03-003658 In Re: Petition For Rule Creation - Villages Of Westport Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, February 23, 2004.

Summary: Petition to establish a community development district in Duval County, Florida, appears to satisfy all statutory criteria.

STATE OF FLORDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION FOR RULE )

CREATION - VILLAGES OF ) Case No. 03 - 3658

WESTPORT COMMUNITY )

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT _ )

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S REPORT TO

THE FLORIDA LAND AND WAT ER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

On January 26, 2004, a local public hearing under Section

190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2003), was conducted in

Jacksonville, Florida, by Donald R. Alexander, Administrative

Law Judge (ALJ) of the Division of Administrative Hearings

(DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Roy Van Wyk, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue before the Florida Land and Water Ad judicatory

Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the

Petition for Establishment of the Villages of Westport Community

Development District (Petition), dated September 4, 2003. The

local public hearing was for purposes of gathering info rmation

in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 4, 2003, the Petition was filed by Westport

Villages, L.L.C. (Petitioner). It requested that FLWAC adopt a

rule to establish a uniform community development district, to

be called the Villages of Westport Community Development

District, on certain property in the City of Jacksonville,

Florida (City of Jacksonville). The Petition includes eight

exhibits.

FLWAC referred the Petition to DOAH on October 3, 2003, for

assignme nt of an ALJ to conduct a local public hearing under

Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2003). The local

public hearing before the ALJ was scheduled and was held at

1:00 p.m., on January 26, 2004, in the Jacksonville City Hall at

St. James, Committe e Room A, First Floor, 117 West Duval Street,

Jacksonville, Florida. At the local public hearing, Petitioner

presented the testimony of Mark Ambach, Managing Director of

Land and Golf Services of ICI Homes, Inc., of Ormond Beach,

Florida; Gary R. Walters, President of Gary Walters &

Associates, Inc., of Ormond Beach, Florida; Carey Garland,

Director of Public Finance, Fishkind & Associates, Inc., of

Orlando, Florida; and William E. Schaefer, P.E., Civil

Department Head, Greenhorne & O’Mara, Inc., Civil Eng ineers, of

Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner also introduced eight

exhibits, designated Composite Exhibit A through H, which are

described in paragraph 50 of the Summary of the Record, infra .

There was one member of the public in attendance at the hearin g.

The Transcript of the local public hearing was filed on

February 10, 2004. Petitioner filed a Proposed ALJ’s Report to

FLWAC, which has been considered in the preparation of this

Report.

SUMMARY OF RECORD

A. Petition and Related Matters

1. The Pet ition was submitted to FLWAC and the City of

Jacksonville.

2. The Petition alleges that the land proposed to be

included within the District is located in the City of

Jacksonville. Petition Exhibit 1 depicts the general location

of the District. The pro posed District covers approximately

1,340 acres of land. The metes and bounds description of the

external boundaries of the District is set forth in Petition

Composite Exhibit 2. There is no real property located within

the external boundaries of the Dis trict that is excluded from

the District.

3. Petition Exhibit 3 incorporates the written consents to

the establishment of the District by the owners of 100 percent

of the real property to be included within the District. Lands

to be included within the District are owned by Westport

Villages, LLC.

4. The Petition states that the name of the proposed

District will be the Villages of Westport Community Development

District.

5. The Petition identifies the following names and

addresses of those individual s designated as the five initial

members of the Board of Supervisors of the District:

Name Address

Nat Hughs 1340 Sutton Park Drive South

Suite 145, Tampa, Florida 33607

Andy Hagan 2359 Beville Road

Daytona Beach, Florida 32119

Cindy Jones 2359 Beville Road

Daytona Beach, Florida 32119

Mark Ambach 100 Plantation Bay Drive

Ormond Beach, Florida 32174

Maurice Rudolph 1340 Sutton Park Drive South

Suite 1 45, Tampa, Florida 33607

6. Petition Exhibit 4 depicts the future general

distribution, location, and extent of the public and private

land uses within the District as well as existing land uses

abutting the District. The Petition alleges that the lands

within the District are located in the City of Jacksonville.

The Petition further alleges that lands within the District are

currently zoned Multi Use (MU).

7. The Petition alleges that there are currently no major

trunk water mains, sewer interceptors, and/or outfalls located

in the area within the District. The major trunk water lines

and sewer interceptors adjacent to the lands within the proposed

district are illustrated in Petition Exhibit 5.

8. Petition Exhibit 6 indicates the types of facilities

and services and the cost of constructing the proposed

facilities and services based on available data. This is

alleged to be a good faith estimate, but it is not binding on

Petitioner or the District and is subject to change.

