09-002893 In Re: Petition To Merge The Seven Oaks Community Development District 1 And The Seven Oaks Community Development District Ii vs. *
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.


View Dockets  
Summary: The Petition to merge two existing Community Development Districts appeared to satisfy all statutory and rule criteria.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8IN RE: AMENDED PETITION TO )

14MERGE THE SEVEN OAKS COMMUNITY )

20DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT I AND THE ) Case No. 09-2893

29SEVEN OAKS COMMUNITY )

33DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT II )

37______________________________ )

39ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S REPORT TO THE FLORIDA LAND

47AND WATER ADJUDICATORY COMMISSION

51Pursuant to notice, a local public hearing was held in this

62matter in Wesley Chapel, Florida, on July 16, 2009, before

72Donald R. Alexander, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division

82of Administrative Hearings.

85APPEARANCES

86For Petitioners: Tracy J. Robin, Esquire

92Straley & Robin

95100 East Madison Street, Suite 300

101Tampa, Florida 33602-4703

104STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

108The issue is whether the Amended Petition to Merge the

118Seven Oaks Community Development District I and the Seven Oaks

128Community Development District II (Amended Petition) meets the

136applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes

145(2008), 1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 42-1. 2 The

156purpose of the hearing was to gather information in anticipation

166of quasi-legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water

175Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).

178PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

180On June 16, 2008, Petitioners, Seven Oaks Community

188Development District I (District I) and Seven Oaks Community

197Development District II (District II), two existing community

205development districts, filed their Petition with the Secretary

213of the Commission seeking to merge the two entities into a new

225community development district known as Seven Oaks Community

233Development District. 3 Prior to that time, a copy of the

244Petition and exhibits, along with the requisite filing fee, was

254filed with Pasco County (County), where the new district will be

265located. The County did not elect to have a local hearing.

276After a Notice of Insufficiency and Request for Additional

285Information was issued by the Commission on August 1, 2008, a

296first, second, and third set of Supplemental Exhibits were

305submitted by Petitioners on August 27, 2008, January 21, 2009,

315and April 6, 2009, respectively. On May 5, 2009, the Secretary

326of the Commission certified that the Petition contained all

335required elements and forwarded it to the Division of

344Administrative Hearings for the purpose of holding the local

353public hearing required under Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida

360Statutes.

361The local public hearing was held on July 16, 2009, in

372Wesley Chapel, Florida. Notice of the public hearing was

381published in accordance with Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida

388Statutes. On July 9, 2009, Petitioners pre-filed the testimony

397of their three witnesses.

401On July 16, 2009, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition,

410which amended their original request by asking that in lieu of

421establishing a new district, that District II be merged into

431District I, with District I becoming the surviving district.

440The Amended Petition further requested that the name of the

450surviving district be changed from Seven Oaks Community

458Development District I to Seven Oaks Community Development

466District. This change was authorized by an amendment to

475Section 190.046(3), Florida Statutes, which became effective on

483July 1, 2009, and provided the option, when merging two

493districts, of creating a new district or for one of the two

505merged districts to be the surviving district. See Ch. 2009-

515142, Laws of Fla. Prior to the change in the law, the only

528option available when merging two districts was to create a new

539district. At the hearing, counsel represented that copies of

548the Amended Petition were being "overnighted" that day to both

558the Commission and the County. Attached to the Amended Petition

568are Petition Exhibits A through J, some of which duplicate other

579exhibits received in evidence.

583At the local public hearing, Petitioners presented the

591testimony of William P. Bahlke, a professional engineer with

600Heidt & Associates, Inc., who serves as project engineer and was

611accepted as an expert; William E. Parsons, vice-chair of the

621Board of Supervisors of Districts I and II; and John H. McKay,

633Director of Planning and Compliance with Rizzetta & Company,

642Inc., and accepted as an expert. No members of the public

653appeared at the hearing.

