16-004689 In Re: Petition To Amend The Boundary Of The Rivers Edge Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, November 30, 2016.

Summary: Petitioner satisfied all statutory criteria for amending its boundaries and reducing size of CDD by 2,500 acres.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION TO AMEND THE

BOUNDARY OF THE RIVERS EDGE Case No. 1 6 - 4689

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

/

REPORT TO THE FLORID A

LAND AND WATER ADJUD ICATORY CO MMISSION

D. R. Alexander, Administrative Law Judge of the Division

of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), conducted a local public

hearing in this case on November 1, 2016, at the Riverton

Amenity Center in S t. Johns, Florida .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jen nifer L. Kilinski, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented in this proceeding is whether the

Amended and R estated Petition to Amend the Boundar y of the

Rivers Edge Community Development District (Amended Petition)

meets the applicable criteria in chapter 190, Florida Statutes ,

and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42 - 1. The purpose of

the local public heari ng was to gather information in

anticipation of quasi - legislative rulemaking by the Florida Land

and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 6, 2016, the Rivers Edge Community Development

District (District) filed its Am ended Petition and exhibits with

the Commission requesting that the Commission a mend rule 42FFF -

1.002 by removing 2,499.74 acres from its boundaries. After

contraction, the District will contain 1,676.79 acres. The land

within the District is located ent irely within the incorporated

limits of St. Johns County (County) . The County elected not to

hold an optional public hearing within 45 days of the filing of

the Amended Petition. On August 18, 201 6 , the Secretary of the

Commission certified that the Amen ded Petition contained all

required elements and referred it to DOAH to conduct a local

public hearing, as required by section 190.005(1)(d).

Notice of the public hearing was published in accordance

with section 190.005(1)(d ) . At the local public hearing, t he

District presented the testimony , live and written, of James A.

Perry, employed by Governmental Management Services, LLC , and

accepted as an expert in special district consulting, financial

analysis, and management ; Ryan P. Stillwel l , P.E., employed b y

Prosser, Inc. , and accepted as an expert in land development

projects and community development district construction and

engineering ; and Jason Sessions, Chairman of the District.

District Exhibits A through J were accepted in evidence. One

member of the public, Marsha Bailey, attended the hearing and

offered testimony. No written comments were submitted after the

local hearing. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 42 - 1.012(3).

A one - volume T ranscript of the hearing has been prepared.

T he District filed a p rop osed r eport of findings and

conclusions , which has been considered in the preparation of

this Report .

Overview of the District

1. Petitioner is seeking the adoption of an amendment to

rule 42FFF - 1.002 to remove 2 ,499.74 acres from the District 's

boundary , as d escribed in the Amended Petition. After

contraction, the District will contain 1,676.79 acres.

2. The majority of the Contr ac tion Parcel (the area being

removed) is presently owned by Mattamy Rivertown, LLC, and one

parcel within the Contraction Par cel is owned by the County.

Mattamy Rivertown, LLC, has provided written consent to the

proposed amendment of the District's boundaries. Pursuant to

sections 190.003(14) and 190.005(1) (a)2., consent of the County

is not required.

3. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the

amendment of the District boundary as proposed by Petitioner.

Information relating to the managing and financing of the

service - delivery function of the Amended District was also

considered. Because sections 190.046 an d 190.005 provide the

statutory criteria to be considered, this Report summarizes the

pertinent and material evidence relating to each relevant

section of the statutes.

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD

Factors Set Forth in Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes

A. Whether all statements contained within the Amended

Petition have been found to be true and correct.

4. Exhibit A consists of the Amended Petition and exhibits

as filed with the Commission. Mr. Perry testified that he is

familiar with the Amended Petiti on and generally described the

exhibits.

5. He also testified that he had prepared, or had others

prepare under his supervision, Exhibit 9 to Exhibit A, the

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC).

6. Finally, Mr. Perry testified that the contents of the

Amended Petition and the exhibits attached thereto were true and

correct to the best of his knowledge.

7 . Mr. Stilwell testified that he is familiar with the

Amended Petition and that he prepared, or had others prepare

under his supervision, certa in of the Amended Petition exhibits.

