.O.T. map), having a chord distance of 80.73 feet and a chord bearing of North 31 degrees 47'25" East, to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run North 64 degrees 21'19" East (North 64 degrees 17'40" East per F.D.O.T. map), along said Southerly right-of-way line, a distance of 1250.13 feet to a point therein; thence, departing said Southerly right-of-way line of Eleventh Street, run Southerly and Easterly, along a curve, concave Easterly, and having a radius of 397.81 feet; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 268.87 feet, or through a central angle of 38 degrees 43'28", having a chord distance of 263.78 feet and a chord bearing of South 44 degrees 06'11" East to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run South 24 degrees 44'27" East a distance of 230.27 feet; thence run South 39 degrees 17'04" East a distance of 192.82 feet to the Point of Tangency of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 4703.96 feet and a central angle of 04 degrees 07'28"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 338.61 feet, having a chord distance of 338.53 feet and a chord bearing of South 19 degrees 03'59" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1638.51 feet and a central angle of 12 degrees 20'12"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 352.80 feet, having a chord distance of 352.12 feet and a chord bearing of South 27 degrees 17'49" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 471.84 feet and a central angle of 27 degrees 19'26"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 225.02 feet, having a chord distance of 222.89 feet and a chord bearing of South 47 degrees 07'39" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 27654.59 feet and a central angle of 01 degrees 08'14"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 548.95 feet, having a chord distance of 548.94 feet and a chord bearing of South 60 degrees 13'14" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 817.82 feet and a central angle of 19 degrees 47'54"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 282.59 feet, having a chord distance of 281.19 feet and a chord bearing of South 49 degrees 45'10" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 689.52 feet and a central angle of 30 degrees 16'48"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 364.40 feet, having a chord distance of 360.18 feet and a chord bearing of South 24 degrees 42'50" East, to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 44977.15 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 54'22"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 711.30 feet, having a chord distance of 711.29 feet and a chord bearing of South 10 degrees 01'37" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 85351.12 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 15'35"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 386.86 feet, having a chord distance of 386.86 feet and a chord bearing of South 10 degrees 21'01" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2145.74 feet and a central angle of 09 degrees 15'55"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 346.99 feet, having a chord distance of 346.61 feet and a chord bearing of South 14 degrees51'11" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 881.18 feet and a central angle of 21 degrees 38'42"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 332.89 feet, having a chord distance of 330.91 feet and a chord bearing of South 30 degrees 18'29" East, to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 634.07 feet and a central angle of 24 degrees 08'12"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 267.11 feet, having a chord distance of 265.14 feet and a chord bearing of South 29 degrees 03'44'' East to the Point Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 7337.11 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 02'20"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 261.10 feet, having a chord distance of 261.08 feet and a chord bearing of South 18 degrees 00'48" East to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run South 75 degrees 29'28" East a distance of 61.32 feet; thence run South 45 degrees 02'04" East a distance of 70.58 feet; thence run South 55 degrees 22'59" East a distance of 74.58 feet; thence run South 53 degrees 54'44" East a distance of 123.51 feet; thence run South 53 degrees 27'15" East a distance of 110.00 feet; thence run South 25 degrees 20'31" East a distance of 199.03 feet; thence run South 61 degrees 52'08" West a distance of 217.66 feet; thence run South 21 degrees 39'56" East a distance of 456.10 feet; thence run North 70 degrees 19'19" East a distance of 249.84 feet; thence run South 07 degrees 17'17" East a distance of 254.15 feet; thence run South 01 degrees 10'43" East a distance of 246.45 feet; thence run South 28 degrees 04'00" West a distance of 57.51 feet; thence run South 27 degrees 37'10" West a distance of 91.14 feet; thence run South 29 degrees 24'23" West a distance of 101.59 feet; thence run South 28 degrees 22'25" West a distance of 56.54 feet; thence run South 23 degrees 10'06" West a distance of 116.83 feet to a point, said point lying in a curve, concave Easterly, said curve having a radius of 2566.72 feet and a central angle of 04 degrees 16'12"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 191.29 feet, having a chord distance of 191.24 feet and a chord bearing of South 02 degrees 24'11" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 3397.22 feet and a central angle of 14 degrees 20'40"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 850.52 feet, having a chord distance of 848.30 feet and a chord bearing of South 11 degrees 42'37" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1230.00 feet and a central angle of 25 degrees 00'33"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 536.88 feet, having a chord distance of 532.63 feet and a chord bearing of South 31 degrees 23'13" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1009.14 feet and a central angle of 12 degrees 59'42"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 228.88 feet, having a chord distance of 228.39 feet and a chord bearing of South 50 degrees 23'21" East, to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run South 56 degrees 53'12" East a distance of 101.20 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 405.47 feet and a central angle of 53 degrees 07'57"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 376.01 feet, having a chord distance of 362.68 feet and a chord bearing of South 30 degrees 19'14" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 834.58 feet and a central angle of 26 degrees 48'32"; thence run Southerly and Westerly, along said curve, a distance of 390.50 feet, having a chord distance of 386.95 feet and a chord bearing of South 09 degrees 39'01" West to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 540.74 feet and a central angle of 53 degrees 48'25"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 507.81 feet, having a chord distance of 489.36 feet and a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 50'55" East to the Point Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 7495.84 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 