03-004661 In Re: Petition For Rule Creation - Tolomato Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, March 29, 2004.

Summary: Petition to establish a community development district, alongside a sister community development district in an adjoining county, as part of a single development of regional impact seemed to meet all statutory requirements.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION FOR RULE )

CREATION - TOLOMATO COMMUNITY ) Case No. 03 - 4661

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT )

)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S REPORT TO

THE FLORIDA LAND AND W ATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

On February 20, 2004, a local public hearing under Section

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

Vedra Beach, Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston,

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Division of Ad ministrative

Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire

Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

123 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1517

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

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

Petition for Establishment of the Tolomato Community Development

District (Petition). The local public hearing was for the

purpose of gathering in formation in anticipation of rulemaking

by FLWAC.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petition was filed by SONOC Company, LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company (Petitioner), on December 2, 2003. It

requested that FLWAC adopt a rule to establish a community

development district, to be called the Tolomato Community

Development District, on certain property in unincorporated St.

Johns County, Florida. The Petition includes thirteen exhibits.

FLWAC referred the Petition to DOAH on December 8, 2003,

for assign ment of an ALJ to conduct a local public hearing under

Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes. (All statutory

references are to the 2003 codification of the Florida

Statutes.) Notice of the public hearing was published in

The St. Augustine Record on Ja nuary 22 and 29, 2004, and

February 5 and 12, 2004, in accordance with Section

190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The local public hearing was

held at 10:00 a.m., on Friday, February 20, 2004, at the Ponte

Vedra Beach Library, Friends of the Library Communi ty Room, 101

Library Boulevard, Ponte Vedra Beach, St. Johns County, Florida.

At the local public hearing, Petitioner presented the

testimony of Gregory J. Barbour, employed by The PARC Group, of

Jacksonville, Florida; Douglas C. Miller, employed by Englan d -

Thims & Miller, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida; Carey Garland,

employed by Fishkind & Associates, Inc., of Orlando, Florida;

and Gary R. Walters, employed by Gary Walters and Associates, of

Ormond Beach, Florida. Petitioner introduced nine lettered

exhi bits, A through I, which are identified on page 3 of the

Transcript of Record. One member of the public testified during

the hearing. (Tr. 55 - 56, 110 - 122.)

Petitioner also filed two exhibits subsequent to the

hearing. Petitioner’s Late Filed Composite E xhibit 1 included

deeds and certain title work relating to ownership of the land

to be included within the Tolomato Community Development

District. Said exhibit shall be referred to herein as “PLF

Exhibit 1.” Petitioner’s Late Filed Exhibit 2 included co pies

of the December 2, 2003, minutes of the St. Johns County

Commission. This exhibit shall be referred to herein as “PLF

Exhibit 2.” In addition, subsequent to the hearing, a letter

from Ms. Ellen A. Whitmer, a member of the public, dated

February 25, 2004, was received. This exhibit shall be referred

to as “Public Exhibit 1.” Petitioner was given additional time

to respond to that letter and filed a response on March 11,

2004.

The Transcript of the local public hearing was filed on

March 12, 2004. Pe titioner filed “Petitioner’s Proposed

Administrative Law Judge’s Report to the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission," which has been considered and largely

adopted in the preparation of this Report. References in the

Report to "Tr." are to the c ited page of the Transcript.

References to Hearing Exhibits are to exhibits introduced during

the local public hearing. The exhibits attached to the Petition

are referred to as Petition Exhibits.

SUMMARY OF RECORD

A. Petition and Related Matters

1. T he Petition was submitted to the FLWAC, St. Johns

County, Florida, and the City of Jacksonville, Duval County,

Florida. (Tr. 17.)

2. The land for the District is located within St. Johns

County, Florida. Petition Exhibit 1 depicts the general

location of the District. The proposed District covers

approximately 11,355 acres of land. The metes and bounds

description of the external boundaries of the District is set

forth in Petition Exhibit 2. Three parcels of real property

within the external boundari es of the District are to be

excluded from the District. These outparcels are also excluded

from the Nocatee Development of Regional Impact (DRI)

Development Order adopted by St. Johns County Resolution No.