Mr. Stilwell generally described the Ame n ded Petition exhibits

that he prepared, including Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and 7 to

Exhibit A. Finally, he testified that these exhibits were true

and correct to the best of his kn owledge.

8. Mr. Sessions testified that he is familiar with the

Amended Petition and that he coordinated the execution of the

Consent to the Amendment of the Boundaries of the Rivers Edge

Community Development District. Mr. Sessions also testified

that t he contents of the Amended Petition and its exhibits were

true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

9. Petitioner has demonstrated that the Amended Petition

and its exhibits are true and correct.

B. Whether the amendment of the District boundary is

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government

comprehensive plan.

10. Mr. Stilwell reviewed the proposed District boundary

in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive P lan

found in chapter 187.

11. The State Comprehensive Plan "provides lon g - range

policy guidance for the orderly social, economic and physical

growth of the State" by way of 25 subjects, goals, and numerous

policies. §§ 187.101 and 187.201 , Fla. Stat. Mr . Stilwell

identified Subject Nos. 15, 17, and 25 as particularly relevant.

12. Subject 15, Land Use, recognizes the importance of

locating development in areas that have the resources, fiscal

abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth.

Mr. Stilwell testified that the Amended District is not

inconsistent with this provision because it will continue to

have the fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services

and facilities to a population in a designated growth area.

13. S ubject 17, Public Facilities, calls for the

protection of existing public facilities and the timely,

orderly, and efficient planning and financing of new facilities.

Mr. Stilwell testified that the removal of the Contraction

Parcel from the boundary of the District will not have an impact

on the District's existing public facilities and services, and

no new facilities or services are planned to be constructed,

acquired, or otherwise provided by the Amended District.

14. Subject 25, Plan Implementation, calls for sy stematic

planning capabilities to be integrated into all levels of

government throughout the State, with particular emphasis on

improving intergovernmental coordination and maximizing citizen

involvement.

15. Mr. Stilwell testified that the Amended Distri ct is

not inconsistent with any applicable provisions of the State

Comprehensive Plan.

16. Mr. Stilwell also reviewed the Amended District in

light of the requirements in the County Comprehensive Plan.

17. Chapter 190 prohibits a community development district

from acting in any manner inconsistent with the local

government's comprehensive plan. Mr. Stilwell testified that

the Amended District would not be inconsistent with any

applicable provision of the County Comprehensive Plan.

18. Petitioner has demonstrated that the Amended District

will not be inconsistent with an applicable provision of the

State Comprehensive Plan or County Comprehensive Plan.

C. Whether the area of land within the Amended District is

of sufficient size, is sufficiently compa ct, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated

community.

19. The Amended District will include 1,676.79 acres,

located entirely within the incorporated limits of the County.

20. Mr. Perry testified that the Amended D istrict has

sufficient land area, is sufficiently compact and contiguous to

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

interrelated community, and the boundary amendment has no impact

on that functionality.

21. Mr. Stilwell testified that the area of land within

the District was originally developed as a planned community.

The developer of the lands within the Amended District has

developed the Amended District as the core of the development as

one interrelated community. Further, t he Amended D istrict is

currently operating as a functionally related community, even

prior to the proposed elimination of the Contraction Parcel from

the District boundary. As a result, the Amended District

remains of sufficient size, compactness, and con tiguity to

function as one interrelated community.

22. Petitioner has demonstrated that the Amended District

will be of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and

sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally

interrelated community.

D. Whether the Amended District remains the best

alternative available for delivering community development

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

Amended District.

23. The District has constructed and/or acquired, or

intends to cons truct and/or acquire, extensive public facilities

within the Amended District. The District currently does not

provide any facilities or services within the Contraction

Parcel. There are certain offsite improvements, which include:

(a) State Road 13 rou ndabout improvement maintenance; (b) County

Road 244 landscape enhancement maintenance; and (c) certain of

the Amended District's surface water management systems that

support County Road 244 and therefore continue to benefit the

Contraction Parcel. Accor dingly, after the boundary amendment,

the Cost Share Agreement for Roadway and Surface Water

Management System Maintenance Services executed by the District

and Mattamy Rivertown, LLC, will be come effective and will

provide funding to the Amended District for the Landowner's

share of the shared offsite improvements' operation,

maintenance, repair, and replacement.

