Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an existing special tax district, created on August 18, 1975, by Broward County Ordinance 75-22. (See Exhibit "A"). A legal description of the property which comprises the ITSMTD, and which would comprise the community development district, is contained within Section 1(a) of Ordinance 75-22 (Exhibit "A"). On December 22, 1980, the Board of Supervisors of the ITSMTD adopted a resolution (Exhibit "B") authorizing and directing the proper district officials to file a Petition with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to reestablish the district as a community development district pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. The ITSMTD filed its Petition to reestablish the district as a community development district on January 22, 1981. The Petition named five (5) persons to serve as initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed new district. These persons, who presently constitute the Board of Supervisors of the existing district, are Norman A. Cortese, Ellen Mills Gibbs, F. A. Mapleton, Robert E. Huebner and Edward F. Kosnick. The Petition recites that the proposed name of the new district will be the Indian Trace Community Development District, and that the District boundaries will remain the same as the existing special tax district. By letter dated January 29, 1981, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission requested the assignment of a Hearing Officer form the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the necessary public hearing. The ITSMTD has jurisdiction over approximately 13,000 contiguous acres which lie within the unincorporated area of Broward County, Florida. A map showing the particular location of the property within the jurisdiction of the ITSMTD was presented and received into evidence. (Exhibit "C"). Petitioner presented the following additional Exhibits which were received into evidence: Development orders adopted June 27, 1978 and August 17, 1979 by the Broward County Commission. (Exhibit "D"). The development orders were adopted by the Broward County Commission pursuant to the development of regional impact permitting processes established by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. These development orders govern or affect development of all land within the ITSMTD. A map which designates the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land proposed for the area within the district by the Future Land Use Element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. (Exhibit "E"). A proposed timetable for constructing district services and the estimated cost of constructing those services. (Exhibit "F"). An economic impact statement which, based upon available data, estimates the economic impact on all persons directly affected by the proposed action and which sets forth in detail the data and method used in making the estimate. (Exhibit "G"). Proof of publication that public notice of the hearing conducted on March 25, 1981 was published once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing in the Fort Lauderdale News. (Exhibit "H"). The Future Land Use Plan Element of the Broward County comprehensive Plan which has been adopted by Broward County in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. (Exhibit "I"). An agreement between ITSMTD, Arvida Corporation, and the City of Sunrise providing for the purchase of both water and sewer services by the ITSMTD from the City of Sunrise and committing the ITSMTD to make use of a Regional 201 Sewer Plan, when such plan is operational and capable of serving the district. ("Exhibit 'J'"). The ITSMTD was created by Broward County to provide certain services such as water, water management and control, sewers, and roads for an area of land consisting of approximately 13,000 acres. Included within this area of land is the 10,000 acre new community to be developed by Arvida Corporation known as Weston. The new community is a development of regional impact and is subject to two development orders adopted by Broward County (Exhibit "D"). The Weston development is a low density, residential new community which also includes industrial and commercial uses. It is presently planned to be developed over a 25-30 year period of time and will eventually contain 20,500 dwelling units and will have a population of 40,000. The two development orders grant master development approval to the Weston community and grant incremental development approval to the first two increments (approximately 7,000 acres). the third increment is designated for future incremental approval (approximately 3,000 acres presently planned for industrial, commercial, and airport uses). The 7,000 acres of land within Weston which comprise increments 1 and 2 pursuant to the aforementioned development orders have been zoned as a planned unit development. The zoning classification allows the construction of 18,000 dwelling units and the development of 500 acres of business-commercial land. To date, three (3) plats have been approved by Broward County within the Weston community. The Weston development and all proposed uses within the ITSMTD are consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated areas of Broward County, Florida, including policies and requirements relating to trafficways, open space and parks, and provision for housing (Exhibits "E" and "I"). The area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional, interrelated community for the following reasons: The area of land within the ITSMTD is composed of approximately 13,000 acres. 10,000 of the 13,000 acres constitute a development of regional impact, the develop- ment which is subject to two development orders (Exhibit "D"). 