2001 - 30 on February 23, 2001. (Tr. 53; Composit e Hearing

Exhibit F: Resolution No. 2001 - 30 of St. Johns County,

Florida.) These outparcels include existing residential uses, a

St. Johns County - owned park site, and a parcel of real property

owned by the Florida Inland Navigation District. (Tr. 11, 51 -

53; Petition Exhibit 3.) A more detailed map showing the

location of the District and the parcels that are excluded from

the District is provided in Petition Exhibit 3.

3. Petition Exhibit 4 incorporates the written consent to

the establishment of the District by the owners of 100 percent

of the real property to be included in the District. SONOC

Company, LLC, and the Nocatee Utility Corporation are the owners

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

( PLF Exhibit 1.)

4. The pro posed District will be named the "Tolomato

Community Development District."

5. The names and addresses of those designated to be the

five initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the District

are as follows:

Name Addr ess

Richard T. Ray 4314 Pablo Oaks Court

Jacksonville, Florida 32224

Jed V. Davis 4314 Pablo Oaks Court

Jacksonville, Florida 32224

Ronald W. Fussell 8323 Romona Boulevard

Jacksonville, Florida 32221

Richard H. O’Steen 4314 P ablo Oaks Court

Jacksonville, Florida 32224

Austin F. Barbour 4314 Pablo Oaks Court

Jacksonville, Florida 32224

6. The designated initial members of the Board of

Supervisors are all citizens of the United States and residents

of the State of Florida. (Tr. 18.)

7. Petition Exhibit 5 depicts the existing land uses

within and abutting the District. The property to be included

within the District is presently largely undeveloped and is

bounded by agricultural and forest lands and some low - med ium

residential uses.

8. The future general distribution, location, and extent

of the public and private land use proposed within the District

by the future land use element of the applicable comprehensive

plan are shown on Petition Exhibit 6. These propo sed land uses

are consistent with the effective St. Johns County Comprehensive

Plan, a copy of which was provided as Petition Exhibit 7.

(Tr. 12, 68 - 73, 77, 96 - 98, 106; Hearing Exhibit D.) All land

within the District is subject to the Nocatee DRI Develo pment

Order adopted by St. Johns County Resolution No. 2001 - 30 on

February 23, 2001. (Hearing Composite Exhibit F: Resolution No.

2001 - 30 of St. Johns County, Florida; Hearing Exhibit D.)

9. The proposed development plan for the lands within the

Distri ct is shown in Petition Exhibit 8. Based upon currently

available data, construction of the proposed District facilities

and services is expected to occur over a twenty - four year

period. (Petition Exhibit 11.)

10. Petition Exhibit 9 shows the existing major trunk

water mains, sewer interceptors, major outfall canals, and

drainage basins for the lands to be included within the

District.

11. Petition Exhibit 10 describes the type of facilities

and services that Petitioner presently expects the District to

finance, construct, and install.

12. Based upon currently available data, Petition Exhibit

11 describes the proposed timetable for the construction of

District improvements and outlines the estimated cost of

constructing the proposed District improvem ents. This is a good

faith estimate, but it is not binding on Petitioner or the

District and is subject to change.

13. Petition Exhibit 12 is a Statement of Estimated

Regulatory Costs (SERC) prepared in accordance with the

requirements of Section 120.54 1, Florida Statutes. The SERC

meets all of the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida

Statutes.

14. Prior to the filing of this Petition, Petitioner

submitted a copy of the Petition with Petition Exhibits and paid

the required filing fee of $15,000 to St. Johns County in

accordance with Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

B. Additional Information from Local Public Hearing

15. The local public hearing on the Petition was noticed

for and was held on February 20, 2004, in the Friends of the

Libra ry Community Room of the Ponte Vedra Public Library, at 101

Library Boulevard, an accessible location, in Ponte Vedra Beach,

St. Johns County, Florida. (Tr. 1.) The St. Johns County

Commission asked that the hearing be scheduled in a place closer

to the project than the St. Augustine City Hall. (PLF Exhibit 2,

p.13.) The Ponte Vedra Public Library was chosen in an effort

to accommodate this request. Notice of the hearing was

advertised on January 22 and 29, 2004, and February 5 and 12,

2004, in The St. Augustine Record, a newspaper of general paid

circulation in St. Johns County, and of general interest and

readership in the community, not one of limited subject matter,

pursuant to Chapter 50, Florida Statutes. (Hearing Exhibit E.)

