02-004356 In Re: Petition For Rule Creation - Cocohatchee Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, February 17, 2003.

Summary: Establishment of new Community Development District in Lee County; local public hearing held; evidence was that all statutory "factors" were met.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION FOR RULE )

CREATION - COCOHATCHEE ) Case No. 02 - 4356

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. )

)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S REPORT TO

THE FLORIDA LAND A ND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

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

J. Lawrence Johnston, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), conducted a local

public hearing, in Bonita Springs, Florida, on January 22, 2003.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Kenza van Assenderp

Young, van Assenderp,

Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A.

225 South Adams Street, Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

STATEMENT OF THE "ISSUE"

At "issue" in this hearing was the Petition for Rulemaking

to Establish a Uniform Community Development District, dated

October 10, 2002 (Petition). The Petition, filed by Beach Road

Development Company L.L.C., requested that the Florida Land and

Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWA C) adopt a rule to establish

a state - chartered uniform community development district, to be

called the Cocohatchee Community Development District, on

certain property in Lee County, Florida. The hearing was for

purposes of gathering information in antici pation of quasi -

legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

After the Petition was filed, a local public hearing was

duly scheduled, noticed, advertised, and held in Bonita Springs,

Florida, on January 22, 2003. At the hearing, Petitioner

p resented five witnesses, whose names and addresses are listed

in Appendix A to this Report, and had two exhibits admitted into

evidence: Petitioner's Exhibit 1, a print - out copy of an e - mail

from Assistant Lee County Attorney, Dawn Perry - Lehnert,

indicati ng that she would not be participating in the hearing

because her client, the Lee County Board of County

Commissioners, adopted a resolution in support of establishment;

and Petitioner's Pre - hearing Statement and Composite Exhibit 2,

A through L. These ex hibits are more fully described in

Appendix B to this Report.

The Transcript of the local public hearing was filed on

February 4, 2003. Petitioner filed a Proposed Report to FLWAC,

which is essentially adopted and incorporated into this Report.

Refere nces in the Report to "Tr." are to the cited page of the

Transcript. References to "Q." are to the cited question and

answer contained in that witness's prepared testimony.

SUMMARY OF RECORD

A. The Petition

1. A copy of the Petition was filed with Le e County, along

with a $15,000 filing fee, on September 27, 2002. On

October 10, 2002, the Petition was filed with FLWAC.

2. The Petition (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, B - 1

through B - 8) invokes the statutory charter created by the

Legislature in Sec tions 190.006 - 190.046, Florida Statutes

(2001), as amended, and requests establishment of the

Cocohatchee Community Development District (the District or CDD)

on 1,298 acres, more or less, in unincorporated Lee County,

Florida, bounded on the north by unin corporated Lee County, on

the east and south by the Lee County line, and on the west by a

section of land undergoing review for a residential planned

development. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 gives a metes and bounds

description of the proposed Cocohatchee CDD.

3. The property within the proposed boundary of the

District and established thereon contains no enclaves.

4. The Petition alleges that the owners of all of the

proposed real property to be included in the CDD have given

written consent to the estab lishment of the Cocohatchee CDD.

Exhibit 3 to the Petition contains documentation constituting

written consent of the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of

the property to be included.

5. The Petition names the five persons to be appointed by

the ru le to serve as members of the initial Board of Supervisors

until replaced by elected members.

6. The Petition identifies the major trunk waterlines,

sewer interceptors, and outfalls on the proposed property to be

serviced by the CDD. Exhibit 4 to the Pe tition depicts the

location of these public facilities.

7. The Petition sets forth in Exhibit 5 a proposed

timetable and schedule of estimated costs for the construction

of the proposed facilities. Total costs projected for the

construction period of si x years are $56,638,000.00 for water

management, right - of - way (ROW) improvements, perimeter

landscaping, wetland mitigation, and offsite improvements.

8. The Petition alleges its Exhibit 6 - A is the future land

use map of the Lee County Comprehensive Plan . The land area

within the proposed District is designated "Rural Wetlands."

Exhibit 6 - C attached to the Petition is a letter from the

Department of Community Affairs (DCA) determining that the Lee

County Comprehensive Plan is in compliance. Exhibit 6 - D

attached to the Petition is DCA's Notice of Intent.

