17-005529 In Re: Petition To Establish The Big Island Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 26, 2017.

Summary: The petition to establish the Big Island Community Development District satisfies all the statutory requirements.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION TO ESTABLISH Case No. 17 - 5529

THE BIG ISLAND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

_______________________________/

REPORT TO THE FLORID A

LAND AND WATER ADJUD ICATORY COMMISSION

Pursuan t to notice, Francine M. Ffolkes, Administrative Law

Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH),

conducted a local public hearing in this case on November 13,

2017, in St. Augustine, Florida. The purpose of the local

public hearing was to tak e testimony, public comment, and

receive exhibits on the Petition to Establish the Big Island

Community Development District (District). This Report is

prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) for its consi deration of

whether to adopt a rule establishing the proposed District.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Jennifer Kilinski, Esquire

Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Hopping , Green , and Sams, P.A.

119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this proceeding is whether the Petition to

establish the Big Island Community Developm ent District

(Petition) meets the applicable criteria in chapter 190, Florida

Statutes (2017) , and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42 - 1.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 27, 2017, the Petitioner, WhiteÓs Ford Timber,

LLC (Petitioner) , filed its Petit ion and exhibits with the

s ecretary of the Commission. The Petition and exhibits, along

with the requisite fili ng fee, was also filed with St. Johns

County, Florida. The proposed District is located entirely

within St. Johns County, covering appr oximatel y 5,701 acres.

St. Johns County elected not to hold an optional public hearing

on the Petition.

In addition, the Commission notified the Department of

Economic Opportunity (DEO), which reviews the Petition for

compliance with DEO programs and res ponsibili ties. On

October 6, 2017, the secretary of the Commission certified that

the Petition contained all required elements and forwarded it to

DOAH to conduct the local public hearing required under

section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes.

Notice of the local public hearing was published in

accordance with section 190.005(1)(d). At the local public

hearing conducted on November 13, 2017, the Petitioner presented

the testimony, live and written, of John G. Metcalf, the

PetitionerÓs manager; Craig A. Wrathell, accepted as an expert

in district management and financial analysis; and Douglas C.

Miller, a registered professional engineer, accepted as an

expert in land development projects. The PetitionerÓs Exhibits

A through I were accepted in evidence. No member s of the public

attended the local public hearing and no written comments were

submitted after the hearing. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 42 - 1.012.

The Transcript of the local public hearing, with exhibits,

was filed with DOAH on December 6, 2017. The Petitio ner filed a

proposed report of findings and conclusions, which was

considered in the preparation of this Report.

FINDING S

1. The Petition is for adoption of a rule establishing the

District, as described in the Petition. The proposed District

is locate d entirely within St. Johns County (the County)

covering approximately 5,701 acres. The site is generally

located north of State Road 16, south of Coun ty Road 210, west

of Interstate 95 and east of County Road 16A.

2. The lands within the proposed Dis trict are owned by the

Petitioner. There is one parcel within the external boundaries

of the proposed District that is excluded. The Petitioner is

the owner of the excluded parcel and has provided written

consent to the establishment of the District.

3. The purpose of this proceeding was to consider the

establishment of the proposed District. This included

consideration of information relating to the managing and

financing of the service - delivery function of the proposed

District. This Report summarize s the evidence relating to each

relevant statutory requiremen t in section 190.005 .

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD

A. Whether all statements contained within the Petition

have been found to be true and correct .

4. Exhibit A consists of the Petition and its exhi bits as

filed with the Commission. Mr. Metcalf testified that he is

familiar with the contents of the Petition and its exhibits,

which are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.

Mr. Miller testified that he is familiar with the PetitionÓs

content s, and that he prepared or supervised prepar ation of

Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 through 6 to the Petition. Mr. Wrathell

testified that he is familiar with the PetitionÓs contents, and

that he prepared or supervised the preparation of Exhibit 7 to

the Petition.

5. The Petitioner demonstrated that the Petition and its

exhibits are true and correct.

B. Whether the establishment of the District is

inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local governm ent

comprehensive plan.

6. Mr. Miller reviewed the proposed District establishment

in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan

found in chapter 187, Florida Statutes. The Plan provides long -

range policy guidance for the orderly social, economic, and

physical growth of the state by way of 25 subjects, goals, and

policies. Mr. Miller identified Subject Nos. 15 - Land Use, 17 -

Public Facilities and 25 - Plan Implementation, as particularly

relevant.

7. Subject No. 15 of the State Comprehensiv e Plan

recognizes the importance of locating development in areas that

have the fiscal abilities and service capacity to accommodate

growth. Because the proposed District will have the fiscal

capability to provide infrastructure services and facilities to

a population in a designated growth area, it is not inconsistent

with this goal.

8. Policy 1 under Subject No. 15 promotes efficient

development activities in areas that will have the capacity to

service new populations and commerce. The proposed Distri ct

will provide, in an efficient and focused man ner over the long

term, high - quality infrastructure facilities and services.

9. Subject No. 17 of the State Comprehensive Plan calls

for protecting investments in existing public facilities and the

timely, o rderly, and efficient planning and financing of new

public facilities. Establishment of the proposed District will

further these goals.

