15-006699 In Re: Petition To Amend The Boundary Of The Tampa Palms Open Space And Transportation Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, February 25, 2016.

Summary: Report to the FLAWAC that the Petition to contract the boundary of the community development district satisfies the statutory requirements in sections 190.005 and 190.046.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION TO AMEND THE

BOUNDARY OF THE TAMPA PALMS

OPEN SPACE AND TRANSPORTATION Case No. 1 5 - 6699

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

/

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDG E'S REPORT TO THE

FLORIDA LAND AND WAT ER ADJUDICATORY COMM ISSION

On January 22, 2016 , a local public hearing was conducted

before E. Gary Early , an Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), at the West Meadow

Community Ce nter Conference Room, 8401 New Tampa Boulevard,

Tampa, Florida .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation

Community Development District :

Lindsay Whelan , Esquire

Michael Eckert , Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

1 19 South Monroe Street, Suite 300

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1591

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission (Commission) in this proceeding is whether to grant

the Petition of the Tampa Palms Open S pace and Transportation

Community Development District (Petition), to contract the

boundary of the Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation

Community Development District (District) by removing 21.59

acres from the 3,151.7 acres of land that comprise the current

area encompassed by the District.

The local public hearing was conducted pursuant to sections

190.046(1)(f) and 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, for the

purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving

exhibits on the Petition.

Thi s report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land

and Water Adjudicatory Commission ( Commission ) pursuant to

s ections 190.046 and 190.005 for consideration in its

determination whether to adopt a rule amending the boundary of

the District as requested by the District .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 28, 2015, the District filed the Petition with

the Commission. T he District previously provided the Petition

and its e xhibits, along with the requisite filing fee, to the

City of Tampa ( City ).

The Petit ion seeks to contract the boundary of the District

by removing 21.59 4 acres , more or less (the contraction parcel) ,

from the 3,151.7 acres, more or less, that comprise the existing

District , which will result in a District boundary encompassing

3,130.11 ac res , more or less (the Amended District) .

On November 23, 2015, the Commission certified that the

Petition contained all required elements and referred the

P etition to DOAH for the purpose of conducting the local public

hearing required by s ection 190.0 05(1)(d). The Commission a lso

provided a copy of the Petition to the Florida Department of

Economic Opportunity ( DEO ) for its review of compliance with its

various programs and responsibilities.

The District is located entirely within the incorporated

l imits of the City. Section 190.005(1)(c) provides that a

municipality containing all or a portion of the lands within the

proposed amended District has the option to hold a public

hearing within 45 days of the filing of a petition. The City

elected not t o hold an optional public hearing relative to the

proposed boundary amendment .

References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2015),

unless otherwise noted.

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD

A. Petition Contents and Related Matters

1. The Petition was submitted to the Commission on

October 28, 2015. A copy of the Petition, a long with a check in

the amount of $ 15,000.00, was submitted to the City under cover

dated October 27, 2015 .

2. Petition Exhibit 1 is a depiction of the general

location of the existing Dis trict boundary.

3. Petition Exhibit 2 is the metes and bounds description

of the existing District boundary as adopted in Florida

Administrative Code Rule 42J - 1.002.

4. Petition Exhibit 3 is the metes and bounds description

of the contraction parcel.

5. Petition Exhibit 4 is the metes and bounds description

of the Amended District after removal of the contraction parcel.

6. Petition Exhibit 5 is the written consent by which the

owner (at the time) of 100 percent of the lands within the

contraction parcel, Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., expressed

its consent to the amend ment of the boundary of the Dist r ict by

removal of the contraction parcel.

7. Petition Exhibit 6 is confirmation that the District

has approved the amendment of the boundary of t he District by

removal of the contraction parcel.

8. Petition Exhibit 7 designates the future general

distribution, location , and extent of public and private land

uses for the contraction parcel by the future land use element

of the City of Tampa Compr ehensive Plan .