9. The Petition further al leges, based upon currently

available data, that the proposed timetable for the construction

of District services and facilities will between the years 2004

and 2015.

10. The Petition alleges and incorporates in its Exhibit 7

a Statement of Estimated Regu latory Costs (SERC) prepared in

accordance with the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida

Statutes (2003). Section 4.0 of Exhibit 7 alleges that some of

the infrastructure improvements will ultimately be owned by the

City of Jacksonville, the Jacksonvi lle Electric Authority, or

the District. Maintenance and operation responsibilities will

also be shared by the City of Jacksonville, the Jacksonville

Electric Authority, and the District.

11. The Petition alleges that the authorized agent of

Petitioner i s Cindy Jones. An executed copy of the

authorization of agent is provided in Petition Exhibit 8.

12. The Petition alleges that Petitioner submitted a copy

of the Petition with exhibits to the City of Jacksonville with

the required filing fee of $15,000, in accordance with Section

190.005(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2003).

13. The Petition alleges that establishment of the

District should be granted for the following reasons:

a. Establishment of the District and all

land uses and services planned within the

proposed District are not inconsistent with

applicable elements and portions of the

effective State Comprehensive Plan or the

local Comprehensive Plan.

b. The area of land within the proposed

District is part of a planned community. It

is of sufficient size and is sufficiently

compact and contiguous to be developed as

one functional and interrelated community.

c. Establishment of the District will

prevent the general body of taxpayers in the

City of Jacksonville from bearing the burden

for installatio n of the infrastructure and

the maintenance of certain facilities within

the development encompassed by the District.

The District is the best alternative for

delivering community development services

and facilities to the proposed community

without impos ing an additional burden on the

general population of the local general -

purpose government. Establishment of the

District in conjunction with a

comprehensively planned community, as

proposed, allows for a more efficient use of

resources.

d. The communit y development services and

facilities of the District will not be

incompatible with the capacity and use of

existing local and regional community

development services and facilities. In

addition, establishment of the District will

provide a perpetual enti ty capable of making

reasonable provisions for the operation and

maintenance of District services and

facilities.

e. The area to be served by the proposed

District is amenable to separate special -

district government.

B. Additional Information from Loca l Public Hearing

14. The local public hearing on the Petition was noticed

and held on January 26, 2004, in an accessible location in the

Jacksonville City Hall at St. James, Committee Room A, First

Floor, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida. Pursuant

to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2003), notice of the

public hearing was advertised on December 29, 2003, and

January 5, 12, and 19, 2004, in the Florida Times Union , a

newspaper of general paid circulation in The City of

Jacksonvil le, and of general interest and readership in the

community, not one of limited subject matter, pursuant to

Chapter 50, Florida Statutes (2003). The published notices gave

the time and place for the hearing; a description of the area to

be included within the District, including a map clearly showing

the land to be included within the District; and other relevant

information. The advertisement was published as a display

advertisement, not in the portion of the newspaper where legal

notices and classified advertisements appear.

15. The hearing was also noticed in the Florida

Administrative Weekly , Volume 30, Number 2, January 9, 2004.

16. The hearing commenced at 1:00 p.m., the time

advertised in the published notices. Appearances were made by

counsel for Petitioner. Only the four witnesses of Petitioner

testified at the hearing. One member of the public was in

attendance, but did not ask questions or present testimony or

exhibits at any time during the hearing.

17. The first witness for Petitioner was Mark Ambach.

Mr. Ambach is employed by ICI Homes, Inc., as Managing Director

of Land & Golf Management. Mr. Ambach has a Bachelor of Science

Building Construction from the University of Florida and is a

licensed general contractor and real estate b roker in the State

of Florida. Mr. Ambach was one of the members of the

development team for the overall project, and he is also the

person within Westport Villages, LLC, who is responsible for the

Villages of Westport development.

18. Mr. Ambach affirm ed his written testimony and

testified that if asked the same questions at the public hearing

that his answers would be the same as those contained in his

written testimony. The written testimony of Mr. Ambach was

received into the record.

19. Mr. Ambac h testified that 100 percent of the

landowners consented to the establishment of the District and

that the proposed District will consist of approximately 1,340

acres. Mr. Ambach stated for the record that there has been no

change in ownership of the land s since submission of the

Petition. Mr. Ambach testified that the hearing had been

noticed in the Florida Times Union , Duval County Edition, and he

identified the proof of publication for the record. Mr. Ambach

provided the original proof of publication for the public

hearing to the court reporter, at which time it was marked as

Hearing Exhibit F and received into the record. Mr. Ambach

testified that the City of Jacksonville did not hold an optional

local public hearing regarding the Petition as authori zed by

Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003).

