The Issue The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to establish the District meets the criteria set forth in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. For the Petitioner:
The Issue The issue 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).
Conclusions On May 6, 1994, a public hearing was held in this cause in St. Augustine, Florida, for the purpose of considering the petition of Atlantic Gulf Communities Corporation (Petitioner) to adopt a rule authorizing the establishment of the Julington Creek Plantation Community District (District) in St. Johns County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. At hearing, petitioner was represented by Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire, and David L. Powell, Esquire. An appearance was also entered by Daniel J. Bosanko, Esquire, for St. Johns County. Petitioner presented the testimony of J. Thomas Gillette, III, vice president of Atlantic Gulf Communities Corporation, general manager of Julington Creek Plantation, and agent of petitioner in this proceeding, Douglas C. Miller, an expert in civil engineering with emphasis in public infrastructure design, public infrastructure prmitting, public infrastructure cost estimation, construction administration and survey, and Gary R. Walters, an expert in planning with emphasis in long-range community planning, economic development, and special district establishment and management. Offering testimony in the role of public witnesses were Kathleen T. Minnis and John R. Sanders. The names and addresses of all witnesses are set forth in Appendix A attached to this Report and a summary of their testimony is contained in the findings set forth in a subsequent part of this Report. Petitioner offered exhibits 1-14 which were accepted and made a part of this record. Also, two late-filed exhibits have been received as petitioner's exhibits 15 and 16. A list of the exhibits is contained in Appendix B attached to this Report. A posthearing comment in the form of a letter was filed by Kathleen T. Minnis, who testified at the public hearing. A response to the letter has been filed by petitioner. Both documents have been considered by the undersigned. Finally, a copy of the text of the rule is contained in Appendix C attached to this Report. This Report and Conclusions is submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code. PRELIMARY STATEMENT This proceeding began when petitioner filed a petition with the Secretary of the Commission on March 2, 1994, seeking authorization to establish a community development district in an unincorporated area of St. Johns County, Florida. The contents of the petition are found in petitioner's exhibit 1 accepted into the record. After certifying that all elements and contents of the petition were complete, the Secretary forwarded the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 11, 1994. A notice of public hearing was issued setting this matter for hearing on May 6, 1994, in St. Augustine, Florida. In addition, petitioner was required to publish notice of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area. Such notice was published in the St. Augustine Record, a daily newspaper in St. Augustine, Florida, on April 4, 11, 18, and 25, 1994. Proof of publication is found in petitioner's exhibit 7 accepted into the record. As required by Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code, a copy of said notice was also served on the Department of Community Affairs. Finally, notice of the hearing was published by the Secretary in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 22, 1994, as required by Rule 42-1.010(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A copy of said notice is found in petitioner's exhibit 2 accepted into the record. Petitioner also filed a copy of the petition with the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners and paid the required $15,000 filing fee to that body. A public hearing on the petition was held by the Economic Development Committee of the County Commission on April 5, 1994. The Board of County Commissioners held optional public hearings on April 12 and 26, 1994. After the hearings were concluded, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution supporting the establishment of the District. A copy of the resolution has been received into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 3. The hearing in this matter was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. A transcript of the proceeding was filed with the undersigned on May 23, 1994, and is being transmitted with the Report and Conclusions. Finally, petitioner submitted a proposed report of findings and conclusions which has been considered by the undersigned. Overview of the Case Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district of approximately 4,119 acres in northwestern St. Johns County, located about fifteen miles from St. Augustine. If established, the District will be an independent special district authorized pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. The District will have all powers set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, including but not limited to the ability to finance, own, operate and maintain certain community facilities and services. Generally, the property is bounded by low density residential development and Julington Creek to the north, agricultural lands and low density residential development to the south, and low density residential development to the west. The lands within the proposed District are largely undeveloped, except for an eighteen-hole golf course. All land within the District will be developed as a mixed-use project pursuant to St. Johns County Ordinance No. 93-43, the development order for the Julington Creek Plantation Planned Unit Development (PUD), and St. Johns County Resolution No. 93-159, the development order for the Julington Creek Development of Regional Impact (DRI), both adopted by the St. Johns Board of County Commissioners (Board) on September 28, 1993. The Julington Creek Plantation community will be primarily a residential development. The approved plan of development authorizes approximately 6,400 residential dwelling units as well as commercial, recreational and utility land uses within the project in three phases. Petitioner at present contemplates the construction of approximately 5,700 dwelling units, 41.9 acres of commercial space, and other authorized development within the District in three phases. At present there are approximately 24 households within the District. Petitioner presently intends for the District to participate in the construction of certain road improvements as required by the current DRI development order. These road improvements include portions of Racetrack Road and State Road 13. The District also will assist in financing the improvement of Russell Sampson Road, located one-half mile east of the Julington Creek Plantation community, connecting Racetrack Road with County Road 210 and Interstate Highway 95. Petitioner further presently intends for the District to finance, construct, own, operate, and maintain a multi-purpose recreational facility within its boundaries. The estimated cost in 1993 dollars for these capital improvements is $11,431,515, with construction scheduled to take place from 1995 through 1998. Actual construction costs and timetables may vary for a variety of reasons, including final design and permitting criteria, and future changes in economic conditions upon labor, services, materials, interest and general market circumstances. Petitioner proposes that the District utilize special assessment or revenue bonds to finance the planned infrastructure. The bonds are expected to be repaid through non-ad valorem assessments on the land within the District, or rates and charges established by the District. Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. Petitioner proposes for the District to impose user charges for use of the recreation center. Petitioner presently proposes for the District to maintain certain arterial and subdivision roadway lighting. Petitioner also intends for the District to maintain the water management system and wetland and conservation areas to be constructed or established by others. Maintenance of State Road 13, Racetrack Road and Russell Sampson Road will be by state or county transportation agencies. The Board concluded that, so far as the County is concerned, the District would satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e)2.-6., Florida Statutes, and recommended that the Commission adopt a rule to establish the District as proposed by Petitioner. The sole purpose of this proceeding is to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by Petitioner to provide the community development facilities and services for the Julington Creek Plantation community as approved by the County. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. Gillette identified Petitioner's Exhibit 1 as a copy of the petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. At the hearing, he provided a revised legal description to more accurately describe the area to be included within the District. This revised legal description expressly excluded an additional area, identified as "Exception (10)," from the boundaries of the District and omitted unnecessary preamble language. Gillette provided a revised map of the area described in the legal description. The revised legal description and map were substituted for the legal description and map included as attachment 2 to the petition as filed. Gillette also corrected the petition to specify that approximately 4,119 acres would be included within the District, rather than the 4,125 stated in the petition as filed. This revised figure was calculated to account for the deletion of "Exception (10)," which totalled 5.73 acres. Gillette provided additional consent and joinder forms from landowners who had purchased property within the District subsequent to the filing of the petition. These consent and joinder forms supplemented the forms submitted with the petition. Walters testified that two changes were necessary for the economic impact statement (EIS) submitted with the petition as Petition Exhibit 9. First, acreage figures in the EIS must be corrected. The total acreage in the District is approximately 4,119. The land use mix, as corrected, includes 1,639 acres for open space, conservation, rights of way, golf course and parks. Approximately 2,480 acres are to be used for residential, neighborhood and community commercial land uses. Second, Walters clarified the District's proposed maintenance duties for street lighting. The District will pay for electric service for street lighting. Physical maintenance will be performed by the Jacksonville Electric Authority. With the changes and additions set forth in paragraphs 26-30, all statements in the petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Walters reviewed the District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the 1990-2005 St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (Local Comprehensive Plan). In addition, the Board and the Department of Community Affairs reviewed the District in light of the requirements of the Local Comprehensive Plan. State Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, four goals of the State Comprehensive Plan, and policies supporting those goals, apply directly to the District. From an economics perspective, three goals and policies supporting those goals apply directly to the District. Goal 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. From both a planning and an economic perspective, the District will have the fiscal capacity to provide a range of services to a population in a designated growth area of northwestern St. Johns County. Goal 18, Public Facilities, provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient manner. From both a planning and an economics perspective, the District will provide capital improvements to designated portions of a state and two county roads and a recreational center in the Julington Creek Plantation community at no cost to the County, allowing County resources to be devoted to needs of the population outside the District. Goal 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services desired by the public. From both a planning and an economics perspective, the District would provide services and facilities to residents and property owners of the District at a level and quality demanded by them. Goal 26, Plan Implementation, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination. From a planning perspective, all District board meetings will be publicly noticed and open to the public, therefore, all citizens may participate. In addition, Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file annual public facilities reports with the County which the County may use and rely on in any revisions to the Local Comprehensive Plan. From both a planning and economics perspective, the District would not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Local Comprehensive Plan From a planning perspective, the Future Land Use Element and Map and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Local Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the District. From an economics perspective, the Capital Improvements Element applies directly to the District. The Future Land Use Element, Goal A.1 and supporting policies, seeks to manage growth and development by designating areas of anticipated future development which satisfy demand in a cost-efficient and environmentally acceptable manner. From a planning perspective, the District would further this goal by means of effective infrastructure planning, public finance, and community-wide maintenance. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Goal I.1 and supporting objectives and policies, acknowledges the need for alternative providers of facilities and services and requires appropriate mechanisms to coordinate, monitor, and evaluate their activities where such activities have a bearing on required levels of service and land planning decisions by the County. From a planning perspective, the District satisfies that need. The Capital Improvements Element, Goal J.1 and supporting policies and objectives, is intended to ensure the orderly and efficient provision of certain public facilities and services, including roads and park and recreation facilities. From an economics perspective, the District furthers that intent because it would finance and/or construct road improvements and a recreation center to serve the community. Nothing in the Local Comprehensive Plan precludes the establishment of a community development district in St. Johns County. The Local Comprehensive Plan is mostly silent on the powers of such districts but it does not prevent a community development district from exercising any of the general or optional powers set forth in Sections 190.011 and 190.012, Florida Statutes. The Board concluded the District would not be inconsistent with any relevant or material portion or element of the Local Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Community Affairs concluded that the District would not be inconsistent with the Local Comprehensive Plan. From both a planning and an economics perspective, the District would not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the Local Comprehensive Plan. Whether the area of land within the district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Gillette, Miller and Walters. The lands that comprise the District consist of approximately 4,119 acres bounded to the north by Julington Creek and Durbin Creek, to the southwest partially be Cunningham Creek, and to the west by State Road 13. The site is transected east-to-west by Racetrack Road. The southernmost portion of the District, called "Mill Creek," is located west of State Road 13 and is bordered by Mill Creek and Cunningham Creek. The approved plan of development for the area within the District includes approximately 2,480 acres comprised of predominantly single-family residential homes and selected multi- family residential areas supported by both neighborhood and community-wide commercial. Within the District, the approved plan of development also includes approximately 1,639 acres of open space, conservation, rights of way, golf course, and parks. It is designed as a functionally interrelated residential community that will provide its residents with a complete range of facilities, services and amenities in a secluded setting. The land use plan for the area to be included within the District is set forth in the development order for the Julington Creek Development of Regional Impact, which was approved on September 28, 1993, pursuant to St. Johns County Resolution No. 93- 159, amending and replacing St. Johns County Resolution No. 82-37, as amended. All of the land in the District is subject to the development order. The DRI development order specifies that it governs approximately 4,150 acres. A surveyor hired by Petitioner concluded that the area governed by the DRI development order is 4,263.81 acres, with the discrepancy ascribed primarily to interpretations of meandered boundaries on Durbin and Cunningham creeks. Based on these figures, approximately 144 acres covered by the DRI development order would be outside the District. These areas were developed prior to commencement in 1993 of the process to establish the District. The portions of Julington Creek Plantation excluded from the District include approximately 300 residential lots, located in previously developed subdivisions identified as The Greens, Timber Trace and Oak Pointe I, of which approximately 290 had been sold to third parties as of the date of the local public hearing. Petitioner concluded it would not be practical to seek the consent of those owners to creation of the District, as required by law if they were to be included. There was no agreement between Petitioner and its predecessor, General Development Corporation, or residents of these areas with respect to establishment of the District. Functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual relationship to one another. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or maintenance of the larger whole, in this case, the Julington Creek Plantation community. Each function requires a management capability, funding source, and an understanding of the size of the community's needs so as to handle the growth and development of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 4,119 acres. From a planning perspective, this size is sufficient to constitute a functionally interrelated community. The Julington Creek Plantation community will have sufficient population density and property size to require all the basic facilities and services of a community. These facilities require adequate planning, design, financing, construction and maintenance. