18-001176 In Re: Petition To Amend The Boundary Of The Wiregrass Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, May 25, 2018.

Summary: The Petition to contract the boundary of the Wiregrass CDD satisfies the statutory requirements established in sections 190.005(1) and 190.046(1).

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION TO AMEND THE Case No. 18 - 1176

BOUNDARY OF THE WIREGRASS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

_______________________________/

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW J UDGE'S REPORT TO THE

FLORIDA LAND AND WA TER ADJUDICATORY COM MISSION

On April 24 , 201 8 , a local public hearing was conducted

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

Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), at the O ffices of

Rizzetta & Company, Inc., 5844 Old Pasco Road, Suite 100, Wesley

Chapel, Florida .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner Wiregrass Community Development District :

Lindsay Whelan, Esquire

Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A.

Suite 300

119 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1591

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission (Commission) in this proceeding is whether to grant

the Petition of the Wiregrass Co mmunity Development District

(Petition) to contract the boundary of the Wiregrass Community

Development District (District) by remov ing approximately

2,196.846 acres from the 3, 974.294 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), Flor ida Statutes, for

the purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving

exhibits on the Petition.

This report is prepared and submitted to the Commission

pursuant to s ections 190.046 and 190.005 for consideration in

its determination whether t o adopt a rule amending the boundary

of the District as requested by the District .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 29, 2018 , 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 Pasco

County, Florida (Pasco County) .

The Petition seeks to contract the boundary of the District

by removing 2,196.846 acres , more or less (the C ontraction

P arcel) , from the 3,974.294 acres, more or less, that comprise

the ex isting District, which will result in a District boundary

encompassing 1,777.448 acres , more or less (the Amended

District) . Within the boundary of the Amended District is a

64.321 - acre parcel that is excluded from the boundary of the

Amended District (th e Excluded Parcel).

On March 2, 2018 , 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 190.005(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. On March 30, 2018, the

Commission published a Notice of Receipt of Petition in the

F lorida Administrative Register.

The District is located entirely within Pasco County,

Florida. Section 190.005(1)(c) provides that the county

containing all or a portion of the lands within the proposed

A mended District has the option to hold a public he aring within

45 days of the filing of a petition. The timeframe for the

optional public hearing expired on March 15, 2018. Pasco County

elected not to hold an optional public hearing relative to the

proposed boundary amendment .

The local public hearing was held on Tuesday, April 24,

2018 , at 1:00 p.m. , at the offices of Rizzetta & Company, Inc.,

5844 Old Pasco Road, Suite 100, Wesley Chapel, Florida.

Petitioner published notice of the local public hearing in

accordance with s ection 190.005(1)(d). At th e local public

hearing, Petitioner presented the live and written testimony of :

1. Scott Brizendine, an employee of Rizzetta and Company,

Inc., who was accepted as an expert in special district

management and financial analysis ;

2. Michael Ross, an emp loyee of King Engineering

Associates, Inc., who was accepted as an expert in land

development and public infrastructure construction; and

3. Scott Sheridan, an employee of Locust Branch LLC .

No members of the public appeared at the hearing. The

Distr ict offered Composite Exhibit A, including as attachments

thereto Composite Exhibit SB - 1 through Exhibit SB - 9 ; Exhibit B ;

Composite Exhibit C, including as attachments thereto

Exhibit MR - 1 and MR - 2 ; and Exhibit D . A ll exhibits were

received in evidence .

The transcript of the local public hearing, with exhibits,

was filed with DOAH on May 14, 2018. Petitioner also filed a

Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions on May 14, 2018,

which has been considered in the preparation of this Report.

References t o statutes are to Florida Statutes (201 7 ),

unless otherwise noted.

OVERVIEW

The District is seeking the adoption of an amendment to

Florida Administrative Code Rule 42MMM - 1 to remove the

a pproximately 2,196.846 - acre C ontraction Parcel, as described in

th e Petition. After contraction, the Amended District will

contain approximately 1,777.448 acres.

