The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Wellness Way Area Plan Map and Text Amendment to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (“Remedial Amendment”) adopted through Lake County Ordinance No. 2016-1 is “in compliance,” as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Cemex is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Lake County. Cemex made timely objections and comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment. Petitioner Lake Louisa is a limited liability company that owns property in Lake County. Lake Louisa made timely objections and comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment. Cemex leases 1,200 acres of land in Lake County from Lake Louisa. The leased property is located within the area affected by the Remedial Amendment. Cemex proposes sand mining on the leased property and obtained all the required state permits. Prior to adoption of the Remedial Amendment, Cemex sought a conditional use permit from Lake County for its proposed sand mining. Respondent Lake County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and adopted the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Intervenors South Lake Crossings I, LLC; South Lake Crossings II, LLC; South Lake Crossings III, LLC; Clonts Groves, Inc.; Catherine Ross Groves, Inc.; and Cra-Mar Groves, Inc., (referred to collectively as “South Lake”) own 2,500 acres in Lake County which are subject to the Remedial Amendment. Intervenors made timely comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment.1/ The Wellness Way Area The Wellness Way Area comprises 15,471 acres in southeastern Lake County. It is bordered by U.S. Highway 27 to the west, the City of Clermont to the north, and Orange County to the east. Currently, the Wellness Way Area is mostly designated as agricultural with some small areas of residential and industrial uses. However, there is only one active agricultural operation. The majority of properties within the Wellness Way Area are large tracts of unused land. Directly east of the Wellness Way Area, in Orange County, is the Horizon West Sector Plan which consists of 23,000 acres and is one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. The Remedial Amendment To address DEO’s objections to the Lake County Wellness Way Sector Plan, the County adopted the Remedial Amendment which converted the Sector Plan into the Wellness Way Urban Service Area. Based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the ordinance adopting the Remedial Amendment, and Lake County’s stipulation on the record, the Wellness Way Sector Plan no longer has force or effect. The Remedial Amendment creates five future land use categories within the Wellness Way Area: Town Center and Wellness Way 1 through Wellness Way 4. Each future land use category allows a mix of uses, but with different density and intensity limits in each category. The highest density and intensity limits are in the Town Center category, located along U.S. Highway 27. The lowest limits are in the Wellness Way 4 category. The Town Center and Wellness Way 1-3 categories have identical permitted and conditional land uses. Wellness Way 4 allows fewer types of land uses and no residential land use because the land is publicly owned and contains a large wastewater reclamation facility. The new land use categories provides for a distribution of land uses by percentage of total land area within the category. In Town Center, the distribution is 25 percent non- residential, 45 percent residential, and 30 percent open space. In Wellness Way 1-3, the distribution is 10 percent non- residential, 60 percent residential, and 30 percent open space. The allowable residential density for each category differs. The Town Center has a minimum density of 6.0 dwelling units per net buildable acre (“du/ac”) and a maximum density of 25 du/ac. Net buildable acre is defined as gross acres minus wetlands, waterbodies, and open spaces. Wellness Way 1 has a minimum density of 3 du/ac and a maximum density of 20 du/ac. Wellness Way 2 has a minimum density of 2.5 du/ac and a maximum density of 15 du/ac. Wellness Way 3 has a minimum density of 2 du/ac and a maximum density of 10 du/ac. Wellness Way 4 has no density criteria because residential uses are not allowed. The allowable intensity for non-residential uses in each category also differs. The Town Center has a minimum average Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 30 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 1 has a minimum average FAR of 25 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 2 has a minimum average FAR of 20 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 3 has a minimum average FAR of 15 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 4 has no intensity criteria. Implementation of the Remedial Amendment goals, objectives, and policies is to be accomplished through the review and approval of planned unit developments (“PUDs”). Despite the density allowances stated above, the total number of dwelling units that can be included in a PUD are further controlled by Policy I-8.2.1.1, which ties residential development to job creation. For each dwelling unit proposed in a PUD, a certain number of jobs must be created through the setting aside of areas for non-residential uses. The jobs-to- housing ratio assumes that one job is created for every 450 square feet of non-residential development. Each land use category has a different jobs-to-housing ratio applicable to approved PUDs. In Town Center, the jobs-to- housing ratio is 2.0 to 1.0, meaning 900 square feet of non- residential development must accompany every proposed dwelling unit. In Wellness Way 1, the jobs-to-housing ratio is 1.75 to 1.0. In Wellness Way 2, the ratio is 1.50 to 1.0. In Wellness Way 3, the ratio is 1.35 to 1.0. In the Remedial Amendment, the information and criteria for a PUD application are more detailed and extensive than under the Comprehensive Plan provisions for PUDs outside the Wellness Way Area. For example, a PUD application under the Remedial Amendment must include a report on the PUD’s impact on transportation facilities and the need for additional transportation improvements, and a detailed plan for public facilities, such as potable water, sanitary sewer, and schools. The Remedial Amendment requires each PUD to establish Wellness Way Corridors, which serve as buffers around the border to connect job hubs and neighborhoods through trails and other pedestrian facilities. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Sand Mining Approval Petitioners contend the Remedial Amendment fails to provide meaningful and predictable standards governing sand mining within the Wellness Way Area. Sand mining is listed as a conditional use in all land use categories. Comprehensive Plan Objective III-3.5 and its policies, which address sand mining, were not changed by the Remedial Amendment. They prohibit mining in environmentally sensitive areas which cannot be reclaimed, require mining within aquifer protection zones to be performed in a manner that would not negatively impact water quality, and require mining operators to demonstrate a practical and environmentally sound reclamation plan. Under the Remedial Amendment, an application for a conditional use in the Wellness Way Area must be combined with a PUD application and must comply with the detailed PUD criteria of new Policy I-8.7. By combining a conditional use application with a PUD application, Lake County can impose additional conditions designed to assure the conditional use will be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Remedial Amendment adds more criteria and greater detail than exists currently in the Comprehensive Plan for reviewing a proposal for sand mining. Adding these review criteria is not a failure to provide meaningful and predictable standards. PUD Densities and Intensities Petitioners contend that the densities and intensities within the Wellness Way Area cannot be reasonably predicted because Policy I-8.2.1.2 permits the density and intensity of developments to exceed or fall below the required maximum and minimum densities and intensities of use so long as a PUD as a whole fits within the limits. Petitioners’ evidence on this point was not persuasive. Applying density and intensity limits to the entire area of a PUD is not unreasonable and does not fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards. Location of Future Land Uses A more persuasive argument made by Petitioners is that the land use planning flexibility in the Remedial Amendment goes too far because the location of particular land uses will not be known until PUDs are approved. Lake County’s arguments in this regard do not overcome the fact that, under the Remedial Amendment, the determination where land uses will be located in the Wellness Way Area is deferred to the PUD process. The Remedial Amendment itself does not establish the location of future land uses in the Wellness Way Area. A landowner or citizen cannot predict where future land uses will be located in the Wellness Way Area. Lake County did not present evidence to show that any other local government comprehensive plan in Florida uses a similar planning approach. There appears to be no other comprehensive plan amendment that was the subject of a DOAH proceeding which left the location of future land uses unspecified in this way. Potential PUDs Petitioners contend that the Remedial Amendment fails to provide meaningful and predictable standards because applications for development approvals in the Wellness Way Area are reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their effect on approved and “potential PUDs.” Policy I-8.7.1 provides: Until and unless a PUD is approved by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, the property in the WWUSA area shall maintain the existing zoning (e.g. A, R-1, CFD, PUD). All applications for development approvals (i.e. lot splits, conditional use permits, variances, etc.) on any property within the WWUSA area shall be reviewed on a case-by- case basis for the effect of such development approval on adopted or potential PUDs and compliance with the general principles of the Urban Service Area. The Remedial Amendment’s requirement that development approvals account for potential PUDs makes it impossible to predict how Lake County will make a land use decision because it is impossible to know or account for an unapproved, potential PUD. This standard lacks meaning and predictability for guiding land development. Case-by-Case Approvals Petitioners assert that Policy I-8.7.1 also creates internal inconsistency because it requires all development to be approved through the PUD process, but then appears to also provide for non-PUD development approvals on a case-by-case basis. The testimony presented by Lake County seemed to support Petitioners’ claims. Exceptions can be stated in a comprehensive plan without constituting an internal inconsistency. However, the ambiguity of Policy I-8.7.1 causes it to lack meaning and predictability for guiding land development. Urban Form Guiding Principles Policy I-8.2.2 of the Remedial Amendment sets forth guiding principles for development derived from the goals, objectives, and policies for the Wellness Way Area and establishes principles to guide development. Petitioners argue that the principles are not meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land because they were described by a Lake County witness at the final hearing as “aspirational.” The policy itself states that, “These guiding principles shall be specifically demonstrated in the PUDs.” The plain meaning of this statement is that application of the principles is mandatory. A witness’ testimony cannot alter the plain meaning of a policy for purposes of an “in compliance” determination. Data and Analysis Planning Timeframes Petitioners contend that the Remedial Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and an analysis because they address only infrastructure needs at the time of the Wellness Way Area’s buildout in 2040; no intermediate timeframes were used. Although section 163.3177(5)(a) requires comprehensive plans to “include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan’s adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period,” the statute is less clear on the requirements applicable to a comprehensive plan amendment. Petitioners’ evidence and argument on this claim was insufficient to meet their burden of proof. Potable Water Supply Petitioners claim the Remedial Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and an analysis to show that the demand for potable water will be met at buildout. Petitioners’ evidence was insufficient to prove this claim. Internal Consistency Goal I-8 Petitioners argue that Goal I-8 of the Remedial Amendment contains an impermissible waiver of any Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, or policies that conflict with the Remedial Amendment. Goal I-8 provides: The following Objectives and Policies shall govern the WWUSA as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. In the event that these Goals, Objectives or Policies present either an express (direct) or implied (indirect) conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies that appear elsewhere in the comprehensive plan, the provision elsewhere in the comprehensive plan that is in direct or indirect conflict with a Wellness Way Goal, Objective or Policy shall not apply to the WWUSA area. All Goals, Objectives and Policies in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan that do not directly or indirectly conflict with this Goal and associated Objectives and Policies shall apply to the WWUSA area depicted in the Future Land Use Map. Goal I-8 gives no hint as to the nature or the number of potential direct or indirect conflicts that could arise. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the goal creates an unlawful waiver of unidentified inconsistencies. Urban Service Area The Wellness Way Area is intended to be an urban service area. “Urban service area” is defined in section 163.3164(50): “Urban Service Area” means areas identified in the comprehensive plan where public facilities and services, including, but not limited to, central water and sewer capacity and roads, are already in place or are identified in the capital improvements element. The term includes any areas identified in the comprehensive plan as urban services areas, regardless of local government limitations.” Petitioners contend the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Remedial Amendment because Lake County did not amend the Capital Improvements Element to address public facilities and services in the Wellness Way Area. Lake County responds that it does not own or operate the utility companies that would provide the services, but who owns and operates the utilities has no effect on the statutory requirement to do public utility planning. Lake County argues that it was sufficient for the County to simply identify the utility providers. Section 163.3164(50) requires more. It requires the identification of public facilities and services. Furthermore, section 163.3177(3)(a) requires a capital improvement element “to consider the need for and location of public facilities.” The Remedial Amendment creates an internal inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan by providing for greater growth and a new urban service area in the Wellness Way Area without amending the Capital Improvements Element to address the greater growth or the urban service area. The Capital Improvements Element should have been amended to include some of the data and analysis that was used to support the Remedial Amendment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission issue a final order determining that the Remedial Amendment adopted by Lake County Ordinance No. 2016-1 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2016.
The Issue The sole issue to be addressed is whether the Petition to contract the Gateway Services District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Overview The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to contract a community development district currently comprised of approximately 5,474 acres located within the boundaries of unincorporated Lee County, Florida and the incorporated City of Fort Myers, Florida. The name for the District, after contraction, will be the Gateway Services Community Development District. At the time the Petition was filed, the District consisted of approximately 5,324 acres. However, on July 29, 2002, a Rule Amendment adopted by the Commission, and filed with the Secretary of State became effective, expanding the District to approximately 5,474 acres. The Petitioner seeks to contract the District by approximately 973 acres. The District, after contraction, will encompass approximately 4,501 acres. All of the property proposed to be contracted out of the District is located within the City of Fort Myers, Florida. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the contraction of the District as proposed by the Petitioner. Summary of Evidence and Testimony Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 9 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission, dated January 2002; the Addendum to the Petition, dated March 25, 2002; and the Second Addendum to the Petition, dated July 16, 2002; and the Third Addendum to the Petition, dated July 25, 2002. Ward testified that he had reviewed the contents of the Petition and Exhibits as supplemented and amended by the addenda to the Petition. Ward testified that the Petition and exhibits as supplemented and amended by the addenda, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Tilton testified that he had reviewed Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 of the Petition. Exhibit 1 is the metes and bounds legal description and sketch of the existing District boundaries. Exhibit 2 is the legal description and sketch of the contraction parcels. Exhibit 3 is the amended legal description and sketch of the District, after contraction. Tilton testified that the legal description of the existing CDD boundaries was true and correct, and would be amended by a proposed Rule Amendment filed with the Secretary of State July 9, 2002, and effective July 29, 2002. Tilton testified that Exhibit 2 truly and accurately depicted the legal description of the property proposed for contraction from the District. A Third Addendum to the Petition, filed with the Department of Administrative Hearings on July 29, 2002, identified a scrivener's error in the proposed Rule Amendment filed on July 9, 2002, and included a legal description and sketch of the land within the District, after the contraction. This legal description and sketch amends and replaces Exhibit 3 of the Petition. This legal description was certified as true and accurate by CES Engineering. Garland testified that his office had prepared Exhibit 7 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC). Garland also testified the SERC included with the Petition was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Gnagey testified that at the time of the hearing, Worthington Holdings, Inc. was the owner of all of the lands to be contracted out of the District. Gnagey testified that a portion of the contraction property was under contract for sale. A consent and joinder to the Petition to Contract, executed by the contract purchaser was placed into the record as Exhibit 3. The Petition does not contain the written consent of the owners of all real property to be included in the new District after contraction; nor was there any documentation or other evidence demonstrating that either the District or those giving their written consent to the contraction have control by deed, trust agreement, contract, or option of one-hundred percent (100%) of the real property to be included in the new District, after contraction. See Conclusion of Law 65. Based upon the foregoing, the Petition and its exhibits, as amended and supplemented by the addenda to the Petition, are true and correct. Whether the contraction of the District is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Ward addressed whether the contraction of the District was inconsistent in any way with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Ward also reviewed the contraction of the District, in light of the local government comprehensive plans. Ward testified that the District would continue to assist the local government in providing infrastructure services required pursuant to its locally adopted comprehensive plan. Furthermore, since the State Comprehensive Plan requires local governments to provide infrastructure in accordance with locally adopted comprehensive plans, the District would continue to function and assist in meeting this objective of Chapter 187. Resolution No. 2002-11, adopted by the City Council of the City of Fort Myers, Florida, was introduced into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Pursuant to this Resolution, the City Council made a determination that after the contraction, the District is not inconsistent with applicable elements or portions of the State Comprehensive Plan or the City of Fort Myers local comprehensive plan. The Florida Department of Community Affairs reviewed the Petition and provided a letter dated April 16, 2002, which was placed into Evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 7. The letter states that the Petition A "is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of Lee County's Comprehensive Plan.” Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan, the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, or City of Fort Myers Comprehensive Plan. Whether the area of land within the district, after contraction, 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 Ward and Tilton. The lands that comprise the District, after contraction, will consist of approximately 4,501 acres, located within the borders of unincorporated Lee County, and the incorporated City of Fort Myers. From a management perspective, the District, after contraction, will continue to be sufficiently sized, compact and contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community. The property remaining within the District will continue to be amenable to receiving services through a community development district. From an engineering perspective, the District, after contraction, will still be larger than other community development districts. It is contiguous and relatively compact. The land remaining within the District can be well- served by water management facilities, water and sewer and irrigation, roads lighting, landscaping and parks provided by the District. From a development planning perspective, the owner of the property, which will be contracted out of the District, intends to market the contraction property for development as three separate, stand-alone communities. This property will be developed independently from the property remaining within the District. Its utility needs will be serviced by the City of Fort Myers. From development planning, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. Whether the district, after contraction, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the contracted district. The District currently provides certain infrastructure improvements and facilities to the property which will remain in the District. Currently, no services or facilities are provided by the District to the property to be contracted out of the District. Ward, Tilton, and Garland testified concerning whether the District, as contracted, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area remaining in the District. Ward testified that since the 1980's, the District has provided and maintained infrastructure which services the existing residents of the District, and is also available to service future residents of the District. The District is responsible for financing, operating and maintaining this infrastructure. Based upon its historical track record, and its current activities, the District will continue to serve these purposes. Tilton testified that, from an engineering perspective, the District is an excellent alternative for providing community services and facilities to the property remaining in the District because it provides a higher level of service than would be afforded by Lee County or the City of Fort Myers. This higher level of service meets the desire of the residents within the District. Garland testified that, from an economic perspective, the District as contracted, will still consist of approximately 5,799 equivalent residential units. There will be no financial impact to the landowners remaining in the District because neither the capital assessments nor the operations and maintenance assessments will be affected by the contraction. Currently, the contraction parcel is not taking any of the load for capital assessments or operations and maintenance assessments. Garland also testified that the contraction property is geographically closer to infrastructure facilities available from the City of Fort Myers, than it is to District facilities. Therefore, the District is not the best alternative for providing this infrastructure to the contraction property. From economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the District, after contraction, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will continue to be served by the District. Whether the community development services and facilities of the district, as contracted, will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The services and facilities which will continue to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the boundaries, as contracted, will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to remain within the District. Ward, Tilton, and Garland testified concerning whether the community development services and facilities of the district, as contracted, would be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Ward testified that the District provides services and facilities which compliment the general purpose local governments’ services and facilities. For example, the District has constructed drainage facilities. These services address the requirements for infrastructure of the local government. After contraction, the District will continue to provide these infrastructure services. Tilton testified that the services and facilities provided by the District work very well in concert with the adjacent facilities of the general purpose local government. The roadways, utilities, and water management facilities constructed by the District are integrated into the overall system of the adjacent areas. From a management perspective and an engineering perspective, the facilities and services to be provided by the District, after the contraction, will not be incompatible with the existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district, after contraction, is amenable to separate special district government. As cited previously, from economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The community to be included in the District, after contraction, will continue to require basic infrastructure systems. A determination was made when the District was formed, that the District could best provide these services. This determination will not change as a result of the contraction. From engineering, economic and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the amended District is amenable to separate special-district government. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Elements of the Petition The Commission has certified that the Petition to Contract the Gateway Services District meets all of the required elements 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 contract the District--the State of Florida and its citizens, the County and its citizens, the City and its citizens, the landowners within the District after contraction, and the Petitioner. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens, are not anticipated to incur any costs from contracting the District. Administrative costs incurred by Lee County and the City of Fort Myers related to this Petition are minimal and should be offset by the filing fees paid by the Petitioner. Landowners remaining within the District will continue to pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. The contraction of District will have no impact on the level of capital assessments or operations and maintenance assessments paid by residents remaining in the District. Benefits to landowners in the District will continue to be a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, construction, operation and maintenance 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. 45. Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, require the Petition to include a SERC which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The Petition contains a SERC. It meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. Other Requirements 46. Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, require the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Lee County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in The News-Press, a newspaper of general circulation in Lee County for four consecutive weeks, on June 18, 2002, June 25, 2002, July 2, 2002, and July 9, 2002. The Affidavit of Publication was placed into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4. Lee County Support for Establishment Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 190.046(1)(g) and 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition with the City of Fort Myers and Lee County prior to filing the Petition with the Commission. As permitted by Sections 190.046 and 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the City Council of the City of Fort Myers held a public hearing on March 4, 2002, to consider the contraction of the Gateway Services District. At the conclusion of its public hearing on March 4, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution 2002-11 expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule contracting the Gateway Services District. The City of Fort Myers City Council Resolution specifically found that all six (6) of the statutory factors for evaluating the contraction of community development districts found in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, had been met by the Petitioner in this matter. As permitted by Sections 190.046 and 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County held a public hearing on June 25, 2002, to consider the contraction of the Gateway Services District. At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 25, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County adopted Resolution No.02-06-43, expressing support for the Commission to promulgate a rule contracting the Gateway Services 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 190 and 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, contract the Gateway Services District as requested by the Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed Rule Amendment attached to this Report as Exhibit C. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th 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) 92106847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Erin McCormick Larrinaga. Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1700 Tampa, Florida 33602 Gregory Munson, Esquire Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canady, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Room 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Exhibit A Petitioner’s Witnesses at Public Hearing John Gnagey The Worthington Group 14291 Metro Parkway, Building 1300 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 James P. Ward Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc. 210 N. University Drive, Suite 702 Coral Gables, Florida 33071 Andrew D. Tilton Johnson Engineering, Inc. 2158 Johnson Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Carey Garland Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 11869 High Tech Avenue Orlando, Florida 32817 Exhibit B List of Petitioner’s Exhibits Exhibit Description Exhibit 1: Memorandum from Greg Munson, Staff Attorney for the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to Barbara Leighty, Clerk for the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, dated March 12, 2002 Exhibit 2: Sketch depicting Gateway Services District Boundaries (Parcels marked “A” constitute the Contraction Parcels which Petition seeks to have contracted from the Gateway Services District) Exhibit 3: Consent and Joinder to Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, executed by Pulte Home Corporation on July 16, 2002 Exhibit 4: News-Press Affidavit of Publication, dated July 9, 2002 Exhibit 5: Certified Copy of Resolution No. 2002-11, approved by the City Council of the City of Fort Myers on March 4, 2002 Exhibit 6: Certified Copy of Resolution No. 02-06-43, approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Lee County, Florida on June 25, 2002 Exhibit 7: Letter from the Florida Department of Community Affairs to Ms. Donna Arduin, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, dated April 16, 2002 Exhibit 8: Notice of Receipt of Petition, published by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission in the Florida Administrative Weekly on May 17, 2002 Composite Exhibit 9: Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated January, 2002 (includes City of Ft. Myers Comprehensive Plan and Lee County Comprehensive Plan); Addendum to the Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated March 25, 2002; Second Addendum to the Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated July 16, 2002; and Third Addendum to the Petition to Contract Gateway Services District, dated July 25, 2002. Exhibit C THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT IS: 42F-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: A tract or parcel of land lying Section 35, Township 44 South, Range 25 East and in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12, Township 45 South, Range 25 East; Section 31, Township 44 South, Range 26 East and in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19, Township 45 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Section 35 run N 00__47' 42" W along the west line of the southwest quarter (SW-3) of said Section for 2643.18 feet to the quarter corner on the west line of said section; thence run N 00_ 43' 47" W along the west line of the northwest quarter (NW-3) of said Section for 1361.42 feet; thence run N 35__45' 29" E for 947.82 feet; thence run N 56__15' 44" E for 690.61 feet to the south line of the Colonial Boulevard right-of-way (State Road 884) (250 feet wide); thence run S 89__38' 27" E along said south line for 2763.96 feet to an intersection with the west line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section; thence run S 02__16' 01" E along said west line for 1,168.38 feet to the southwest corner of said fraction; thence run N 89_ 54' 24" E along the south line of said fraction for 1324.86 feet to the southeast corner of said fraction; thence run S 03__20' 25" E for 1284.37 feet to the quarter corner on the east line of said Section; thence run S 00__01' 59" E along said east line for 2635.65 feet to the northwest corner of said Section 1; thence run N 89__28' 42" E along the north line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 1 for 2,642.98 feet to the quarter corner on said north line; thence run S 89__57' 06" E along the north line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section 1 for 2523.38 feet to the northeast corner of said Section; thence run N 00__57' 01" W along the west line of said Section 31 for 2644.12 feet to the quarter corner on said west line; thence run N 00__35' 02" W along said west line of said Section 31 for 1705.47 feet to an intersection with the southwesterly line of Immokalee Road (State Road 82) (200 feet wide); thence run S 46__07' 29" E along said southwesterly line for 6215.51 feet to an intersection with the south line of said Section 31; thence continue S 46__07' 29" E along said southwesterly line for 1227.27 feet to an intersection with a line common to said Sections 5 and 6; thence continue S 46__07' 29" E along said southwesterly line for 1535.36 feet to a point of curvature; thence run Southeasterly along said southwesterly line along the arc of a curve to the left of radius 5824.88 feet (delta 18_ 13' 21") (chord bearing S 55__14' 10" E) (chord 1844.76 feet) for 1852.55 feet to a point of tangency; thence continue along said southwesterly line S 64__20' 50" E for 22.21 feet to an intersection with the east line of the west half (W-1/2) of said Section 5; thence run S 00__06' 33" E along said east line for 2271.81 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 5 and 8; thence run S 01__02' 00" E along the east line of the west half (W-1/2) of said Section 8 for 3,028.35 feet; thence run N 89__33' 57" E for 605.03 feet; thence run S 01__02' 00" E for 1800.10 feet; thence run S 89__33' 57" W for 605.03 feet; thence run S 01__02' 00" E for 500.03 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 8 and 17; thence run S 01__00' 12" E along the east line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 17 for 926.76 feet to an intersection with the northeasterly line of a Florida Power and Light Company substation site as described in deed recorded in Official Record Book 1606 at Page 1286 of the Lee County Records; thence run N 37__57' 04" W along said northeasterly line for 361.70 feet; thence run S 52__02' 56" W along the northwesterly line of said Site for 361.70 feet; thence run S 37__57' 04" E along the southwesterly line of said Site for 741.48 feet to an intersection with the northwesterly line of Daniels Road Extension (200 feet wide) as described in deed recorded at Official Record Book 1644 at Page 1739 of the Lee County Records; thence run N 68__38' 13" E along said northwesterly line for 64.84 feet to an intersection with said easterly line of said northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 17; thence run S 01__00' 12" E along said east line for 1238.52 feet to the southeast corner of said fraction; thence run S 89__30' 38" W along the south line of said fraction and the north line of the Southwest Florida Regional Airport for 2110.83 feet to an intersection with the southeasterly line of said Daniels Road Extension; thence run S 54__00' 05" W through said Sections 17, 18 and 19 along the southeasterly line of a road right-of-way (200 feet wide) for 7032.17 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Section 19; thence run N 00__55' 36" W along said west line for 1,477.45 feet to the northwest corner of said Section; thence run N 00_ 54' 13" W along the west line of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of said Section 18 for 2,643.95 feet to the quarter corner on said west line; thence run N 00_ 39' 39" W along the west line of the northwest quarter (NW- 1/4) of said Section 19 for 2,674.35 feet to the northwest corner of said Section; thence run N 00_ 57' 26" W along the west line of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of said Section 7 for 2,645.34 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 7 and 12; thence run S 89_ 55' 12" W along the south line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section 12 for 2,524.67 feet to the west line of the east 2,524.14 feet of said northeast quarter (NE-1/4); thence run N 01_ 05' 33" W along said west line for 2,646.07 feet to the south line of said Section 1; thence run S 89_ 56' 14" W along said south line for 2,663.19 feet to the southwest corner of said Section, passing through the quarter corner on the south line of said Section at 69.26 feet; thence run S 89__03' 50" W along the south line of said Section 2 for 2645.12 feet to the quarter corner on said south line; thence run S 00__08' 50" E line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 11 for 2670.22 feet to the center of said Section; thence run S 88__33' 56" W along the south line of said northwest quarter (NW-1/4) for 2745.77 feet to the quarter corner on the west line of said Section 11; thence run S 89__29' 50" W along the south line of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said Section 10 for 2546.16 feet to the center of said Section; thence run N 00__06' 58" W along the west line of said northeast quarter (NE-1/4) for 2668.79 feet to the quarter corner on the north line of said Section; thence run S 88__57' 32" W along the south line of said Section 3 for 2649.25 feet to the southwest corner of said Section; thence run S 88_ 54' 32" W along the south line of said Section 4 for 2059.99 feet to an intersection with the southeasterly line of the Six Mile Cypress Acquisition Area; thence run Northeasterly along said southeasterly line the following courses and distances: N 31__38' 21" E for 261.19 feet; N 01__23' 47" W for 277.78; N 37__53' 18" E for 246.16 feet; N 18_ 15' 00" E for 91.84 feet; N 56__35' 37" E for 169.92 feet; N 85__38' 45" E for 379.20 feet; N 70__16' 34" E for 105.12 feet; N 06__16' 12" E for 108.95 feet; N 89__11' 29" E for 322.80 feet; N 71_ 11' 39" E for 95.05 feet; N 55__29' 43" E for 156.24 feet; S 86__54' 42" E for 285.36 feet; N 55_ 11' 00" E for 58.82 feet; N 73__00' 08" E for 140.00 feet; N 54__05' 49" E for 115.77 feet; N 10_ 34' 05" E for 104.79 feet; N 24__05' 57" E for 100.09 feet; N 67__22' 01" E for 230.59 feet; S 85__03' 28" E for 211.24 feet; N 05__10' 02" E for 54.09 feet; N 27__24' 58" E for 106.63 feet; N 10__08' 05" E for 139.90 feet; N 44__41' 11" E for 147.83 feet; N 62__35' 02" W for 105.53 feet; N 23__59' 48" E for 476.74 feet; N 15__42' 08" E for 368.41 feet; N 20__55' 23" E for 222.23 feet; N 45__09' 19" E for 183.23 feet; N 31__07' 36" E for 305.01 feet; N 32__55' 08" E for 155.78 feet; N 17__03' 28" E for 110.45 feet; N 26__26' 47" E for 300.81 feet; N 18__42' 17" E for 150.86 feet; N 04__51' 19" W for 340.19 feet; N 12__09' 34" E for 251.79 feet; N 27__12' 34" E for 210.15 feet; N 14__53' 31" E for 323.53 feet and N 35__18' 42" E for 275.49 feet to an intersection with the north line of said Section 3; thence run N 88__37' 17" E along said north line for 530.84 feet to an intersection with the westerly line of State Road No. 93 (Interstate 75) (324 feet wide); thence run S 14_ 49' 52" E along said westerly line for 677.99 feet to an intersection with the east line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 3; thence run S 00__49' 04" E along said east line for 1299.77 feet to the northwest corner of the west half (W-1/2) of the southwest quarter (SW-1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE-1/4) of said section; thence run N 88__12' 52" E along the north line of said fraction for 323.06 feet to an intersection with said westerly line of State Road No. 93; thence run S 14__49' 52" E along said westerly line for 2.67 feet to an intersection with the east line of said fraction ; thence run S 00__37' 05" E along said east line for 650.21 feet to the southeast corner of said fraction; thence run N 88__09' 46" E along the north line of the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of said Section 3 for 2250.18 feet to the quarter corner common to said Sections 2 and 3; thence run N 00__47' 03" E along the west line of the northwest quarter (NW-1/4) of said Section 2 for 2605.26 feet to the Point of Beginning. Less and except all that part of the right-of-way for State Road No. 93 (Interstate 75) lying within the southeast quarter (SE-1/4) of Section 3 and within the northeast quarter (NE- 1/4) of Section 10, Township 45 South, Range 25 East, Lee County, Florida, as more particularly described in the petition for this rule. Containing 5,474 5324 acres, more or less. PARCEL "A" A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 35 TOWNSHIP 44 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, SECTIONS 1, 2, 11 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 44 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND IN SECTIONS 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35 RUN N 00?47'42" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF SAID SECTION FOR 2643.18 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?43'47" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION FOR 1361.42 FEET; THENCE RUN N 35?45'29" E FOR 947.82 FEET; THENCE RUN N 56?15'44" E FOR 690.61 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE COLONIAL BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY (STATE ROAD 884) (250 FEET WIDE); THENCE RUN S 89?38'27" E ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 539.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE S 89?38'27" E ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2224.05 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN S 02?16'01" E ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1168.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN N 89?54'24" E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION FOR 1324.