02-001343 In Re: Petition For Rule Creation - Bartram Springs Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, June 19, 2002.

Summary: Petitioner satisfied requirements for establishing a community development district in Duval County.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION FOR RULE )

CREATION - BARTRAM SPRINGS ) Case No. 02 - 1343

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT )

DISTRICT. )

_______________________________)

REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER

ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

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

Donald R. Alexander, Administrative Law Judge, conducted a

public hearing on May 31, 2002, in Jacksonville, Florida , for

the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and

receiving exhibits on the Petition of SouthStar Development

Partners, Inc. to establish the Bartram Springs Community

Development District.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquir e

Brian A. Crumbaker, Esquire

Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the es tablishment of the Bartram

Springs Community Development District meets the applicable

criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on February 28, 2002, when Petitioner,

SouthStar Development Partners, Inc., requested the Florida

Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission to adopt a rule to

establish the Bartram Springs Community Development District.

The proposed rule is attached to this Report as Appendix C.

The matter was forwarded to the Division of Administ rative

Hearings on April 1, 2002, with a request that an

Administrative Law Judge conduct a public hearing. By Notice

of Hearing dated April 12, 2002, a public hearing was

scheduled in Jacksonville, Florida, on May 31, 2002.

Petitioner presented four wi tnesses and offered into

evidence Petitioner's Exhibits 1 - 8, which were admitted

without objection. The names and addresses of the witnesses

are listed in Appendix A attached to this Report, and the

exhibits are listed in Appendix B. No other persons or entity

presented any witnesses or exhibits. No members of the public

provided any comments.

The Transcript of the local public hearing was filed with

the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 11, 2002. The

original Transcript and hearing exhibits a re transmitted with

this Report.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of

fact are determined:

A. Overview

1. Petitioner, SouthStar Development Partners, Inc., is

seeking the adoption of a rule by the Florida Land a nd Water

Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) to establish a community

development district proposed to consist of approximately

1,025 acres located within the boundaries of the City of

Jacksonville (City). The City is a consolidated government

which has jurisdiction over and extends territorially to the

limits of Duval County. The proposed name for the new

District is the Bartram Springs Community Development District

(the District).

2. There are no parcels within the external boundaries

of the propose d District which are to be excluded from the

District.

3. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities

and services which are presently expected to be provided to

the lands within the District was included in the Petition.

4. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider

the establishment of the District as proposed by Petitioner.

B. Summary of Evidence and Testimony

a. Whether all statements contained within the Petition

have been found to be true and correct.

5. Petitioner's Composi te Exhibit 1 consists of the

Petition and its attachments as filed with the Commission.

Mr. J. Thomas Gillette, III, regional manager for north

Florida for Petitioner, testified that he had reviewed the

contents of the Petition and approved its findings. Mr.

Gillette also generally described certain of the attachments

to the Petition. Finally, Mr. Gillette testified that the

Petition and its attachments were true and correct to the best

of his knowledge.

6. Mr. Douglas C. Miller, a professional enginee r with

England, Thims & Miller, Inc., testified that he had assisted

in the preparation of portions of the Petition and its

attachments. Mr. Miller also generally described certain of

the attachments to the Petition which he or his office had

prepared. F inally, Mr. Miller testified that the attachments

to the Petition prepared by England, Thims & Miller, Inc., and

admitted into evidence, were true and correct to the best of

his knowledge.

7. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, president of Fishkind &

Associates, Inc. , testified that he had prepared Exhibit 11 to

the Petition, the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs

(SERC). Dr. Fishkind also testified that the SERC submitted

as Attachment 11 to Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 was true

and correct to the best of h is knowledge.

8. The Petition included written consent to establish

the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the

real property located within the lands to be included in the

proposed District. Mr. Gillette also testified that the

ownership of the lands to be included within the proposed

District had not changed.

9. The Petition and its exhibits are true and correct.

b. Whether the establishment of the District is

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the

State Comprehens ive Plan or of the effective local government

comprehensive plan.

