07-001135 In Re: Petition To Establish The Myakka Ranch Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, July 31, 2007.

Summary: The Proceeding was properly noticed. Petitioner has met the requirements for the Community Development District and should be approved.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION TO ESTABLISH )

THE MYAKKA RANCH COMMUNITY )

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ) Case No. 07 - 1135

)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE ' S REPORT TO THE FLOR IDA LAND

AN D WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

On June 21, 2007, a local public hearing under S ubs ection

190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2006), 1 was conducted by

Daniel M. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). The hearing was

held at the Holiday Inn Lakewood Ranch, 6231 Lake Osprey Drive,

Sarasota, F lorida .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire

Jennifer R. Cowan, Esquire

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

1001 Third Avenue West

Suite 670

Bradenton, Florida 34205 - 7848

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

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

Establi sh the Myakka Ranch Community Development District

(Petition) meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida

Statutes, and Chapter 42 - 1, Florida Administrative Code. The

local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering

information in anticipati on of quasi - legislative rulemaking by

FLWAC.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On December 6, 2006, Resource Conservation of Sarasota, LLC

(Petitioner) filed the Petition and supplemental information to

the Petition with FLWAC. The Petition requested that FLWAC

adopt a rule to establish a community development district, to

be called Myakka Ranch Community Development District

(District). Prior to the filing, Petitioner provided for

delivery of the Petition and its attachments, along with the

requisite filing fee, to Sarasota County (County).

The land to be included within the proposed District is

located entirely within the limits of the unincorporated area of

the County. S ubs ection 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes,

provides that the County and the municipality contai ning all or

a portion of the lands within the proposed District have the

option to hold a public hearing within forty - five days of the

filing of a petition. The Sarasota County Board of County

Commissioners (Board) held an optional public hearing on

Janu ary 10, 2007. During this duly advertised public hearing,

the Board passed Resolution 2007 - 012, representing its consent

to and support of the establishment of the District based on the

consideration of each of the six statutory factors set out in

S ubs ect ion 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

On March 9, 2007, the Clerk of FLWAC filed the Petition

with DOAH for the purpose of holding the public hearing required

under S ubs ection 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Petitioner

then published notice of the local p ublic hearing in accordance

with S ubs ection 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

The local public hearing before the ALJ was held on

Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., at the Holiday Inn

Lakewood Ranch, 6231 Lake Osprey Drive, Sarasota, F lorida . On

May 17 , 2007, Petitioner pre - filed the written testimony of its

witnesses: Patrick K. Neal, c o - manager and 50 percent owner of

Resource Conservation of Sarasota, LLC; Elizabeth Benac, an

expert in land planning and an expert in the establishment of

community dev elopment districts, who is Vice President,

Principal, and Manager of Planning for WilsonMiller; and Hank H.

Fishkind, Ph.D., an expert economist, an expert in urban and

regional economics, and an expert in the creation and management

of community developme nt districts, who is Chief Executive

Officer of Fishkind & Associates. At the public hearing,

Petitioner presented the testimony of Dale Weidemiller,

President of Neal Communities Land Development, Inc.; Patrick K.

Neal; Elizabeth Benac; and Dr. H enry H. Fishkind. Public

comment was received at the hearing from Glenn Peachey,

4710 Verner Road, Myakka City, Florida 34251.

During the hearing, the pre - filed testimony of Neal, Benac,

and Fishkind were received into evidence as Composite Hearing

Exhibit 1. A PowerPoint presentation that summarized

Weidemiller ' s testimony was received into evidence as Hearing

Exhibit 2. A copy of the Petition including attachments was

received into evidence as Composite Hearing Exhibit 3. A copy

of the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs was received into

evidence as Hearing Exhibit 4. Two maps, collectively referred

to as " Future Land Uses of Surrounding Parcels, Sarasota County,

Florida " were received into evidence as Hearing Exhibit 5. A

copy of Estimated Constructio n Costs and Phasing was received

into evidence as Hearing Exhibit 6. The proof of publication

providing notice was received into evidence as Hearing

Exhibit 7. A certified copy of Resolution No. 2007 - 012 of the

Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota C ounty was received

into evidence as Hearing Exhibit 8.

The Transcript of the local public hearing was filed with

DOAH on June 28, 2007. Petitioner filed a Proposed Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order on July 11,

2007.