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. From a planning perspective, the property that comprises this community is compact because all the property is part of a single project, is close together, and has no barriers separating it. Contiguous means touching along a boundary or point. From a planning perspective, the property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are separated by no more than a roadway. All parts must be close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The land need not be functionally connected, especially when planning specialized governmental systems, facilities and services. Nor need it be actually touching to be sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes. The Julington Creek Plantation community is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. From an engineering perspective, the area is designed to function as one interrelated community. All of the systems and facilities to be constructed or maintained by the District will be integrated into the overall design of the community. From an economics perspective, the physical configuration of the District is ideal. The area to be included in the District is compact and contiguous. The size of the District allows economical construction of road improvements and maintenance of the water management and wetlands conservation system in a long-term cost-effective manner. The Board concluded that the area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a single functional interrelated community. From planning, economics and engineering perspectives, the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. The community development services and facilities expected to be delivered by the District include ownership, operation and maintenance of the water management and wetlands conservation system and the community recreation center, and to pay the operating costs of the collector and subdivision road lighting system. In addition, the District plans to finance improvements for portions of State Road 13 and two County roads, Racetrack Road and Russell Sampson Road. Capital costs for the road improvements are expected to be defrayed through non-ad valorem assessments levied on all benefitted property in the District. Capital costs for the recreation center are expected to be defrayed through non-ad valorem assessments. Expenses for operation and maintenance of District facilities are expected to be paid through maintenance assessments and/or user fees. Three alternative methods were identified for delivering community development facilities and services to the Julington Creek Plantation community -- County delivery, including use of a dependent special district, County delivery through a municipal service taxing unit, and private delivery by the developer or a property owners association. In evaluating alternative methods for delivering community development facilities and services, factors to consider include whether an alternative can deliver the best focused service and facilities; whether the alternative has an entity to manage the delivery; whether the alternative can provide a long-term perspective; whether the alternative is a stable provider; and whether the alternative can secure low-cost long-term financing to pay for all benefits at a sustained level of quality. Delivery by the County or a Dependent Special District The County, either directly or through a dependent special district, can provide a long-term perspective and is stable. Further, it can provide low- cost financing at sustained levels of quality. However, the County has substantial demands over a broad geographic area which places a heavy management load on its staff. Any financing by the County, including through a dependent special district, would count against the County's bonding capabilities and further limit the County's ability to provide infrastructure to other portions of St. Johns County. Delivery by a Municipal Service Taxing Unit The area to be served by the District is currently served by the Julington Creek Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU), established by St. Johns County on April 13, 1982, by Ordinance No. 82-17. It is currently responsible for paying for electricity for street lighting and for maintaining lakes in the Julington Creek Plantation community. To date, the MSTU has not met all the facility and service needs of the area to be included in the District. If the District is created, it will assume responsibility for providing street lighting and maintaining lakes within the portion of the community included within the District. In the few areas of the community outside the District, those responsibilities will be taken over by the property owners association. Petitioner will request that St. Johns County abandon the MSTU. The County anticipates this request from Petitioner. The MSTU can provide focused, though limited, service delivery to an area with the direct attention of the County staff and eventual policy direction by the Board. It can also provide low-cost financing. However, any debt incurred by the MSTU would count against the debt capacity of the County. Further, the County would incur direct costs for planning, financing and building infrastructure with its own revenues and staff. Compared to the District, the MSTU also would provide a more limited means for providing additional facilities and services to the community, in the event the residents of Julington Creek Plantation decide later to seek and pay for such facilities and services. Private Delivery Private means for delivering community development services and facilities include delivery through a master neighborhood-type property owners association or by a private developer. Either of these means can satisfy the demand for focused service and facilities and managed delivery. However, neither can assure a long-term perspective, act as a stable provider of services and facilities, or qualify as a low-cost source of financing. A property owners association could provide staffing and decisionmaking for these services and facilities, but such associations lack the capability to issue bonds or other forms of long-term debt. Therefore, it could not effectively finance the necessary infrastructure. The developer could provide community development services and facilities by utilizing long-term financing from private lenders, however, such financing would be more expensive than financing through a public entity. In addition, a private developer generally is not the long-term stable entity which can maintain necessary facilities. Delivery by the District The District is an independent special purpose unit of local government designed to focus its attention on providing the best long-term services to its specific benefitting properties and residents. It has limited powers and jurisdiction. It will be governed by its own board of supervisors and managed by those whose sole purpose is to provide long-term planning, financing and management of services and facilities for the District. Sources of funding assure that District services and facilities will be adequately managed at sustained levels of quality. The District will focus most directly on the proposed capital improvement needs of the area. Its attention will not be diverted by numerous other activities and projects, which will help ensure timely and cost effective completion. Construction of the road improvements, if undertaken by the District, will be completed sooner than otherwise required. That would be a distinct benefit from an engineering standpoint. The District is the only alternative that has all the advantages of each of the other alternatives without any of the disadvantages of any one of the alternatives. The Board expressly contemplated the establishment of a community development district when it authorized the Julington Creek Plantation community in a restated DRI development order in 1993. The DRI development order provides: If a Community Development District is established by the Developer pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, it may finance, fund, plan, establish, acquire, construct or reconstruct, enlarge or extend, equip, operate and maintain projects, systems and facilities for the purposes set forth in Chapter 190, F.S. (1991). St. Johns County expressly approves and consents to the construction or funding by the District of all such projects within or without the boundaries of the District required by this development order or necessary to serve the development approved by this development order. If the Developer is required by this development order to provide, pay for or otherwise cause to be provided infrastructure, projects, systems or facilities set forth in Chapter 190, F.S., including without limitation those in Section 190.012(1) and (2), F.S. (1991), then it is intended that the Community Development District independently may satisfy such obligations and St. Johns County consents to the District's role. To the extent any such obligation under this development order is met or performed by the District, then the Developer shall no longer be subject to the obligation. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as approval of or consent by the County to the establishment of a Community Development District (CDD) by the Developer pursuant to Chapter 190, F.S., and the County expressly maintains all rights available to it pursuant to Chapter 190, F.S., related to the proposed establishment of a CDD by the Developer. The Board subsequently concluded that the District appears to be a viable alternative so far as County matters and interests are concerned for delivering community development systems, services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District in a timely manner. From planning, economics and engineering perspectives, the District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. It is the best way to assure that growth will pay for itself. Whether the community development services and facilities of the district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The land area of the District is relatively isolated within the County and in part surrounded by conservation areas. There are no local or regional facilities within the area served by the District which duplicate proposed facilities of the District. The road improvements and recreational center do not yet exist. Petitioner plans for the District to maintain the water management system and wetlands conservation areas in perpetuity. Two arterial roads are to be improved with the assistance of the District. These projects include the four-laning of State Road 13 from Racetrack Road to Davis Pond Boulevard, and the four- laning of Racetrack Road from State Road 13 to Russell Sampson Road, which lies east of the District. In addition, the District proposes to participate in financing improvements to Russell Sampson Road. All these improvements are required by the DRI development order. None are currently funded by any governmental entity. State Road 13 will be maintained by the Department of Transportation. St. Johns County will maintain Racetrack Road and Russell Sampson Road. Maintenance by these agencies will include paying for electricity for road lighting. Internal roads within the District are proposed to be developed, constructed and financed by Petitioner. Road lighting within the District will be constructed and owned by the County, but the District will be responsible for electrical costs for those lights. Facilities proposed to be financed or constructed by the District have not been undertaken by the MSTU, so the MSTU would not duplicate any of those services or facilities. The MSTU currently provides certain street light and lake maintenance services, but Petitioner intends to request that the County abandon the MSTU after creation of the District to avoid even the potential for duplication. Petitioner intends for the District to plan, finance and construct the master recreation center. The facility will include an adult pool, junior olympic pool, and ancillary facilities. In addition, a volleyball court, basketball court, snack bar, restrooms, parking and reception/office facilities are expected to be included. The District will maintain the water management system and wetlands conservation areas. The facilities and services to be provided by the District will accelerate local and regional improvements and provide operation and maintenance services not currently provided. The Board concluded that the community development systems, services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing community development services and facilities so far as County considerations are concerned. From planning and engineering perspectives, the services and facilities to be provided by the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. Two criteria are needed to evaluate a land area for suitability for separate special district governance. They are whether the area is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be the basis for a functional interrelated community, and whether the land area needs, and the owners and residents will benefit from, the community development services and facilities. From planning, economic and engineering perspectives, the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. The Julington Creek Plantation community needs basic infrastructure and services including maintenance of the water management system for drainage, maintenance of wetland conservation areas, roadway improvements as required by the DRI development order, electricity for street lights, and recreational facilities. The District will undertake those services on a perpetual basis. The Board concluded that the area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government so far as the County is apprised. From planning and engineering perspectives, the area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Elements of the Petition Section 190.005(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, as corrected at hearing by Petitioner's Exhibit 6, contains such a description. Section 190.005(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, as amended and supplemented at hearing by Petitioner's Exhibit 13, contains consents from a total 14 persons. All landowners within the District as of the date of the local public hearing have consented to being included in the District. Section 190.005(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain the names of five persons, all residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States, to serve on the initial board of supervisors. The five persons designated in the petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Kimball D. Woodbury 7500 SW 75th Street Miami, Florida 33143 David A. Branson 6641 Wedgewood Avenue Davie, Florida 33331 John H. Fischer 9500 SW 94th Court Miami, Florida 33176 J. Thomas Gillette, III 9965 Richfield Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Terrell R. Jones 9334 SW 172nd Terrace Miami, Florida 33157 All of the designees are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Section 190.005(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to propose a name for the District. The petition proposes the name "Julington Creek Plantation Community Development District." Section 190.005(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, requires that the petition show current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls if in existence. Petition Exhibit 7 shows the location of those facilities within the District. Section 190.005(1)(a)6., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to set forth the proposed timetable for construction of services and facilities and estimated cost for such construction. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 provides such a timetable and estimate. Section 190.005(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to designate the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses of land. The petition provides that information. Section 190.005(1)(a)8., Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include an EIS which meets the requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. The petition contains an EIS and it meets all requirements of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes. Economic Impact Statement The EIS assumes it is socially desirable to use the least expensive, least intrusive, most responsive method to achieve delivery of any given public improvement and to provide selected system maintenance. An entity that is directly accountable for costs and derives the benefits is more likely to achieve the desired result. The District is such an entity. The District is a severely limited and highly specialized unit of local government which serves as an important tool for the County under Florida's growth management laws. It is a special unit of local government with a single purpose: the provision of infrastructure and services for new communities. Its economic benefits exceed its economic cost to all affected parties. Petitioner proposes that the District utilize special assessment or revenue bonds for capital to provide planned infrastructure. The bonds will be repaid through non-ad valorem assessments on the land within the District, or rates and charges established by the District. Petitioner has no current plans for the District to issue general obligation bonds or to impose ad valorem taxes. Such bonds may not be issued or taxes be imposed until after District residents elect the District Board of Supervisors on a one-person, one-vote basis. The EIS contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, St. Johns County and its citizens, Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will incur no costs from establishment of the District. The District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but substantial nevertheless. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be more than offset by the $15,000 filing fee paid by Petitioner. Benefits to the County will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the District except for those it chooses to accept. Petitioner incurred substantial costs in seeking establishment of the District and will be required to provide technical assistance to the District after establishment. As a landowner, Petitioner will pay substantial sums in non-ad valorem assessments for property within the District. These sums in the initial period amount to more than $9 million. Benefits to Petitioner include public bond financing for certain improvements and a long-term stable source of capital, which will benefit Petitioner's development project. In addition, needed infrastructure will be in place earlier than might otherwise be possible, and consistently high levels of quality should be maintained. Consumers will pay District special assessments or fees for certain facilities, however, the District's facilities would be required even in the absence of the District itself. The cost would have to be recovered in some other way. Generally, district financing may be no more expensive than the alternative of an MSTU and, in most cases, may be less expensive than a property owners association or developer-financed loans. Benefits to consumers will include a higher level of public services and amenities than otherwise would be the case, completion of District-sponsored improvements on a timely basis and earlier than otherwise expected, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities. The EIS concluded that the benefits from the District would outweigh the costs to each affected person or class of persons. Other Requirements Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to pay a $15,000 filing fee to the County. Petitioner paid the fee. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in St. Johns County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in the St. Augustine Record for four consecutive weeks, on Mondays, starting April 4, 1994. Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires Petitioner to furnish proofs of publication of the notice of local public hearing to the Secretary of the Commission. The original proofs of publication were furnished to the Secretary on May 11, 1994, as required. Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires Petitioner to mail a copy of the notice of local public hearing to all persons named in the proposed rule, the affected local government, and the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. Such individual notice was mailed as required by the rule. Petitioner voluntarily mailed individual written notice of the local public hearing, together with information on community development districts, to all persons residing in the District or under contract to purchase a lot in the District prior to May 6, 1994. Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that the District may exercise certain powers with respect to parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural and educational uses with the consent of the local general-purpose government. On April 26, 1994, by Resolution No. 94-78, the Board consented to the District exercising all powers pursuant to Section 190.012(2)(a), Florida Statutes, necessary to finance, construct, own, operate, and maintain parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor, recreational, cultural and educational uses effective upon adoption, within 45 days of establishment of the District, of a resolution by the District's Board of Supervisors confirming its intention to utilize such authority. Questions by Kathleen P. Minnis, a resident of the area to be included in the District, in a letter dated May 15, 1994. During the period allowed for post-hearing submittals, Kathleen P. Minnis, a resident of the area to be included within the District, submitted a letter to the Hearing Officer, dated May 15, 1994, with a series of questions regarding the District. John P. Sanders, who has a contract to purchase a lot within the District but does not live in the District at the present time, also raised some of the same questions in his testimony at the public hearing. Petitioner addressed these issues at the hearing with testimony by Gillette and Walters, and in a post-hearing submittal, dated May 26, 1994. That submittal has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 16. Some of Ms. Minnis' questions were legal questions which can be answered by reference to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. In her letter, Ms. Minnis' questions centered on special assessments and fees to be imposed by the District -- who would establish them, when they would begin, how they would be set, how much they would be, what measures would exist to preclude increased assessments, whether there would be a maximum, and how fees would be set for nonresident use of the recreation center. Ms. Minnis also asked whether the District would begin the transition to the one-person, one-vote system for the Board of Supervisors on the schedule set forth in Section 190.006(3)(a)2.b., Florida Statutes. The fiscal powers of the District will be governed by Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. (Tr. 69) The Board of Supervisors will levy all special assessments and fees for District facilities, including the recreation center. See 190.035(1), Fla. Stat. (1993). Neither the County nor Petitioner will levy assessments or fees for the District. Petitioner has not proposed a date for assessments to begin, but Petitioner does not expect the District to levy assessments in 1994. Assessments and fees will be levied in order to finance the District's capital improvements, which Petitioner has estimated will cost approximately $11.4 million in 1993 dollars. Petitioner proposes that these capital improvements be financed with twenty- year revenue bonds to be repaid by assessments levied on property within the District and, in the case of the recreation center, user fees. Operation and maintenance costs of District improvements would be paid by similar assessments and fees. Petitioner proposes that the District levy a special assessment on each lot or parcel based on the benefit it receives from the facilities and services. Once the debt attributable to that parcel or lot is paid, the homeowner or landowner cannot be made to pay debt-related assessments for other parcels or lots. The bondholder accepts the risk that some assessments may not be paid. This method of financing will protect each homeowner or landowner from paying more than his or her fair share. Petitioner does not intend to propose that the District levy assessments based on the assessed value of the land. That would constitute an ad valorem tax, which may not be levied by the District until the Board of Supervisors is elected by and composed of registered voters residing in the District. See 190.006(3)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (1993). Therefore, the cost of a home or lot, or the assessed value of developed or undeveloped land, would not be the basis for determining the amount of assessments. Just as no one can determine how much a homeowner within the District will pay in taxes to St. Johns County in future years, no one can definitely determine how much such a homeowner will pay in special assessments to the District. As a practical matter, Petitioner will share with homeowners such as Ms. Minnis an interest in holding special assessments to a minimum consistent with the requirement or need for certain facilities. Because Petitioner owns the vast majority of the land during the initial years of the development, it will pay the vast majority of the assessments during those years. In addition, Petitioner is interested in holding down the amount of special assessments so that the land it seeks to sell will be competitively priced. With respect to nonresident use of the recreation center, Section 190.035(3), Florida Statutes, provides that rates, fees and charges must be "just and equitable and uniform for users of the same class." The District may not unjustly or unfairly discriminate in access to or charges for its facilities, including the recreation center. See 190.035(1), (3), Fla. Stat. (1993). At present, Petitioner intends to ask the Board of Supervisors to establish a fee for nonresident use that would approximate the operation and maintenance assessment to be paid by District residents. In the initial years, the Board of Supervisors will be elected by landowners on a one-acre, one-vote basis as provided by law. See 190.006(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1993). Section 190.006(3)(a)2.b., Florida Statutes, provides that if there are 250 registered voters residing in the District six years after its creation, the method of selecting the Board of Supervisors will change on a phased schedule from election by landowners to election by registered voters within the District. Petitioner expects there will be 250 households occupied within the District six years after establishment. Whether that will result in 250 registered voters within the District is beyond Petitioner's ability to know or control. Finally, Ms. Minnis said in her letter that, when purchasing her home in the Willow Pond I subdivision, she was misled by a real estate agent affiliated with Panitz Homes regarding assessments that might be imposed by the District. However, the real estate agents were not affiliated in any way with Petitioner, and Petitioner was unaware of any misrepresentation, if one occurred. Petitioner's intention to propose establishment of the District was disclosed to Ms. Minnis prior to the purchase, as demonstrated by her signing the Addendum for Ultimate Consumer. In addition, Petitioner's intention to propose establishment of the District was set forth in the recorded declaration of covenants and restrictions for the Willow Pond I subdivision. That disclosure included a statement describing the facilities and services which the District might undertake. Conclusions Based upon the record of this proceeding, it is concluded that: The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by publication of an advertisement in a newspaper of general paid circulation in St. Johns County and of general interest and readership once each week for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. As required by Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Petitioner paid St. Johns County a $15,000 filing fee intended to offset the County's costs in reviewing the petition. All portions of the petition and other submittals have been completed and filed as required by law. All statements contained within the petition as corrected and supplemented at the hearing are true and correct. The creation of the District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the 1990-2005 St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. The District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The community development services and facilities of the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area to be served by the District is amenable to separate special district government. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administative Hearings DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire David L. Powell, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Daniel J. Bosanko, Esquire P. O. Box 349 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-0349 APPENDIX A Names and Addresses of Witnesses J. Thomas Gillette, III 1111 Durbin Creek Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32259 Douglas C. Miller 3131 St. Johns Bluff Road South Jacksonville, Florida 32246 Gary R. Walters 12 Crooked Tree Trail Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 Kathleen T. Minnis 317 Chickasaw Court Jacksonville, Florida 32259 John P. Sanders 11247 San Jose Boulevard, Apt. 1805 Jacksonville, Florida 32223 APPENDIX B List of Petitioner's Exhibits Number Description Petition to Establish the Julington Creek Plantation Community Development District Notice of Receipt of Petition by Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, Published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, on April 22, 1994 St. Johns County Resolution No. 94-78, in Support of Establishment of the Julington Creek Plantation Community Development District, Adopted on April 26, 1994 Revised Map of Existing Land Uses Within and Adjacent to the District (Exhibit 4 to the Petition) Letter from Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary, Department of Community Affairs, to David K. Coburn, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, dated April 6, 1994 Revised Legal Description by Metes and Bounds of Area to be Included Within the District (Exhibit 2 to the Petition) Copies of Proofs of Publication of Notice of Local Hearing, Published in the St. Augustine Record on April 4, 11, 18 and 25, 1994 Receipts for Certified Mail of Copies of Notice of Local Public Hearing to Persons Specified in Rule 42-1.011(b), F.A.C. Copy of Check for Filing Fee Submitted to St. Johns County on March 2, 1994 Affidavits of Citizenship and Residency for the Initial Board of Supervisors DRI Development Order and Planned Unit Development Development Order for Julington Creek Plantation as Adopted on September 28, 1993 Copies of Individual Notices Voluntarily Sent by Petitioner to Residents and Purchasers in Julington Creek Plantation Within the District, with Attachment Additional Consent and Joinder Forms Copies of Additional Individual Notices Voluntarily Sent by Petitioner to Residents and Purchasers in Julington Creek Plantation Within the District Letter Transmitting Original Proofs of Publication of Notice of Local Public Hearing to Secretary of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission as Required by Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), F.A.C. Letter from Cheryl G. Stuart and David L. Powell, attorneys for Petitioner, to Donald R. Alexander, Hearing Officer, dated May 26, 1994, with attachments Appendix C APPENDIX C Text of Proposed Rule CHAPTER 42_-1 JULINGTON CREEK PLANTATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 42_-1.001 Creation. 42_-1.002 Boundary. 42_-1.003 Supervisors. 42_-1.001 Creation. The Julington Creek Plantation Community Development District is hereby created. Specific Authority 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.005 FS. History--New _- - . 42_-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: PARCEL "A" A portion of Sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 49, 54, and 57, Township 4 South, Range 27 East, St. Johns County, Florida, together with a portion of Sections 2, 4, and 5, Township 5 South, Range 27 East, St. Johns County, Florida, all being more particularly described as follows: For a Point of Beginning, commence at the point of intersection of the Easterly right-of-way line of State Road No. 13, as now established for a width of 100 feet, with the Southwesterly right- of-way line of Racetrack Road, as now established for a width of 66 feet, said point being the Northwest corner of the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit One, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 35 - 51, of the Public Records of the aforementioned St. Johns County, Florida; thence South 76_ 22' 54" East, along said Southwesterly right-of-way line of Racetrack Road, a distance of 876.51 feet; thence North 13_ 37' 06" East, a distance of 66.00 feet to a point lying in the Northeasterly right-of-way line of said Racetrack Road, said point being the most Westerly corner of Tract "A", as shown on the aforementioned plat of Julington Creek Unit Two recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 52 - 63, Public Records, said County; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Tract "A" and Easterly prolongation thereof, North 89_ 13' 56" East, a distance of 1044.60 feet to a point lying in the Westerly boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Two; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Two the following courses: North 00_ 55' 04" West, a distance of 2895.00 feet; thence North 65_ 37' 46" East, a distance of 261.31 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 270.00 feet and a central angle of 56_ 49' 50"; thence 267.81 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 85_ 57' 19" East, a distance of 256.96 feet; thence South 57_ 32' 24" East, a distance of 535.49 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, said curve being concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 530.00 feet and a central angle of 15_ 32' 00"; thence 143.69 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 65_ 18' 24" East, a distance of 143.25 feet; thence South 73_ 04' 24" East, a distance of 287.74 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, said curve being concave to the North, having a radius of 490.40 feet and a central angle of 33_ 03' 19"; thence 282.92 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 89_ 36' 04" East, a distance of 279.02 feet; thence North 73_ 52' 17" East, a distance of 359.21 feet to the Northerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Two and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Three, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 64 - 88, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Three the following courses: North 73_ 52' 17" East, a distance of 116.99 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 470.00 feet and a central angle of 35_ 29' 03"; thence 291.08 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 88_ 23' 11" East, a distance of 286.45 feet; thence South 70_ 38' 40" East, a distance of 1031.69 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 2260.00 feet and a central angle of 04_ 59' 59"; thence 197.21 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 68_ 08' 40" East, a distance of 197.15 feet; thence South 65_ 38' 41" East, a distance of 135.97 feet; thence South 00_ 36' 59" East, a distance of 622.42 feet; thence South 89_ 24' 51" West, a distance of 294.90 feet; thence South 00_ 34' 55" East, a distance of 1624.92 feet; thence South 76_ 25' 30" East, a distance of 1360.52 feet; thence North 00_ 33' 43" West, a distance of 1957.64 feet; thence South 89_ 23' 37" West, a distance of 324.80 feet; thence North 00_ 36' 59" West, a distance of 504.45 feet to a point lying in the Southerly right-of-way line of Bishop Estates Road, as now established for a width of 60 feet; thence along said Southerly right-of-way line, and continuing along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Three, North 72_ 46' 03" East, a distance of 847.61 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 559.55 feet and a central angle of 38_ 38' 26"; thence 377.36 feet Easterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 87_ 54' 44" East, a distance of 370.25 feet; thence South 68_ 35' 31" East, a distance of 1163.87 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 896.04 feet, and a central angle of 14_ 33' 05"; thence 227.57 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 61_ 18' 59" East, a distance of 226.96 feet; thence South 54_ 02' 26" East, a distance of 621.97 feet to the point of curvature of a non-tangent