10. Subject No. 25 of the State Comprehensive Plan calls

for systematic planning capabilities to be integrated into all

levels of government, with particular emphasis on improving

intergovernmental coordination and maximizing citizen

involvement.

11. Policy 2 under Subject No. 25 seeks to ensure

appropriate operational authority at every level of government

to imple ment the policy directives in the State Comprehensive

Plan. Chapter 190 provides the proposed District with

operational authority to deliver basic community services and

capital infrastructure without overburdening other local

governments and their taxpay ers. The proposed District will

provide infrastructure systems and facilities for the acreage

within the District without burdening the general body of

taxpayers within St. Johns County.

12. Policy 3 under Subject No. 25 seeks to provide

effective monito ring, incentive, and enforcement capabilities to

ensure regulatory program requirements are met. Under

section 189.08(2), Florida Statutes, the proposed District is

required to submit public facilities reports, including annual

updates, with the local gen eral - purpose government. This

facilitates an effective monitoring program of the District by

the County.

13. Policy 6 under Subject No. 25 encourages citizen

participation at all levels of policy development, planning and

operations. The District will e ventually transition to a

resident - elected Board of Supervisors, which must hold its

meetings in the sunshine under chapter 286, Florida Statutes.

14. Policy 8 under Subject No. 25 encourages continual

cooperation among communities to bring the private an d public

sectors together for establishing an orderly, environmentally,

and economically sound plan for future needs and growth. The

proposed District will be a vehicle to enhance cooperation in

the provision of infrastructure between the private sector a nd

the County.

15. The proposed District is not inconsistent with any

applicable provision of the State Comprehensive Plan.

16. Mr. Miller also reviewed the proposed District for

consistency with the requirements of the St. Johns County

Comprehensive Pla n. Mr. Miller testified that the proposed

District would not be inconsistent with any applicable element

or portion of the County Comprehensive Plan. In addition,

chapter 190 prohibits any community development district from

acting in an inconsistent man ner with the local governmentÓs

comprehensive plan.

17. The Petitioner demonstrated that the proposed District

will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion

of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the County Comprehensive

Plan.

C . Whe ther the area of land within the District is of

sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated

community.

18. The proposed District will include approximately 5,701

acres, locate d entirely within St. Johns County.

19. Mr. Wrathell and Mr. Miller testified that the

proposed District facilities can be provided in an efficient,

functional and integrated manner. The significant

infrastructure needs for the area within the proposed D istrict

allows its development as a functionally interrelated community.

The specific design allows provision of infrastructure in a

cost - effective manner. The use of one development plan provides

a contiguous and homogenous method of providing services to

lands with the proposed District.

20. The Petitioner demonstrated that the proposed District

will be of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and

sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally

interrelated community.

D. Whether the District remains the best alternative

available for delivering community development services and

facilities to the area that will be served by the proposed

District .

21. The proposed District will construct or provide

certain infrastructure improvemen ts to be paid for through the

imposition of special assessments. This ensures that the real

property and the residents benefiting from District services are

the ones who pay for them. The proposed District will have

sufficient overall residential density to require all the

necessary elements of infrastructure of a comprehensive

community.

22. The proposed District is the best alternative to

provide for the management and maintenance of various

infrastructure improvements. As a special - purpose local

gove rnment, the proposed District is a stable, long - term public

entity capable of maintaining and managing the necessary

infrastructure, facilities, and services. The limited purpose

and scope of the proposed District, along with statutory

safeguards, such as public notice, public hearings and access to

records, ensures that the District is responsive to

infrastructure needs.

23. The proposed District will construct certain

infrastructure and community facilities needed by the property

owners and residents. Expenses for operations and maintenance

of the facilities will be paid through maintenance assessments.

A community development district allows for the independent

financing, administration, operations and maintenance of the

land within the district and a llows complete control by district

property owners and residents.

24. There are three alternatives for providing the

infrastructure for the necessary services and facilities besides

the proposed District. The first alternative , is for the County

to build the entire infrastructure and assume responsibility for

day - to­day oversight of construction, maintenance, and

management of the proposed services and facilities for these

lands. This alternative increases the burden on County staff,

diverts resources fr om other County developments and projects,

and indirectly forces the residents of the entire County to pay

for these development improvements.

25. The second alternative , is for a developer to provide

the proposed improvements using private financing. Th is

alternative, however, does not provide the guarantee of a long -

term, consistent entity to oversee construction, maintenance,

and management of the proposed services and facilities. Also, a

private landowner is not subject to the same statutory

safeguar ds of a community development district, such as public

bidding on contracts and public access to meetings and

documents.

26. The third alternative , is a commercial owner's

association (Association). An Association is a more long - term

and stable entity th at may be capable of providing the necessary

maintenance of dedicated improvements. However, an Association

is not subject to the same statutory safeguards as the proposed

District. Also, an Association cannot impose and collect

assessments in the same w ay as property taxes or District

assessments.

27. The Petitioner demonstrated that the proposed District

is the best alternative available for delivering community

development services and facilities to the area that will be

served by the District.

