07-000577 In Re: Petition To Establish The Timucuan Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, May 25, 2007.

Summary: The local public hearing was held on the petition to establish a community development district. The received evidence supports the petition.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION TO ESTABLISH ) )

THE TIMUCUAN COMMUNITY ) Case No. 07-0577

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT )

REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, a

local public hearing was conducted on April 19, 2007, before

Charles A. Stampelos, an Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), at City Hall, St.

James Committee Room B, 117 West Duval Street, in Jacksonville,

Florida.

The hearing was conducted for the purpose of taking

testimony and public comments and receiving exhibits on the

Petition of Timucuan-MLC, Inc. (Petitioner), to establish the

Timucuan Community Development District (District). This Report

of the public hearing and the hearing record is made for the

consideration of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission (Commission) in its determination whether to adopt a

rule to establish the District.

APPEARANCE

For Petitioner: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to

establish the District meets the factors set forth in Section

190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has

been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section

190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code

Chapter 42-1.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 4, 2007, Petitioner filed its Petition to

establish the District with the Secretary of the Commission.

Petitioner provided a copy of the Petition and its attachments,

along with the requisite filing fee, to the City of Jacksonville

(City). A copy of the Petition, including its attachments, as

amended and revised, was received into evidence as Petitioner's

Composite Exhibit A.

On January 31, 2007, the Clerk of the Commission certified

that the Petition and supplemental information contained all

required elements and forwarded the Petition to DOAH for the

purpose of holding the local public hearing required under

Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

Petitioner published notice of the local public hearing in

accordance with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

The land to be included within the proposed District is

located entirely within the boundaries of the City. Section

190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that the county and

the municipality containing all or a portion of the lands within

the proposed District have the option to hold a public hearing

within 45 days of the filing of a petition. The City opted not

to hold a hearing.

At the local public hearing held on April 19, 2007,

Petitioner presented the testimony of Mitchell Montgomery,

president of Montgomery Land Company, the sole shareholder of

Petitioner; William B. Moriarty, an expert in civil engineering;

Stephen J. Stewart, an expert in state and local comprehensive

planning; and Darrin S. Mossing, an expert in economic analysis

and special district government. Petitioner's Exhibits A

through Q were received into evidence at the hearing. No

members of the public or persons other than Petitioner's counsel

and witnesses made comments during the public hearing.

After the close of the public hearing, the record was left

open for ten days for submittal of written comments from the

public in support of or in opposition to the Petition, as

allowed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 42-1.012. On

April 30, 2007, Petitioner filed written supplemental testimony

of Darrin Mossing with DOAH, along with an affidavit adopting

Mr. Mossing's written supplemental testimony. Exhibit R. No

written statements from the public were submitted to DOAH. On

May 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to late-file

correspondence along with correspondence received that day from

the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Planning

Council) indicating that the application (Petition) appeared to

be consistent with the proposed development plan included in the

Development of Regional Impact (DRI) application. Exhibit S.

Petitioner's motion for leave to late-file correspondence is

granted.

SUMMARY OF THE HEARING AND RECORD

A summary of the evidence presented is outlined below using

headings which are the factors to be considered by the

Commission in making a determination whether to grant or deny

the Petition. § 190.005(1)(e)1.-6., Fla. Stat.

A. Whether all statements contained within the Petition

have been found to be true and correct.

1. Mr. Montgomery stated that he had reviewed the contents

of the Petition and generally described the attachments to the

Petition. Mr. Montgomery stated that the Petition and its

attachments, as modified and admitted into evidence as Composite

Exhibit A, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

2. Mr. Montgomery stated that Petition Exhibits 1 through

9 and 11 were prepared by him or under his supervision. Mr.

Montgomery stated that the Petition and the Petition Exhibits

are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

3. Mr. Montgomery stated that the names of the five

persons designated to serve as the initial Board of Supervisors

of the proposed District are: Maurice Randolph, Patsy Hite, Ken

Lapointe, William Wright, and himself. According to Mr.

Montgomery, each of these individuals is a citizen of the United

States and resides in the State of Florida.

4. Mr. Moriarty, an expert in civil engineering, stated

that he had prepared or had others prepare under his supervision

Petition Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, as amended, and 9.

Mr. Moriarty testified that those exhibits are true and correct.

