94-006665 Tampa Palms Community Development District vs. Florida Land And Water Adjudicatory Commission And Monroe County Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, June 13, 1995.

Summary: Evidence supports petition to contract community developmnet district.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Re: Petition to Contract )

Tampa Palms Community ) CASE NO. 94-6665

Development District )

__________________________________)

HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly

designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal public hearing

in the above-styled case on April 26, 1995, in Tampa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire

Macfarlane, Ausley, Ferguson & McMullen

227 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Vincent L. Nuccio, Jr.

Macfarlane, Ausley, Ferguson & McMullen

111 Madison Street

Tampa, Florida 33601

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the petition of Tampa Palms Community Development District meets

the applicable requirements of Section 190.005(1), Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This proceeding was initiated when Tampa Palms Community Development

District (TPCDD) filed a petition with the Secretary of the Florida Land and

Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) on October 31, 1994, seeking to contract

by rule the existing Tampa Palms Community Development District. The Secretary

forwarded the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings which assigned

a Hearing Officer to conduct the required public hearing and render this report.

Appropriate notice of the public hearing was published in the Tampa

Tribune, a daily newspaper in Tampa, Florida, and in the Florida Administrative

Weekly as required by Rule 42-1.010(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A copy

of such notice was served upon the Department of Community Affairs as required

by Rule 42-1.011, Florida Administrative Code.

This matter was transferred to the undersigned Hearing Officer on April 24,

1995.

At the public hearing, TPCDD presented the testimony of Gary Moyer, Arthur

Merritt, Toxey A. Hall, Denise McCabe, Charles Cook and William Rizzetta. Their

names and addresses are attached to this Report as Appendix A and a summary of

their testimony is set forth herein. The bound deposition testimony of the

witnesses was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit A.

Petitioner's Exhibits 1-28 were admitted into the record without objection.

A list of the exhibits in evidence is attached to this Report as Appendix B.

Exhibit 1 is the Tampa Palms Community Development District Petition to Contract

and attached exhibits. Exhibits numbered 2-27 were bound and admitted as

Petitioner's Exhibit B. Exhibit number 28 is case law and is inserted into the

bound volume following exhibit 27.

No persons, other than the Petitioner's witnesses, testified in this cause

or entered appearances at the hearing. There is no evidence contrary to that

presented at the hearing.

The record of this matter remained open pursuant to Rule 42-1.012(3),

Florida Administrative Code, to permit the submission by any affected or

interested persons of written statements concerning the petition. No public

statements were filed.

A proposed report was submitted by the Petitioner. The proposed findings

of fact set forth therein are accepted as modified and incorporated in this

Report.

This Report is submitted to the FLWAC pursuant to Sections 190.005(1)(e)

and (f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative Code.

It is noted that the sole purpose of this proceeding is amassing the record

for the contraction of the CDD. Any other necessary permits for construction or

planning purposes are outside the scope of this proceeding.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On October 31, 1994, the Tampa Palms Community Development District

(TPCDD) filed a petition with the Secretary of the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) seeking to contract by rule the existing Tampa

Palms Community Development District.

2. After receiving the petition, the Secretary of FLWAC reviewed the

petition and forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further

proceedings. By transmittal letter, the Secretary certified that the required

elements identified in Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, are contained in

the petition.

3. Appropriate notice of the petition and the Public Hearing was published

in Volume 21, No. 13 of the Florida Administrative Weekly (March 31, 1995)

including a general description of the petition, affected lands, and economic

impact of the contraction proposal.

4. Copies of the Notice of Public Hearing were provided by the Petitioner

to the Mayor of Tampa, the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs

(DCA) and the TPCDD Board of Supervisors.

5. Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, appropriate notice

of the public hearing was published in the Tampa Tribune, a newspaper of general

paid circulation in Hillsborough County and of general interest and readership

in the community. The notice was published on March 28, and April 4, 11, and

18, 1995. The notice complies with the requirements of the statute. The

Petitioner provided copies of the proof of publication within the documents

filed at hearing.

6. The petition was reviewed by the DCA, which expressed no objection to

the proposal.

7. The proposal was reviewed by the City of Tampa, which expressed no

objection to the proposal.

8. A copy of the petition was provided to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning

Council which expressed no objection to the proposal.