E. 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.

28. The planned infrastructure improvements for the

pr oposed District will connect to the CountyÓs existing systems

in accordance with criteria, review and approval by the County.

Mr. Wrathell and Mr. Miller testified that the proposed

DistrictÓs services and facilities are not incompatible with the

capacity and uses of existing local or regional services or

facilities.

29. The Petitioner demonstrated that the community

development services and facilities of the proposed District

will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing

local and regio nal community development services and

facilities.

F. Whether the area that will be served by the District is

amenable to separate special - district government.

30. The communities to be included in the proposed

District have the need for certain b asic infrastructure systems

and the proposed District provides an efficient mechanism to

oversee installation of these improvements. The evidence shows

that from economic, planning, engineering, and special district

management perspectives, the area of la nd to be included in the

proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently

compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and

become a functionally interrelated community.

31. The Petitioner demonstrated that the area that will be

served by the District is amenable to separate special - district

government.

G. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule .

32. Chapter 190 and Florida Administrative Code chapter

42 - 1 impose specific requirements for the P etition and other

information submit ted to the Commission.

Elements of the Petition

33. The Commission certified that the Petition met all of

the requirements of section 190.005(1)(a ) .

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs

34. Section 190.005(1)(a) 8 . , requires the Petition to

include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) that

meets the requirements of section 120.541 , Florida Statutes .

The SERC is an exhibit to the Petition. Mr. Wrathell explained

the purpose of the SERC, the economic analysis presented, and

the data and met hodology used to prepare the SERC.

35. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and

benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule

establishing the District, the State of Florida and its

citizens, the County and its citizens, and prope rty owners

within the District.

36. Once the District is established, the State of Florida

and its citizens will incur only modest administrative costs to

review the periodic reports required by chapter s 189, and 190,

and other law. Specifically, the S tate of Florida will review

the annual financial report, annual audit, and public financing

disclosures. To offset these costs, the Florida Legislature

established a maximum fee of $175.00 per year to DEO to pay the

costs incurred by the Special District Information Program to

administer the reporting requirements. The costs to the State

of Florida are minimal and are covered by the annual fee the

District is required to pay. No additional burden is placed on

the State of Florida once the proposed Distri ct is established.

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

in reviewing the Petition because the Petitioner remitted a

$15,000 filing fee to the County to offset any such costs.

Also, the County will not be required to hold any publi c

hearings on the matter, and declined to hold an optional public

hearing on the matter.

38. The costs of petitioning for establishment of the

District will be paid entirely by the Petitioner. The District

is an independent unit of local government. All administrative

and operating costs incurred by the District relating to the

financing and construction of infrastructure, are borne entirely

by the District and its landowners.

39. The Petitioner demonstrated that the SERC meets all

requirements of secti on 120.541.

Other Requirements

40. The Petitioner provided the County with a copy of the

Petition and paid the requisite filing fee, prior to filing the

Petition with the Commission. See § 190.005(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

41. The Petitioner published 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 The St. Augustine Record on October 20 and 27, and

November 3 and 10, 2017. See § 190.005(1)(d), Fl a. Stat.

Public Comment D uring the Hearing

42. There were no members of the public in attendance at

the hearing.

CONCLUSIONS

43. This proceeding is governed by chapters 120 and 190

and rule chapter 42 - 1.

44. The proceeding wa s properly noticed pursuan t to

section 190.005 by publication of an advertisement in a

newspaper of general paid circulation in the County and of

general interest and readership, once each week for the four

consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing.

45. The Petitioner met the requirements of section 190.005

regarding the submission of the Petition and satisfaction of

filing fee requirements.

46. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that

the Petition meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth in

section 19 0.005(1)(e).

47. All portions of the Petition and other submittals have

been completed and filed as required by law.

48. All statements contained within the Petition are true

and correct.

49. The establishment of the District is not inconsistent

with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or the effective local Comprehensive Plan.

50. The area of land within the District is of sufficient

size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to

be developable as one functional interrelated community.

51. The District is the best alternative available for

delivering community development services and facilities to the

area that will be served by the District.

52. The community development services and facilities of

the District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses

of existing local and regional community development services

and facilities.

53. The area to be served by the District is amenable to

separate special - district government.

54. Based on t he record evidence, the Petition satisfies

all of the statutory requirements and, therefore, there is no

reason not to grant the Petitioner's request for establishment

of the proposed District and to formally adopt a rule as

requested by the Petitioner.

D ONE AND ENTERED this 26 th day of December , 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

FRANCINE M. FFOLKES

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahas see, 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 26 th day of December , 2017.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Cynthia Kelly

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicat ory Commission

Room 1801, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Barbara R. Leighty, Agency Clerk

Transportation and Economic

Development Policy Unit

Room 1801 , The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

H opping, Green, and Sams, P.A.

119 South Monroe Street , Suite 300

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

(eServed)

Jennifer Kilinski , Esquire

Hopping, Green, and Sams, P.A.

119 South Monroe Street Suite 300

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

(eServed)

John Maciver , General Counsel

(General Counsel to the Commission)

Office of the General Counsel

Office of the Governor

Room 209, The Capitol

Tallahasee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)