07-000579
In Re: Petition To Establish The Braddock Community Development District vs.
*
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, May 25, 2007.
Recommended Order on Friday, May 25, 2007.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8IN RE: PETITION TO ESTABLISH ) ) Case No. 07-0579
18THE BRADOCK COMMUNITY )
22DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT )
25REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LAND AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION
34Pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, a
41local public hearing was conducted on April 19, 2007, by Charles
52A. Stampelos, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of
61Administrative Hearings (DOAH), at City Hall, St. James,
69Committee Room B, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida.
78The hearing was conducted for the purpose of taking
87testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the
96Petition of Crosswinds-Florida, LLC (Petitioner), to establish
103the Braddock Community Development District (District). This
110Report of the public hearing and the hearing record is made for
122the consideration of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
131Commission (Commission) in its determination whether to adopt a
140rule to establish the proposed District.
146APPEARANCE
147For Petitioner: Chasity H. O'Steen, Esquire
153Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP
1582548 Blairstone Pines Drive
162Tallahassee, Florida 32301
165STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
169The issues to be addressed are whether the Petition to
179establish the District meets the criteria set forth in Section
189190.005, Florida Statutes, and whether the hearing process has
198been conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section
207190.005, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code
214Chapter 42-1.
216PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
218On January 4, 2007, Petitioner filed its Petition to
227establish the District with the Secretary of the Commission.
236Petitioner provided a copy of the Petition and its attachments,
246along with the requisite filing fee, to the City of Jacksonville
257(City). A copy of the Petition that was filed with the
268Commission, including its attachments as amended and revised,
276was received into evidence as Composite Hearing Exhibit 1.
285On January 31, 2007, the Clerk of the Commission certified
295that the Petition contained all required elements and forwarded
304the Petition to DOAH for the purpose of holding the local public
316hearing required under Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
323Petitioner published notice of the local public hearing in
332accordance with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
338The land to be included within the proposed District is
348located entirely within the boundaries of the City. Section
357190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that the county and
365the municipality containing all or a portion of the lands within
376the proposed District have the option to hold a public hearing
387within 45 days of the filing of a petition. The City opted not
400to hold a hearing.
404At the local public hearing held on April 19, 2007,
414Petitioner presented the testimony of Jock McCartney, vice
422president and an independent contractor of Petitioner; William
430B. Moriarty, an expert in civil engineering; Stephen J. Stewart,
440an expert in state and local comprehensive planning; and Darrin
450S. Mossing, an expert in community development district
458operations and management and financial analysis. Petitioner's
465Exhibits 1 through 14 were received into evidence at the
475hearing.
476In addition to Petitioner's counsel and witnesses, one
484person, Francine Edwards, a member of the public, attended and
494posed a question during the public hearing.
501After the close of the public hearing, the record was left
512open for ten days for submittal of written comments from the
523public in support of or in opposition to the Petition, as
534allowed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 42-1.012. No
542written comments from the public were submitted to DOAH.
551On April 30, 2007, Petitioner filed written supplemental
559testimony of Darrin Mossing with DOAH, along with an affidavit
569adopting Mr. Mossing's written supplemental testimony.
575Mr. Mossing's Affidavit is admitted into evidence as Exhibit 15.
585On May 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to
596late-file correspondence received that day from the Northeast
604Florida Regional Planning Council (Planning Council) indicating
611that it had completed its review of the application (Petition)
621and found it appeared to be consistent with the proposed
631development plan included in the Development of Regional Impact
640(DRI) application. Petitioner's motion for leave to late-file
648correspondence is granted and the motion and e-mail
656correspondence are admitted into evidence as Exhibit 16.
664SUMMARY OF THE HEARING AND RECORD
670A summary of the evidence presented is outlined below using
680headings which are the factors to be considered by the
690Commission in making a determination whether to grant or deny
700the Petition. § 190.005(1)(e)1.-6., Fla. Stat.
706A. Whether all statements contained within the
713Petition have been found to be true and correct.