SUMMARY OF TH E RECORD

A. Petition and Related Matters

1. Petitioner seeks the adoption of a rule by FLWAC to

establish a community development district which would consist

of approximately 1,055 acres located entirely within the

boundaries of unincorporated Sarasota County . Petition

Exhibit 1 describes the metes and bounds of the external

boundaries of the District.

2. The Petition states that there are no parcels of land

within the external boundaries of the proposed District which

are to be excluded from the Distr ict.

3. Petition Exhibit 2 contains written consent to the

establishment of the District by the only two landowners within

the District: FC, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and

Myakka Ranch Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company.

T his exhibit establishes consent of 100 percent of the

landowners within the boundaries of the proposed District.

4. The Petition states that the proposed name of the

District is " Myakka Ranch Community Development District. "

5. The Petition names the fiv e persons designated to be

the initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed

District. James R. Schier, Dale E. Weidemiller, Priscilla G.

Heim, Karen L. Byrnes, and Alan Anderson are all listed at the

same address: 8210 Lakewood Ranch Boule vard, Bradenton, Florida

34202. The Petition states that they are all residents of the

State of Florida and citizens of the United States of America.

6. Future land uses are shown on Petition Exhibit 3. The

Petition states that the proposed land uses ar e consistent with

the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.

7. The Petition describes what infrastructure the District

intends to provide, the proposed cost of that infrastructure,

and the proposed timetable for construction. The proposed

timetable for con struction of the infrastructure was filed as

supplement al information to the petition.

8. Petition Exhibit 4 is the statement of estimated

regulatory costs (SERC), which is based upon presently available

data. The SERC was prepared in accordance with the requirements

of Section 120.541, Florid a Statutes.

9. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits

to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to

establish the District. These persons include the State of

Florida and its citizens, t he county and its citizens,

Petitioner, and other consumers.

10. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption,

the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from

the District ' s establishment. These costs are related to the

incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one

additional local government report. The proposed District will

require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include

improved planning and coordination of development, which is

difficult to quanti fy but non etheless significant.

11. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to

rule adoption will be modest. These modest costs are offset by

the $15,000 filing fee required to accompany the copy of the

Petition filed with Sarasota County .

12. Future landowners in the District may be required to

pay non - ad valorem or special assessments for certain

facilities. Generally, District financing will be less

expensive than maintenance through a municipal service taxing

unit, a neighborhood association, City /County provision, or

through capital improvements financed through developer loans.

Benefits to consumers in the area within the community

development district will include a higher level of public

services and amenities than might otherwise be available ,

community services completed concurrently with development of

the lands within the District, and a larger share of direct

control over community development services and facilities

within the area. Locating within the District is voluntary.

The Distric t therefore provides an alternative means to finance

necessary community services.

13. The Petition alleges that prior to the filing of the

Petition, Petitioner submitted a copy of the Petition with

Exhibits and the filing fee of $15,000.00 to the County, in

accordance with S ubs ection 190.005(1)(b), Flor ida Statutes.

14. The Petition alleges that it should be granted

according to the factors listed in S ubs ection 190.005(1)(e),

Florida Statutes.

15. The Petition meets all of the requirements of

S ubs ection 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

B. Additional Information

16. S ubs ection 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires

Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a

newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County for four

consecutive we eks prior to the hearing. The notice was

published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in Sarasota

County ( The Sarasota Herald - Tribune) for four consecutive weeks,

on May 26, Jun e 2, June 9, and June 16, 2007.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY

A. Factor 1: Whether all statements contained within the

Petition have been found to be true and correct.

17. Composite Hearing Exhibit 3 consists of the Petition

and its attachments as filed with the Commission. Mr. Neal

testified that he had reviewed th e contents of the Petition and

approved its findings. Mr. Neal testified that the statements

in the Petition are accurate and complet e to the best of his

knowledge.

18. Mr. Neal testified that the supplemental information

to the Petition, Exhibits 4 - 6, w ere prepared in support of the

Petition at his request .

19. Dr. Fishkind testified that he had prepared Exhibit 4,

the Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs.

