07-000579 In Re: Petition To Establish The Braddock 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 ) ) Case No. 07-0579

THE BRADOCK COMMUNITY )

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, by Charles

A. Stampelos, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH), at City Hall, St. James,

Committee Room B, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida.

The hearing was conducted for the purpose of taking

testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the

Petition of Crosswinds-Florida, LLC (Petitioner), to establish

the Braddock 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 proposed District.

APPEARANCE

For Petitioner: Chasity H. O'Steen, Esquire

Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP

2548 Blairstone Pines Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to

establish the District meets the criteria set forth in Section

190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has

been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section

190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code

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 that was filed with the

Commission, including its attachments as amended and revised,

was received into evidence as Composite Hearing Exhibit 1.

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

that the Petition 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 Jock McCartney, vice

president and an independent contractor 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 community development district

operations and management and financial analysis. Petitioner's

Exhibits 1 through 14 were received into evidence at the

hearing.

In addition to Petitioner's counsel and witnesses, one

person, Francine Edwards, a member of the public, attended and

posed a question 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. No

written comments from the public were submitted to DOAH.

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.

Mr. Mossing's Affidavit is admitted into evidence as Exhibit 15.

On May 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to

late-file correspondence received that day from the Northeast

Florida Regional Planning Council (Planning Council) indicating

that it had completed its review of the application (Petition)

and found it appeared to be consistent with the proposed

development plan included in the Development of Regional Impact

(DRI) application. Petitioner's motion for leave to late-file

correspondence is granted and the motion and e-mail

correspondence are admitted into evidence as Exhibit 16.

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. McCartney stated that he had reviewed the contents

of the Petition and generally described the attachments to the

Petition. Mr. McCartney stated that Petition Exhibits 1 through

11 and 13 were prepared under his supervision. Mr. McCartney

stated that the Petition and its attachments, as revised and

filed with the Commission and admitted into evidence as

Composite Hearing Exhibit 1, are true and correct to the best of

his knowledge.

2. Mr. McCartney stated that Exhibit 5 to the Petition is

a true and correct copy of the consent and joinder form that was

executed by the authorized representative of the owner of one-

hundred percent of the lands within the proposed District.

Mr. McCartney stated that Exhibit 4 to the Petition accurately

identifies the location and provides a metes and bounds

description, along with a list of the owners' names and

addresses, of parcels located within the boundaries of the

proposed District that will be excluded from the proposed

District. According to Mr. McCartney, the owners of the

excluded parcels have not expressed a desire to be included

within the proposed District.

3. Mr. McCartney stated that the names of the five persons

designated to serve as the initial Board of Supervisors of the

proposed District are: Albert Valdivia, Kathleen Davis, Shaina

Roth, Diana Richard, and himself.

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

that he had prepared, or others under his supervision had

prepared, Petition Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. Mr.

Moriarty stated that those exhibits, as revised, are true and

correct.

5. Mr. Mossing, an expert in the field in Community

Development District (CDD) operations and management and

financial analysis, stated that he had reviewed the Petition and

its attachments. Mr. Mossing stated that his firm prepared

Exhibit 12 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated

Regulatory Costs (SERC), as amended, that had been filed with

the Commission on March 14, 2007. He further stated that Table

1 on page five of the SERC had been subsequently revised as

reflected in the SERC attached to his prefiled testimony as

Exhibit DM-1.

6. The evidence indicates that the Petition and its

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. McCartney testified that the property within the

proposed District is located within the proposed Timucuan DRI.

Several other entities owning property within the proposed

Timucuan DRI have filed petitions to establish CDDs over that

property. These CDDs include the (1) Timucuan South CDD, (2)

Timucuan CDD, and (3) Timucuan Preserve CDD.

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

comprehensive planning, explained that the Timucuan 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 provisions of the State

Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, applicable to

the establishment of a CDD. Mr. Stewart stated that there are

subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan that are particularly

relevant to the establishment of the proposed District, as well

as the policies supporting those subjects.

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

emphasizes that development should be located in those 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

within the development. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed

District is consistent with Policy 1 of Subject 15 because the

proposed District is a long-term, stable mechanism with the

ability to provide a high quality of infrastructure facilities

and services in an efficient and focused manner to the

community.

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

Implementation," requires the integration of systematic planning

capabilities 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 it will have the ability to finance,

construct, operate, maintain and own, in some cases, 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 to

ensure citizen involvement in the decisions of the proposed

District. Further, Mr. Stewart testified that establishment of

the proposed District will enhance governmental coordination

with the City.