7,000 acres of the development of regional impact have been zoned by Broward County as a Planned Unit Development. (Exhibit "D"). These land control devices plan and provide for the development of this area in great detail. The development orders require phasing of the development and provide for the provision of parks, civic sites, schools, roads, and major land uses within the area. (See specifically Article II, A, D, and E of 1978 development order and Sections 1 and 2 of the 1979 development order.) The area of land within the proposed district is subject to and within the jurisdiction of the ITSMTD. The ITSMTD presently has the responsibility for providing water management, water and sewer services, and the construction of trafficways and certain other improvements. the ITSMTD was created for the specific purpose of aiding in the development of the area of land within the proposed district. In adopting Ordinance 75-22, the Broward County Commission observed: "WHEREAS, it is found by the County Commission that to promote the economic, orderly, and planned development of certain land and to best serve the welfare and convenience of the public, a Special Municipal Tax District of Broward County, Florida, should be established pursuant to the Charter of Broward County, Florida." The very location of the area of land within the proposed district and the major boundaries of that area dictate that the area be developed as a self-contained, functional interrelated community. (See Exhibits "C" and "D"). The area within the proposed district is compact and sufficiently contiguous to be developable as an interrelated community, as evidenced by the existence of the ITSMTD, the development orders, and the planned unit development zoning classification. A community development district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area of land that will be served by the district for the following reasons: The finding supporting creation of the ITSMTD by the Broward County Commission in 1975 that a tax district is necessary for the area to be developed in an economic, orderly, and planned way remains true today. A community development district functioning pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, would have the following advantages over the ITSMTD: Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, provides a clear and comprehensive charter for operating the district. The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a community development district will conform the district to uniform state policy regarding the formation and operation of independent develop- ment districts, and will promote a strengthened state new community policy. A community development district has broad, comprehensive, and flexible powers which will better serve the area of land within the proposed district during the period of its development. The area of land to be served by the district will develop over a 20 to 30 year period of time and the broad flexible powers contained within Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, will give the community development district the ability to meet the changing needs and desires of the new community. The special powers contained within Section 190.012, Florida Statutes, will enable the district to provide a broader range of services to meet the needs of the developing community. Specifically, the Indian Trace Community Development District will be authorized to provide parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor recreational, cultural, and educational uses; fire protection and control services, including fire stations, water mains, fire trucks, and other vehicles and equipment; and to construct security and school buildings and related structures for use in the security and educational system, when authorized by proper governmental authority. The economic impact statement (Exhibit "G") points out several reasons why a community development district would be the best alternative to deliver community development services. Among the important points contained within the economic impact statement are the following: The Environmental Land Management Study Committee recommended implementation of a new communities policy in order to encourage well planned quality developments. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, has implemented the recommendations of the Committee and has established that new community policy. The State of Florida has determined that Community Development Districts are a better alternative to provide infrastructure improvements than are "paper cities" The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a Community Development District would avoid municipal formation as a means of infrastructure development. The reestablishment of the ITSMTD as a Community Development District will serve to implement the goals of the Broward County Land Use Plan. The Broward County Land Use Plan contains the following goals: It encourages planned communities with mixed uses, both residential and nonresidential; It determines that growth should be phased with the provision of community services and finds that urban growth should not be permitted in areas where the basic minimum required community services and facilities have not been provided or scheduled for capital improvement either by public or private means; It establishes that the capital costs for the provision and extension of major services, facilities, and transportation networks to benefit new residential or commercial developments should be imposed primarily on those who benefit and not on the existing resident population. The community development services which would be provided to the area of land within the proposed district would not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional development services and facilities for the following reasons: There are no existing regional services of facilities for the area of Broward County within the proposed district. Further, Broward County has neither the plans, nor the capability to provide services and facilities to the area. There are no major trunk water mains or sewer interceptors or outfalls in existence in the area of land within the proposed district. The ITSMTD was created by Broward county to provide services and facilities to service the area of land within the proposed district. In addition, the application for development orders are based, recognized that the ITSMTD would be used to provide infrastructure improvements within the area. The trafficways which have been designed to serve the area within the proposed district and which are required to be built in accordance with the development orders are in accordance with the Broward County Trafficways Plan, which is incorporated by reference in the county future land use element. The ITSMTD is making use of existing local water and sewer facilities. It has entered into a contract with the City of Sunrise to purchase both water and sewer services from the City of Sunrise. (Exhibit "J"). In addition, that agreement commits the ITSMTD to make use of a regional 201 sewer facility when such facility is operational and capable of serving the district. The testimony and documentary evidence establish the following: All statements contained in the Petition are true and correct. The creation of the district would not be inconsistent with any applicable element of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The area of land that will be served by the district is amenable to separate district government. On March 24, 1981, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners voted to support ITSMTD's petition to reestablish the district as a community development district.