7221. Mr. McCartney stated that he had reviewed the contents
732of the Petition and generally described the attachments to the
742Petition. Mr. McCartney stated that Petition Exhibits 1 through
75111 and 13 were prepared under his supervision. Mr. McCartney
761stated that the Petition and its attachments, as revised and
771filed with the Commission and admitted into evidence as
780Composite Hearing Exhibit 1, are true and correct to the best of
792his knowledge.
7942. Mr. McCartney stated that Exhibit 5 to the Petition is
805a true and correct copy of the consent and joinder form that was
818executed by the authorized representative of the owner of one-
828hundred percent of the lands within the proposed District.
837Mr. McCartney stated that Exhibit 4 to the Petition accurately
847identifies the location and provides a metes and bounds
856description, along with a list of the owners' names and
866addresses, of parcels located within the boundaries of the
875proposed District that will be excluded from the proposed
884District. According to Mr. McCartney, the owners of the
893excluded parcels have not expressed a desire to be included
903within the proposed District.
9073. Mr. McCartney stated that the names of the five persons
918designated to serve as the initial Board of Supervisors of the
929proposed District are: Albert Valdivia, Kathleen Davis, Shaina
937Roth, Diana Richard, and himself.
9424. Mr. Moriarty, an expert in civil engineering, stated
951that he had prepared, or others under his supervision had
961prepared, Petition Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. Mr.
975Moriarty stated that those exhibits, as revised, are true and
985correct.
9865. Mr. Mossing, an expert in the field in Community
996Development District (CDD) operations and management and
1003financial analysis, stated that he had reviewed the Petition and
1013its attachments. Mr. Mossing stated that his firm prepared
1022Exhibit 12 to the Petition, the Statement of Estimated
1031Regulatory Costs (SERC), as amended, that had been filed with
1041the Commission on March 14, 2007. He further stated that Table
10521 on page five of the SERC had been subsequently revised as
1064reflected in the SERC attached to his prefiled testimony as
1074Exhibit DM-1.
10766. The evidence indicates that the Petition and its
1085exhibits, as modified, are true and correct. No statement
1094within the Petition or its attachments was disputed.
1102B. Whether the establishment of the District is
1110inconsistent with any applicable element or portion
1117of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective
1126local government comprehensive plan.
11307. Mr. McCartney testified that the property within the
1139proposed District is located within the proposed Timucuan DRI.
1148Several other entities owning property within the proposed
1156Timucuan DRI have filed petitions to establish CDDs over that
1166property. These CDDs include the (1) Timucuan South CDD, (2)
1176Timucuan CDD, and (3) Timucuan Preserve CDD.
11838. Mr. Stewart, an expert in the field of state and local
1195comprehensive planning, explained that the Timucuan DRI is in
1204the second sufficiency phase and is expected to be approved in
1215early June 2007, and prior to final action by the Commission to
1227consider the establishment of the proposed District.
12349. Mr. Stewart reviewed provisions of the State
1242Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, applicable to
1250the establishment of a CDD. Mr. Stewart stated that there are
1261subjects of the State Comprehensive Plan that are particularly
1270relevant to the establishment of the proposed District, as well
1280as the policies supporting those subjects.
128610. According to Mr. Stewart, Subject 15, "Land Use,"
1295emphasizes that development should be located in those areas
1304that have the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate
1314growth. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed District will
1323have the fiscal ability to provide services and facilities
1332within the development. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed
1341District is consistent with Policy 1 of Subject 15 because the
1352proposed District is a long-term, stable mechanism with the
1361ability to provide a high quality of infrastructure facilities
1370and services in an efficient and focused manner to the
1380community.
138111. According to Mr. Stewart, Subject 25, "Plan
1389Implementation," requires the integration of systematic planning
1396capabilities into all levels of government, with particular
1404emphasis on improving intergovernmental coordination and
1410maximizing citizen involvement. Mr. Stewart testified that the
1418proposed District is consistent with this element of the State
1428Comprehensive Plan because it will have the ability to finance,
1438construct, operate, maintain and own, in some cases, the
1447proposed services and facilities, though it will be subject to
1457the local government comprehensive plan and land development
1465regulations. Additionally, Mr. Stewart testified that the
1472proposed District will be governed by a Board of Supervisors,
1482whose meetings are publicly advertised and open to the public to
1493ensure citizen involvement in the decisions of the proposed
1502District. Further, Mr. Stewart testified that establishment of
1510the proposed District will enhance governmental coordination
1517with the City.