10. Mr. Gary R. Walters, a land planner and president of

Gary Walters & Associates, reviewed the proposed District in

light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan

found in Ch apter 187, Florida Statutes. Mr. Walters also

reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of

the City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan.

11. The State Comprehensive Plan "provides long - range

policy guidance for the orderly social, econ omic and physical

growth of the State" by way of twenty - six subjects, and

numerous goals and policies. From a planning perspective, two

subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the

establishment of the proposed District, as do the polici es

supporting those subjects.

12. Subject 16, Land Use, recognizes the importance of

locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and

service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District

will have the fiscal ability to provide services and

facilities and help provide infrastructure in a fiscally

responsible manner in an area which can accommodate

development within the City.

13. Subject 26, Plan Implementation, provides that

systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of

g overnment, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination.

The proposed District is consistent with this element of the

State Comprehensive Plan because the proposed District will

systematically plan for the construction, operation, and

maintenance of th e public improvements and the community

facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes,

subject to and not inconsistent with the local government

comprehensive plan and land development regulations.

Additionally, the District meetings are publi cly advertised

and are open to the public so that all District property

owners and residents can be involved in planning for

improvements. Finally, Section 189.415, Florida Statutes,

requires the District to file and update public facilities

reports with the local governments, which they may rely upon

in any revisions to the local comprehensive plan.

14. Dr. Fishkind reviewed the proposed District in light

of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan and found

that from a financial perspective, tw o subjects of the State

Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the

proposed District, as do the policies supporting those

subjects.

15. Subject 18, Public Facilities, provides that the

state shall protect substantial investments in pub lic

facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve

residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. The

proposed District will be consistent with this element because

the District will plan and finance the infrastructure systems

and faci lities needed for the development of lands within the

District; it will be a stable, perpetual unit of local

government and will be able to maintain the infrastructure

servicing the lands within the District; and it will allow

growth within the District to pay for itself at no cost to the

City.

16. Subject 21, Governmental Efficiency, provides that

governments shall economically and efficiently provide the

amount and quality of services required by the public. The

proposed District will be consistent wi th this element because

the proposed District will economically and efficiently

finance and deliver those public services and facilities as

needed by the District's residents and property owners. The

proposed District will be professionally managed, finan ced,

and governed by those whose property directly receives the

benefits of the services and the facilities provided.

Creating a District does not burden the general taxpayer with

the costs for the services or facilities inside the proposed

District.

17. Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record,

the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any

applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan.

18. The City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan contains

various elements which ar e supported by numerous goals and

objectives. Mr. Walters testified that portions of three of

these elements were relevant when determining whether or not

the proposed District was inconsistent with the local

comprehensive plan.

19. Within the Future La nd Use Element are Goals and

Objectives which are targeted to effectively manage growth in

areas designated to accommodate future development and provide

services in a cost - efficient manner. The proposed District is

consistent with this plan element. The development within the

proposed District is part of a Chapter 380, Florida Statutes,

Development Order, which states that the "development is

consistent with the local comprehensive plan and local land

development and zoning regulations." The Development Order

itself specifically notes that a community development

district may be established. The proposed District is a

recognized vehicle to provide the necessary services and

facilities to the lands within the boundaries of the proposed

District consisten t with the City of Jacksonville

Comprehensive Plan’s objective of coordinating land uses with

urban services delivery.

20. The goal of the Intergovernmental Coordination

Element is to establish processes among various governmental,

public, and private ent ities to coordinate development

activities, preservation of the quality of life, and the

efficient use of available resources. The proposed District

will assist in the coordination process by providing and

maintaining community infrastructure in a way tha t is not

inconsistent with the plans and activities of related public

and private agencies.

21. The Capital Improvements Element is intended to

provide necessary infrastructure in a timely and orderly

manner. The proposed District will expand the areas within

the City that receive infrastructure in a manner consistent

with the Development Order for the area and the City of

Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan.

22. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed

District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element

or portion of the local Comprehensive Plan, and will in fact

further the goals provided.