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 the ITSMTD and adopt a rule which will reestablish the ITSMTD as the Indian Trace Community Development District. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 10th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Rhodes, Esquire Messer, Rhodes, Vickers & Hart Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David W. Wilcox, Esquire Office of the Governor Room 209, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip Shailer, Esquire 540 N. W. Fourth Street Suite B Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Donald R. Hall, Esquire 540 N.W. Fourth Street Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether two community development district petitions should be granted: the first, a Petition to Contract Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2; and the second, a Petition to Establish Rule [sic] for Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 5.
Conclusions Under Section 190.003(6), Florida Statutes (2000), a "community development district" (CDD) is "a local unit of special-purpose government which is created pursuant to this act and limited to the performance of those specialized functions authorized by this act; the boundaries of which are contained wholly within a single county; the governing head of which is a body created, organized, and constituted and authorized to function specifically as prescribed in this act for the delivery of urban community development services; and the formation, powers, governing body, operation, duration, accountability, requirements for disclosure, and termination of which are as required by general law." (All of the following statutory citations are to the year 2000 codification of the Florida Statutes.) Sections 190.006 through 190.046 constitute the uniform general law charter of all CDDs, which can be amended only by the Florida Legislature. Section 190.011 enumerates the general powers of CDDs. These powers include the power of eminent domain inside the district and, with the approval of the governing body of the applicable county or municipality, outside the district for purposes related solely to water, sewer, district roads, and water management. Section 190.012 lists special powers of CDDs. Subject to the regulatory power of all applicable government agencies, CDDs may plan, finance, acquire, construct, enlarge, operate, and maintain systems, facilities, and basic infrastructures for: water management; water supply, sewer, and wastewater management; needed bridges and culverts; CDD roads meeting minimum county specifications, street lights, and certain mass transit facilities; investigation and remediation costs associated with cleanup of environmental contamination; conservation, mitigation, and wildlife habitat areas; and certain projects within or without the CDD pursuant to development orders from local governments. After obtaining the consent of the applicable local government, a CDD may have the same powers with respect to the following "additional" systems and facilities: parks and recreation; fire prevention; school buildings; security; mosquito control; and waste collection and disposal. Section 190.046(1) provides for the filing of a petition for contraction of a CDD. Under paragraphs (f) and (g) of Section 190.046(1), petitions to contract a CDD by more than 250 acres "shall be considered petitions to establish a new district and shall follow all of the procedures specified in s. 190.005." Section 190.005(1)(a) requires that the petition to establish a CDD be filed with FLAWAC and submitted to the County. The petition must describe by metes and bounds the proposed area to be serviced by the CDD with a specific description of real property to be excluded from the district. The petition must set forth that the petitioner has the written consent of the owners of all of the proposed real property in the CDD, or has control by "deed, trust agreement, contract or option" of all of the proposed real property. The petition must designate the five initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the CDD and the district’s name. The petition must contain a map showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if any. Both the petition to contract District 2 and the petition to establish District 5 meet those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires that the petition propose a timetable for construction and an estimate of construction costs. The petition must designate future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of land in the future land-use element of the appropriate local government. The petition must also contain a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Cost. Both the petition to contract District 2 and the petition to establish District 5 meet those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(a) also requires the petitioner to provide a copy of the local government’s growth management plan (the local government comprehensive plan). District 2 and SMR have done so. Section 190.005(1)(b) requires that the petitioner pay a filing fee of $15,000 to the county and to each municipality whose boundaries are within or contiguous to the CDD. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition on those local governments, as well. District 2 and SMR have met those requirements. Section 190.005(1)(c) permits the county and each municipality described in the preceding paragraph to conduct an optional public hearing on the petition. Such local governments may then present resolutions to FLAWAC as to the proposed property for the CDD. Manatee County has exercised this option and has adopted a resolution in support of the contraction of District 2 and establishment of District 5. Section 190.005(1)(d) requires a DOAH ALJ to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The hearing "shall include oral and written comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in paragraph (e)." Section 190.005(1)(d) specifies that the petitioner must publish notice of the local public hearing once a week for the four successive weeks immediately prior to the hearing. District 2 and SMR have met those requirements. Under Section 190.005(1)(e), FLAWAC must consider the following factors in determining whether to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a CDD: Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. Whether the establishment of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. Whether the community development services and facilities will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. Factor 1 Some statements in the original petition to contract District 2 were not true and correct and had to be revised. As revised, all statements in the petition were shown by the evidence to be true and correct. All statements in the petition to establish District 5 were shown by the evidence to be true and correct. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 2 In these cases, the evidence was that the proposed contraction of District 2 and establishment of District 5 are not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the local government comprehensive plan. There was no evidence to the contrary. (A different and more detailed review is required to determine that future development within the proposed CDDs will be consistent with all applicable laws and local ordinances and the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. Establishment of a CDD does not constitute and should not be construed as a development order or any other kind of approval of the development anticipated in the CDD. Such determinations are made in other proceedings.) Factor 3 In these cases, the evidence was that the areas of land within District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and within proposed District 5 are of sufficient size, are sufficiently compact, and are sufficiently contiguous for each proposed CDD to be developable as a functional, interrelated community. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 4 In these cases, the evidence was that District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and proposed District 5 are the best alternatives available for delivering community development services and facilities to the areas that will be served by those two proposed CDDs. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 5 In these cases, the evidence was that the proposed community development services and facilities will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. There was no evidence to the contrary. Factor 6 In these cases, the evidence was that the areas to be served by District 2, as proposed to be contracted, and proposed District 5 are amenable to separate special-district government. There was no evidence to the contrary. REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED this 22nd day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Erin McCormick Larrinaga, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601-1438 Jose Luis Rodriguez, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capital, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 2105 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
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 _- - .