38'23"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 345.34 feet, having a chord distance of 345.31 feet and a chord bearing of South 29 degrees 25'57" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 623.80 feet and a central angle of 27 degrees 41'49"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 301.55 feet, having a chord distance of 298.62 feet and a chord bearing of South 14 degrees 15'51" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2412.56 feet and a central angle of 07 degrees 28'54"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 315.03 feet, having a chord distance of 314.81 feet and a chord bearing of South 04 degrees 09'23" East, to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1127.49 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 57'01"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 215.48 feet, having a chord distance of 215.16 feet and a chord bearing of South 13 degrees 22'20" East, to a point; thence run South 30 degrees 31'09" West a distance of 635.44 feet; thence run South 12 degrees 13'30" East a distance of 98.61 feet; thence run South 16 degrees 03'21" East a distance of 72.06 feet; thence run South 17 degrees 09'45" East a distance of 11.25 feet; thence run South 17 degrees 05'17" East a distance of 60.81 feet; thence run South 18 degrees 02'24" East a distance of 72.04 feet; thence run South 19 degrees 05'10" East a distance of 72.08 feet; thence run South 20 degrees 02'54" East a distance of 71.99 feet; thence run South 21 degrees 05'34" East a distance of 72.08 feet; thence run South 22 degrees 53'29" East a distance of 108.95 feet; thence run South 04 degrees 10'49" West a distance of 45.54 feet to a point, said point lying in a curve, concave Northeasterly, said curve having a radius of 4147.11 feet and a central angle of 00 degrees 38'03"; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 45.90 feet, having a chord distance of 45.90 feet and a chord bearing of South 23 degrees 57'44" East to a point; thence run South 73 degrees 04'08" West a distance of 247.53 feet; thence run South 16 degrees 55'52" East a distance of 69.97 feet; thence continue South 16 degrees 55'52" East a distance of 1234.58 feet; thence run South 67 degrees 37'05" West a distance of 94.86 feet to a point in the Southerly right-of-way line of a 50-foot wide State of Florida Outfall Ditch Easement, as described in deed from Tomoka Land Company, dated June 16, 1941, and recorded in Deed Book 291, Page 272, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run North 81 degrees 20'55" West (North 81 degrees 23'36" West per deed), along the Southerly line of said Outfall Ditch Easement, a distance of 800 feet, more or less, to a point in the Easterly bank of the Tomoka River; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along the Easterly bank of the Tomoka River, a distance of 8100 feet, more or less, to a point lying 5 feet Northerly of, as measured at right angles to, the Northerly right-of-way line of the 240-foot wide right-of-way of State Road #600 (U.S. Highway #92), as shown on the State of Florida, Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Map, Section 7906, revision dated July 12, 1940; thence run South 51 degrees 01'34" West (South 50 degrees 51'45" West per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 5455 feet, more or less, to a point, said point being 5 feet Northeasterly of the Easterly right- of-way line of the aforementioned Eleventh Street; thence, running parallel to and 5 feet Northerly or Easterly from the right-of-way line of said Eleventh Street run the following courses and distances: South 74 degrees 43'02" West (South 74 degrees 38'29" West per F.D.O.T. map), a distance of 388.29 feet; thence run North 75 degrees 52'42" West (North 75 degrees 57'15" West per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 745.26 feet; thence run North 61 degrees 40'39" West (North 61 degrees 45'12" West per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 588.04 feet; thence run South 39 degrees 33'17" West to the Easterly right-of-way line of said Eleventh Street (at this point the right-of-way of Eleventh Street becomes 200 feet wide); thence run North 39 degrees 03'42" West (North 39 degrees 08'15" West, 4016.04 feet, per F.D.O.T. map) a distance of 4015.80 feet to a point therein, said point lying in a curve, concave Northerly, and having a radius of 1841.75 feet; thence run Northerly and Westerly, along said curve, a distance of 864.15 feet, or through a central angle of 26 degrees 53'00", having a chord distance of 886.25 feet and a chord bearing of North 25 degrees 37'12" West to the Point of Cusp of a curve, concave Southerly, and having a radius of 100.00 feet; thence run Southerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 170.88 feet, or through a central angle of 97 degrees 54'24", having a chord distance of 150.83 feet and a chord bearing of South 61 degrees 12'48" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2177.89 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 25'48"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 396.46 feet, having a chord distance of 395.91 feet and a chord bearing of North 64 degrees 37'06" East to the Point of Compound Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 699.34 feet and a central angle of 16 degrees 47'06"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 204.87 feet, having a chord distance of 204.14 feet and a chord bearing of North 51 degrees 00'40" East to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2039.93 feet and a central angle of 19 degrees 56'00"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 709.70 feet, having a chord distance of 706.13 feet and a chord bearing of North 32 degrees 39'07" East to the Point of Reverse Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1357.26 feet and a central angle of 22 degrees 20'20"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 529.18 feet, having a chord distance of 525.83 feet and a chord bearing of North 33 degrees 51'17" East to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run North 45 degrees 01'27" East a distance of 357.30 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 970.00 feet and a central angle of 02 degrees 36'05"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 44.04 feet, having a chord distance of 44.04 feet and a chord bearing of North 43 degrees 43'24" East to a point; thence run South 30 degrees 39'13" East a distance of 91.14 feet; thence run North 39 degrees 50'12" East a distance of 2033.09 feet to a point in the Southerly line of the City of Daytona Beach Sewage Treatment Plant, as described in Official Records Book 1875, Page 1551, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run North 89 degrees 33'20" East (North 89 degrees 33'15" East per deed), a distance of 294.14 feet to the Southeast corner of said parcel; thence run North 00 degrees 37'30" West (North 00 degrees 37'36" West, 1947.42 feet per deed) a distance of 1947.54 feet to the Northeast corner of said parcel, said point also lying in the Southerly line of a 50-foot wide City of Daytona Beach Easement as described in Official Records Book 1478, Page 598, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run South 