20. The Petition included written consent to establish the

District from 100 percent of the ow ners of the real property

located within the lands to be included in the proposed

District. Mr. Neal testified that there are two different

owners of the proposed district: FC, LLC , and Myakka Ranch

Holdings, LLC. Mr. Neal further testified that he owns Myakka

Ranch Holdings, LLC. He also stated that there are no plans to

sell any of the lands within the proposed District prior to the

establishment of the District. A copy of the Consent of

Landowners, for each landowner, is in the record .

B. Factor 2: Whether the establishment of the District is

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government

comprehensive plan.

21. Ms. Benac reviewed the proposed District in light of

the requi rements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187,

Florida Statutes , and the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.

22. The State Comprehensive Plan " provides long - range

policy guidance for the orderly social, economic and physical

growth of the State. "

2 3. Ms. Benac testified that the proposed large - lot

subdivision and alternative Hamlet Land Use is consistent with

the State Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, and based upon

review of the Petition and related information, Ms. Benac

testified that the prop osed District is consistent with the

following goals and its policies:

a) Goal 7, Water Resources, assures the

availability of an adequate water supply for

all competing uses deemed reasonable and

beneficial and shall maintain the functions

of natural sys tems and the overall present

level of sur face and ground water quality.

b) Policy 13 of Goal 7, recognizes the

importance of identifying and developing

alternative methods of wastewater treatment,

disposal, and reuse of waste water to reduce

d egradation of water resources.

c) Goal 9, Natural Systems and Recreational

Lands, protects unique natural habitats and

ecological systems, and restores degraded

natural sys tems to a functional condition.

d) Policy 7 of Goal 9, provides for

protecting and restorin g the ecological

functions of wetland systems to ensure their

long - term environmental, eco nomic, and

recreational value.

e) Goal 15, Land Use, recognizes the

importance of preserving the natural

resources and enhancing the quality of life

in the state of Florida by locating

development in areas which have in place, or

have agreements to provide, the land and

water resources, fiscal abilities, and

service capacity to accommodate growth in an

envi ronmentally acceptable manner.

f) Policy 2 of Goal 15, prov ides for the

development of a system of incentives and

disincentives which encourages a separation

of urban and rural land uses while

protecting water supplies, resource

development, a nd fish and wildlife habitats.

g) Policy 3 of Goal 15, provides for th e

enhancement of the livability and character

of urban areas through the encouragement of

an attractive and functional mix of living,

working, shoppin g, and recreational

activities.

h) Goal 17, Public Facilities, mandates

protection of the substantial in vestments in

public facilities that already exist and

planning for and financing new facilities to

serve residents in a timely, orderly, and

efficient manner.

i) Policy 1 of Goal 17, provides incentives

for developing land in a way that maximizes

the us e s of existing facilities.

j) Policy 3 of Goal 17, allocates the costs

of new public facilities on the basis of the

benefits received by future residents.

k) Policy 4 of Goal 17, creates a

partnership among state and local government

and the private sec tor, which would identify

and build needed public facilities and

allocate the costs of such facilities among

the partners in proportion to the ben efits

accruing to each of them.

l) Policy 6 of Goal 17 encourages the

identification and implementation of

i nnovative b ut fiscally sound and cost -

effective techniques fo r financing public

facilities.

k) Policy 9 of Goal 17, promotes the

identification and use of stable revenue

sources which are also responsive to growth

fo r financing public facilities.

m) Pol icy 2 of Goal 20, allows for the

creation of independent special taxing

districts which have uniform general law

standards and procedures and do not

overburden other governments and their

taxpayers while preventing the proliferation

of independent special taxing districts

whic h do not meet these standards.

24. Ms. Benac stated that the proposed services of the

District under the Hamlet development scenario include the

provision of public infrastructure within the District including

stormwater management, sanitary sewer, potable water

distribution, roadways, landscaping, and related improvements.

She also said that upon completion, the District will maintain

the stormwater management system and Sarasota County will

maintain the sanitar y and potable water f acilities.

25. Ms. Benac evaluated the testimony and exhibits in the

record and testified that the proposed District will not be

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan.

26. The Sarasota County Comprehensive Pl an contains

numerous goals, objectives, and policies. According to

Ms. Benac, the County has also adopted the Sarasota 2050 Plan,

which includes specific goals, objectives, and policies that are

designed to serve as a supplement to the Future Land Use Ch apter

of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.

