06-005318 In Re: Petition Rule Amendment-Tuscany Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, April 19, 2007.

Summary: Petitioner satisfied the statutory criteria to amend the Community Devlopment District`s boundaries by adding 332 acres.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION FOR RULE )

AMENDMENT – TUSCANY )

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ) Case No. 06 - 5318

DISTRICT )

______________________________)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LAND AND

WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statute s, on

March 22, 2007, a local public hearing was conducted by

Donald R. Alexander, Administrative Law Judge with the Division

of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), in Lecanto, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Brian A. Crumbaker, 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 Adjudicatory

Commission (FLWAC) is wheth er to grant the Petition to Amend the

Boundary of the Tuscany Community Development District

(Petition).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petition was filed by the Tuscany Community Development

District (Petitioner or District) on August 25, 2006. It

requested that FLWAC amend the rule (Florida Administrative Code

Rule 42GG - 1.002) to expand the boundary of the District to

include certain property in unincorporated Citrus County,

Florida. The Petition includes eleven exhibits.

FLWAC referred the Petition to DOA H on December 26, 2006,

for assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct a local

public hearing pursuant to Sections 190.046(1)(g) and

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

held on Thursday, March 22, 2007, at the Citrus Co unty Resource

Center, 2804 West Marc Knighton Court, in Lecanto, Florida. At

the local public hearing, Petitioner presented the live and pre -

filed, written testimony of George Flint, employed by

Governmental Management Services – Central Florida, LLC, in

Orlando, Florida; Richard S. Olsen, P.E., employed by

Countryside Engineering, Inc., in Brooksville, Florida; and

Taylor Collins, Chairman of Petitioner's Board of Supervisors.

Petitioner also introduced six exhibits, designated as Exhibits

A through F, w hich are described in the Transcript of the

Record. Three members of the public, Connie Evans, Diane Pugh,

and Duane Taylor, who live in the area, attended the public

hearing and asked several questions but offered no testimony in

opposition to the propos al.

The Transcript of the local public hearing was filed on

April 6, 2007. Petitioner also filed a Proposed Report on

April 6, 2007, which has been considered in the preparation of

this Report. References to Hearing Exhibits are to exhibits

introduced d uring the local public hearing. The exhibits

attached to the Petition are referred to as Petition Exhibits.

SUMMARY OF PETITION AND TESTIMONY

1. The Petition was submitted to FLWAC and the County.

2. The Petition alleges that the land proposed to be

i ncluded in the District is located in an unincorporated portion

of the County. (The existing District lies just northeast of

the community of Beverly Hills, south of the community of

Holder, and north of County Road 486.) Petition Exhibit 1 sets

forth th e general location of the existing District. The

District currently covers approximately 1,378.86 acres of land.

The current metes and bounds description of the external

boundaries of the District is set forth in Petition Exhibit 2.

The metes and bounds description for the land to be added into

the expanded boundary of the District is set forth in Petition

Exhibit 3. Petitioner seeks to expand the boundary of the

District to include an additional 332.07 acres of land

(Expansion Parcels). After amendmen t, the District will

encompass approximately 1,710.93 acres of land. The metes and

bounds description of the proposed District boundary is set

forth in Petition Exhibit 4.

3. The three Expansion Parcels are owned by the Beverly

Hills Development Corporat ion and William H. Cauthen, Trustee of

the R.P. King T187 Land Trust UTD 7/6/87. Documentation of the

consent of the owners of the Expansion Parcels to their

inclusion within the boundary of the District is contained in

Petition Exhibits 5A and 5B, respec tively. The Petition alleges

that the favorable action of the District's Board constitutes

consent for all other lands within the boundary of the District

pursuant to Section 190.046(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

Additionally, Petitioner obtained written cons ent from one

hundred percent of the owners of land within the current

boundary of the District, which was attached as Exhibit A to

Hearing Composite Exhibit B.

4. The future general distribution, location, and extent

of public and private land uses propos ed for the Expansion

Parcels by the Future Land Use Element of the adopted Citrus

County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are shown on Petition

Exhibit 7. Amendment of the boundary of the District in the

manner proposed is not inconsistent with the Plan.