The Contraction Parcel is owned by the following entities:

Raymond James Financial, Inc.; Flycatcher Enterprises, LLC;

JHP Real Estate Partnership; Withlacoo chee River Electric

Cooperative , Inc.; Wiregrass Ranch, Inc.; Solly Branch Holdings,

LLC; Jane Hole, LLC; Maggie Pond, LLC; Wesley Chapel Venture,

LLC; the Florida Department of Transportation ( FDOT) ; and Pasco

County. All provided written consent to the proposed amendment

of the DistrictÓs boundaries , except for FDOT and Pasco County ,

as they are not considered ÐlandownersÑ pursuant to Section

190.003(14), f rom which consent must be obtained.

The District is presently providing certain infrastructure

im provements to the lands within its boundaries, with the

exception of the Contraction Parcel. Any future facilities or

services to be provided to the Contraction Parcel will be

provided by a future community development district(s) (CDD)

and/or the develop er of the Wiregrass Ranch development.

The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the

amendment of the District boundary as proposed. Information

relating to the managing and financing of the service - delivery

function of the Amended District w as also considered. Inasmuch

as s ections 190.046 and 190.005 provide the statutory criteria

to be considered, this report summarizes the relevant and

material evidence relating to each relevant section of the

statute.

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD

A. Petition Contents and Related Matters

1 . The Petition was submitted to the Commission on

January 29, 2018 . A copy of the Petition, along with a check in

the amount of $ 15,0 25 .00, was previously subm itted to Pasco

County on January 26, 2018 .

2 . The Petition inc orporated the following Exhibits:

a . Petition Exhibit 1 , which is a depiction

of the general location of the existing

District boundary.

b . Petition Exhibit 2 , which is the metes

and bounds description of the existing

District boundary as incorporated b y

reference in Florida Administrative Code

Rule 42 MMM - 1.002.

c . Petition Exhibit 3 , which is the metes

and bounds description of the C ontraction

P arcel.

d . Petition Exhibit 4 , which is the metes

and bounds description of the Amended

District after rem oval of the C ontraction

P arcel.

e . Petition Exhibit 5 , which is the metes

and bounds description of the Excluded

Parcel .

f . Petition Exhibit 6 , which is the last

known address of the owner of the Excluded

Parcel.

g . Petition Exhibit 7 , which is the written

Consent and Joinder by which the owner s (at

the time of the filing of the Petition ) of

100 percent of the lands within the

C ontraction P arcel expressed their consent

to the amend ment of the boundary of the

Dist r ict by removal of the C ontraction

P ar cel.

h . Petition Exhibit 8 , which is Resolution

2017 - 05 by which the DistrictÓs Board of

Supervisors has approved and consented to

the amendment of the boundary of the

District by removal of the C ontraction

P arcel.

i . Petition Exhibit 9 , which is the Future

Land Use Map for Pasco County that depicts

the distribution, location , and extent of

public and private land uses proposed for

the Amended District by the future land use

element s of the c omprehensive p lan .

j . Petition Exhibit 10 , which is a map o f

the current major trunk water mains, sewer

interceptors , and outfalls within the

proposed Amended District.

k . Petition Exhibit 11 , which describes the

types of facilities and services the

District expects to finance, construct and

install within the A mended District, and the

entities (either the District or Pasco

County ) that will be ultimately responsible

for ownership, operation, and maintenance of

the facilities, and their estimated costs.

l . Petition Exhibit 12 , which is the

Statement of Estimat ed Regulatory Costs

(SERC) prepared in accordance with the

requirements of s ection 120.541, Florida

Statutes.

m . Petition Exhibit 13 , which is the

DistrictÓs authorization of counsel of

record as its agent relative to the boundary

amendment.

3 . The P etition 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 C ontraction P arcel,

and the Contraction P arcel is not subject to any District debt

service assessments. There will be no changes in the facilities

proposed to be provided by the District as a result of the

removal of the C ontraction P arcel.

4 . The Petition designated the future general

distributi on, location, and extent of public and private uses of

land proposed for the area being removed. The Petition provided

a map of future land uses. T he District expects to finance,

construct, and install improvements and facilities to benefit

the Amended D istrict over an estimated 22 - year period.

