07-002527 In Re: Petition To Establish The Huntington Hammocks Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, August 27, 2007.

Summary: Petitioner satisfied all statutory criteria for the establishment of a new community development district in Hernando County.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION FOR RULE )

CREATION - HUNTINGTON HAMMOCKS ) Case No. 07-2527

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT )

________________________________)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LAND

AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

Pursuant to notice, a local public hearing was held in

this case in Brooksville, Florida, on August 6, 2007,

before Donald R. Alexander, an Administrative Law Judge of

the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Brian A. Crumbaker, Esquire

Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the Petition to Establish the

Huntington Hammocks Community Development District

(Petition) meets the applicable criteria set forth in

Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2006) 1 , and Florida

Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. The purpose of the

hearing was to gather information in anticipation of quasi-

legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On May 22, 2007, Petitioner, Seville, LLC, filed its

Petition with the Secretary of the Commission. Prior to

that time, on May 15, 2007, Petitioner submitted a copy of

the Petition and its exhibits, along with the requisite

filing fee, to Hernando County (County), the county in

which the property is located.

On June 4, 2007, the Secretary of the Commission

certified that the Petition contained all required

elements, as defined in Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida

Statutes, and forwarded it to the Division of

Administrative Hearings for the purpose of holding the

public hearing required under Section 190.005(1)(d),

Florida Statutes.

On August 2, 2007, Petitioner pre-filed the testimony

of its four witnesses. The local public hearing was held

in Brooksville, Florida, on August 6, 2007. Petitioner

published notice of the local public hearing in accordance

with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

At the local public hearing, Petitioner presented the

testimony of Craig A. Wrathell, a consultant retained by

Petitioner to assist in the preparation of the Petition and

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC); Ryan Rase,

who represents Seville, LLC; Cliff Manuel, Jr., a

professional engineer with Coastal Engineering Associates,

Inc.; and Joseph P. Quinn of Coastal Engineering

Associates, Inc., a certified land planner. Also, it

offered Hearing Exhibits A-K, which were received in

evidence. Those exhibits are the Petition and eight

attached exhibits filed with the Commission (Exhibit A);

the agency referral letter to the Department of Community

Affairs (Department)(Exhibit B); the agency referral letter

to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Exhibit C); the

letter of response from the Department (Exhibit D); the

affidavit and proof of publication of the notice of hearing

(Exhibit E); the pre-filed testimony of witnesses Rase,

Wrathell, Manuel, and Quinn (Exhibits F-I); the letter of

no objection from the County (Exhibit J); and Chapter 187,

Florida Statutes (Exhibit K). No other person or entity

presented any witnesses or exhibits, and no members of the

public attended the public hearing.

The land to be included within the proposed District

is located entirely within the unincorporated part of the

County. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides

that the county containing all or a portion of the lands

within a proposed district has the option to hold a public

hearing within forty-five days of the filing of a petition.

In this case, the County chose not to hold a public hearing

and transmitted its letter of no objection to the

establishment of the District to Petitioner on June 5,

2007.

The Transcript of the local public hearing was filed

on August 16, 2007. On the same date, Petitioner filed a

Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions, which has been

considered in the preparation of this Report.

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD

A. Petition and Related Matters

1. Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by

the Commission to establish a community development

district (District), which will consist of approximately

1,036.71 acres located wholly within an unincorporated part

of the County. The property lies in the northern part of

the County where it abuts the Citrus County-Hernando County

line. The property is east of U.S. Highway 19, west of

U.S. Highway 98 and the Suncoast Parkway, and appears to be

around 8 or 9 miles north of Brooksville. The proposed

name for the new District is the Huntington Hammocks

Community Development District.

2. There are 83 existing platted lots within the

external boundaries of the proposed District (mainly in an

enclave in the southwestern portion of the property) which

are to be excluded from the District. Seventy-nine of

these parcels are owned by a number of individuals and are

already provided with the infrastructure and services

necessary to serve their property. Two parcels are road

right-of-ways owned by the County, one is a future electric

utility site, while the last parcel is a water treatment

well site owned by the County. A list of the properties

which are to be excluded from the District can be found in

Petition Exhibit 2.

