The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a school psychologist. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a member of the Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) Bargaining Unit. At all times material to this case, Respondent was receiving benefits under a valid claim for Workers' Compensation benefits arising from an accident on January 7, 2000. In conjunction with investigations as to Respondent's eligibility for Workers' Compensation benefits, video surveillance of Respondent's activities was conducted on several occasions. At the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year, Dr. Laakso worked for Petitioner as a school psychologist in Area 3, and was assigned to Palm Beach Lakes High School, Forest Hill High School, and Conniston Middle School. His immediate supervisor was Mary Kate Boyle, the Area 3 Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Team Leader. On January 7, 2000, Dr. Laakso was working in his car while parked in the Palm Beach Lakes High School parking lot, and when exiting the car, hit his head on the door jamb causing a compression of his spine. He then received a second injury to his back while pulling psychological testing kits out of his car. Dr. Laakso submitted this injury to Petitioner as a workers' compensation injury, and it was covered as such. Christopher Brown, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon and one of Dr. Laakso's workers' compensation physicians, treated Dr. Laakso. On February 8, 2000, Dr. Brown placed Dr. Laakso on a "no-work" status. Dr. Laakso suffers from cervical spinal stenosis, which is a narrowing of the spinal canal. Because Dr. Laakso had underlying spinal stenosis secondary to arthritis, combined with disc herniations, his orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Brown, diagnosed Dr. Laakso's stenosis as severe. Also on February 8, 2000, Ms. Boyle held an investigative meeting with Respondent and his then-attorney, Stephen Fried, to discuss Respondent's continued absences since January 7, 2000 (the date of Respondent's workers' compensation injury) and his work status. In a letter to Dr. Laakso dated February 9, 2000, Ms. Boyle explained what her expectations were with regard to Respondent's absence and work status. On February 9, 2000, Dr. Laakso requested unpaid sick leave for January 11, 2000 to May 31, 2000, which the School Board granted. In March of 2000, Dr. Laakso was released back to light duty work, with restrictions. Some of the physical restrictions placed on Dr. Laakso's activities included no overhead use of the right upper extremity and no heavy use of the right upper extremity greater than 5 pounds. In addition, Dr. Laakso was told to be careful and to try not to hurt himself. Dr. Brown also imposed a 10 mile driving restriction on Dr. Laakso because Dr. Brown believed Dr. Laakso's spinal stenosis placed him at increased risk if he hit his head or was in a car accident. Dr. Laakso argued against the driving restriction because he was capable of driving and believed that the restriction would "mess things up" if he was unable to use his car. Dr. Laakso neither asked for the driving restriction nor represented that he needed the restriction.4 Dr. Laakso conveyed the driving restrictions to both Ms. Boyle and Linda Meyers in Risk Management. On March 21, 2000, Dr. Laakso was given a light duty placement in which he was assigned to Atlantic High School watching the school's security cameras. This assignment was for Dr. Laakso's regularly scheduled 7.5 hours a day, and was within the physical and driving restrictions imposed by Dr. Brown. While on light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, Dr. Laakso reported to Assistant Principal, Marshall Bellin. Dr. Laakso also submitted his time sheets to Mr. Bellin for Mr. Bellin's verification and signature. After Mr. Bellin signed the light duty time sheets, Dr. Laakso faxed them to Ms. Boyle for payroll purposes. Around this time period, in approximately April of 2000, the third party administrator, FARA, who handles the School Board's Workers' Compensation claims, hired private investigator Richard Mains to conduct surveillance of Dr. Laakso. Mains observed Dr. Laakso at various times from April 3, 2000 through October 2, 2000. Mains documented Respondent's driving to and from his Matlacha home and the activities in which he engaged while there. Mains did not know whether Dr. Laakso was taking pain or anti-inflammatory medication, or whether Dr. Laakso was under the influence of these types of medications at the times Mains observed him. On May 17, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another investigative meeting regarding Respondent's absences while on light duty. The minutes from that meeting indicate that Ms. Boyle expressed her concern to Dr. Laakso regarding his absences, discussed his light duty assignment at Atlantic High School, and directed him to call her beeper if he was going to be absent. He was also directed to provide a doctor's note if he was absent. Dr. Laakso remained in the light duty assignment at Atlantic High School for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. On Wednesday, August 9, 2000, the first day of the 2000-2001 school year, Dr. Laakso again reported to Atlantic High School to resume his light duty placement. On August 15, 2000, Marshall Bellin signed Respondent's light duty sign-in sheet, which covered Dr. Laakso's work attendance for August 9, 10, 11, and 