5 . The Petition alleges that the removal of the

C ontraction P arcel 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 applicable elements or portions of the adopted

State Comprehensive Plan or the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan.

b. The area of land within the District, as

contracted, is part of a planned co mmunity. The District, as

contracted, will continue to be of sufficient 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 n ot be incompatible with

the capacity and use of existing local and 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.

6 . Th e 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

7 . Notice of the public hearing was advertised on

March 27 , 201 8 ; April 3, 2018; April 10, 2018; and April 17,

2018 , in t he Tampa Bay Times, a newspaper of general paid

circulation in Pasco County, wh ich newspaper complies with

the requirements for publication of le gal 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 P arcel, a nd

other relevant information.

8 . The local public hearing on the Petition was held as

noticed on April 24, 2018 , at the offices of Rizzetta & Company,

Inc., 5844 Old Pasco Road, Suite 100, Wesley Chapel, Florida .

9 . The Pre - Filed Written Testimony o f Mr. Brizendine ,

M r . Ross , and Mr. Sheridan w ere received as Hearing Exhibits A ,

C , and D , respectively . The three witness es also offered live

testimony in support of their pre - filed testimony.

10 . The affidavit of publication of the Notice of Local

Pu blic Hearing in the Tampa Bay Times was received in evidence

as Hearing Exhibit B.

11 . Mr. BrizendineÓs pre - filed testimony , Hear ing

Exhibit A, included the following exhibits, all of which were

received into evidence at the hearing:

a . Hearing Exhib it A , Composite Attachment SB - 1 ,

consisting of the Petition, including Exhibits 1 through 13

thereto , as more fully described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.

b . Hearing Exhibit A, Attachment SB - 2, consisting of

a vicinity map depicting the existing Distri ct boundary line,

the Contraction Parcel boundary, and the proposed A mended

District boundary.

c. Hearing Exhibit A, Attachment SB - 3, consisting of

correspondence dated January 29, 2018, transmitting the original

and 12 copies , and a disk, of the Petiti on to the Commission.

d. Hearing Exhibit A, Attachment SB - 4, consisting of

c orrespondence dated January 26, 2018 , transmitting a copy of

the Petition to Pasco County , along with a check in the amount

of $15,0 25 .00.

e. Hearing Exhibit A, Attachment SB - 5, consisting of

correspondence dated March 2, 2018 , by which the Commission

referred the Petition to DOAH to conduct a local public hearing.

f. Hearing Exhibit A, Attachment SB - 6, consisting of

the Notice of Receipt of Petition published in the Flor ida

Administrative Register on March 30, 2018.

g. Hearing Exhibit A, Attachment SB - 7, consisting of

the Notice of Hearing entered by the undersigned.

h. Hearing Exhibit A, Attachment SB - 8, consisting of

correspondence dated March 2, 2018, by which th e Commission

provided a copy of the Petition to the DEO.

i. Hearing Exhibit A, Attachment SB - 9 , consisting of

correspondence dated March 2 3 , 2018, by which the DEO indicated

that it had not identified any inconsistency in the Petition and

chapter 163, p art II, Florida Statutes , or the 2025

Comprehensive Plan of Pasco County.

12 . Mr. RossÓ s pre - filed testimony, Hearing Exhibit C,

included the following exhibits, all of which were received into

evidence at the hearing:

a. Hearing Exhibit C , Attachmen t MR - 1, consisting of

the State Comprehensive Plan, chapter 187 , Florida Statutes .

b. Hearing Exhibit C, Attachment MR - 2, consisting of

the Pasco County, Florida Comprehensive Plan (October 2000) ,

including chapters 1 through 1 3 , the Glossary, and Map

A ppendices thereto.

13 . No members of the public provided comment at the

hearing. No public comment was filed after the local public

hearing.

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

exhibits, was filed with DOAH on May 14, 2018 . The Distr ict

also filed a Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions on

May 14, 2018 , which has been considered in the preparation of

this Report.

SUMMARY OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE

15 . The standards applicabl e to a determination of

whether to grant or deny t he DistrictÓs 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.