The published notice s gave the time and place for the hearing, a

description of the area to be included in the community

development district (CDD), including a map showing clearly the

area to be covered by the CDD and other relevant information.

(Hearing Exhibit E.) The ad vertisements were not placed in that

portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified

advertisements appear. (Hearing Exhibit E.)

16. The hearing commenced approximately 15 minutes after

the noticed and scheduled time in order to give any per sons who

wanted to attend ample time to do so. (Tr. 4.) Appearances

were made by counsel for Petitioner. (Tr. 4.) One member of

the general public spoke at the hearing. (Tr. 55 - 56, 110 - 122.)

No party has formally intervened in this administrative

pro ceeding. (Tr. 6.)

17. The first witness for Petitioner was Gregory J.

Barbour. Mr. Barbour is President of The PARC Group. (Tr. 7.)

18. Mr. Barbour identified a letter, dated December 23,

2003, that had been sent by Charles Gauthier, the Chief

Comp rehensive Planner with the Department of Community Affairs

(DCA), to Michael Hansen of the FLWAC. (Tr. 26 - 27; Hearing

Exhibit D.) The letter states that the public and private land

uses proposed within the District are consistent with the

applicable St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, and the DCA has

identified no potential inconsistency with Chapter 163, Florida

Statutes. (Hearing Exhibit D.)

19. The development in which the District will be

established is called Nocatee. (Tr. 28.) Mr. Barbour testi fied

that the land within the Nocatee development is geographically

located in St. Johns and Duval Counties, so there is a need for

two CDDs. (Tr. 28.) A petition to establish the “Split Pine

Community Development District” has been filed for the remaini ng

land within the Nocatee development located in the City of

Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. (Tr. 28.) Mr. Barbour

testified that development will occur over an extended period

and that, in his opinion, a CDD is the best alternative to

provide the long - term stability needed for the construction and

maintenance of the major infrastructure that will serve the

residents within the development. (Tr. 28 - 29.) Mr. Barbour

testified that it is anticipated that the Tolomato Community

Development District, and its sister CDD, the Split Pine

Community Development District, will cooperate in the provision

of various infrastructure improvements. (Tr. 21.) Mr. Barbour

also testified that the CDD has the ability to efficiently

finance the major infrastructure e arlier than might otherwise be

possible. (Tr. 29.) For example, the District has the ability

to finance some of the initial multimillion dollar and

regionally significant transportation improvements in a more

efficient manner than a private landowner. ( Tr. 29 - 30.)

20. Mr. Barbour identified St. Johns County Resolution No.

2001 - 30 and City of Jacksonville Ordinance No. 2001 - 13 - E as the

Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Orders for

the entire project. (Tr. 30.) These approvals were mark ed as

Composite Exhibit F and admitted into evidence. (Tr. 30 - 31.)

21. Mr. Barbour testified that as of the date of the

hearing, Petitioner, SONOC Company, LLC, and Nocatee Utility

Corporation are still the only owners of lands within the

District. (Tr. 30 - 31; 122 - 123.)

22. The next witness for Petitioner was Douglas C. Miller.

Mr. Miller is Chief Executive Officer of England - Thims & Miller.

(Tr. 31 - 33.) Based upon his qualifications, education, and

other credentials, Mr. Miller was accepted as an ex pert in the

field of civil engineering and the provision of public

infrastructure. (Tr. 32 - 33.)

23. Mr. Miller testified that the proposed Tolomato CDD is

the best alternative to provide the proposed services and

facilities and provide long - term maintenan ce. (Tr. 44 - 46.) For

example, more than 4,000 acres of environmental greenway systems

are proposed to be owned, maintained, and operated by the

District. (Tr. 48.) The District is an efficient entity for

the long - term maintenance of perpetual ownership and operation

of this type of active and passive greenway facilities.

(Tr. 48.)

24. Mr. Miller also testified that the CDD has the ability

to efficiently finance the major infrastructure earlier than

might otherwise be possible. (Tr. 44, 49 - 50.) Typi cally,

landowners achieve construction financing for relatively short

terms for relatively small phases of infrastructure. (Tr. 49.)