152012. Mr. Stewart also testified that the proposed District
1529is consistent with Policy 2 of Subject 25 because the
1539establishment of the proposed District will ensure that
1547necessary community services and facilities are provided within
1555the development without placing a burden on the City or the
1566taxpayers in the City.
157013. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed District is
1579consistent with Policy 3 of Subject 25 because the establishment
1589of the proposed District, as an independent special district,
1598would be required by Section 189.415(2), Florida Statutes, to
1607submit public facilities reports and annual updates. Mr.
1615Stewart also testified that the proposed District would be
1624required by Sections 190.002(2)(c) and 190.004(3), Florida
1631Statutes, to comply with all applicable governmental laws, rules
1640and regulations.
164214. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed District is
1651consistent with Policy 6 of Subject 25 because CDDs hold public
1662meetings that operate "in the sunshine," all CDD records are
1672open to the public for review and this would encourage citizen
1683participation in the activities of the proposed District.
169115. Mr. Stewart testified that the proposed District is
1700consistent with Policy 8 of Subject 25 because it would enhance
1711cooperation between the City and the private sector for the
1721provision of community infrastructure improvements and services.
172816. Mr. Stewart also explained how the establishment of
1737the proposed District would further additional provisions of the
1746State Comprehensive Plan. Subject 9 relates to the expansion of
1756state and local efforts to provide activity-based recreational
1764opportunities to urban areas. Mr. Stewart testified that the
1773establishment of the proposed District would further Subject 9
1782because it can provide funding assistance for activity-based
1790recreational opportunities.
179217. Mr. Stewart also testified that the establishment of
1801the proposed District would further the goals and policies of
1811Subject 17 because it would: (1) protect investments in
1820existing facilities; (2) provide financing for new facilities;
1828(3) ensure that the costs of new public facilities are allocated
1839on the basis of the benefits received by the future residents of
1851the District; (4) implement innovative but fiscally sound
1859financing techniques for the public facilities; and (5) identify
1868and use stable revenue sources for financing public facilities.
187718. Mr. Stewart testified that the establishment of the
1886proposed District is not inconsistent with any applicable
1894provisions of the City of Jacksonville Local Comprehensive Plan
1903(Local Comprehensive Plan). According to Mr. Stewart, the
1911proposed District will: (1) undergo review and approval for all
1921permitting and construction of the underlying development within
1929the proposed District; (2) potentially enter into interlocal
1937agreements with the City to coordinate the construction,
1945maintenance and management of the proposed District
1952improvements; (3) provide the required infrastructure within its
1960boundaries without using the fiscal resources of the City or
1970decreasing the City's bonding limits; and (4) provide the needed
1980public facilities in an efficient and cost-effective manner that
1989will ensure a strong cost-to-benefit ratio. This is consistent
1998with the North Jacksonville Shared Vision and Master Plan.
2007Mr. McCartney also testified that the establishment of the
2016proposed District will facilitate the funding for and
2024construction of Braddock Parkway, a road of regional
2032significance that is anticipated by the North Jacksonville
2040Shared Vision and Master Plan.
204519. Finally, Mr. Stewart stated that, in completing the
2054above-referenced actions, the proposed District furthers Goal 1
2062of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Objective 1.2 and
2070Policy 1.2.2. of the Capital Improvements Element, and Objective
20791.2 and Policy 1.2.7 of the Future Land Use Element of the Local
2092Comprehensive Plan.