9. At the Public Hearing on this matter, each witness was appropriately

sworn and adopted the prepared testimony given under oath.

10. At the close of the Petitioner's presentation, the Hearing Officer

invited public comment. No members of the general public expressed opposition

to the proposal either during or after the hearing.

11. The TPCDD was established on June 13, 1982 by Chapter 42C-1, Florida

Administrative Code. The TPCDD is generally located southwest of Interstate 75

and County Road 581.

12. The TPCDD presently consists of approximately 5,311 acres located in

the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida.

13. In the Petition for Contraction of the Tampa Palms Community

Development District at issue in this proceeding, the TPCDD now seeks to remove

a parcel of approximately 1,202 acres (contraction parcel) from the 5,311 within

the TPCDD. The TPCDD will be reduced to approximately 4,109 acres.

14. The contraction parcel is also within the boundaries of the Tampa

Palms Open Space and Transportation Community Development District (TPOSTCDD).

15. The TPOSTCDD was established by Chapter 42J-1, Florida Administrative

Code. The TPOSTCDD consists of approximately 5200 acres generally located on

either side of Interstate 75 where it intersects County Road 581.

16. The contraction parcel will remain within the TPOSTCDD. Lennar Homes,

Inc., owns approximately 1,166.5 acres of the contraction parcel.

SUMMARIZATION OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE

Gary L. Moyer

17. Gary L. Moyer is a manager of special purpose taxing districts. Mr.

Moyer was accepted as an expert in community development district management and

other forms of special district management.

18. Mr. Moyer is the manager of the TPCDD and has served in that capacity

since the 1985. He is authorized to speak on behalf of the TPCDD.

19. Mr. Moyer is also the manager of the TPOSTCDD, has served in that

capacity since the 1994, and is authorized to speak on behalf of the TPOSTCDD.

20. In 1980, Mr. Moyer was involved in the drafting of Chapter 190,

Florida Statutes.

21. Mr. Moyer described a community development district as a unit of

special purpose government vested with limited powers to provide for

construction and maintenance of infrastructure intended to service property

within the district. Such infrastructure commonly includes water management,

water supply, sewer, roads, bridges and street lighting. Such infrastructure

may also include parks and recreation, fire services, security, mosquito

control, schools, and waste collection and disposal.

22. Community development districts are subject to zoning and land use

regulation and to various "checks and balances" similar to local city and county

governments.

23. Districts created pursuant to Chapter 80-407, Laws of Florida, are

granted such powers without further action by local general purpose government.

24. Mr. Moyer identified the purpose of the petition as the removal of the

contraction parcel from the TPCDD, leaving it solely within the TPOSTCDD.

25. Mr. Moyer described the current state of the TPCDD. The district is

generally divided into four parcels known as Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4.

26. Areas 1 and 2 are a heavily developed residential community known as

"Tampa Palms." About 6,000 reside in this community. Construction of TPCDD

facilities in Areas 1 and 2 is complete.

27. TPCDD provides water management facilities, parks and recreation

facilities, security services and landscaped portions of public roads.

28. Areas 3 and 4 are undeveloped land. The contraction parcel consists

of Area 4.

29. According to Mr. Moyer, the history and rationale for the inclusion of

the contraction parcel in overlapping community development districts is as

follows:

30. The TPCDD was formed in 1982. In 1985, a developer acquired the land

within the TPCDD as well as some additional adjoining land. In 1990, the

developer apparently realized that control over the TPCDD would soon transfer to

an elected Board of Supervisors. The developer formed the TPOSTCDD to include

the undeveloped portions of the TPCDD and the additional adjoining land,

effectively retaining control over the undeveloped part of the original

district. The developer is no longer associated with the project. There is no

apparent reason for maintaining overlapping jurisdiction over the contraction

parcel. Another developer intends to build within Area 4 and adjacent property,

both within the TPOSTCDD.

31. Mr. Moyer identified and described the petition and all exhibits

attached thereto. He identified the documents providing the specific approval

of the TPCDD and the TPOSTCDD governing bodies to the petition. Other documents

included within the attachments to the petition identify the members of the

governing bodies.