20. Mr. Ambach testified that the Petition and its

Exhibits 1 through 8 were prepared by him or under his

supervision. Mr. Ambach affirmed that the Petition exhibits

were true and correct to the bes t of his knowledge. The

Petition and Petition Exhibits 1 through 8 are identified as

Hearing Composite Exhibit A for the record.

21. Mr. Ambach testified that one original and twelve

copies of the Petition were filed with the FLWAC and that a copy

of th e Petition along with the filing fee of $15,000 was

tendered to the City of Jacksonville.

22. Mr. Ambach identified Exhibits MA - 1 through MA - 4 to

his written testimony. Exhibits MA - 1 through MA - 4 were marked

as Hearing Exhibits B, C, D, and E respective ly, and were

received into the record.

23. Mr. Ambach testified that each of the persons

designated in the Petition as the initial Board members was

personally known by him and that they are all residents of the

State of Florida and of the United States .

24. Mr. Ambach testified that, as an experienced developer

with over 15 years of experience in the north Florida area, a

community development district is the best alternative to

provide community development services to the area within the

proposed di strict.

25. The next witness for Petitioner was Gary R. Walters.

Mr. Walters is president of Gary Walters & Associates, Inc.

Mr. Walters testified that his company provides community

development management services, financial planning, and

community p lanning services.

26. Mr. Walters affirmed his written testimony and

testified that if asked the same questions at the public hearing

that his answers would be the same. Mr. Walters written

testimony, consisting of 17 pages, was received into the record .

27. Mr. Walters stated that his credentials and education

were accurately set forth in his Written Testimony. Mr. Walters

has a Bachelor of Science in Urban Planning from Michigan State

University and has completed graduate studies in Urban Studies

an d Public Administration at the University of Pittsburgh.

Based on Mr. Walters' qualifications in the areas of land use

planning, special district management, and economical analysis

Mr. Walters was qualified as an expert witness.

28. Mr. Walters testifi ed that he was familiar with

Hearing Exhibit A and that he had reviewed it.

29. Mr. Walters testified that the land use plan for the

proposed District was consistent with the development approvals.

Mr. Walters identified Exhibit GRW - 1 to his written tes timony as

a copy of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (2003), State

Comprehensive Plan. The copy of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes

(2003), was marked as Hearing Exhibit G and was received into

the record. Mr. Walters testified that the proposed District is

no t inconsistent with any portion or element of the State

Comprehensive Plan.

30. Mr. Walters testified that he reviewed the local

comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida

Statutes (2003), for the City of Jacksonville, and that based on

his experience as a planner, the proposed District is not

inconsistent with any portion or element of the local

comprehensive plan.

31. Mr. Walters testified that the proposed District is of

sufficient size, sufficient compactness, and has sufficient

contiguity to be developable as a functionally interrelated

community.

32. Mr. Walters testified that the proposed services and

facilities of the proposed district are not incompatible with

the capacity and uses of existing local or regional community

de velopment services and facilities.

33. Mr. Walters testified that the area identified in the

Petition to be included within the proposed District is amenable

to being served by a separate special district government.

34. Mr. Walters testified that the proposed District is

the best available alternative for delivering community

development services and facilities to the area served.

35. Mr. Walters testified that he prepared Petition

Exhibit 7, the SERC, and that the economic impact on the City of

Jack sonville and the State of Florida will be very small. Mr.

Walters further testified that the impact on small business is

likely to be beneficial in terms of creation of job

opportunities.

36. Mr. Walters testified that as a result of his analysis

of the proposed project through preparation of the SERC, that

the proposed Villages of Westport Community Development District

is the best way to provide for low cost, available financing and

the long - term management of the infrastructure facilities being

consid ered.

37. The next witness for Petitioner was Mr. Carey Garland.

Mr. Garland is employed by Fishkind & Associates, Inc., as

Director of Public Finance. Mr. Garland affirmed his written

testimony and testified that if asked the same questions at the

pu blic hearing that his answers would be the same.

Mr. Garland’s written testimony consisting of seven pages was

received into the record.

38. Mr. Garland testified that he has a Bachelor of

Science in Industrial Engineering from the University of

Missouri and a Master of Business Administration, Real Estate,

from the University of Michigan. Mr. Garland testified that he

has personally served as financial advisor to approximately

thirty community development districts and has been qualified as

an expert in similar special district establishment hearings.

Mr. Garland was then proffered and accepted as an expert in the

field of economics and financial analysis.