14, 2000. Around August 14 or 15, 2000, Dr. Laakso received verbal notification that because his driving restriction had been lifted, he was being taken off light duty assignment and was to report to Area 3. Prior to this verbal notification, Dr. Laakso had not been advised by his physicians that his driving restriction had been lifted. However, he subsequently learned through someone at the Risk Management Department that, in fact, the driving restriction had been lifted. Upon hearing the news, Dr. Laakso contacted Dr. Brown. When he went to see Dr. Brown, Dr. Brown explained to Respondent that the Board had sent him a questionnaire asking whether he believed that Dr. Laakso could drive a car as opposed to whether he should drive a car. Dr. Brown further explained that he responded that Dr. Laakso could drive a car, but felt he had made a mistake as he felt it was still dangerous for Dr. Laakso to drive. Accordingly, on August 17, 2000, Dr. Brown reinstated Dr. Laakso's driving restriction of no more than 10 minutes. On August 17, 2000, Dr. Laakso sent a memo to Ms. Boyle indicating that his driving restriction had been reinstated. A copy of the note from Dr. Brown was attached to this memo. Because of her continuing concern regarding Respondent's absences, on October 2, 2000, Ms. Boyle held another "investigative meeting" regarding Dr. Laakso's absences. This meeting resulted in Boyle's issuing Dr. Laakso a written reprimand for unacceptable and unexcused absences, failure to call in intended absences as required, and insubordination. The written reprimand specifically addressed Dr. Laakso's absences on August 9, 10, 11, 22, and September 20, 27, 28, and 29. Ms. Boyle believed her issuance of the written reprimand dated October 2, 2000, was consistent with the progressive discipline policy. At the time that Ms. Boyle wrote the reprimand, she also notified the District's Professional Standards Department and requested a formal investigation of Respondent's absences. Ms. Boyle then contacted Ray Miller in Professional Standards to be sure that she was following appropriate procedure. In October of 2000, Ray Miller received Respondent's case for investigation, and the investigation was assigned case number 101. Specifically, Miller investigated allegations involving Respondent's misuse of leave, unauthorized absence, failure to call in and report absences as required, and insubordination for the time period of January 2000 through December 2000. At the time of his interview with Respondent, Miller had a surveillance video and a report of Respondent's activities for April of 2000. Respondent neither denied that he was the subject of the video nor that he failed to report and call in his absences. Shortly before December 4, 2000, Miller signed off on the investigative report for case number 101, and on December 4, 2000, Paul Lachance issued a letter to Dr. Laakso indicating that the investigation was complete, and that a determination of probable cause had been made. The investigative report was then reviewed by the Case Management Review Committee to determine whether there was just cause to recommend discipline and, if so, provide a discipline recommendation. The Committee found just cause and recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. A number of meetings were held in December 2000 with representatives of Petitioner, Dr. Laakso, and his then- attorney, Mr. Fried. As a result of these meetings, an informal settlement was reached; Dr. Laakso's employment was not terminated, but rather he was transferred to the Area 1 ESE office. By a letter to the file dated January 8, 2001, Paul Lachance, Director of Professional Standards, administratively closed case number 01-101 against Dr. Laakso with "no action." While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso was under the supervision of Area 1 ESE Team Leader, Paul Sayrs. As supervisor, Mr. Sayrs was responsible for keeping track of Respondent's attendance. Accordingly, Sayrs directed Respondent to call and notify secretary Judy Fabris if he was going to be absent, who in turn would notify Mr. Sayrs. While assigned to Area 1, Dr. Laakso missed work for several days in January and February 2001, and was also out for most of March and April 2001. On April 4, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent Dr. Laakso a letter listing the dates of his absences and directing him to submit a doctor's note for the dates listed, as well as for any future absences. The next day, April 5, 2001, Mr. Sayrs sent another letter to Dr. Laakso advising him he was currently absent without approved leave. Mr. Sayrs advised Respondent further that due to an absence of correspondence from Respondent, Mr. Sayrs would assume Respondent had decided to discontinue working for Petitioner and Respondent's name would be submitted to the School Board for acceptance of Respondent's resignation. Dr. Laakso immediately contacted Dr. Sachs regarding Mr. Sayrs' request for medical documentation, but was unable to get an appointment with Dr. Sachs until April 20th. However, prior to his April 20th appointment, Dr. Laakso forwarded to Dr. Sachs a copy of the District's letter, which indicated he would be terminated if he did not provide the requested documentation prior to his appointment on April 20th. In response, Dr. Sachs accounted for Dr. Laakso's absences, noting they were due to his symptoms and cervical condition. Additionally, Dr. Laakso followed through by faxing his Request