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN S 03?20'25" E FOR 1284.37 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN S 00?01'59" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 2635.65 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE RUN N 89?28'42" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 1 FOR 2642.98 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE RUN S 89?57'06" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3) OF SAID SECTION 1 FOR 2523.38 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?57'01" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 FOR 2644.12 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER ON SAID WEST LINE; THENCE RUN N 00?35'02" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 FOR 1705.47 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (STATE ROAD 82) (200 FEET WIDE); THENCE RUN S 46?07'29" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 6215.51 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE CONTINUE S 46?07'29" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 1227.27 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 5 AND 6; THENCE CONTINUE S 46?07'29" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 1535.36 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 5824.88 FEET (DELTA 18?13'21") (CHORD BEARING S 55?14'10" E) (CHORD 1844.76 FEET) FOR 1852.55 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE S 64?20'50" E FOR 22.21 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF (W 2) OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE RUN S 00?06'33" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 2271.81 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 5 AND 8; THENCE RUN S 01?02'00" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF (W 2) OF SAID SECTION 8 FOR 3028.35 FEET; THENCE RUN N 89?33'57" E FOR 605.03 FEET; THENCE RUN S 01?02'02" E FOR 1800.10 FEET; THENCE S 89?33'57" W FOR 605.03 FEET; THENCE RUN S 01?02'00" E FOR 500.03 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 8 AND 17; THENCE RUN S 01?00'12" E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 17 FOR 926.76 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF A FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SUBSTATION SITE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1606 AT PAGE 1286, LEE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE RUN N 37?57'04" W ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE FOR 361.70 FEET; THENCE RUN S 52?02'56" W ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SITE FOR 361.70 FEET; THENCE RUN S 37?57'04" E ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID SITE FOR 741.48 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF DANIELS ROAD EXTENSION (200 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1644 AT PAGE 1739, LEE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE RUN N 68?38'13" E ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE FOR 64.84 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE RUN S 01?00'12" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 1238.52 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN S 89?30'38" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION AND A NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL AIRPORT FOR 2110.83 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID DANIELS ROAD EXTENSION; THENCE RUN S 54?00'05" W THROUGH SAID SECTIONS 17, 18, AND 19 ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (200 FEET WIDE) FOR 7032.17 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN N 00?55'36" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 1477.45 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?54'13" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF SAID SECTION 18 FOR 2643.95 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER OF SAID WEST LINE; THENCE RUN N 00?39'39" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 18 FOR 2647.35 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 00?57'26" W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF SAID SECTION 7 FOR 2645.34 FEET TO THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 7 AND 12; THENCE RUN S 89?55'12" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3) OF SAID SECTION 12 FOR 2524.67 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 2524.14 FEET OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3); THENCE RUN N 01?05'33" W ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 2646.07 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE RUN S 89?56'14" W ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FOR 2663.19 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, PASSING THROUGH THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION AT 69.26 FEET; THENCE RUN S 89?03'50" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 2 FOR 3096.18 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED TREELINE BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING BEARING AND DISTANCES: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2625.00 FEET (DELTA 29?13'02") (CHORD BEARING S 15?09'16" W) (CHORD 1324.12 FEET) FOR 1338.58 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S 29?45'46" W FOR 618.63 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1487.50 FEET (DELTA 28?50'26") (CHORD BEARING S 15?20'33" W) (CHORD 740.87 FEET) FOR 748.75 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S 00?55'22" W FOR 166.10 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11; THENCE RUN S 88?33'56" W ALONG SAID LINE FOR 125.11 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PROPOSED TREELINE BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING BEARING AND DISTANCES: THENCE RUN N 00?55'22" E FOR 171.23 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1612.50 FEET (DELTA 28?50'26") (CHORD BEARING N 15?20'33" E) (CHORD 803.13 FEET) FOR 811.67 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 29145"46' E FOR 618.63 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2500.00 FEET (DELTA 33?36'51") (CHORD BEARING N 12?57'22" W) (CHORD 1445.75 FEET) FOR 1466.69 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 03?51'03" W FOR 959.31 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2800.06 FEET (DELTA 10?24'15") (CHORD BEARING N 01?21'04" E) (CHORD 507.76 FEET) FOR 508.45 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 06?33'12" E FOR 1166.54 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET (DELTA 43?02'49") (CHORD BEARING N 14?58'12" W) (CHORD 733.76 FEET) FOR 751.31 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 36?29'36" W FOR 266.36 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 2000.00 FEET (DELTA 37?40'00") (CHORD BEARING N 17?39'36" W) (CHORD 1291.27 FEET) FOR 1314.81 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 01?10'24" E FOR 245.33 FEET; THENCE S 89?25'36" W LEAVING SAID WEST LINE FOR 114.67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF TREELINE BOULEVARD (TO BE RE-ALIGNED) AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1529 BEGINNING AT PAGE 412 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF LEE COUNTY; THENCE N 00?02'17" W FOR 68.31 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 44 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE N 01?00'06" W ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF TREELINE BOULEVARD (TO BE RE-ALIGNED) FOR 2642.68 FEET; THENCE N 00?58'02" W ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF TREELINE BOULEVARD (TO BE RE-ALIGNED) FOR 1048.01 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET AND TO WHICH POINT A RADIAL LINE BEARS S 47?49' 01" E; SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EAST LINE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2581 BEGINNING AT PAGE 4060 OF THE LEE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET (DELTA 41?49'26") (CHORD BEARING N 21?16'16" E) (CHORD 749.56 FEET) FOR 766.46 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 00?21'33" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 721.50 FEET; THENCE N 45?21'33" E FOR 42.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 4,390 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND RIGHTS- OF-WAY (RECORDED AND UNRECORDED, WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN) BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST AS BEARING S88?57'32"W. TOGETHER WITH: DESCRIPTION SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL "B" A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHICH TRACT OR PARCEL IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3 RUN N 88?37'17" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3 FOR 2477.68 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 75 (I-75) (STATE ROAD NO. 93) (324 FEET WIDE) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN S 14?49'52" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE FOR 677.94 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE RUN S 00?49'05" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 1299.77 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF (W 2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 3) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 3) OF SAID SECTION; THENCE RUN N 88?12'52" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 323.06 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID WESTERLY LINE OF STATE ROAD NO. 93; THENCE RUN S 14?49'52" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE FOR 2.67 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN S 00?37'05" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE FOR 650.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE RUN N 88?09'46" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 3) OF SAID SECTION 3 FOR 163.88 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE RUN S 14?49'52" E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR 1474.99 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT OF RADIUS 22800.31 FEET (CHORD BEARING S 13?33'28" E) (CHORD 1013.23 FEET) (DELTA 02?32'47") FOR 1013.31 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT LINE; THENCE RUN N 82?23'52" W FOR 122.32 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON- TANGENT CURVE; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 22685.31 FEET (CHORD BEARING N 13?36'38" W) (CHORD 966.55 FEET) (DELTA 02?26'29") FOR 966.63 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN N 14?49'52" W FOR 542. 01 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT OF RADIUS 250.00 FEET (CHORD BEARING N 54?04'24" W) (CHORD 316.30 FEET) (DELTA 78?29'05") FOR 342.45 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE RUN S 86?41'03" W FOR 1133.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N 02?10'37" W FOR 387.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N 87?40'37" W FOR 838.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N 01?19'23" E FOR 243.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S 88?09'46" W FOR 190.18 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SIX MILE CYPRESS PRESERVE, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1741 AT PAGE 1241 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN THE FOLLOWING FIFTEEN (13) COURSES ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE; N 15?42'08" E FOR 184.34 FEET; N 20?55'23" E FOR 222.23 FEET; N 45?09'19" E FOR 183.23 FEET; N 31?07'36" E FOR 305.01 FEET; N 32?55'08" E FOR 155.78 FEET; N 17?03'28" E FOR 110.45 FEET; N 26?26'47" E FOR 300.81 FEET; N 18?42'17" E FOR 150.86 FEET; N 04?51'19" W FOR 340.19 FEET; N 12?09'34" E FOR 251.79 FEET; N 27?12'34" E FOR 210.15 FEET; N 14?53'31" E FOR 323.53 FEET; N 35?18'42" E FOR 275.49 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3; THENCE RUN N 88?37'17" E ALONG SAID NORTH LINE FOR 530.87 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 111.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOTAL AREA FOR BOTH PARCELS 4,501.14 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEARINGS HEREINABOVE MENTIONED ARE BASED ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 3) OF SAID SECTION 3 TO BEAR N 88?37'17" W WHICH BEARING IS DERIVED FROM PLANE COORDINATE FOR THE FLORIDA WEST ZONE (1979 ADJUSTMENT). Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005, FS. Law Implemented 190.004, 190.005, FS. History - new 5-22-86, Amended .
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission (Planning Commission) should approve, approve with conditions, or deny the site plan application filed by the School of Arts and Sciences Foundation, Inc. (SAS). § 9-153, LDC.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Leewood Neighborhood Petitioner, Maye Walker, lives in Leewood Hills at 1305 Covington Drive. The "Leewood Neighborhood" consists of three small subdivisions: Leewood Hills; Lisa Park; and Piedmont Forest. The sole access into or out of the Leewood Neighborhood is Leewood Drive, which intersects with Thomasville Road at its eastern end. Cabot Road is a short road running from Leewood Drive to the eastern end of Covington Drive, which parallels Leewood Drive. Lisa Court is a short, dead-end street running from Covington Drive to the north in Lisa Park. Atwood Road is a somewhat longer, dead-end street running north from the western end of Leewood Drive and past the western end of Covington Drive to where it dead-ends in Piedmont Forest. School of Arts and Sciences SAS is located on a 4.03-acre campus at 3208 Thomasville Road. Thomasville Road is the eastern border of the SAS property. The Leewood Neighborhood lies to the south and west of SAS. To the north of SAS is the Piedmont Park Alliance Church. To the east, across Thomasville Road, is the Thomasville Road Baptist Church and Oven Park. SAS is a public charter school sponsored by the Leon County School District. The charter for the School was first approved by the Leon County School Board in April of 1998. By the terms of its charter, SAS may operate a K-12 school with up to 350 students. SAS actually operates as a K-8 school. When it opened, it had approximately 175 students, but enrollment has gone up since then. SAS students come from all over the Leon County School District. SAS's hours of operation are 9:30 a.m. to 3:35 p.m. with an extended day program available beginning at 7:30 a.m. and ending at 6 p.m. SAS operates on the former site of the Epiphany Lutheran Church and Day School. SAS initially leased the site in 1998 with an option to purchase. One of the conditions of purchase was obtaining necessary authorizations from the City for use of the site as a charter school. The City issued a land use compliance certificate (LUCC) on January 5, 1999, which confirmed the ability of SAS to use the Epiphany Lutheran Church and Day School site "for a K-12 Public Charter School." The LUCC also put SAS on notice that its school would be subject to the Education Element of the Comprehensive Plan and that a Type B site plan review would be the process required for adding buildings to the SAS site. (Normally, the type of addition requested by SAS would go through Type A site plan review, but exercising the discretion granted by the City Code, the City's Growth Management Department required a Type B site plan review, which adds a requirement for public notice to the review process.) All buildings currently in use by SAS existed on the site when SAS occupied it. Likewise, the playground on the southern side of the property and the asphalt, outdoor basketball court on the western side of the property were constructed by the Epiphany Lutheran Church and in existence when SAS occupied the site. When the Epiphany Lutheran Church occupied the site, school traffic entered the site from Leewood Drive and Cabot Road, exiting onto Thomasville Road. That traffic circulation pattern caused traffic to back up along Cabot Road and obstruct driveways when parents dropped off and picked up their children, which generated complaints from residents of the Leewood Neighborhood. In response to those complaints, SAS changed the traffic circulation pattern when it occupied the site and began operating. On Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., SAS used a one-way traffic flow through the SAS property, with vehicles entering from Thomasville Road and exiting the school south along Cabot Road to Leewood Drive then left to the intersection with Thomasville Road. A speed bump and stop sign exist at the exit from the SAS property onto Cabot. This change eliminated the traffic backups on Cabot Drive, shifting them to the interior of the SAS property. The traffic circulation pattern used by SAS has been posted on signs at the entrance to and exit from SAS. SAS also has made on an on-going effort to educate its parents as to proper traffic circulation, the need to observe stop signs and no parking signs, and the need to give neighborhood traffic the right-of-way. Unfortunately, not all parents have been compliant, and SAS's efforts have not been able to eliminate problems between parents of school children and residents of the Leewood Neighborhood. On weekends, the site is used by the Thomasville Road Baptist Church for overflow parking, and SAS's auditorium is used on some evenings for performances or other gatherings. For Sunday and evening use, traffic enters and exits onto Thomasville Road. This use of the SAS site does not cause traffic problems for the Leewood Neighborhood. SAS's charter requires it to offer bus service to the students of the school. Bus service is provided by the Leon County Public School District, and the bus number and schedule are determined by the school district based on a number of logistical factors. Currently, eight buses serve the school in the morning and six serve it in the afternoon. SAS's First Addition Proposal On January 6, 2001, SAS obtained another LUCC, which identified the site as "potentially eligible for a 16,559 square foot addition to the existing 15,077 square foot Arts & Sciences Charter School" and identified the applicable review process. It is not clear from the evidence whether SAS ever intended to add 16,559 square feet of building space to its existing campus, as opposed to adding a net of 1,482 square feet for a total of 16,559. In any event, no application was filed to add 16,559 square feet. Instead, a site plan application was filed to add approximately 2,000 square feet of space for a media center and additional classroom. The site plan was designed to accommodate a total of 225 students.4 It is not clear from the evidence what student enrollment at SAS was at the time of this application. However, the evidence was that student enrollment was 211 in February 2002. Although the evidence was that student enrollment can vary during a school year, it probably was approximately 211 during the 2001/2002 school year. During the process of the Type B site plan review of this application, it came to the attention of the City that SAS was not in compliance with vegetation buffers imposed by a Leon County environmental permit issued to the Epiphany Lutheran Church prior to October 1, 1990. SAS was not aware of the requirement before the City required compliance in the spring of 2002. In response, SAS spent approximately $16,000 replacing vegetation buffer along the western boundary of its property and along the southern boundary extending to the east as far as the driveway access to Cabot Road. SAS also added an eight-foot high wood fence along the western boundary line and replaced a low, chain-link fence along the southern boundary, to the east of the driveway access to Cabot Road, adjacent to a residential lot fronting on the east side of Cabot Road, and separating the lot from a kindergarten playground, with an eight-foot high wood fence. It is not clear from the evidence whether an eight-foot high wood fence also was placed along the southern boundary of SAS's property, just north of Covington Drive, west of the driveway access to Cabot Road. There was testimony suggesting that this was done, but the revised site plan under review does not show it.5 In April 2002, the DRC denied SAS's site plan application. Although other grounds for denial were cited as well, one ground for denial was that comprehensive plan and land development regulation provisions for school siting were applicable and precluded site plan approval. When SAS learned it was being denied on that ground, it consulted Dr. Jim Croteau, now Acting Assistant Superintendent for Business Services and Executive Director for Planning and Policy at the Leon County School District. Dr. Croteau was the School Board’s lead on the Education Element of the comprehensive plan, and was the primary drafter of the Education Element. He explained to the City's Planning Department staff that the Education Element applied only to new facilities. Based on these discussions, the City's Planning Department staff reexamined the issue and agreed with Dr. Croteau. SAS was informed of the re-evaluation of the application of the Education Element but was told it had to reapply for site plan approval. SAS's Second Addition Proposal (at Issue) At this juncture in the application process, SAS attempted to further alleviate traffic impacts to the Leewood Neighborhood by proposing a new traffic circulation pattern that would not use Cabot Drive at all. But while SAS thought it possible to have passenger cars enter and exit the site via the Thomasville Road driveway access, it was impossible to devise a way for school buses to also use such a traffic circulation pattern. Then, the City and SAS approached the Piedmont Alliance Church to the north in an attempt to share driveways with SAS, but those efforts ultimately were rejected by the Church. As a result, SAS redesigned its project to turn cars around on the site so that they would enter and exit at Thomasville Road, but with bus traffic routing remaining unchanged. On August 9, 2002, SAS filed a new application with the City for approval of the new site plan. Similar if not identical to the previously denied application, the site plan proposed to add an approximately 1,043 square-foot building for a media center and additional classroom at its campus. (The building being added had two floors, so the additional floor area was twice the square-footage of the building, actually 2,238 square feet.) However, the new traffic circle was proposed as part of this application. It is not clear from the evidence what student enrollment at SAS was at the time of this new application. However, the evidence was that student enrollment was 226 at the end of the 2002/2003 school year. Although the evidence was that student enrollment can vary during a school year, it probably was approximately 225 during the 2002/2003 school year. City staff had numerous concerns with the new site plan, including the potential for dangerous conflict between pedestrians and car and bus traffic. In addition, the redesigned project would require changes to the driveway that would impact stormwater treatment and require the placement of stormwater facilities within the 25-year floodplain. On January 27, 2003, the City's (DRC) denied the applications, as submitted. After further discussion with the City's staff, SAS submitted a revised site plan application on March 8, 2004, which reverted to the one-way, flow-through traffic circulation that has been in effect since SAS has been in operation on the site (and eliminated the need to impact stormwater treatment or require the placement of stormwater facilities within the 25-year floodplain). On March 23, 2004, the DRC approved the revised site plan, with conditions, including a 225 cap on student enrollment. While SAS's site plan application is to add a two-story building addition to provide an additional classroom, as well as a media center, SAS intends to utilize the new classroom instead of an existing undersized classroom, which will become a conference room, so that the number of classrooms will not increase. SAS's representatives testified that the purpose of the addition was not to increase the student population, and SAS agreed to the 225-student cap as a condition of site plan approval, even though current enrollment is approximately 230. School Siting Provisions Inapplicable The evidence was clear that, while some City officials have suggested at earlier points in the site plan review process that compliance with comprehensive plan and land development regulation provisions for school siting were applicable and precluded site plan approval, those provisions actually do not apply to site plans for additions to existing schools. As stated in the City's Planning Department staff report dated March 17, 2004: "The proposed development is not inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Education Element of the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan. The provisions of this element include requirements for determining the appropriate locations for new educational facilities but do not address the expansion or modification of existing, established educational facilities." The wording of the Education Element, Objectives 1.2, Policies 1.2.1, 1.2.5, 1.2.7 and 1.3.1 illustrate the intent to apply only to new facilities. If the Education Element applied to existing facilities, many capital improvements, including some planned with sales tax money, would not be able to proceed on many existing schools. As many as half of the District's existing school sites would not be in compliance with the Education Element of the Comprehensive Plan. SAS's property is categorized as Residential Preservation land use on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is located in a Residential Preservation 1 zoning district. Schools are an allowable use in these comprehensive plan and zoning categories. The Comprehensive Plan and the LDC contain similar identical matrices which prohibit connection of a community service facility to a local road and require planned unit development (PUD) review. But the evidence was clear that those provisions apply only new land uses, not to evaluation of an existing use. Traffic and Noise Impacts of Proposal at Issue The evidence was that, in order of preference, the Piedmont Park Alliance Church driveway was the best for sight distance, with Leewood Drive being almost as good. From a traffic safety standpoint, exiting cars back onto Thomasville Road at the existing SAS driveway was the worst option for two reasons: it had the poorest sight distance of the alternatives; and the median opening on Thomasville Road allowed for the interaction of vehicles from two opposing driveways (SAS's and Thomasville Road Baptist Church's). The evidence suggested that, in May 2004, SAS was adding approximately 300 car and bus trips a day to other neighborhood traffic traveling south on Cabot Drive and east on Leewood Drive to