70 degrees 42'56" West (South 70 degrees 43'27" West, 862.55 feet, per Sewage Treatment Plant deed and South 70 degrees 37'55" West per Easement deed) along the Northerly line of said Sewage Treatment Plant parcel and the Southerly line of said Easement, a distance of 862.59 feet; thence run South 89 degrees 33'29" West (South 89 degrees 33'15" West, 1183.16 feet per Sewage Treatment Plant deed and South 89 degrees 33'15" West, 1183.93 feet per Easement deed) a distance of 1183.22 feet to the Northwest corner of said Sewage Treatment Plant parcel and the end of said Easement, said point also lying in the East line of the City of Daytona Beach Well Field Site, as described in Official Records Book 92, Page 687, of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida; thence run North 00 degrees 34'23" West, along the East line of said City of Daytona Beach Well Field Site, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence run South 89 degrees 33'09" West, along the North line of said City of Daytona Beach Well Field Site, being also the North line of Section 29, Township 15 South, Range 32 East, a distance of 1281.00 feet to an intersection with the Easterly right-of-way line of the aforementioned Eleventh Street; thence run North 00 degrees 06'57" West (North 00 degrees 11'30" West per F.D.O.T. map), along said Easterly right-of-way line, a distance of 11083.14 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1809.86 feet and a central angle of 64 degrees 28'16"; thence run Northerly and Easterly, along said curve, a distance of 2036.39 feet, having a chord distance of 1930.65 feet and a chord bearing of North 32 degrees 07'11" East, to the Point of Tangency thereof; thence run North 64 degrees 21'19" East (North 64 degrees 16'30" East per F.D.O.T. map), along the Southerly line of said Eleventh Street, a distance of 1553.03 feet; thence run North 89 degrees 13'54" East a distance of 67.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, EXCEPTING THEREFROM the State of Florida Sovereignty Lands of the Tomoka River, the L.P.G.A. Golf Course, as described in Official Records Book 3799, Page 1647, the L.P.G.A- Entrance Road, Phase I (now known as Champions Drive), as described in Official Records Book 3713, Page 1288, and a portion of Section 33, Township 15 South, Range 32 East, deeded from Patricia Lagoni, as Trustee, to Florida Power & Light Company, as described in Official Records Book 3783, Page 2241, all of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida, and the City of Daytona Beach Maintenance Building Access Road, said parcel also being subject to Florida Power & Light Company Easements as described in Official Records Book 170, Pages 347-349, Official Records Book 511, Pages 86-88, and Official Records Book 1335, Page 500, all of the Public Records of Volusia County, Florida, and also being subject to any other easements of record, said parcel having a net acreage of 2,480 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: Joseph Benedict, III; Patricia Lagoni; Gary Moothart; William H. McMunn; Bruce H. Teeters. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History--New - - .
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
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Amend the Boundaries of the Crossings at Fleming Island Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2007)1, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the local public hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Deltampa, Inc., a Florida corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Deltona Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is the owner of approximately 5,408 acres of property located in northern Hillsborough County, Florida. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 4) Petitioner proposes to develop its property into a functionally interrelated residential community called Tampa Palms, which will ultimately consist of approximately 13,500 single-family and multiple-family dwelling units, a regional shopping center, an industrial park, golf courses, parks and related recreational facilities, commercial and office facilities, and educational facilities. (Testimony of Motchkavitz; Exhibits 1, 6) The proposed name of the new district shall be the Tampa Palms Community Development District, and its external boundaries are set forth in the Legal Description at Exhibit 4. (Exhibit 4-5) The Tampa Palms development is planned to be constructed over a period of 20 years in four phases of five years each. The total area to be developed consists of approximately nine square miles of which some 60 percent or about 3,000 acres will involve low-density housing or open space, parks, and golf courses. Residential development will take place over 1,651 acres or about 30 percent of the site. A full range of community support facilities planned to meet the needs of the residents will include two school sites, 20 park sites, six church sites, two fire station sites, and two public facility sites, totalling about 300 acres or some six percent of the site. There will be 3,000 single-family residential units and about 10,500 multiple-family units. Density of the 1,650 acres of residential development will be approximately 8.5 units per acre, with 2.2 units per acre for single family units. Maximum density in the multifamily area will be 35 units per acre, and overall density for the entire site is projected to be 2.5 units per acre. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 1A) The site in question is a contiguous parcel which is bordered on the east generally by the lower Hillsborough River flood detention area and the proposed 1-75 right-of-way for the interstate highway which is under construction at the present time. The Hillsborough River runs across the southern portion of the site and Cypress Creek, an ill-defined, non-navigable water course, is on the western portion of the site. The site is approximately 10 miles northeast of Tampa. The property is bisected diagonally northeast to southwest by State Road 581. Interstate highway 1-75 passes by the property at the northwest corner and will eventually merge with the 1-75 Tampa bypass north of the site. The City of Tampa Morris Bridge Water Treatment Plant is located adjacent to the property at the northeast corner on a 60-acre site donated to the city by Deltona and will provide service to residents of Tampa Palms. Hooker's Point Wastewater Facility has a force main within one mile of Tampa Palms and will service the proposed community. The University of South Florida is located immediately to the south of Petitioner's site. (Testimony of Motchkavitz; Exhibits 1, 5) A proposed industrial area will be located in the northeast corner of the property consisting of approximately 75 acres. It is contemplated that only light industry of a research and development type will be conducted there. Additionally, about 150 acres in that general area will be used for shopping centers, hotel, and office facilities. (Testimony of Motchkavitz; Exhibits 1, 6) Potable water for the future residents of Tampa Palms will be supplied by the City of Tampa, which operates a water treatment plant adjacent to the northeast corner of the proposed development. Non-potable water will be