5. Mr. Mossing, an expert in the field of economic

analysis and special district government, stated that he

reviewed the Petition and the Petition Exhibits. Mr. Mossing

stated that his firm prepared Exhibit 10 to the Petition, the

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), as amended, and

that Exhibit 10, as amended, was true and correct to the best of

his knowledge.

6. The evidence indicates that the statements contained

within the Petition and its applicable exhibits, as modified,

are true and correct. No statement within the Petition or its

attachments was disputed.

B. Whether the establishment of the District is

inconsistent with any applicable element or

portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the

effective local government comprehensive plan.

7. Mr. Montgomery testified that the property within the

proposed District is located within the proposed Timucuan DRI.

Several other entities owing property within the proposed DRI

have filed petitions to establish community development

districts (CDD) over that property. These include the (1)

Timucuan South CDD, (2) Timucuan Preserve CDD, and (3) Braddock

CDD.

8. Mr. Stewart, an expert in the field of state and local

comprehensive planning, explained that the DRI is in the second

sufficiency phase and is expected to be approved in early June

2007, and prior to final action by the Commission to consider

the establishment of the proposed District.

9. Mr. Stewart reviewed from a planning perspective

applicable portions of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter

187, Florida Statutes, which relate to the establishment of a

CDD. He stated that there are three subjects of the State

Comprehensive Plan that directly apply to the establishment of

the proposed District, as well as the policies supporting those

subjects.

10. According to Mr. Stewart, Subject 15, "Land Use,"

recognizes the importance of enhancing the quality of life in

Florida by ensuring that future development is located in areas

that have the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate

growth. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed District will

have the fiscal ability to provide services and facilities to

the population in the designated growth area and help provide

infrastructure in an area which can accommodate development

within the area in a fiscally responsible manner.

11. According to Mr. Stewart, Subject 17, "Public

Facilities," provides guidance to plan for and finance new

facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient

manner. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed District will

ensure that the residents receiving the benefits of new

infrastructure pay for that infrastructure and that the District

will be able to implement innovative, but fiscally sound and

cost-effective techniques for financing public facilities.

12. According to Mr. Stewart, Subject 25, "Plan

Implementation," requires that systematic planning be

incorporated into all levels of government, with particular

emphasis on improving intergovernmental coordination and

maximizing citizen involvement. Mr. Stewart testified that the

proposed District is consistent with this element of the State

Comprehensive Plan because the proposed District will have the

ability to finance, construct, operate, maintain, and own the

proposed services and facilities, though it will be subject to

the local government comprehensive plan and land development

regulations. Additionally, Mr. Stewart testified that the

proposed District will be governed by a Board of Supervisors,

whose meetings are publicly advertised and open to the public.

13. Mr. Mossing stated that from an economic perspective,

four subject areas of the State Comprehensive Plan are

particularly relevant: Subject 15, "Land Use"; Subject 17,

"Public Facilities"; and Subject 20, "Governmental Efficiency";

and Subject 25, "Plan Implementation."

14. He echoed the opinion of Mr. Stewart that, with regard

to Subject 15, "Land Use," the proposed District can accomplish

the State land use goal of guiding development to areas which

have the service capacity to accommodate growth.

15. Mr. Mossing stated that Subject 17, "Public

Facilities," aims to protect the substantial investments and

public facilities that already exist and plan for future

facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and

efficient manner. According to Mr. Mossing, the proposed

District will further Subject 17's goals and policies.

16. Mr. Mossing stated that Subject 20, "Governmental

Efficiency," directs Florida governments to economically and

efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required

by the public. Mr. Mossing further stated that consistent with

Subject 20, the proposed District will: 1) cooperate with other

levels of Florida government; 2) be established under uniform

general law standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida

Statutes; 3) be professionally managed, financed, and governed

by those whose property directly receives the benefits; 4) not

burden the general taxpayer with costs for services or

facilities inside the proposed District; and 5) plan and

implement cost efficient solutions for the required public

infrastructure and assure delivery of selected services to

residents.

17. Mr. Mossing testified that Subject 25, "Plan

Implementation," calls for systematic planning capabilities to

be integrated into all levels of government throughout the

state, with particular emphasis on improving intergovernmental

coordination and maximizing citizen involvement. According to

Mr. Mossing, the proposed District is consistent with this

element of the State Comprehensive Plan.