9. The Petition includes Exhibit 7, which is a Statement

of Estimated Regulatory Costs.

10. The Petition alleges that Petitioner paid $15,000 to

Lee County on September 27, 2002, as filing fees (Peti tioner's

Composite Exhibit 2, C).

B. Local Hearings

11. On January 14, 2003, the state - chartered Lee County

Commission held an optional local public hearing under Section

190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, concerning establishment of the

state - chartered C DD on the proposed property. At the conclusion

of the optional local public hearing, Lee County adopted and

filed a resolution in support of the CDD, Lee County Resolution

03 - 01 - 25 (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, D).

12. All procedural requirements f or transmittals and

notice were met, as set forth in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit

2, D - H. Petitioner duly advertised the local public hearing

to be conducted by DOAH on January 22, 2003, in an appropriate

local newspaper in the four weeks immediately prior to the local

public hearing. Publication dates were December 24 and 31,

2002, and January 7 and 14, 2003, as confirmed by the newspaper

affidavit and copies of tear sheets, Petitioner's Composite

Exhibit 2, H.

13. The DOAH hearing was commenced te n minutes after the

noticed and scheduled time in order to give any persons who

wanted to attend, as a result of the notice, ample time to

attend before the hearing began (Tr. 1).

14. John Gleeson, vice president of Resource Conservation

Properties, wh ich is Petitioner's managing member, testified

that the approximately 1,280 acres proposed for the District are

located about 4 and 1/2 miles east of I - 75 at the Bonita Beach

Road interchange surrounded by preserve to the south and the

east and a future pr eserve to the north and by agricultural and

future development of another landowner to the west. Currently,

the land is about 90 percent in tomato row - crop production, and

it is anticipated to develop approximately 1,200 units and 36

holes of golf on the project. Gleeson then testified that in

working with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)

in getting the appropriate permit, the landowner - developer

provided two flow - ways for SFWMD to use to reestablish the

Cocohatchee Drainage Basin Water Flow - Way. The purpose is to

drain water from the preserve eventually down to the Cocohatchee

Drainage Basin and into the Cocohatchee River in the neighboring

county, Collier County (Tr. 5 - 6). Gleeson stated that the name

of the project is not yet determ ined but that, as a result of

the Flow - Way, the District was named the Cocohatchee CDD. He

estimated that site work would commence later this year with

sales for the end of the year. Gleeson testified further that

the District will help acquire and manag e assets primarily

composed of the parts of the SFWMD Flow - Way and the lakes on

site, as well as constructed road access to the adjacent

sections (Tr. 6). Gleeson then reviewed and authenticated

Petitioner's Pre - hearing Statement and Composite Exhibit 2 ( Tr.

3) for receipt in evidence. Gleeson then described the other

witnesses of the Petitioner's team who were present and the

responsibilities assigned to each team member (Tr. 7).

Thereafter, Gleeson testified that basic utilities will be

provided by the development company, privately funded (Tr. 13).

15. Carey Garland was the next witness. He was tendered

and accepted as an expert witness authorized and capable of

rendering opinion testimony about the delivery and financing of

different types of inf rastructure and maintenance so as to

enable him to prepare and render opinions about a Statement of

Estimated Regulatory Costs. Garland testified that he prepared

the required Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs in Exhibit

7 to the Petition (Petitione r's Composite Exhibit 2, B). He

then summarized the focus of a Statement of Estimated Regulatory

Costs as being the costs to various local and state agencies and

other private entities from the District government being

established, as listed under Sectio n 120.54, Florida Statutes.

He then testified that he had applied these statutory

requirements to the Cocohatchee District and did not discover

any unusual problem or matter that needed to be pointed out to

the ALJ, or to the Governor and members of the C abinet (Tr. 15 -

17).

16. The next witness was Robert D. Hutcherson, a planner

with the firm of WilsonMiller, Inc., who was tendered and

accepted as an expert capable of rendering expert opinion

testimony about the planning aspects of establishing a commun ity

development district as an alternative mechanism to deliver

infrastructure (Tr. 23). Hutcherson testified that he applied

the six factors in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, from

his perspective as a planner. As to factor one, he stated that

the Petition from his perspective was true and correct. As to

factor two, he stated that he had reviewed both the state plan

and the Lee County Comprehensive Plan and found establishment of

the District not to be inconsistent with either. Regarding

facto r three, he found the land area to be sufficiently compact

and contiguous and of sufficient size to be developable as one

functional inter - related community. Regarding factor four, he

determined that the District would be the best alternative to

deliver t he community development services and facilities.