3. The estimated cost of the infrastructure

facilities and services, which are presently expected to be

provided to the lands within the District, was included in

the Petition. The total cost is estimated to exceed

$69,000,000.00. These costs are set out in detail in

Petition Exhibit 4A. The infrastructure construction

timetable is described in Petition Exhibit 4B.

4. The Petition indicates that the five persons

designated to serve as initial members of the Board of

Supervisors are Garrett Bender, Marty Friend, Craig

Sternberg, Ryan Rase, and Rick Robinson. Although the

Petition reflects that each member currently resides in the

State of Florida, it does not indicate if they are citizens

of the United States. 2

5. Petition Exhibit 6 is the SERC, which indicates

that it was prepared in accordance with Section 120.541,

Florida Statutes.

6. Petition Exhibit 7 contains the written consent of

the landowners within the proposed District, which

comprises one hundred percent of land to be included within

the District.

7. Finally, Petition Exhibit 8 indicates that Craig

A. Wrathell and Michal Szymonowicz have been designated as

agents for Petitioner.

8. The sole purpose of the proceeding was to consider

the establishment of the District as proposed by

Petitioner. Information relating to the managing and

financing of the service-delivery function of the proposed

District was considered. Section 190.005, Florida

Statutes, contains the statutory criteria to be considered.

Therefore, a summary of the evidence relating to each

enumerated section of the statute is set forth below.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY

A. Whether all statements contained within the

Petition have been found to be true and correct.

9. Petitioner's Hearing Exhibit A consists of the

Petition and its Exhibits as filed with the Commission.

Mr. Rase, a professional engineer who is employed by one of

the partners of Seville, LLC, testified in his pre-filed

written testimony that he was familiar with the Petition as

filed. Mr. Rase also generally described the exhibits to

the Petition. Finally, Mr. Rase testified that he had

reviewed the content of the Petition and that the factual

contents in the Petition were true and correct to the best

of his knowledge.

10. Mr. Rase further testified in his pre-filed

testimony that the Petition was prepared by the firm of

Wrathell, Hart, Hunt and Associates, LLC, under his

supervision. Mr. Rase further testified that he had also

retained the same firm to prepare the SERC.

11. Mr. Manuel, who is also a professional engineer,

testified in his pre-filed testimony that he had visited

the site of the proposed District, that he had assisted

Petitioner with the review and compilation of some of the

exhibits filed with the Petition, and that he had reviewed

the Petition. Mr. Manuel further testified that all

engineering related statements contained in the Petition

and exhibits thereto were true and correct to the best of

his knowledge.

12. Mr. Wrathell, who is the managing partner of a

management and financial consulting firm, testified that he

had prepared Exhibit 6 to the Petition (the SERC) and that

he had provided consulting services to Petitioner with

respect to the establishment of the proposed District.

Mr. Wrathell also testified that the SERC was true and

correct to the best of his knowledge. Finally, the witness

testified that he is familiar with the Petition and that

the contents of the Petition and the attached exhibits are

true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

13. The testimony is that the Petition and its

Exhibits are true and correct.

B. Whether the establishment of the proposed District

is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of

the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local

government comprehensive plan.

14. Mr. Quinn, Mr. Wrathell, and Mr. Manuel reviewed

the proposed District in light of the requirements of the

State Comprehensive Plan, which is codified in Chapter 187,

Florida Statutes, and the County's Comprehensive Plan. A

copy of the State Comprehensive Plan was received into

evidence as Hearing Exhibit K.

15. From a planning perspective, Mr. Wrathell

indicated that five subjects of the State Comprehensive

Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed

District as do the policies supporting those subjects.

From an engineering perspective, Mr. Manual indicated that

two subjects and the policies supporting those subjects

apply directly to this matter.

16. According to Mr. Wrathell, Subject 15, Land Use,

recognizes the importance of locating development in areas

with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate

growth. § 187.201(15), Fla. Stat. Mr. Wrathell testified

that the proposed District will have the fiscal ability to

provide services and facilities and will help provide

infrastructure in a fiscally responsible manner in an area

which can accommodate development within a designated

growth area in the County.