developed by on-site wells to supply irrigation water to the proposed golf courses. The city water treatment plant has sufficient capacity to supply adequate water supplies to the estimated peak population of 31,700. Off-site wastewater treatment will be provided by the City of Tampa advanced wastewater treatment plant at Hooker's Point. No septic tanks will be used at the Tampa Palms development. Wastewater will be collected by a central system and pumped off site for treatment. Solid waste generated by the development will be collected twice weekly by the Hillsborough County Solid Waste Control Department and will be disposed of at a county landfill site. (Testimony of Apthorp; Exhibits 1, 6) The Hillsborough River has a history of flooding in periods of high water and heavy rainfall in the area surrounding Tampa. Several years ago, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers entered into a program called the Lower Hillsborough Flood Detention Program which would attempt to restrict the flooding downstream by acquiring some 17,000 acres to the east of the Tampa Palms site, and constructing a dam at the southeast corner of the Tampa Palms property. It is an open structure through which the river flows in normal conditions, but has the capability of being closed in periods of high water and creating a temporary impoundment. This system also includes a levee which parallels the eastern side of the development site, thus providing flood protection from that direction. To prevent flooding of the site from the Cypress Creek system on the west, Petitioner plans to construct an earthen levee along the western boundaries of its property in a north-south direction and laterally across the northern border in an easterly direction until the elevation is sufficient to preclude flooding problems. The structure will have a maximum height of about six feet in the southernmost section and be as high as only two to three feet in the northern portions. It will have a freeboard or additional dirt belt above the 500-year flood level of Cypress Creek of one-and-a-half feet. The levee will have a 10-foot wide top and a six to one foot slope. It will be sodded and grassed to prevent erosion. There will be several drainage structures throughout the levee to allow drainage from the property to pass into Cypress Creek when the waterway is at a low flow level. These will consist of culverts with gate structures which will require monitoring and continuing maintenance to be performed by Petitioner or its successors. Petitioner plans an extensive drainage system for its property to maintain the integrity of the wetlands areas and to prevent pollution and excessive surface runoff into the Hillsborough River. The proposed drainage system for the project will consist of a network of 15-foot wide grassy swales adjacent to streets and rear yards from which runoff will flow into wetlands or lakes, and then through storm water structures to ultimate outfall into the Hillsborough River. The system is designed to permit drainage by gravity through extensive areas of natural vegetation to remove pollutants and result in approximately the same flow into receiving waters as existed prior to development of the property. Some 180 acres of lakes will be created from areas dredged to secure fill for the development. All lake areas will be deeper than six feet to lessen the establishment of aquatic plants and will be monitored for water quality as necessary. About twenty 50-foot long concrete seawalls will be built near the lakes to impound water, thereby creating additional storage, and equipped with piping which will allow the water to slow the drain down after storm events. It is anticipated that such controlled structures will eliminate the potential for any flood-type impacts to downstream users and allow more contact time with natural wetland vegetation. The drainage system will be operated and maintained by Petitioner until such time as an acceptable and qualified public entity assumes such responsibilities. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 14) Fire and police protection will be provided to the proposed district by Hillsborough County. In addition, the County will provide for solid waste collection and issuance of building permits. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 1) Pursuant to application of the Deltona Corporation on November 8, 1979, for approval of a development of regional impact pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, F.S., the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners, by Resolution adopted October 1, 1980, issued a Development Order approving the application, subject to various conditions. In the Development Order, the Board of County Commissioners concluded that the development would not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted state land development plan applicable to the area and was consistent with local land development regulations, and with the report and recommendations of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (Exhibit 7) By Resolution dated May 6, 1981, the Board of County Commissioners expressed its opinion that Petitioner should continue its efforts to establish a community development district for the Tampa Palms development and specifically found that: The creation of a community develop- ment district in conjunction with the development of Tampa Palms is not, in the Board's opinion, inconsistent with the approved Hillsborough County Com- prehensive Land Use Plan or other local land use regulations, and A community development district appears, in the Board's opinion, to be the best alternative available for delivering to and maintaining the com- munity development services and facil- ities in the Tampa Palms area, and The services and facilities to be operated and maintained by the proposed district do not appear to be, in the Board's opinion, incom- atible with the capacity and uses of existing and proposed local and regional community development ser- vices, and The Tampa Palms development, due to its size and location and the extent of community services and facilities to be created within the development appears to be, in the Board's opinion, amenable to separate special district government. (Exhi- bit 2) The five persons designated to serve as initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed community development district are Frank E. Mackle, III; Richard F. Schulte, William I. Livingston, Paul M. Schaefer, and Edward G. Grafton. It is intended that they shall serve as the Board of Supervisors until replaced in accordance with Section 190.006, F.S. (Petition) The following ultimate findings are made based upon the testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. (Testimony of Apthorp) The creation of the district is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. This finding is supported by the Development Order and subsequent Resolution issued by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. (Exhibits 2, 7) 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. This finding is supported by the previous findings of fact concerning the size of the proposed district and the fact that the 5,400 acres are in one contiguous parcel. The