Regarding factor five, he found that there would be no

incompatibility with the capacity and uses of local and regional

community development services and facilities; regarding factor

six, he determined th at the land area is amenable to separate

special district government (Tr. 24 - 25). He adopted

Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, K, the planning "white paper"

he prepared which details his opinions (Tr. 23). He then

testified that he had not discovered any unusual problem or

matter that needed to be disclosed or brought to the attention

of the ALJ, or to FLWAC, which he stated was his primary purpose

for applying the six statutory factors in order to see if there

were anything he could discover that should be reported (Tr. 25 -

26).

17. The next witness was Joshua R. Evans, who was tendered

and accepted as an expert Board Certified Engineer capable of

rendering opinion testimony about alternative delivery of basic

infrastructure for community development (T r. 27 - 28). Evans

then testified that he had prepared Petitioner's Composite

Exhibit 2, K, the engineering "white paper," which reviewed each

factor listed in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, from

the perspective of any special engineering problems that are

related to District establishment (Tr. 28). As to the first

factor, he found the Petition to be correct and that there were

no special engineering problems evident from his review (Tr. 28 -

29). He then discussed the second factor, finding no pro blems

or places in the legal description that would cause problems so

that there were no special engineering problems with regard to

consistency with the state plan (Tr. 29). He then discussed the

third factor and found that there were no special engineer ing

problems and that the land area was of sufficient size,

contiguity, and compactness (Tr. 29). Believing it logical to

go next to factor six, he determined that the land area is

amenable for special district governance and that there were no

existing l and features, facilities, encumbrance, or restrictions

that would make services or special utilities of the District

difficult to provide, so that there were no special engineering

problems evident during his review (Tr. 29 - 30). Believing it

logical to go next to factor five, he determined that the

District would not be incompatible with any existing community

development district systems, facilities, or services, and with

any authorized, and that there were no special engineering

problems evident comparin g that to the District (Tr. 30). He

concluded with factor four and determined that the District is

the best alternative (Tr. 30). He then summarized all of his

testimony to the effect that he had determined no special

problem or unusual situation to brin g to the attention of the

Judge, or the Governor and members of the Cabinet (Tr. 30).