5. Petition Exhibit 8 sets forth the proposed facilities

and services for the Expansion Parcels and outlines the entities

that will finance, own, operate, and maintain such facilities

and services.

6. Petition Exhibit 9 outlines the estimated construction

c osts and timetable for the construction of the improvements to

be constructed within the Expansion Parcels. This information

was supplemented with Exhibit C to Hearing Composite Exhibit B.

7. The Petition incorporates Petition Exhibit 10, a

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), and alleges that

it was prepared in accordance with the requirements of

Section 120.541, Florida Statutes.

8. Hearing Composite Exhibit B alleges that Petitioner

submitted a copy of the Petition and Petition Exhibits to the

County with the required filing fee of $15,000.00 in accordance

with the requirement of Section 190.005(1)(b)1., Florida

Statutes.

9. The Petition alleges that amendment of the boundary of

the District should be granted for the following reasons:

a . Amendment of the District's boundary and

all land uses and services planned within

the District, as amended, are not

inconsistent with applicable elements and

portions of the adopted State Comprehensive

Plan or the effective Citrus County

Comprehensive Plan.

b. The District, as amended, will continue

to be of a sufficient size and sufficiently

compact and contiguous to be developed as

one functional and interrelated community.

c. Amendment of the District will prevent

the general body of taxpayers in Citrus

County, Florida, from bearing the burden for

the installation of the infrastructure and

the maintenance of the described facilities

within the Expansion Parcels. The District

is the best alternative for delivering

community development services and

facilities to the Expansion Parcel[s]

without imposing an additional burden on the

general population of the local general -

purpose government. Amendment of the

District to include such lands w ithin a

comprehensively planned community, as

proposed, allows for a more efficient use of

resources as well as providing an

opportunity for new growth to pay for

itself.

d. The community development services and

facilities of the District, as amended, will

not be incompatible with the capacity and

use of existing local and regional community

development services and facilities. In

addition, the District, as amended, will

provide a perpetual entity capable of making

reasonable provision for the operation and

maintenance of the District services and

facilities for the lands to be included

within the District.

e. The area to be served by the District,

as amended, will continue to be amenable to

separate special - district government.

10. The local public hearing was noticed and held on

Thursday, March 22, 2007, at 11:15 a.m., at the Citrus County

Resource Center, located at 2804 West Marc Knighton Court,

Lecanto, Florida. Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida

Statutes, notice of the public hearing w as advertised on

February 22, March 1, 8, and 15, 2007, in the Citrus County

Chronicle , a newspaper of general paid circulation in the

County, and of general interest and readership in the community,

not one of limited subject matter, pursuant to Chapter 5 0,

Florida Statutes. The notice gave the time and place for the

hearing; a description of the area to be included within the

District, including a map 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. See § 190.005(1)(d), Fla. Stat.

11. Petitioner presented the live and pre - filed, written

testimony of three witnesses at the hearing. Several members of

the public were present at the hearing and made comments and

asked questions which were responded to by Petitioner's

witnesses. None opposed the proposed amendment of the

District's boundary.

12. At the hearing, the P etition and Petitioner's Response

to Notice of Insufficiency and Request for Additional

Information were received into evidence as Hearing Composite

Exhibits A and B, respectively. In addition, the State

Comprehensive Plan codified in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes,

and a copy of the Plan were received into evidence as Hearing

Exhibits C and D, respectively. The original proof of

publication of the notice of public hearing from the Citrus

County Chronicle was received in evidence as Hearing Exhibit E.

Fin ally, the written, pre - filed testimony of Taylor Collins,

George Flint, and Richard S. Olsen, P.E., along with the

original affidavits of each, adopting their written, pre - filed

testimony were admitted into evidence as Hearing Composite

Exhibit F. Mr. Ols en clarified one statement on page two, lines

one and two, of his written, pre - filed testimony. That

clarification indicated that the reference to $12,210,000 in the

second line of page two was referring to the cost of the

infrastructure for the Killarney Community Development District

in Hernando County, of which he had previous experience, and not

the cost of the District's infrastructure. No other changes to

the written, pre - filed testimony were made.