17. Both Mr. Quinn and Mr. Manuel cited Subject 17,

Public Facilities, as also being relevant. That subject

encourages the efficient and orderly financing of new

facilities. § 187.201(17), Fla. Stat. In particular,

Policy 3 provides that the cost of new public facilities

should be allocated to existing and future residents on the

basis of benefits received. Policy 5 provides that the

financial self-sufficiency of local government in providing

public facilities should be encouraged. Policy 6 provides

that fiscally sound and cost-effective techniques for

financing public facilities should be encouraged. Policy 7

provides that the development, use, and coordination of

capital improvement plans by all levels of government

should be encouraged. Finally, Policy 9 provides that

stable revenue sources should be identified and used, which

are also responsive to growth for financing public

facilities. Mr. Manuel and Mr. Quinn testified that the

proposed District will further these goals and related

policies.

18. Mr. Manuel and Mr. Quinn also cited Subject 19,

Transportation, as being relevant. That subject encourages

future transportation improvements to aid in the management

of growth. § 187.201(19), Fla. Stat. Particularly, Policy

6 promotes timely resurfacing and repair of roads and

bridges to minimize costly reconstruction and to enhance

safety. Both Mr. Manuel and Mr. Quinn testified that the

proposed District will provide a stable revenue source for

the maintenance of District roadways.

19. Mr. Quinn further noted that Subject 20,

Governmental Efficiency, should be considered. It is the

goal of that subject that the amount and quality of

services required by the public are provided economically

and efficiently. § 187.201(20), Fla. Stat. Mr. Quinn also

discussed Policy 2, which allows for the creation of

independent special taxing districts. These special taxing

districts have general law standards and procedures which

do not overburden other governments and their taxpayers.

At the same time, Policy 8 promotes the replacement of

economically inefficient local public facilities with more

economic and efficient regional facilities. Mr. Quinn

testified that the proposed District is a direct

application of Policy 2 and that the proposed District

provides for the use of regional systems, facilities, and

services.

20. Finally, Mr. Quinn testified that Subject 25,

Plan Implementation, is relevant. That subject provides

that systematic planning shall be integrated into all

levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental

coordination and citizen involvement. § 187.201(25), Fla.

Stat. In particular, Policy 6 encourages citizen

participation at all levels of policy development,

planning, and operations. Mr. Quinn testified that the

proposed District ensures that the local citizens of the

District actively participate in the operations of the

community systems, facilities, and services with the

District. Additionally, Mr. Wrathell pointed out that the

District meetings will be publicly advertised and open to

the public, so that all District property owners and

residents can be involved in planning for improvements.

21. Mr. Manuel and Mr. Quinn reviewed the proposed

District in light of the requirements of the County

Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Quinn testified that, from a

planning perspective, several chapters (elements) and their

underlying goals, objectives, and policies apply directly

to the establishment of the proposed District, including

Chapter 1, Future Land Use; Chapter 3, Transportation; and

Chapter 13, Capital Improvements. In his pre-filed written

testimony, Mr. Quinn expounds upon each of these Chapters

and further explains their application to the proposed

District, concluding that the proposed District will not be

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the

County Comprehensive Plan.

22. The Department was notified of the Petition and

reviewed it for compliance with its various programs and

responsibilities. After conducting a review of the

Petition for consistency with Chapters 163 and 380, Florida

Statutes, and the approved County Comprehensive Plan, in a

letter dated June 21, 2007, the Department stated that it

found no potential inconsistency with Chapters 163 and 380,

Florida Statutes, and determined that the proposed land

uses within the proposed District are consistent with the

County Comprehensive Plan.

23. The testimony and exhibits indicate that the

proposed District will not be inconsistent with any

applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive

Plan or County Comprehensive Plan.

C. Whether the area of land within the proposed

District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact,

and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one

functional interrelated community.