12. Mr. Stewart also testified that the proposed District

is consistent with Policy 2 of Subject 25 because the

establishment of the proposed District will ensure that

necessary community services and facilities are provided within

the development without placing a burden on the City or the

taxpayers in the City.

13. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed District is

consistent with Policy 3 of Subject 25 because the establishment

of the proposed District, as an independent special district,

would be required by Section 189.415(2), Florida Statutes, to

submit public facilities reports and annual updates. Mr.

Stewart also testified that the proposed District would be

required by Sections 190.002(2)(c) and 190.004(3), Florida

Statutes, to comply with all applicable governmental laws, rules

and regulations.

14. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed District is

consistent with Policy 6 of Subject 25 because CDDs hold public

meetings that operate "in the sunshine," all CDD records are

open to the public for review and this would encourage citizen

participation in the activities of the proposed District.

15. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed District is

consistent with Policy 8 of Subject 25 because it would enhance

cooperation between the City and the private sector for the

provision of community infrastructure improvements and services.

16. Mr. Stewart also explained how the establishment of

the proposed District would further additional provisions of the

State Comprehensive Plan. Subject 9 relates to the expansion of

state and local efforts to provide activity-based recreational

opportunities to urban areas. Mr. Stewart testified that the

establishment of the proposed District would further Subject 9

because it can provide funding assistance for activity-based

recreational opportunities.

17. Mr. Stewart also testified that the establishment of

the proposed District would further the goals and policies of

Subject 17 because it would: (1) protect investments in

existing facilities; (2) provide financing for new facilities;

(3) ensure that the costs of new public facilities are allocated

on the basis of the benefits received by the future residents of

the District; (4) implement innovative but fiscally sound

financing techniques for the public facilities; and (5) identify

and use stable revenue sources for financing public facilities.

18. Mr. Stewart testified that the establishment of the

proposed District is not inconsistent with any applicable

provisions of the City of Jacksonville Local Comprehensive Plan

(Local Comprehensive Plan). According to Mr. Stewart, the

proposed District will: (1) undergo review and approval for all

permitting and construction of the underlying development within

the proposed District; (2) potentially enter into interlocal

agreements with the City to coordinate the construction,

maintenance and management of the proposed District

improvements; (3) provide the required infrastructure within its

boundaries without using the fiscal resources of the City or

decreasing the City's bonding limits; and (4) provide the needed

public facilities in an efficient and cost-effective manner that

will ensure a strong cost-to-benefit ratio. This is consistent

with the North Jacksonville Shared Vision and Master Plan.

Mr. McCartney also testified that the establishment of the

proposed District will facilitate the funding for and

construction of Braddock Parkway, a road of regional

significance that is anticipated by the North Jacksonville

Shared Vision and Master Plan.

19. Finally, Mr. Stewart stated that, in completing the

above-referenced actions, the proposed District furthers Goal 1

of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Objective 1.2 and

Policy 1.2.2. of the Capital Improvements Element, and Objective

1.2 and Policy 1.2.7 of the Future Land Use Element of the Local

Comprehensive Plan.

20. The Commission requested that the Department of

Community Affairs (Department) review the Petition. 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 either the

Local or State Comprehensive Plan.

21. 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

Local Comprehensive Plan, which is the statutory factor in

Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.

22. 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 Local Comprehensive Plan.

Instead, Mr. Stewart stated that in determining whether to grant

a petition for the establishment of the proposed District, the

statutory criterion 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 Local

Comprehensive Plan. This is a 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.

23. 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

CDD. The decision of the Commission may be based only on

factors material to managing and financing the service-delivery

function of the proposed District.

24. 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 is

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 "development permit,

as defined in Chapter 380," is approved within five years, the

district will be dissolved as a matter of law. § 190.046(7),

Fla. Stat.

25. In his supplemental written testimony, Mr. Mossing

identified several CDDs and an independent special district that

have been established prior to the completion of a DRI or

related entitlement proceeding. One example provided by Mr.

Mossing is the establishment of the Timucuan South CDD, which is

located within the proposed Timucuan DRI and was established by

the City on March 13, 2007. Exhibit 15. 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 is not

inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan or the Local

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

Ordinance Establishing the Timucuan South CDD, the City's

Planning and Development Department (City department) report to

the Jacksonville City Council regarding the Timucuan South CDD

contains the City department's conclusion that the establishment

of that CDD would be consistent with any applicable element or

portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the Local

Comprehensive Plan.