curve to the left, said curve being concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 654.89 feet and a central angle of 35_ 19' 25"; thence 403.75 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 71_ 42' 08" East,a distance of 397.38 feet; thence North 89_ 21' 50" East, a distance of 321.10 feet to the point of curvature of a non-tangent curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 690.01 feet and a central angle of 25_ 21' 57"; thence 305.48 feet Easterly, around the arc of said curve, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 76_ 40' 52" East, a distance of 302.99 feet; thence South 63_ 59' 54" East, a distance of 158.64 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, said curve being concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 1268.20 feet, and a central angle of 42_ 29' 40"; thence 940.59 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to a point of reverse curvature, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 85_ 14' 44" East, a distance of 919.18 feet to said point of reverse curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 228.00 feet and a central angle of 20_ 36' 14"; thence 81.99 feet Northeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears North 83_ 48' 33" East, a distance of 81.55 feet; thence South 85_ 53' 20" East, a distance of 328.46 feet to the Northerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Three and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Four, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 89 - 111, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Four the following courses: South 85_ 53' 20" East, a distance of 171.26 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the South, having a radius of 690.01 feet, and a central angle of 20_ 15' 14"; thence 243.92 feet Easterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 75_ 45' 43" East, a distance of 242.65 feet; thence South 65_ 38' 06" East, a distance of 299.43 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the left, said curve being concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 1451.18 feet, and a central angle of 16_ 27' 36"; thence 416.90 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, to the point of tangency thereof, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 73_ 51' 54" East, a distance of 415.47 feet; thence South 82_ 05' 42" East, a distance of 616.54 feet to the point of curvature of a curve to the right, said curve being concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 1642.47 feet, and a central angle of 00_ 17' 36"; thence 8.41 feet Southeasterly, around the arc of said curve, said arc being subtended by a chord which bears South 81_ 56' 54" East, a distance of 8.41 feet to a point of intersection with the Southerly prolongation of the most Westerly boundary of the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Six, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 17, Pages 22 - 52, Public Records, said County; thence along and with said Westerly boundary and Southerly prolongation thereof, and along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Six the following courses: North 00_ 36' 03" East, a distance of 319.20 feet to an angle point in the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Six; thence North 03_ 08' 57" West, a distance of 230.12 feet; thence North 02_ 45' 57" West, a distance of 284 feet, more or less, to the mean high water line of Durbin Creek; thence Southeasterly and Easterly, along said mean high water line of Durbin Creek and the meanderings thereof, a distance of 9880 feet, more or less, to the East line of Section 35 of the aforementioned Township 4 South, Range 27 East,; thence South 01_ 33' 04" East, along said East line of Section 35, a distance of 3752 feet, more or less, to a point lying in the aforementioned Northeasterly right- of-way line of Racetrack Road; thence South 76_ 22' 54" East, along said Northeasterly right-of- way line, a distance of 147.01 feet to the most Westerly corner of Tract "A", as shown on the aforementioned plat of Julington Creek Unit Seven recorded in Map Book 18, Pages 6 - 32, Public Records, said County; thence North 89_ 11' 36" East, along the Northerly boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Seven, a distance of 2538.40 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; thence along the Easterly boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Seven, and along the extension of said Easterly boundary across the aforementioned Racetrack Road, South 00_ 33' 34" East, a distance of 1320.75 feet to a point lying in the line dividing the aforementioned Townships 4 and 5 South, Range 27 East, said point being the Southeast corner of said Julington Creek Unit Seven; thence continue along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Seven the following courses: South 89_ 13' 19" West, a distance of 2656.47 feet to the Southeast corner of the aforementioned Section 35, Township 4 South, Range 27 East; thence South 89_ 15' 04" West, a distance of 660.28 feet; thence North 01_ 36' 48" West, a distance of 1320.37 feet; thence South 89_ 13' 37" West, a distance of feet; thence South 01_ 47' 18" East, a distance of 1320.15 feet; thence South 02_ 14' 04" East, a distance of 1340.96 feet; thence South 89_ 33' 39" West, a distance of 662.34 feet; thence North 02_ 10' 39" West, a distance of 1336.69 feet; thence South 89_ 12' 29" West, a distance of 660.57 feet; thence South 89_ 13' 36" West, a distance of 2641.92 feet; thence South 89_ 14' 24" West, a distance of 2676.55 feet; thence South 89_ 14' 31" West, a distance of 1369.31 feet to the Southerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Seven and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Eight, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 18, Pages 33 through 51, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Eight the following courses: South 89_ 14' 31" West, a distance of 1258.94 feet; thence South 00_ 48' 07" East, a distance of 1331.35 feet; thence South 00_ 47' 45" East, a distance of 2682.06 feet; thence South 89_ 35' 54" West, a distance of 2649.95 feet; thence South 89_ 33' 43" West, a distance of 1328.72 feet; thence South 89_ 31' 34" West, a distance of 1342.28 feet; thence South 89_ 26' 51" West, a distance of 1345.27 feet; thence North 00_ 44' 34" West, a distance of 1341.60 feet; thence North 00_ 39' 54" West, a distance of 295.39 feet to the Westerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Eight and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit Nine, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 18, Pages 77 - 121, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit Nine the following courses: North 00_ 39' 54" West, a distance of 1024.75 feet; thence North 89_28' 29" East, a distance of 1342.18 feet; thence North 00_ 28' 51" West, a distance of 1322.45 feet; thence South 89_ 28' 29" West, a distance of 1342.18 feet; thence North 00_ 28' 51" West, a distance of 379.92 feet to the centerline of Cunningham Creek; thence Westerly along a meander line that approximates the centerline of said Cunningham Creek as follows: North 58_ 00' 56" West, a distance of 135.23 feet; thence South 88_ 24' 34" West, a distance of 220.36 feet; thence North 70_ 24' 07" West, a distance of 355.69 feet; thence South 76_ 06' 53" West, a distance of 348.16 feet; thence South 89_ 11' 02" West, a distance of 300.67 feet; thence North 83_ 03' 30" West, a distance of 252.48 feet; thence North 80_ 29' 16" West, a distance of 336.30 feet; thence North 88_ 42' 35" West, a distance of 311.27 feet; thence South 71_ 01' 54" West, a distance of 85.28 feet; thence North 85_ 52' 03" West, a distance of 313.97 feet; thence South 58_ 08' 46" West, a distance of 305.31 feet; thence South 88_ 56' 58" West, a distance of 160.43 feet; thence South 68_ 08' 31" West, a distance of 239.34 feet; thence South 88_ 49' 46" West, a distance of 474.71 feet; thence North 38_ 38' 53" West, a distance of 193.24 feet; thence North 87_ 42' 49" West, a distance of 351.51 feet; thence South 70_ 43' 49" West, a distance of 537.95 feet; thence South 59_ 45' 23' West, a distance of 666.17 feet to a point lying in the aforementioned Easterly right-of-way line of State Road No. 13; thence North 04_ 51' 47" East, along said Easterly right-of-way line, a distance of 1961.82 feet to the Westerly corner common to said Julington Creek Unit Nine and the aforementioned Julington Creek Unit One, according to plat thereof recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 35 - 51, Public Records, said County; thence along and with the boundary of said Julington Creek Unit One the following courses: North 04_ 51' 47" East, a distance of 2087.46 feet to an angle point in said boundary; thence North 88_ 25' 39" East, departing said Easterly right-of-way line of State Road No. 13, a distance of 191.74 feet; thence North 00_ 18' 11" West, a distance of 833.50 feet; thence North 89_ 13' 41" East, a distance of 676.09 feet; thence South 00_ 17' 20" East, a distance of 160.48 feet; thence North 89_ 15' 59" East, a distance of 670.35 feet; thence North 00_ 16' 32" West, a distance of 660.03 feet; thence South 89_ 17' 37" West, a distance of 670.00 feet; thence South 89_ 17' 50" West, a distance of 747.26 feet to a point lying in the aforementioned Easterly right-of-way line of State Road No. 13; thence North 04_ 51' 47" East, along said Easterly right-of-way line, a distance of 1490.97 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 4,270 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 569, Page 331, and Official Records Volume 790, Page 554, and also lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 910, Page 1091 (including the EXCEPTION mentioned therein), all of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 29.13 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 721, Page 1090, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 5.16 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 716, Page 690, and Official Records Volume 878, Page 92, all of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 10.20 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, the First Replat in Julington Creek Unit One, as recorded in Map Book 26, Pages 82 and 83, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 31.53 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, all of Tracts G-5, G-6 and G-7, all of Lots 1 through 52, Block 5, and all of Lots 1 through 39, Block 6, together with the road rights-of-way known as Larkspur Loop, Canna Court, Catalpa Court, and Calico Court, all as shown on plat of Julington Creek Unit One as recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 35 through 51, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 39.41 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, all of Lots 1 through 11, Block 7, and the road right-of-way known as Little Loop, all as shown on plat of Julington Creek Unit One as recorded in Map Book 16, Pages 35 through 51, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida and containing 6.85 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, all of Tracts G-1, G-2, G-13 and G-14, all of Lots 1 through 21, Block 41, all of Lots 1 through 24, Block 42, all of Lots 1 through 11, Block 43, all of Lots 1 through 20, Block 44, all of Lots 1 through 5, Block 45, and all of Lots 1 through 14, Block 46, together with the road rights-of-way known as Linwood Loop, Castleberry Court, and Chesswood Court, all as shown on plat of Julington Creek Unit Five as recorded in Map Book 17, Pages 1 through 21, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 45.93 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 328, Page 644, and Official Records Volume 443, Page 451, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, together with a parcel of land being bounded on the North by Racetrack Road, as now established for a width of 66 feet, and bounded on the West by the aforementioned lands described in Official Records Volume 443, Page 451, and bounded on the South and the East by the aforementioned lands described in Official Records Volume 328, Page 644, all as recorded in the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 53.94 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, lands described and recorded in Official Records Volume 350, Page 229, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 10.80 acres, more or less. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, all of Tract F as shown on plat of Julington Creek Unit Five as recorded in Map Book 17, Pages 1 through 21, of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida, and containing 5.73 acres, more or less. AND FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM, however, any portion of the above described lands lying within the rights-of-way of Racetrack Road, as now established for a width of 66 feet, or Bishop Estates Road, as now established for a width of 60 feet, or Orange Street as now established for a width of 60 feet, all of which contain 44.69 acres, more or less. Lands thus described, exclusive of all exceptions therein, contain 3,986 acres, more or less. TOGETHER WITH, PARCEL "B" (Record Description) Part of Section 57, Rebecca Pengree Grant, Township 4 South, Range 27 East, Portions of Section 38., William Harvey Grant, Section 39, F.P. Fatio Grant, Section 42, Rebecca Pengree Grant, all being in Township 5 South, Range 27 East, St. Johns County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: For a Point of Reference, commence at the intersection of the line dividing Section 39 and Section 42 with the Southeasterly line of Section 38 aforementioned; run thence South 40o 10' 48" East along the dividing line of Sections 38 and 39, a distance of 945.12 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, as now established as a 100 foot Right of Way, said point lying and being in a curve concave Westerly, having a radius of 2814.79 feet, for a Point of Beginning; thence in a Northerly direction, along the arc of said radius and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc length of 229.86 feet, said arc being subtended by a chord bearing North 21o 07' 03" East, a chord distance of 229.8 feet; thence North 53o 25' 45" West, a distance of 471.92 feet; thence North 36o 34' 15" East, a distance of 200.0 feet; thence South 53o 25' 45" East, a distance of 399.29 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, aforementioned; thence in a Northerly direction, along the arc of curve having a radius of 2814.79 feet and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc length of 487.38 feet to the P.C. of curve, said arc being subtended by a chord bearing of North 09o 29' 07" East, a chord distance of 486.78 feet; thence North 04o 31' 30" East, along the Westerly Right of way line of State Road No. 13, a distance of 3125 feet, more or less, to the waters of Cunningham Creek; thence in a Southwesterly and Southeasterly direction along the waters following the meandering of Cunningham Creek and Mill Creek respectively, a distance of 8000 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right of Way line of State Road 13, aforementioned, said point being an arc distance of 310 feet, more or less, Southwesterly from the Point of Beginning; thence in a Northeasterly direction, along the arc of a curve having said radius of 2814.79 feet and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc distance of 310 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING that portion of said Sections 39 and 42, Township 5 South, aforementioned, more particularly described as follows: For a Point of Reference, commence at the intersection of the line dividing Section 39 and Section 42, with the Southeasterly line of said Section 38; run thence South 40o 10' 48" East along the dividing line of Sections 38 and 39, a distance of 945.12 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right-of-Way line of State Road No. 13, aforementioned, for the Point of Beginning; thence in a Northerly direction, along the arc of said radius and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc length of 167.06 feet, said arc being subtended by a chord bearing North 21o 45' 24" East, a chord distance of 167.03 feet; thence North 53o 25' 45" West, a distance of 100.0 feet; thence South 26o 16' 55" West, a distance of 500 feet, more or less, to the waters of Mill Creek; thence in a Southeasterly direction, along the waters following the meanderings of Mill Creek, a distance of 110 feet, more or less, to the Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, aforementioned, said point being an arc distance of 310 feet, more or less, Southwesterly from the Point of Beginning; thence in a Northeasterly direction, along the arc of a curve having said radius of 2814.79 feet and Westerly Right of Way line of State Road No. 13, an arc distance of 310 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. Lands thus described, exclusive of all exceptions therein, contain 133 acres, more or less. Total Parcel Area 4119 acres, more or less. Specific Authority 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005 FS. History--New _- - . 42_-1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors: Kimball D. Woodbury; David A. Branson: John H. Fischer; J. Thomas Gillette, III; Terrell R. Jones. Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 FS. Law Implemented 190.006(1) FS. History--New _- - .