24. Mr. Perry testified that to date, the District has

been the mechanism used to plan, finance, construct, operate,

and maintain the public fac ilities and services within the

existing District . The District commenced construction of the

entire t y of the facilities and services needed to serve the

Amended District in 2008 and is nearing completion of those

facilities contemplated . The District is currently providing

the associated maintenance an d operation of those facilities,

and the Amended District will allow for the continued operation

of the facilities and services to the lands within its

boundaries. Accordingly, the Amended District is the best

alternative to provide such facilities and services to the area

to be served.

25. Mr. Stilwell testified that due to the fact that the

existing District has provided community development facilities

and services effectively and efficiently to the are as served

from the date the District was established in 2008, the District

has proven in the past that it is the best alternative

available. Even after contraction, the Amended District is

capable of continuing to efficiently finance and oversee the

opera tion and maintenance of necessary capital improvement

within the community.

26. Mr. Sessions additionally testified that Mattamy

Rivertown , LLC, or a successor in interest or assignee(s), will

fund the cost of the construction of the infrastructure,

facil ities, and services needed to accommodate the development

of such property. After construction, the infrastructure and

facilities within the Contraction Parcel may be conveyed by the

owner to the County, another unit of government, or to an

applicable hom eowners' association for ownership and

maintenance, as is appropriate depending on the type of

infrastructure or facilities that are actually constructed.

27. Petitioner h as demonstrated that the Amended District

remains the best alternative available for delivering community

development services and facilities to the area that will be

served by the Amended District.

E. Whether the community development services and

facilities of the Amended District will be incompatible with the

capacity and uses of exis ting local and regional community

development services and facilities.

28. Mr. Perry testified that the services and facilities

of the Amended District are identical to those provided by the

existing District, and thus are not incompatible with the

capaci ty and use of existing local or regional community

development services and facilities.

29. Mr. Stilwell 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.

30. Petitioner has demonstrated that the community

development services and facilities of the Amended District will

n ot be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local

and regional community development services and facilities.

F. Whether the area that will be served by the Amended

District is amenable to separate special - dist rict government.

31. Mr. Perry testified that the removal of the

Contraction Parcel will not affect the ability of the Amended

District to operate as a separate special - district government,

and that while contracting the boundaries of the existing

District will limit the area to be ser ved by the government

already in place, it will not change the way the special -

district government is operating either now or in the future.

32. Mr. Stilwell testified that even with the elimination

of the Contraction Parcel from the existing District, th e area

within the Amended District remains large enough to comprise its

own community with individual facility and service needs.

Moreover, the Amended District will continue to constitute an

efficient mechanism for providing the necessary capital

infrast ructure improvements, and ongoing operation and

maintenance thereof, to directly serve the development within

its boundary. Finally, special - district governance is

appropriate for the Amended District because it provides a

mechanism whereby long - term main tenance obligations can be

satisfied by the persons actually using the facilities and

services.

33. Petitioner has demonstrated that the area that will be

served by the Amended District is amenable to separate special -

district government.

G. Other requir ements imposed by statute or rule.

34. Chapter 190 and rule chapter 42 - 1 impose specific

requirements regarding the petition and other information to be

submitted to the Commission.

Elements of the Petition

35. The Commission has certified that the Amend ed Petition

meets all of the requirements of sections 190.046(1) (f) and

190.005(1)(a).

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC)

36. Section 190.005(1) (a)8 . requires the petition to

include a SERC, which meets the requirements of section 120.541.

Th e Amended Petition includes a SERC attached as Exhibit 8.

37. Mr. Perry explained the purpose of the SERC, the

economic analysis presented therein, and the data and

methodology used in preparing the SERC.

38. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs an d

benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule

to amend the boundaries of the District -- the State and its

citizens, the County and its citizens, and property owners

within the existing District and the Contraction Parcel.

39. Beyond ad ministrative costs related to the rule

amendment, the State and its citizens will only incur modest

costs from contracting the DistrictÓs boundary as proposed.

Specifically, State staff will process, analyze, and conduct

public hearings on the Amended Pet ition. Those activities will

utilize the time of the staff and State officials. However,

these costs to the State are likely to be minimal.