209420. The Commission requested that the Department of
2102Community Affairs (Department) review the Petition. In the
2110letter dated February 13, 2007, the Department stated that the
2120proposed District is inconsistent with the provisions of Section
2129163, Part II, Florida Statutes, until the proposed DRI and
2139associated land use change are approved and in effect. The
2149Department recommended that final action on the proposed
2157District be deferred until the DRI project and the associated
2167land use change are approved and become effective. The
2176Department did not allege any inconsistency with either the
2185Local or State Comprehensive Plan.
219021. Mr. Stewart testified that he does not agree with the
2201recommendation of the Department because the Department has not
2210concluded that establishment of the proposed District would be
2219inconsistent with either the State Comprehensive Plan or the
2228Local Comprehensive Plan, which is the statutory factor in
2237Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
224122. Mr. Stewart testified that the status of the DRI does
2252not affect his opinion as to whether the establishment of the
2263proposed District is inconsistent with any portion or element of
2273the State Comprehensive Plan or the Local Comprehensive Plan.
2282Instead, Mr. Stewart stated that in determining whether to grant
2292a petition for the establishment of the proposed District, the
2302statutory criterion in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes,
2309requires that the Commission consider whether the establishment
2317of the proposed District is inconsistent with any applicable
2326element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or Local
2336Comprehensive Plan. This is a narrower question than whether
2345the underlying development plan for lands to be served by the
2356proposed District is consistent with Section 163, Part II,
2365Florida Statutes.
236723. Section 190.002(2)(d), Florida Statutes, states that
2374any matter concerning permitting or planning of the development
2383is not material or relevant to the process of establishing a
2394CDD. The decision of the Commission may be based only on
2405factors material to managing and financing the service-delivery
2413function of the proposed District.
241824. Section 190.002(3), Florida Statutes, states that the
2426establishment of a CDD is not a development order within the
2437meaning of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which in this case
2447means that the lands to be served by the proposed District is
2459governed by all applicable planning and permitting laws, rules,
2468regulations and policies of the State and the City. Thus, Mr.
2479Stewart testified that the establishment of the proposed
2487District will have no impact upon whether the DRI is approved
2498and any development activity of the proposed District will be
2508subject to the planning and permitting, rules, regulations and
2517policies of the State and the City. If no "development permit,
2528as defined in Chapter 380," is approved within five years, the
2539district will be dissolved as a matter of law. § 190.046(7),
2550Fla. Stat.
255225. In his supplemental written testimony, Mr. Mossing
2560identified several CDDs and an independent special district that
2569have been established prior to the completion of a DRI or
2580related entitlement proceeding. One example provided by Mr.
2588Mossing is the establishment of the Timucuan South CDD, which is
2599located within the proposed Timucuan DRI and was established by
2609the City on March 13, 2007. Exhibit 15. Establishment of the
2620Timucuan South CDD prior to the completion of the DRI process
2631for the underlying land within the DRI is evidence that the City
2643has determined that the establishment of that district is not
2653inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan or the Local
2662Comprehensive Plan. Further, in Exhibit 3 to the City's
2671Ordinance Establishing the Timucuan South CDD, the City's
2679Planning and Development Department (City department) report to
2687the Jacksonville City Council regarding the Timucuan South CDD
2696contains the City department's conclusion that the establishment
2704of that CDD would be consistent with any applicable element or
2715portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the Local
2725Comprehensive Plan.
272726. Mr. Mossing cited to the Westchester Community
2735Development District No. 1 as another example. It was
2744established by St. Lucie County in 2001, well in advance of the
2756approval of the Westchester DRI in 2003, and the amendments to
2767the Local Comprehensive Plan that were necessary to effectuate
2776the development plan for those lands. Mr. Mossing further
2785stated that St. Lucie County had determined that establishing
2794that district prior to the amendment of the Local Comprehensive
2804Plan and in advance of the DRI approvals and changes would not
2816result in an inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan or
2826the Local Comprehensive Plan.
283027. Mr. Mossing also stated that the Commission has
2839established a CDD in advance of the receipt of DRI approvals.
2850In 2004, the Commission established the Coastal Lake CDD. In
2860that instance, though the Planned Unit Development approval had
2869been received for the land within that proposed district, DRI
2879approval for the Watersound DRI had not been completed when the
2890district was established.