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. The area encompassed by the proposed District is 30,637+- acres located within unincorporated areas of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida (Exhibit 7). The external boundaries of the District are coterminous with the external boundaries of General Development Corporation's Port LaBelle development. Within these boundaries but excluded from the District are several out parcels that were never part of the original Villages of Port LaBelle development, as well as four Port LaBelle plat units where there are currently numerous property owners. The property within the District to be excluded from the community development district is described in Exhibit 10. General Development Corporation, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, is the major landowner within the proposed District (Exhibits 8 and 9A). Four other property owners owning seven parcels within the proposed District have joined in the Petition (Exhibit 9B). Installment lot contract purchasers within the areas to be included within the District who had not received a Property Offering Statement from GDC indicating the possibility of the formation of a special taxing district were separately notified by mail of the time and place of hearing and provided with information on the functions of the proposed District. Out of a total of 10,270 letters sent, only six lot purchasers made further inquiries, and those inquiries were not related to the formation of the District, but were related to property values. (Testimony of Lawrence W. Mobley. Affidavit of Mark Billson, Exhibits 19A and B.) The area of land within the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functionally interrelated community. This finding is based in part on the fact that the area to be included within the proposed District contains approximately 30,637+- acres. Property within the proposed District includes "vested" areas and areas which have been and continue to be subject to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, review and is planned to be developed as a functional, interrelated community with a variety of land uses, including commercial, institutional, residential, and recreational. The District is ultimately projected to include 49,646 dwelling units. The area encompassed by the proposed District was subject to a Master Application for Development Approval. The Master Land Use Plan depicting uses is shown in Exhibit 13A. Master Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties in 1974, subject to further incremental review as detailed technical data became available (Exhibits 13A, B, C and D). In 1980, Development Orders were issued by Glades and Hendry Counties for Increment II (Exhibits 14A and B). Portions of the remaining property will be subject to further incremental review (Exhibit 15A). The area subject to further review contains approximately 13,690+- acres and includes residential villages and a town center as well as a variety of other land uses. The projected population for this area is 48,700 (Exhibit 15B). The proposed designation of the future general distribution, location and extent of public and private uses within the District is shown in Exhibit 15A. All mandatory elements of the local government comprehensive plans for both Glades and Hendry Counties have been adopted in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (Exhibits 17A, 17A1, 17B and 17B1) The proposed creation of the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements of the State Comprehensive Plan. The proposed District is not inconsistent with the applicable elements of the Glades and Hendry Counties Comprehensive Plans, as evidenced by the fact that the Planning Director for each county has indicated that the establishment of the District is not incompatible with applicable elements of the local government comprehensive plans (Petitioner's Exhibits 18A and 18B). The five persons proposed to be the initial members of the board of supervisors who shall serve in that office until replaced by elected members as provided by Section 190.006, Florida Statutes, are: C. C. Crump Senior Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, --Florida -33131 (305) 350-1525 Arthur L. Harper, Jr. Vice President General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1533 James E. Clark Assistant Vice President 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1531 Wayne L. Allen Vice President and General Counsel General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 350-1261 Lawrence W. Mobley Assistant Vice President General Development Corporation