Thomasville Road. Even so, the one-way SAS traffic flowing through the campus and exiting at Cabot Drive tends to be fairly-well spread out. Students beginning to arrive from 7:30 a.m. for the extended day program up through the beginning of the official school day at 9:30 a.m., spaced at an average of 2- to 5-minute intervals, but with a more concentrated peak traffic between 8:45 and 9:30 a.m. In the afternoon and evening, students seemed to be picked up between 3:30 and 6 p.m., with two separate peaks, one between 3:30 and 4 p.m. and another between 5:30 and 6 p.m., but otherwise sporadically. A certain amount of noise generated by SAS's operations impacts at least parts of the neighborhood. There was some evidence to suggest that the proposed two-story addition would add to noise impacts of the basketball court and play area on the western end of the campus by adding to the echo chamber effect of existing building being added to (identified as the former parsonage of the Epiphany Lutheran Church). But at the hearing, SAS committed to construction in accordance with plan elevations placed in evidence as SAS Exhibit j, so that the proposed two- story addition would be attached to the east side of the existing building with a roofline that matches the roofline of the existing building to the west. As a result, while the significant noise impacts to the residents in the home to the immediate west of SAS are not to be taken lightly, the second story of SAS's proposed addition would not add to noise impacts. Because the proposed addition is not anticipated to increase the student population, the addition itself is not expected to increase traffic impacts--either through additional traffic or a different traffic pattern. For the same reason, the addition itself is not expected to increase noise impacts or other disturbances to the Leewood Neighborhood. However, it should be recognized that the purpose of the addition is to enable SAS to better accommodate an increase in student population from 175 when it first opened to 225 under the cap, which was allowed under the LUCC issued in January 1999. For this reason, for the protection of the Leewood Neighborhood, it is imperative that the 225 cap be strictly enforced. The evidence suggested that one way to do this would be to require SAS to report to the appropriate City enforcement officials if enrollment ever exceeds the 225 cap. Visual Impacts and Buffers As for alleged visual impacts from the addition on the residents in the home to the immediate west of SAS (especially from their second story), if constructed in accordance with SAS Exhibit j, not only would the second story of SAS's proposed addition not add to noise impacts, it would not be visible at all from the west. From the south (from sightlines along Covington Drive), even if no eight-foot wooden fence has been erected in that location, the existing vegetation buffer would remain and provide some visual buffer--approximately the same visual buffer that the vegetation was providing for the existing building (the old parsonage). To the extent that Petitioner raised a question as to efficacy of the vegetation buffer in that location, there was no persuasive evidence that the vegetation buffer was inadequate for the addition. From sightline through SAS's driveway access at Cabot Drive, the addition would be visible, but the existing building (the old parsonage) also is visible along those sightlines. A question also was raised as to the SAS's compliance with the vegetation buffer requirements--specifically, that some of the buffer has been removed improperly. Vegetation was removed in the area of the kindergarten playground, but that vegetation buffer was replaced by a privacy fence acceptable to the adjacent resident and by additional vegetation buffer farther to the east. Some vegetation also was removed incidental to installation of a privacy fence in the vicinity of the basketball court.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Planning Commission approve SAS's site plan application, with the conditions recommended by the DRC, together with additional conditions: to report to the appropriate City code enforcement officials if SAS's student enrollment ever exceeds 225; and to limit the height of the proposed addition to the roofline of the existing building, as depicted in SAS Exhibit j. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 21st day of October, 2004.
The Issue Whether the specifications set forth in Respondent's Invitation To Bid for Lease No. 590:2029 are in accordance with law.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) determines space need annually pursuant to a letter of agency staffing, primarily generated as a result of legislatively allocated new positions. Based on the letter of agency staffing showing the need for additional office space in the Inverness, Florida service area of the Department's District Three, the Department caused an ITB to be advertised regarding Lease No. 590:2029 seeking some 19,373 square feet of office space, plus of minus 3%. The Petitioners presently lease office space to the Department in the Inverness, Florida, District Three service area. This office space is located within the preferred zone set forth in Attachment B to the ITB. In addition to the presently leased space, the Petitioner intends to offer additional space within the preferred area. The Department's Leasing Manual HRS M 70-1 (Manual) sets out the procedure to be followed when the Department is seeking to lease office space of 2,000 square feet or more in privately owned buildings. Within this manual are the forms to be utilized for this purpose and, among other forms, is an ITB packet that contains a Bid Submittal Form (BSF) and, within the BSF is a page entitled Evaluation Criteria. The Department followed the procedure set forth in the manual in advertising for competitive bids on Lease No. 590:2029 for office space in Inverness, Florida service area of District Three and, in doing so, used the ITB packet that contains the BSF with the Evaluation Criteria page. The BSF, including the Evaluation Criteria page, is a slightly modified version of the Department of General Services' (DGS) Request For Proposal Submittal Form - BPM 4136, incorporated by reference in Rule 13M-1.015(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, as a suggested format. The Evaluation Criteria page of the Department's BSF contains nine of the eleven evaluation criteria set forth on the evaluation criteria page of the BPM 4136, but does not place any limit on the weight of award factors as does BPM 4136 on two of the same criteria used by the Department. The Evaluation Criteria set out in paragraph C. 2. and 4. of BPM 4136 which corresponds to paragraph 1(a) and 2(c) of the Department's Evaluation page, provide that award factors for these two criteria should not exceed ten, whereas the Department does not place a limit on the award factors for any of the criteria. The two Evaluation Criteria on BPM 4136 that do not appear on the Department's Evaluation Criteria page address the availability of dining facilities and proximity of offered space to other Department activities and public services. Both the BSF and BPM 4136 are used in bidding for space in existing facilities and, therefore, require a scaled floor plan showing present configuration, with measurements that equate to the net rentable square footage using the Standard Method of Space Measurement. The BSF does not attach a "floor plan for suggested configuration of offices and rooms" as does the BPM 4136 but does provide the number, types and sizes of rooms to be placed in the existing facility. Both forms leave the final configuration of the floor plan to the successful bidder and the lessee. The Department's reasoning for not including a "suggested floor plan" is that this may reduce the number of prospective bidders due to the varied configuration of existing facilities in the bid area. The majority of the clients to be served by the Department in Citrus County, Florida reside within the preferred zone shown as Attachment B. However, there may be other areas where a lesser concentration of clients may be served by "outposting". That is, servicing those clients on a regular scheduled basis at other smaller facilities within an area outside of the preferred zone. The Department no longer requires the facility to be under one roof but how co-location is accomplished is important to the efficient utilization of services and supervision of staff. Elderly and handicapped clients experience difficulty in utilizing needed services (when more than one service is needed) because of distance between buildings. Department clients frequently utilize the services of more than one program and such multi-service utilization is projected to increase in the future. Public transportation in Citrus County, Florida is partially funded by the Department to assist its clients and is uniformly available to the clients in the Inverness services area. The Department did not prepare any studies of functional space needs, staff space needs, client needs, client demographics or client transportation needs before or after the ITB was advertised. The Evaluation Criteria did not include a factor for future expansion even though the Department's caseload is projected to increase. In accordance with the procedure set forth in the Manual an Evaluation Committee (Committee) was appointed to determine, among other things, the award factor or weight to be placed on the nine Evaluation Criteria set forth on the Evaluation Criteria page of the BSF. The committee determined the significance of the nine criteria on the Evaluation page to the Department's needs in regard to Lease No. 590-2029 and awarded a weight factor in accordance with the significance of the criteria. Those criteria most significant to the Department's needs received the highest weight. These award factors were added to the Evaluation page of the BSF at the time the ITB was advertised. No additional Evaluation Criteria were used by the Committee. There was insufficient evidence to show that Committee's action in determining the weight to be given the nine criteria was arbitrary or capricious or unlawful even though different weights had been placed on some of the same criteria in the 1988 ITB. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to show that any of the specifications set forth in the ITB did not promote fair competition or otherwise reflect normal policy or, that the criteria were designed to favor a specific location or prospective bidder within the preferred zone. The procedure and the forms set forth in the Manual and used by the Department, including the procedure followed by the Evaluation Committee in putting together the ITB for Lease No. 590:2029, comports substantially with all substantive provisions of Chapter 13M-1, Florida Administrative Code, and more specifically with Rule 13M-1.015, Florida Administrative Code. The differences, such as they are, are not substantial, nor is there any extrinsic or intrinsic divergence from the substance of the rule such as to mislead any potential bidder who sought to address the ITB.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department dismissing Petitioners' Formal Notice of Written Protest. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6017BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings Of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. - 3. Covered in the Preliminary Statement 4. 6. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 4 - 11, otherwise not material or a restatement of testimony and stated as a finding of fact. 7. - 8. Not material or relevant. 9. - 22. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 4 - 11, 15, 17 and 18, otherwise not material or a restatement of testimony and not state as a finding of fact. 23. - 24. Not material or relevant. 23. - 24.*Covered in the Conclusions of Law, otherwise not material or a restatement of testimony and stated as a finding of fact. 25. - 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 16. 28. - 31. Not material. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16, otherwise a restatement of testimony and not stated as a finding of fact. - 37. Not material or a restatement of testimony and stated as a finding of fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. - 3. Not material. 4. 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 13, respectively. 7. - 9. Not material. 10. - 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12 and 13. 13. - 15. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 17. Not material. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 19. - 22. Not Material COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, FL 32609 Arthur R. Shell, Esquire 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Sam Powers, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Case No. - 89-6017BID
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the proposed award by the Division of Emergency Management (DEM) of the contract referenced herein to Everbridge, Inc. (Everbridge) is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes, rules or policies, or to the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 2015, DEM posted RFP-DEM-15-16-037 (RFP), titled ”Florida Statewide Emergency Alert and Notification System,” on the state’s Vendor Bid System (“VBS”). The purpose of the RFP is to procure a statewide emergency alert and notification system as mandated by section 252.35(2)(a)(6) Florida Statutes, which requires the DEM to “[e]stablish a system of communications and warning to ensure that the state’s population and emergency management agencies are warned of developing emergency situations and can communicate emergency response decisions.” DEM is a separate budget entity established within the Executive Office of the Governor. Tara Walters, the purchasing manager for DEM, was responsible for the RFP and the procurement process. According to the RFP, the system is to be “vendor- hosted” and capable of proving “mass notification” of “imminent or sudden hazards” through voice telephone calls, text messages, emails, social media, and “Telecommunications Device of the Deaf/TeleTYpewriter (TDD/TTY)” systems. ECN and Everbridge are vendors of mass notification systems. Section 5 of the RFP provided, in relevant part, as follows: RESPONSIVENESS Vendor. In order to qualify as a responsive vendor as that term is defined by section 287.012(27), Florida Statutes, a Proposer must submit a proposal that conforms in all material respects to this solicitation. Proposal. In order to qualify as a responsive proposal as that term is defined by section 287.012(26), Florida Statutes, a proposal must conform in all material respects to this solicitation. The Division shall not consider any proposal that contains a material deviation from the terms of this solicitation. However, the Division reserves the right to consider a proposal that contains a minor deviation or irregularity so long as that minor deviation or irregularity does not provide a competitive advantage over the other proposers. The Division shall not permit a vendor to amend a proposal after the due date for submissions – even if to correct a deviation or irregularity. * * * A proposal may fail to qualify as responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to: Failure to include a material form or addendum; Failure to include material information; Modification of the proposal specifications; Submission of conditional proposals or incomplete proposals; and, Submission of indefinite or ambiguous proposals. Section 28 of the RFP included specific proposal format instructions. Each proposal was to contain two parts: a “Technical Proposal” (Part I) and a “Price Proposal” (Part II). The RFP explicitly identified the contents to be set forth within each part. The Technical Proposal was to include multiple sections, including a table of contents, an executive summary, and a “Management Plan.” According to the RFP, the Management Plan was required to include four elements: the vendor’s relevant experience; significant examples of the vendor’s other clients and pertinent references; a project staffing plan; and a completed “data sheet,” the form for which was included in the RFP. The RFP also required that the Technical Proposal include a section identified as “Technical Plan/Minimum System Requirements” related to the “Scope of Work” necessary to implement the system. The referenced minimum requirements were explicitly set forth at Exhibit “A” to the RFP. Finally, the RFP required that the Technical Proposal include the vendor’s financial statements for the prior three years as follows: The Proposer shall provide information regarding its financial status in order to demonstrate that it is financially stable and has the resources necessary to perform the services outlined in this RFP on a statewide basis. Proposers are to include financial statements created in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for the last three years. (Financial documentation may be combined into one file and are not included in the page count). The Division reserves the right to evaluate the financial status of any or all Proposers before making an award decision. The Price Proposal was to be submitted separately from the Technical Proposal by using the “Price Proposal Form” included in the RFP. According to the Schedule of Events set forth in the RFP, proposals were due on September 30, 2015. DEM received five proposals in response to the RFP. DEM determined that three of the proposals were not responsive, and they received no further evaluation. The two proposals that advanced into the evaluation process were those submitted by ECN and Everbridge. The RFP identified the process by which each proposal would be evaluated, including the formulas by which some scores would be calculated. Technical Proposals and Price Proposals were separately evaluated. The Technical Proposals were reviewed by a group of six evaluators, several of whom had extensive experience in emergency management and notification systems. The evaluators subjectively scored the three Management Plan elements pertaining to relative experience, examples/references, and staffing plan. Based on the evaluation, proposals could be awarded up to 30 points allocated between the referenced elements. The scores assigned by the evaluators to ECN and Everbridge for the three Management Plan elements were as follows: Evaluator ECN Everbridge Danny Hinson 13 30 Scott Nelson 30 30 Brian Misner 24 29 Phil Royce 29 27 Kevin Smith 24 25 Scott Warner 20 26 The fourth element of the Management Plan, the data sheet, was worth up to 20 points, and was scored through a formula included in the RFP. The data sheet required a vendor to identify a “guaranteed minimum number of concurrent recipient contacts” obtainable by various methods and timeframes. Using this formula, Everbridge received a data sheet score of 20 and ECN received a data sheet score of 3.99. An assertion by ECN that Everbridge cannot achieve the guaranteed minimums set forth on its data sheet was unsupported by evidence. The RFP specifically provided that the “Technical Plan/Minimum System Requirements” section of the Technical Proposal section would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as follows: The minimum requirements of the system are broken down in to five (5) sections in the Exhibit “A”, Scope of Work, and are as follows: Minimum System Requirements, Minimum Geographical Information System Requirements, Minimum Notification Requirements, Minimum Security Requirements, and Minimum Support Requirements. Vendor’s responses shall state each requirement and detail how the system they are proposing meets or exceeds that requirement. This portion of your response is very important as proposed systems that do not meet each of the minimum requirements shall fail the Responsibility Requirements of the RFP and shall not be considered for additional review or scoring. Three of the six evaluators determined that ECN’s proposal failed to comply with all of the minimum requirements and accordingly failed to comply with the “Responsibility Requirements” of the RFP. Nonetheless, DEM completed the review and scoring of the ECN proposal. Price Proposals were reviewed and scored by Ms. Walters according to a formula specified in the RFP. Pricing was worth up to 10 points. Everbridge received a price score of 7 points. ECN received a price score of 10 points. There is no evidence that Ms. Walter’s review of the Price Proposals failed to comply with the applicable requirements of the RFP. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, Everbridge’s total score was 54.83 and ECN’s total score was 37.32. On October 19, 2015, DEM posted its Notice of Intent to Award the contract under the RFP to Everbridge. ECN filed a Notice of Protest on October 20, 2015. ECN filed a Formal Written Protest on October 30, 2015. ECN asserts that at least some of the Management Plan scoring deviated from the RFP and the instructions provided to the evaluators. ECN specifically asserts that the evaluations conducted by three of the evaluators included consideration of information extrinsic to the RFP and the vendor proposals, that the information was flawed, and that the scores awarded were therefore inappropriate. The evidence fails to establish that the evaluation of the Management Plan materially failed to comply with procedures or criteria set forth in the RFP. The evidence establishes that the individuals selected to evaluate the proposals understood the requirements of the RFP, and that they conducted their evaluations according to their understanding of the evaluation criteria at the time the evaluations were performed. The evidence further fails to establish that any alleged deficiencies in the evaluation process, even if established, would have altered the total scores sufficiently to change the intended award of the contract as set forth in the DEM Notice of Intent. ECN asserts that the Question and Answer process employed by DEM was irrational and materially impaired the competitiveness of the procurement process. Pursuant to the RFP, vendors were permitted to submit questions to DEM. On September 21, 2015, DEM posted the questions and the DEM responses, including this question submitted by ECN: If a prospective bidder utilizes third parties for completing the RFP requirements, shall the bidder’s service level agreements (SLAs) with those third parties be submitted within the proposal response? DEM’s posted response to the question was “Yes.” Everbridge did not include SLAs within its proposal. ECN asserts that DEM should have rejected the Everbridge proposal as nonresponsive because Everbridge failed to include SLAs in its proposal. ECN submitted SLAs within its proposal, although the SLAs submitted by ECN were unexecuted or incomplete. There is no requirement in the RFP that vendors submit SLAs as part of a response to the RFP. Section 15 of the RFP (titled “Oral Instructions/Changes to the Request for Proposal (Addenda)”) provided in material part as follows: No negotiations, decisions, or actions will be initiated or executed by a proposer as a result of any oral discussions with a State employee. Only those communications which are in writing from the Division will be considered as a duly authorized expression on behalf of the Division. Notices of changes (addenda) will be posted on the Florida Vendor Bid System at: http://vbs.dms.state.fl.us/vbs/main_menu. It is the responsibility of all potential proposers to monitor this site for any changing information prior to submitting your proposal. All addenda will be acknowledged by signature and subsequent submission of addenda with proposal when so stated in the addenda. DEM’s response to the question posed by ECN did not amend the RFP. DEM did not issue any notice of change or addenda to the RFP that required a vendor to include SLAs within a response to an RFP. ECN asserts that Everbridge is not a responsible vendor because Everbridge failed to comply with Section 18 of the RFP (titled “Qualifications”), which provided, in relevant, part as follows: The Division will determine whether the Proposer is qualified to perform the services being contracted based upon their proposal demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area. * * * In accordance with sections 607.1501, 608.501, and 620.169, Florida Statutes, foreign corporations, foreign limited liability companies, and foreign limited partnerships must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. “Foreign Corporation” means a corporation for profit incorporated under laws other than the laws of this state. Such authorization should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, must be obtained prior to posting of the intended award of the contract. ECN, a Delaware-incorporated limited liability company, complied with the referenced requirement. Everbridge, a Delaware-incorporated corporation, did not. Although Everbridge asserts that the statutes referenced in the requirement did not require it to be registered prior to the posting of the intended award, the issue is not whether Everbridge complied with state law, but whether Everbridge met the RFP’s qualification requirements. The RFP specifically provided that in order to qualify as a responsive vendor “as that term is defined by section 287.012(27) Florida Statutes,” proposals were required to conform in all material respects to the solicitation. The RFP provided as follows: The Division shall not consider any proposal that contains a material deviation from the terms of this solicitation. However, the Division reserves the right to consider a proposal that contains a minor deviation or irregularity so long as that minor deviation or irregularity does not provide a competitive advantage over the other proposers. The issue is whether the registration requirement was “material” to the RFP. It was not. The foreign corporation registration requirement was “boiler plate” language, apparently included by DEM in the RFP with little thought. Neither Ms. Walters, nor any other DEM employee, made any effort to determine whether the vendors that submitted proposals in response to the RFP complied with the requirement. The evidence fails to establish that the failure to comply with the registration requirement constituted a material deviation from the terms of the RFP. Everbridge obtained no competitive advantage over ECN or any other vendor through noncompliance with the registration requirement. ECN asserts that the Everbridge proposal was nonresponsive to the RFP because the Everbridge proposal included the following language: Legal Disclosure Everbridge's RFP response is provided for informational purposes and is not meant to form a binding contract for the provision of our critical communications suite. Upon request, Everbridge will engage in contract negotiations to execute a service agreement tailored to appropriately capture each party's applicable rights and obligations. ECN asserts that the cited language rendered the Everbridge proposal as conditional. The RFP provided that submission of a conditional proposal could result in a proposal being deemed nonresponsive. The evidence fails to establish that Everbridge submitted a conditional proposal in response to the RFP. Section 20 of the RFP (titled “Agreement Document”) provided as follows: The Division’s “Contract” document is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The terms and conditions contained therein will become an integral part of the contract resulting from this RFP. In submitting a proposal, the proposer agrees to be legally bound by these terms and conditions. One of the three submitted proposals rejected by DEM prior to evaluation was considered to be a conditional proposal, in part because the vendor struck through portions of the RFP in its response. Unlike that vendor, Everbridge unequivocally acknowledged, on page 127 of its response, the DEM’s “instructions regarding the terms and conditions that will ultimately form the service agreement between the state and its selected vendor.” Everbridge asserts that the ECN proposal failed to comply with the requirement that the Technical Proposal include “financial statements created in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for the last three years,” and that the failure renders the ECN proposal nonresponsive. The evidence supports the assertion. The phrase “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles” (GAAP) refers to a set of financial reporting standards and procedures adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), a private organization, and adopted throughout the accounting profession. Financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP include what are commonly identified as “notes” that disclose extensive and relevant information supporting the financial analysis reported in the statements. The financial statements submitted by ECN did not meet the requirements of the RFP. Although ECN asserted at the hearing that the financial statements it submitted were prepared in accordance with GAAP, the financial statements submitted by ECN were incomplete because they failed to contain the requisite notes. The RFP required that the financial information provided by each vendor “demonstrate that it is financially stable and has the resources necessary to perform the services outlined in this RFP on a statewide basis.” The notes to ECN’s financial statements should properly have disclosed that the ECN statements contained financial information related to ECN subsidiaries, in addition to that of ECN. The absence of notes impeded determination of the reporting entity’s financial stability and resources. The Everbridge proposal fully complied with the requirement to submit financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP and included the notes. ECN’s failure to submit financial statements meeting the RFP requirement is a material deviation from the terms of the solicitation that may not be waived because it provided a competitive advantage over other proposers who complied with the requirement. Everbridge also asserts that the ECN proposal is nonresponsive because three of the six evaluators determined that, for various reasons, ECN’s technical plan failed to meet the minimum requirements set forth in the Scope of Work. The RFP specifically provided that a failure to meet each of the minimum requirements would result in a proposal not being further reviewed or scored. Nonetheless, the ECN proposal was reviewed and scored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Emergency Management enter a final order dismissing the First Amended Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Emergency Communications Network, LLC, and awarding the contract to Everbridge, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2016.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation’s (“Respondent” or “Department”) intended award of a contract for integrated corridor management modeling software to Aimsun, Inc. (“Intervenor” or “Aimsun”), is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether the decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for coordinating and planning a safe, viable, and balanced transportation system serving all regions of the state, and to assure the compatibility of all components of the system. See § 334.044, Fla. Stat. (2018). The RFP On February 22, 2018, the Department posted the RFP to the state vendor bid system, seeking vendors that could provide Integrated Corridor Management Modeling (“ICMM”) software. There were no challenges to the terms, conditions, or specifications contained in the RFP. The RFP describes the overall goal to acquire ICMM for the Central Florida Regional Integrated Corridor Management System (“ICMS”), which is initially centered on the I-4 Corridor and its “influence area,” including the interstate, a commuter- rail line, transit bus service, park-and-ride lots, major regional arterial streets, toll roads, and other transportation facilities. While the ICMS project focuses on the Orlando region initially, the goal of the Department is to develop a modular approach to ICMS which will be scalable to District 5 in its entirety. As summarized by Shaleen Srivastava, Petitioner’s Vice President, the Department is building a “model of the actual traffic situation [in the I-4 corridor] in the virtual world.” The ICMS is composed of three main systems, the relevant one being the Decision Support System (“DSS”). The DSS will be developed to provide a system to review and evaluate the current and predicted conditions of the Central Florida transportation network in order to help operators make smart decisions in managing both recurring and non-recurring congestion conditions. The DSS components are an Expert Rules Engine (“ERE”), a Predictive Engine (“PRE”), and an Evaluation Engine (“EVE”) that will build and select response plans to be evaluated, model the predicted outcomes of the selected response plans, evaluate and score the plans, coordinate with operators and local agency maintainers, and invoke the approved response plan actions. Through the RFP, the Department seeks a vendor to supply a Commercial Off-the-Shelf (“COTS”) software product which will be the core of the PRE. The RFP Exhibit A contains the scope of services for the project and describes in detail the requirements for the PRE. The PRE is envisioned to provide predictions of the network performance 30 minutes into the future. The PRE will have three main functions that must be met by the COTS software: 1) maintenance, 2) evaluation, and 3) offline signal simulations. The third role of the PRE is to simulate and provide measures of effectiveness for the optimized signal timing plans and coordination that will be developed by the signal optimization tool that will be part of the ICMS. The PRE is an integral component of, and must interface seamlessly with, the DSS. All of the technical requirements for the PRE/COTS are listed in Exhibit A, Table 2. The proposer must verify that its software is demonstrated to meet each of the 55 requirements. The RFP incorporates a number of required forms, including a Proposed Staffing and Availability worksheet (“staffing worksheet”), which directs proposers to provide the following information for up to 10 core staff members: List the Key Personnel, including job titles, of the Team that will be involved with this contract. Include the number of years of experience each person has in the specific job title and the type of experience they have, as well as any certifications and education. List the availability for each team member in percentage of hours per year. According to the RFP, proposals may be found to be irregular or non-responsive if they do not utilize or complete prescribed forms. Processing of Responses Both PTV and Aimsun are potential vendors which submitted timely proposals to the District 5 Procurement Unit in response to the RFP. The Procurement Unit opened the technical proposals on April 10, 2018, then distributed the proposals to the members of the Technical Review Committee (“TRC”), who evaluated and scored the technical proposals. The TRC was composed of District 5 staff with technical expertise relevant to traffic management: Traffic Design Engineer Ayman Mohamed, Transportation Modeler Jason Learned, and Freeways Engineer Jeremy Dilmore. TRC members evaluated and scored the technical proposals on a scoresheet template provided by the Procurement Unit. The template was divided into three sections, which correspond with the three sections of the RFP: Software Description and Functionality, Support and Integration Approach, and Software Deployment/Project History. The maximum score for each section was 35 points. TRC members completed their evaluation and scoring and returned their evaluation, and summaries thereof, to the Procurement Unit on April 17, 2018. Aimsun received a total score of 93 for its technical proposal. PTV received a total score of 78.67. Following opening of the price proposals, Aimsun was selected to receive the ICMM contract. Responsiveness of Aimsun’s Proposal Petitioner’s first contention is that the Department’s intended award to Aimsun is contrary to the bid specifications because Aimsun did not include the staffing worksheet, which rendered Aimsun’s proposal non-responsive. It is undisputed that the Aimsun proposal considered by the TRC did not include the required staffing worksheet. According to the Procurement Supervisor, the TRC is responsible for determining responsiveness of proposals.1/ In scoring section 2, Support and Integration Approach, Mr. Mohamed noted, “Aimsun provided general description of their supporting staff. Aimsun did not provide staffing plan showing key staff members and their availability toward the project.” Mr. Mohamed gave Aimsun 31 out of 35 possible points on this section. Mr. Learned gave Aimsun 30 out of a possible 35 points on this section. Mr. Learned noted, “Has staffing plan, but does not show availability – staff has worked on projects listed in the project history. Support staff housed in NYC office, which will facilitate communication with FDOT.” Mr. Dilmore gave Aimsun 33 out of a possible 35 points on this section. Mr. Dilmore noted, “Aimsun’s product requires development. It is unclear about availability of staff.” Despite the absence of the staffing worksheet from Aimsun’s proposal, Mr. Mohamed was satisfied Aimsun could support the COTS product identified in this proposal. In arriving at his conclusion, Mr. Mohamed considered the information contained in Section 2.4 of Aimsun’s proposal, which listed each staff member who would support the project, as well as each component of the project which they would support. Both Mr. Learned and Mr. Dilmore also relied upon the staffing information contained in Section 2.4 of Aimsun’s proposal in arriving at their scores of 30 and 33, respectively. Despite the absence of the required staffing worksheet, each evaluation committee member was satisfied that Aimsun demonstrated the ability to support the COTS software solution proposed. The record does not support a finding that Aimsun’s failure to include the required staffing form gave Aimsun a competitive advantage or benefit over PTV. Arbitrary Scoring Petitioner next contends that the Department scored its proposal arbitrarily, or otherwise in error, compared to its scoring of Aimsun. Staff Availability Petitioner cites, as the most egregious example, the TRC scores it received for section 2. This section requires the proposer to discuss how they will support the implementation of the modeling software as part of the ICMS development and deployment, as well as a description of how the proposer supports software integrations, application development, and general modeling support. This is the section which required the inclusion of the staffing worksheet. On this section, Petitioner received a 10 out of a possible 35 points from Mr. Dilmore. Mr. Dilmore noted, “The development staff generally has low availability. Their approach to training is 4 week courses. The implementability will be difficult [but] is generally acceptable. PTV takes exception to the SLAs [which] are part of the contract.” PTV takes umbrage at Mr. Dilmore’s severe deduction of points for perceived “lack of staff availability” when Aimsun received only minor point deductions, even though it wholly failed to include the required form detailing its staff availability. While PTV’s proposal does, in fact, propose low availability of staff,2/ that shortcoming was not the sole basis for the low score Mr. Dilmore’s assigned. As Mr. Dilmore noted on his score sheet, and explained at final hearing, in addition to availability issues, his score reflected concerns with PTV’s failure to agree to the Department’s Service Level Agreement (“SLA”), proposed approach to training, and issues with implementing the software. Department SLA The Department’s SLA sets the required timeframes for response to, and repair of, system maintenance requests and system failures. For example, the SLA sets a maximum response time of 15 minutes, during normal operating hours, for priority one failures. Likewise, the SLA sets a maximum repair time of one hour for such failures during normal operating hours. Rather than agreeing to the Department’s SLA, PTV stated that it “adopts its own standard [SLA] terms,” and explained that it is “open to discussion” on the content and terms of a final agreement. PTV did not include a copy of its standard SLA for review by the Department, but instead noted that it could be “provided upon request.” The SLA is critical to the Department. If a vendor does not agree to the Department SLA, the Department is not assured that the failures in the PRE software function, which drives the DSS, will be repaired timely. The SLA is so critical that it includes a liquidated damages clause for damages caused by the vendor’s failure to comply with the required timeframes. In contrast to PTV, Aimsun took no exception to the Department’s SLA and agreed to comply with it. The Department’s scoring of PTV’s proposal was reasonable, especially in light of the importance of the Department’s SLA. Training The vendor is required to operate, maintain, and support the COTS software system for two years after its deployment. The vendor must provide at least two training courses on the DOT premises in the use of the planning aspects of the software. Additionally, the vendor must provide administrator training for the PRE on Department premises after the integration with ICMS is complete. Mr. Mohamed gave PTV a 32 out of 35 points on this section. Mr. Mohamed’s concern was with PTV’s approach to training of Department staff. PTV proposed two separate training sessions for Department staff, each lasting four weeks. Mr. Mohamed commented that the trainings “could be unfeasible for most of the essential senior staff.” Mr. Learned gave PTV a 25 out of 30 points on this section. He also noted that the proposed trainings were not optimal and that the preferred approach was tiered training based on the Department staff member’s “level of use,” meaning that the amount of training should correlate with the staff member’s responsibilities related to the software. In contrast to PTV, Aimsun proposed two tiers of training: a first-level training for staff to master all the basic concepts of the software, and a second level which includes a detailed walk-through of the methodology and workflow for modelers who have previous practical experience. The Department’s scoring of PTV’s proposal on this issue was reasonable based on the level of training proposed. Software Description and Functionality The Department also reasonably deducted points from PTV’s proposal in section 1, Software Description and Functionality. Mr. Mohamed, Mr. Learned, and Mr. Dilmore scored PTV’s proposal 32, 30, and 30 out of 35, respectively, on section 1. PTV failed to verify that its software met all of the technical requirements for the PRE/COTS listed in Exhibit A, Table 2. Of the 55 requirements, PTV indicated that its COTS was only partially compliant with seven of the technical requirements. Further, PTV’s proposed software, DATEX2, is a European data format, which will require conversion to interface with the Department’s U.S. data format.3/ Mr. Learned testified that these conversions would require the Department to incur additional costs--both monetary and temporal. It also raised the questions of whose task it would be to complete the conversion and when conversion would take place. In addition, since the PRE is the driver of, and a critical interface with, the DSS, the necessity for conversion is not advantageous to the Department. In comparison to PTV’s proposal, Aimsun’s proposal verified that its COTS complied with all 55 technical requirements. The Department’s scoring of PTV’s proposal was reasonable and supported by the importance of the interface between the PRE and the DSS. Software Deployment/Project History PTV also received lower scores than Aimsun on section 3, Software Deployment/Project History. Mr. Mohamed, Mr. Learned, and Mr. Dilmore assigned scores of 27, 25, and 25, respectively. PTV has not previously deployed DATEX2 anywhere in the United States. All of its prior deployments were in Europe and the Middle East. This is significant because traffic operations (i.e., signal systems) and driver behavior are significantly different in North America than in Europe and the Middle East. By contrast, Aimsun’s project history includes two prior U.S. deployments, along with its European and Australian experience. The most relevant project is that of the San Diego I-15 ICMS, where Aimsun’s COTS was deployed successfully in 2013 and serves as the real-time modeling tool for the DSS in the San Diego interstate corridor ICMS project. That project is the exact model the Department is seeking to construct for the I-4 Corridor ICMS. Aimsun is currently involved in ongoing maintenance of the San Diego project. The Department did not arbitrarily score PTV’s proposal regarding section 1. Aimsun’s experience was the most relevant and demonstrated success with deployments interfacing with the DSS to support an ICMS. Scoring Contrary to RFP Criteria In scoring the proposals on availability, the TRC members also considered that most of the key PTV staff are not located in the United States. Only two key staff members, Shaleen Srivastava and Chetan Joshi, are located in the U.S., and those two members were proposed to devote to the project 15 percent and 30 percent of their annual work hours, respectively. TRC members expressed concern that international time zone differences would affect the responsiveness and availability of PTV to support the project, especially in the event of system failures. PTV posits that, in deducting points for the location of its staff outside of the U.S., the Department applied criteria that were not contained in the RFP. PTV argued that if the Department only wanted U.S.-based staff, it must have included that in the RFP criteria. Mr. Srivastava testified that someone on his staff, not necessarily someone listed on the worksheet, would be available 24 hours a day to take the Department’s calls and address any maintenance or failure issues. While Mr. Srivastava’s testimony was credible, it does not erase the Department’s reasonable concern with the availability of key staff. Mr. Srivastava conceded that the key staff listed on the worksheet would not always be available to the Department because of differences in international time zones. That, coupled with PTV’s lack of commitment to the Department’s SLA, justifies the TRC members’ deductions on section 2 of PTV’s proposal. The Department did not impose criteria which were outside of the RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing PTV America, Inc.’s Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2018.
The Issue The issues in this case, a bid protest, are as follows: Whether Respondent, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, an independent special district ("TBEP"), failed to follow the review process as outlined in the Request for Proposals ("RFP") and TBEP's own procurement policies. Whether TBEP failed to properly apply the scoring and review criteria set forth in the RFP. Whether the RFP instructions were followed, whether they lacked certain direction or standards, and whether these failures led to actions that were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Whether the evaluation committee members acted arbitrarily in scoring, ranking, or making recommendations to the Management Board.