289328. The Lakewood Ranch Stewardship District was also cited
2902by Mr. Mossing as an independent special district that was
2912established recently by the Legislature in the Chapter 2005-338,
2921Laws of Florida. The district was established pursuant to
2930Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, for the financing of
2938infrastructure, and Section 189.404(2)(e)4., Florida Statutes,
2944required that each affected local government determine that the
2953establishment of the district is consistent with the applicable
2962local comprehensive plan. Both local jurisdictions supported
2969establishment of the district.
297329. The Commission also requested that the Planning
2981Council provide comments to the Commission no later than
2990February 21, 2007, regarding the establishment of the proposed
2999District. On May 2, 2007, Petitioner filed with DOAH a motion
3010to late-file correspondence consisting of an e-mail message from
3019the Planning Council to the Commission that was received by the
3030Commission on May 1, 2007, and which the Commission forwarded to
3041Petitioner on May 2, 2007.
304630. In the e-mail, Ed Lehman, the Planning Council's
3055Director of Planning and Development, stated that application
3063(Petition) appeared to be consistent with the proposed
3071development plan included in the proposed DRI application.
3079Mr. Lehman also emphasized that construction of Braddock
3087Parkway, an improvement to be constructed in part by the
3097proposed District, is of major importance to the City and the
3108region. This is consistent with the critical nature of the
3118improvement as noted in the North Jacksonville Shared Vision and
3128Master Plan.
313031. The evidence indicates that the proposed District will
3139not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of
3149the State Comprehensive Plan or the Local Comprehensive Plan.
3158The City has already found this to be the case for the
3170established Timucuan South CDD. Establishment of CDDs or other
3179special districts prior to the implementation of a DRI, while
3189not apparently the norm, appears to be consistent with prior
3199CDDs.
3200C. Whether the area of land within the proposed
3209District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently
3216compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be
3223developable as one functional interrelated
3228community.
322932. Testimony on this factor was provided by Mr. Mossing,
3239Mr. Moriarty, and Mr. Stewart. According to Mr. Mossing, from a
3250management perspective the area to be included within the
3259proposed District has sufficient size and is sufficiently
3267compact and contiguous to be developed with infrastructure
3275systems, facilities and service as one functionally interrelated
3283community.
328433. According to Mr. Moriarty, the proposed District,
3292which encompasses approximately 2,346 acres of land, is
3301sufficient in size to require substantial infrastructure needs
3309that are suitable for development as a functionally interrelated
3318community. Mr. Moriarty further explained that the proposed
3326District can provide the necessary infrastructure in a cost-
3335effective manner based on the design of the community.
3344Mr. Moriarty concluded that the use of one development plan for
3355the community will ensure that the services and facilities are
3365provided and maintained in a functional, efficient and
3373integrated manner.
337534. Mr. Stewart stated that the land area to be included
3386within the proposed District can be expected to succeed as a
3397functional, interrelated community from a planning perspective
3404because the services and facilities for the lands within the
3414proposed District will not be hampered by significant barriers
3423or spatial problems. Mr. Stewart noted that the proposed
3432District will be providing limited services and facilities, so
3441from a planning perspective the relatively small planned
3449community character of the proposed District is a good match for
3460the limited services and facilities. Mr. Stewart concluded that
3469the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently
3478compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to serve as one
3487functional, interrelated community.
349035. The evidence indicates that the land to be included in
3501the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently
3510compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a
3520single functionally interrelated community.
3524D. Whether the proposed District is the best
3532alternative available for delivering community
3537development services and facilities to the area
3544that will be served by the District.
355136. Mr. Mossing stated that the proposed District is the
3561best alternative for delivering community services and
3568facilities to the area that it will serve.
357637. Mr. Mossing identified various alternatives to the
3584establishment of the proposed District. Mr. Mossing stated that
3593the City could provide the necessary community services and
3602facilities, but service to the area within the proposed District
3612would only result in an increased burden on the City's
3622resources. Mr. Mossing explained that the proposed District, by
3631contrast, has limited power and jurisdiction and could focus its
3641attention to the specific land area within its boundaries in a
3652cost-effective manner that would enable the City to focus its
3662financial and administrative resources elsewhere.