9 . Petition Exhibit 8 is a map of the current major trunk

water mains, sewer interceptors , and outfalls within the current

District boundary.

10. Petition Exhibit 9 is the Statement of Estimated

Regulatory Costs (SERC) prepared in accord ance with the

requirements of s ection 120.541, Florida Statutes.

11 . The Petition described the services and facilities

currently provided by the D istrict to the area being removed .

According to the Petition, th e District is not currently

providing any facilities or services to the contraction parcel,

and the contraction parcel is not subject to any District

assessments. The District does not intend to construct or

provide infrastructure improvements within the contraction

parcel in the future. There w ill be no changes in the

facilities proposed to be provided by the District as a result

of the removal of the contraction parcel.

12 . The Petition designated the future general

distribution, location, and extent of public and private uses of

land propo sed for the area being removed. The Petition provided

a map of future land uses. The Petition also provided that u pon

the removal of the contraction parcel from the District, there

will be no remaining developable acreage within the District's

boundar y; accordingly, the District has no present intent to

construct and/or acquire additional infrastructure or facilities

within its contracted boundary, except with respect to the

maintenance of its existing infrastructure and facilities.

13 . Th e Petition all eges that the removal of the

contraction parcel from the District boundary should be granted

for the following reasons:

a. Amendment of the District and all land uses and

services planned within the District, as contracted, are not

inconsistent with app licable elements or portions of the adopted

State Comprehensive Plan or the City of Tampa Comprehensive

Plan.

b. The area of land within the District, as

contracted, is part of a planned community. The District, as

contracted, will continue to be of su fficient size and

sufficiently compact and contiguous to be developed as one

functional and interrelated community.

c. The District, as contracted, continues to be the

best alternative for delivering community development services

and facilities without imposing an additional burden on the

general population of the local general - purpose government.

d. The community development services and facilities

of the District, as contracted, will not be incompatible with

the capacity and use of existing local a nd regional community

development services and facilities.

e. The area to be served by the District, as

contracted, continues to be amenable to separate special -

district government.

14 . The Commission certified that the Petition contained

the required elements of a petition to amend the District

boundary, though that certification made no representation of

the accuracy of the documents.

B. Summary of the Local Public Hearing

15 . Notice of the public hearing was advertised on

December 23, 2015; Dec ember 30, 2015; J anuary 6, 2016; and

January 13, 2016, in t he Tampa Bay Times, a newspaper of general

paid circulation in Hillsborough County, which newspaper

complies with the requirements for publication of legal and

official advertisements , pursuant to c hapter 50, Florida

Statutes. The published notice gave the time and place for the

hearings, a description of the area to be removed from the

District boundary , including a map showing the contraction

parcel, and other relevant information.

16 . The loc al public hearing on the Petition was held as

noticed on January 22, 2016, at the West Meadow Community Center

Conference Room, 8401 New Tampa Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

17 . The District presented the following witnesses at the

hearing: Gary Lee Moyer, President of Moyer Management Group,

who was qualified and accepted as an expert in special district

consulting, financial analysis, and management; Tonya Lee

Stewart, senior project manager with Stantec Consulting, Inc.,

who was qualified and accepted as an expert in land development

projects and community development district construction and

engineering; and Craig Daniel Hotop, land development manager

for Taylor Morrison Homes, Inc.

18 . The Pre - Filed Written Testimony of Mr. Moyer,

Ms. Stewart, and Mr. Hotop w ere received as Hearing Exhibits L ,

M , and N, respectively .