Findings Of Fact (Findings of Fact 1 through 17 are taken from the parties' Prehearing Stipulation.) Dynamic is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee. TBEP is an independent special district formed by an Interlocal Agreement between 13 governmental entities pursuant to section 163.01, Florida Statutes. Janicki is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in St. Petersburg, Florida. TBEP issued the RFP (for the Project) on or about March 4, 2011. The stated purpose of the RFP was to develop, calibrate, and validate an integrated set of numerical and/or empirical models. Nine project teams submitted responses to the RFP. Dynamic and Janicki timely submitted proposals on or about April 15, 2011. TBEP distributed, via email, its final rankings of the nine-project teams on May 13, 2011. TBEP notified Dynamic that it was the second-ranked candidate. TBEP notified Janicki that it was the first-ranked candidate. Dynamic timely filed its notice of written protest on May 19, 2011. Dynamic timely filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on May 31, 2011. In lieu of a security bond, Dynamic submitted a cashier's check as security in the amount of $11,979.08 to TBEP on May 31, 2011. TBEP referred Dynamic's Petition to DOAH on June 2, 2011. Janicki served its Petition to Intervene on or about June 8, 2011. Dynamic submitted a cashier's check as replacement security to TBEP on June 10, 2011. Dynamic did not submit a protest bond. Background on TBEP TBEP's mission is to assist local and regional governments in developing a comprehensive plan to restore and protect the body of water known as greater Tampa Bay. TBEP has an Interlocal Agreement whose stated purpose is to emphasize regional cooperation and regulatory flexibility that allows it to select cost-effective and environmentally beneficial bay improvement options for the surrounding communities. The Interlocal Agreement seeks to implement the Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa Bay, known as Charting the Course. TBEP's Interlocal Agreement establishes a Management Board and a Policy Board with specified duties and responsibilities, which are further described in TBEP's By-Laws. The Management Board serves as an advisor to the Policy Board. The Policy Board exercises all the powers of the entity and manages the business and affairs of TBEP. Only the Policy Board may promulgate TBEP policy or procedures or issue waivers of such policies and procedures. TBEP has adopted an Operating Procedures Manual ("OPM"), which sets forth procurement procedures. It provides that all procurement shall be conducted in accordance with the Code Of Federal Regulations (40 C.F.R. § 31.36) and, as applicable, chapter 287 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 60A-1, to the extent the statutes and rules are not in conflict with applicable federal laws and standards. The OPM provides that the Policy Board must approve all contract awards for services in excess of $25,000, unless delegated by the Policy Board to the Management Board. Also, the OPM says an evaluation committee appointed by TBEP's executive director will review proposals received by TBEP in response to an RFP for services in excess of $25,000. The results of an evaluation committee's review of proposals are presented to the Management Board, which makes a recommendation to the Policy Board. The final procurement decision is made by the Policy Board. The Project is the result of a cooperative agreement between TBEP and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) to develop comprehensive models, to evaluate potential management actions, to improve water quality, and to expand seagrass coverage in Old Tampa Bay. The Project includes development, calibration, and validation of an integrated set of numerical (and/or empirical) models of: 1) watershed loading; hydrodynamic circulation; and 3) water quality/ecological response that will be used to evaluate management action scenarios in Old Tampa Bay. Total cost of the Project is estimated to be $1,200,000 to $1,300,000; the length of time needed to carry out the Project would be approximately 36 months. The Project will be jointly funded by TBEP and SWFWMD. TBEP is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, the City of Clearwater, the City of St. Petersburg, the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Pinellas County, Manatee County and SWFWMD. The Project is the largest single project undertaken by TBEP in terms of costs, but TBEP has previously procured services and entered into contracts for other projects which are as technically complex as the Project. TBEP and SWFWMD developed a team of professionals in the fall of 2010 to begin development of the Project. In March 2011, TBEP issued the RFP for the Project. Proposals in response to the RFP were accepted until 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on Friday, April 15, 2011. Information was to be provided in each proposal under the following headings: Project Summary, Title Page, Table of Contents, Letter of Transmittal, Understanding and Approach, Respondent Qualifications, Quality Control and Conflict of Interest, Time Schedule and Effort Proposal, Listing of Deviations, and Additional Data. Respondents were also directed to indicate whether they had an affirmative action plan in effect. In addition, respondents had to disclose whether they had been involved in a government contract that ended in termination, litigation due to substandard quality, untimely submittal of deliveries, or for other reasons. All team members for each respondent were to be disclosed, including prime contractors and subcontractors. Responding entities were allowed until March 18, 2011, to submit any questions they had about the RFP process. All questions submitted, along with TBEP's responses, were then compiled and made a part of the RFP package. The RFP package was available to anyone who requested it. In response to one of the questions asked by a respondent, TBEP provided a list identifying all of the evaluation committee members. Dynamic represented that it was the respondent and provided appropriate contact information. Dynamic named Christopher Wallen, its vice-president, as the person authorized to make representations for and bind Dynamic to its proposal. The proposal indicated that Dynamic agreed to hold TBEP and SWFWMD harmless from any claims resulting from injury or damages incurred by volunteers participating in the program, although no executed hold harmless agreement was included in its proposal. Dynamic indicated some support or collaboration with other entities as part of its proposal. Both Old Dominion University ("ODU") and the University of South Florida ("USF") were named as part of Dynamic's "team" for purposes of their proposal. Professional biographical information for Dr. Mark Luther from USF and Dr. Richard Zimmerman from ODU was included in the proposal, along with information for Dynamic's employees and experts from other entities. There is no documentation from either of the universities, however, indicating they are expecting to participate in the Project. Dynamic takes the position that the two university-based experts were hired as independent consultants, working for their private consulting businesses, rather than for the universities. (This position is similar to TBEP's position on two of its committee members. See discussion herein.) However, the universities' logos appear on the front cover of Dynamic's proposal. Dynamic did not have, at the time of its proposal or even as of the date of final hearing, an affirmative action plan in place. However, as a minority-owned business (Wallen's wife is the president of the company), Dynamic does not believe it is required by law to have such a plan. Therefore, no plan was included in its application. By not having, or creating such a plan, Dynamic forfeited a point in its evaluation by committee members. Dynamic did not include information in its proposal concerning a government contract it had previously been awarded that had been terminated. However, the reason for that termination was that the government had stopped work on the project, when another party entered a protest of some sort. The contract was "terminated" pending resolution of the dispute, but was then reinstated. Dynamic did not feel as if those circumstances would warrant disclosure of the contract under the terms of the RFP. The RFP included instructions for the evaluation committee's use in reviewing proposals. Each committee member was to score each proposal and rank the respondents. The evaluation committee was expected to reach a consensus on a ranked list of the respondents at the end of the process. A hypothetical ranking table was included in the RFP instructions for consideration by the committee. TBEP's standard practice for RFP reviews was to use the rankings to award a contract. The scores assigned by each committee member were not generally as consistent, so rankings were used to reach a better decision. There were no instructions in the RFP as to how the committee was to handle a tie. Each evaluation committee member was allowed to use their own judgment as to how to reflect a tie. Some committee members used fractions while some would rank two respondents equally and leave one rank vacant. For example, one reviewer might rank the respondents: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9; another reviewer might use 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 5, 6, 7, 8 to reflect the same ranking. Dynamic correctly pointed out that the instructions provided to the committee members included a sample format for making rankings. The sample did not include a ranking based upon a tie, but the instructions did not prohibit ties either. The evaluation committee was made up of nine members, each having a special area of knowledge or expertise as to the proposed project. The team members were: Mark Flock, Pinellas County staff; Lizanne Garcia, SWFWMD staff; Kristen Kaufman, SWFWMD staff; David Glicksberg, Hillsborough County staff; Holly Greening, TBEP staff Edward Sherwood, TBEP staff; Charles Kovach, Department of Environmental Protection; Dr. William Kemp, subject matter expert; and Dr. James Martin, subject matter expert. The Scoring Process The RFP Instructions include a set of eight criteria used to evaluate the proposals by assigning scores to the proposals based on the provided criteria. Evaluation committee members were to apply the first five technical criteria to score proposals.3/ Those criteria and potential scores for each were: Project Team Qualifications--20 points; Project Approaches--35 points; Level of Effort and Cost by Task--15 points; Performance Considerations--20 points; and Management Approach--5 points. The remaining three non-technical criteria were assigned by TBEP staff and were applied to each proposal. Those criteria were: Minority (business ownership); Previous Work Awarded; and Total Proposed Project Costs. The reviewers could then add "extra" points for the candidate's purported ability to adequately complete the tasks as outlined in the RFP. A total of 95 points could be awarded for each candidate. On April 15, 2011, the committee members were provided copies of the nine proposals submitted by interested respondents. Each committee member was also given a copy of the RFP, a blank score sheet, and a "Code of Standards of Conduct" statement to be completed for the purpose of showing no conflict of interest. The committee members were then directed to assign scores for the various criteria as the initial element of their review. The RFP provided directions as to how the process would work. At page 7 of the RFP, it states that "[E]valuation committee members may adjust scores based on discussion during the evaluation committee meeting prior to the finalization of scores" and that "each evaluation committee member will then add up their scores for Criteria 1 through 5 and staff-provided scores 6 through 8 for each respondent, and rank respondents based on their individual scores." The RFP then provided that once the scoring was complete, "[r]anks from each evaluation committee member shall be totaled, and an overall ranked short-list developed therefrom." Each of the committee members then completed scoring sheets for each respondent. The committee then met on April 29, 2011, to review, discuss, and rank the proposals. A short list of proposals was made at that time for the purpose of allowing certain respondents to make oral presentations to the committee. The list was developed by having each committee member give a score (or rank) of one or zero for each respondent. The four respondents who were ranked the highest were allowed to make oral presentations. The scores assigned by each committee member in their individual review on score sheets were not the sole basis for creating the short list. However, each committee member made a 1 or 0 rank for the respondents based at least, in part, on how they had scored the respondents. On May 6, 2011, the four highest ranked respondents, including Dynamic and Janicki, were allowed to make oral presentations to the committee. After the presentations, the committee met and deliberated for approximately two hours concerning their choices. At that time, the initial rankings were created. Each member's initial ranking of the nine respondents was placed on a white board at the front of the meeting room. As the rankings were discussed, some members decided to alter their rankings based on consideration of other members' input. Each of the committee members brought a particular expertise to the table, so each had pertinent insight to share with other committee members as to the abilities or capabilities of each respondent. The scores that each member had individually assigned to the respondents for the various categories were not specifically discussed as part of the ranking dialogue. Those scores were a preliminary method for each reviewer to compare the respondents' proposals on a comparatively even "apples to apples" review. The scores may or may not have formed the primary basis for each reviewer's initial ranking placed on the white board at the May 6, 2011, meeting. Nonetheless, the rankings could be changed upon discussion with other members of the committee. Dynamic argues that the scores on each evaluation committee member's score sheets should have been used without consideration of any other factors to make the final rankings. Although it is possible to interpret the scoring instructions in that fashion, the approach used by the evaluation committee was sufficiently consistent with the instructions and based on a logical, reasonable approach. There is nothing inherently deficient about how the committee reached its decision. The committee reached a consensus at the May 6, 2011, meeting that Janicki should be awarded the contract. Although the vote was close, 16 to 17, the committee all agreed with the final decision. With the exception of Kaufman, none of the committee members deviated from their individual final ranking made at the meeting. Kaufman, subsequently, determined that her ranking as shown on the white board mistakenly had Dynamic ranked as 1 and Janicki as 2, just the opposite of what she intended. Making that change would have resulted in Janicki winning by three points instead of one point. The committee then reported its decision to the Management Board, which met on May 12, 2011, and approved the evaluation committee's recommendation. The Management Board then recommended to the Policy Board that Janicki be awarded the contract. The Policy Board modified the committee's recommendation slightly, deciding that if contract negotiations were not successful with Janicki, then Dynamic should be awarded the contract. On May 13, 2011, the Policy Board accepted the recommendation and awarded the contract to Janicki. After the May 6, 2011, meeting, the committee members were asked to submit their final score sheets to TBEP to be used by TBEP to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the proposals for future consideration. Some members submitted several erroneous score sheets prior to sending their final score sheet. Kaufman initially submitted a blank score sheet for one respondent and had mathematical errors showing the two top-ranked respondents as tied, even though Janicki actually had a higher score. Garcia submitted an additional score sheet along with a justification as to how she broke a tie by using the higher technical score. Kemp submitted revised score sheets in order to provide justification for how he derived his final rankings. Inasmuch as there were discussions between committee members after the initial scoring was done but before the final rankings, it is logical and reasonable that the final rankings may not be consistent with the scoring done by each committee member. Notification to Respondents Once the decision was made to award the contract to Janicki, all respondents were notified via email. The OPM states that TBEP will "provide notice of a decision concerning a bid solicitation or a contract award to all respondents by United States mail or by hand delivery or telephone facsimile." Email is not listed as a means of notification. Even though TBEP provided the notification via email, there is no showing that such notice prejudiced any respondent in any way. Email is similar to and as fast as facsimile transmission. There is no evidence that any respondent failed to receive the notice. Just as Dynamic failed to disclose information about the government contract that had been technically terminated, TBEP's use of email, rather than U.S. Mail or fax, is a minor error in the process that is not material to the final decision. Bid Protest Process After receipt of the notice that Janicki had been awarded the contract, Dynamic timely filed a bid protest. Part and parcel to any bid protest is the submission of a bid protest security, usually in the form of a security bond. Dynamic submitted a cashier's check on May 31, 2011, in the amount of $11,979.08, representing one percent of Dynamic's estimated contract amount. The check was erroneously made out to Holly Greening, the executive director of TBEP, rather than to TBEP, as stated in its cover letter. Dynamic cured this scrivener's error when it became aware of the mistake. TBEP objected to the amount of the security provided, saying that $50,000 was required, but did not substantiate the basis for that amount. TBEP also objected to the sufficiency of the cashier's check because it had a termination date, i.e., if not cashed within 90 days, the check would become void. Although that objection is well taken, Dynamic cured the defect when it sent in the replacement check made out to TBEP. Makeup of the Evaluation Committee Dynamic takes exception to the appointment of two consultants, Dr. Martin and Dr. Kemp, to the evaluation committee. According to the OPM, "[c]onsultants, whether or not they submit proposals to TBEP, are not permitted to serve on selection committees." It is clear that both Dr. Martin and Dr. Kemp often provide services to clients as private consultants. However, both are also university professors and were purportedly serving on the evaluation committee as representatives of their respective universities. Nonetheless, all respondents were advised about the makeup of the evaluation committee prior to submission of their proposals. It is disingenuous for a respondent to claim, after the fact, that it did not wish to be evaluated by certain members of the committee. Dynamic takes exception that Janicki's status as a local company was considered, because local connection was not a designated RFP criterion. It is logical and reasonable, however, for TBEP to consider that factor (and any other relevant information about the respondents) during discussions in a close decision such as this.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, upholding the award of the contract to Intervenor, Janicki Environmental, Inc. Tampa Bay Estuary Program shall include a statement of its costs and charges in the final order. If the parties cannot agree on the amount of such costs and charges, this matter may be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings as to that issue. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Introduction On February 26, 1988 respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), through its District IX office, advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) in the Florida Administrative Weekly inviting qualified and interested organizations and vendors to submit proposals for the designation of an Area Agency on Aging in District IX. The designation would run from May 2, 1988 through the end of the calendar year but the successful vendor could be expected to be redesignated in subsequent years. According to the advertisement: Proposals will be received by District IX until 12:00 p.m., EST, March 24, 1988, for the designation of an Area Agency on Aging authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act as amended, within the jurisdictional areas of Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee and Palm Beach Counties. * * * Contract awards will be based on approximately 75 percent federal funds, 11 percent general revenue and 14 percent local matching funds. * * * Written inquiries concerning the Request for Proposals will be received until 4:00 p.m., EST, March 11, 1988. A Bidders Conference, to review the proposed format and contract award process, will be held on March 4, 1988. * * * Under this proposal, HRS intended to award the contract to the best qualified firm since price proposals were not being submitted. To this extent, the proceeding differs from the typical state project where the contract is ordinarily awarded to the lowest and most responsive bidder. In response to the above RFP, petitioner, Banyan Area Agency on Aging, Inc. (Banyan), timely submitted its proposal. As it turned out, Banyan was the only organization that filed a bid. After being reviewed by a seven person evaluation committee, the proposal was given a score of 480 out of a possible 1525 and a recommendation that it be rejected. This recommendation was later adopted by the District Administrator. This decision was conveyed to petitioner by letter dated April 4, 1988. That prompted a request for hearing by petitioner to challenge the preliminary agency action. As grounds for contesting the action, petitioner contended the agency was arbitrary and capricious in rejecting its proposal. If its preliminary action is sustained, HRS intends to seek authority from the Department of General Services to negotiate a noncompetitive bid. Under this process, HRS desires to designate, after a screening process, one person from each of the five counties to serve on the board of a corporation to be established to run the program. Thus, HRS does not intend to readvertise the RFP and seek competitive proposals a second time. The Contract The contract in question is funded principally through federal grant dollars under the federal Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended. The monies, commonly known as Title III funds, are used to provide programs for senior citizens. Respondent is the State agency charged with the responsibility of administering the program funds. To receive federal funds, HRS was required to prepare a state plan and submit it to the U.S. Commissioner on Aging for his approval. A part of that plan calls for HRS, or District IX in this case, to designate an area agency on aging (AAA) to plan and administer a comprehensive and coordinated system of services for the aging in the five county area of Palm Beach, Okeechobee, Indian River, Martin and S. Lucie Counties. Among other things, the local AAA must develop an area plan for supportive services, senior centers and nutrition services in the five county area. The AAA will receive $300,000 to cover administrative costs in administering the program and will be in charge of dispensing several million dollars annually in grant dollars for aging programs. District IX had previously designated Gulfstream Area Agency on Aging (Gulfstream) as its AAA. However, due to a combination of faulty management, lack of supervision and