16 . M r. Brizendine testified as to the accuracy of the

information contai ned in the Petition. He also prepared, or had

others prepare under his supervision, Petition Exhibit 12 , the

SERC . Mr. Brizendine Ós testimony constitutes competent,

substantial evidence of the accuracy of the statements in the

Petition and the exhibits a ttached thereto.

17 . Mr. Ross testified that he prepared, or had others

prepare under h is supervision, Petition Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 9, 10, and 11 . M r. Ross testified that these exhibits

accurately depict and describe the boundaries of the parcels o f

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

of property at issue, the location and description of the

existing major water and sewer trunk lines associated with the

parcels of property at issue , and the facilities expected in the

Amend ed District. M r. RossÓ s testimony constitutes competent,

substantial evidence of the accuracy of Petition Exhibits 1, 2,

3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 11 .

18 . Mr. Sheridan testifi ed that he is familiar with

the Petition , and that he coordinated the execution of

P etition Exhibit 7 , the Consent and Joinder of Landowners to

the Amendment of the Boundaries of the Wiregrass Community

Development District. Mr. Sheridan Ós testimony constitutes

competent, substantial evidence of the accuracy of the

statements in the Peti tion , and of the consent of the landowners

in the C ontraction P arcel to the proposed District boundary

amendment.

19 . 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 with any applicable element or portion

of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local

government comprehens ive plan.

20 . M r. Ross reviewed the proposed District boundary

amendment for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan .

21 . 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, M r. Ross identified Subject

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

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

planning and engineering per spective to the proposed amendment .

22 . Subject No. 15 recognizes the importance of locating

development in areas that have the resources, fiscal abilities ,

and service capacity to accommodate growth. M r. Ross testified

that the Amended District will co ntinue to have the fiscal

capability to provide a wide range of services and facilities to

a population in a designated growth area. M r. RossÓ s testimony

constitutes competent, substantial evidence that the proposed

boundary amendment is not inconsistent with the land use goal of

the State Comprehensive Plan. There was no evidence to the

contrary.

23 . Subject No. 17 calls for the protection of existing

public facilities and the timely, orderly, and efficient

planning and financing of new facilities. M r . Ross testified

that the removal of the contraction parcel from the boundary of

the District will not have an impact on the DistrictÓs existing

public facilities and services, and the future facilities and

services serving the Contraction Parcel will be p rovided by a

newly established CDD ( s ) . Mr. RossÓ s 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.

24 . Subject No. 25 calls for systematic planning

capabilities to be integrated into all levels of government

throughout the State, with particular emphasis on improving

intergovernmental coordination and maximizing citizen

involvement. Mr. Ro ss testified that allowing the Amended

District and the Contraction Parcel to be overseen by separate

CDDs will result in an increased level of coordination between

the State, Pasco County, the relevant CDD and its residents and

landowners , as the CDDs wil l be serving a more localized

geographical boundary allowing for maximized citizen

involvement. M r. RossÓs testimony constitutes competent,

substantial evidence that the proposed boundary amendment is not

inconsistent with the plan implementation goal of the State

Comprehensive Plan. There was no evidence to the contrary.

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

Amended District will not be inconsistent with any applicable

provision of the State Comprehensive Plan.

26 . M r. Ross also rev iewed the Amended District for

consistency with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan.

27 . Chapter 190 prohibits a CDD from acting in any manner

inconsistent with the local governmentÓs comprehensive plan.

When initially established in 2009 , the District demonstrate d

that the development of the lands within its boundary was

consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. There is

nothing in the record of this proceeding to suggest that the

contraction of the DistrictÓs boundaries in the manner propo sed

will cause the Amended District to be inconsistent with any

portion or element of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan.

28 . M r. RossÓs testimony constitutes competent,

substantial evidence that the proposed boundary amendment will

not be inconsistent with any applicable element of the Pasco

County Comprehensive Plan. There was no evidence to the

contrary.

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

Amended District will not be inconsistent with any applicable

provisions of the Pasco Coun ty 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.

30 . The Amen ded District will include approximately

1,777.448 acres, located entirely within Pasco County .