366738. Mr. Mossing stated that a homeowner's association
3675(HOA) is not the best alternative to provide the community
3685services and facilities because it is not an entity that can
3696function as a stable provider of community services and
3705facilities over an extended period of time. Additionally, a HOA
3715cannot qualify for a lower cost source of financing, such as
3726tax-exempt bonds, and it lacks the statutory oversight
3734mechanisms imposed on CDDs to safeguard the public.
374239. Similarly, Mr. Moriarty stated that neither a property
3751owners' nor a HOA has the ability to finance infrastructure of
3762the nature and scope contemplated by the proposed District. By
3772contrast, a CDD is a stable, long-term governmental body with
3782the ability to efficiently and effectively finance, acquire,
3790construct, own, operate and maintain the type of public
3799infrastructure contemplated by the proposed District. Mr.
3806Moriarty concluded that the proposed District is the best
3815alternative for delivering community services and facilities to
3823the area within the proposed District to be served.
383240. Mr. Mossing also concluded that a developer is not the
3843best alternative to provide the community services and
3851facilities. Unlike a CDD's Board of Supervisors, a developer
3860would not have to conduct its meetings and actions relating to
3871the community "in the sunshine," and owners and residents would
3881not necessarily be entitled to view the records of the developer
3892relating to the community.
389641. Mr. Stewart also stated that the proposed District is
3906the best alternative for delivering community services and
3914facilities to the land area to be included within the proposed
3925District. Mr. Stewart noted that the residents within the
3934proposed District would one day be elected to the Board of
3945Supervisors, and would be able to directly govern the levels of
3956service within the proposed District without diverting City
3964resources. Additionally, the maintenance services within the
3971proposed District would be publicly bid, which would not be the
3982case if a property owners' or HOA was the alternative used.
399342. Finally, "[a]ll things being equal," the St. Johns
4002River Water Management District has indicated its preference for
4011CDDs over HOAs as the operating and maintenance entities.
402043. Mr. McCartney testified that three development
4027entities are cooperating in the DRI process to most effectively
4037proceed through the permitting process and ultimately fund the
4046Braddock Parkway improvement that runs by or through each of
4056their properties. Mr. McCartney stated that Braddock Parkway is
4065a road of regional significance that is intended to connect U.S.
40761 and Interstate 95, serving as a major transportation corridor
4086and hurricane evacuation route for the North Jacksonville area.
4095Mr. McCartney testified that the Braddock Parkway is anticipated
4104by the North Jacksonville Shared Vision and Master Plan. Each
4114developer is contemplating the development of three or more
4123distinct communities, each with their own identity and
4131development character that will provide residents with their own
4140distinct community and an entity capable of sustaining that
4149community in perpetuity. Mr. McCartney stated that all the CDDs
4159are included in the Timucuan DRI due to the common improvements,
4170such as Braddock Parkway, and such inclusion is not indicative
4180of a common development identity.
418544. Mr. Mossing testified that the use of multiple CDDs in
4196one DRI is a common practice. He stated that as someone
4207familiar with district management and financial analysis, the
4215use of multiple CDDs within the proposed Timucuan DRI is the
4226best alternative for delivering community services and
4233facilities to the area to be served by the proposed District.
4244Mr. McCartney testified that the CDDs within the proposed
4253Timucuan DRI would enter into interlocal agreements to construct
4262the Braddock Parkway, which will benefit the DRI. Mr. Mossing
4272testified that the CDDs within the Timucuan DRI will be able to
4284share the costs for some of the master infrastructure
4293improvements, such as the Braddock Parkway, but they will
4302finance and separately maintain the neighborhood infrastructure
4309improvements within each community.
431345. The evidence indicates that the proposed District is
4322the best alternative available for delivering community
4329development services and facilities to the area that will be
4339served by the proposed District.
4344E. Whether the community development services and
4351facilities of the proposed District will be
4358incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing
4366local and regional community development services
4372and facilities.