18. The next witness was Jim Ward, vice president of

Operations, Severn Trent Services, which has managed over 140

community development districts, of which Ward has ha ndled about

40 personally (Tr. 31). He then responded to a variety of

questions regarding his experience and capabilities in managing

Districts and in working with landowners on alternative ways to

provide infrastructure, both management and financing asp ects,

and distinguishing the District as a special purpose local

government from general purpose local governments and related

matters (Tr. 31 - 34). Ward was then tendered and accepted as an

expert capable of rendering opinion testimony about the CDD as

an alternative way to provide infrastructure, the management of

that alternative, and the various financing aspects that attend

to that alternative (Tr. 34). Ward then testified that he is

familiar with the land area proposed for establishing the

District, that he had worked with Gleeson, Garland, the

engineer, and the planner on this establishment Petition. Ward

then testified that he was not aware of any particular problems

or concerns he would face about his ability to manage the

District if it is establ ished on the property and that there is

nothing he would deem important enough that would require being

pointed out to the ALJ with regard to any problem in

establishment and operation of this District (Tr. 34 - 35). In

response to a question from the Admin istrative Law Judge, Ward

explained that he forms his initial feeling about whether a

proposed development is operated better under a CDD, as opposed

to any other method, by first reviewing the location, continuity

of ownership of the property itself, and what the ultimate land -

use will be. He then looks at the kinds of amenities to be

constructed within the property that would be required to be

operated by a government entity, the provision of long - term

infrastructure services and the management of those services

(Tr. 35 - 36). He then contrasted the location of Cocohatchee

with property in a downtown area, where it might be better in a

redevelopment study to use a community redevelopment agency or

some sort of other kind of alternative; he stated further t hat

he would look at the size of the government itself and the

nature and value that the amenities the developer proposes to

provide for its residents so that from there he can make a

determination whether a municipal agency, a dependent district,

or an in dependent district, in this case a community development

district, is best. Finally, he thought the District on this

proposed property would request at least optional park and

security powers (Tr. 36 - 37). As to security powers, he stated

that the Distric t can enter into an interlocal agreement with

the applicable county or city police function (Tr. 37). Ward

then stated that a number of the Districts he manages have

agreements with the local police department or the sheriff's

office to provide additional services within the District

boundary, ranging from police officers for specified services to

directing patrol for specific areas to include 365, seven - day - a -

week coverage, or related options. He also said that districts

may use private security services for such things as manning a

guard house or watching over facilities or something of that

nature and that the District does not have pure police power,

power to issue tickets and fine and arrest people but rather

enters into agreements with a local enforc ement department for

such a function (Tr. 37 - 38).

19. With reference to Petitioner's Exhibit 1, no one from

Lee County was present. But, as indicated, Petitioner's

Composite Exhibit 2, D, constitutes the Resolution of the Board

of County Commissioners o f Lee County in support of

establishment of the District.

20. The ALJ polled the audience and determined that no one

had appeared in response to the notice other than the Petitioner

and its staff (Tr. 2). This fact remained consistent through to

the ter mination of the hearing so that there were no questions,

evidence, or testimony from anyone else because no one was

present. The local public hearing was concluded at 2:00 p.m.

APPLICABLE LAW

A. General

21. Under Section 190.003(6), Florida Statutes, a

"community development district" is a local unit of special -

purpose government which is created pursuant to this act and

limited to the performance of those specialized functions

authorized by this act; the boundaries of which are contained

wholly within a single county; the governing head of which is a

body created, organized, and constituted and authorized to

function specifically as prescribed in this act for the delivery

of urban community development services; and the formation,

powers, governing bod y, operation, duration, accountability,

requirements for disclosure, and termination of which are as

required by general law.

22. Section 190.011, Florida Statutes, enumerates the

general powers of CDDs. These general powers are to enable the

District t o exercise its single specialized narrow growth

management purpose. State v. Frontier Acres Community

Development District , 472 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1985) . They include

the powers to organize itself, to hire contract with

consultants, to have a seal, to sue and be sued, and related

governmental powers.

23. Section 190.012, Florida Statutes, lists special

powers of CDDs. Subject to the regulatory power of all

applicable government agencies, CDDs may plan, finance, acquire,

construct, enlarge, operate, and maintain systems and facilities

for water management; water supply, sewer, and wastewater

management; district roads meeting minimum county

specifications; and certain projects within or without the

district pursuant to development orders from local gover nments.

After obtaining the consent of the applicable local general

purpose government, a CDD may have the same powers with respect

to using the following "optional" systems, facilities, and

services already granted to the District by its general law

char ter: parks and recreation, fire prevention, school

buildings, security, mosquito control, and waste collection and

disposal.

24. Section 190.005(1), Florida Statutes, provides that

the sole means for establishing a community development district

of 1,00 0 acres or more shall be by rule adopted by FLWAC

granting a petition for the establishment of a CDD. (Section

190.005(2) provides that, for CDDs on proposed property of less

than 1,000 acres, the county in which the proposed CDD is to be

situated may est ablish a CDD under the same requirements

discussed below.)

25. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that

the petition be filed with FLWAC and submitted to the County.

The petition must describe by metes and bounds the area to be

serviced by the CDD with a specific description of real property

to be excluded from the district. The petition must set forth

that the petitioner has the written consent of the owners of all

of the real property proposed to be in the CDD, or has control

by "deed, t rust agreement, contract or option" of all of the

real property. The petition must designate the five initial

members of the board of supervisors of the CDD and the

District's name. The petition must contain a map showing

current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and

outfalls, if any.

26. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, also requires

that the petition propose a timetable for construction and an

estimate of construction costs. The petition must designate

future general distribution , location, and extent of public and

private uses of land in the future land use element of the

appropriate general purpose local government. The petition must

contain a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs.

27. Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statute s, requires that

the petitioner pay a filing fee of $15,000 to the county and to

each municipality whose proposed boundaries are within or

contiguous to the CDD. The petitioner also must serve a copy of

the petition on those local, general - purpose governm ents.

28. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, permits the

county and each municipality described in the preceding

paragraph to conduct a public hearing on the petition. Such

local, general - purpose governments may then present resolutions

to FLWAC a s to the establishment of a CDD on the property

proposed in the Petition.

29. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires an

ALJ to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120,

Florida Statutes. The hearing "shall include oral and writt en

comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in

paragraph (e)." Section 190.005(1)(d) specifies that the

petitioner publish notice of the local public hearing once a

week for the four successive weeks immediately prior to the

hearing.

B . Factors by Law to be Considered for Granting or

Denying Petition

30. Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that

FLWAC consider the entire record of the local hearing, the

transcript of the hearing, resolutions adopted by local genera l -

purpose governments as provided in paragraph (c), 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 bee n found to be true and correct.

2. Whether the establishment of the district is

inconsistent with any applicable element of the effective local

government comprehensive plan.

3. Whether the area of land within the district is of

sufficient size, is suf ficiently compact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developable as one functional 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 of the district will be incompatible with the

capacity and uses of existing local and regional community

development services and facilities.

6. Whether the area tha t will be served by the

district is amenable to separate special - district government.

COMPARISON OF INFORMATION IN RECORD TO APPLICABLE LAW

A. Procedural Requirements

31. The evidence was that Petitioner satisfied the

procedural requirements for the es tablishment of a CDD on the

proposed property by paying the $15,000 filing fee, filing a

petition in the proper form and with the required attachments,

and publishing statutory notice of the local public hearing.

B. Six Factors of Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes

32. The evidence was that the statements in the Petition

and its attachments are true and correct.

33. The evidence was that establishment by rule of the

District on the proposed property in the petition is not

inconsistent with the St ate and Lee County Comprehensive Plans.

(Usually, through efficient provision of certain infrastructure,

typically concurrent with the impacts of development, a

properly - established CDD serves several provisions of

comprehensive plans.)

34. The evidenc e was that the size, compactness, and

contiguity of the proposed land area are sufficient for it to be

developable as one functional interrelated community.

35. The evidence was that the CDD is the best alternative

presently available for delivering comm unity development

systems, facilities, and services to the proposed land area.

36. The evidence was that the services and facilities

provided by the CDD will be compatible with the capacity and

uses of existing local and regional community development

s ervices and facilities.

37. The evidence was that the proposed area to be served

by the state chartered CDD is amenable to separate special -

district government.

CONCLUSION

Based on the record evidence, the Petition meets all

statutory requirements, and t here appears to be no reason not to

grant the Petition and establish the proposed Cocohatchee

Community Development District by rule. For purposes of

drafting such a rule, a metes and bounds description of the

proposed Cocohatchee CDD may be found in Appe ndix B,

Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, B, 3; and the five persons

designated to serve as the initial members of the Board of

Supervisors of the Cocohatchee CDD are identified in paragraph 5

of the Petition, a copy of which is found in Petitioner's

Compo site Exhibit 2, B.

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2003, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apa lachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 17th day of February, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Donna Ard uin, Secretary

Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission,

Room 2105, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Barbara Leighty

Growth Management and Strategic Planning

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Dawn Perry - Lehnert, Es quire

Lee County Attorney's Office

Post Office Box 398

Fort Myers, Florida 33902

Raquel Rodriguez, Esquire

Office of the Governor

Room 209, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1001

Kenza van Assenderp, Esquire

Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anders on, P.A.

225 South Adams Street, Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Cari L. Roth, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Room 325

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100

David Burr, Executive Director

Southwest Florida Re gional Planning Council

Post Office Box 3455

North Fort Myers, Florida 33918 - 3455

APPENDIX A

Petitioner’s Witnesses:

John Gleeson, Vice President

Resource Conservation Properties

3451 Bonita Bay Boulevard, Suite 202

Bonita Springs, Florida 34l34

Robe rt D. Hutcherson

WilsonMiller, Inc.

4571 Colonial Boulevard

Fort Myers, Florida 33912

Joshua R. Evans

WilsonMiller, Inc.

4571 Colonial Boulevard

Fort Myers, Florida 33912

Jim Ward

Severn Trent Services

210 North University Drive, Suite 702

Coral Sprin gs, Florida 33071

Carey Garland

Fishkind and Associates, Inc.