Highway 80 East Birchwood Boulevard LaBelle, Florida 33595 (813) 675-1712 The proposed name of the District is the Port LaBelle Community Development District. A map of the proposed District showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls have been provided in Exhibits 11A and B. No water distribution and collection systems are proposed to be constructed, operated or maintained by the District. Facilities are to be constructed by the District over a period of 40 years. The timetable for construction indicates that all facilities should be completed by the year 2020 (Petitioner's Exhibit 23). The total costs associated with the capital facilities to be constructed are estimated in good faith to be $5,433,000.00 (Exhibit 22). Glades County Resolution 80-9 (Exhibit 14A) and Hendry County Resolution 80-37 (Exhibit 14B) requested that the applicant, GDC, work together with each county to investigate the feasibility of establishing certain special taxing districts. As a result of these conditions, GDC filed a petition for establishing a community development district. The applicable local governments, the Board of County Commissioners of Glades and Hendry Counties have evidenced their support of Petitioner's request to have a District established by rule by passing Resolution 81-62, dated September 8, 1981, by Hendry County, and Resolution 81-17, dated September 14, 1981, by Glades County (Exhibits 20A and B, respectively). The District is the best available alternative for providing and delivering community services and facilities to the area to be serviced by the District. This finding is supported by the Resolutions of the Board of County Commissioners of Glades County and Hendry County acknowledging that neither county is presently in a position to provide any of the essential services required by a community of this size. The Community Development District will be able to provide reliable long-term maintenance of the services and facilities not otherwise provided by the counties or other appropriate units of local government (Exhibits 20A and B). The Barron Water Control District, a district established pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, within the area of the proposed District, has also evidenced its support of Petitioner's request to establish a Community Development District by rule (Petitioner's Exhibit 21). The Community Development District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area that will be served by the District is amenable to separate district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature, location, and size of the proposed Port LaBelle Community Development District would make it amenable to separate district government. Members of the public testifying at hearing had no complaints that related to the specifics of the petition filed in this cause. Instead, their concerns related to the wisdom of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, in the first instance, and the witnesses' desires that the Act be repealed as soon as possible. These concerns are, of course, outside the scope of issues properly involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereby submitted, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of General Development Corporation, and adopt a rule which will establish the Port LaBelle Community Development District. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy H. Roen, Esquire General Development Corporation 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Ms. Miriam Schreiner Post Office Box 1288 LaBelle, Florida Mayor Joan Jefferson City of Stuart Stuart, Florida 33495 Robert Miller, Chairman Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2395 Stuart, Florida 33495 Honorable Bob Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John T. Herndon Director of the Office of Planning and Budget Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.523(2)(c) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.*
Findings Of Fact The Parties 1. The District is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida (1949), and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E-7, Florida Administrative Code, asa multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. 2. KRVSA is a Florida corporation whose members are substantially affected by the rule in question. 3. Phillip B. Griner is an individual who holds a Special Use License to use the Lower Reedy Creek Management Area/Rough Island Management Unit Protected Zone. He has been a member of KVSA since its inception in 1998 and was serving on its board of directors at the time of the final hearing.