26. Mr. Mossing cited to 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 the 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.

27. 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.

28. The Lakewood Ranch Stewardship District was also cited

by Mr. Mossing as 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 affected local government determine that the

establishment of the district is consistent with the applicable

local comprehensive plan. Both local jurisdictions supported

establishment of the district.

29. The Commission also requested that the Planning

Council provide comments to the Commission no later than

February 21, 2007, regarding the establishment of the proposed

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

to late-file correspondence consisting of an e-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.

30. In the e-mail, Ed Lehman, the Planning Council's

Director of Planning and Development, stated that application

(Petition) appeared to be consistent with the proposed

development plan included in the proposed DRI application.

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.

31. The evidence indicates that the proposed District will

not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of

the State Comprehensive Plan or the Local Comprehensive Plan.

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

established Timucuan South CDD. Establishment of CDDs or other

special districts prior to the implementation of a DRI, while

not apparently the norm, appears to be consistent with prior

CDDs.

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.

32. Testimony on this factor was provided by Mr. Mossing,

Mr. Moriarty, and Mr. Stewart. According to Mr. Mossing, from a

management perspective the area to be included within the

proposed District has sufficient size and is sufficiently

compact and contiguous to be developed with infrastructure

systems, facilities and service as one functionally interrelated

community.

33. According to Mr. Moriarty, the proposed District,

which encompasses approximately 2,346 acres of land, is

sufficient in size to require substantial infrastructure needs

that are suitable for development as a functionally interrelated

community. Mr. Moriarty further explained that the proposed

District can provide the necessary infrastructure in a cost-

effective manner based on the design of the community.

Mr. Moriarty concluded that the use of one development plan for

the community will ensure that the services and facilities are

provided and maintained in a functional, efficient and

integrated manner.

34. Mr. Stewart stated that the land area to be included

within the proposed District can be expected to succeed as a

functional, interrelated community from a planning perspective

because the services and facilities for the lands within the

proposed District will not be hampered by significant barriers

or spatial problems. Mr. Stewart noted that the proposed

District will be providing limited services and facilities, so

from a planning perspective the relatively small planned

community character of the proposed District is a good match for

the limited services and facilities. Mr. Stewart concluded that

the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently

compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to serve as one

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 stated that the proposed District is the

best alternative for delivering community services and

facilities to the area that it will serve.

37. Mr. Mossing identified various alternatives to the

establishment of the proposed District. Mr. Mossing stated that

the City could provide the necessary community services and

facilities, but service to the area within the proposed District

would only result in an increased burden on the City's

resources. Mr. Mossing explained that the proposed District, by

contrast, has limited power and jurisdiction and could focus its

attention to the specific land area within its boundaries in a

cost-effective manner that would enable the City to focus its

financial and administrative resources elsewhere.

38. Mr. Mossing stated that a homeowner's association

(HOA) is not the best alternative to provide the community

services and facilities because it is not an entity that can

function as a stable provider of community services and

facilities over an extended period of time. Additionally, a HOA

cannot qualify for a lower cost source of financing, such as

tax-exempt bonds, and it lacks the statutory oversight

mechanisms imposed on CDDs to safeguard the public.

39. Similarly, Mr. Moriarty stated that neither a property

owners' nor a HOA has the ability to finance infrastructure of

the nature and scope contemplated by the proposed District. By

contrast, a CDD is a stable, long-term governmental body with

the ability to efficiently and effectively finance, acquire,

construct, own, operate and maintain the type of public

infrastructure contemplated by the proposed District. Mr.

Moriarty concluded that the proposed District is the best

alternative for delivering community services and facilities to

the area within the proposed District to be served.

40. Mr. Mossing also concluded that a developer is not the

best alternative to provide the community services and

facilities. Unlike a CDD's Board of Supervisors, a developer

would not have to conduct its meetings and actions relating to

the community "in the sunshine," and owners and residents would

not necessarily be entitled to view the records of the developer

relating to the community.

41. Mr. Stewart also stated that the proposed District is

the best alternative for delivering community services and

facilities to the land area to be included within the proposed

District. Mr. Stewart noted that the residents within the

proposed District would one day be elected to the Board of

Supervisors, and would be able to directly govern the levels of

service within the proposed District without diverting City

resources. Additionally, the maintenance services within the

proposed District would be publicly bid, which would not be the

case if a property owners' or HOA was the alternative used.