437446. Mr. Mossing, Mr. Moriarty and Mr. Stewart provided
4383testimony on this issue. Each of these witnesses supported
4392Mr. Moriarty's conclusion that none of the proposed services or
4402facilities contemplated by the proposed District currently
4409exists, so there will be no duplication, overlap or
4418incompatability with any local or regional community development
4426services or facilities.
442947. The evidence indicates that the community development
4437services and facilities of the proposed District will not be
4447incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and
4457regional community development services and facilities.
4463F. Whether the area that will be served by the
4473proposed District is amenable to separate special-
4480district government.
448248. Two criteria are needed to evaluate a land area as
4493amenable to separate special district government: (1) whether
4501the land area has a need for the facilities and services; and
4513(2) whether the land area is of sufficient size, sufficient
4523compactness, and sufficiently contiguous to be the basis for a
4533functional interrelated community.
453649. With respect to the first criterion, Mr. Mossing
4545stated that there is sufficient need for the contemplated
4554improvements. The land area is well suited to the provision of
4565the proposed services and improvements from a management and
4574operations perspective.
457650. With respect to the second criterion, there are
4585sufficient significant infrastructure needs for the land within
4593the proposed District that makes it developable as a
4602functionally interrelated community. The use of one
4609comprehensive and phased development plan by the proposed
4617District is a contiguous and homogenous method of providing
4626necessary services and facilities to the lands within the
4635proposed District in a cost-effective manner.
464151. The evidence indicates that the proposed District is
4650amenable to separate special-district government.
4655G. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule.
466352. The Clerk of the Commission certified that the
4672Petition contains all the information required by Section
4680190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and the evidence presented at
4688the local public hearing indicates that the Petition contains
4697all required information.
470053. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the
4707Petition to include a SERC in accordance with the requirements
4717of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The SERC in the Petition
4727contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons
4738directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the proposed
4748District--the State of Florida and its citizens, the County and
4758its citizens, and future landowners within the proposed
4766District.
476754. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption,
4775the State and its citizens will only incur nominal costs from
4786the establishment of the District. These costs are related to
4796the incremental costs to various agencies for reviewing various
4805reports. Any debt obligations incurred by the District to
4814construct its infrastructure, or for any other reason, are not
4824debts of the State of Florida or any unit of local government.
483655. Administrative costs incurred by the City related to
4845rule adoption should be minimal and are offset by the filing fee
4857of $15,000 paid to the City.
486456. Landowners within the proposed District will pay non-
4873ad valorem or special assessments for the District's facilities.
4882Benefits to landowners in the area within the District will
4892include a higher level of public services and amenities than
4902might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored
4909improvements to the area on a timely basis, and greater control
4920over community development services and facilities within the
4928area.
492957. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires
4935Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a
4946newspaper of general circulation in Duval County for four
4955consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was
4964published in the Florida Times-Union , a newspaper of general
4973paid circulation in Duval County, on March 22, March 29, April
49845, and April 12, 2007, which met the criteria in Section
4995190.005, Florida Statutes. A notice of the local public hearing
5005was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 30,
50152007.
5016H. Local Government Support for Establishment.
502258. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b),
5030Florida Statutes, Petitioner filed a copy of the Petition with
5040the City and paid the $15,000 filing fee to the City prior to
5054filing the Petition with the Commission.
506059. The City Council did not hold a public hearing to
5071consider the establishment of the proposed District as permitted
5080by Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
5085I. Public comment regarding the establishment of the
5093proposed District.
509560. One member of the public, Francine Edwards, commented
5104during the public hearing.
510861. After Mr. Mossing provided testimony at the hearing,
5117Ms. Edwards asked for clarification regarding Mr. Mossing's
5125response to whether the proposed District, the Timucuan South
5134Community Development District, the Timucuan Community
5140Development District, and the Timucuan Preserve Community
5147Development District should be integrated into a single CDD. In
5157response, Mr. Mossing, stated that it is better to have
5167individual and separate CDDs. See Finding of Fact 44.
