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.
Recommended Order on Wednesday, September 30, 2009.
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
- Date
- Proceedings
- 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: 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: 06/01/2009
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 16, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Wesley Chapel, FL).
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
-
Carly Ann Hermanson, Esquire
Address of Record -
Barbara R. Leighty, Agency Clerk
Address of Record -
Mark K Straley, Esquire
Address of Record -
Carly A. Hermanson, Esquire
Address of Record