district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. This finding is supported by the Development Order issued by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners and its subsequent Resolution acknowledging that a community development district would be the best alternative available for such purposes. Hillsborough County is presently not in a position to provide many of the essential services required by a community of the contemplated size of Tampa Palms, including but not limited to public streets and an extensive surface water management system. The proposed development will result in a substantially self-contained community which will be comprehensively planned so as to provide necessary services required by its residents. A community development district will be in a position to provide reliable operation and maintenance of those services and facilities not otherwise conducted by the County or other appropriate unit of local government. (Exhibits 2, 7) 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 proposed development of the property is scheduled, in accordance with the terms of the County Development Order, to coincide with the provision of essential area services which will not be provided by the district. (Exhibits 2, 7) The area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature and location of the proposed Tampa Palms development would be facilitated and best served by the establishment of a separate special-district government under all of the facts and circumstances.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law hereby submitted, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of Deltampa, Inc., and adopt a rule which will establish the Tampa Palms Community Development District, pursuant to Section 190.005(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Schumaker, Esquire Deltona Corporation Post Office Box 369 Miami, Florida 33145 Honorable John T. Herndon Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On August 20, 1975, the Appellant, MGIC - Janis Properties, Inc., developer, filed an Application for Development Approval for Development of Regional Impact (hereinafter referred to as the "Application") with the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council and the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. A copy of that application as amended was attached as Exhibit "B" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. The Exhibit "B" has two parts, the initial part consisting of the Development of Regional Impact, Planning Concepts and Zoning Requests and the latter part consisting of addendum one. The submission of the application to the two Regional Planning Councils was necessitated by the fact that the property covered by the application lies in both Alachua and Marion Counties, which counties are within the jurisdictional areas of the North Central Regional Planning Council and the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, respectively. Following the preliminary review by the Withlacoochee Planning Council, the Council, by letter of September 25, 1975, notified Marion County, by and through Mr. John Hastings, Zoning Director, Marion County Zoning and Building Department, that the Planning Council was ready to proceed with the formal review of the application and further advising that public hearing dates should be scheduled to comply with the requirements of the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 (Chapter 380, Florida Statutes). A copy of that letter was attached as Exhibit "C" to Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On October 7, 1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Alachua County (hereinafter referred to as "Alachua County") scheduled a public hearing on the application before the County Commission to be held at 4:30 P.M. on December 9, 1975, in the Alachua County Courthouse, Gainesville, Florida. The Appellants were given notice of the public hearing by a copy of the letter of October 8, 1975, from Howard Weston, County Administrator to Alachua County, a copy of that letter appearing as Exhibit "D" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. On October 14, 1975, the Appellee scheduled public hearings on the application before the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission held at 4:00 P.M. on January 5, 1976, at the Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida, and before the Board of County Commissioners at 9:00 A.M. on January 21, 1976, at the Marion County Courthouse, Ocala, Florida. Notification to the Appellants of these public hearings was given by letter of October 15, 1975 from Ronald H. Miller, Marion County Planner, a copy of that letter being Exhibit "E" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. On November 6, 1975, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council prepared, adopted and sent to Alachua County their recommendations regarding the application, which recommendations recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "F" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On November 13, 1975, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, meeting in full session, prepared, adopted and sent to Marion County, their recommendations regarding the application, which recommendation recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "G" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On December 9, 1975 Alachua County held a public hearing on the Appellants' application and that public hearing was continued on January 6, 1976. On December 24, 1975 the Marion County Planning Department prepared and sent to Marion County their considerations and recommendations regarding the application, which recommendations recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. The recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department were based in part on comments provided by the Marion County Engineer and the Environmental Health Division of the Marion County Health Department. A copy of these considerations and recommendations was attached as Exhibit "H" to the Appellants' petition and is made apart of the record herein. On January 5, 1976, the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public Hearing on the Appellants' application, which public hearing was continued on January 12, 1976. At the conclusion of the public hearing, after having heard and considered all interested parties and pertinent facts and matters with regard to the Appellants' application and after having considered the recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department, the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council and all testimony and information presented at the public hearing, the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of Appellants' application subject to the conditions previously recommended by the Withlacoochee Planning Council and the Marion County Planning Department, and subject to certain other conditions. Copies of the minutes of the special meeting of the Marion County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 5, 1976 and January 12, 1976 were attached as Exhibit "I" and Exhibit "J" respectively to the Appellants' petition and are made a part of the record herein. On January 6, 1976, Mr. Al Lewis, Director