Conclusions Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Petition for Administrative Hearing is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Pan ate J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2003.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. 31
The Issue The issue on appeal is whether, pursuant to Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 4-505, to sustain or reverse, with or without conditions, the decision of the Community Development Board on June 20, 2003, denying Cepcot Corporation's application to build a convenience store with two islands for pumping gas.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner The Cepcot Corporation (Cepcot) owns real property located at 657 Court Street in the downtown zoning district of the City of Clearwater (Property). On December 17, 2002, Cepcot filed a Flexible Development Application for a comprehensive infill redevelopment project (Application) on the Property. At the time of the proposal, the Property, which comprises 0.95 acres, was developed with a restaurant in a building that was the former Clearwater train station, a thrift store, and a park. The Application proposes the demolition of these improvements and their replacement with a 3200 square-foot convenience store and two gas pump islands. The Property fronts Chestnut Street to the south, East Avenue to the east, and Court Street to the north. The surrounding area is developed with office uses to the west and south, a privately owned utility plant to the north, and warehouse uses to the east. Upon the completion of the Memorial Causeway bridge, which is presently under construction, traffic to the beach will use Court Street and traffic from the beach will use Chestnut Street. In response to questions and suggestions from Respondent's staff, Cepcot revised the proposed site plan several times. The Application is presently complete. Respondent's Planning Department prepared a Staff Report, which finds that the proposed project does not meet certain requirements and recommends denial of the Application on several grounds. On June 17, 2003, Respondent's Community Development Board (CDB) considered the Application. CDB denied the Application and issued a development order explaining the reasons for denial as follows: The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the downtown district. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to downtown redevelopment. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project per Section 2-803. The proposal is not in compliance with the other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria for Section 3-913. Most of the reasons cited for denial involve Respondent's Community Development Code (CDC), which is the land development regulations. The Property is in the Downtown District. CDC Section 2-901 states: "The intent and purpose of the Downtown District is to establish a mixed use downtown where citizens can work, live, and shop in a place which is the economic, governmental, entertainment and cultural focal point of a liveable city." CDC Section 2-902 sets forth the permitted uses within the Downtown District, and CDC Chart 2-100 lists permitted uses by zoning district. The proposed uses are not among the permitted uses for the Downtown District (or the Tourist District, to which portions of the record refer). CDC Section 2-903.C sets forth the following ten criteria to be applied in determining if the proposed use qualifies as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (CIRP) that may qualify an otherwise non-permitted use: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; The uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses; Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater; The development of the parcel proposed for development as an comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. CDC Section 3-913.A sets forth the General Applicability criteria. CDC Section 3-913.A.1 states: "The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located." CDC Section 3-913.A.5 states: The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development."
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 is whether the Petition to Establish the Southeastern Community Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2006),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