19 . The District offered the following additional

exhibits, all of which were received into evidence at the

hearing:

a . Hearing Exhibit A, consisting of the Petition to

Amend the Boundary of the Tampa Palms Open Space and

Transportation Community Development District, including

Exhibits 1 through 9 thereto.

b . Hearing Exhibit B , consisting of c orrespondence

dated October 27, 2015 , transmitting a copy of the Petition to

the Cit y, along with a check in the amount of $15,000.00 .

c . Hearing Exhibit C , consisting of c orrespondence

dated December 1, 2015, by which the City confirmed its intent

to not hold a separate public hearing.

d . Hearing Exhibit D , consisting of c orrespo ndence

dated November 23, 2015, by which the Commission referred the

Petition to DOAH to conduct a local public hearing.

e . Hearing Exhibit E , consisting of t he Notice of

Receipt of Petition published in the Florida Administrative

Register on January 6 , 2016.

f . Hearing Exhibit F , consisting of t he Notice of

Hearing entered by the undersigned.

g . Hearing Exhibit G , consisting of c orrespondence

dated November 23, 2015, by which the Commission provided a copy

of the Petition to the DEO .

h . Heari ng Exhibit H , consisting of t he affidavit of

publication of the Notice of Local Public Hearing in the Tampa

Bay Times.

i . Hearing Exhibit I , consisting of t he State

Comprehensive Plan, c hapter 187, Florida Statutes.

j . Hearing Exhibit J , consisting o f t he City of Tampa

Comprehensive Plan, including c hapters 1 through 10 thereto.

k . Hearing Exhibit K , consisting of a s ubsequent

Consent to the Amendment of the Boundaries of the Tampa Palms

Open Space and Transportation Community Development District.

20 . No members of the public provided comment at the

hearing. No public comment was filed after the local public

hearing.

21 . The T ranscript of the local public hearing, with

exhibits, was filed with DOAH on February 15, 2016. The

District also fil ed a Proposed Report of Findings and

Conclusions on February 15, 2016, which has been considered in

the preparation of this Report.

SUMMARY OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE

22 . The standards applicable to a determination of whether

to grant or deny the Dist rictÓs Petition are those in section

190.005(1)(e).

Section 190.005(1)(e)1. - Whether all statements contained

within the Petition have been found to be true and correct.

23 . M r. Moyer testified as to the accuracy of the

information contained in the Pet ition. He also prepared, or had

others prepare under his supervision, Petition Exhibit 9, the

SERC . Mr. MoyerÓs testimony constitutes competent, substantial

evidence of the accuracy of the statements in the Petition and

the exhibits attached thereto.

2 4 . Ms. Stewart testified that she prepared, or had others

prepare under her supervision, Petition Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 ,

and 8 . Ms. Stewart testified that these exhibits accurately

depict and describe the boundaries of the parcels of property at

issue, the CityÓs future land uses for the parcels of property

at issue , and the location and description of the existing major

water and sewer trunk lines associated with the parcels of

property at issue. M s. Stewart Ós testimony constitutes

competent, substanti al evidence of the accuracy of Petition

Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 , and 8.

25 . Mr. Hotop testified that he is familiar with the

Petition , and that he coordinated the execution of Petition

Exhibit 5, the Consent to the Amendment of the Boundaries of the

Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation Community Development

District by which Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., as owner of

100 percent of the contraction parcel, consented to the deletion

of the contraction parcel from the District . Subsequent to the

fili ng of the Petition, Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc. sold

approximately 0.15 acres within the contraction parcel to a

third party. Consent of the purchaser to the deletion of the

contraction parcel from the District was provided as Hearing

Exhibit K. Mr. Hot o p Ós testimony constitutes competent,

substantial evidence of the accuracy of the statements in the

Petition , and of the consent of the landowners in the

contraction parcel to the proposed District boundary amendment.

26 . Based on the testimony and evidence of record, and in

the absence of evidence to the contrary, the statements

contained in the Petition and the exhibits thereto are true and

correct.

Section 190.005(1)(e) 2 . - Whether the amendment of the District

boundary is inconsistent wi th any applicable element or portion

of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local

government comprehensive plan.

27 . Ms. Stewart reviewed the proposed District boundary

amendment for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan,

c hapter 18 7, Florida Statutes .