32. Subsequent to filing the petition, the Petitioner discovered that a

parcel of approximately two acres is owned by the City of Tampa. The City was

notified of the petition and has expressed no objection to the contraction.

Although the failure of the Petitioner to obtain written consent by the City of

Tampa is contrary to the requirements set forth by statute, it appears to be

irrelevant, given the lack of objection by the city.

33. Other than the City of Tampa, all the owners of the land within the

contraction parcel (Lennar Homes, Inc., United Services Automobile Association,

75/275 Corporation, GTE-Florida, Inc., Tampa Palms Community Development

District and St. James United Methodist Church of Tampa Palms) have provided

written consent to the petition.

34. Mr. Moyer opines that with the correction of the legal description

identified herein and the modification related to the City of Tampa parcel which

was not identified in the petition, the statements set forth in the petition are

true and correct.

35. Lennar Homes, Inc., intends to develop Area 4 and adjacent property.

Mr. Moyer opined that having the contraction parcel in two community development

districts is inefficient and results in needless duplication. Approval of this

petition would be consistent with State Comprehensive Plan goals related to

governmental efficiency. There is no evidence that approval of the petition

would be inconsistent with any other portion of the State Comprehensive Plan.

36. Following contraction, the TPCDD remains of sufficient size,

compactness, and contiguity to be developable as one functionally interrelated

community. Areas 1 and 2 already constitute a functional interrelated community

which receives services from the TPCDD.

37. Contraction of the TPCDD will eliminate overlapping jurisdictions and

provides the best alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities to the area.

38. There is no negative impact on the TPCDD by removal of the contraction

district. Outstanding bond indebtedness is being repaid through assessments on

the existing development in Areas 1 and 2. There is no development in, and no

services are being delivered to, the contraction parcel by the TPCDD. None of

the land within the contraction parcel is obligated by any TPCDD outstanding

bond debt.

39. There is no evidence to suggest that contraction of the TPCDD will be

incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community

development services and facilities.

40. Even after contraction, the TPCDD remains amenable to separate

special-district government.

41. There being no evidence to the contrary, Mr. Moyer's testimony is

accepted as being credible on these issues.

Arthur Merritt

42. Arthur W. Merritt is a professional land surveyor and was accepted as

an expert in land surveying.

43. Mr. Merritt specifically identified Exhibits A and B to the petition.

Exhibit A is a description of the external boundary of the TPCDD after

contraction. Exhibit B is a description of the contraction parcel.

44. At the hearing, Mr. Merritt provided Revised Exhibits A and B which

correct descriptions in the original exhibits. The corrected versions are found

to be accurate.

45. Mr. Merritt also described Exhibit C-2 to the petition which is an

ownership and encumbrance report. Mr. Merritt identified the two acre parcel

owned by the City of Tampa and referenced elsewhere herein. The city parcel is

the cause of the Revised Exhibits A and B.

46. There being no evidence to the contrary, Mr. Merritt's testimony is

accepted as being credible on these issues.

Toxey A. Hall

47. Toxey A. Hall is Vice-President and Senior Project Engineer of Heidt &

Associates. Mr. Hall was accepted as an expert in civil engineering.

48. Mr. Hall was involved in the preparation of petition exhibits related

to master water and sewer plans for Areas 1 and 2. Mr. Hall is familiar with

the petition and believes that, with the corrections noted herein, the petition

is true and correct.

49. Mr. Hall is familiar with the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan as it

relates to civil engineering services. He is not aware of any provision in the

plan which would be applicable to the Petition for Contraction, and as such,

believes that the granting of this petition would not be inconsistent with the

local plan.

50. Mr. Hall opined that following contraction, the TPCDD remains of

sufficient size, compactness, and contiguity to be developable as one

functionally interrelated community, especially since Areas 1 and 2 already

constitute a functional interrelated community which receives services from the

TPCDD.

51. Mr. Hall also opined that from an engineering perspective with regard

to future development of Area 4, elimination of the overlapping jurisdictions

provides the best alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities.

52. There should be no impact on existing services related to contraction

of the TPCDD. Services currently being provided will continue to be provided

without alteration.

53. Even after contraction, the TPCDD which is developed and functioning

will remain amenable to separate special-district government.

54. There being no evidence to the contrary, Mr. Hall's testimony is

accepted as being credible on these issues.