40. As with the existing District, the ongoing costs to

various State entities related to the Amended District re late

strictly to the receipt and processing of various reports that

the Amended District is required to file annually with the State

and various entities. However, the costs to the State agencies

that will receive and process the Amended District ' s report s

will be minimal and is already a requirement for the existing

District. The Amended District is only one of many governmental

subdivisions required to submit various reports to the State.

Additionally, pursuant to section 189.018, the Amended District

will pay an annual fee to the Department of Economic Opportunity

to help offset such processing costs.

41. It is not anticipated that the County will incur costs

in reviewing the Petition, as the District remitted a $15,000.00

filing fee to the County to offset any such costs.

Additionally, the County will not be required to hold any public

hearings on the matter, and in fact declined to hold a public

hearing on the matter. As with the existing District, the

County will not incur any quantifiable ongoing costs resulting

from the ongoing administration of the Amended District.

42. The costs of petitioning for a boundary amendment to

the District will be paid entirely by the majority owner of the

Contraction Parcel, Mattamy Rivertown, LLC, pursuant to a

fu nding agreement with the District. Additionally, the Amended

District is an independent unit of local government and all

administrative and operating costs incurred by the District

relating to the financing and construction of infrastructure are

borne ent irely by the District and its landowners. The

Contraction parcel is not subject to special assessments imposed

by the District for the payment of debt service and/or

operations and maintenance expenses.

43. Petitioner has demonstrated that the SERC meets all

requirements of section 120.541.

Other Requirements

44. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of

section 190.005(1)(b) in that the County was provided a copy of

the Amended Petition and was paid the requisite filing fee prior

to Petitioner fi ling the Amended Petition with the Commission.

45. Section 190.005(1)(d) requires Petitioner to publish

notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general

circulation in the County for four consecutive weeks prior to

the hearing. The notice was published in a newspaper of general

paid circulation in the County, The St. Augustine Record , on

October 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2016.

Public Comment During Hearing

46 . Only one member of the public, Marsha Bailey, attended

the hearing and provided testimony at the hearing. Her comment

received during the hearing revolved around issues not relevant

to the proceeding.

47 . Ms. Bailey testified that she is concerned about the

effect the amendment of the boundaries would have on the

property located on the St. Johns River waterfront. She wanted

to object to the development of those lands. However, this

hearing was not the proper forum for those objections.

CONCLUSIONS

48 . This proceeding is governed by sections 190.00 5 and

190.046 and rule chapter 42 - 1.

49. The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to

section 190.005 (1)(d) by publication of an advertisement in a

newspaper of general paid circulation in the County and of

general interest and readership once each week for the four

consecutive weeks immediate ly prior to the hearing.

50. Petitioner has met the requirements of

section 190.005 (1)(a) regarding the submission of the Amended

Petition and satisfaction of the filing fee requirements.

51. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the

Amended Petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth

in section 190.005(1)(e).

52. All portions of the Amended Petition and other

submittals have been completed and filed as required by law.

53. All statements contained within the Amended Pet ition

are true and correct.

54. The amendment of the District ' s boundaries is not

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or the effective County Comprehensive Plan.

55. The area of land within the Amended Dist rict remains

of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be de velopable as one functional interrelated

community.

56. The Amended District remains the best alternative

available for delivering community development servi ces and

facilities to the area that will be served by the Amended

District.

57. 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 developm ent

services and facilities.

58. The area to be served by the Amended District remains

amenable to separate special district government.

59 . B ased on the record evidence, the A mended Petition

satisfies all of the statutory requirements and, therefore,

th ere is no reason not to grant Petitioner ' s request for

amendment of its boundaries.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2016, in

T allahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

D. R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Divisi on 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 30th day of Novemb er, 2016.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Cynthia Kelly , Secretary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Room 1801, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

John P. "Jack" Heekin , General Counsel

Office of the Governor

Room 209, The Capitol

Tallahas see, Florida 32399 - 0 001

(eServed)

James W. Poppell, General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

The Caldwell Building, MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

Barbara R. Leighty, Clerk

Transportation and Economi c

Development Policy Unit

Room 1801, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

Jennifer L . Kilinski, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

(eServed)