18. Mr. Stewart testified that the establishment of the

proposed District is not inconsistent with any applicable

element or portion of the City of Jacksonville 2010

Comprehensive Plan (Local Comprehensive Plan). According to

Mr. Stewart, mechanisms such as interlocal agreements will be

available to ensure that the proposed District and the City work

together and coordinate the construction, maintenance and

management of improvements. Mr. Stewart further stated that the

proposed District would provide the required infrastructure

within its boundaries without reducing the fiscal resources of

the City or decreasing the City's bonding limits and that those

residents benefited by the infrastructure would pay for it

through special assessments. This is consistent with the North

Jacksonville Shared Vision and Master Plan. Mr. Montgomery also

testified that the establishment of the proposed District will

facilitate the funding and construction of Braddock Parkway, a

road of critical importance that is anticipated by the North

Jacksonville Shared Vision and Master Plan. Finally, Mr.

Stewart testified that the proposed District will provide needed

public facilities in an efficient and cost-effective manner that

ensures a strong cost-to-benefit ratio. In completing the

above-referenced actions, the proposed District furthers Goal 1,

Policy 1.2.2, and Policy 1.2.7, of the City's Local

Comprehensive Plan.

19. The Department of Community Affairs (Department)

reviewed the Petition for consistency with the State

Comprehensive Plan and the City's Local Comprehensive Plan. In

the letter dated February 13, 2007, the Department stated that

the proposed District is inconsistent with the provisions of

Section 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, until the proposed DRI

and associated land use change are approved and in effect. The

Department recommended that final action on the proposed

District be deferred until the DRI project and the associated

land use change are approved and become effective. The

Department did not allege any inconsistency with any local or

state comprehensive plan.

20. Mr. Stewart testified that he does not agree with the

recommendation of the Department because the Department has not

concluded that establishment of the proposed District would be

inconsistent with either the State Comprehensive Plan or the

City's Local Comprehensive Plan, which is the statutory factor

in Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.

21. Mr. Stewart testified that the status of the DRI does

not affect his opinion as to whether the establishment of the

proposed District is inconsistent with any portion or element of

the State Comprehensive Plan or the City's Local Comprehensive

Plan. Instead, Mr. Stewart stated that in determining whether

to grant a petition for the establishment of the proposed

District, one of the statutory factors in Section 190.005(1)(e),

Florida Statutes, requires that the Commission consider whether

the establishment of the proposed District is inconsistent with

any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive

Plan or the City's Local Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stewart

testified that this is a much narrower question than whether the

underlying development plan for lands to be served by the

proposed District is consistent with Section 163, Part II,

Florida Statutes.

22. Section 190.002(2)(d), Florida Statutes, states that

"any matter concerning permitting or planning of the development

is not material or relevant" to the process of establishing a

community development district. The decision of the Commission

may be "based only on factors material to managing and financing

the service-delivery function" of the proposed District.

23. Section 190.002(3), Florida Statutes, states that the

establishment of a CDD is not a development order within the

meaning of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which in this case

means that the lands to be served by the proposed District will

be governed by all applicable planning and permitting laws,

rules, regulations, and policies of the State and the City.

Thus, Mr. Stewart testified that the establishment of the

proposed District will have no impact upon whether the DRI is

approved, and any development activity of the proposed District

will be subject to the planning and permitting rules,

regulations, and policies of the State and the City. If no DRI

is approved within five years, the district will be dissolved as

a matter of law. § 190.046(7), Fla. Stat.

24. In his supplemental written testimony, Mr. Mossing

identified several community development districts and an

independent special district that have been established prior to

the completion of a DRI or related entitlement proceeding.

Exhibit R. One example provided by Mr. Mossing is the

establishment of the Timucuan South Community Development

District, which is located within the same proposed DRI and was

established by the City on March 13, 2007. Establishment of the

Timucuan South CDD prior to the completion of the DRI process

for the underlying land within the DRI is evidence that the City

has determined that the establishment of that district was not

inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan or the City's

Local Comprehensive Plan. Further, in Exhibit 3 to the City's

Ordinance Establishing the Timucuan South CDD, the City's

Planning and Development Department report to the City Council

regarding the Timucuan South CDD, contains that department's

conclusion that the establishment of the CDD would be consistent

with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or of the City's Local Comprehensive Plan.