657Besides the information submitted to the Commission in

665response to the Notice of Insufficiency and Request for

674Additional Information during the preliminary review process,

681Petitioners offered Hearing Exhibits 1 through 9, which were

690received into evidence. Exhibit 1 is the Third Amended Merger

700Agreement dated July 15, 2009; Exhibit 2 is Resolution No. 2009-

71113 adopted by District I on July 15, 2009, which approved the

723Third Amended Merger Agreement; Exhibit 3 is Resolution No.

7322009-15 adopted by District II on July 15, 2009, which approved

743the Third Amended Merger Agreement; Exhibit 4 is a Summary of

754Bond Issues for both Districts I and II, which totaled

764$36,315,000 as of May 2, 2009; Exhibit 5 is the affidavit and

778pre-filed testimony of John H. McKay; Exhibit 6 is the affidavit

789and pre-filed testimony with attachments of William Parsons;

797Exhibit 6 is the affidavit and pre-filed testimony of William P.

808Bahlke; Exhibit 8 is the Notice of Filing Affidavit of

818Publication of the local public hearing in the St. Petersburg

828Times , Pasco County Edition , on June 18 and 25 and July 2 and 9,

8422009; and Exhibit 9 is a copy of House Bill 821, which is

855engrossed in Chapter 2009-142, Laws of Florida. Petitioners

863also offered into evidence the Amended Petition, with attached

872Exhibits A through J, and requested that it be marked as Hearing

884Exhibit 5. While the Transcript (page 21) correctly reflects

893that Exhibit 5 is the affidavit and prefiled testimony of

903witness McKay, the list of exhibits prepared by the court

913reporter on page 2 of the Transcript identifies Exhibit 5 as the

925Amended Petition. To avoid confusion, the Amended Petition,

933with attachments, has been numbered as Hearing Exhibit 10.

942At the local hearing, Petitioners' counsel represented that

950an incorrect notice had been initially published by the

959Commission in the Florida Administrative Weekly . Therefore, a

968new notice was published by the Commission on July 17, 2009.

979Because of this, at counsel's request, the record in this case

990was kept open for an additional thirty days, or until August 16,

10022009. (Normally, the record would have been kept open for ten

1013days after the close of the hearing. See Fla. Admin. Code R.

102542-1.012(3).) No written communications were filed by any

1033person in response to the second notice.

1040The Transcript of the local public hearing was filed on

1050August 21, 2009. On the same date, Petitioners filed a proposed

1061Report to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission,

1070which has been considered in the preparation of this Report.

1080SUMMARY OF THE RECORD

1084A. Petition Contents and Related Matters

10901 . Petitioners are seeking the adoption of a rule by the

1102Commission to merge Districts I and II, which will consist of

1113approximately 1,773.422 acres located entirely within the

1121unincorporated part of the County. See Amended Petition Exhibit

1130A. The merged District is located just north of the

1140Hillsborough-Pasco County boundary line. Its southern boundary

1147intersects and/or adjoins State Road 56, its western boundary

1156adjoins Intrastate Highway 75, and its eastern boundary adjoins

1165County Road 581. The nearest community appears to be Wesley

1175Chapel.

11762. The metes and bounds description and sketch of the

1186external boundaries of the surviving district are found in

1195Amended Petition Exhibit B. There are four parcels within the

1205proposed surviving district which are to be excluded and are

1215owned by other entities: (a) Withlacoochee Electric

1222Cooperative, Inc.; (b) Tampa Bay Regional Water Supply

1230Authority; (c) the County Facilities Management Department; and

1238(d) the District School Board of the County.

12463. Amended Petition Exhibits C-1, C-2, and C-3 are true

1256and correct copies of the Third Amended Merger Agreement, the

1266District I resolution approving the merger, and the District II

1276resolution approving the merger, respectively. (These three

1283exhibits duplicate Hearing Exhibits 1 through 3.)

12904. Amended Petition Exhibit D indicates that the five

1299persons designated to serve as initial members of the Board of

1310Supervisors are Jeffrey Rosenberg, William Parsons, Susan Jurik,

1318Stephen Wheeler, and John Christenson, and that each member is a

1329resident of the State of Florida and a citizen of the United

1341States.

13425. Amended Petition Exhibit E describes the major water,

1351wastewater, and reuse trunk lines within the proposed District.