for Leave of Absence without Pay form with his signature, dated April 18, 2001, directly to Dr. Sachs for his signature. The leave was ultimately granted retroactive to March 8, 2001, prior to Dr. Laakso's being terminated by the District. On April 18, 2001, Dr. Laakso sent a handwritten note to Dan McGrath explaining his absences. Dr. Laakso attached to his note to Mr. McGrath two documents from Dr. Sachs, one dated April 15, 2001, and the other dated April 6, 2000. On May 18, 2001, Paul Sayrs evaluated Dr. Laakso's performance. The evaluation sheet indicated that Dr. Laakso was "presently on a medical leave of absence." Dr. Laakso has a second home in Matlacha, located on the other side of Cape Coral. Matlacha is located in the Fort Myers area and is approximately 150 miles from the West Palm Beach area, roughly a three-hour trip using country roads. Because he had not been feeling well, Dr. Laakso had not been taking care of his property in Matlacha. As a result, he received notices from the county telling him he needed to clear up the property or face a potential daily fine of $225. Specifically, the county informed Dr. Laakso that he needed to mow the grass, move a boat, register a pickup truck, and park the truck somewhere where it was not in open view. He asked for an extension in which to do these things, which was granted. However, the county advised Dr. Laakso that if he did not get the work done by the date established, the daily fine would be imposed. Although while at his Matlacha home Dr. Laakso did work outside of the restrictions imposed on him by his physician, he could work for 20 or 30 minutes and then go inside and rest, unlike when he was at work for the School Board, which required he work a full eight-hour day. While he was on his Matlacha property, he continued his daily swimming as part of his physical therapy, which he had discussed with, and received approval for, from Dr. Brown. At no time did Dr. Laakso attempt to hide the fact that he drove to the Matlacha property or that he worked in his yard while there. In fact, he disclosed this information when deposed in his workers' compensation case, and he discussed it with his doctor. While the doctor did not give Dr. Laakso permission for this type of conduct, Dr. Laakso did discuss it with him.5 Following the closing of the first investigation numbered 101, the office of Professional Standards received a memo from Diane Howard, Director of Risk Management, dated January 9, 2001. Ms. Howard was requesting a reinvestigation of Dr. Laakso's absences. In response to this memo, Miller did not interview Respondent, but instead viewed surveillance videotapes from August 11 through October 1 or 2, 2000. In addition to the videos, Miller reviewed memos from Nancy Patrick, Mary Kate Boyle, and Paul Sayrs. Miller testified that the difference between this investigation and the previous one was that it involved a different period of time, both for the videos and regarding issues of Respondent's attendance in January, February, and March of 2001. The allegations against Respondent for this investigation were that he was obtaining leave due to sickness or illness and that he was performing actions that were inconsistent with his alleged illness or sickness. This second investigation followed the same pattern as the first and was sent to the Committee for review. The Committee again recommended Dr. Laakso's termination. Dr. Laakso timely requested an administrative hearing, and these proceedings followed. The collective bargaining agreement describes procedures for discipline of employees, including this: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. The collective bargaining agreement also requires progressive discipline (reprimand through dismissal) . . . [e]xcept in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered in this case dismissing all charges in the Administrative Compliant, reinstating Respondent to his position of employment with the School Board, and providing Respondent with such back pay and attendant benefits as are authorized by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 21st day of November, 2003.
The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to establish the Town Center at Palm Coast Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Overview The Petitioners are seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish a community development district ("CDD") proposed to consist of approximately 1,600 gross acres located within the boundaries of incorporated areas of Palm Coast. The suggested name for the proposed District is the Town Center at Palm Coast Community Development District. There are no out-parcels within the area to be included in the proposed District. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services, which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District, was included in the Petition. The sole purpose of this proceeding is to consider the establishment of the District as proposed by the Petitioners. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioners' Exhibit A was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. Livingston testified that he reviewed the contents of the Petition and approved its findings. Livingston also generally described the exhibits to the Petition. Livingston testified that the Petition and its exhibits are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Gaylord testified that he assisted in the preparation of portions of the Petition and its exhibits. Gaylord also generally described Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Petition which he or his office had contributed to and stated that they were true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Fishkind testified that he had prepared Exhibit 10 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC). Fishkind also testified that the SERC submitted as Exhibit 10 to Petitioners' Exhibit A was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Livingston testified that the consent by the owner of lands to be included within the proposed District is still in full force and effect. The Petition included written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the real property located within the lands to be included in the proposed District. Londeree testified that he had prepared Exhibits I-1 through I-3 and briefly described each exhibit. Londeree testified that Exhibits I-1 through I-3 were true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Based on the foregoing, the evidence shows that the Petition and its exhibits are true and correct. Whether the establishment of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective local government comprehensive plan. Londeree reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Londeree also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the City of Palm Coast Comprehensive Plan. From a planning and economic perspective, three (3) subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of locating development in areas that have the fiscal abilities and service capacity to accommodate growth. Section 187.201(16), Florida Statutes. It is relevant because CDDs are designed to provide infrastructure services and facilities in a fiscally responsible manner to the areas which can accommodate development. The evidence shows that the establishment of the Town Center at Palm Coast CDD will not be inconsistent with this goal because the District will have the fiscal capability to provide the specified services and facilities within its boundaries. Subject 18, Public Facilities, relates to (i) protecting investments in existing public facilities; (ii) providing financing for new facilities; (iii) allocating the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by future residents; (iv) implementing innovative, but fiscally sound techniques for financing public facilities; and (v) identifying and using stable revenue sources for financing public facilities. Section 187.201(18), Florida Statutes. The evidence shows that the establishment of the Town Center at Palm Coast CDD will further these State Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Subject 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. Section 187.201(21), Florida Statutes. The evidence shows that the proposed CDD will be consistent with this element because the proposed CDD will continue to: (i) cooperate with other levels of Florida government; (ii) be established under uniform general standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes; (iii) be professionally managed, financed, and governed by those whose property directly receives the benefits; (iv) not burden the general taxpayer with costs for services or facilities inside the District; and (v) plan and implement cost-efficient solutions for the required public infrastructure and assure delivery of selected services to residents. Based upon the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. In 2000, the City of Palm Coast approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment bringing the Petitioners' property into compliance with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the Local Comprehensive Plan, and can be expected to further the goals provided. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Londeree, Fishkind, and Gaylord. The lands that comprise the proposed District will consist of approximately 1,600 gross acres, located within the borders of incorporated Palm Coast. All of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in the Town Center at Palm Coast Development of Regional Impact (DRI), which is currently under review. "Functional interrelated community" means that the community development plan requires that the residents and property owners will be provided those facilities that are the necessary services for a mixed-use community. These facilities include streets, stormwater ponds, water and sewer service, street lighting, sidewalks, bike paths and associated landscaping. All of these elements will tie the land uses of the community together to provide a unity of design and function for the community. The community facilities that are provided require a long-range development plan that addresses the management, scheduling, funding, construction, and maintenance of the required infrastructure for the growth and development of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,600 gross acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. The proposed facilities and services require adequate planning, design, financing, construction, and maintenance to provide the community with appropriate infrastructure. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The proposed District provides for a cost-effective and efficient design and delivery of the required infrastructure and the future maintenance of same. The Petitioners are developing all the lands within the District as a single master-planned community. All of these lands will be governed by the Town Center at Palm Coast Development of Regional Impact Development Order to be issued by the City of Palm Coast, Flagler County, Florida. The evidence shows that from planning, economics, and engineering perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the proposed district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the proposed district. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or provision of certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the Petition. The District will construct certain infrastructure and community facilities which will be needed by the property owners and residents of the project. It is anticipated that the CDD will issue 30-year special assessment bonds to pay for the major infrastructure improvements. Expenses for the operations and maintenance are expected to be paid through annual maintenance assessments to ensure that the property or person receiving the benefit of the district services is the same property or person to pay for those services. Two types of alternatives to the use of the District were identified. First, the City of Palm Coast might provide facilities and services from its general fund. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, with maintenance delegated to a home owners' association. A community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of the land within such a district. A community development district allows district residents to completely control the district. The other alternatives do not have these characteristics. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities to the land included in the proposed District because the District will provide the necessary means to maintain the project consistent with the intent of the original design. Alternative approaches, such as dedicating the area to another municipality, may result in conditions deviating from the original intent of the project. A localized agency (District) that is focused on maintaining and governing the area will help to ensure that the design and intent for which the project was developed and presented to the public will be maintained. The evidence shows that from planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. Whether the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. Currently, the land within the proposed District boundaries is undeveloped and, therefore, cannot duplicate the local or regional facilities. The facilities within the District are designed to meet, and in some areas exceed, the current design requirements by local municipalities and are, therefore, compatible with the capacities and uses of the existing regional community development facilities and services. Therefore, the evidence shows that the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. As previously noted, from planning, economics, and engineering perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The community to be included in the District needs the basic infrastructure systems to be provided. From planning and economic perspectives, the area that will be served by the proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Elements of the Petition The Commission has certified that the Petition to Establish the Town Center at Palm Coast Community Development District meets all of the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District--the State of Florida and its citizens, the County and its citizens, the City and its citizens, the Petitioners, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which are difficult to quantify, but nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the City of Palm Coast and Flagler County related to rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the City of Palm Coast and Flagler County will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the proposed District except for those it chooses to accept. Consumers will pay special assessments for certain facilities. Location in the District by new residents is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the CDD will include the option of having a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to include a SERC which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The Petition contains an SERC. It meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. Other Requirements Petitioners have complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes, in that Flagler County and City of Palm Coast were paid the requisite filing fees. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioners to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Flagler County and the City of Palm Coast for four successive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in the legal Advertisement section of the Flagler/Palm Coast News-Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, for five (5) successive weeks, on June 29, July 6, July 13, July 20, and July 27, 2002. Flagler County's Support for Establishment Pursuant to the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Petitioners filed a copy of the Petition and the $15,000.00 filing fee with Flagler County prior to filing the Petition with the Commission. As permitted by Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the Flagler County Commission held a public hearing on May 6, 2002, to consider the establishment of the Town Center at Palm Coast Community Development District. At the conclusion of its public hearing on May 6, 2002, and after considering the