13. Mr. Collins, who is employed by Crown Parrish, a real

estate developer, and is the current Chairman of the Board of

Supervisors for the District, identified and described Petition

Exhibits 1 though 11. He noted that, pursuant to a request

received from FLWAC, the District supplemented the Petition wi th

consent and joinder of landowners within the existing boundary

of the District, a revised exhibit identifying water mains,

sewer interceptors, and outfalls, and an updated good faith

estimate of the construction costs and timetable for

construction. Th ese exhibits were attached to Mr. Collins'

written testimony as TC - 1 through TC - 3, respectively.

14. Mr. Collins testified that the existing District is

approximately 1,378.86 acres. He also stated that the current

owners of the land proposed to be adde d to the District are the

Beverly Hills Development Corporation and William H. Cauthen, as

Trustee of the R.P. King T187 Land Trust UTD 7/6/87. The

witness further testified that the 332.07 - acre tract of land

proposed to be added to the District was not p art of the

original petition to establish the District because the original

petitioner did not own the property at the time. Mr. Collins

stated that subsequent to the establishment of the District, the

entity developing the property acquired title to the tracts

consisting of the 332.07 acres of land. Mr. Collins further

stated that the addition of this land within the boundary of the

District will facilitate community integration.

15. Finally, Mr. Collins testified that the proposed

boundary amendment accomplishes community integration, makes the

District's boundaries consistent with the current development

plan, and has no impact on the District's abilities to fulfill

its obligations to its residents and third parties.

16. George Flint, who is curren tly employed by

Governmental Management Services - Central Florida, LLC, also

testified on behalf of Petitioner. His firm provides district

management and financial consulting services to community

development districts, including the District, and other fo rms

of special taxing districts throughout the State of Florida.

17. Reiterating the points made by Mr. Collins, Mr. Flint

also testified that the District is petitioning to add the

newly - acquired land because Petitioner did not own the land when

the or iginal District was established. Mr. Flint stated that

the addition of the Expansion Parcels will facilitate community

integration.

18. Mr. Flint testified that, within the boundaries of the

proposed additional 332.07 - acre tract of land, the District

pr esently plans to construct, acquire, or install roadways, a

stormwater management system, landscaping, irrigation and entry

improvements, recreational amenities, and a water/wastewater

system.

19. Mr. Flint testified that he is familiar with Petition

Exh ibits 1 through 5 and 11 and that they are true and correct

to his knowledge. Mr. Flint states that Petition Exhibit 1 is a

map depicting the general location of the District; Petition

Exhibit 2 is a current metes and bounds description of the

external bo undary of the District; Petition Exhibit 3 is a metes

and bounds description of the land to be added to the District;

Petition Exhibit 4 is the metes and bounds description of the

proposed new District; Petition Exhibits 5A and 5B are consent

and joinder o f the owners of one hundred percent of the land to

be added to the District; and Petition Exhibit 11 is an

authorization naming Brian Crumbaker, Esquire, to act as agent

for the District during the boundary amendment process.

20. Mr. Flint testified that on August 25, 2006, the

District filed one original and twelve copies of the Petition

and exhibits with FLWAC. He further stated that the District

tendered ten copies of the Petition to the County along with the

required filing fee of $1,500.00 prior to the time the Petition

was filed with FLWAC. The filing fee was supplemented by the

Petitioner bringing the total filing fee to $15,000.00. He also

testified that FLWAC determined that the Petition was complete

and referred the Petition to the District's Board of Supervisors

to conduct the local public hearing required by Section 190.005

and 190.046, Florida Statutes. A copy of the correspondence was

attached to Mr. Flint's testimony as GF - 1.

21. Mr. Flint testified that the District arranged for

newspap er notice of the hearing scheduled by the Board of

Supervisors to be published in the Citrus County Chronicle ,

which is a newspaper of general circulation in the County, in

each of the four consecutive weeks immediately preceding the

hearing. Mr. Flint st ated that the dates of publication were

February 22, March 1, March 8, and March 15, 2007. As noted

above, the original proof of publication from the Citrus County

Chronicle was received in evidence as Hearing Exhibit E.

22. Mr. Flint testified that FLW AC published a Notice of

Receipt of Petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly . A

copy of this Notice was attached to Mr. Flint's testimony as

GF - 2.