23. The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)

reviewed the Petition for compliance with its various programs

and responsibilities. After conducting a review of the

petition for consistency with the approved Development Order

and Comprehensive Plan, the DCA concluded that the Petition

for the Establishment of the Bartram Springs Community

Development District was not inconsistent with either the

Comprehensive Plan or Development Order.

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.

24. Testim ony on this criterion was provided by Messrs.

Miller, Walters, and Fishkind. The proposed District will

include approximately 1,025 acres, located within the borders

of the City.

25. All of the land in the proposed District is part of

a planned communit y included in the Bartram Park Development

of Regional Impact (the DRI).

26. Functional interrelation means that each community

purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the

community's other purposes. Each function requires a

managemen t capability, funding source, and an understanding of

the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth

and development of the community. Each function must be

designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance

of the community.

27 . The size of the District as proposed is

approximately 1,025 acres. From a planning perspective, this

is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure

facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated

community. The proposed fa cilities can be provided in an

efficient, functional, and integrated manner.

28. Compactness relates to the location in distance

between the lands and land uses within a community. The

community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a

functionally inter - related community. The compact

configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide

for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure in

a long - term, cost - efficient manner.

29. Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the

District as a single master - planned community. All of these

lands are governed by the DRI issued by the City.

30. From planning, economics, engineering, and

management perspectives, the area of land to be included in

the proposed District is of suffici ent 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

facili ties to the area that will be served by the proposed

district.

31. It is presently intended that the District will

construct or provide certain infrastructure improvements as

outlined in the Petition.

32. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure

systems and services by the proposed District is expected to

be paid through the imposition of special assessments. Use of

such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting

from District services is the same property which pays for

them.

33 . Two alternatives to the use of the District were

identified. First, the City might provide facilities and

services from its general fund. Second, facilities and

services might be provided by some private means, with

maintenance delegated to a property owners' association or a

home owners' association.

34. The District is preferable to these alternatives at

focusing attention on when, where, and how the next system of

infrastructure will be required. This results in a full

utilization of existing fa cilities before new facilities are

constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens

being served.

35. The District will construct certain infrastructure

and community facilities which will be needed by the property

owners and residents of the p roject. Expenses for the

operation and maintenance of the facilities the District

retains are expected to be paid through maintenance

assessments to ensure that the property receiving the benefit

of the district services is the same property paying for th ose

services.

36. Only a community development district allows for the

independent financing, administration, operations, and

maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a

community development district allows district residents to

ultimately c ompletely control the district. The other

alternatives do not have these characteristics.

37. From an engineering perspective, the proposed

District is the best alternative to provide the proposed

community development services and facilities to the lan d

included in the proposed District because it is a long - term,

stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities

over their expected life.

38. From planning, economic, engineering, and special

district management perspectives, the proposed D istrict 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 incompat ible with

the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community

development services and facilities.

39. The services and facilities proposed to be provided

by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing

local and regional facilitie s and services. The District's

facilities and services will not duplicate any existing

regional services or facilities. None of the proposed

services or facilities are presently being provided by another

entity for the lands to be included within the Dist rict.

40. Therefore, 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 w ill be served by the district

is amenable to separate special - district government.

41. As cited previously, from planning, economic,

engineering, and special district management perspectives, the

area of land to be included in the proposed District is of

sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developed and become a functionally

interrelated community. The community to be included in the

District has a need for certain basic infrastructure systems,

and the proposed District provides for an efficient mechanism

to oversee the installation of these improvements.

42. From planning, engineering, economic, and management

perspectives, the area that will be served by the District is

amenable to separate special - district g overnment.

g. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule.

43. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42 - 1,

Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements

regarding the petition and other information to be submitted

to the Commission.

44. The Commission has certified that the Petition to

Establish the Bartram Springs Community Development District

meets all of the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(a),

Florida Statutes.

45. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and

benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule

to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its

citizens, the City and its citizens, Petitioner, and

consumers.