factors enumerated in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and the representations in the SERC, the Flagler County Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002- 50, expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule establishing the Town Center at Palm Coast Community Development District. Palm Coast's Support for Establishment Pursuant to the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Petitioners filed a copy of the Petition and $15,000.00 filing fee with the City of Palm Coast prior to filing the Petition with the Commission. As permitted by Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the City of Palm Coast held a public hearing on June 4, 2002, to consider the establishment of the Town Center at Palm Coast Community Development District. At the conclusion of its public hearing on June 4, 2002, the City of Palm Coast Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002-18, expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule establishing the Town Center at Palm Coast Community Development District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120 and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Town Center at Palm Coast Community Development District as requested by the Petitioners by formal adoption of the proposed rule. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Chiumento, III, Esquire Chiumento & Associates, P.A. 4 Old Kings Road, North, Suite B Palm Coast, Florida 32137 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Charles Canady, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001 Exhibit 1 Petitioners' Witnesses at the Public Hearing William I. Livingston, President Florida Landmark Communities, Inc. One Corporate Drive, Suite 3A Palm Coast, Florida 32137 David R. Root 14 Fern Court Palm Coast, Florida 32137 Robert B. Gaylord Singhofen & Associates 6961 University Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32792 Henry F. Fishkind, Ph.D. Fishkind & Associates 11869 High Tech Avenue Orlando, Florida 32817 Robert D. Londeree Planning and Design Post Office Box 1077 Windermere, Florida 34786 Exhibit 2 List of Petitioners' Exhibits Letter Description Petition for Rulemaking to Establish a Uniform Community Development District (Petition with ten (10) Exhibits) Composite Exhibit -- Prefiled Testimony of William I. Livingston (10 pages) General Location Map Vicinity Map showing District boundaries Metes and Bounds Description of District boundaries B-4 Written Consent of Landowners Utility Plan showing major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors adjacent to District boundaries Development Costs and Timetable Conceptual Site Plan showing public and private uses B-8 Land Use Plan Resolution No. 2002-18, of the City Council of the City of Palm Coast endorsing the formation of the Town Center at Palm Coast CDD Resolution No. 2002-50, of Flagler County, Florida's County Commissioners demonstrating its support of the formation of the Town Center at Palm Coast CDD Proof of Publication from Flagler/Palm Coast News- Tribune Prefiled Testimony of David R. Root (5 pages) Prefiled Testimony of Robert B. Gaylord (6 pages) Utility Plan showing major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors adjacent to District boundaries Development Costs and Timetables Prefiled Testimony of Henry F. Fishkind, Ph.D., (6 pages) Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs for the Town Center of Palm Coast CDD I Prefiled Testimony of Robert D. Londeree (9 pages) I-1 Town Center at Palm Coast Development of Regional Impact Application for Development Approval Town Center at Palm Coast Development of Regional Impact Application for Development Approval Response to Request for Additional Information (Sufficiency Response) Petitioners' FLUM Amendment for Town Center at Palm Coast Application
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1) (C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA10-GM-115 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished as indicated to each of the persons listed below on this DW say of , 2010. aula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail Amy Taylor Petrick, Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County 300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 359 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Tel.: (561) 355-2529 Fax.: (561) 255-4324 Email: apetrick@co.palm-beach.fl.us William L. Hyde, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 618 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Phone: (850) 521-1980 Facsimile: (850) 576-0902 Email: whyde@gunster.com James M. Crowley, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 450 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 713-6416 Facsimile: (954) 523-1722 Email: jcrowley@gunster.com FINAL ORDER NO. DCA10-GM-115 Claudia McKenna, City Attorney City of West Palm Beach 401 Clematis Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 882-1350 Facsimile: (561) 822-1373 Email: cmckenna@wpb.org Keith W. Davis, Esquire Trela White, Esquire Attorney for Village of Royal Palm Beach Corbett & White, P.A. 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, FL 33462 Phone: (561) 586-7116 Facsimile: (561) 586-9611 Email: keith@corbettandwhite.com; trela@corbettandwhite.com By Hand Delivery Richard E. Shine Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs By Interoffice Mail The Honorable Donald R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675