A three to five - year construction loan is typical, and that

limits the ability of the landowner to construct large

infras tructure improvements at one time. (Tr. 49.) The

advantage of the District is that it is expected to be able to

finance a large piece of infrastructure over 30 years by

accessing the municipal bond market, which will allow it to

build much larger and mor e complete infrastructure systems up

front for the benefit of all the residents within the District.

(Tr. 50.)

25. Mr. Miller identified the parcels of land within the

boundaries of the District that will be excluded from the

District. (Tr. 51 - 52.) One parcel is owned by the Florida

Inland Navigation District that is a dredge spoil site for

dredging the Intracoastal Waterway. (Tr. 51.) One parcel was

donated by SONOC, LLC., to St. Johns County as a park site and

is excluded from the District. (Tr. 51 .) Another parcel of

land contains several residential units to the north of County

Road 210. (Tr. 51.) These outparcels were taken into

consideration when the Nocatee DRI Development Orders were

issued. (Tr. 53.) Nothing about the existence of these

outparcels would affect the ability of the District to provide

the necessary infrastructure in a cost - efficient manner.

(Tr. 53.)

26. A triangular piece of real property extends westward

from a single point of contiguity with the westernmost boundary

of the rest of the proposed District. (Tr. 53; Petition

Exhibit 1.) However, the northern boundary of this triangular

piece of real property abuts land within the boundaries of the

District's sister district “Split Pine,” which will be developed

together w ith land in the Tolomato CDD. (Tr. 54.) Mr. Miller

testified that at least one other established community

development district has a similar shape: the Julington Creek

Plantation Community Development District, also located in St.

Johns County. (Tr. 5 3 - 54.) However, he testified that the

Julington Creek CDD does not adjoin a sister CDD.

27. The next witness for Petitioner was Carey Garland.

Mr. Garland is employed by Fishkind & Associates, as Director of

Public Finance. (Tr. 56.) Based upon his qualifications,

education, and other credentials, Mr. Garland was accepted as an

expert in the field of economic and financial analysis.

(Tr. 57.)

28. Mr. Garland testified that he prepared the SERC.

(Tr. 60.) Mr. Garland testified that, in his expert o pinion,

the District is expected to be financially viable and feasible.

(Tr. 68.)

29. Mr. Garland opined that the establishment of the

District is not inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan

for several reasons. (Tr. 68 - 73.) Establishment of the

District is consistent with Subject Number 17 and Subject Number

20 of the State Comprehensive Plan. (Tr. 69 - 73.) The goal of

Subject Number 17 is the protection of existing public

facilities and the planning and financing of new facilities to

serve resi dents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner.

(Tr. 69.) The District will provide its improvements and

facilities at no capital cost to St. Johns County, which allows

the County to focus its resources on public facilities outside

of the District. (T r. 69 - 70.)

30. Policy 3 of Subject Number 17 of the State

Comprehensive Plan supports the allocation of the costs of new

public facilities on the basis of benefits received by existing

and future residents. (Tr. 70.) The District is being

established f or the specific purpose of serving the future

landowners and residents within its boundaries, whose landowners

and residents will receive the benefits of the new public

facilities. (Tr. 70.) It is these landowners and residents who

will directly bear the costs associated with the construction,

operation, and maintenance of the improvements. (Tr. 70.)

31. Policy 6 of Subject Number 17 provides for the

identification and implementation of innovative, fiscally sound,

and cost - effective methods for financi ng public facilities.

(Tr. 71.) The District will use tax exempt bonds to provide the

improvements and ensure that those who benefit from the

improvements pay for the improvements. (Tr. 71.) The District

provides a consistent, innovative, and fiscally sound

alternative for financing public facilities. (Tr. 71.)

32. The goal of Subject Number 20 is for Florida

government to economically and efficiently provide the amount

and quality of services required by the public. (Tr. 71 - 72.)

The District would finance and deliver its own public facilities

and cooperate with its sister community development district,

the “Split Pine Community Development District,” to efficiently

provide some of the master infrastructure. (Tr. 72.)

33. Policy 2 of Subject Numb er 20 permits the

establishment of independent special taxing districts with

uniform general law standards and procedures that do not

overburden other governments and their taxpayers. (Tr. 72.)