1360Because the capital infrastructure of Districts I and II is

1370completely built out, there is no additional construction

1378planned in the surviving district. Amended Petition Exhibits F-

13871 through F-4 are the Engineer's Reports dated October 2001,

1397July 30, 2002, March 3, 2003, and October 7, 2004, respectively,

1408which reflect the timetables and costs involved when the

1417existing infrastructure facilities were constructed. Amended

1423Petition Exhibit F-5 is the proposed infrastructure plan.

14316. Amended Petition Exhibit G is the relevant portion of

1441the Future Land Use Map of the County's Comprehensive Plan and

1452shows the general distribution, location, and extent of the

1461public and private land uses within the surviving district. It

1471also includes a description of each land use category within the

1482merged District.

14847. Amended Petition Exhibit H is the Statement of

1493Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), which indicates that it was

1502prepared in accordance with Section 120.541, Florida Statutes.

15108. Amended Petition Exhibit I is a copy of a letter dated

1522July 8, 2009, prepared by Akerman Senterfitt, bond counsel for

1532Districts I and II, who represents that the merger will not

1543adversely affect the terms and conditions of the outstanding

1552bonds or other interests of the bondholders therein.

15609. Amended Petition Exhibit J (which duplicates Hearing

1568Exhibit 4) is a summary of the outstanding bond issues by the

1580two districts, which totaled around $36,315,000 as of May 2,

15922009.

159310. The Amended Petition identifies Jeffrey Rosenberg,

16003434 Colwell Avenue, Suite 200, Tampa, Florida 33614, who is

1610Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Districts I and II, as

1622the authorized agent for Petitioners. Also identified as agents

1631are Mark K. Straley, Esquire, and John M. Vericker, Esquire,

1641Straley & Robin, 100 East Madison Street, Suite 300, Tampa,

1651Florida 33602.

165311. The Amended Petition alleges that merger of the

1662boundaries of the two Districts should be approved and that the

1673surviving district will comport with all requirements of the

1682law.

168312. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider

1693the merger of Districts I and II, as proposed by Petitioners.

1704Because Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, contains the

1711statutory criteria to be considered, a summary of the evidence

1721relating to each enumerated section of the statute is set forth

1732in the following part of this Report.

1739SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY

1744A. Whether all statements contained within the Amended

1752Petition have been found to be true and correct.

176113. Petitioners' Exhibit 10 consists of the Amended

1769Petition and attached Exhibits A-J, as filed with the

1778Commission. William Parsons serves as Vice-Chairman of the

1786Board of Supervisors for both Districts. He testified that

1795Exhibits C-1 and C-2 are true and correct to the best of his

1808knowledge. He added that the merger will result in the

1818increased efficiency of the operation and/or maintenance of

1826certain infrastructure to better serve the residents of

1834Districts I and II.

183814. Mr. McKay is a certified public accountant whose firm

1848serves as financial advisor and manager for more than 130

1858community development districts around the State. Besides

1865preparing the SERC, which is Exhibit H to the Amended Petition,

1876the witness reviewed the Petition and all attached exhibits. To

1886the best of his knowledge and belief, all matters contained in

1897the Amended Petition and attached exhibits were true and

1906correct.

190715. Finally, Mr. Bahlke, a professional engineer, oversees

1915the design and construction of infrastructure necessary for land

1924development, including community development districts.

1929Mr. Bahlke testified that to the best of his knowledge and

1940belief, Amended Petition Exhibits A, B, E, and G were true and

1952correct.

195316. The testimony is that the Amended Petition and its

1963exhibits are true and correct.

1968B. Whether the merger of the two Districts is inconsistent

1978with any applicable element or portion of the State

1987Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government

1995comprehensive plan.

199717. Mr. Balhke testified that he reviewed the County's

2006Comprehensive Plan and the State Comprehensive Plan and that the

2016merged District will not be inconsistent with any provision

2025therein.

202618. The testimony is that the merged District will not be

2037inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State

2047Comprehensive Plan or the County Plan.