31 . Mr. Brizendine testified that the Amended District has

sufficient land area, and is sufficiently compact and contiguous

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

functional, interrelated community, and that the boundary

amendment will have no impact on that functionality.

32 . M r. Ross testified that the area of land within the

District was originally developed as a planned community, was

pre viously determined to be of sufficient size, compactness , and

contiguity to be developed with facilities and services as one

functionally interrelated community . Development within the

District, to date, has occurred in two geographically abutting

phases which will comprise the Amended District after amendment.

Thus, the removal of the Contraction Parcel will allow the lands

within the proposed Amended District to continue to operate as a

functionally interrelated community, as it remains of sufficient

si ze, compactness and contiguity.

33 . The testimony of Mr. Brizend ine and M r. Ross

constitute s competent, substantial evidence that the Amended

District will be of sufficient size, sufficiently compact,

and sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a sing le

functionally interrelated community. There was no evidence to

the contrary.

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

the best alternative available for delivering community

development services and facilities to the area that wi ll be

served by the Amended District.

34 . The District is presently providing infrastructure

improvements to the lands within its boundar y , with the

exception of the contraction parcel. Facilities or services to

be provided to the Contraction Parcel wi ll be provided by a

future CDD (s) and/or the developer of the Wiregrass Ranch

development.

35 . Mr. Brizendine testified that to date, the District

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

operate , and maintain the public facilities and se rvices within

the existing District . T he District has already constructed the

majority 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 t he 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.

36 . M r. Ross 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 established, and that it is the best

alternative available for delivering community develo pment

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 its boundaries .

37 . Mr. Sheridan testified that a new CDD will be

established to finance a portion of the cost of the

infrastructure, facilities , and services need ed to accommodate

development within the C ontraction P arcel. The master developer

of the lands within the Dist rict, Locust Branch, LLC, or its

subsidiaries or designees, will fund the remainder of the cost

of the construction of the infrastructure, facilities and

services needed to accommodate the development of such property

that is not funded by a future CDD . A fter construction, the

infrastructure and facilities within the C ontraction P arcel will

be conveyed to the future CDD , Pasco County, or to an applicable

homeownersÓ association for ownership and maintenance, as is

appropriate depending on the type of infra structure or

facilities that are actually constructed .

38 . The testimony of Mr. Brizendine, Mr. Ross, and

Mr. Sheridan constitutes competent, substantial evidence that

the Amended District remains the best alternative available for

delivering community d evelopment 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

incompa tible with the capacity and uses of existing local and

regional community development services and facilities.

39 . Mr. Brizendine 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 capacity and use of existing local or regional

community development services and facilities.

40 . M r. Ross testified that the services and facilities to

be provided by the Amended District are not incompatible, an d 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.

41 . The testimony of Mr. Brizendine and Mr. Ross

constitutes competent, s ubstantial 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 facilities.

There was no evidence to t he contrary.

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

by the Amended District is amenable to separate special - district

government.

42 . Mr. Brizendine testified that the removal of the

C ontraction P arcel will not affect the ability of the Amended

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 operating

either now or into the future.

43 . M r. Ross testified that t he area within the Amended

District remains large enough to comprise its own community with

individual facility and service needs , as the areas within the

District that are curren tly developed only include lands within

the proposed boundary of the Amended District . Moreover, the

Amended District will continue to constitute an efficient

mechanism for providing the necessary capital infrastructure

improvements, and ongoing operation and maintenance thereof,

to directly serve the development within its boundary. Special

district governance is appropriate for the Amended District

because it provides a mechanism whereby long - term maintenance

obligations can be satisfied by the persons using the facilities

and services.

44 . The testimony of Mr. Brizendine and Mr. Ross

constitutes competent, substantial evidence that the area that

will be served by the 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 .

45 . 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 ectio n 120.541 . The

Petition includes a S ERC .

46 . Mr. Brizendine explained the purpose of the SERC ,

the economic analysis presented therein, and the data and

methodology used in preparing the S ERC . H is testimony is

accepted.