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

River Water Management District has indicated its preference for

CDDs over HOAs as the operating and maintenance entities.

43. Mr. McCartney testified that three development

entities are cooperating in the DRI process to most effectively

proceed through the permitting process and ultimately fund the

Braddock Parkway improvement that runs by or through each of

their properties. Mr. McCartney 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. McCartney testified that the Braddock Parkway 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

distinct community and an entity capable of sustaining that

community in perpetuity. Mr. McCartney stated that all the CDDs

are included in the Timucuan DRI due to the common improvements,

such as Braddock Parkway, and such inclusion is not indicative

of a common development identity.

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

one DRI is a common practice. He stated that as someone

familiar with district management and financial analysis, the

use of multiple CDDs within the proposed Timucuan DRI is the

best alternative for delivering community services and

facilities to the area to be served by the proposed District.

Mr. McCartney testified that the CDDs within the proposed

Timucuan DRI would enter into interlocal agreements to construct

the Braddock Parkway, which will benefit the DRI. Mr. Mossing

testified that the CDDs within the Timucuan DRI will be able to

share the costs for some of the master infrastructure

improvements, such as the Braddock Parkway, but they will

finance and separately maintain the neighborhood infrastructure

improvements within each community.

45. 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 proposed 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.

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

testimony on this issue. Each of these witnesses supported

Mr. Moriarty's conclusion that none of the proposed services or

facilities contemplated by the proposed District currently

exists, so there will be no duplication, overlap or

incompatability with any local or regional community development

services or facilities.

47. 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.

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

amenable to separate special district government: (1) whether

the land area has a need for the facilities and services; and

(2) whether the land area is of sufficient size, sufficient

compactness, and sufficiently contiguous to be the basis for a

functional interrelated community.

49. With respect to the first criterion, Mr. Mossing

stated that there is sufficient need for the contemplated

improvements. The land area is well suited to the provision of

the proposed services and improvements from a management and

operations perspective.

50. With respect to the second criterion, there are

sufficient significant infrastructure needs for the land within

the proposed District that makes it developable as a

functionally interrelated community. The use of one

comprehensive and phased development plan by the proposed

District is a contiguous and homogenous method of providing

necessary services and facilities to the lands within the

proposed District in a cost-effective manner.

51. The evidence indicates that the proposed District is

amenable to separate special-district government.

G. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule.

52. 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.

53. 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 County and

its citizens, and future landowners within the proposed

District.

54. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption,

the State and its citizens will only incur nominal costs from

the establishment of the District. These costs are related to

the incremental costs to various agencies for reviewing various

reports. Any debt obligations incurred by the District to

construct its infrastructure, or for any other reason, are not

debts of the State of Florida or any unit of local government.

55. Administrative costs incurred by the City related to

rule adoption should be minimal and are offset by the filing fee

of $15,000 paid to the City.

56. 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 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.

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

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 published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 30,

2007.

H. Local Government Support for Establishment.

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

Florida Statutes, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition with

the City and paid the $15,000 filing fee to the City prior to

filing the Petition with the Commission.

59. The City Council did not hold a public hearing to

consider 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.

60. One member of the public, Francine Edwards, commented

during the public hearing.

61. After Mr. Mossing provided testimony at the hearing,

Ms. Edwards asked for clarification regarding Mr. Mossing's

response to whether the proposed District, the Timucuan South

Community Development District, the Timucuan Community

Development District, and the Timucuan Preserve Community

Development District should be integrated into a single CDD. In

response, Mr. Mossing, stated that it is better to have

individual and separate CDDs. See Finding of Fact 44.

APPLICABLE LAW

62. This proceeding is governed by Chapter 190, Florida

Statutes, which establishes the 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.

63. The evidence indicates that the Petition contained all

the information required by Section 190.005(1), Florida

Statutes, and the City was paid the required filing fee.

64. The evidence indicates that the local public hearing

was properly noticed by newspaper publications in Duval County

as required by Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

65. The evidence indicates that 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.

66. The Petition contains a SERC in accordance with the

requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes.

67. All portions of the Petition and other submittals have

been completed and filed as required by law.

68. The evidence indicates 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 Braddock 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

Chasity H. O'Steen, Esquire

Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP

2548 Blairstone Pines Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5925