2053C. Whether the area of land within the surviving District

2063is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is

2072sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional

2080interrelated community.

208219. According to Mr. Bahlke, the area of land to be

2093included in the merged District is of sufficient size, is

2103sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be

2111developed as a single functionally interrelated community.

2118Mr. McKay also testified that the surviving district will

2127satisfy this criterion.

213020. The testimony was that Petitioners have demonstrated

2138that the merged District will be of sufficient size, is

2148sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be

2156developed as a single functionally interrelated community.

2163D. Whether the merger of the two Districts is the best

2174alternative available for delivering community development

2180services and facilities to the area that will be served by the

2192merged District.

219421. Mr. McKay testified that the merged District is the

2204best alternative available to provide the community development

2212services and facilities to be provided by the merged district.

222222. The testimony and exhibits are that Petitioners have

2231demonstrated that the merged District is the best alternative

2240available for delivering community development services and

2247facilities to the area that will be served by the proposed

2258District.

2259E. Whether the community development services and

2266facilities of the merged District will be incompatible with the

2276capacity and uses of existing local and regional community

2285development services and facilities.

228923. Mr. Bahlke testified that facilities and services to

2298be provided by the surviving district will not be incompatible

2308with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional

2318community development services and facilities. Mr. McKay

2325offered similar testimony.

232824. The testimony is that the merged District will be

2338compatible with the capacity and uses of the existing local and

2349regional community development services and facilities.

2355F. Whether the area that will be served by the merged

2366District is amenable to separate special-district government.

237325. Witness McKay indicated that from an economic

2381perspective, the land area within the merged District is well-

2391suited to the provision of the proposed services and facilities

2401and that the size, compactness, and contiguity of the merged

2411District make it amenable to separate special district

2419governance.

242026. The testimony is that the area that will be served by

2432the merged District is amenable to separate special-district

2440government.

2441G. Other Requirements Imposed by Statute or Rule

244927. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1 impose

2458specific requirements regarding the petition and other

2465information to be submitted to the Commission.

2472a. Elements of the Petition

247728. The Commission has certified that the original

2485Petition meets all of the requirements of Sections 190.046(3),

2494and 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Counsel has represented

2501that the Amended Petition was provided to the Commission and

2511satisfies all requirements of the law.

2517b. Statement of the Estimated Regulatory Costs

252429. According to Mr. McKay, who prepared the SERC, which

2534is found in Amended Petition Exhibit H, it contains an estimate

2545of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by

2556the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of

2567Florida and its citizens, the County and its citizens,

2576Petitioner, and current and future property owners.

258330. The SERC indicates that beyond administrative costs

2591related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only

2602incur minimal costs from merging the two districts; that these

2612costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies

2622of reviewing additional local government reports filed annually;

2630that the surviving district will require no subsidies from the

2640State; and that the benefits will include the possibility of

2650increased sales tax revenues, a positive impact on property

2659values and ad valorem taxes, and impact fee and development

2669permit revenues, all of which are difficult to quantify but

2679potentially substantial.

268131. The SERC also states that there will be no

2691administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule

2700adoption. If there are any one-time costs in reviewing the

2710Amended Petition, they will be offset by the $15,000.00 filing

2721fee submitted to the County.

272632. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the

2733petition to include a SERC that meets the requirements of

2743Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. As noted above, the Amended

2752Petition contains a SERC and appears to meet all requirements of

2763that statute.

2765c. Other Requirements

276833. The Amended Petition represents that Petitioners have

2776complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b)1., Florida

2784Statutes, in that the County was provided copies of the Amended

2795Petition and was paid the requisite filing fee.

280334. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires a

2810petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a

2821newspaper of general circulation in the County for four

2830consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. Hearing Exhibit 8

2839reflects that a notice was published in the St. Petersburg

2849Times, Pasco County Edition , a newspaper of general paid

2858circulation in the County, for four consecutive weeks on June 18

2869and 25 and July 2 and 9, 2009.

287735. No public comment was received during the local

2886hearing and no comments were filed by any person during the

2897thirty-day period after the hearing.