27. Ms. Benac testified that the District ' s proposed

large - lot subdivision is consistent with the existing rural

designation for the site on the Sarasota Future Land Use Map in

the Sarasota Comprehensive Pl an. Further, she stated that the

current proposed Hamlet Land Use option is also consistent with

the designated land use in the adopted Sarasota 2050 Plan . The

Hamlet Land Use is an alternative development option under t he

Sarasota Comprehensive Plan.

28 . Ms. Benac stated that the Sarasota County

Comprehensive Plan mandates that a Hamlet development must

provi de central water and may provide central wastewater and

irrigations services depending on the location, soil conditions,

the proximity to existing central services, and other criteria.

The proposed District is to provide central wastewater and

potable water facilities. Additionally, the District ' s proposed

public streets, centralized water, and wastewater systems in the

Hamlet Development Option is consistent with the requirements of

the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, according to Ms. Benac.

29. Based on the pre - filed testimony , the live testimony

at the hearing, and exhibits in the record, the proposed

District will not be inconsistent with a ny applicable element or

portion of the Sarasot a Comprehensive Plan.

C. Factor 3: Whether the area of land within the proposed

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

sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional

in terrelated community.

30. Testimony on these factors was provided by Ms. Benac.

31. The proposed District will include approximately 1,055

acres, located entirely within the boundary of unincorporated

Sarasota County, Florida.

32. The term " compact ness " relates to the closeness in

distance between th e lands within the development.

33. The proposed District ' s boundaries form a community

that is sufficiently compact , with no obstacles separating the

land uses , and the property is not irregular in sha pe. The

property is not divided , and the land area is such that i t can

accommodate both physical and social amenities .

34. The term " contiguous " is a spatial term used to

des cribe lands which are adjacent.

35. The District ' s land is spatially close tog ether, it is

completely contiguous, and it is large enough in land area to

allow for the efficient provision of infrastructure sys tems,

facilities, and services.

36. Functional interrelation means that each community

purpose has a mutual relationship to t he other. Each function

must be designed to contribute to the development or the

maintenance of the community. Additionally, the land area of

the community must be of sufficient size to accommodate the

permitted land uses and the required, interrelated

i nfrastr ucture facilities and services.

37. The District includes a unified site plan for a Hamlet

Development option in addition to a large - lot subdivision. The

Hamlet development regulations include a maximum size

(400 units) and a minimum open space requirement, with which the

District ' s plan is in compliance. Additionally, the proposed

District has been evaluated as to the costs associated with

providing the necessary community facilities. Given the results

of the cost estimates and the compliance with the standards for

a Hamlet development option as provided through the extensive

Sarasota 2050 process, the evidence shows that the proposed

District is of sufficient size to be developed as one func tional

interrelated community.

38. Based on the pre - filed testimony , the live testimony

at the hearing, and evidence in the record, Petitioner has

demonstrated that the proposed District will be of sufficient

size, sufficiently compact, and sufficiently contiguous to be

developed as a single functionally i nterrelated community.

D. Factor 4: Whether the proposed District is the best

alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities to the area that will be served by the

proposed District.

39. Ms. Benac and Dr. Fishkind t estified as to the

District being the best alternative available.

40. The District is compris ed of over 1,000 acres, and it

will require extensive and expensive infrastructure facilities.

T hese facilities must be operated and maintained once they are

con structed.

41. " Community development services and facilities " are

generally described as the necessary infrastructure required to

provide for the daily needs of the community. These services

and facilities include potable water, wastewater treatment

serv ice, stormwater management, roads, irrigation, landscaping,

and related improvements that may be provided, such as lighting

or recreational uses. Further, many of these " services " consist

of district management services which are similar in nature to

thos e associated with being a manager of a city or a town in

Florida, including: holding regular meetings, properly keeping

the books and financial records, and advertising the meetings

and filing the reports with the State of Florida and other units

of gover nment.

42. " Best alternative available " implies that there has

been an evaluati o n of the various alternative ways to provide

basic systems, facilities, and service s to the community

development.

43. Dr. Fishkind and Ms. Benac evaluated three alternative

ways to provide basic systems, facilities, and services to the

community development on this property in Sarasota County. The

first way is through improvements constructed and maintained by

a private developer, such as separate private infrastructure

con tractors, a private utility company, a homeowners '

association, a property owners ' association, or any combination

of these private means of providing community development

services and facilities along with related financing powers.