39. Mr. Garland testified that he reviewed the Petition

and provided advice concer ning the economic structure of the

proposed District. Mr. Garland testified that he is of the

opinion that the Villages of Westport Community Development

District is expected to be financially viable and feasible.

40. Mr. Garland testified that it is hi s opinion that the

proposed Villages of Westport Community Development District is

not incompatible with any applicable element or portion of the

State Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Garland further testified that

the proposed District is not inconsistent with a ny applicable

element or portion of the effective local comprehensive plan of

the City of Jacksonville.

41. Mr. Garland testified that, based upon his experience

working with community development districts, the proposed

District is of sufficient size, c ompactness, and contiguity to

be developed as a functionally interrelated community.

42. Mr. Garland testified that the proposed District is

the best alternative to provide community development facilities

to the area to be served.

43. Mr. Garland testi fied that the lands within the

proposed community development district are sufficiently compact

and contiguous so as not to create any economic disincentives to

the provision of the infrastructure facilities contemplated in

this case.

44. Mr. Garland al so testified that in his opinion, the

area to be served by the proposed District is amenable to

special district governance.

45. The final witness for Petitioner was William E.

Schaefer, P.E. Mr. Schaefer is employed by Greenhorne & O’Mara,

Inc., as Civ il Department Head. Mr. Schaefer received a

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of

Florida and is a registered professional engineer in the State

of Florida with over 20 years' experience in land development

projects. Mr. Schaefe r is also a Florida licensed general

contractor.

46. Mr. Schaefer affirmed his written testimony and

testified that if asked the same questions now that his answers

would be the same. Mr. Schaefer’s written testimony consisting

of four pages was receive d into the record.

47. Mr. Schafer identified Exhibit WS - 1 to his written

testimony as his resume. Mr. Schaefer’s resume was received

into the record. Mr. Schaefer was then proffered and accepted

as an expert in the field of civil engineering and publi c

infrastructure cost estimating.

48. Mr. Schaefer testified that he had reviewed the

Petition and that he was familiar with the geographical area,

type and scope of the proposed development, and the available

services and facilities in the vicinity of t he proposed

District. Mr. Schaefer testified that he has reviewed Petition

Exhibit 6, which describes the estimated construction costs

associated with the improvements and facilities contemplated by

the development plan, and that in his professional opini on, the

costs are reasonable. Mr. Schaefer further testified that he

based his opinion on an analysis of the construction costs as

compared to other similar projects constructed in northeast

Florida.

49. Upon completion of witness testimony, the Petitio n and

Petition Exhibits 1 through 8 (Hearing Composite Exhibit A) were

received into the record.

50. As indicated, Petitioner introduced several documents

that were accepted into evidence:

Composite Exhibit A

Petition and exhibits that were filed with th e FLWAC

on September 4, 2003.

Exhibit B

Exhibit MA - 1 to Written Testimony of Mr. Ambach

consisting of a letter from the office of FLWAC dated

October 3, 2003 certifying that all required elements

of Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), are

c ontained in the Petition. The letter also requests

assignment of an ALJ as provided by Florida

Administrative Code Rule 42 - 1.009(1)(b) and that DOAH

conduct a local public hearing pursuant to Section

190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2003).

Exhibit C

E xhibit MA - 2 to Written Testimony of Mr. Ambach

consisting of the Notice of Receipt of Petition to

establish the Villages of Westport Community

Development District, which was published in the

Florida Administrative Weekly in Volume 30, Number 2,

on January 9, 2004, page 203. The Notice also

provided information regarding the local public

hearing to establish the District.

Exhibit D

Exhibit MA - 3 to Written Testimony of Mr. Ambach

consisting of a letter from the Office of the FLWAC,

dated October 3, 2003 , to the Department of Community

Affairs (DCA) requesting a review of the enclosed

Petition to establish the District from the standpoint

of the DCA and the requirements of Chapter 190,

Florida Statutes (2003).

Exhibit E

Exhibit MA - 4 to Written Testimon y of Mr. Ambach

consisting of a letter from the St. Johns River Water

Management District dated January 24, 2003, to Counsel

for the Petitioner indicating that a community

development district is preferable over a homeowners

association for the operation a nd maintenance of a

stormwater management systems.

Exhibit F

Affidavit of Publication from the Florida Times Union

newspaper, providing evidence that the public hearing

notice for this hearing was published on December 29,

2003, and January 5, 12, and 1 9, 2004, in accordance

with the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(d),

Florida Statutes (2003).

Exhibit G

Exhibit GRW - 1 to Written Testimony of Gary R. Walters.

consisting of a copy of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes

(2003), State Comprehensive Plan.

Exh ibit H

Exhibit WS - 1 to Written Testimony of William E.