25. Mr. Mossing cited the Westchester Community

Development District No. 1 as another example. It was

established by St. Lucie County in 2001, well in advance of the

approval of the Westchester DRI in 2003, and the amendments to

the local comprehensive plan that were necessary to effectuate

the development plan for those lands. Mr. Mossing further

stated that St. Lucie County had determined that establishing

that district prior to amendment of the local comprehensive plan

and in advance of the DRI approvals and changes would not result

in an inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan or the

Local Comprehensive Plan.

26. Mr. Mossing also stated that the Commission has

established a CDD in advance of the receipt of DRI approvals.

In 2004, the Commission established the Coastal Lake CDD. In

that instance, though the Planned Unit Development approval had

been received for the land within that proposed district, DRI

approval for the Watersound DRI had not been completed when the

district was established.

27. Mr. Mossing also cited the Lakewood Ranch Stewardship

District, an independent special district that was established

recently by the Legislature in the Chapter 2005-338, Laws of

Florida. The district was established pursuant to Chapter 189,

Florida Statutes, for the financing of infrastructure, and

Section 189.404(2)(e)4., Florida Statutes, required that each

local government determine that the establishment of the

District is consistent with the applicable local comprehensive

plan. Both local jurisdictions so determined and supported

establishment of the district.

28. On May 2, 2007, Petitioner filed with DOAH a motion

for leave to late-file correspondence consisting of an

electronic mail message from the Planning Council to the

Commission that was received by the Commission on May 1, 2007,

and which the Commission forwarded to Petitioner on May 2, 2007.

29. In the electronic correspondence, Ed Lehman, the

Planning Council's Director of Planning and Development, stated

that the application (Petition) appeared to be consistent with

the proposed development plan included in the proposed DRI

application. Exhibit S. Mr. Lehman also emphasized that

construction of Braddock Parkway, an improvement to be

constructed in part by the proposed District, is of major

importance to the City and the region. This is consistent with

the critical nature of the improvement as noted in the North

Jacksonville Shared Vision and Master Plan.

30. The evidence indicates that the proposed District will

not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of

the State Comprehensive Plan or the City's Local Comprehensive

Plan. The City has already found this to be the case for the

already established Timucuan South CDD. The evidence indicates

that establishment of CDDs or other special districts prior to

the implementation of a development of regional impact, while

not apparently the norm, is not violative of Section 190.005,

Florida Statutes. The evidence indicates that establishment of

the proposed District is not inconsistent with any applicable

element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of any

effective local government comprehensive plan.

C. Whether the area of land within the proposed

District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently

compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be

developable as one functional interrelated

community.

31. Testimony on this factor was provided by Mr. Moriarty,

Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Mossing. According to Mr. Mossing, the

proposed District is of sufficient size and compactness and is

sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional,

interrelated community. Mr. Mossing further testified that the

proposed District will operate as one functionally interrelated

community.

32. According to Mr. Moriarty, the proposed District is of

sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to be developed as a

functional interrelated community. Mr. Moriarty further stated

that the establishment of a CDD is a good fit for the lands

within the proposed District. Mr. Moriarty explained that the

specific design of the community allows infrastructure to be

provided in a cost effective manner.

33. Mr. Stewart stated that the land within the proposed

District is of sufficient size for the proposed District to

deliver infrastructure systems and facilities and function as

one functionally interrelated community. Mr. Stewart explained

that the facilities to be provided by the proposed District

include roads, wetlands mitigation, parks, community recreation

and amenity areas, and other neighborhood infrastructure, which

are all designed to function as one unified and comprehensive

system of improvements.

34. Mr. Mossing testified that the proposed District

covers approximately 2,082.64 acres of land, and the

configuration of the land within the district is both compact

and contiguous. Mr. Mossing concluded that the proposed

District is of sufficient size, sufficient compactness, and

sufficient contiguity to be developable as a functional

interrelated community.

35. The evidence indicates that the 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.

D. Whether the proposed District is the best alternative

available for delivering community development services

and facilities to the area that will be served by the

District.

36. Mr. Mossing testified that establishing the proposed

District is the best way to assure that growth within the area

encompassed by the District pays for itself. He concluded that

the proposed District is the best alternative available for

providing the proposed community development services and

facilities to the area to be served.