The second alternativ e would be public (either through the

County or by County management while financed through the use of

County Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU), County Municipal

Service Benefit Units (MSBU), or " dependent districts " ). The

third alternative would also be public , but through the

specialized, limited, single - purpose Community Development

District created pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes ,

which combines with both public and priv ate interests and

capabilities.

44. Planning considerations in deter mining the best

alternative to deliver basic infrastructure to community

developments include: whether the alternative i s able to

provide a higher quality of services and facilities; whether the

alternative i s available to deliver the facilities and servi ces

in a timely manner when the community development service and

facility demand occur; whether the alternative ha s a means of

management that would be responsive to the community development

over the long term; and whether the alternative could obtain an d

maintain long - term financing to facilitate the management

benefits. Long - term and sustained adequacy and efficiency of

infrastructure are important, as is the assurance that the

supply of infrastructure will be available in advance of the

impacts of the actual development (also known as " concurrency " ).

45. Dr. Fishkind compared the proposed District to a

property owners ' association (POA). The District will be

governed by Florida ' s open meetings laws, open financial

records, and all of the other public safeguards that apply to

local governments. A POA is not subject to these public

protective measures. In addition, unlike the District, a POA

does not have the power to impose special assessments on

properties in the community. Instead, it must rely up on its

lien powers. This is not sufficient as a credit source to allow

a POA to fund the extensive and expensive infrastructure pro gram

needed for the community.

46. Dr. Fishkind then compared the County with the

proposed District for the provision of co mmunity facilities and

services to the area. The District will be a focused unit of

local government with the sole purpose of providing the

facilities and services needed for the community. The County

has numerous other functions and responsibilities, so the County

is simply less focused on the community compared to the

District. In addition, the County has more difficulty raising

the funds it needs to provide infrastructure facilities. The

District will impose assessments on the properties benefiting

f rom its capital improvement program and will not likely have

any difficulty raising the funds needed. The County could do

the same, but its focus is entirely different. This is

important in the context of the size and complexity of the

community ' s infras tructure needs. The District will be a unit

of local government so, like the County, all of its meetings

must be in the sunshine , and the District will be governed by

all the same laws as the County. Thus, the District will afford

its residents the same protections under Florida law as the

County, but the District will be more local and more focused.

47. The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan states in the

Future Land Use Policy 3.1.10, " Financial strategy for

infrastructure development and maintenance including the

construction and maintenance of all required public

infrastructure. Community Development Districts are one of the

preferred financing techniques for infrastructure needs. "

Further, the District ' s property is located within the

village/open space Resource Management Area (RMA) , which

encourages the use of a Community Development District for

delivery of community facilities and services. Sarasota

County ' s Capital Improvement Plan for the District ' s area

reflects that no sewer or water lines are planned to serve this

area in the near future. The development plan (including the

proposed infrastructure costs) demonstrates that the

infrastructure could be provided in a cost - effective manner to

service the proposed Hamlet alternative development plan.

48. County Policy VOS2.9 of the Village/Open Space RMA

approval process requires that a Hamlet development option

" provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the level

of service standards and be fiscally neutral or beneficial to

Sarasot a County government and residents outside that

development. " The policy also requires that the " intent of

Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local

government services and infrastructure that are built or

provided for the Hamlet shall be fun ded by properties within the

approved Hamlet. " According to Ms. Benac, community development

districts have been established in other new communities so as

to provide for the cost - effective provision of community

facilities and services and those Communit y Development

Districts have proven to be the best alternative for ensuring

the long - term maintenance of services and facilities at a level

of service that the community desires without burdening

taxpayers who live outside the district. Further, D r. Fishk ind

stated that community development districts have been a superior

mechanism for infusing infrastructure into property, and for

isolating the expenses rel ative to the particular owner.

49. From planning, economic, and special district

management perspec tives, Petitioner has demonstrated that the

proposed District is the best alternative available for

delivering community development services and facilities to the

area that will be served by the District.

E. Factor 5: Whether the community development s ervices and

facilities of the proposed District will be incompatible with

the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community

development services and facilities.

50. There are no regional community development services

and facilities availabl e to serve the proposed development. The

proposed lo cal community development services and facilities for

the proposed development will ensure that there is capacity

available for the provision of water and wastewater treatment

facilities. However, the p rovision of these services will not

be assured until the construction plans for the proposed

community development district are approved by the County .