11869 Hi Tech Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32817

APPENDIX B

Petitioner Composite Exhibit 1:

A print - out copy of an email from the Assistant County

Attorney, Dawn Perry - Lehnert, indicating th at she would not be

participating in this hearing because her client, the Lee County

Board of County Commissioners, adopted a resolution in support

of establishment

Petitioner Composite Exhibit 2:

A. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit "A":

A - 1 General l ocation map; a boundary map of the land area

to be included within the jurisdiction of the District; and

A - 2 The Lee County Comprehensive Plan future land - use map

depicting the proposed land area to be serviced by the District

and respective land use cat egories.

B. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit "B": The Petition with

its exhibits:

B - 1 Petition;

B - 2 Petition Exhibit "1" showing the location of land area

to be serviced by District as presently proposed;

B - 3 Petition Exhibit "2" indicating metes an d bounds legal

descriptions;

B - 4 Petition Exhibit "3" written consent by property

owners/optionees;

B - 5 Petition Exhibit "4" - Sewer Interceptors, Utilities

and Outfalls Map;

B - 6 Petition Exhibit "5" - Estimate of proposed timetables

and related cost s of construction and provision of District

services and facilities;

B - 7a Petition Exhibit "6 - A" - Copy of the Future Land Use

Map as provided for in the Future Land Use Element of the Lee

County Comprehensive Plan;

B - 7b Petition Exhibit "6 - B" - 2000 ver sion of applicable

pages of the Lee County Comprehensive Plan;

B - 7c Petition Exhibit “6 - C” - Florida Department of

Community Affairs Letter of Compliance dated 21 December 2001;

B - 7d Petition Exhibit “6 - D” - Notice of Intent;

B - 8 Petition Exhibit “7" - Statement of Estimated

Regulatory Costs.

C. Petitioner's Exhibit "C": Xeroxed copy of the

document of receipt of the $15,000 check to constitute the

filing and processing fee paid by Petitioner.

D. Petitioner’s Exhibit "D": Board of Lee County

Co mmissioners’ Resolution No. 03 - 01 - 25 supporting establishment

of the District, with attached affidavit and tear sheet of the

News - Press which constitutes proof of publication of notice of

the Board of County Commissioners meeting on 14 January 2002.

E. Petitioner's Exhibit "E": Affidavit of Ken van

Assenderp executed on 20 January 2003 regarding transmission of

the Petition to Donna Arduin, Secretary, Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission.

F. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit "F":

F - 1 Letter of notification of 31 October 2002 from Donna

Arduin, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission to Cari Roth, Secretary, Department of Community

Affairs for review of the petition;

F - 2 Letter of notification of 31 October 2002 from Donna

Ard uin, Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission to Dave Burr, Executive Director, Southwest Florida

Regional Planning Council for review of the petition.

G. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit "G":

G - 1 Letter of 31 October 2002 from Donna Arduin,

Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

transmitting the Petition, certifying compliance, to Sharyn

Smith, Director, Division of Administrative Hearings;

G - 2 Amended Initial Order dated 13 November 2002 signed by

Sharyn Smith, Ch ief Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings,

assigning the case to an Administrative Judge and summarizing

procedures.

H. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit "H":

H - 1 Notice of the hearing of 27 November 2002 in Bonita

Springs to hear affected persons i n regard to the establishment

of the Cocohatchee Community Development District;

H - 2 The Affidavit and tear sheet from the News - Press

constituting proof of publication for the first week of notice;

H - 3 The Affidavit and tear sheet from the News - Press

con stituting proof of publication for the second week of notice;

H - 4 The Affidavit and tear sheet from the News - Press

constituting proof of publication for the third week of notice;

H - 5 The Affidavit and tear sheet from the News - Press

constituting proof of publication for the fourth week of notice.

I. Petitioner's Exhibit "I": The complete official copy

of the Lee County Comprehensive Plan, portions of which are

attached to the Petition.

J. Petitioner's Exhibit "J": A copy of the most recent

codific ation of the State Comprehensive Plan as it appears

codified in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (2001).

K. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit "K":

K - 1 White paper of Robert D. Hutcherson, Planner and land

use expert;

K - 2 White paper of Joshua R. Evans, Pr ofessional Engineer

and civil engineering expert.