5176APPLICABLE LAW
517862. This proceeding is governed by Chapter 190, Florida
5187Statutes, which establishes the exclusive and uniform method for
5196the establishment of a CDD with a size of 1,000 acres or more,
5210and the rules of the Commission.
521663. The evidence indicates that the Petition contained all
5225the information required by Section 190.005(1), Florida
5232Statutes, and the City was paid the required filing fee.
524264. The evidence indicates that the local public hearing
5251was properly noticed by newspaper publications in Duval County
5260as required by Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
526765. The evidence indicates that affected units of general-
5276purpose local government and the general public were afforded an
5286opportunity to comment on the proposed District as required by
5296Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Florida
5302Administrative Code Rule 42-1.012.
530666. The Petition contains a SERC in accordance with the
5316requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes.
532267. All portions of the Petition and other submittals have
5332been completed and filed as required by law.
534068. The evidence indicates that the Petition favorably
5348addresses all the factors set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e),
5357Florida Statutes.
5359CONCLUSION
5360Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, states that the
5367Commission "shall consider the entire record of the local
5376hearing, the transcript of the hearing, resolutions adopted by
5385local general-purpose governments," and the factors listed in
5393that paragraph. Based on the record evidence, as corrected and
5403supplemented, the Petition meets all statutory requirements, and
5411there appears no reason not to grant the Petition to establish by
5423rule the proposed Braddock Community Development District.
5430DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2007, in
5440Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
5444S
5445CHARLES A. STAMPELOS
5448Administrative Law Judge
5451Division of Administrative Hearings
5455The DeSoto Building
54581230 Apalachee Parkway
5461Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
5464(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
5468Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
5472www.doah.state.fl.us
5473Filed with the Clerk of the
5479Division of Administrative Hearings
5483this 25th day of May, 2007.
5489COPIES FURNISHED :
5492Jerry McDaniel, Director
5495Office of the Governor
5499The Capitol, Room 1802
5503Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001
5506Barbara Leighty, Clerk
5509Growth Management and Strategic
5513Planning
5514The Capitol, Room 1802
5518Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
5521Paul Huck, General Counsel
5525Office of the Governer
5529The Capitol, Suite 209
5533Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001
5536Shaw Stiller, General Counsel
5540Department of Community Affairs
55442555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
5548Suite 325
5550Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2160
5553Gladys Perez, Esquire
5556Executive Office of the Governor
5561Room 209
5563The Capitol
5565Tallahassee, Florida 32399
5568Chasity H. O'Steen, Esquire
5572Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP
55772548 Blairstone Pines Drive
5581Tallahassee, Florida 32301-5925
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 05/25/2007
- Proceedings: Report to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (hearing held April, 19, 2007). CASE CLOSED.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/25/2007
- Proceedings: Report to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/15/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Filing of Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions filed.
- Date: 05/14/2007
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Original Transcript filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/30/2007
- Proceedings: Affidavit Adopting Written, Supplemental Testimony of Darren Mossing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/30/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Filing of Affidavit and Written Supplemental Testimony filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2007
- Proceedings: Order (Petitioner may file a proposed report with DOAH within 15 days after April 30, 2007).
- Date: 04/19/2007
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/16/2007
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Filing of Pre-filed Direct Testimony filed.
- Date: 04/10/2007
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/21/2007
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for April 19, 2007; 9:30 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/09/2007
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Alexander from C. O`Steen responding to Initial Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/02/2007
- Proceedings: Letter to B. Leighty from C. O` Steen regarding enclosed copies of revised Petition Exhibit 10 filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- CHARLES A. STAMPELOS
- Date Filed:
- 02/02/2007
- Date Assignment:
- 04/04/2007
- Last Docket Entry:
- 05/25/2007
- Location:
- Jacksonville, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- Office of the Governor
Counsels
-
Barbara R. Leighty, Agency Clerk
Address of Record -
Chasity H O`Steen, Esquire
Address of Record -
Gladys Perez, Esquire
Address of Record -
Chasity Hope O'Steen, Esquire
Address of Record