46. Beyond administrative costs related to rule

adoption, the State and its citiz ens will only incur minimal

costs from establishing the District. These costs are related

to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one

additional local government report. The proposed District

will require no subsidies from the State. B enefits will

include improved planning and coordination of development,

which is difficult to quantify but nonetheless substantial.

47. Administrative costs incurred by the City related to

rule adoption will be modest. These modest costs are offset

by t he $15,000 filing fee required to accompany the Petition

to the City.

48. Residents within the District will pay non - ad

valorem or special assessments for certain facilities.

Locating within the District is voluntary. Generally,

District financing will be less expensive than maintenance

through a property owners' association or capital improvements

financed through developer loans. Benefits to residents

within the community development district will include a

higher level of public services and ameniti es than might

otherwise be available, completion of District - sponsored

improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share

of direct control over community development services and

facilities within the area.

49. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires a

petition to include a SERC which meets the requirements of

Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The Petition filed herein

contains a SERC. It meets all requirements of Section

120.541, Florida Statutes.

50. Petitioner has complied w ith the provisions of

Section 190.005(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes, in that the City

was provided four copies of the Petition and was paid the

requisite filing fee.

51. 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 a newspaper of general paid circulation in Duval

County ( The Florida Times Union ) for four consecutive weeks on

May 3, May 10, May 17, and May 24, 2002.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

52. This proceeding is governed by Chapters 120 and 190,

Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42 - 1, Florida Administrative

Code.

53. The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to

Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, by publication of an

advertisement in a newspaper of general paid circulation in

Duval County and of general interest and readership once each

week for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the

hearing.

54. Petitioner has met the requirements of Section

190.005, Florida Statutes, regarding the submission of a

petition and satisfaction of filing fee requirements.

55. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the

petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth in

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

56. A ll portions of the Petition and other submittals

have been completed and filed as required by law.

57. All statements contained within the Petition as

corrected and supplemented at the hearing are tr ue and

correct.

58. The establishment of the District is not

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the

State Comprehensive Plan or the effective City of Jacksonville

Comprehensive Plan.

59. 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.

60. The proposed District is the best alternative

available for delivering community development services and

facili ties to the area that will be served by the District.

61. 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 faci lities.

62. The area to be served by the proposed District is

amenable to separate special district government.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120 and 190, Florida

Statutes, and Chapter 42 - 1, Florida Administrative Code,

establish the Bartram Springs Community Development District,

as requested by Petitioner, by formal adoption of the proposed

rule attached to this Report as Appendix C.

DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2002, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.u s

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 19th day of June, 2002.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

Charles Canady, General Counsel

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Donna Arduin, Secretary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Growth Management and Strategic Planning

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Gregory M. Munson, Esquire

Office of the Governor

400 South Monroe Street, Roo m 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 6536

APPENDIX A

Petitioner's Witnesses at Hearing

J. Thomas Gillette, III

SouthStar Development Partners, Inc.

4720 Salisbury Road, Suite 126

Jacksonville, Florida 32256 - 6101

Douglas C. Miller, P.E.

England, Thims & Miller, Inc.

14775 St. Augustine Road

Jacksonville, Florida 32258 - 2463

Gary R. Walters

Gary Walters & Associates

12 Crooked Tree Trail

Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 - 4338

Dr. Henry H. Fishkind

Fishkind & Associates, Inc.

11869 High Tech Avenue

Orlando, Fl orida 32817 - 1490

APPENDIX B

List of Petitioner's Exhibits

Exhibit Number Exhibit Description

1 Petition with attachments

2 Notice of Receipt of Petition

3 Division of Administrative Hearings

Referral Letter

4 Department of Community Affairs

Tr ansmittal Letter

5 Department of Community Affairs Review

Letter

6 Ordinance 2000 - 451 - E

7 State Comprehensive Plan

8 The Florida Times Union Proof of

Publication

APPENDIX C

Text of Proposed Rule

CHAPTER 42___ - 1

BARTRAM SPRINGS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRIC T

42___ - 1.001 Establishment.