28 . The State Comprehensive Plan Ðprovides long - range

policy guidance for the orderly social, economic and physical

growth of the State . Ñ Of the subjects, goals, and policies in

the State Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Stewart identified Subject

No. 15 - Land Use, Subject No. 17 - Public Facilities , and

Subject No. 25 - Plan Implementation, as relevant from a

planning and engineering perspective to the proposed amendment .

29 . Subject No. 15 recognizes the importance of locating

developme nt in areas that have the resources, fiscal abilities ,

and service capacity to accommodate growth. Ms. Stewart

testified that the Amended District will continue to have the

fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services and

facilities to a populati on in a designated growth area.

Ms. StewartÓs testimony constitutes competent, substantial

evidence that the proposed boundary amendment is not

inconsistent with th e land use goal of the State Comprehensive

Plan. There was no evidence to the contrary.

3 0 . Subject No. 17 calls for the protection of existing

public facilities and the timely, orderly , and efficient

planning and financing of new facilities. Ms. Stewart testified

that the removal of the c ontraction p arcel from the boundary of

the District w ill not have an impact on the DistrictÓs existing

public facilities and services, and that no new facilities or

services are planned to be constructed, acquired , or otherwise

provided by the Amended District . Ms. StewartÓs testimony

constitutes competent, substantial evidence that the proposed

boundary amendment is not inconsistent with the public

facilities goal of the State Comprehensive Plan. There was no

evidence to the contrary.

31 . Subject No. 25 calls for systematic planning

capabilities to be in tegrated into all levels of government

throughout the State, with particular emphasis on improving

intergovernmental coordination and maximizing citizen

involvement. Ms. Stewart testified that the District is fully

developed so no additional community pla nning or development

activities will occur with respect to the lands within the

boundary of the Amended District . Ms. StewartÓs testimony

constitutes competent, substantial evidence that the proposed

boundary amendment is not inconsistent with the plan

im plementation goal of the State Comprehensive Plan. There was

no evidence to the contrary.

32 . Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the

Amended District will not be inconsistent with any applicable

provision of the State Comprehensive Plan.

3 3 . Ms. Stewart also reviewed the proposed District

boundary amendment for consistency with the City of Tampa

Comprehensive Plan.

34 . Chapter 190 prohibits a community development district

from acting in any manner inconsistent with the local

government Ós comprehensive plan. When initially established in

1990, and thereafter in the 1997 boundary contraction

proceeding, the District demonstrate d that the development of

the lands within its boundary was consistent with the City of

Tampa Comprehensive Plan . The District is fully developed,

therefore no additional community planning or development

activities will occur with respect to the lands within the

boundary of the Amended District .

35 . Ms. StewartÓs testimony constitutes competent,

substantial evi dence that the proposed boundary amendment w ill

not be inconsistent with any applicable element of the City of

Tampa Comprehensive Plan. There was no evidence to the

contrary.

36 . Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, the

Amended District will not be inconsistent with any applicable

provisions of the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan.

Section 190.005(1)(e)3. - Whether the area of land within the

Amended District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact,

and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one

functional interrelated community.

37 . The Amended District will include approximately

3,130.11 acres, located entirely within the incorporated limits

of the City of Tampa.

38 . Mr. Moyer testified that the Amended District has

suffi cient land area, and is sufficiently compact and contiguous

to be developed, and has in fact been developed, as one

functional, interrelated community, and that the boundary

amendment will have no impact on that functionality.

39 . Ms. Stewart testified that the area of land within the

District was originally developed as a planned community, was

previously determined to be of sufficient size, compactness , and

contiguity to be developed with facilities and services as one

functionally - interrelated commun ity , and that no additional

facilities, services , or other development are planned for the

lands within the Amended District . No development of facilities

or services was originally planned for the c ontraction p arcel .

T he Amended District was operating a s a funct ionally -

interrelated community, even prior to the proposed elimination

of the c ontraction p arcel from the DistrictÓs boundary. The

removal of the contraction parcel from the District boundary

will result in no duplication or overlap of facilities or

services. As a result, the Amended District remains of

sufficient size, compactness , and contiguity to function as one

interrelated community.