of the Department of Planning, Alachua County, prepared and sent to Alachua County, by and through Mr. Howard Weston, County Administrator, his recommendation regarding the application, which recommendation recommended approval of the Appellants' proposed project subject to certain conditions. A copy of those recommendations was attached as Exhibit "K" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On that same date, Alachua County, after having heard and considered all interested parties and pertinent facts and matters with regard to Appellants' application, and after having considered the recommendations of the Alachua County Department of Planning, the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council and all testimony and information presented at the public hearing, issued a development order approving Appellants' application subject to certain conditions. A copy of said development order was attached as Exhibit "L" to the Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. On January 21, 1976, the Appellee, Marion County, held a public hearing on the Appellants' application, which public hearing was continued on February 10, 1976 and February 18, 1976 and the record of those hearings have been transcribed and made a part of the record herein. After the January 21, 1976 meeting before the Marion County Board of County Commissioners in which discussion was entered into on the recommendations arising from the Withlacoochee Planning Council meeting on November 13, 1975 and the recommendations of the Marion County Planning Department of December 24, 1975, the Appellants in the person of their attorney, Stephen A. Scott, and the architect for the Appellants, David Reaves, submitted two letters dated February 4, 1976, which set forth the position of the Appellants on the aforementioned recommendations of the Planning Council and the Marion County Planning Department. Copies of these letters of February 4, 1976 have been filed with the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, and are made a part of the record herein. On February 13, 1976 the Marion County Plat Committee prepared and sent to Marion County suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions to the approval of Appellants' application. A copy of these suggested working changes is attached hereto as Exhibit "M" to the Appellants' petition and made a part of the record herein. In response to the February 13, 1976 Marion County Plat Committee suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions and/or modifications applicable to the application dated February 13, 1976, the Appellants' attorney, Stephen A. Scott filed a letter of February 18, 1976. This letter is filed in the case by permission of the Hearing Officer and is made a part of the record herein. At the conclusion of the public hearing on February 18, 1976, Marion County adopted a resolution denying approval of Appellants' application. A copy of said resolution was attached as Exhibit "A" to Appellants' petition and is made a part of the record herein. In the course of the DRI process, not all aspects of the application, Exhibit "B", were disputed by the various planning agencies, the Appellee and the Intervenor. Moreover, Alachua County, Florida has given its approval and any reference to action before that governmental body is for the limited purposes of describing the Marion County, Florida application. Therefore, the discussion of the facts will be in terms of those facts which were disputed and not those facts in support of the application which are not in dispute. The points of contention between the parties are primarily discussed in the Exhibit "B", Development of Regional Impact, Planning Concepts and Zoning Requests and its addendum; Exhibit "G", the recommendations of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council of November 13, 1975; Exhibit "H", the Marion County Planning Department, Statement of considerations and recommendation; Exhibit "J", the minutes of the Marion County Planning and Zoning Department meeting, January 12, 1976; the letters of February 4, 1976, from the representatives of the Appellant, David Reaves and the Appellants' attorney Stephen A. Scott; Exhibit "M", the Marion County Plat Committee suggested wording changes for previously recommended conditions and/or modifications, dated February 13, 1976; the discussion of the aforementioned document in the course of the public hearings of January 21, 1976, February 10, 1976 and February 18, 1976 and the Exhibit "A", Resolution and Development Order of the Marion County Board of County Commissioners. The proposed development is a horse ownership oriented community located 12 miles south of Gainesville, Florida and 18 miles north of Ocala, Florida and it encompasses an area of approximately 5 square miles (3200 acres). The statement of market study is found on page 87 of Exhibit "B". This project is located on the border of Alachua and Marion Counties, Florida. One sixth of this area lies within Alachua County and the remaining area in Marion County. The highway system as shown in map "J" of Exhibit "B". The project has five developmental phases as described in the Exhibit "B" and within those developmental phases are planned construction of midrise, townhouse, patiohouse, and single family dwellings for a total population build out in all phases of approximately 8,234 residents. This project also anticipates lodges to be built in the various phases to accommodate additional average yearly population of 1,200 persons. Its estimated that visitors will total 834 at the completion of all phases, for a total of 10,000 plus persons within the development at the end of the final phase. Further discussion of these statistics may be found on page 15 of Exhibit "B". At present the area is primarily agricultural and is zoned as such. Within the immediate vicinity of the project are the towns of Micanopy and Mcintosh and the community of Evinston. These communities together with the population immediately outside these towns would total approximately 2,500 people. Consequently, the area can best be described as rural, as opposed to the suburban nature of the proposed development. The difference in character in the locale as it presently exists and as is proposed by the development plan is the principal point of contention between the appellants on the one side, and the Appellee and Intervenor on the other. It is the suggestion of the Appellants that the project can be developed and carry with it a suburban nature without being inconsistent with or destroying the rural character of the surrounding towns and unincorporated areas. On the other hand the Appellee and Intervenor suggest that to allow this project would destroy the rural lifestyle of the area. The transcript of the proceedings before the Board of County Commissioners, Marion County, Florida held on January 21, 1976, February 10, 1976, and February 18, 1976 developes in detail the opposing points of view on the issue of the compatibility of the development with the present surroundings. Considering the distance between the proposed development and the larger communities in the areas to wit, Gainesville and Ocala, the rural nature of the land at present and the fact that this development would