24. The proposed District will include approximately

1,036.71 acres located entirely within an unincorporated

area of the County. The testimony of witnesses Wrathell,

Manuel, and Quinn indicate that from engineering,

financial, and management perspectives, 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 as a single functionally interrelated

community.

25. The testimony was that Petitioner has

demonstrated that the proposed District will be of

sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and sufficiently

contiguous to be developed as a single functionally

interrelated community.

D. 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.

26. Hearing Exhibit A and attached Petition Exhibits

4A and 4B indicate that it is presently anticipated that

the proposed District will construct or provide for certain

infrastructures, which include public roads, provisions for

water and sewer facilities, and environmental and water

management facilities, as outlined in the Petition.

27. According to Mr. Rase, it is anticipated that the

proposed District will finance these improvements with

proceeds of tax-exempt bonds which will be payable from

collections of non-ad valorem special assessments levied

against the developable property within the proposed

District and benefit from the provision of these

improvements. He further indicated that there will be no

bond obligation of the County or the State of Florida.

28. In their pre-filed testimony, Mr. Wrathell and

Mr. Rase indicated that there are alternatives to the use

of a community development district. For example,

facilities and services might be provided by private means

such as a homeowners' association. Also, the County might

provide facilities and services through county government,

funded through a Municipal Services Taxing Unit or

Municipal Service Benefit Unit, or managed and financed by

a dependent district on behalf of the County. Information

was provided by all witnesses as to each alternative,

analyzing each from a planning and development perspective,

an engineering perspective, and a financial perspective.

29. According to Mr. Quinn, from a planning

perspective, the following considerations are used to judge

the best alternatives to the use of a community development

district: (1) anticipated quality of facilities and

services; (2) responsiveness to community needs for

facilities and services; (3) long-term commitment to the

community; and (4) ability to appropriately and adequately

manage and fund community facilities and services.

30. Mr. Quinn added that relative to planning

consideration 1, anticipated quality of facilities and

services, the proposed District is the best option because

of its local nature and knowledge of the local systems,

facilities, and services. While a homeowners' association

would also be considered local, it usually does not have

the expertise available to provide the needed services. A

county government does possess the necessary expertise, but

it lacks the quality of service attainable by a local,

focused organization. Mr. Quinn further testified that

from a planning perspective, focused management enhances

the intrinsic value of the property.

31. Mr. Quinn also testified that as to planning

consideration 2, responsiveness to community needs for

facilities and services, the proposed District is the best

alternative because the supervisors of the proposed

District are initially elected by the property owners and

then by the residents of the proposed District and

therefore need be responsive only to them.

32. Relative to planning condition 3, long-term

commitment to provide and serve the facility needs of the

community, Mr. Quinn indicated that the proposed District

is the best alternative because it will provide personal

concern, interest, and commitment to the long-term welfare

of the community with the backing of Chapter 190, Florida

Statutes. While a homeowners' association could provide

this intimate commitment to the long-term welfare of the

community, it does not possess statutory duties and powers.

It would be difficult for a county government to provide

such intimate commitment to the long-term welfare of the

community.

33. Regarding planning condition 4, ability to

appropriately and adequately manage and fund community

facilities and services, Mr. Quinn testified that the

proposed District is the best alternative because it has

the statutory powers to manage projects, raise funds, and

finance projects.

34. Mr. Manuel stated that from an engineering

perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative

for providing community facilities and services because:

(1) the proposed area's size, compact and contiguous

nature, and land features are amenable to construction and

maintenance of efficient and effective community services

systems; (2) the costs of the community systems, services,

and facilities would be born by the users; (3) the costs

can be appropriately apportioned among the users; (4)

revenue generated by the proposed District will be used

only to provide community services and facilities to the

users; (5) the proposed District's Board of Supervisors is

elected by the landowners to make the decisions regarding

their community systems, services, and facilities; (6) the

proposed District has sufficient powers to ensure

appropriate maintenance and funding of the community

systems, services, and facilities; (7) the proposed

District has more local, detailed knowledge of and the duty

to provide the community systems, services, and facilities;

(8) the proposed District will be more responsive to the

community needs due to its concentrated location and

specific responsibilities for all indicated systems,

services, and facilities; and (9) some of the proposed

District's community systems, services, and facilities are

unique to the community and best served by a local,

knowledgeable entity.