Denise McCabe

55. Denise H. McCabe is a certified planner and member of the American

Institute of Certified Planners. She is employed as a planner and legal

assistant in the real estate and environmental law department of Johnson,

Blakely, Pope, Bokker, Ruppell and Burns, P.A. Ms. McCabe is familiar with

Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, the State Comprehensive Plan, The Tampa Bay

Regional Planning Council Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, and the City of

Tampa Comprehensive Plan.

56. Ms. McCabe opined that with the corrections set forth elsewhere

herein, the statements within the Petition for Contraction are true and correct.

57. Ms. McCabe reviewed the petition and applicable portions of the State

Comprehensive Plan for inconsistencies and found none. Specifically, she

examined Goals 16, 18, 20, 21 and 26 of the State Plan.

58. State Comprehensive Plan Goal 16 relates to environmentally acceptable

land use and growth. The property at issue in this proceeding is an approved

development of regional impact ("DRI") and Areas 1 and 2 are substantially

developed. The post-contraction TPCDD will benefit from the infrastructure

investment already in place. The TPCDD remains an effective means of financing

and maintaining infrastructure.

59. State Comprehensive Plan Goal 18 is directed at existing and future

public facilities. Relevant policies under this goal include maximization of

existing facilities, allocation of costs based on benefit, encouraging local

government financial self sufficiency, implementation of innovative and fiscally

sound techniques for financing public facilities, coordinating governmental

capital improvement plans, and using stable, growth-responsive revenue sources.

The petition is consistent with these policies through elimination of overlap

between the TPCDD and the TPOSTCDD and by allocating costs fairly between those

who benefit from the installation of public facilities.

60. State Comprehensive Plan Goal 20 relates to transportation. The

districts provide a mechanism for construction of transportation infrastructure.

Contraction of the TPCDD should have no impact on provision of transportation

infrastructure to the contraction parcel.

61. State Comprehensive Plan Goal 21 relates to governmental efficiency.

The contraction of the TPCDD eliminates overlapping jurisdiction and potential

duplication between the two districts. The contraction also facilitates

efficient TPOSTCDD provision of infrastructure to the contraction parcel.

62. State Comprehensive Plan Goal 26 relates to plan implementation.

Other than by the elimination of overlapping jurisdiction, there is no impact on

plan implementation created by the approval of this petition.

63. Ms. McCabe reviewed the petition and applicable portions of the Tampa

Comprehensive Plan as amended, specifically provisions related to future land

use, storm water management, transportation, recreation, capital improvements

and interlocal coordination. Ms. McCabe concluded that approval of the petition

is not inconsistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan.

64. Ms. McCabe also reviewed the petition and relevant portions of the

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. She

found nothing in the Petition for Contraction to be inconsistent with the plan.

65. Ms. McCabe defined "functional interrelated community" to be a

combination of people, activities and land uses within a specific geographic

location, organized in a manner to allow access to activities which are

necessary to day-to-day living. Ms. McCabe opined that the existing TPCDD after

contraction is of sufficient size, compactness and contiguity to remain

developable as a functional interrelated community.

66. The proposed contraction provides the best available means of

delivering community development services and facilities to the areas served by

the districts. Contraction will eliminate overlapping jurisdiction and the

potential for incompatible services being offered within the same area. The

TPCDD after contraction remains amenable to special district government.

67. There being no evidence to the contrary, Ms. McCabe's testimony is

accepted as being credible on these issues.

Charles Cook

68. Charles Cook is the Vice-President of the land division of Lennar

Homes, Inc. Lennar Homes is primarily engaged in home building, real estate

investment and financial services in Florida, Texas and Arizona. Mr. Cook is

authorized to speak on behalf of Lennar Homes.

69. The Petition for Contraction was filed by the TPCDD at the request of

Lennar Homes.

70. Lennar Homes owns 1,166.5 acres in the contraction parcel and

approximately 1,033 acres of adjacent land.

71. Lennar Homes intends to construct approximately 484 single family

homes, 701 multifamily units and 25 acres of commercial development in Area 4.

72. The infrastructure of Area 4 is being developed by Lennar Homes and

TPOSTCDD, which has already approved and is obtaining financing for

approximately $31 million of infrastructure construction.