The Issue Whether the Petition to Establish the Dovera Community Development District meets the criteria established in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact A The property which is the subject of the Petition in this case consists of approximately 410 contiguous acres. All of the subject property is located in unincorporated Seminole County. Petitioner presented the testimony of John R. Maloy. Maloy is Corporate Vice President of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. and Executive Vice President of The Viera Company, positions he has held for approximately eight years. The Viera Company, the Petitioner, is a wholly owned subsidiary of A. Duda & Sons, Inc. Maloy is responsible for planning and disposition of real estate assets. He is also responsible for those projects which have reached the development phase. It was Maloy's responsibility in this matter to select and work with the team of professionals who prepared the Petition. He also reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its filing. Maloy identified Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, which is a copy of the Petition and its attached exhibits as filed with the Commission. Maloy stated that, for purposes of clarification, a sentence should be added to page 3 of the Petition indicating that the current version of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan is dated September, 1991. Maloy then testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the statements in the Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct. Other witnesses testifying on behalf of Petitioner similarly confirmed the accuracy of the Petition and its attached exhibits, as supplemented at hearing. The Viera Company, a Florida corporation, is owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. As required by statute, the owner has given its written consent to the establishment of the proposed District. Maloy was designated as the agent of The Viera Company to act on its behalf with regard to any matters relating to the Petition. No real property within the external boundaries of the District is to be excluded from the District. All of the land to be included in the District is the subject of a DRI Development Order which has been approved by the Commission. The five persons designated in the Petition to serve on the initial board of supervisors are: Jack Maloy 135 Highway A1A North Satellite Beach, FL 32937 Don Spotts 1113 Tuskawilla Road Winter Springs, FL 32708 David Duda 7979 Dunstable Circle Orlando, FL 32817 Tracy Duda 1601 Highland Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Donna Duda 2436 Mikler Road Oviedo, FL 32765 All of them are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the United States. Existing residential communities are located on the north and west sides of the proposed District. To the south and east, the proposed District is generally bordered by the Seminole County Expressway and by a large undeveloped tract to the south. The land in the area to be included in the proposed District is currently undeveloped and is used for agricultural purposes, principally cattle grazing. All of the land to be included in the District has been planned as a single, mixed-use community to be developed pursuant to a development order for the DLI Properties Development of Regional Impact approved by the Commission on October 10, 1989, and issued to Duda Lands, Inc. Duda Lands, Inc. is now The Viera Company. Creation of the District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The proposed District is a mechanism for financing infrastructure, and any change that might be made in the future would be subject to all requirements and conditions specified by statute. For example, establishment of the District will result in no change with respect to the present requirement that the District donate utility lines to the County. The proposed development of lands to be included in the District contemplates construction of significant commercial and office/showroom space, together with some residential units and hotel rooms over a twelve-year period. Creation of theproposed District will not constitute any change in the basic character of the development. With respect to the provision of infrastructure and services, it is presently anticipated that the CDD will construct or otherwise provide for a surface water management system, roads, street lighting, landscaping, culverts, and water and sewer facilities. With Seminole County's consent, the CDD will also exercise other special powers, as authorized under Section 190.012(2), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing facilities for parks and recreation, security, and mosquito control. Capital costs of these improvements are presently intended to be borne by the District. There is no intent to have the District apply for any of the private activity bond allocation monies available. Mr. Maloy testified that Petitioner has no intent to have the District exercise its ad valorem taxing authority. Mr. Maloy's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. From the perspective of The Viera Company, creation of the proposed District is important for the construction, operation, long-term management and maintenance of major infrastructure for the development. Mr. Maloy testified that the CDD the best alternative for delivering the needed community development facilities and services and that the creation of the CDD will also help ensure that District residents pay for the costs of the necessary infrastructure that will be constructed to serve them. In the present economic climate, a developer's access to the money necessary for the provision of needed infrastructure is very limited. One of the few avenues available is the bond market. The CDD will permit access to this source of funds to provide capital to build the necessary infrastructure. To address issues related to planning, Petitioner presented the testimony of Brian C. Canin. Canin is President of Canin Associates Urban and Environmental Planners, a planning and consulting firm. He has held that position since the firm's inception in 1980. Canin has extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact and in planning and development of other large-scale projects, as well as in reviewing comprehensive plans. Canin was qualified at the hearing as an expert in land use planning. Canin was coordinator for the consulting team which prepared the DLI Properties DRI. He prepared and submitted the application for development approval encompassing all of the property located within the external boundaries of the proposed district. He also participated in all of the hearings. With respect to the Dovera CDD petition, Canin worked as part of the project team, providing supporting materials for the Petition. Canin identified Exhibit 5 to the Petition as a map prepared by Canin Associates for the DRI which depicts the land use plan for the proposed District. He indicated that Canin Associates later provided the map to Gee & Jenson (Engineers, Architects and Planners) for use in compiling the Petition. Canin also identified an updated version of Exhibit 5 to the Petition. He indicated that the version contained as an attachment to the Petition was submitted with the DRI. In the course of the hearings held on the DRI and during the approval of the Master Plan, certain changes were made to the land uses. Petitioner's Exhibit E represents the land uses currently proposed and approved for the area encompassed by the proposed District. Canin noted that the updated version of the land use plan includes a revision of the typical roadway section. Petitioner had been informed by County staff that the typical roadway section initially submitted by the developer did not meet the standards for a County road. The roadway section, which meets the standards for a county-owned road, was drawn to show that the road could meet those specifications without changing the amount of buildable acreage within the proposed development. This means that the existing right-of-way can accommodate a change, if necessary, to meet County-owned road standards. There will be no change in the DRI requirements with respect to buildable acres. Encompassing approximately 410 acres, the proposed land uses for the area within the Dovera CDD comprise a Planned Unit Development consisting of 512 multi-family residential units and related commercial, institutional, recreational, and other uses. The proposed development includes over 247,000 square feet of commercial space and more than two million square feet devoted to office and office/showroom space. The plan also includes 250hotel rooms. The development is set within environmental open spaces that are integrated into stormwater facilities and roadways. A copy of the September, 1991 Seminole County Comprehensive Plan was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit F. Based on his review of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, Canin testified that the proposed district is consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, project approval required numerous reviews in the course of the DRI process, as well as various hearings conducted by the County Land Planning Agency and Board of County Commissioners. Unless the project had been consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan at all these points in time, the developer would not have been allowed to proceed. Canin also testified that he had reviewed the State Comprehensive Plan found in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and that, in his opinion, the proposed District is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes, provides for the creation of partnerships among local governments and the private sector which would identify and build needed public facilities. Canin also identified Section 187.201(20) which encourages the coordination of transportation infrastructure to provide major travel corridors and enhance system efficiency. Coordination of the Red Bug Lake Road construction and the proposed District's involvement in its financing are examples of how the proposed district fulfills this policy. Canin further testified that Section 187.201(21) permits the creation of independent special taxing districts as a means of lessening the burden on local governments and their taxpayers, and also encourages the use of such districts in providing needed infrastructure. Based on his extensive experience with Developments of Regional Impact, Canin testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. The District's activities are subject to the regulatory and permitting authority of the county, including the DRI approval process. From a land use perspective, the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Requiring DRI approval, the project was designed from the outset using an integrated land use plan, the purpose of which was to integrate diverse systems into one common plan. Canin testified that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Mr. Canin, the proposed District will facilitate long-term financing of necessary infrastructure while providing a perpetual entity capable of operating and maintaining those systems and facilities. In Mr. Canin's opinion, private development would not be as advantageous because a private developer could not provide the same guarantees with respect to long-term operation and maintenance. Finally, based on his familiarity with the type and scope of development as well as the available services and facilities locate din the area of proposed development, Canin testified that the District's services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. He noted that transportation services were taken into account in the DRI process and are thoroughly integrated into the local comprehensive plan. To address engineering-related matters, Petitioner offered the expert testimony of Fred A. Greene. Greene is President, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Gee & Jenson Engineers-Architects-Planners, Inc., an engineering and planning firm. He has held these positions for a combination of sixteen years. Greene is a registered engineer in Florida and personally has been involved in a number of DRI-related projects. He has a wide range of experience in providing engineering services relating to the use and operation of special districts, including community development districts. He advises districts on construction matters, design and maintenance, beginning with permitting for major infrastructure. Greene was qualified at the hearing as an expert in civil engineering and in land development, specializing in special districts. Greene played an active role in preparation of the documents required to establish the Dovera CDD. He visited the site and reviewed designs prepared by others for the water management system, the roadway system, and the water and sewer facilities. He also assisted in the preparation of the cost estimates contained in the Petition. The land within the proposed District is not presently developed and is primarily used for cattle operations. The land uses adjacent to the proposed district include residential communities to the north and west. The Seminole County Expressway is east of the proposed District and the land to the south is vacant. The existing drainage basins and outfall canals, the existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and lift stations are identified in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit B, attached Exhibit 6. The land presently is drained by a series of ditches installed for agricultural purposes, the water flowing from west to east before discharging through Bear Creek into Lake Jessup. The proposed District is currently expected to construct the water management system, water and sewer facilities, internal roadways, security, mosquito control, and parks and recreation facilities. Seminole County will provide potable water through the existing twelve-inch lines. The District will construct water mains along the internal roads and later transfer title to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide water service to the development. With respect to the provision of sewer service and facilities, Petitioner plans to have the District construct a collection system along with lift stations and force mains that will discharge to the County's Iron Bridge Treatment Plant. These facilities will also be dedicated to the County. There is no plan to have the District provide sewer service to the development. The Petitioner plans to have the District construct and/or maintain within its boundaries a system of lakes, dry retention areas, wet retention areas, wetlands, flowways, culverts and control structures to accommodate surplus stormwater. Discharge would be through control structures and flow north through a system of existing canals to Lake Jessup. The Petitioner also expects the District to be involved in the construction and maintenance of roads. The roads would be constructed to applicable Seminole County standards, and to the extent that the roads remain district roads, the District will maintain them. The Seminole County Expressway is a N/S roadway presently under construction along the eastern boundary of the District. Realigned Red Bug Lake Road is presently under construction by Seminole County pursuant to a joint infrastructure agreement with Duda Lands, Inc. The agreement requires cost participation on that part of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The District is expected to assume the developer's responsibility for that portion of realigned Red Bug Lake Road which runs through the District. The proposed District expects to purchase a truck and sprayer to assist in mosquito control within its boundaries. The District will be responsible for this activity, either by contract or by using its own staff. The proposed District currently plans to construct, operate and maintain facilities for parks and recreation. These facilities may include passive parks, playgrounds, pedestrian systems, bike paths, boardwalks and nature trails. With respect to the proposed District's current plans for security, in addition to gates, fences and similar installations related to security, the District may supplement security with additional staff and, where practical, may install automatic security devices. Exhibit 7 to the Petition shows the estimated infrastructure construction schedule and costs for the proposed District based on 1991 dollars. The anticipated schedule is for work to be performed by the Dovera CDD over the next twelve years. Unlike the DRI which has phases triggered by trips, the CDD phasing is premised on financing and construction engineering. However, the anticipated timetable in Exhibit 7 to the Petition is consistent with the schedule for development of the land. Based on his experience with special districts and DRI-related projects, Greene testified that creation of the proposed District will not constitute any change to the DRI development, its plan, its timing, its design, or anything else related to the DRI. Mr. Greene's unrefuted testimony established that the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functional interrelated community. A large tract lying adjacent to a major expressway, having been planned as a DRI and approved subject to issuance of a development order, is developable as a functional interrelated community. In this instance, all of the infrastructure systems, including those serving nonresidential areas of the development, are interrelated and have been purposefully designed to function as a single system. Greene's unchallenged testimony established that the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering the proposed services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Although property- owners' associations constitute one alternative for the delivery of community development services and facilities, they are unable to finance infrastructure. In addition, regional water management districts prefer to have CDDs provide services because of their stability and record for collection of assessments. Being units of special-purpose local government, CDDs are generally perceived as being more stable than informal associations. While private development is another alternative, it cannot provide the same guarantees as CDDs with respect to operation and long-term maintenance of community development services and facilities. It is Mr. Greene's opinion that the proposed District's community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to state or county standards for the various items of work and would therefore be consistent with the local development regulations and plans. The District will also be subject to all permit requirements and conditions of the development order. Mr. Greene testified that the area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government because the area is large enough to support necessary staff to maintain and operate the proposed system. The District also has specific authority and a specific mission. Based on his experience with other districts of this size and larger that have been in existence for more than twenty years, Greene concluded that the proposed Dovera CDD will prove to be a successful operation. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, President of Fishkind & Associates, Inc., an economic and financial consulting firm, prepared and presented the economic impact statement which accompanied the Petition. In addition to providing economic forecasting services, Fishkind also provides financial advice to both public and private sector clients, including special districts. At the hearing, Fishkind was qualified as an expert in economics, financing and statistics, including infrastructure financing and the use of special taxing districts. In addition to preparing the economic impact statement (EIS), Fishkind has assisted The Viera Company in assessing the financial feasibility of the proposed District. Fishkind confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the EIS. The EIS was prepared, in part, to meet the statutory requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Fishkind summarized the findings contained in the EIS. Seminole County and the State of Florida were identified as the two governmental entities which would be affected by the processing of this Petition and ongoing review and oversight of the District. Seminole County received the Petition for review and was paid a $15,000 filing fee to cover expenses related to processing the application. This fee is expected to adequately cover those costs. The County will have the option of reviewing the District's proposed budget each year. Dr. Fishkind does not anticipate that the County will incur any other direct costs by virtue of establishment of the District. Dr. Fishkind testified that Seminole County and its citizens will also receive some benefits by virtue of establishment of the District. The District will provide a mechanism to facilitate the financing and ongoing operation and maintenance of infrastructure for the project. In Dr. Fishkind's opinion, the District not only restricts the costs for needed facilities and services to those landowners who benefit from them, but, because it is an independent special-purpose government, also frees the County from any administrative burden related to management of these facilities and services. In addition, the District should help to assure compliance with the development order conditions as they relate to infrastructure. With respect to the State, the Bureau of Local Government Finance in the Office of the Comptroller will review certain financial reports that all special districts must file. The cost of processing one additional report will be minimal. In addition, the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") also has certain reporting requirements with which the District must comply. The costs to the DCA are partially offset by a required annual fee imposed on all special districts. The EIS also analyzed the expected costs and benefits to the citizens of Florida and the state at large. According to Dr. Fishkind's testimony, Chapter 190 encourages planned large-scale communities such as that within the proposed District, and the Dovera CDD would satisfy this legislative intent. The District is also intended to serve as a way to ensure that growth pays for itself, and that those who receive the benefits absorb the costs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition to providing an improved level of planning and coordination and ensuring long-term operation and maintenance of needed facilities and services, the District would also promote satisfaction of state and local requirements for concurrency. Dr. Fishkind's unchallenged and unrefuted testimony in this regard is accepted. Dr. Fishkind also analyzed costs and benefits to the Petitioner. The costs include preparation of the Petition and all of the underlying analysis devoted to the project by team members. Dr. Fishkind testified that, in addition, the Petitioner, as landowner, will be the largest single taxpayer for some time, and will bear the largest portion of the donation of certain rights- of-way and easements. The Petitioner is also expected to provide certain managerial and technical assistance to the District, particularly in the early years. Benefits to the Petitioner include the District's access to the tax exempt bond market and other capital markets which would otherwise be unavailable. Another benefit to the Petitioner flows from the assurance that concurrency requirements will be met and that a stable, long-term entity is in place to maintain necessary infrastructure. Because any other similarly-situated landowner could also petition for establishment of a CDD, the granting of the Petition does not give this developer an unfair competitive advantage. The anticipated costs and benefits to persons who ultimately buy land and/or housing or rent commercial space within the proposed District ("Consumers") were also analyzed. In addition to city, county, and school board taxes or assessments, Consumers will pay certain assessments for the construction and maintenance of necessary infrastructure. The consumers should, in turn, have access to first quality public facilities and high levels of public service in a development where the necessary infrastructure will be maintained even after the developer is no longer involved. Ultimately, the statute provides a mechanism where Consumers may control the board of supervisors and determine the type, quality and expense of essential district facilities and services, subject to County plans and land development regulations. The EIS analyzed the impact of the District on competition and the open market for employment. Although there may be a transitory competitive advantage because of lower cost financing and access to capital, any advantage is not exclusive to The Viera Company. Although the CDD itself will not have a measurable impact on the open market for employment in Seminole County, Dr. Fishkind believes that access to capital markets may nonetheless have some positive effect on the development of employment. According to Dr. Fishkind, the District's potential effect on the open market for employment will likely be enhanced when compared to private development because CDDs are subject to government-in-the-sunshine and public bidding laws. Similarly, while anticipating no measurable impact on small and minority businesses as a direct result of establishing the Dovera CDD, Dr. Fishkind testified that such businesses may be better able to compete in the development because the District must operate according to government-in-the- sunshine and public bidding laws. Data supplied by The Viera Company and Gee & Jenson was used by Dr. Fishkind in performing his economic and financial analysis. Based on the result of his financial studies and analyses, Fishkind concluded that the proposed District is expected to be financially sound and able to fulfill its economic obligations. The expected general financial structure of the proposed District is based on a system of special assessments to defray the costs of its infrastructure. These special assessments would be imposed pursuant to Chapter 190, using the procedures outlined under Chapter 170 or Chapter 197, and would be pledged to secure bonds issued for the necessary improvements. It is not anticipated that the District will use any ad valorem taxation. This proposed financial structure for the Dovera CDD is very similar to that used successfully in many other CDDs in Florida. Dr. Fishkind testified that the financial structure is significantly different from that employed by a Tax Increment Financing District or TIF. A TIF is a dependent district the financial structure of which is premised on a "frozen" tax base of a particular area. TIF bonds are then repaid by the increase in real estate value within that area. This structure usurps certain taxes that would otherwise accrue to the local general-purpose government at large. TIFs are sometimes used in community redevelopment areas. Unlike a TIF, a CDD is actually an independent district with limited powers set out in the statute. A CDD's assessments and taxes do not in any way impact the County's taxing or assessment powers. Although a CDD may borrow money, the debts of a CDD cannot become the debt of any other governmental entity without its consent. In addition to the proposed District, there are several other available alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, including private development, homeowners' associations, county provision, and dependent districts such as MSTUs or MSBUs. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on an analysis of other options available, the proposed District is the best available alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. According to Dr. Fishkind, of these alternatives, only a CDD allows for the independent financing, administration, operation and maintenance of infrastructure while permitting residents to exercise increasing control over the District's governing board. Although independent of the county commission and enabling district residents to exercise control as a governing board, a homeowners' association would not be capable of undertaking the financial responsibility necessary to pay for the required infrastructure. Private developers do not have access to the tax-free bond market, and cannot provide the stability of long-term maintenance of infrastructure. Provision by the county or by a MSTU or MSBU would require the county to administer, operate and maintain the needed infrastructure. Dr. Fishkind testified that, from a financial perspective, and based on a review of the applicable plans, the CDD is consistent with the State and Seminole County Comprehensive Plans. Although CDDs are not directly mentioned in the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, the proposed District is consistent with the plan's intent that growth should pay for itself. Based on his familiarity with the design of the proposed District and his experience with other districts of a similar size and configuration, Fishkind concluded that the area to be included in the District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. All the infrastructure for the proposed development has been planned as a unit and so should be expected to function as an interrelated system. It was also Fishkind's opinion, after reviewing the availability of the existing community development services and facilities in the area to be served by the proposed District, that the community development services and facilities expected to be provided by the District are not incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional services and facilities. The current assistance provided by the developer with respect to the development of Red Bug Lake Road and the Seminole County Expressway provides an example of infrastructure compatibility. Finally, taking into account the governing structure of the proposed District and the experience of other special districts in Florida, Fishkind concluded that the area that will be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government. It is Dr. Fishkind's opinion that an interrelated community created in compliance with a comprehensive master plan and specific infrastructure requirements represents an ideal circumstance within which to foster development of a CDD. Petitioner also presented the testimony of Gary L. Moyer. Moyer is President of Gary L. Moyer, P.A., a firm engaged in providing consulting and management services to special districts. He provides numerous services to approximately 33 special districts, 25 of which are CDDs. These services include planning of infrastructure, financing, implementation and the award and oversight of construction contracts. Upon completion of construction, he oversees the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the infrastructure. He has provided these services for approximately fifteen years. At the hearing, Moyer was qualified as an expert in special district governance and management. Moyer has been involved with CDDs ranging in size from only 28 acres to as many as 13,000 acres. Moyer testified that the proposed Dovera CDD would be an average size district among those providing primarily commercial and industrial land uses. CDDs operate pursuant to statute and must comply with requirements similar to those imposed upon general-purpose local governments. CDDs issue bonds to finance necessary infrastructure and typically repay this bonded indebtedness through imposition of non ad valorem assessments. The collection of these non ad valorem assessments has been accorded equal dignity with the collection of property taxes. Comparing other alternatives for the provision of community infrastructure, such as private development, property-owners' associations, and provision of services and facilities by local governments, Moyer testified that the proposed District is the best alternative for providing the contemplated services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The singular purpose of a CDD is to provide infrastructure to new communities. Although other entities may provide such facilities and services, none of them possess the focus which is characteristic of CDDs. Moyer also concluded, based on his familiarity with the land area that is to be included in the proposed District and his experience with several CDDs having similar land use characteristics, that the area is amenable to separate special district governance. Moyer also expressed the opinion, based on his experience as manager of other districts of similar size and configuration, that the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of a sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional interrelated community. The District appears to have the ability to provide the necessary infrastructure in a cost-effective manner to the lands to be included within its boundaries. With respect to the proposed District's anticipated use of County services, agreements with the tax collector and property appraiser for the collection of special assessments under Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, may be used. Such agreements are commonly used by other special districts. To the extent these services are used, the County is compensated by the District for these expenses.
Conclusions On March 12, 1992, a public hearing was held in this matter. The hearing was held in the Chambers of the Seminole County Commission, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, Florida, before James W. York, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding was whether the Petition to Establish the Harmony Ranch Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria in chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42-1.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. To promote affordable housing in Florida, Florida Housing offers a variety of programs to distribute housing credits. (Housing credits, also known as tax credits, are a dollar-for-dollar offset of federal income tax liability.) One of these programs is the State Apartment Incentive Loan program (“SAIL”), which provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers. SAIL funds are available each year to support the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low- income individuals and families. See § 420.5087, Fla. Stat. Additional sources of financial assistance include the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond program (“MMRB”) and non- competitive housing credits. Florida Housing administers the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funds, nontaxable revenue bonds, and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation. Florida Housing initiates the competitive application process by issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). The Request for Application at issue in this matter is RFA 2017-108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments to Be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt Bond Financing and Non-Competitive Housing Credits.” Florida Housing issued RFA 2017-108 on August 31, 2017. Applications were due by October 12, 2017.6/ The purpose of RFA 2017-108 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing intends to award approximately $87,000,000 for proposed developments serving elderly and family demographic groups in small, medium, and large counties. RFA 2017-108 allocates $46,279,600 to large counties, $32,308,400 to medium counties, and $8,732,000 to small counties. RFA 2017-108 established goals to fund: Two Elderly, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; Three Family, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; One Elderly, new construction Application located in a Medium County; and Two Family, new construction Applications located in Medium Counties. Thirty-eight developers submitted applications in response to RFA 2017-108. Of these applicants, Florida Housing found 28 eligible for funding, including all Petitioners and Intervenors in this matter. Florida Housing received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2017-108, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67- 48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. RFA 2017-108 provided that applicants were scored based on certain demographic and geographic funding tests. Florida Housing sorted applications from the highest scoring to the lowest. Only applications that met all the eligibility requirements were eligible for funding and considered for selection. Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to review and score each application. On November 15, 2017, the Review Committee announced its scores at a public meeting and recommended which projects should be awarded funding. On December 8, 2017, the Review Committee presented its recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors for final agency action. The Board of Directors subsequently approved the Review Committee’s recommendations and announced its intention to award funding to 16 applicants. As a preliminary matter, prior to the final hearing, Florida Housing agreed to the following reassessments in the scoring and selection of the applications for funding under RFA 2017-108: SP Lake and Osprey Pointe: In the selection process, Florida Housing erroneously determined that SP Lake was eligible to meet the funding goal for the “Family” demographic for the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. (SP Lake specifically applied for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Consequently, Florida Housing should have selected Osprey Pointe to meet the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. Osprey Pointe proposed to construct affordable housing in Pasco County, Florida. Florida Housing represents that Osprey Pointe is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (While Osprey Pointe replaces SP Lake in the funding selection for the “Family” demographic, SP Lake remains eligible for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Sierra Bay and Northside II: In the scoring process, Florida Housing erroneously awarded Sierra Bay proximity points for Transit Services. Upon further review, Sierra Bay should have received zero proximity points. Consequently, Sierra Bay’s application is ineligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. By operation of the provisions of RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing should have selected Northside II (the next highest ranked, eligible applicant) for funding to meet the Elderly, Large County, New Construction Goal. Florida Housing represents that Northside II is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. Harbour Springs: Florida Housing initially deemed Harbour Springs eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108 and selected it to meet the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal. However, because Harbour Springs and Woodland Grove are owned by the same entity and applied using the same development site, under rule 67-48.004(1), Harbour Springs is ineligible for funding. (Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove for funding for the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal, is not affected by this determination.) The sole disputed issue of material fact concerns Liberty Square’s challenge to Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Liberty Square and Woodland Grove applied to serve the same demographic population under RFA 2017-108. If Liberty Square successfully challenges Woodland Grove’s application, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, will be selected for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal instead of Woodland Grove. (At the hearing on December 8, 2017, Florida Housing’s Board of Directors awarded Woodland Grove $7,600,000 in funding.) The focus of Liberty Square’s challenge is the information Woodland Grove provided in response to RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d., entitled “Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.” Liberty Square argues that Woodland Grove’s application is ineligible because its Development Location Point, as well as the locations of its Community Services and Transit Services, are inaccurate. Therefore, Woodland Grove should have received zero “Proximity” points which would have disqualified its application for funding. RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d(1), states, in pertinent part: All Applicants must provide a Development Location Point stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. RFA 2017-108 set forth scoring considerations based on latitude/longitude coordinates in Section Four, A.5.e, entitled “Proximity.” Section Four, A.5.e, states, in pertinent part: The Application may earn proximity points based on the distance between the Development Location Point and the Bus or Rail Transit Service . . . and the Community Services stated in Exhibit A. Proximity points will not be applied to the total score. Proximity points will only be used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference ” In other words, the Development Location Point identified the specific location of an applicant’s proposed housing site.7/ Applicants earned “proximity points” based on the distance between its Development Location Point and selected Transit and Community Services. Florida Housing also used the Development Location Point to determine whether an application satisfied the Mandatory Distance Requirement under RFA 2017-108, Section Four A.5.f. To be eligible for funding, all applications had to qualify for the Mandatory Distance Requirement. The response section to Section Four, A.5.d., is found in Exhibit A, section 5, which required each applicant to submit information regarding the “Location of proposed Development.” Section 5 specifically requested: County; Address of Development Site; Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites?; Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Proximity; Mandatory Distance Requirement; and Limited Development Area. Section 5.d. (Latitude and Longitude Coordinates) was subdivided into: (1) Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place In its application, Woodland Grove responded in section 5.a-d as follows: County: Miami-Dade Address of Development Site: NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032. Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites? No. Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 25.518647 Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 80.418583 In plotting geographic coordinates, a “-” (negative) sign in front of the longitude indicates a location in the western hemisphere (i.e., west of the Prime Meridian, which is aligned with the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England). A longitude without a “-” sign places the coordinate in the eastern hemisphere. (Similarly, a latitude with a negative value is south of the equator. A latitude without a “-” sign refers to a coordinate in the northern hemisphere.) As shown above, the longitude coordinate Woodland Grove listed in section 5.d(1) did not include a “-” sign. Consequently, instead of providing a coordinate for a site in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Woodland Grove entered a Development Location Point located on the direct opposite side of the planet (apparently, in India). At the final hearing, Florida Housing (and Woodland Grove) explained that, except for the lack of the “-” sign, the longitude Woodland Grove recorded would have fallen directly on the address it listed as its development site in section 5.b., i.e., the “NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032.” In addition to the longitude in section 5.d., Woodland Grove did not include a “-” sign before the longitude coordinates for its Transit Services in section 5.e(2)(b) or for any of the three Community Services provided in section 5.e(3). Again, without a “-” sign, the longitude for each of these services placed them in the eastern hemisphere (India) instead of the western hemisphere (Miami-Dade County). In its protest, Liberty Square contends that, because Woodland Grove’s application listed a Development Location Point in India, Florida Housing should have awarded Woodland Grove zero proximity points under Section Four, A.5.e. Consequently, Woodland Grove’s application failed to meet minimum proximity eligibility requirements and is ineligible for funding. Therefore, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, should be awarded funding for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108.8/ Liberty Square asserts that a correct Development Location Point is critical because it serves as the beginning point for assigning proximity scores. Waiving an errant Development Location Point makes the proximity scoring meaningless. Consequently, any such waiver by Florida Housing is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to competition. At the final hearing, Woodland Grove claimed that it inadvertently failed to include the “-” sign before the longitude points. To support its position, Woodland Grove expressed that, on the face of its application, it was obviously applying for funding for a project located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, not India. In at least five places in its application, Woodland Grove specified that its proposed development would be located in Miami-Dade County. Moreover, several attachments to Woodland Grove’s application specifically reference a development site in Florida. Woodland Grove attached a purchase agreement for property located in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 8). To satisfy the Ability to Proceed requirements in RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove included several attachments which all list a Miami-Dade address (Attachments 9-14). Further, Woodland Grove submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form executed on behalf of the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which committed Miami-Dade County to contribute $1,000,000.00 to Woodland Grove’s proposed Development (Attachment 15). Finally, to qualify for a basis boost under RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove presented a letter from Miami-Dade County’s Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, which also referenced the address of the proposed development in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 16). In light of this information, Woodland Grove argues that its application, taken as a whole, clearly communicated that Woodland Grove intended to build affordable housing in Miami-Dade County. Nowhere in its application, did Woodland Grove reference a project in India other than the longitude coordinates which failed to include “-” signs. Accordingly, Florida Housing was legally authorized to waive Woodland Grove’s mistake as a “harmless error.” Thus, Florida Housing properly selected the Woodland Grove’s development for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Florida Housing advocates for Woodland Grove’s selection to meet the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017- 108. Florida Housing considers the omission of the “-” signs before the longitude coordinates a “Minor Irregularity” under rule 67-60.002(6). Therefore, Florida Housing properly acted within its legal authority to waive, and then correct, Woodland Grove’s faulty longitude coordinates when scoring its application. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s current Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees the Request for Applications process; although, she did not personally participate in the review, scoring, or selection decisions for RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button initially explained the process by which Florida Housing selected the 16 developments for funding under RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee participants based on the staff member’s experience, preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a backup reviewer to separately score each application. The Review Committee members independently evaluated and scored their assigned portions of the applications based on various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns or questions arose regarding an applicant’s responses, the scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing’s supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final determination as to each application. Ms. Button further explained that applicants occasionally make errors in their applications. However, not all errors render an application ineligible. Florida Housing is authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities.” As delineated in RFA 2017-108, Section Three, A.2.C., Florida Housing may waive “Minor Irregularities” when the errors do not provide a competitive advantage or adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 60.002(6) and 67-60.008. Such was the case regarding Woodland Grove’s application. Heather Green, the Florida Housing staff member who scored the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, waived the inaccurate longitude coordinates as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green then reviewed Woodland Grove’s application as if the proposed development was located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Florida Housing assigned Ms. Green, a Multifamily Loans Manager, as the lead scorer for the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, which included the Development Location Point listed in Exhibit A, section 5.d. Ms. Green has worked for Florida Housing since 2003 and has scored proximity points for Request for Applications for over ten years. At the final hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of Ms. Green. In her deposition, Ms. Green testified that she is fully aware that, to be located in the western hemisphere (i.e., Miami-Dade County), a longitude coordinate should be marked with a negative sign or a “W.” Despite this, Ms. Green felt that the longitude coordinates Woodland Grove used without negative signs, particularly its Development Location Point, were clearly typos or unintentional mistakes. Therefore, Ms. Green waived the lack of a negative sign in front of the longitude coordinates in section 5.d. and section 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green understood that she was authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities” by rule under the Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green felt comfortable waiving the inaccurate longitude coordinates because everywhere else in Woodland Grove’s application specifically showed that its proposed housing development was located in Miami-Dade County, not India. Accordingly, when scoring Woodland Grove’s application, Ms. Green corrected the longitude entries by including a negative sign when she plotted the coordinates with her mapping software. Ms. Green then determined that, when a “-” was inserted before the longitude, the coordinate lined up with the address Woodland Grove listed for the Development Location Point. Therefore, Woodland Grove received proximity points and was eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (See RFA 2017-108, Section Five.A.1.) However, Ms. Green acknowledged that if she had scored the application just as it was presented, Woodland Grove would not have met the required qualifications for eligibility. Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing fully accepted Ms. Green’s decision to waive the missing negative signs in Woodland Grove’s response to section 5.d. and 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Button opined that Woodland Grove’s failure to place a “-” mark before the longitude was clearly an unintentional mistake. Ms. Button further commented that Florida Housing did not believe that scoring Woodland Grove’s development as if located in the western hemisphere (instead of India), provided Woodland Grove a competitive advantage. Because it was evident on the face of the application that Woodland Grove desired to develop a housing site in Miami-Dade County, Ms. Green’s decision to overlook the missing “-” sign did not award Woodland Grove additional points or grant Woodland Grove an advantage over other applicants. Neither did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. However, Ms. Button also conceded that if Ms. Green had scored the application without adding the “-” sign, Woodland Grove would have received zero proximity points. This result would have rendered Woodland Grove’s application ineligible for funding. Ms. Button also pointed out that Ms. Green waived the omission of “-” signs in two other applications as “Minor Irregularities.” Both Springhill Apartments, LLC, and Harbour Springs failed to include negative signs in front of their longitude coordinates. As with Woodland Grove, Ms. Green considered the development sites in those applications as if they were located in Miami-Dade County (i.e., in the western hemisphere). Ms. Green also waived a mistake in the Avery Commons application as a “Minor Irregularity.” The longitude coordinate for the Avery Commons Development Location Point (section 5.d(1)) was blank. However, Ms. Green determined that Avery Commons had placed the longitude in the blank reserved for Scattered Sites coordinates (section 5.d(2)). When scoring Avery Commons’ application, Ms. Green considered the coordinate in the appropriate section. According to Ms. Button, Florida Housing felt that this variation did not provide Avery Commons a competitive advantage. Nor did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Finally, Ms. Button explained that the application Florida Housing used for RFA 2017-108 was a relatively new format. In previous Request For Applications, Florida Housing required applicants to submit a Surveyor Certification Form. On the (now obsolete) Surveyor Certification Form, Florida Housing prefilled in an “N” in front of all the latitude coordinates and a “W” in front of all the longitude coordinates. However, the application used in RFA 2017-108 did not place an “N” or “W” before the Development Location Point coordinates. Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, Liberty Square did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision to award funding to Woodland Grove for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Florida Housing was within its legal authority to waive, then correct, the missing “-” sign in Woodland Grove’s application as “Minor Irregularity.” Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to select Woodland Grove for funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017-108.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protest by Liberty Square. It is further recommended that Florida Housing Finance Corporation rescind the intended awards to Sierra Bay, SP Lake, and Harbour Springs, and instead designate Northside II, Osprey Pointe, and Pembroke Tower Apartments as the recipients of funding under RFA 2017-108.10/ DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2018.