23. Mr. Flint also testified that the County elected not

to hold any additional public hearings or p ublish any additional

notices regarding the District's Petition to amend its

boundaries.

24. Mr. Flint testified that FLWAC notified the Department

of Community Affairs (DCA) by correspondence dated December 22,

2006, of the Petition filed by the Distric t. A copy of this

correspondence was attached to Mr. Flint's testimony as GF - 3.

25. Mr. Flint reported that the DCA responded to FLWAC by

letter dated January 9, 2007, regarding the Petition. A copy of

this correspondence was attached to Mr. Flint's tes timony as

GF - 4.

26. Mr. Flint testified that the proposed amended District

is the best alternative available to provide the proposed

community development services and facilities to the Expansion

Parcels.

27. Mr. Flint testified that the amended Distr ict is of

sufficient size and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to be

developable as one functionally - interrelated community.

28. Mr. Flint testified that the services and facilities

provided by the amended District are compatible with the uses

and existing local and regional facilities because the

District's facilities and services within the amended boundaries

will not duplicate any available regional services of

facilities.

29. Mr. Flint testified that the amended Di strict is

amenable to being served by separate special district government

because the District will provide an efficient mechanism to

oversee the installation of capital improvements necessary for

the Expansion Parcels.

30. Mr. Flint testified that the District is the best

available alternative for delivering community services and

facilities to the Expansion Parcels because the District exceeds

other available alternatives at focusing attention on when, how,

and where the next system of infrastructure will be needed to

service the projected population within the District. Mr. Flint

further testified that this results in full utilization of

existing facilities before new facilities are constructed, which

reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served.

31. Mr. Flint went on to testify that he prepared the SERC

attached to the Petition as Exhibit 10, and that the SERC is

true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

32. Mr. Flint testified that the District is a special -

purpose unit of local government with a single objective: the

provision of infrastructure and services for a planned

community. Mr. Flint testified that because of this, the

District's economic benefits exceed its economic costs to all

affected parties.

33. Mr. Flint testi fied that based on his experience with

other districts, the amended District is expected to be

financially viable and feasible.

34. Mr. Flint testified that from an economic perspective,

the proposed amended District is not inconsistent with the State

Co mprehensive Plan codified in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes.

Mr. Flint indicated that two subjects of that Plan are

particularly relevant, Subject 17 - Public Facilities and Subject

20 - Governmental Efficiency, and that the amended District was

not inconsiste nt with either subject.

35. Mr. Flint opined that the amendment of the District's

boundary is consistent with all applicable elements or portions

of the effective and current Plan.

36. Finally, Mr. Flint testified that the amended District

is the best al ternative available for providing the District

development services to the area to be added to the District.

This is because the District generally restricts costs to those

who benefit from the District services provided, and the use of

non - ad valorem ass essments and maintenance assessments to fund

the infrastructure and facilities ensures that the property

receiving the benefit of the District service is the same

property to pay for those services.

37. Petitioner's final witness, Mr. Olsen, a profession al

engineer, testified that the proposed development within the

District is part of an approved Development of Regional Impact.

He further stated that, although the District's boundary will be

expanded as a result of the proposed amendment, the

infrastruc ture proposed to be financed and constructed by the

District will continue to support the development of 5,396

single and multi - family residential units; 400 life care center

units; 400,000 square feet of business/commercial/office space;

and 41,368 square feet of community/neighborhood facilities.

Mr. Olsen testified that the number and types of units planned

for development within the District will not change as a result

of the addition of the lands to be incorporated in the

District's boundaries.

38. Mr. Olsen testified that during his involvement with

the District, he has made numerous field visits to the site and

has been involved in the design of several development

infrastructure systems for various areas within the District.

39. Mr. Olsen testifi ed that Petition Exhibits 8 and 9

were prepared, partially or in their entirety, by his firm or

under his supervision. He stated that these exhibits are true

and correct to the best of his knowledge and required no changes

or corrections at that time. Mr . Olsen identified Petition

Exhibit 8 as a chart setting forth the improvements and

facilities the District intends to construct, acquire, install,

or provide for the land to be added to the District. He stated

that Petition Exhibit 9 is a chart showing t he estimated

construction costs of the facilities the District intends to

construct, acquire, install, or provide in the parcel to be

added to the District.