be potentially the third largest community in the Alachua County and Marion County area, the development does not appear to be compatible with its surroundings. The Appellant has proposed a private roads community, and this concept is contrary to the express policy of Marion County, Florida. Prohibition to this form of private roads is set forth in subsection 2A.13 of the Public Works Manual, Marion County, Florida. There is concern by the Appellee on the question of access of the public through the private road system, in that it would create a necessity the public to go around the entire development. However, at present there are public roads serving the area and it is not contemplated that future public roads will go through the project. The Appellee is also concerned with maintenance of speed limits on private property and resubdivision of the parcel of land in the future where private roads have been allowed. The restriction against private roads has been waived in Marion County in the past and could be waived in this instance if a private road network or a combination of private and public road network were built in the development. The Appellee would require that the network be built to Marion County Specifications, and the Appellant agrees. There are proposed to be built two bridges. One bridge across Interstate-75 incident to the last phase of the project and other bridge across SE-10, County Line Road. The Appellee would require conceptual approval of these matters by the permitting agencies going into the project, and the bridges would be constructed at the developers' expense prior to the development phase effected by the bridges. Other roads affected by the project are State Road 320 and Hickman Road which are in the southern part of the project. If these roads were utilized, access for emergency, police, fire and other needs of similar nature would have to be worked out. In connection with the question of access, the developer had initially proposed that the project be a gated community with private security patrols within the community. In view of the considerable debate in the course of the proceedings about this technique of a gated community and private security patrol, the developer has indicated a willingness to forgo the utilization of perimeter walls or fencing and private security patrols or entrance guards. As mentioned before, the land selected for development is presently zoned agricultural and to achieve the purposes of the project the zoning would have to be changed to a type of residential zoning. As a part of the zoning consideration, the Appellee has asked that the Appellant submit a master plan in conjunction with or as a part of the zoning change. The conditions of the master plan are as set forth in pages 6 - 9 of the December 24, 1975 report which is Exhibit "H". The Appellants' specific response to the question of the master plan as it relates to matters of zoning is found in the February 4, 1976 letter of attorney Stephen A. Scott. In summary, the developer is concerned with the wording of some of the provisions of the December 24, 1975 report, Exhibit "H", and with the repetitious aspects of the master plan, in view of the fact that the questions have been addressed through the DRI. The letter also indicates a reluctance to divulge detailed financial information about the developer. There are certain aspects about the development proposal which contemplate the sponsorship by a homeowners association. Among these aspects are security patrol, fire protection, sewage treatment, recreational facilities, maintenance of recreational facilities, water treatment and service, and eventual health care. These items are in addition to the construction and maintenance of private roads, to include storm drainage. The Appellee has requested that the developer in detail the intricacies of the homeowners association and the method by which it may accomplish the aforementioned goals. Again this discussion is found in pages 6 - 9 of the Exhibit "H". The related matters of health care in the initial 4 stages and long term treatment at the point of final build out must be accomplished by coordination with emergency transportation to the hospitals in the Gainesville and Ocala area. The health care facilities are shown on map "I" to the Exhibit "B". At some point in time, it is the feeling of the Appellants that a fulltime physician will establish a clinic due to the number of persons in the development community, without the need for any subsidy by the developer. Medical evacuation seems to be suggested as a function of the homeowners association, in the latter phases. The appellant and appellee acknowledged that the acreage for a landfill site for solid waste disposal would be off the grounds of the project. This would need to be within a five mile travelling of distance to satisfy the Appellee and to meet the requirements of the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. The acreage necessary would be 35 acres. The resolution of the question of location was not resolved between the parties; however, it seems that some plan by which the developer purchased a site either by having that site selected by the Appellee and then purchasing the site or paying a fixed sum of money to the County for such a purpose is indicated. The unresolved issues pertain to the purchase of the equipment necessary and the arrangement for the maintenance of the site location. In the past in Marion County, this type of landfill has been maintained as a part of commercial contracts for collection and disposal of solid waste1 and nothing suggests that this could not be achieved in this instance. The soil description and analysis is found beginning on page 32 of Exhibit "B" and within maps E, F, and G of Exhibit "B". An examination of the report shows that much of the soil is Blichton-Kendrick Association which has slow permeability. Other places are Bayboro-Placid Association which is low wet lands that have interspersed with them really poorly drained deep sands. Within this overall network it is intended that a sewage plant be placed, which treats the sewage and utilizes the activated sludge method with some form of additional treatment for spray irrigation of the remaining effluent. The site location and details of the treatment plan will be approved by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. There are 243 ranches and ranchettes which are intended for septic tank utilization and individual wells for water supply. Discussion of these matters is found on pages 93 through 96 of Exhibit "B". Storm water disposal, in consideration of the 100 year flood elevations are found on pages 97 through 101, and map "G" of Exhibit "B". Some special problems that have occurred in the past pertain to the question of storm water disposal. The Old Field Pond area has had flooding. Flooding has occurred across SE-10 over U.S. 441 and into the adjacent land owner's property. Moreover, the Fire Tower Road which is in the area of SE-10 has flooded and one requirement would be consideration of those property owners who utilize SE-10 as an alternate route to the so called Fire Tower Road in times of flooding. As shown in the map on page 34 of Exhibit "B" there are a number of recharge wells in the