40 . The testimony of Mr. Moyer and Ms. Stewart constitute s

competent, substantial evidence that the Amende d District will

be of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and sufficiently

contiguous to be developed as a single functionally - interrelated

community. There was no evidence to the contrary.

Section 190.005(1)(e)4. - Whether the Amended District remai ns

the best alternative available for delivering community

development services and facilities to the area that will be

served by the Amended District.

41 . The District is presently providing infrastructure

improvements to the lands within its boundar y , with the

exception of the c ontraction p arcel . The District does not

intend to construct or provide infrastructure improvements

within the c ontraction p arcel in the future.

42 . Mr. Moyer testified that to date, the District has

been the mechanism used t o plan, finance, construct, operate ,

and maintain the public facilities and services within the

existing District . T he District has already constructed the

entirety of the facilities and services needed to serve the

Amended District, and is providing the associated maintenance

and operations . The proposed amendment will allow for the

continued operation of the facilities and services to the lands

within the Amended DistrictÓs boundar y . Accordingly, the

Amended District is the best alternative to provide such

facilities and services to the area to be served.

43 . Ms. Stewart testified that the existing District has

provided community development facilities and services

effectively and efficiently to the areas served from the date

the District was establis hed, and is expected to remain the best

alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities . Even after removal of the c ontraction

p arcel, the Amended District will be capable of continuing to

efficiently finance and oversee the operation and maintenance of

necessary capital improvements within the community.

44 . Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., as the developer of

the c ontraction p arcel, will fund the infrastructure,

facilities , and services need ed to accommodate develop ment

within the c ontraction p arcel. After construction, the

infrastructure and facilities within the c ontraction p arcel will

be conveyed to the City of Tampa, to Hillsborough County, or to

an applicable homeownersÓ association for ownership and

maintenanc e, depending on the type of infrastructure or

facilities constructed.

45 . The testimony of Mr. Moyer , Ms. Stewart , and Mr. Hotop

constitute s competent, substantial evidence that the Amended

District remains the best alternative available for delivering

c ommunity development services and facilities to the area that

will be served by the Amended District. There was no evidence

to the contrary.

Section 190.005(1)(e)5. - Whether the community development

services and facilities of the Amended District will be

incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and

regional community development services and facilities.

46 . Mr. Moyer testified that the services and facilities

of the Amended District are those provided by the existing

District, and th us are not incompatible with the capacity and

use of existing local or regional community development services

and facilities.

47 . Ms. Stewart testified that the services and facilities

to be provided by the Amended District are not incompatible, and

in fact remain fully compatible, with the capacities and uses of

the existing local or regional community development facilities,

and with those provided by the existing District.

48 . The testimony of Mr. Moyer and Ms. Stewart constitutes

competent, substan tial evidence that the community development

services and facilities of the Amended District will not be

incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and

regional community development services and f acilities. There

was no evidence to the con trary.

Section 190.005(1)(e)6. - Whether the area that will be served

by the Amended District is amenable to separate special - district

government.

49 . Mr. Moyer testified that the removal of the

c ontraction p arcel will not affect the ability of the A mended

District to operate as a separate special district government,

and that contracting the boundar y of the existing District will

limit the area to be served by the government already in place,

but will not change the way the unit of government is oper ating

either now or into the future.

50 . Ms. Stewart testified that t he area within the Amended

District remains large enough to comprise its own community with

individual facility and service needs , and will continue to

constitute an efficient mechanis m for providing the necessary

capital infrastructure improvements, and ongoing operation and

maintenance thereof, to directly serve the development within

its boundary. S pecial district governance is appropriate for

the Amended District because it provide s a mechanism whereby

long - term maintenance obligations can be satisfied by the

persons using the facilities and services.