2902APPLICABLE LAW

2904A. Generally

290636. This proceeding is governed by Chapters 120 and 190,

2916Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1.

292137. Section 190.046(3), Florida Statutes (2009), provides

2928the means of merging the boundaries of a community development

2938district pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes. It

2946states as follows:

2949(3) The district may merge with other

2956community development districts upon filing

2961a petition for merger, which petition shall

2968include the elements set forth in s.

2975190.005(1) and which shall be evaluated

2981using the criteria set forth in s.

2988190.005(1)(e). The filing fee shall be as

2995set forth in s. 190.005(1)(b). In addition,

3002the petition shall state whether a new

3009district is to be established or whether one

3017district shall be the surviving district.

3023The district may merge with any other

3030special districts upon filing a petition for

3037establishment of a community development

3042district pursuant to s. 190.005. The

3048government formed by a merger involving a

3055community development district pursuant to

3060this section shall assume all indebtedness

3066of, and receive title to, all property owned

3074by the preexisting special districts, and

3080the rights of creditors and liens upon

3087property shall not be impaired by such

3094merger. Any claim existing or action or

3101proceeding pending by or against any

3107district that is a party to the merger may

3116be continued as if the merger had not

3124occurred, or the surviving district may be

3131substituted in the proceeding for the

3137district that ceased to exist. Prior to

3144filing the petition, the districts seeking

3150to merge shall enter into a merger agreement

3158and shall provide for the proper allocation

3165of the indebtedness so assumed and the

3172manner in which such debts shall be retired.

3180The approval of the merger agreement and the

3188petition by the board of supervisors of the

3196district shall constitute consent of the

3202landowners of the district.

320638. Section 190.046(3), Florida Statutes (2009), requires

3213that a petition to merge be filed containing the same elements

3224found in Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes. They include

3232a metes and bounds description of the area to be served; written

3244consent to the merger; a designation of five persons to be the

3256initial members of the board of supervisors; the proposed name

3266of the district; a map of the major infrastructure; the proposed

3277timetable for construction, if any; the designation of the

3286future general distribution, location, and extent of public and

3295private uses of land proposed for the area; and a SERC. The

3307Amended Petition includes all of the required elements.

3315B. Procedural Requirements

331839. Section 190.046(3), Florida Statutes (2009),

3324incorporates the procedures in Section 190.005(1), Florida

3331Statutes, that must be followed by a petitioner.

333940. Section 190.005(1)(a), requires that the petition be

3347filed with the Commission. On June 16, 2008, and July 17, 2009,

3359the original Petition and Amended Petition, respectively, were

3367filed with the Commission.

337141. Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that

3378a petitioner provide a copy of the petition and the requisite

3389$15,000.00 filing fee to the county in which the merger will

3401occur. Petitioners submitted copies of the original Petition,

3409Amended Petition, and the appropriate filing fee to the County.

341942. Section 190.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires that

3426the county in which the merged districts are located to conduct

3437a hearing within forty-five days of the filing of the petition.

3448The County did not choose to hold a public hearing.

345843. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires a

3465local public hearing to be conducted by a hearing officer

3475[administrative law judge]. A local public hearing was

3483conducted in Wesley Chapel, Florida, on July 16, 2009.

349244. Section 190.005(1)(d), also requires that a petitioner

3500publish notice of the local public hearing once a week for four

3512consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing in a

3521newspaper of general circulation in the county. The appropriate

3530notice was published. See paragraph 34, supra .

353845. Rule 42-1.010 requires that a Notice of Receipt of

3548Petition be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly .

3557Such a notice was published on July 17, 2009.

356646. Petitioners have complied with all procedural

3573requirements.

3574C. Factors to be Considered for Granting or Denying

3583Petition

358447. Petitioners bear the burden of establishing that the

3593Amended Petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth

3602in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes.

360748. The evidence was that all statements contained within

3616the Amended Petition are true and correct. § 190.005(1)(e)1.,

3625Fla. Stat.

362749. The evidence was that the merger of Districts I and II

3639is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of

3649the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective County

3657Comprehensive Plan. § 190.005(1)(e)2., Fla. Stat.