35. From an economic perspective, Mr. Wrathell

testified that the proposed District is the best

alternative for providing community facilities,

infrastructures, and services because it can access the

tax-exempt public capital markets, thus funding at a lower

cost than the alternative of developer funding.

Furthermore, a community development district can fund

large capital improvement programs by assessing property

and collecting other revenue, which a homeowners'

association cannot. With regard to the operations and

maintenance of community facilities and services, the

witness stated that the proposed District is preferable

over a homeowners' association because it collects funds

directly from assessments collected with property taxes,

which make for a more assured income. He added that the

proposed District is preferable over a homeowners'

association because the proposed District, as a unit of

local government, must hold public meetings and bid out its

contracts. A county government, with its competing

interests and broad responsibilities, lacks the level of

focus to provide the community with services, facilities,

and maintenance.

36. Mr. Manuel, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Wrathell, and Mr. Rase

all testified in their pre-filed written testimony that a

community development district is the best alternative to

providing community facilities and services to the

Huntington Hammocks community.

37. The testimony is that 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 proposed

District.

E. Whether the community development services and

facilities of the proposed District will be incompatible

with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional

community development services and facilities.

38. Mr. Quinn testified that the systems, services,

and facilities that will be created within the proposed

District are not incompatible with the capacity and uses of

existing local and regional community facilities. In

particular, the existing roadways adjacent to the proposed

District will be modified and right-of-ways will be

constructed on Seville Parkway. He also indicated that the

existing water and wastewater lines are of adequate size to

support the proposed District. Finally, he noted that the

future storm water facilities are designed and engineered

as to not have any adverse effects on existing facilities.

39. According to Mr. Quinn, the County will operate

and maintain the water and sewer systems, facilities, and

services while the proposed District will manage District

roadways and other community facilities. This arrangement

is consistent with the policies addressed in the County

Comprehensive Plan.

40. Mr. Wrathell testified that there is no

duplication of the proposed District's services or

facilities with any available regional service or

facilities within the proposed District.

41. The testimony is that the community development

services and facilities of the proposed District will not

be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing

local and regional community development services and

facilities.

F. Whether the area that will be served by the

proposed District is amenable to separate special-district

government.

42. From a planning perspective, Mr. Quinn indicated

that the land area to be included in the proposed District

is sufficiently compact, contiguous, and of sufficient size

to be developed as one functional interrelated community,

and it is compatible with existing or proposed local or

regional facilities.

43. From an engineering perspective, Mr. Manuel

testified that a review of the land contained in the

proposed District calls for consideration of special

features of the area, beyond size or shape, that would

present any special difficulty in developing and providing

community improvements and facilities such as water, sewer,

and roads. He added that there are no special or unusual

difficulties with providing the improvements and facilities

and a separate special district government will be capable

of providing local, responsive services to meet the needs

of the proposed District.

44. Mr. Wrathell testified that from a professional

management perspective, the area to be serviced in the

proposed District is amenable to separate special-district

governance because the area of land included in the

proposed District is of sufficient size, of sufficient

compactness, and of sufficient continuity.

45. The testimony is that from planning and

development, engineering, and management perspectives, the

area that will be served by the District is amenable to

separate special-district government.

G. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule.

46. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1 impose specific

requirements regarding the petition and other information

to be submitted to the Commission.

a. Elements of the Petition

47. The Commission has certified that the Petition

meets all of the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(a),

Florida Statutes.

b. Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs

48. According to Petition Exhibit 6, the SERC

contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all

persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish

the District, including the State of Florida and its

citizens, the County and its citizens, the Petitioner, and

consumers.

49. The same exhibit indicates that the State will

only incur modest costs from establishing the proposed

District. These costs relate strictly to the receipt and

processing of various reports that the proposed District is

required to file with the State and its various entities.

It further states that the costs to the State agencies that

receive and process the various reports are very small and

are offset by the annual fee the proposed District must pay

to the Department.