51 . The testimony of Mr. Moyer and Ms. Stewart constitutes

competent, substantial evidence that the area that will be

served by th e Amended District is amenable to separate special -

district government. There was no evidence to the contrary.

Section 190.005(1)(a)8. - Statement of Estimated Regulatory

Costs .

52 . In addition to the elements in section 109.005(1)(e),

s ection 190.005( 1)(a)(8), requires the preparation and

submission of a S ERC w hich meets the requirements of s ection

120.541 . The Petition includes a S ERC .

53 . Mr. Moyer explained the purpose of the SERC , the

economic analysis presented therein, and the data and

methodo logy used in preparing the S ERC . Without recitation, his

testimony is accepted.

54 . The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and

benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule

to amend the boundar y of the District , including the Stat e of

Florida and its citizens, the City of Tampa and its citizens,

and the property owners within the existing District and the

c ontraction p arcel.

55 . Aside from nominal costs related to the amendment of

rule 42J - 1.002 , the s tate and its citizens will only incur

modest costs from contracting the DistrictÓs boundary as

proposed. Specifically, s tate employees will process, analyze,

and conduct any pu blic hearing s on the Petition to amend the

boundary of the District. However, th ose costs are likely to b e

minimal because review of the Petition does not include analysis

of the development to be served by the District , the Petition

itself provides most of the information needed for state review ,

the s tate currently employs the staff needed to conduct the

re view of the Petition , and no capital expenditure is required

to review the Petition.

56 . As is the case with the existing District, ongoing

state costs related to the Amended District are limited to the

receipt and processing of reports that are required to be file d

with the s tate. C osts to the s tate agencies that will receive

and process the Amended DistrictÓs reports are expected to be

minimal. The Amended District is one of many governmental

subdivisions required to submit reports to the s tate. P urs uant

to s ection 189.018 , the Amended District will pay an annual fee

to the DEO to offset such costs.

57 . It is not anticipated that the City will incur costs

in reviewing the Petition to amend the boundary of the District,

as the District remitted a $15 ,000 filing fee to the City to

offset any such costs. T he City declined to hold a public

hearing on the matter , thus avoiding costs related thereto . As

is the case with the existing District, annual costs to the City

related to the Amended District are e xpected to be minimal.

Since t he Amended District is an independent unit of local

government , t he only annual costs incurred by the City will be

the minimal costs of receiving and r eviewing reports that are

required to be provide d to the City.

58 . The costs of petitioning for the boundary amendment

are being paid entirely by the majority owner of the c ontraction

p arcel, Taylor Morrison of Florida, Inc., pursuant to a funding

agreement with the District. The District will continue to

incur costs for ope ration and maintenance of its facilities and

for its administration. Th o se costs are paid from annual

assessments against properties within the District benefiting

from its facilities and its services. Since the c ontraction

p arcel has not been assessed a nd does not benefit from existing

District facilities or services, the boundary amendment will not

affect the revenues or expenses of the Amended District.

59 . The evidence in this case establishes that the S ERC

meets all requirements of s ection 120.541 .

APPLICABLE LAW

60 . This proceeding is governed by sections 190.005 and

190.046 and rule chapter 42 - 1.

61 . The District was established by the adoption of

c hapter 42J - 1 on January 31, 1990, which followed the issuance

of a DOAH Recommended Order and Re port to the Commission . See

In Re: Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation Community

Development District , Petition for a Rule Under Chapter 190,

Florida Statutes , DOAH Case No. 89 - 3654 (DOAH Recommended Order

and Report Oct. 18, 1989 ; Chapter 42J - 1 ado ption J an. 31, 1990 ).

62 . In 1997, the original District area of approximately

5,509 acres was contracted by the removal of approximately 2,357

acres . See In Re: Petition to Contract the Tampa Palms Open

Space and Transportation Community Development Di strict , DOAH

Case No. 96 - 4213 (DOAH Report and Conclusions Jan. 31, 1997;

Rule 42J - 1.002 amendment July 31, 1997).