Schaefer, P.E., consisting of his curriculum vita and

his experience in civil engineering design.

APPLICABLE LAW

A. General

51. Section 190.005(1), Florida Statutes (2003), provides

that the excl usive and uniform method of establishing a

community development district (CDD) of 1,000 acres or more

shall be by rule adopted by the FLWAC, granting a petition for

the establishment of a CDD.

52. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003),

require s that an establishment petition be filed by the

petitioner with the FLWAC and submitted to the applicable local

government entity. The petition must provide a metes and bounds

legal description of the boundaries of the District with a

specific descriptio n of real property to be excluded from the

district, if any. The petition must establish that petitioner

has received the written consent of the landowners of 100

percent of the real property proposed to be included within the

CDD. The petition must desi gnate the name of the CDD and the

names of the five initial members of the board of supervisors.

The petition must include a map showing current major trunk

water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if any.

53. The petition must also contain the p roposed timetable

for construction of the District services including a good faith

estimate of the costs of construction. Finally, the petition

must designate the future general distribution, location, and

extent of public and private uses of the land for the lands

within the district by the future land use plan element of the

local comprehensive plan and include a SERC prepared in

compliance with Section 120.541, Florida Statutes (2003).

54. Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003),

requires that the petitioner serve a copy of the establishment

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

to each municipality whose boundary is within or contiguous to

the CDD.

55. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003),

permits the genera l purpose local governments described in the

preceding paragraph to conduct a public hearing on the petition.

These local government entities may then present resolutions to

the FLWAC either supporting or objecting to the establishment of

a CDD on the pro perty identified in the petition.

56. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2003),

requires an ALJ to conduct a local public hearing pursuant to

Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (2003). The hearing "shall

include oral and written comments on the petition pertinent to

the factors specified in paragraph (e)" therein.

57. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2003), also

requires the petitioner to publish notice of the local public

hearing once a week for four successive weeks immediately prior

to the he aring.

B. Factors by Law to be Considered for Granting or

Denying Petition

58. Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes

(2003), the FLWAC must consider the entire record of the local

hearing, the transcript of the hearing, any resolutions adopted

by local general - purpose governments as provided in paragraph

(c) therein, and the following factors to make a determination

to grant or deny a petition for establishment of a CDD:

1. Whether all statements contained within the

petition have been found to be true and correct.

2. Whether the establishment of the district is

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state

comprehensive plan or the effective local government

comprehensive plan.

3. Whether the are a of land within the district is of

sufficient size, is sufficiently compact and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated

community.

4. Whether the district is the best alternative

available for delivering commu nity development services and

facilities to the area that will be served by the district.

5. Whether the community development services and

facilities to be provided by the district will be incompatible

with the capacity and uses of existing loca l 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.

COMPARISON OF INFORMATION IN RECORD TO APPLICABLE LAW

A. Procedural Req uirements

59. The evidence was that Petitioner satisfied the

procedural requirements for the establishment of the District on

the proposed property by filing the Petition with the proper

form and with the required attachments, paying the applicable

filing fee, and publishing statutory notice of the local public

hearing.

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

(2003)

60. The evidence was that the statements in the Petition

and its attachments are true and correct.

61. The evidence wa s that establishment of the District on

the proposed property is not inconsistent with the State and the

City of Jacksonville Comprehensive Plans.

62. The evidence was that the size, compactness, and

contiguity of the land proposed to be included within t he

District are sufficient for it to be developed as "one

functional interrelated community."

63. The evidence was that the services and facilities

provided by the District will be compatible with the capacity

and uses of existing local and regional commu nity development

services and facilities.

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

by the District is amenable to separate special district

government.

CONCLUSION

Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2003), states that

the FLWAC "shal l consider the entire record of the local

hearing, the transcript of the hearing, resolutions adopted by

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

that subparagraph. Based on the record evidence, the Petition

appears to meet all statut ory requirements, and there appears to

be no reason not to grant the Petition and establish the

proposed Villages of Westport Community Development District by

rule. For purposes of drafting such a rule, a metes and bounds

description of the proposed Vill ages of Westport Community

Development District may be found as Petition Exhibit 2. Also,

the five persons designated to serve as the initial members of

the Board of Supervisors of the Villages of Westport Community

Development District are identified in paragraph 5 of the

Petition and paragraph 5 of the Summary of the Record.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Divisio n 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.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 2 3rd day of February, 2004.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Michael P. Hansen, Secretary

Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Growth Management and Strategic Planning

The Capitol , Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Raquel A. Rodriguez, General Counsel

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 2009

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Flo rida 32314 - 6526

Heidi M. Hughes, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100