50. Petition Exhibit 6 further states that costs

incurred by the County are modest. These modest costs are

offset by the required filing fee to the County. The only

annual costs the County faces are the minimal costs of

receiving and reviewing the various reports that the

District is required to provide to the County.

51. According to Petition Exhibit 6, future

landowners may be required to pay non-ad valorem special

assessments to repay the debt incurred to finance the

construction of District facilities and also to fund on-

going operation and maintenance of such District

facilities. Location in the proposed District by new

residents is voluntary. Benefits to consumers in the area

within the District will include a higher level of public

services, which in most cases will be sustained over a

longer period of time than would otherwise be the case,

assurance that the community facilities will be completed

concurrently with the development of lands, and assurance

of a sustained level of service of community

infrastructure.

52. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires

the petition to include a SERC which meets the requirements

of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. Mr. Wrathell has

testified that the Petition contains a SERC and meets all

requirements of the statute.

c. Other Requirements

53. According to Mr. Rase, Petitioner has complied

with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b)1, Florida

Statutes, in that a copy of the Petition was filed with the

County with the requisite $15,000.00 filing fee.

54. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires

Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in

a newspaper of general circulation in the County for four

consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. Petitioner

published notice of the local public hearing in the St.

Petersburg Times (Hernando County Edition), for four

consecutive weeks, on July 9, 16, 23, and 30, 2007.

d. Public Comment During the Hearing

55. No public comment was received during the

hearing.

APPLICABLE LAW

56. This proceeding is governed by Chapters 120 and

190, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule

Chapter 42-1.

57. Section 190.005(1), Florida Statutes, provides

that the exclusive method for establishing a community

development district with a size of more than 1,000 acres

shall be by rule adopted by the Commission.

58. The evidence was that the proceeding was properly

noticed pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida

Statutes, by publication of an advertisement in a newspaper

of general paid circulation in the County and of general

interest and readership once each week for the four

consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing.

59. The evidence was that Petitioner has met the

requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes,

regarding the submission of the Petition and satisfaction

of filing fee requirements.

60. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that

the petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set

forth in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

61. The evidence was that all portions of the

Petition and other submittals have been completed and filed

as required by law.

62. The evidence was that all statements contained

within the Petition as corrected and supplemented at the

hearing are true and correct. § 190.005(1)(e)1., Fla.

Stat.

63. The evidence was that the establishment of the

District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or

portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective

County Comprehensive Plan. § 190.005(1)(e)2., Fla. Stat.

64. The evidence was 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 functional interrelated community.

§ 190.005(1)(e)3., Fla. Stat.

65. The evidence was 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. § 190.005(1)(e)4., Fla. Stat.

66. The evidence was that the community development

services and facilities of the proposed District will not

be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing

local and regional community development services and

facilities. § 190.005(1)(e)5., Fla. Stat.

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

the proposed District is amenable to separate special

district government. § 190.005(1)(e)6., Fla. Stat.

CONCLUSION

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

the Commission "shall consider the entire record of the

local hearing, resolutions adopted by the local general-

purpose governments," and the factors listed in

subparagraphs 1. through 6. of the statute. Based on the

record evidence, the Petition appears to meet all statutory

requirements, and there appears to be no reason not to

grant the Petition to Establish the Huntington Hammocks

Community Development District as requested by Petitioner.

For purposes of drafting a rule, a copy of the metes and

bounds description of the District is found in Petition

Exhibit 1A.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2007, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 27th day of August, 2007.

ENDNOTES

1/ All references are to the 2006 version of the Florida

Statutes.

2/ In Ryan Rase's testimony, however, he indicates that

the five persons designated to serve as the initial Board

of Supervisors are citizens of the United States.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jerry McDaniel, Secretary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

The Capitol, Room 1802

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

The Capitol, Room 1801

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Paul C. Huck, Jr., General Counsel

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Room 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Brian A. Crumbaker, Esquire

Hopping, Boyd & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526

Shaw P. Stiller, General Counsel

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100