active Old Field Pond area. It is the feeling of the Appellee through its staff reports, i.e., the Withlacoochee Planning Council report of November 13, 1975 and the agreement of other staff agencies that these recharge wells should be plugged to avoid the problem of liquid waste going directly back into the Floridian Aquifer, which flows under the property. The developer feels that this should only be done after testing. Discussion was also entered into about the coordination of sewage treatment and water supply needs with the surrounding communities of Mcintosh and Micanopy. The provision for electric power is discussed by letters from the Florida Power Corporation and Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc. found on pages 112 and 113 of Exhibit "B". There is concern that due to prior power shortages in the immediate service area, that further service obligations would diminish the quality of the electric service. This indication runs contrary to the comments within the letters of the two utility companies and it has been suggested that greatly increased needs would promote more efficient electric service. This latter argument, does not address the conditions in the early phases of development. A matter of much discussion was the need for schools, fire protection and police protection. If the private security and fire service concept is rejected, there is no indication whether these needs could be met by the Appellee, although tax revenues would be generated to assist in responding to those needs. On the former question of schools, there has been preliminary contact by the developers agent in considering regional schools, since the project lies within two counties, but that contact has been very limited. The question of site location for a school to service this community and surrounding communities and the sharing of the costs of such implementation is also in the preliminary stages. Therefore, matters concerning the school system are yet to be resolved. The project contemplates a number of recreational areas, lodges and stores. The lodges and stores would be open to the public, but the recreational facilities are primarily designed for the residents. The discussion of the recreational areas within the project brings to light the question of the possible service community which would grow out of the development. It has been estimated by the Appellant that 807 persons in terms of average annual construction employment will be needed for the five phases of the development. Discussion of these aspects of the project begins on page 82 of Exhibit "B". Based upon this projection, the possibility exists that some satellite community would form in the immediate vicinity of the project site, in view of the distances between the project site and the towns of Ocala and Gainesville. None of the surrounding communities, nor the developer have specifically addressed the deployment of the so called satellite community, in terms of housing, essential services and recreation. Another consideration which is in dispute is the archaeological significance of the project land and the necessary steps to preserve these archaeological finds. A discussion of the archaeology of this site is found on pages 59 through 80 of Exhibit "B". The dispute arises over the necessary steps to the preservation of the archaeologically significant sites, with the Appellee suggesting compliance with the recommendation of the archaeologist's report in Exhibit "B" and the Appellants desiring to make a site by site isolation of the significant archaeological finds and subsequent preservation of those sites at the point of development encounter. Another similar issue is game preservation. There is evidence that the Florida Panther has passed through the development area since tracks were found on the western part of the proposed development. In addition, the Florida Sandhill Crane and Wood Ibis have been sited at Tuscaeilla Lake, on the wet prairie just south of that body of water at the northwest pond. Further discussion of these endangered species and other species of wildlife is found on pages 56 and 57 of the Exhibit "B". A statement by a witness of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission was to the effect that the Florida Panther will not stay in the area which is developed to the extent proposed herein. Finally, consideration was given to the question of the sequence of permitting within the five phases of the proposed project. The Appellee has expressed a desire to withhold local permits until federal and state permits were given, which would have an effect on how local permits would be granted. The Appellants are concerned that these local permits in the initial phases, not be held up while waiting for federal or state permits which would pertain to a latter phase. This is a particular concern in view of the fact that the stated five year build out of the project does not seem to be realistic and the actual build out will be between ten and twenty years from the point of any DRI permitting. The requirement for obtaining federal and state permits prior to the local permits at the commencement of each phase and obtaining a general statement of commitment by the federal and state systems in the later phases, was discussed as a solution in the bridge over Interstate-75 and would seem an appropriate solution to other issues similarly in dispute.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Application for Development Approval for a Development of Regional Impact filed with the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council on August 20, 1975 for preliminary review be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Scott, Esquire Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, Florida 32602 MGIC - Janis Properties, Inc. 1550 Madruga Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Ernest Tew, as Trustee Suite B-1 901 Northwest Eighth Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Jackson E. Sullivan Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council 3500 Northeast Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 4 Ocala, Florida 32670 R. Stephen Ryder, Esquire Marion County Attorney Board of County Commissioners of Marion County Post Office Box 81 Ocala, Florida 32670 Honorable Reubin O'D. Askew Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Robert L. Shevin Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Bruce Smathers Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Philip F. Ashler State Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Louis Hubener, Esquire 660 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Counsel for the Division of State Planning Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission c/o Secretary of the Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ATTENTION: David V. Kerns, Esquire Robert T. Roess, President Florida Investors Mortgage Corp Post Office Box 639 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Vice Chairman, Simonton-Tuscawilla Concerned Citizens
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
The Issue The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to establish the District meets the factors 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 Chapter 42-1.