73. TPOSTCDD will develop all of the collector roads, street lighting,

potable water distribution facilities, sewer facilities, landscaping, parks and

recreation facilities, maintenance, and security facilities for Area 4. TPCDD

is not involved in this development.

74. TPCDD provides no services to Lennar Homes and receives no

contribution through taxes or assessments from Lennar Homes.

75. Absent removal of Area 4 from the TPCDD, Lennar Homes and in turn,

homeowners in Area 4, are potentially liable for both TPCDD and TPOSTCDD

assessments on the increased value of property even though no services are

received from the TPCDD.

76. There being no evidence to the contrary, Mr. Cook's testimony is

accepted as being credible on these issues.

William J. Rizzetta

77. William J. Rizzetta is president of Rizzetta & Company, a financial

consulting firm which provides services to the real estate industry including

community development districts. Mr. Rizzetta's firm conducts economic and

financial feasibility studies and prepares economic impact statements for

districts. Mr. Rizzetta also manages several districts. He was accepted as an

expert in preparation of economic analysis for community development districts.

78. Although the 1981 statute under which the TPCDD was organized does not

require preparation of an economic impact statement (as do later versions of

Section 190.005, Florida Statutes) the Petitioner offered Mr. Rizzetta's

expertise related to the economic impact of the Petition for Contraction and

referencing the statutory requirements for such statements.

79. Mr. Rizzetta considered the cost or economic benefit to all persons

directly affected by approval of the Petition for Contraction. Currently, the

TPCDD effectively consists of the developed Areas 1 and 2. Bonds issued for

infrastructure improvements are being repaid by special assessments against Area

1 and 2 property owners because they are the people who benefit from such

improvements. Areas 3 and 4 consist of undeveloped agricultural lands, and

contribute minimally though ad valorem assessments.

80. The primary landowner within the contraction parcel also owns land

within the TPOSTCDD and intends to provide public infrastructure required to

develop the property as a functional interrelated community. Approval of the

Petition for Contraction will permit the developer to provide infrastructure

through the TPOSTCDD financing and management mechanism. Absent approval of the

petition, the contraction parcel will remain in both the TPCDD and the TPOSTCDD

and subject the property owner to the potential for dual taxation by the

districts. This is an inefficient mechanism for providing infrastructure

improvements and from an economic standpoint leads to potential confusion

regarding taxation and related matters.

81. Approval of the Petition to Contract will have no adverse impact on

competition or the open market for employment.

82. Mr. Rizzetta opined that from his perspective as an economic analyst,

the area to be served by the TPCDD after contraction remains amenable to

separate special district government.

83. There being no evidence to the contrary, Mr. Rizzetta's testimony is

accepted as being credible on these issues. Mr. Rizzetta's economic analysis

meets the requirements of Rule 42-1.008, Florida Administrative Code.

CONCLUSIONS

84. Having considered the entire record in this cause, and without

evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that:

85. Establishment of community development districts is governed by

Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. Section 190.004(2), Florida Statutes (1993)

provides as follows:

This Act does not affect any community develop-

ment district or other special district existing

on June 29, 1984; and existing community develop-

ment districts will continue to be subject to the

provisions of Chapter 80-407, Laws of Florida.

86. The TPCDD was established in 1982 and is subject to Chapter 80-407,

Laws of Florida, as codified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (1981).

87. Section 190.046(1), Florida Statutes, (1981) provides for the filing

of a petition for contraction of a community development district under the

provisions of Section 190.005.

88. The Petition to Contract Tampa Palms Community Development District

contains all the elements required by law as set forth at Section 190.005(1)(c),

Florida Statutes, (1981) and which provides as follows:

The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

shall consider the record of the hearing and the

following factors and make a determination to grant

or deny a petition for the establishment of a

community development district:

1. Whether all statements contained within

the petition have been found to be true and correct.

2. Whether the creation of the district is

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion

of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective

local government comprehensive plan.

3. 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 functionally interrelated community.

4. Whether the district is the best alternative

available for delivering community development

services and facilities to the area that will be

served by the district.

5. Whether the community development services

and facilities will be incompatible with the

capacity and uses of existing local and regional

community development services and facilities.