63 . Section 190.046 (1) (e)1. provides that:

During the existence of a district initially

established by administrative rule, the

process to amend the boundaries of the

district pursuant to paragraphs (a) - (d)

shall not permit a cumulative net total

greater than 10 percent of the land in the

initial district, and in no event greater

than 250 acres on a cumulative net basis.

64 . Section 190.04 6 (1) (f) provides, in pertinent part,

that:

Petitions to amend the boundaries of the

district that exceed the amount of land

specified in paragraph (e) shall be

processed in accordance with s. 190.005, and

the petition shall include only the elements

set fo rth in s. 190.005(1)(a)1. and 5. - 8.

and the consent required by paragraph (g).

65 . The District having been initially established by rule

42J - 1.001, and having been previously amended by greater than

the threshold a creage , this proceeding is governed b y the

standards in section 190.046 (1) (f).

66 . Section 109.046 (1) (g) provides that:

In all cases of a petition to amend the

boundaries of a district, the filing of the

petition by the district board of

supervisors constitutes consent of the

landowners w ithin the district. In all

cases, written consent of those landowners

whose land is to be added to or deleted from

the district as provided in s.

190.005(1)(a)2. is required.

67 . The District obtained consent to the boundary

amendment from the property owners within the current District

boundar y . T he filing of the P etition by the D istrict

constitutes consent of the landowners within the D istrict .

§ 190.046(1)(g). The Consent and Joinder of Landowner included

as Exhibit 5 of the Petition, and the subs equent Consent and

Joinder of Landowner introduced as Exhibit K in this proceeding

establish that the District provided the requisite consent of

the landowners whose land is to be deleted from the D istrict ,

thus meeting the landowner consent requirements o f section

190.046(1)(g) .

68 . The District satisfied the statutory notice

requirements by providing the City with a copy of the Petition,

and paying the required filing fee to the City as required by

section 190.005(1)(b) . The District also published n otice of

the local public hearing in the manner required by section

190.005(1)( d ).

69 . Section 190.005(1) provides, in pertinent part, that:

(1) The exclusive and uniform method for the

establishment of a community development

district with a size of 1,000 acres or more

shall be pursuant to a rule, adopted under

chapter 120 by the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission, granting a petitio n

for the establishment of a community

development district.

(a) A petition for the establishment of a

community development district shall be filed

by the petitioner with the Florida Land and

Water Adjudicatory Commission . The petition

shall contain:

1. A metes and bounds description of the

external boundaries of the district . Any

real property within the external boundaries

of the district which is to be excluded from

the district shall be specifically described,

and the last known address of all ow ners of

such real property shall be listed . The

petition shall also address the impact of the

proposed district on any real property within

the external boundaries of the district which

is to be excluded from the district.

* * *

5. A map of the propose d district showing

current major trunk water mains and sewer

interceptors and outfalls if in existence.

6. Based upon available data, the proposed

timetable for construction of the district

services and the estimated cost of

constructing the proposed ser vices . These

estimates shall be submitted in good faith

but are not binding and may be subject to

change.

7. A designation of the future general

distribution, location, and extent of public

and private uses of land proposed for the

area within the distr ict by the future land

use plan element of the effective local

government comprehensive plan of which all

mandatory elements have been adopted by the

applicable general - purpose local government

in compliance with the Community Planning

Act.

8. A stateme nt of estimated regulatory costs

in accordance with the requirements of s.

120.541.

70 . The Petition includes the elements required by section

190.005(1)(a) 1. and 5. - 8.

71 . Section 190.046(1)(a) provides that :

If the petitioner seeks to contract the

district, the petition shall describe what

services and facilities are currently

provided by the district to the area being

removed, and the designation of the future

general distribution, location, and extent

of public and private uses of land proposed

fo r the area by the future land element of

the adopted local government comprehensive

plan.

72 . As established herein, the Petition included the

description of services and facilities, and the designation of

future public and private land uses as required .