40. Mr. Olsen testified that with the net expansion of

332.07 acres, the District is still of suf ficient size,

compactness, and contiguity to be developed as a functional

interrelated community.

41. Mr. Olsen testified that the services and facilities

to be provided to the Expansion Parcels by the District are not

incompatible with the capacities an d existing uses of existing

local and regional community facilities and services. He also

noted that there is no one else presently providing the services

and facilities to the Expansion Parcels.

42. Mr. Olsen testified that the District is the best

alt ernative to provide community development services and

facilities to the area to be incorporated into the District

because the District will be capable of efficiently financing

and overseeing the construction of the necessary capital

improvements. Mr. Ols en added that as a unit of special - purpose

government, the District is more effective than typical property

owners associations and that the land to be added to the

District will benefit from the fact that the District is up and

running.

43. Finally, Mr. Olsen testified that he believes that the

area to be included within the District is amenable to being

served by separate special district government because the

District will constitute an effective mechanism for providing

the necessary capital improveme nts to the land to be

incorporated into the District, and the District provides a

mechanism whereby long - term maintenance obligations can be

satisfied by persons actually using the facilities and services.

APPLICABLE LAW

A. General

44. Section 190.046 (1)(a) - (g), Florida Statutes, provides

the means for amending the boundaries of a community development

district of 1,000 acres or more that has been established by a

rule adopted by FLWAC.

45. Section 190.046(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that

petiti ons to amend the boundaries of a district which exceed the

amount of land specified in Section 190.046(1)(f), Florida

Statutes, that is, which add "more than a total of 250 acres,"

shall be considered petitions to establish a new district and

shall follow all procedures specified in Section 190.005,

Florida Statutes. Because the amendment here adds 332.07 acres,

the procedures in the latter statute must be followed.

46. Pursuant to Section 190.046(1)(a), Florida Statutes,

when the expansion of a district' s boundaries is sought, the

petition shall contain the same information required by

Sections 190.005(1)(a)1. and 8., Florida Statutes.

Specifically, the petition must provide a metes and bounds

description of the area to be serviced by the district with a

specific description of the real property to be included in the

district. The petition must also contain a SERC and describe

the proposed timetable for construction of any district services

to the area, the estimated cost of constructing the proposed

se rvices, and the designation of the future general

distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of

land proposed for the area by the future land use plan element

of the adopted local government comprehensive plan.

47. Section 190.046(1)(e) , Florida Statutes, requires the

written consent of all the landowners whose land is to be added

within the boundaries of the district. Pursuant to that

provision, the filing of the Petition by the District's Board

constitutes consent of the landowners wi thin the District other

than of the landowners whose land is proposed to be included

within the District. The Beverly Hills Development Corporation

and William H. Cauthen, Trustee of the R.P. King T187 Land Trust

UTD 7/6/87, are the owners of the lands to be added to the

District, and consents from both parties were provided. This

consent was supplemented with the consent of the owners of one

hundred percent of the lands within the existing District

boundary in response to a request received from FLWAC.

4 8. Pursuant to a request from FLWAC for additional

information, Petitioner provided: (a) the information required

by Section 190.005(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes, regarding excluded

real property within the District; (b) written consent to amend

the boundari es from one hundred percent of the landowners whose

real property is to be included in the amended boundaries and

evidence of ownership and consent by the existing landowners;

(c) the names of the five persons who will serve on the Board of

Supervisors, as required by Section 190.005(1)(a)3., Florida

Statutes; (d) a map of the proposed District showing major trunk

water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls in existence, as

required by Section 190.005(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes; (e) the

proposed timetabl e for construction of district services and the

estimated cost of constructing those services pursuant to

Section 190.005(1)(a)6., Florida Statutes; and (f) evidence of

compliance with Section 190.005(1)(a)8.(b)1., Florida Statutes,

pertaining to the payme nt of a filing fee to the County.