6. Whether the area that will be served by the

district is amenable to separate special-district

government.

89. All statements contained within the petition have been found to be

true and correct.

90. The contraction of the TPCDD is not inconsistent with applicable

elements or portions of the state comprehensive plan and the effective local

government comprehensive plans.

91. The area of land within the TPCDD after contraction is of sufficient

size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable

as one functional interrelated community.

92. The TPCDD after contraction is the best alternative available for

delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will

be served by the TPCDD.

93. The TPCDD after contraction will not be incompatible with the capacity

and uses of existing local and regional community development services and

facilities.

94. The tract of land that will be served by the TPCDD after contraction

is amenable to separate special-district government, in accordance with the

provisions of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.

95. Section 190.005(1)(a)2. requires that the petition shall contain the

written consent of 100 percent of the owners of property within the affected

area. The TPCDD Petition for Contraction does not contain the written consent

of the City of Tampa, which owns two of the approximately 1,202 acres within the

affected parcel. The City of Tampa was provided notice of, and has expressed no

objection to, the petition. Further, under these circumstances, the written

consent of the city is not necessary. Zedeck v. Indian Trace Community

Development District, 428 So.2d 647 (Fla. 1983).

DONE and ISSUED this 12th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.

___________________________________

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 12th day of June, 1995.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bob Bradley, Secretary

Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission

Exec. Office of the Governor

1601 Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Michael J. Glazer, Esquire

Macfarlane Ausley Ferguson & McMullen

227 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Vincent L. Nuccio, Jr.

Macfarlane Ausley Ferguson & McMullen

111 Madison Street

Tampa, Florida 33601

Appendix "A"

NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES

Gary Moyer

10300 NW 11 Manor

Coral Springs, Florida 33071

Arthur W. Merritt

2212 Swann Avenue

Tampa, Florida 33606

Toxey A. Hall

2212 Swann Avenue

Tampa, Florida 33606

Denise H. McCabe

911 Chestnut Street

Clearwater, Florida 34616

Charles Cook

1110 Douglas Avenue, Suite 2040

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

William Rizzetta

3550 Bushwood Park Drive, Suite 135

Tampa, Florida 33618

Appendix "B"

LIST OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Exhibit 1: The Tampa Palms Community Development District

Petition to Contract and attached exhibits

Exhibit 2: Gary Moyer's CDD list

Exhibit 3: Chapter 42C-1, Florida Administrative Code

Exhibit 4: Chapter 42J-1, Florida Administrative Code

Exhibit 5: Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (1981)

Exhibit 6: Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (1993)

Exhibit 7: The November 4, 1994 Agreement between TPCDD, Lennar

Homes, Inc., and TPOSTCDD

Exhibit 8: Minutes of the November 18, 1994 TPOSTCDD meeting

Exhibit 9: March 21, 1995 TPOSTCDD Resolution 95-22

Exhibit 10: April 17, 1995 Letter from City of Tampa to

Bricklemyer, Smolker & Bolves

Exhibit 11: Current TPCDD Board of Supervisors

Exhibit 12: October 31, 1994 Letter from Vincent L. Nuccio to

FLWAC

Exhibit 13: November 11, 1994 Notice of Receipt of petition by

FLWAC

Exhibit 14: November 28, 1994 Letter from FLWAC to DOAH

Exhibit 15: Letters of notification regarding public hearing

Exhibit 16: Vol. 21, No. 13, Florida Administrative Weekly

(March 31, 1995)

Exhibit 17: Tampa Tribune advertisement and proof of publication

Exhibit 18: January 11, 1995 DOAH Notice of Hearing

Exhibit 19: November 28, 1994 Letter from FLWAC to DCA

Exhibit 20: December 15, 1994 Letter from DCA to FLWAC

Exhibit 21: December 2, 1994 Letter from FLWAC to TBRPC

Exhibit 22: Chapter 187, Florida Statutes

Exhibit 23: Revised Exhibit A to the petition

Exhibit 24: Revised Exhibit B to the petition

Exhibit 25: Denise McCabe Resume

Exhibit 26: Rizzetta & Company information

Exhibit 27: Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code

Exhibit 28: Zedeck v. Indian Trace Com. Development Dist.,

428 So.2d 647 (Fla. 1983)