other factors, Gulfstream was designated as AAA in May, 1987. Since then, HRS has received several waivers from the Commissioner on Aging but now faces a mandate to designate a District IX AAA by October 1, 1988 or lose its federal funding. To avoid a recurrence of the Gulfstream problem, the HRS District IX contract manager, and several other district personnel, prepared a comprehensive RFP to be issued in conjunction with the selection of a new AAA designee. After a draft was assembled at the local level, the RFP was forwarded to HRS' Tallahassee office where further refinements were made. The final product has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9 and respondent's exhibit 11. According to the District IX contract manager, the RFP is the "state of the art" in terms of what an AAA ought to be. The RFP is a voluminous document, weighing some 6 1/2 pounds according to Banyan, and requires a great deal of information and detail regarding the AAA organization, procedures, and program plans and goals to satisfy the federal act. The RFP was given to interested organizations, including Banyan, around March 1, 1988. This gave vendors approximately three and one-half weeks to prepare and submit a proposal. Only Banyan was interested in being the designee and thus was the only bidder on the job. Its proposal contained 135 pages. Evaluation Process HRS created a seven person evaluation committee to review the proposals. The committee included five HRS employees and two non-HRS members. All members were given Banyan's proposal prior to the selection date. On March 28, 1988 the committee met and each member independently evaluated Banyan's proposal. Although a top score of 1525 was theoretically possible, Banyan received an average overall score from each There of 480, or a rating of approximately thirty-one and one half percent. After the scores were tallied, Banyan was given one hour to orally explain its proposal before the full committee. At the conclusion of the presentation, the committee voted unanimously to reject the proposal. The reasons for rejecting Banyan's proposal are set forth in respondent's exhibit 2. The three primary deficiencies, as broadly stated, were the "proposal did not develop ideas fully enough to demonstrate a clear understanding of the needs and conditions of the District IX 60+ population," the proposal "did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the role and responsibility of area agency on aging nor was there evidence of administrative capability,' and (c) the proposal "did not offer assurance that current board members fully understood their position as the governing board." At hearing, several members of the committee amplified on the above three shortcomings and pointed out specific deficiencies in Banyan's proposal which led them to reject the proposal. For example, the proposal failed to focus on areas outside of Palm Beach County, did not contain a proposed budget, lacked minority representation, failed to fully identify goals and objectives, did not include a detailed description of the fair hearing process and the make- up and procedure of the advisory council and omitted the corporation's bylaws. Given these deficiencies, and others, HRS was justified in rejecting the bid. Petitioner's Case Petitioner contends that three and one-half weeks was too short a time to prepare a responsible proposal to the RFP. In this regard, HRS acknowledged it was a lengthy RFP, but it considered the time adequate for a qualified and experienced organization, particularly since much of the RFP was reference material. Banyan also pointed out that its board of directors was made up of highly qualified people with impressive work experience. While this is true, as evidenced by testimony at hearing, none were experienced in managing a federally funded program of this magnitude. Banyan further stated that, after the proposal was filed, it could have corrected or expanded on many of its abbreviated responses. However, once the proposal was filed, such changes were impermissible. Finally, Banyan conceded that while many of its responses were brief and nonspecific, this was because Banyan intended to rely upon HRS for technical assistance to implement the programs. However, the RFP called for specific, detailed responses so that HRS could properly evaluate the proposal. Allegations of Bias or Impropriety There is no evidence that the committee acted unfairly or improperly during the evaluation process or that any eber was personally biased towards Banyan. There is also no evidence that HRS rejected the bid so that it could "control" the management of the program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the protest filed by petitioner be DENIED and that a Final Order be entered confirming the rejection of petitioner's proposal. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Colman B. Stein 100 Worth Avenue Apartment 416 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Laurel D. Hopper, Esquire 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Martin County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 14-6, adopted by Ordinance No. 965 on December 16, 2014, is "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner, Martin County Land Co. (Petitioner), owns real property and operates a business in Martin County. Respondent, Martin County (Respondent or County), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and amend a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167. On December 16, 2014, the County adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment 14-6 (the Plan Amendment), which proposes to revise Chapters 2, 4, 10, and 11 of the County's Comprehensive Growth Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan). Petitioner submitted written and oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment during the period of time between transmittal and adoption of the Plan Amendment. Background and Existing Conditions The County's original Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1990 and was challenged by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as not "in compliance." Since its inception, the Comprehensive Plan has been the subject of substantial litigation, most of which has little relevance hereto. At least once every seven years, local governments are required to undertake an evaluation and appraisal of their comprehensive plans. See § 163.3191(1), Fla. Stat. During this evaluation, local governments must amend their plans to reflect changes in state requirements. See § 163.3191(2). The statute also encourages local governments to comprehensively evaluate changes in local conditions, and, if necessary, update their plans to reflect said changes. See § 163.3191(3). Local government plan amendments made pursuant to section 163.3191 are commonly referred to as "EAR amendments." The County adopted its most recent EAR amendments in 2009, following an evaluation and appraisal of the Comprehensive Plan and changes in state requirements. The 2009 EAR amendments were challenged by a number of parties as not "in compliance." Administrative challenge to the EAR amendments concluded, and the amendments became effective, in 2011. One of the signature features of the County's Comprehensive Plan is the urban service districts (USDs). The USDs were created as part of the Comprehensive Plan after 1990. The purpose of the USDs is to regulate urban sprawl by directing growth to areas where urban public facilities and services are available, or programmed to be available, at appropriate levels of service. The County refers to this approach as an "urban containment policy." Public urban facilities and services are defined by the Comprehensive Plan as "[r]egional water supply and wastewater treatment/disposal systems, solid waste collection services, acceptable response times for sheriff and emergency services, reasonably accessible community park and related recreational facilities, schools and the transportation network." Notably, neither package wastewater treatment plants (package plants) nor onsite wastewater treatment systems (septic systems) are included within the definition of public urban facilities. Commercial, industrial, and urban-density residential development, as well as future development requiring public urban facilities, are concentrated within the primary USD. With few exceptions, development within the primary USD is required to connect to regional wastewater systems. The existing Comprehensive Plan allows interim development on package plants only if the developer agrees to connect to regional wastewater systems when those systems become available. With very limited exceptions, septic systems are not permitted for new residential development within one-quarter mile of a regional wastewater system. Rural development at one unit per two acres (one/two acres) and estate development not exceeding one unit/acre are concentrated in the secondary USD where a reduced level of public facilities are programmed to be available at appropriate levels of service. A minimum lot size of one-half acre applies to all development. Regional sewer service may be extended to serve residential properties exceeding the one-half acre minimum lot size, and where lot sizes are inappropriate for septic systems. Development outside the USDs is limited to low- intensity uses, including Agricultural (not exceeding one unit/20 acres), Agricultural Ranchette (not exceeding one unit/five acres), and small-scale services necessary to support rural and agricultural uses. Some residential estate development is allowed on the fringe of the USDs at one unit/acre. Regional sewer service may not be extended outside the USDs, and package treatment plants are allowed only to serve a limited category of commercial development titled "Expressway Oriented Commercial Service Centers." The existing Comprehensive Plan does not establish a standard septic system flow rate. The County follows the state standards established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E- 6.008, which provide for a residential rate of 10,000 gallons per day (gpd) and a rate of 5,000 gpd for non-residential uses. Expressway-Oriented Transit Commercial Service Centers In 1985, in anticipation of the construction of Interstate 95 (I-95) through the County, the County created an overlay land use category, Expressway-Oriented Transient Commercial Service Centers (Expressway Nodes), "to recognize the immediate and unique needs of the public traveling through the County." The overlay is limited to the I-95 interchanges with County Road 714 (CR 714 or SW Martin Highway), located in the northern central area of the County; CR 76 (CR 76 or Kanner Highway), located in the western urbanized area of the County; and CR 708 (CR 708 or SE Bridge Road), located in the southwestern area of the County. The overlay is not self-implementing. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 4.13.A8(5), governing Expressway Nodes, includes a number of requirements for a proposed development to qualify for the designation. Notably, an applicant for development at one of the nodes must submit a market feasibility analysis demonstrating need by the traveling public for the proposed services, submit a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning application, and fully fund all urban services needed to serve the development. Further, no Expressway Node will be approved outside the primary USD unless the developer provides shared water and wastewater facilities for all subsequent development at the same interchange. To qualify, the development parcel must be a minimum of five gross acres, directly accessible from a major arterial roadway, and located in whole within 1,320 feet of an access ramp and within 1,320 feet of the intersecting arterial roadway. Unless proven safe through an engineered traffic study, the access point may not be closer than 660 feet from an access ramp. Of the three interchanges, only Kanner Highway, and that portion of SW Martin Highway east of the I-95 interchange, are designated major arterial roadways. Southeast Bridge Road and SW Martin Highway west of the interchange, are minor arterial roadways. The County must amend its Comprehensive Plan in order to reclassify a minor arterial to a major arterial. A roadway is typically reclassified from minor to major arterial when some threshold of traffic volume (based on trip counts) is achieved. No evidence was introduced to establish the particular threshold which distinguishes a minor from a major arterial. No evidence was introduced to establish the length of time for which the segment of SW Martin Highway east of the interchange has been classified a major arterial, thus meeting a primary threshold for Expressway Node development of the eastern quadrants of the interchange. Of the three interchanges, commercial services for the traveling public are located only at Kanner Highway. The interchange hosts at least three gas stations, a variety of fast-food and dine-in restaurants, and two hotels. Commercial services for the traveling public are available at the I-95 interchange at Indiantown Road in Palm Beach County, 16 miles to the south of the Kanner Road interchange. Services are also available 18 miles north of Kanner Road at the I-95 interchange at Gatlin Boulevard in St. Lucie County. Services for the traveling public are also available at a rest stop on I-95 in Martin County. Petitioner challenges, on several grounds, the deletion of FLUE Policy 4.13.A8(5), which provides for the Expressway Nodes overlay category. Data and Analysis First, Petitioner argues the deletion of FLUE Policy 4.13.A8(5) is not supported by data and analysis, as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). That section requires plan amendments to "be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include . . . surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption" of the plan amendment. Id. The Expressway Nodes designation pre-dates adoption of the USDs in 1990. The I-95 interchanges at SW Martin Highway and Bridge Road are located outside the USDs and the property at those intersections is designated for Agricultural land use. Thus, commercial development at those interchanges is inconsistent with the County's urban containment strategy and is an exception to the prohibition of urban uses outside the USDs. Further, SE Bridge Road functions as a minor arterial roadway, a designation which has not changed in the 30 years since the Expressway Nodes category was created. As such, the interchange does not qualify for commercial development under the restrictions of the policy itself. The same is true of SW Martin Highway west of I-95. While SW Martin Highway is a major arterial east of the I-95 interchange, no developer has come forward with a proposal to develop any service business at that interchange. According to historic traffic counts from the I-95 interchanges at both Kanner Road and SE Bridge Road, traffic has generally increased both northbound and southbound on I-95. Between 1998 and 2013, average annual daily trips (AADT) increased by 30,000 on I-95 southbound from Kanner Highway and 14,500 southbound from SE Bridge Road. In that same period, AADT trips eastbound on Kanner Highway increased by 16,500, and eastbound on SE Bridge Road by 1,700. Similar increases in trip counts occurred at the interchange ramps between 2009 and 2013. At Kanner Highway, AADT counts on the northbound off ramp increased by 2,000, southbound off ramp by 1,000, northbound on ramp by 600, and southbound on ramp by 1,800. According to the Petitioner's expert, this general trend will eventually lead to congestion of the service facilities at Kanner Road, which will cause motorists to either skip the Kanner Road exit altogether, or return to I-95 in search of another exit with the needed services. The data indicate similarly-increased AADTs at the I-95 interchange at Indiantown Road, the next interchange south of Kanner Road where services and facilities are available to the traveling public. Petitioner's expert likewise concluded that services at the Indiantown interchange are "pretty much maxed-out" and would likely also become congested in the future. AADT trip counts are data which were readily available to the County from the Department of Transportation (DOT) when the Plan Amendment was adopted. Petitioner argues that the Plan Amendment ignores this readily-available data by deleting the Expressway Nodes category. Petitioner's argument assumes a couple of factors. First, it assumes the County has an obligation to provide services to the public traveling through the County. Neither the Comprehensive Plan, nor the Community Planning Act, requires the County to provide said services. Second, it assumes that increased traffic counts through the interchanges directly correlate with increased demand on the services located there. Petitioner introduced no evidence to support this assumption. Increased trips through the interchange could be attributed to increased employment in the urbanized area of the County from residents in Palm Beach or St. Lucie Counties, or from rural areas within Martin County. The County's witnesses agreed that I-95 traffic counts would be relevant to the County's determination to delete the Expressway Nodes designation. However, the evidence does not support a finding that retaining the Expressway Nodes overlay is the only appropriate reaction to that data. Assuming Martin County was required to provide services to the traveling public, Petitioner did not establish the capacity of said services needed to serve the public, thus requiring the County to maintain the overlay. With the exception of hotel services, Petitioner introduced no evidence regarding a level of service or the utilization rate of the services provided at either the Kanner Road or Indiantown interchanges. With regard to hotels, Petitioner introduced hotel occupancy rates published by Smith Travel Data, a hospitality- industry source of statistics on occupancy and vacancy rates. In March 2015, excluding the beach hotels, the County hotels had an aggregate occupancy rate of 92 percent. The average annual occupancy rate of County hotels is in excess of 72 percent. Elimination of the Expressway Nodes overlay is supported by the County's urban containment strategy, as well as its history relative to package treatment plants. The SW Martin Highway and SE Bridge Road interchanges are outside the primary USD where regional sewer service is available. As long as they remain outside the primary USD, the option for wastewater treatment at those locations is limited to package treatment plants. The County has a clear policy prohibiting new package treatment plants. Existing FLUE Policy 4.7A.4 prohibits all package treatment plants outside the USDs except to serve development at the Expressway Nodes. Development at the Expressway Nodes is the only exception to the prohibition. The Plan Amendment deletes FLUE Policy 4.7A.4, thus eliminating the exception to the prohibition on package treatment plants, which prohibition is preserved elsewhere. In 1984, when John Polley, now Director of Utilities and Solid Waste, began working for the County, there were 89 private package treatment plants. In 1990, the County began a campaign to eliminate package treatment plants. Fifty-three package treatment plants were eliminated after being identified as threats to the Indian River Lagoon, pursuant to the Indian River Lagoon Act. Another 17 were eliminated because they did not comply with Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) standards, or had become mechanically obsolete and prone to failure. The County has focused on extending sewer service in the primary USD in order to reduce the need for new package treatment plants to serve development. By 2006, the County had eliminated 70 package treatment plants. There are only 19 package treatment plants in the County, and few, if any, have been approved and permitted in the County since 1990. Existing FLUE Policy 4.7C.2 is titled "Evaluation of urban uses near I-95 interchanges," and requires the County to "have completed an evaluation of potential urban uses in the vicinity of the I-95 interchanges with CR 708 and CR 714" by 2012-2013, and requires that "[t]he results of these studies shall be incorporated into the [Comprehensive Plan] via Plan Amendment." The Plan Amendment deletes FLUE Policy 4.7C.2. Martin County Principal Planner, Samantha Lovelady, produced a memorandum on Expressway Nodes in support of the Plan Amendment. The memorandum does not state that it was prepared to implement FLUE Policy 4.7C.2, nor did Ms. Lovelady testify that she prepared it pursuant to that policy. To the extent that the memorandum "evaluates potential urban uses" at the specified intersections, it concludes that the services at Kanner Highway, the rest area on I-95, and services available along I-95 just north in St. Lucie County and just south in Palm Beach County, all of which developed since the policy was adopted in 1985, have rendered the designation unnecessary. The memorandum concludes that the "original goal of this policy [to provide services to the public traveling through the County on I-95] has been achieved." FLUE Section 4.2.A(9)(b) of the Comprehensive Plan finds that based on an evaluation of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in 2009, the "raw data appear to show a significant deficit of commercial land necessary to accommodate economic needs." Further, the section provides, "[a]ny attempt to remedy the deficits should be based on geographic area in order to reflect sustainability principles and provide population centers with necessary services in an orderly and timely fashion." Petitioner argues the County deleted the Expressway Nodes overlay despite this data showing a deficit of available commercial property. The lands within the Expressway Nodes overlay have a FLUM designation of Agriculture, not Commercial. Further, there are several preconditions necessary for any of the property at those interchanges to be developed for commercial use, including a market demand study, PUD rezoning approval, and in the case of SE Bridge Road and SW Martin Highway west of the interchange, a required plan amendment to reclassify those roadways as major arterials. The evidence does not support a finding that elimination of the Expressway Nodes overlay would remove property from the County's commercial land use inventory. Furthermore, this section speaks to providing necessary services to "population centers." Neither of the I-95 interchanges at SE Bridge Road or SW Martin Highway is a population center. Internal Consistency Petitioner further challenges elimination of the Expressway Nodes as contrary to section 163.3177(2), which requires all elements of a comprehensive plan to be consistent with each other. Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment creates an inconsistency with FLUE Goal 4.2 "[T]o alleviate the negative impacts of inadequate public facilities and services and substandard structures for affected areas in the County." Petitioner's expert testified that removal of the Expressway Nodes designation will result in a lack of facilities to meet the needs of future travelers "as demand begins to evolve." The objectives and policies implementing FLUE Goal 4.2 speak directly to areas in need of redevelopment, including creation of Community Redevelopment Areas. There is no evidence to support a finding that the SW Martin Highway and SE Bridge Road interchanges are areas in need of redevelopment. Next, Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 4.7A.5, which provides, in pertinent part: Policy 4.7A.5. Development options outside urban service districts. Martin County shall provide reasonable and equitable options for development outside the urban service districts, including agriculture and small-scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses. A small-scale service establishment shall be defined as a small, compact, low intensity development within a rural area containing uses and activities which are supportive of, and have a functional relationship with the social, economic and institutional needs of the surrounding rural areas. Petitioner's expert provided only conclusory testimony that the removal of the Expressway Nodes designation is inconsistent with this policy. FLUE Policy 4.7A.5 requires the County to allow some opportunity for development outside the USDs. There is no evidence on which to base a finding that the Expressway Nodes designation is the only allowance for development outside the USDs, thus removal of the designation does not conflict with this policy. Further, the Expressway Nodes designation, by its plain language, was created to serve the needs of the public traveling through the County. Deletion thereof does not conflict with a policy requiring some development to serve the needs of rural residents and businesses. FLUE Goal 4.8 requires of the County, as follows: To encourage energy conservation and promote energy-efficient land use and development that implements sustainable development and green building principles. Petitioner contends the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this goal because travelers faced with congested facilities will travel further into the County along the intersecting roadways to find the desired services, thus increasing traffic and travel times, as well as use of hydrocarbons. The expert's testimony on this issue conflicts with his opinion that travelers faced with congested interchanges will either skip the interchange altogether, or re-enter I-95 to look for services at another interchange. On this issue, the expert's opinion is not accepted as credible. It is unreasonable to assume that a traveler would exit I-95 at an interchange which advertises no services and travel some distance on the crossroad in search of said services. Further, Goal 4.8 is implemented by objectives and policies which provide guidance for the County's land development regulations and which encourage green building standards and renewable energy resources. Petitioner appears to be taking the goal out of context. Finally, Petitioner cites FLUE Goal 4.10 and Policy 4.10B.2 as inconsistent with the Plan Amendment. The provisions read as follows: Goal 4.10. To provide for adequate and appropriate sites for commercial land uses to serve the needs of the County's anticipated residents and visitors. * * * Policy 4.10B.2. Criteria for siting commercial development. Commercial development shall be strategically directed to areas best able to accommodate its specific requirements of land area, site, public facilities and market location. The aim is to promote efficient traffic flow along thoroughfares, achieve orderly development and minimize adverse impacts on residential quality. Members of the public traveling through the County to other destinations are neither anticipated residents of, nor anticipated visitors to, the County. The Expressway Nodes designation was created to serve the "immediate and unique needs of the public traveling through the County." At hearing, Petitioner argued that the Plan Amendment was also inconsistent with provisions of the Economic Development Element of the County's plan. Inasmuch as Petitioner did not plead that issue in its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, the undersigned does not make any findings relevant thereto.3/ Balance of Uses Section 163.3177(1) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. This section applies to the County's Comprehensive Plan as a whole. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that the Comprehensive Plan, as a whole, fails to provide principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the County. Section 163.3177(6)(a)4. provides as follows: The amount of land designated for future planned uses shall provide a balance of uses that foster vibrant, viable communities and economic development opportunities and address outdated development patterns, such as antiquated subdivisions. The amount of land designated for future land uses should allow the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business and may not be limited solely by the projected population. The Plan Amendment does not change the amount of land designated for any particular FLUM category. The Plan Amendment makes no change to the FLUM. Assuming, arguendo, that elimination of the Expressway Nodes overlay changes the amount of land designated for commercial use, that single change does not render the Comprehensive Plan out of balance or unable to foster vibrant, viable communities. The public traveling through Martin County to other destinations are neither permanent nor seasonal residents or businesses. Wastewater Treatment Options The Plan Amendment makes a number of changes in the wastewater treatment options available to serve development in the County. Within the primary USD, FLUE Policy 10.1A.2 requires all new subdivisions of less than one acre to be served by regional sewer. Under the existing Comprehensive Plan, only new subdivisions within the primary USD exceeding two units/acre must connect to regional sewer systems. FLUE Policies 4.7B.1 and 10.1A.2 prohibit the extension of regional sewer service into the secondary USD. Thus, new development in the secondary USD is limited to septic service (because package treatment plants are eliminated in another section of the Plan Amendment). FLUE Policy 10.2A.7 increases the threshold size of lots within new subdivisions which may be developed on septic systems. Where the existing Comprehensive Plan allows new subdivisions of half-acre lots to develop on septic, the Plan Amendment requires a minimum one-acre lot. Further, new development qualifies only if it is more than one-quarter mile from regional sewer system collection or transmission lines. Within the primary USD, approximately 100 undeveloped lots are located more than one-quarter mile from a connection point to the County's regional sewer service. FLUE Section 10.2.B prohibits development within the USDs on septic systems where regional sewer systems are available (i.e., within one-quarter mile of a regional service line). The same policy limits development on septic systems outside the USDs to "low density residential as permitted by the underlying future land use designation and small scale service establishments necessary to support rural and agricultural uses." FLUE Policy 10.1C.4 prohibits approval of development orders "where adequate water and sewer facilities cannot be provided." Similarly, FLUE Policy 10.1A.10 provides that development "shall not be approved where adequate regional water and sewage facilities cannot be provided, unless the development can meet the requirements for a [septic] system found in Policy 10.2A.7." Finally, FLUE Policy 10.2A.8 limits the maximum flow of septic systems to 2,000 gpd per lot. Taken together, the changes generally limit the type and density of future development allowed in the County. Within the primary USD, the Plan Amendment requires more dense development to connect to regional sewer systems while limiting use of septic systems to the lowest density development. Overall, the Plan Amendment encourages higher density future development and prioritizes regional service. These changes are consistent with the County's existing "urban containment policy" concentrating urban development within the primary USD. In the secondary USD, the Plan Amendment restricts future development to low density (one-acre lots) where regional service is not available within one-quarter mile, and requires all future development within one-quarter mile to connect. These changes have little practical effect because most of the secondary USD is slated for future development at a rural density of one unit/two acres, with some estate densities at one unit/acre. Outside the USDs, the Plan Amendment limits future development to low density residential, and limited commercial development to serve rural and agricultural needs, on septic systems. Petitioner's challenge focuses primarily on, and the majority of evidence introduced related to, the 2,000 gpd limit on septic tank flow. Petitioner challenges FLUE Policy 10.2A.8 and Section 10.2.B.2 on a number of grounds, each of which is taken in turn. Data and Analysis Section 163.3177 requires plan amendments to "be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government." The statute provides, "[t]o be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of" the plan amendment at issue. Id. Further, "data must be taken from professionally accepted sources." § 163.3177(1)(f)2. The statute does not require original data collection by local governments. A septic system flow rate is the liquid flow rate of non-solid wastes (effluent) coming out of the residential or non-residential septic system after initial treatment. Septic systems are typically sized based on the flow rate. When the Comprehensive Plan was first adopted in 1982, the County adopted a maximum flow rate of 2,000 gpd. The 2,000 gpd standard was also the standard for the State of Florida at the time it was adopted by Martin County. In 1993, the Legislature amended the state standard to allow maximum flows of 10,000 gpd for all uses. See ch. 93-151 § 1, Fla. Laws. In 1998, the state standard for commercial facilities was reduced to 5,000 gpd, where it remains today. See ch. 98-151, § 7, Fla. Laws. Martin County did not adopt the state standard when it changed in either 1993 or 1998. The County maintained its lower maximum rate based on experience with septic system failures associated with poor maintenance, particularly of larger systems and commercial establishments, such as restaurants. The state standard was adopted by the County in its 2009 EAR amendments, which became effective in January 2011. Thus, the 2,000 gpd standard governed development in Martin County for almost 30 years. Despite the lengthy history of the 2,000 gpd standard in Martin County, the undersigned must find that the 2009 change to the higher state standards were supported by data and analysis since that change was found "in compliance" in 2011. Thus, the 2015 change back to the 2,000 gpd standard must likewise be based on data and analysis. The County identified protection of its ground and surface water bodies from contaminants associated with septic system effluent as the main reason for the change. In response to the Clean Water Act and the Florida Watershed Restoration Act, DEP implemented the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. The program identifies water bodies which are "impaired" for a particular pollutant (i.e., exceeds the water body's capacity to absorb the given pollutant and still function for its designated use), and requires development of Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) to restore impaired waters. There are 32 impaired water bodies in Martin County. Among them are the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon, which is part of the estuary. Both the estuary and the lagoon are impaired for nitrogen, among other contaminants. The lagoon is a brackish-water environment in which phosphorus occurs in high levels. The growth of algae and other microorganisms is limited in that environment by the availability of nitrogen in the ecosystem. Nitrogen is a "limiting factor." When too much nitrogen is present, algae and other microorganisms become overgrown. An overgrowth of algae consumes excessive amounts of oxygen and dissolved oxygen in the marine environment, a primary indicator of water quality. DEP adopted the TMDL for total nitrogen demand for the estuary in March 2009. The BMAP developed for the estuary includes both construction of stormwater management projects and conversion of particularly-identified developments from septic systems to regional wastewater service. In March 2013, the County identified first priority stormwater projects at a cost of $15,790,000, and second priority projects at a cost of $17,990,000. The County also identified ten subdivisions to prioritize for conversion from septic to sewer service at a cost of $88,140,000. Together with identified flood control projects, in 2013, Martin County estimated a grand total of $142,445,000 in projects to implement the BMAP. The County has extended sewer service to approximately 1,800 properties, converting approximately eight developments from septic to sewer service. Effluent from septic systems is only one source of nitrogen pollution to surface water bodies. Agriculture (from both fertilizer and animal waste), residential fertilizer, pet waste, and "atmospheric" nitrogen, are other sources of nitrogen pollution. A 2009 study by the Department of Health concluded that management of nitrogen sources, including septic systems, "is of paramount concern for the protection of the environment."4/ Initial treatment of raw wastewater occurs in the septic tank chamber, where solids settle to the bottom and liquids are separated from the solids. In this anaerobic (absent oxygen) state, the wastes are converted mainly to ammonia and ammonium (inorganic nitrogen). Septic tank effluent is then discharged to a drain field where nitrification occurs in an aerobic environment. Nitrification converts ammonium to nitrates in oxygen-rich unsaturated soils. Soils do not absorb nitrates, and much of the nitrates migrate to ground and surface waters causing contamination. If nitrogen remains in the oxygen-rich soil, it can be converted to nitrogen gas and eliminated through the atmosphere through the denitrification process. Carbon and other minerals must be present in the soil for denitrification to occur. Denitrification is also a slow process that occurs only in the vata zone, the oxygen-rich soil between the bottom of the drainfield and the top of the water table. The data and analysis, as well as the testimony presented at the final hearing, conflicted on the issue of how much nitrogen is removed from septic tank effluent through denitrification in Southeast Florida, where soils are well- drained, but the water table fluctuates seasonally. In September 2013, a study prepared for DEP estimated the amount of nitrogen load from removed septic systems to surface water bodies in Martin County, as well as the cities of Stuart and Port St. Lucie. The study "shows that the load estimates are strongly correlated with nitrogen concentrations in surface water quality data, suggesting that septic load is a significant factor for water quality deterioration."5/ In Martin County, where septic system removal was small scale, the study traced a majority of the removed nitrogen to specific water bodies.6/ The study found that the amount of nitrogen load is controlled by three factors: (1) length of flow path; (2) flow velocity; and (3) drainage conditions. The following excerpt is instructive: Figure ES-4 shows that the load estimate decreases with the mean length of flow paths; the two largest loads per septic system are for North River Shores and Seagate Harbor [in Martin County] where the flow paths are the shortest. . . . This is reasonable because longer flow paths result in more denitrification and thus smaller load estimate. In line with this, larger flow velocity corresponds to shorter travel time and thus smaller amount of denitrification and larger amount of load. . . . Figures . . . indicate that the setback distance should be determined not only by the distance between septic systems to surface water bodies but also by groundwater flow conditions (the distance probably plays a more important role here). The groundwater flow conditions are closely related to soil drainage conditions at the modeling sites. An October 2013 paper by Kevin Henderson, P.E., reviewed four studies between 1993 and 2011, and concluded that "[n]one of the studies are specific enough to [Southeast Florida] soils/groundwater aquifer to be definitive as regards nitrate nitrogen's fate once it becomes part of groundwater below a drainfield."7/ Henderson maintains that the Southeast Florida groundwater aquifer is low-flux. Henderson further reported that studies have shown that anticipated nitrogen and total nitrogen groundwater contamination "is consistently absent at distances of more than 40 feet from drainfields."8/ The County's soil and water expert, Catherine Riiska, disagreed, maintaining the Southeast Florida water table is seasonally-dependent, and fluctuates greatly between the wet and dry seasons. During the wet season, Ms. Riiska explained the drainage system is insufficient to keep the water table low during the rainy season. When the water table is high, there is little opportunity for denitrification and nitrates can be pulled directly into the water flow. While the experts disagreed as to how much nitrogen may be removed from septic tank effluent in Southeast Florida, the experts agreed that limiting the amount of potential flow from septic tanks will limit the amount of potential discharge, especially in the event of a failure of the system. Petitioner contends that the 2,000 gpd standard does not react appropriately to the data and analysis because it does not take into account factors other than effluent volume that contribute to total nitrogen loading from septic systems, such as distance to surface water bodies and size of area served by the septic system. The 2,000 gpd standard applies equally throughout the County regardless of location in proximity to surface water bodies. Septic systems can be regulated based on either flow or loading. Loading would be expressed in gallons per measure of property, such as gallons per acre per day. The County's Director of Utilities and Solid Waste, John Polley, agreed that, in terms of environmental impact, loading is a superior measure to flow rate. The County is not required to adopt the superior measure for environmental protection, but to adopt a measure which is supported by data and analysis. Finally, Petitioner contends that the 2,000 gpd standard is not based on data and analysis because it was chosen arbitrarily, without considering some less restrictive flow limit such as 3,000 gpd or 4,000 gpd. The 2011 change from the 2,000 gpd flow limitation to the higher maximum state standard was not supported by the Martin County Health Department. Robert Washam, a retired Environmental Administrator for the Martin County Health Department with more than 30 years' experience permitting and regulating septic systems in Martin County, testified and submitted in writing to the County as to his support for the change to 2,000 gpd. He iterated several reasons for his support, including the serious public health and environmental issues that can result from the failure of large septic systems; the documented failures of large systems inside the primary USD resulting in raw sewage flowing into wetlands, ditches, and eventually rivers; and the unsuitable soils and water table conditions for large septic systems in rural areas of the County.9/ Section 381.0065(4)(e) provides as follows: (e) Onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems must not be placed closer than: Seventy-five feet from a private potable well. Two hundred feet from a public potable well serving a residential or nonresidential establishment having a total sewage flow of greater than 2,000 gallons per day. One hundred feet from a public potable well serving a residential or nonresidential establishment having a total sewage flow of less than or equal to 2,000 gallons per day. Fifty feet from any nonpotable well. Petitioner's wastewater expert, Richard Creech, acknowledged in his testimony that these thresholds reflect that there is an opportunity for contamination of the public water wells by the larger septic systems. Mr. Creech also agreed that, if a septic system is not properly maintained, functioning, designed, and sited, it may present a problem to surface waters. Petitioner did not prove that the 2,000 gpd standard would not protect ground and surface waters from nitrogen loading. That issue is clearly a subject of fair debate. Balance of Uses/Operation of Real Estate Markets Section 163.3177(1), provides, in pertinent part: The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. This section applies to the County's Comprehensive Plan as a whole. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that the Comprehensive Plan, as a whole, fails to provide principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the County. Section 163.3177(6)(a)4. provides that the amount of land designated for future planned uses "shall provide a balance of uses that foster vibrant, viable communities and economic development opportunities and address outdated development patterns." Petitioner contends the County failed to consider the economic impact of reducing the septic system flow rate to 2,000 gpd. Petitioner introduced no evidence regarding the effect of the 2,000 gpd limit on the future economic development of the County, only that the County failed to conduct economic analysis thereof. While the County conducted no formal economic analysis of the change, the County clearly considered the effect of that limit on type and size of future development in the County. The 2,000 gpd flow limitation was not a significant development constraint during the nearly 30 years that it was in effect. Septic system size determinations are governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.008. The rule associates a specific gpd rate for each type of commercial, industrial, and residential establishment, based on factors such as the number of seats or patrons, number of employees, and number of bedrooms. A four-bedroom home up to 3,300 square feet can be developed on a septic system with a 400 gpd flow rate, well within the 2,000 gpd flow established under the Plan Amendment. A 2,000 gpd flow rate will accommodate a 650-seat church without regular meal service (or 580 seats with weekly meal preparation), a 200-room hotel, and a 13,000 square foot office building. The substantial expansion of the County's regional wastewater system inside the primary USD has reduced the prospective amount of future development on septic systems. Approximately 100 acres designated for non-residential use are beyond one-quarter mile from sewer availability from Martin County. All other future non-residential development in the primary USD will be unaffected by the septic system flow limitation. The flow limitation does not prohibit more intensive non-residential development in the primary USD. Rather, it encourages developers to expend funds to connect to the regional system so that increased intensity may be obtained. The flow limitation will have limited, if any, impact on the balance of allowable uses in the secondary USD. The low densities and the lack of any approved commercial uses in that District make higher septic flows unnecessary. The same is true for areas outside the USDs, where future development is limited to agricultural, very low density residential (one unit/20 acres), and some minor commercial land uses. Higher flow septic systems are also unnecessary in that area. Based on concerns expressed by agricultural interests during the adoption process, the Plan Amendment allows agricultural uses to exclude consideration of a septic system associated with a residence on the same site. Thus, the County considered the impact of the flow limitation on the predominant industry in the County. Miscellaneous Issues In its Petition, Petitioner also raised the issue of whether the deletion of FLUE Policy 4.13.A8 is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map which retains the overlay designation. Petitioner did not present any evidence on this issue. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegation beyond fair debate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that Plan Amendment CPA 14-6, adopted by Martin County on December 16, 2014, is "in compliance," as that term is defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 2015.
