07-000579 In Re: Petition To Establish The Braddock Community Development District vs. *
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, May 25, 2007.


View Dockets  
Summary: The local public hearing was held on the petition to establish a community development district. The received evidence supports the petition.

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

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order
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: 05/02/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion for Leave to Late File Correspondence 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: 02/05/2007
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 02/02/2007
Proceedings: Letter to B. Leighty from C. O` Steen regarding enclosed copies of revised Petition Exhibit 10 filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/02/2007
Proceedings: Petition to Establish the Braddock Community Development District filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/02/2007
Proceedings: Agency referral 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

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):