51. The District ' s proposed community services and

facilities include infrastructure improvements limit ed primarily

to stormwater management, sanitary sewer, potable water

distribution, roadways, landscaping, and related improvements ,

given a Hamlet Development option. Upon completion, Sarasota

County will maintain the sanitary sewer and potable water

faci lities , and the District will maintain the stormwater

management system, the roadways, and any remaining improvements.

The District will be the maintenance entity for the private

improvements. If the Hamlet development option is not chosen

the District w ill provide stormwater management, roadways,

landscaping, and related improvements; individual septic systems

and potable wells owned by the lot owners may provide for

wastewater treatment and potable w ater .

52. The services and facilities of the proposed District

will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of the

existing local and regional community devel opment services and

facilities.

F. Factor 6: Whether the area that will be served by the

District is amenable to separate special - district gov ernment.

53. As cited previously, the area of land to be included

in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently

compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and

become a functi onally interrelated community.

54. The community to be included in the District has need

for certain basic infrastructure systems, and the proposed

District provides for an efficient mechanism to oversee the

installation of these improvements. From planning, engineering,

economic and management perspec tives, the area that will be

served by the District is amenable to separat e special - district

government.

G. Public Comment on the Petition .

55. The only public comment related to the total acreage

of the proposed District and its current zoning. Specifi cally,

Mr. Peachey inquired as to how many of the 1,055 acres was zoned

" one to five " and how many were zoned " one to ten. "

Mr. Weidemiller responded that approximately 755 acres of the

District are currently zoned at one unit per five acres , and

approxi mately 300 a cres are zoned at one unit per ten acres.

APPLICABLE LAW

56. This proceeding is governed by Chapters 190 and 120,

Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42 - 1, Florida Administrative Code.

57. S ubs ection 190.005(1), Florida Statutes, provides that

the exclusive method for establishing a community development

district with a size of 1,000 acres or more shall be by rule

adopted by FLWAC.

58. The evidence indicates that the proceeding was

properly noticed pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes,

by publication of an advertisement, in the proper section of a

newspaper of general paid circulation in Sarasota County , and of

general interest and readership , once each week for the four

successive weeks immediately prior to the June 21, 2007,

hearing.

59. The evidence indicates that Petitioner has met the

requirements of Subsection 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes,

regarding the submission of the Petition and filing fee

requirements.

60. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the

petition meets t he relevant statutory criteria set forth in

S ubs ection 19 0.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

61. All portions of the Petition and other submittals have

been complet e and filed as required by law.

62. The evidence indicates that all statements contained

within the Petition and supplemental materials as corrected and

supplemented at th e hearing are true and correct.

63. The evidence indicates that the establishment of the

District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or

portion of the State Comprehen sive Plan or the Saras ota County

Comprehensive Plan.

64. The evidence indicates that the area of land within

the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently

compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one

fun ctional interrela ted community.

65. The evidence indicates that the proposed District is

the best alternative available for delivering community

development services and facilities to the area that will be

served by the District.

66. The evidence indicates that the commu nity development

services and facilities of the proposed District will not be

incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and

regional community devel opment services and facilities.

67. The evidence indicates that the area to be served by

th e proposed District is amenable to separate special district

government.

CONCLUSION

S ubs ection 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 that

subparagraph. Based on the record evidence, the Petition

appears to meet all statutory requirements, and there appears to

be no reason not to grant the Petition and establish the

proposed Myakka Ranch Community Development District by rule.

DONE AND ENTERED this 3 1st day of July , 2007 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DANIEL M. KILBRIDE

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

T he DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 3 1st day of July , 2007 .

ENDNO TE

1/ All references to Florida Statutes are to Florida Statutes

(2006).

COPIES FURNISHED :

William G. Capko, Esquire

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard,

Suite 1000

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - 2006

Barbara Leighty, Cle rk

Growth Management and Strategic

Planning

The Capitol, Room 180 1

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Gladys Perez, Esquire

Executive Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.

1001 Third Avenue West, Suite 670

Bradenton, Florida 34205 - 7848

Paul Huck, General Counsel

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0 001

Jerry McDaniel, Director

Office of the Governor

The Capit o l, Room 1 7 0 2

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0 001

Shaw Stiller, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2160