366350. The evidence was that the area of land within the

3674merged District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact,

3683and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one

3692functional interrelated community. § 190.005(1)(e)3., Fla.

3698Stat.

369951. The evidence was that the merged District is the best

3710alternative available for delivering community development

3716services and facilities to the area that will be served by the

3728District. § 190.005(1)(e)4., Fla. Stat.

373352. The evidence was that the community development

3741services and facilities of the merged District will not be

3751incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and

3761regional community development services and facilities.

3767§ 190.005(1)(e)5., Fla. Stat.

377153. The evidence was that the area to be served by the

3783merged District is amenable to separate special district

3791government. § 190.005(1)(e)6., Fla. Stat.

3796CONCLUSION

3797Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, states that the

3804Commission "shall consider the entire record of the local

3813hearing, resolutions adopted by the local general-purpose

3820governments," and the factors listed in subparagraphs 1. through

38296. of that statute. Based on the record evidence, the Amended

3840Petition appears to meet all statutory requirements, and there

3849appears to be no reason not to grant the Amended Petition to

3861Merge Seven Oaks Community Development District I and Seven Oaks

3871Community Development District II, with District I becoming the

3880surviving district with the name Seven Oaks Community

3888Development District, as requested by Petitioners. For purposes

3896of drafting a rule, a copy of the metes and bounds description

3908of the surviving District is found in Amended Petition Exhibit

3918B.

3919DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2009, in

3929Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3933S

3934DONALD R. ALEXANDER

3937Administrative Law Judge

3940Division of Administrative Hearings

3944The DeSoto Building

39471230 Apalachee Parkway

3950Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3953(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

3957Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3961www.doah.state.fl.us

3962Filed with the Clerk of the

3968Division of Administrative Hearings

3972this 30th day of September, 2009.

3978ENDNOTES

39791/ Unless otherwise noted, all references are to the 2008

3989version of the Florida Statutes.

39942/ All references are to the current version of the Florida

4005Administrative Code.

40073/ District I was established by County Ordinance No. 01-03

4017under the name of Saddlebrook Village Community Development

4025District. By County Ordinance No. 01-22, the name was changed

4035to Seven Oaks Community Development District I. District II was

4045established by County Ordinance No. 02-23, as amended by County

4055Ordinance No. 04-40.

4058COPIES FURNISHED:

4060Jerry McDaniel, Director

4063Florida Land and Water

4067Adjudicatory Commission

4069The Capitol, Room 1802

4073Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

4076Barbara Leighty, Clerk

4079Florida Land and Water

4083Adjudicatory Commission

4085Office of Policy and Budget

4090The Capitol, Room 1801

4094Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

4097Rob Wheeler, General Counsel

4101Office of the Governor

4105The Capitol, Room 209

4109Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

4112Tracy J. Robin, Esquire

4116Straley & Robin

4119100 East Madison Street, Suite 300

4125Tampa, Florida 33602-4703

4128Shaw P. Stiller, General Counsel

4133Department of Community Affairs

41372555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

4141Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2010
Proceedings: Notice of Meeting filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 09/30/2009
Proceedings: Administrative Law Judge's Report to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (hearing held July 16, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 08/21/2009
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript of Proceedings filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2009
Proceedings: Administrative Law Judge's Report to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Report of Administrative Law Judge to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission filed.
Date: 07/16/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/14/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Affidavit of Publication filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2009
Proceedings: Affidavit of William P. Bahlke filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2009
Proceedings: Affidavit of William Parsons filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2009
Proceedings: Affidavit of John H. McKay filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/09/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Pre-filed Testimony filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/01/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 16, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Wesley Chapel, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2009
Proceedings: (Petitioner's) Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2009
Proceedings: Petition to Establish the Seven Oaks Community Development District filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2009
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2009
Proceedings: Agency referral

Case Information

Judge:
D. R. ALEXANDER
Date Filed:
05/27/2009
Date Assignment:
05/27/2009
Last Docket Entry:
01/19/2010
Location:
Wesley Chapel, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
Office of the Governor
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):