The District is established pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida

Statutes; it is professionally managed, financed, and governed

by those whose property directly receives the benefits of the

improvements; and the District does not burden the general

taxpayer within St. Johns County with the cost to provide

improvements within the District. (Tr. 72 - 73.)

34. Mr. Garland also opined that, from an economic

perspective, the CDD is the best alternative to deliver the

infrastructure to the community in terms of providing low - cost

financing and long - term maintenance. (Tr. 74 - 7 6.)

Establishment of a CDD permits the community to make provisions

for its own infrastructure needs by generally allocating costs

to those persons who obtain a benefit from the services

provided. (Tr. 74 - 75.) There are no other alternatives as

efficien t and effective as a CDD to provide for such a financial

structure. (Tr. 75 - 76.)

35. The last witness for Petitioner was Gary Walters.

Mr. Walters is employed by Gary Walters and Associates, as

President. (Tr. 78.) Based upon his qualifications, educat ion,

and other credentials, Mr. Walters was accepted as an expert in

the field of planning, specifically comprehensive planning, and

district management. (Tr. 79.)

36. Mr. Walters testified that, in his expert opinion, the

area of land to be included in t he District is amenable to

special district governance and that the District is the best

alternative to provide the proposed facilities and services that

the District will need. (Tr. 102 - 103.) The District is better

than other available alternatives, suc h as St. Johns County or

private means with maintenance delegated to a property owners

association, because the District is better able to focus

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

infrastructure will be required. (Tr. 104.) This results in a

full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities

are constructed, which reduces the delivered cost to the

citizens being served. (Tr. 104.)

37. Only a community development district allows for the

independent financing, administration, operation, and

maintenance of the land within the District. (Tr. 105.) Only a

community development district allows district residents to

ultimately control the district board and, through this

representation, the district improvements. (Tr. 105.)

38. M r. Walters testified that, in his expert opinion, the

facilities and services to be provided by the District will be

compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and

regional community development services and facilities.

(Tr. 101 - 102.) There is no duplication of the improvements and

services anticipated to be provided by the District. (Tr. 102.)

No other entity has planned to provide the improvements and

services contemplated by the District. (Tr. 102.) The District

improvements and servic es are a logical and efficient extension

of existing systems into the targeted development area within

the District. (Tr. 101 - 102.)

39. Mr. Walters testified that, in his expert opinion, the

area to be included within the District is of a sufficient size

and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to be developed as

one functional interrelated community. (Tr. 99 - 101.) From a

planning perspective, functional interrelation means that each

community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship to the

other community purposes. (Tr. 99.) Each function must be

designed to contribute to the development or maintenance of the

community as a whole. (Tr. 99 - 100.)

40. The District is sufficient in size to constitute a

functionally interrelated community with a ran ge of improvements

and services to be provided. (Tr. 100.) The District will have

sufficient population density and property size to require all

the basic facilities and services of a community. (Tr. 100.)

There is nothing about the configuration or ou tparcels of the

proposed District that would increase the difficulty of

providing the District improvements. (Tr. 107.) The compact

configuration of the land allows the District to deliver the

proposed construction and perpetual maintenance of any Distri ct

improvements in a long - term and cost - efficient manner.

(Tr. 101.)

41. The District and its sister district, the “Split Pine

Community Development District,” will each have its own Board of

Supervisors, and it is expected that these Boards will enter

in to interlocal agreements to provide common facilities and

serve the common interests of the residents within both

community development districts. (Tr. 107 - 108.) Community

development districts also enter into interlocal agreements with

other kinds of lo cal governments, such as cities and counties,

throughout Florida to provide services and facilities.

(Tr. 108.)

42. Mr. Drayton Manucy, a member of the public, provided

testimony at the public hearing. Mr. Manucy raised certain

questions regarding owne rship of the property in question,

believing the land to have been owned by his ancestors from

Minorca, Spain, and therefore not part of the State of Florida

or the United States of America. (Tr. 55 - 56, 112 - 115; 118 - 119.)

He did not directly object to th e establishment of the District.