37. Mr. Mossing identified two alternatives to the

establishment of the proposed District: The planned facilities

and services could be provided by the City, or the facilities

and services could be provided by a developer and/or a

homeowners' association (HOA). Mr. Mossing stated that the City

must provide facilities and services at sustained levels to a

larger geographical area, which places a heavy management

delivery load on its staff. Mr. Mossing testified that the use

of a CDD allows the City to avoid an increase in the time, money

and manpower that would be required to effectively provide

facilities and services to the new development. Mr. Mossing

further explained that an HOA and/or a developer is not the best

alternative to provide necessary facilities and services as

neither is able to function as a stable provider of services and

facilities over an extended period of time, qualifies as a lower

cost source of financing, or has the statutory oversight

mechanisms that are imposed on a community development district.

Finally, "[a]ll things being equal," the St. Johns River Water

Management District prefers CDDs over HOAs as operating

entities.

38. Mr. Mossing testified that the proposed District will

construct certain public infrastructure and community facilities

that will be needed by the property owners and residents of the

proposed District and will allow the community development

process to take care of its own needs by restricting costs to

those who benefit from the services provided. Mr. Mossing

stated that the use of non-ad valorem and maintenance

assessments or user fees ensures that the property receiving the

benefit is the same property that pays for it. Non-ad valorem

or special assessments on the property within the proposed

District will be used to repay any debt incurred, and operation

and maintenance expenses will be paid through maintenance

assessments. Mr. Mossing testified that although an HOA could

provide for the facilities planned for the proposed District, it

would not have the ability to finance the facilities, and the

developer would not be able to provide long-term maintenance of

any facilities other than through an HOA. Accordingly, Mr.

Mossing stated that that there are no effective alternatives to

provide for such financing structures, and the proposed District

is the best alternative because establishment of the proposed

District would result in the lowest cost to landowners and to

homeowners as compared to other alternatives.

39. Mr. Mossing stated that the proposed District would be

governed by its own Board of Supervisors and managed by those

whose purpose it is to provide the proposed District long-term

financing options for the facilities. The long-term financing

capabilities of a CDD extend to the operation and maintenance of

the facilities owned by the CDD.

40. Mr. Stewart testified that from a planning

perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to

provide the proposed community development services and

facilities to the 2,082.64 acres proposed to be included within

the proposed District. This is in part because only a CDD

allows for the independent financing, administration, operation,

and maintenance of the land within the District and allows

District property owners to completely control the District

board and, therefore, the timing and extent of infrastructure

development.

41. Mr. Montgomery testified that there are three

development entities that are cooperating in the DRI process,

and that they are cooperating in order to most effectively

proceed through the process and ultimately fund the Braddock

Parkway improvement which runs by or though each of their

properties. He stated that Braddock Parkway is a road of

regional significance that is intended to connect U.S. 1 and

Interstate 95, serving as a major transportation corridor and

hurricane evacuation route for the North Jacksonville area.

Mr. Montgomery testified that the road is of critical importance

to the City and is anticipated by the North Jacksonville Shared

Vision and Master Plan. Each developer is contemplating the

development of three or more distinct communities, each with

their own identity and development character that will provide

residents with their own community and an entity capable of

sustaining that community in perpetuity. Mr. Montgomery stated

that all the districts are included in the same DRI due to the

common improvements, such as Braddock Parkway, and that such

inclusion is not indicative of a common development identity.

42. Mr. Mossing testified that the use of multiple CDDs in

one DRI is a common practice. He opined that the use of

multiple CDDs within one DRI is the best alternative for

delivering community services and facilities to the area to be

served by the proposed District. Mr. Mossing testified that

multiple districts will alleviate the burden on the City of

providing infrastructure and services to the entire DRI. He

stated that the multiple CDDs can work together through

interlocal agreements to provide facilities to benefit the lands

within the DRI, yet they will also have the ability to restrict

neighborhood or local improvement costs to those who are

directly benefiting from those improvements. Mr. Mossing

testified that the CDDs will be able to work together to achieve

shared infrastructure improvements, but that multiple CDDs are

better for the large DRI than a single district. Aggregating

the districts would fail to fulfill the needs of each community

to develop its own identity and sense of community. The four

communities are not being developed or marketed as one

community, and they are not planned with any functional

relationship beyond the sharing of costs associated with the

master shared improvements.

43. The evidence indicates that the proposed District is

the best alternative available for delivering community

development services and facilities to the area that will be

served by the District.

E. Whether the community development services and

facilities of the proposed District will be incompatible

with the capacity and uses of existing local and

regional community development services and facilities.

44. Mr. Mossing, Mr. Moriarty, and Mr. Stewart provided

testimony on this issue. Each witness's testimony supported Mr.