Conclusions Having considered the entire record in this cause, it is concluded that petitioner has satisfied all requirements in Subsection 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989). More specifically, it is concluded that all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct, the creation of a district is consistent with applicable elements or portions of the state comprehensive plan and the Lee County comprehensive plan currently in force, 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, 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 be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities, and the land that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special- district government. Respectively submitted this 7th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of May, 1991. Appendix A (Names and Address of Witnesses) Bryon R. Koste, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 500, Naples, Florida 33963 Thomas R. Peek, 3200 Bailey Lane at Airport Road North, Naples, Florida 33942 Gary L. Moyer, 10300 N.W. 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida Atlantic University, 220 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Samuel R. Crouch, 9200 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 David E. Crawford, 9200 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Dr. James E. Pitts, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306 William Spikowski, Lee County Community Development Department, 1831 Hendry Street, Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Gary L. Beardsley, 2396 13th Street North, Naples, Florida Richard Huxtable, 4741 Spring Creek Road, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Larry Sullivan, 4778 Tahiti Village, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Lee Menzies, Business Development Corporation of Southwest Florida, corner of Summerlin and College Parkway, Fort Myers, Florida Donna Buhl, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Box 91, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Ruth Norman, 24578 Redfish Street, S.W., Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 James Pepper, P. O. Box 1260, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 (Names and addresses of persons filing written statements) Eugene S. Boyd, 5225 Serenity Cove, Bokeelia, Florida 33922 Edward S. Zajchowski, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Box 178, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Winifred M. Wheeler, 24593 Dolphin Street, S.W., Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 James W. Campbell, 4501 Spring Creek Road, Box 131, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923 Dorothy Jean Kendrick, 300 Haral Street, Sturgis, Michigan 49091 Exhibit A Appendix B (List of Documentary Evidence) Location map Local boundary map outlining district Map of district and surrounding areas Collier County Comprehensive Future Land Use Map Exhibit B Pelican's Nest PUD 1b Ridgewood RPD 1c Palmetto Bay RPD 1d Pelican's Nest RPD 1e Summary of status of permits Proposed development agreement Statement by Crawford concerning DRI Exhibit C Petition filed by Westinghouse Bayside Communities, Inc. Location map Metes and bounds legal description of district Consent to establishment of district Map of existing major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors or outfalls Proposed time tables and cost estimates Future land use portion of Lee County Comprehensive plan Economic impact statement Exhibit D Supplement to metes and bounds description in petition Specific description of all real property within district Exhibit E Photocopy of $15,000 processing check sent to County Letter transmitting petition to Commission Secretary Exhibit F Letter transmitting petition to Division of Administrative Hearings Exhibit G Notice of Publication in Florida Administrative Weekly on March 8, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, March 11, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, March 18, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, March 25, 1991 Affidavit for Fort Myers News-Press publication, April 1, 1991 Exhibit H Lee County Comprehensive Plan Documentation of plan status Exhibit I Chapter 187, Florida Statutes Exhibit J Letter of March 14, 1991 from Secretary of Department Community Affairs to Commission Secretary Exhibit K White Paper by Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith Supplemental Exhibits Prefiled testimony of Bryon G. Koste Prefiled testimony of Samuel R. Crouch 3A Letter from Samuel R. Crouch to Jim Pepper 3B Letter from Samuel R. Crouch to Lloyd Read Prefiled testimony of Gary L. Moyer Prefiled testimony of David E. Crawford Prefiled testimony of Thomas R. Peek Prefiled testimony of Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith Intevenors Exhibit 1 - Letter of Edward S. Zajchowski COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Kenza Van Assenderp, Esquire P. O. Box 1833 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1833 Judith A. Workman, Esquire 408 Old Trail Road Sanibel, FL 33957 Marianne Kantor, Esquire Asst. County Attorney Lee County Courthouse 1700 Monroe Street Fort Myers, FL 33901 David M. Maloney, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 309 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
The Issue Whether an amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Roger Thornberry, Georgette Lundquist, Steven Brodkin, Ruby Daniels, Rosalie Prestarri, and James Giedman, reside in and own property within Lee County. Petitioners submitted oral and written comments to Lee County concerning the challenged Plan Amendment during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment. Respondent, Lee County (the County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and maintain a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes (2015). Intervenors, RH Venture II, LLC; RH Venture III, LLC; and Greenpointe Communities, LLC (Greenpointe), are the owners and developers of the property which is subject to the Plan Amendment. Intervenors are the applicants for the Plan Amendment. The Lee County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) allocates future land uses based on community plans for 22 distinct communities within the County. The Fort Myers Shores planning community is located in eastern Lee County. Within Fort Myers Shores is a sub-community planning area known as Caloosahatchee Shores, which is located south of the Caloosahatchee River, east of Interstate 75 (I-75), and west of Hickey’s Creek. The southern boundary of Caloosahatchee Shores is the Orange River and State Road 82. Caloosahatchee Shores contains a mixture of future land use designations. The majority of the land is designated Suburban, Sub-Outlying Suburban, Rural, or Urban Community. The subject property is located in Caloosahatchee Shores within an existing 1,978-acre mixed-use golf community known as River Hall. Most of the existing development in River Hall was completed between 2004 and 2009 by the original developer, Landmar Group, which was then owned by Crescent Resources. Crescent Resources declared bankruptcy in 2009. Those portions of River Hall subject to the Plan Amendment were acquired by Greenpointe in 2010. The property subject to the Plan Amendment is approximately 585 acres of non-contiguous land within the existing mixed-use development. All of the property subject to the Plan Amendment is located within the Rural future land use category. The Plan Amendment changes the future land use category of the subject property from Rural to Sub-Outlying Suburban.2/ The density of development allowed in Rural is one dwelling unit per acre and the density of development allowed in Sub-Outlying Suburban is two units per acre. In 2001, the Lee County Board of County Commissioners (Lee County Commission) adopted procedures to encourage community planning aimed at specific neighborhood interests within the County. A coalition of property owners in Caloosahatchee Shores developed the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan (Community Plan) between 2001 and 2003. The Community Plan was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in 2003 and is codified as Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Goal 21 and its implementing objectives and policies. FLUE Goal 21 reads as follows: GOAL 21: CALOOSAHATCHEE SHORES: To protect the existing character, natural resources and quality of life in Caloosahatchee Shores, while promoting new development, redevelopment and maintaining a more rural identity for the neighborhoods east of I-75 by establishing minimum aesthetic requirements, planning the location and intensity of future commercial and residential uses, and providing incentives for redevelopment, mixed use development and pedestrian safe environments. This Goal and subsequent objectives and policies apply to the Caloosahatchee Shores boundaries as depicted on Map 1, page 2 of 8 in the Appendix. The Community Plan was amended in 2007 and again in 2009. Policy 21.1.5 was added to the Community Plan in 2009, and reads as follows: POLICY 21.1.5: One important aspect of the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Plan goal is to retain its’ [sic] rural character and rural land use where it currently exists. Therefore no land use map amendments to the remaining rural lands category will be permitted after May 15, 2009, unless a finding of overriding public necessity is made by three members of the Board of County Commissioners. It is undisputed that the Plan Amendment removes land from the Rural land use category. It is undisputed that the Lee County Commission did not make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” when it adopted the Plan Amendment. Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 21.1.5 because the Lee County Commission did not make the requisite finding of an “overriding public necessity” to remove property from the Rural land use category.3/ Respondent and Intervenors argue that Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because the existing development on the property subject to the Plan Amendment is not rural in either character or land use. Respondent and Intervenors introduced abundant evidence to establish that the property subject to the Plan Amendment is suburban development served by the full spectrum of urban services and devoid of any of the trappings of rural development, such as large-lot residential and agricultural uses. Respondent and Intervenors advocate an interpretation of Policy 21.1.5 which requires a finding of “overriding public necessity” only if a plan amendment removes property that exhibits rural character or rural land use from the Rural land use category. The County offered the testimony of Brandon Dunn, one of its principal planners. Mr. Dunn characterized the Policy as an “if/then statement”: if property in the Rural land use category (subject to a plan amendment) exhibits rural character and rural land use, then a finding of “overriding public necessity” is required. Under Mr. Dunn’s analysis, Policy 21.1.5 does not apply to the Plan Amendment because River Hall is a suburban community. Intervenors’ planning expert, Dr. David Depew, testified that the first sentence narrows the application of the second. Dr. Depew testified that the first sentence indicates “we aren’t talking about the category per se.”4/ Under Dr. Depew’s reading, the second sentence only applies to plan amendments which exhibit rural character or rural land use, rather than all plan amendments removing property from the Rural land use category. Neither Mr. Dunn’s nor Dr. Depew’s opinion is persuasive.5/ The interpretation advanced by both Respondent and Intervenors adds language to the second sentence of Policy 21.1.5 limiting its application to only those plan amendments which exhibit rural character and rural land use. The plain language of Policy 21.1.5 contains no such limitation. The policy directs the County to make a finding of an “overriding public necessity” as a prerequisite to removing land from the Rural land use category in Caloosahatchee Shores. The first sentence of Policy 21.1.5 does not constitute a limitation on the directive for a finding of an “overriding public necessity.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Lee County Plan Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 15-10 on June 3, 2015, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2015.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition for Establishment of the Tolomato Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. The area encompassed by the proposed District is 30,637+- acres located within unincorporated areas of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida (Exhibit 7). The external boundaries of the District are coterminous with the external boundaries of General Development Corporation's Port LaBelle development. Within these boundaries but excluded from the District are several out parcels that were never part of the original Villages of Port LaBelle development, as well as four Port LaBelle plat units where there are currently numerous property owners. The property within the District to be excluded from the community development district is described in Exhibit 10. General Development Corporation, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, is the major landowner within the proposed District (Exhibits 8 and 9A). Four other property owners owning seven parcels within the proposed District have joined in the Petition (Exhibit 9B). Installment lot contract purchasers within the areas to be included within the District who had not received a Property Offering Statement from GDC indicating the possibility of the formation of a special taxing district were separately notified by mail of the time and place of hearing and provided with information on the functions of the proposed District. Out of a total of 10,270 letters sent, only six lot purchasers made further inquiries, and those inquiries were not related to the formation of the District, but were related to property values. (Testimony of Lawrence W. Mobley. Affidavit of Mark Billson, Exhibits 19A and B.) The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functionally interrelated community. This finding is based in part on the fact that the area to be included within the proposed District contains approximately 30,637+- acres. Property within the proposed District includes "vested" areas and areas which have been and continue to be subject to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, review and is planned to be developed as a functional, interrelated community with a variety of land uses, including commercial, institutional, residential, and recreational. The District is ultimately projected to include 49,646 dwelling units. The area encompassed by the proposed District was subject to a Master Application for Development Approval. The Master Land Use Plan depicting uses is shown in Exhibit 13A. Master Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties in 1974, subject to further incremental review as detailed technical data became available (Exhibits 13A, B, C and D). In 1980, Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties for Increment II (Exhibits 14A and B). Portions of the remaining property will be subject to further incremental review (Exhibit 15A). The area subject to further review contains approximately 13,690+- acres and includes residential villages and a town center as well as a variety of other land uses. The projected population for this area is 48,700 (Exhibit 15B). The proposed designation of the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses within the District is shown in Exhibit 15A. All mandatory elements of the local government comprehensive plans for both Glades and Hendry Counties have been adopted in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Exhibits 17A, 17A1, 17B and 17B1) The proposed creation of the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan. The proposed District is not inconsistent with the applicable elements of the Glades and Hendry Counties Comprehensive Plans, as evidenced by the fact that the Planning Director for each county has indicated that the establishment of the District is not incompatible with applicable elements of the local government comprehensive plans (Petitioner's Exhibits 18A and 18B). The five persons proposed to be the initial members of the board of supervisors who shall serve in that office until replaced by elected members as provided by Section 190.006, Florida Statutes, are: C. C. Crump Senior Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, --Florida -33131 (305) 350-1525 Arthur L. Harper, Jr. Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1533 James E. Clark Assistant Vice President 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1531 Wayne L. Allen Vice President and General Counsel General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1261 Lawrence W. Mobley Assistant Vice President General Development Corporation Highway 80 East Birchwood Boulevard LaBelle, Florida 33595 (813) 675-1712 The proposed name of the District is the Port LaBelle Community Development District. A map of the proposed District showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls have been provided in Exhibits 11A and B. No water distribution and collection systems are proposed to be constructed, operated or maintained by the District. Facilities are to be constructed by the District over a period of 40 years. The timetable for construction indicates that all facilities should be completed by the year 2020 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). The total costs associated with the capital facilities to be constructed are estimated in good faith to be $5,433,000.00 (Exhibit 22). Glades County Resolution 80-9 (Exhibit 14A) and Hendry County Resolution 80-37 (Exhibit 14B) requested that the applicant, GDC, work together with each county to investigate the feasibility of establishing certain special taxing districts. As a result of these conditions, GDC filed a petition for establishing a community development district. The applicable local governments, the Board of County Commissioners of Glades and Hendry Counties have evidenced their support of Petitioner's request to have a District established by rule by passing Resolution 81-62, dated September 8, 1981, by Hendry County, and Resolution 81-17, dated September 14, 1981, by Glades County (Exhibits 20A and B, respectively). The District is the best available alternative for providing and delivering community services and facilities to the area to be serviced by the District. This finding is supported by the Resolutions of the Board of County Commissioners of Glades County and Hendry County acknowledging that neither county is presently in a position to provide any of the essential services required by a community of this size. The Community Development District will be able to provide reliable long-term maintenance of the services and facilities not otherwise provided by the counties or other appropriate units of local government (Exhibits 20A and B). The Barron Water Control District, a district established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, within the area of the proposed District, has also evidenced its support of Petitioner's request to establish a Community Development District by rule (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). The Community Development District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature, location, and size of the proposed Port LaBelle Community Development District would make it amenable to separate district government. Members of the public testifying at hearing had no complaints that related to the specifics of the petition filed in this cause. Instead, their concerns related to the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, in the first instance, and the witnesses' desires that the Act be repealed as soon as possible. These concerns are, of course, outside the scope of issues properly involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereby submitted, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of General Development Corporation, and adopt a rule which will establish the Port LaBelle Community Development District. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy H. Roen, Esquire General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Ms. Miriam Schreiner Post Office Box 1288 LaBelle, Florida Mayor Joan Jefferson City of Stuart Stuart, Florida 33495 Robert Miller, Chairman Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2395 Stuart, Florida 33495 Honorable Bob Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John T. Herndon Director of the Office of Planning and Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