Mr. Barbour’s testimony regarding ownership of the property,

together with PLF Exhibit 1 and Composite Hearing Exhibit F,

Ordinance No. 2001 - 13 - E of the City Council of the City of

Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, and Resolution No. 2001 - 30

of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Johns County,

Florida , however, demonstrate that SONOC Company, LLC, and

Nocatee Utility Corporation are the owners of the real property

to be included within the District.

43. Finally, Pub lic Exhibit 1 raises issues with respect

to notice of the proceedings and other matters relating to the

validity of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. Evidence relating to

notice is contained within this Report. The matters raised with

respect to the validit y of Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, are

beyond the scope of this proceeding.

APPLICABLE LAW

A. General

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

the sole means for establishing a CDD of 1,000 acres or more

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

the establishment of a CDD.

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

the petition be filed with the FLWAC. The petition must contain

various elements as set forth in Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida

Stat utes. The petitioner must also meet certain requirements as

set forth in Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

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

county and each municipality whose proposed boundaries are

within or contiguous to the CDD to conduct an optional public

hearing to consider the petition. The St. Johns County

Commission, acknowledging that DOAH would be holding a hearing

in the County, determined not to hold its own optional hearing.

(PLF Exhibit 2, p. 13.) The St. J ohns County Commission asked

that the hearing be held closer to the project, and that request

was accommodated. (PLF Exhibit 2, p. 13; Hearing Exhibit E.)

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

ALJ to conduct a local public hearing pur suant to Chapter 120,

Florida Statutes. The hearing "shall include oral and written

comments on the petition pertinent to the factors specified in

paragraph (e)." The petitioner must publish notice of the local

public hearing once a week for four success ive weeks immediately

prior to the hearing.

B. Factors by Law to be Considered for Granting or

Denying Petition

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

the FLWAC 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), and

the following factors and make a determination to grant or deny

a petition for the establishment of a community development

district:

1. Whethe r 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 of the effective local governmen t

comprehensive plan.

3. Whether the area of land within the proposed

district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is

sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional

interrelated community.

4. Whether the district is the be st 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 that will be served by the

district is amenable to separate special - district government.

COMPARISON OF INFORMATION IN RECORD TO APPLICABLE LAW

A. Pr ocedural Requirements

49. The evidence reflects that Petitioner has satisfied

the procedural requirements for the establishment of the

District 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

50. The evidence is that the statements in the Petition

and its attachments are true and correct. See Tr. 13 - 16

(Barbour); Tr. 38 (Miller); Tr. 60 (Garland).

51. The evidence is that establishment of the District on

the proposed property is not inconsistent with the State

Comprehensive Plan and St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. See

Tr. 68 - 73, 77 (Garland); T r. 92 - 98, 106 (Walters).

52. The evidence is that the size, compactness, and

contiguity of the proposed land area are sufficient for the area

to be developed as "one functional interrelated community." See

Tr. 41 - 42 (Miller); Tr. 99 - 101 (Walters).

53. The evidence is that the District is the best

alternative presently available for delivering community

development systems, facilities, and services to the proposed

land area. See Tr. 28 - 29 (Barbour); Tr. 44 - 46 (Miller); Tr. 74 -

76 (Garland); Tr. 103 - 105 ( Walters).

54. The evidence is that the services and facilities

provided by the District will be compatible with the capacity

and uses of existing local and regional community development

services and facilities. See Tr. 42 - 43 (Miller); Tr. 101 - 102

(Walte rs).

55. The evidence is that the proposed area to be served by

the District is amenable to separate special - district

government. See Tr. 43 (Miller); Tr. 73 (Garland); Tr. 102 - 103

(Walters).

CONCLUSION

Based on the record evidence, the Petition appears to meet

all statutory requirements, and there appears to be no reason

not to grant the Petition and establish the proposed Tolomato

Community Development District by rule. For purposes of

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

propos ed Tolomato Community Development District may be found in

Petition Exhibit 2. Also, the five persons designated to serve

as the initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the

Tolomato Community Development District are identified in

paragraph 5 of th e Petition.

DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Par kway

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 29th day of March, 2004.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Michael P. Hansen, Sec retary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Growth Management and Strategic Planning

The Capitol, Room 2105

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Raquel A. Rodriguez, General Cou nsel

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1001

Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire

Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

Heidi M. Hughes, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Room 325

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2100