73 . As established in s ection 190.046 (1) ( f ) , the Petition

is to be processed by application of the standards in section

190.005 .

74 . Section 190.005(d) provides, in pertinent part, that:

A local public hearing on the petition shall

be conducted by a hearing officer in

conformance with the applicable requirements

and procedures of the Administrative

Procedure Act . The hearing shall include

oral and written comments on the petition

pertinent to the factors specified in

paragraph [190.005(1) (e) ] .

75 . Section 190.005(1) (e) provides that:

The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission shall consider the entire record

of the local hearing, the transcript of the

hearing, resolutions adopted by local

general - purpose governments as provided in

paragrap h (c), and the following factors and

make a determination to grant or deny a

petition for the establishment of a

community development district:

1. Whether all statements contained within

the petition have been found to be true and

correct.

2. Whether the establishment of the

district is inconsistent with any applicable

element or portion of the state

comprehensive plan or of the effective local

government comprehensive plan.

3. Whether the area of land within the

proposed district is of sufficient si ze, is

sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developable as one

functional interrelated community.

4. Whether the district is the best

alternative available for delivering

community development services and

facilities to the area tha t will be served

by the district.

5. Whether the community development

services and facilities of the district will

be incompatible with the capacity and uses

of existing local and regional community

development services and facilities.

6. Whether the area that will be served by

the district is amenable to separate

special - district government.

76 . E ach of the statutory criteria in section

190.005(1)(e) has been satisfied.

77 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that the

statements containe d in the Petition are true and correct.

§ 190.005(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat.

78 . The evidence in t his proceeding establishes that the

amendment of the District's boundar y will not be inconsistent

with either the applicable local comprehensive plans or the

st ate comprehensive plan. § 190.005(1)(e)2., Fla. Stat.

79 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that ,

after the removal of the contraction parcel, the District will

continue to be of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and

sufficiently contigu ous to be developable as one functional

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

80 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that ,

after the removal of the contraction parcel, the District will

continue to be the best alternative available for delivering

community development services and facilities to the remaining

a reas. § 190.005(1)(e)4., Fla. Stat.

81 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that the

services and facilities that will be provided by the District to

the expansion areas are not incompatible with the capacity or

uses of any local or regional community development services and

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

82 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that,

after th e removal of the contraction parcel, the District is

amenable to separate special - district government.

§ 190.005(1)(e)6., Fla. Stat.

CONCLUSION

Section 190.005(1)(e) , as applicable to a petition to amend

the boundar y of a community development district pursuant to

section 190.046(1)(f), provides that the Commission Ð shall

consider the entire re cord of the local hearing, the T ranscript

of the hearing, resolutions adopted by local general - purpose

governments, Ñ and the factors set forth in section

190.005(1 )(e)1. through 6. in determining whether to grant or

deny a petition to amend the boundary of a community development

district . Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and

conclusions of law, the undersigned concludes that the proposed

boundary amendmen t satisfies the statutory requirements, and

that there is no reason not to grant the Dist r ictÓs request to

amend its boundary by removal of the 21.594 acre, more or less,

contraction parcel.

D ONE AND ORD ERED this 25 th day of February , 201 6 , in

Tallah assee, Leon County, Florida.

S

E. GARY EARLY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 25 th day of February , 201 6 .

COPIES FURNISHED :

Cynthia Kelly, Secretary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Room 1801, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

John P. Hee kin , Esquire

Office of the General Counsel

Office of the Governor

Room 209, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

Barbara Leighty, Clerk

Transportation and Economic

Development Policy Unit

Room 1801, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 3 2399 - 0001

(eServed)

Peter Penrod, Esquire

Agency for Workforce Innovation

The Caldwell Building, Mail Stop 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Johnathan Johnson, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

119 South Monroe Street , Suite 300

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 3 2314 - 6526

(eServed)

Lindsay Whelan, Esquire

Michael Eckert, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1591