Moriarty's conclusion that none of the proposed services or

facilities currently in existence or being provided by another

entity or unit of government. Mr. Moriarty further concluded

that the services and facilities to be provided by the proposed

District will not be incompatible with the capacities and uses

of existing local and regional community development facilities

and services.

45. The evidence indicates that the community development

services and facilities of the proposed District will not be

incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and

regional community development services and facilities.

F. Whether the area that will be served by the proposed

District is amenable to separate special-district

government.

46. Two criteria are needed to evaluate a land area as

amenable to separate special district government: 1) whether

the land area is of sufficient size, sufficient compactness and

sufficiently contiguous to be the basis for a functional

interrelated community; and 2) does the land area have a need

for the facilities and services.

47. With respect to the first criterion, as stated

previously, from the perspectives of planning, economics,

engineering, and special-district management, 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 functionally interrelated community. Regarding

the second criterion, Mr. Stewart stated that the lands within

the proposed District have sufficient infrastructure needs to

warrant a separate special district government.

48. The evidence indicates that the proposed District is

amenable to separate special-district government.

G. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule.

49. The Clerk of the Commission certified that the

Petition contains all the information required by Section

190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and the evidence presented at

the local public hearing indicates that the Petition contains

all required information.

50. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the

Petition to include a SERC in accordance with the requirements

of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The SERC in the Petition

contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons

directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the proposed

District--the State of Florida and its citizens, the City and

its citizens, and future landowners within the proposed

District.

51. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption,

the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from

establishing the proposed District. These costs are related to

the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one

additional local government report. Any debt obligations

incurred by the proposed District to construct its

infrastructure, or for any other reason, are not debts of the

State of Florida or any unit of local government.

52. Administrative costs incurred by the City related to

rule adoption should be minimal and are offset by the required

filing fee of $15,000 paid to the City.

53. Landowners within the proposed District will pay non-

ad valorem or special assessments for the District's facilities.

Benefits to landowners in the area within the proposed District

will include a higher level of public services and amenities

than might otherwise be available, completion of District-

sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and

greater control over community development services and

facilities within the area.

54. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the

Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a

newspaper of general circulation in Duval County for four

consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was

published in the Florida Times-Union , a newspaper of general

paid circulation in Duval County, on March 22, March 29, April

5, and April 12, 2007, which met the criteria in Section

190.005, Florida Statutes. A notice of the local public hearing

was also published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March

30, 2007.

H. Local Government Support for Establishment

55. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b),

Florida Statutes, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition and

the $15,000 filing fee with the City prior to filing the

Petition with the Commission.

56. The City did not hold a public hearing on the

establishment of the proposed District as permitted by Section

190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

I. Public comment regarding the establishment of the

proposed District.

57. No members of the public commented during the public

hearing.

APPLICABLE LAW

58. This proceeding is governed by Chapter 190, Florida

Statutes, which establishes an exclusive and uniform method for

the establishment of a CDD with a size of 1,000 acres or more,

and the rules of the Commission.

59. The Petition contained all the information required by

Section 190.005(1), Florida Statutes, and the City was paid the

required filing fee.

60. The local public hearing was properly noticed by

newspaper publications in Duval County as required by Section

190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

61. The required local public hearing was held and

affected units of general-purpose local government and the

general public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the

proposed District as required by Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida

Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 42-1.012.

62. The Petition contains a SERC in accordance with the

requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes.

63. All portions of the Petition and other submittals have

been completed and filed as required by law.

64. Petitioner demonstrated that the Petition favorably

addresses all the factors set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e),

Florida Statutes.

CONCLUSION

Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, states that the

Commission "shall consider the entire record of the local

hearing, the transcript of the hearing, resolutions adopted by

local general-purpose governments," and the factors listed in

that paragraph. Based on the record evidence, as corrected and

supplemented, the Petition meets all statutory requirements, and

there appears no reason not to grant the Petition to establish

by rule the proposed Timucuan Community Development District.

DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2007, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CHARLES A. STAMPELOS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 25th day of May, 2007.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Jerry McDaniel, Director

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 1802

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Growth Management and Strategic

Planning

The Capitol, Room 1802

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Paul Huck, General Counsel

Office of the Governer

The Capitol, Suite 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001

Shaw Stiller, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Suite 325

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2160

Gladys Perez, Esquire

Executive Office of the Governor

Room 209

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Hopping, Green, & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526