42___ - 1.002 Boundary.

42___ - 1.003 Supervisors.

42____ - 1.001 Creation. The Bartram Springs Community

Development District is hereby established.

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 F.S. Law Implemented

190.005 F.S. H istory - New

42 ____ - 1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the District

are as follows:

A portion of Sections 28, 29, 32 and 33, together with a

portion of Section 48, of the Christopher Minchin Grant, all

lying in Township 4 South, Range 28 East, Duval Count y,

Florida, being more particularly described as follows:

For a Point of Reference, commence at the corner common to

said Sections 32 and 33, Township 4 South, Range 28 East, said

Duval County and Sections 4 and 5, Township 5 South, Range 28

East, St. Joh ns County, Florida, said corner also lying on the

county line dividing said Duval and St. Johns Counties; thence

North 89° 04' 41" East, along said county line, 3281.18 feet;

thence North 00° 55' 19" West, departing said county line,

5.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.

From said Point of Beginning, thence South 89° 04' 41" West,

3281.22 feet to a point lying on the line common to said

Sections 32 and 33; thence South 89° 33' 42" West, departing

said common line, 699.85 feet to the Easterly limited access

right of way line of State Road No. 9B, a variable width right

of way as established on State Road Department Right of Way

Map Section 72002 - 2513, dated 09 - 08 - 92; thence Northwesterly

and Northeasterly, along said Easterly limited access right of

way line, the following courses: (1) North 40° 25' 37" West,

2161.10 feet to the Point of Curvature of a curve, concave

Northeasterly having a radius of 2744.79 feet; (2) along the

arc of said curve, through a central angle of 14° 47' 23", an

arc length of 708.51 f eet to the Point of Tangency of said

curve, said arc being subtended by a chord bearing and

distance of North 33° 01' 55" West, 706.55 feet; (3) North 25°

38' 14" West, 2143.97 feet to the Point of Curvature of a

curve, concave Easterly having a radius of 1789.86 feet; (4)

along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 37° 18'

23", an arc length of 1165.41 feet to a point on said curve,

said arc being subtended by a chord bearing and distance of

North 06° 59' 02" West, 1144.93 feet; (5) North 10° 17 ' 40"

East, along a non - tangent bearing, 500.14 feet; (6) North 11°

40' 10" East, 1913.60 feet to a point lying on the Southerly

line of the North 1/2 of said Section 29; thence North 88°

42' 41" East, departing said Easterly limited access right of

way l ine and along last said line, 2914.25 feet to the

Southwest corner of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28;

thence North 89° 02' 27" East, along the Southerly line of the

Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, a distance of 233.49 feet to

a point lying on the W esterly right of way line of the Florida

East Coast Railroad, a 100 foot right of way as now

established; thence South 41° 00' 02" East, along said

Westerly right of way line, 1203.71 feet to a point lying on

the Westerly line of the Easterly 1/4 of the No rthwest 1/4 of

the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 28; thence South 00° 59' 05"

East, departing said Westerly right of way line and along said

Westerly line of the Easterly 1/4, a distance of 424.47 feet

to the Southwest corner of said East 1/4 of the Northw est 1/4

of the Southwest 1/4; thence North 88° 54' 34" East, along the

Southerly line of said East 1/4, a distance of 355.82 feet to

a point lying on the aforementioned Westerly right of way

line; thence South 41° 00' 02" East, along said Westerly right

of way line, 6946.50 feet; thence South 81° 44' 38" West,

departing said Westerly right of way line, 1239.95 feet;

thence North 89° 51' 10" West, 1102.07 feet; thence South 10°

16' 03" West, 955.68 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 1025.40 acres, m ore or less.

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 F.S. Law Implemented

190.004, 190.005 F.S. History - New

42____ - 1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are

designated as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors:

J. Thomas Gillette, III , L. Alfredo Rodriguez - Walling, Walter

Kehoe, Thaddeus D. Rutherford, and Leo W. Johns.

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005 F.S. Law Implemented

190.006(1) F.S. History - New.