49. Section 190.046(1)(d)1., Florida Statutes, states that

a petition to amend the boundaries of a district initially

established by administrative rule pursuant to Section

190.005(1), Florida Statutes, shall be filed with FLWAC. On

August 25, 2006, Petitioner filed with FLWAC one original and

twelve copies of the Petition and attached Exhibits.

50. Section 190.046(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes, requires

that a petitioner provide a copy of the boundary amendment

petition and the requisite $1,500.00 filing fee to the county

and to each municipality whose proposed boundary is within or

contiguous to the district prior to filing the boundary

amendment petition with FLWAC. Petitioner submitted copies of

the Petition with the Petition Exhibits and the filing fee to

the County on August 24, 2006, prior to the time the Petition

was filed with FLWAC. In compliance with a request of FLWAC,

Petitioner submitted an additional payment in the amount of

$13,500.00 to the County, for a total of $15,000.00.

51. Section 190.046(1)(d)3., Florida Statutes, permits the

local general - purpose governments described in the preceding

paragraph to conduct a public hearing on the boundary amendment

petition. However, such public hearing is limited to

consideration of the contents of the Petition. These local

government entities may then present resolutions to FLWAC

expressing their support of, or opposition to, the boundary

amendment petition. In this case, the County opted not to hold

a public h earing or adopt a resolution regarding the amendment

of the boundary of the District.

B. Factors by Law to be Considered for Granting or Denying

Petition

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

FLWAC must consider the entire record of the local public

hearing, the transcript of the hearing, any resolutions adopted

by local general - purpose governments as provided in Section

190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and the following factors to

make a determination to grant or deny a petition for the

amendment of the boundary of a district:

1. Whether all statements contained within

the petition have been found to be true and

correct;

2. Whether the amendment of the boundary of

the district is inconsistent with any

applicable element or portio n of the state

comprehensive plan or of the effective local

government comprehensive plan;

3. Whether the amended district is still of

sufficient size, is still sufficiently

compact, and is still sufficiently

contiguous to continue to be developable as

o ne functional interrelated community;

4. Whether the district is still the best

alternative available for delivering

community development services and

facilities to the area to be included within

the boundary of the district and that will

continue to be served by the district;

5. Whether the community development

services and facilities that will continue

to be provided by the district will be

incompatible with the capacity and uses of

existing local and regional community

development services and faci lities; and

6. Whether the area that will continue to

be served by the district is still amenable

to separate special - district government.

COMPARISON OF RECORD TO APPLICABLE LAW

A. Procedural Requirements

53. The evidence indicates that Petitioner has satisfied

the procedural requirements for the amendment of the boundary of

the District by filing the Petition and Supplement in the proper

form with the required attachments, by tendering the requisite

filing fee to each local government, and by publishi ng statutory

notice of the local public hearing.

B . Six Factors of Section 190.005(1)(e)1. - 6., Florida Statutes

54. The evidence was that the statements in the Petition

and its attachments, as supplemented, are true and correct.

55. The evidence was that the amendment of the boundary of

the District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or

portion of the State and local government comprehensive plans.

56. The evidence was that the District, with the addition

of the land proposed to be added into the amended boundary of

the District, is still of sufficient size, is still sufficiently

compact, and is still sufficiently contiguous to continue to be

developable as "one functional interrelated community."

57. The evidence was that the District i s still the best

alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities to the area to be included within the

boundary of the District and that will be served by the

District.

58. The evidence was that the District is the best

alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities to the area to be included within the

boundary of the District.

59. The evidence was that the community development

services and facilities that will continue to be provide d by the

District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of

existing local and regional community development services and

facilities.

60. The evidence was that the area that will continue to

be served by the District is still amenable to sep arate special -

district government.

CONCLUSION

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

"shall 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 subparagraphs 1.

through 6. 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 to Amend the Boundaries of the

Tuscany Community Developme nt District by rule. For purposes of

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

revised boundary of the Tuscany Community Development District

may be found in Petition Exhibit 4.

DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2007, in

Tall ahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 967 5

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 19th day of April, 2007.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Jerry McDaniel, Secretary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

The Capitol, Room 1801

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Office of Policy and Budget

Executive Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 1801

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Paul C. Hu ck, Jr., General Counsel

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Shaw P. Stiller, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2160

Brian A. Crumbaker, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526