47 . The SERC conta ins 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 State of

Florida and its citizens, Pasco County and its citizens, and the

property owners within the existi ng District and the C ontraction

P arcel.

48 . Aside from nominal costs related to the amendment of

rule 42 MMM - 1 .002 , the s tate and its citizens will only incur

modest costs from contracting the DistrictÓs boundary as

proposed. O ngoing 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 D istrict is one

of many governmental subdivisions required to submit reports to

the s tate. P ursuant to s ection 189.018 , the Amended District

will pay an annual fee to the DEO to offset such costs.

49 . It is not anticipated that Pasco County will incur

co sts in reviewing the Petition, as the District remitted a

$15,0 25 .00 filing fee to Pasco County to offset any such costs.

Pasco County 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 Pasco County related to the

Amended District are expected to be minimal. Since t he Amended

District is an independent unit of local government , t he only

annual costs incurred by Pasco County will be the minimal costs

of receiving and r eviewing reports that are required to be

provide d to Pasco County .

50 . The costs of petitioning for the boundary amendment

are being paid entirely by the master developer of the

C ontraction P arcel, Locust Branch, LLC , pursuant to a funding

agreeme nt with the District. The Amended District will continue

to incur costs for operation 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 fa cilities and its services.

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

meets all requirements of s ection 120.541 .

Other Procedural Elements

52 . The District has complied with the provisions of

s ection 190.005(1)(b)1., in that Pasco County was provided a

copy of the Petition and was paid the requisite filing fee prior

to the District filing the Petition with the Commission.

53 . Section 190.005(1)(d) require d the District to publish

notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of gene ral

circulation in Pasco County for four consecutive weeks prior to

the hearing. The notice was published in the Tampa Bay Times, a

newspaper of general paid circulation in Pasco County on March

27, 2018, April 3, 2018, April 10 , 2018, and April 17, 2018.

54 . The Commission has certified that the Petition meets

all of the requirements of s ections 190.046(1)(f) and

190.005(1)(a) .

APPLICABLE LAW

55 . This proceeding is governed by chapter 120,

sections 190.005 and 190.046 , and Florida Administrative Code

C hapter 42 - 1.

56 . The District was established by the adoption of

c hapter 42 MMM - 1, which followed the issuance of a DOAH Report of

Administrative Law Judge to the Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission . See In Re: Wiregrass Community

Development District , DOAH Case No. 08 - 3029 (DOAH Report

Aug. 28 , 2008 ; Chapter 42 MMM - 1 adoption J une 24, 2009 ).

57 . Section 190.046(1) provides, in pertinent part, that :

(1) A landowner or the board may petition

to contract or expand the boundaries of a

community development district in the

following manner:

* * *

(f) Petit ions to amend the boundaries

of the district [to the extent provided in

this case] shall be proces sed in accordance

with s. 190.005, and the petition shall

include on ly the elements set forth in

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

consent required by paragraph (g).

However, th e resulting administrative rule

or ordinance may only amend the boundari es

o f the distr ict and may not establish a

new district or cause a new 6 - year or

10 - year period to begin pursuant to

s. 190.006(3)(a)2. The filing fee for

such petiti ons shall be as set forth in

s. 190.005(1)(b), as applicable.

(g) In all cases of a pet ition to amend

boundaries o f a district, the filing of

the petition by the district board of

supervisors constitutes consent of the

landowne rs within the district. In

all cases, written consent of those

landowners whose land is to be added to or

deleted f rom the district as provided in

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

58 . The Consent and Joinder of Landowner s introduced as

Exhibit A, Attachment SB - 1 , Exhibit 7 K , establish es that the

District provided the requisite consent of the Contraction

Parcel landow ners, thus meeting the landowner consent

requirements of section 190.046(1)(g).

59 . The District satisfied the statutory notice

requirements by providing Pasco County with a copy of the

Petition and paying the required filing fee as required by

section 190.005(1)(b) . The District also published notice

of the local public hearing in the manner required by

section 190.005(1)(d).

60 . 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 up on 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 n t of estimated regulatory

costs in accorda nce with the requirements of

s. 120.541.

61 . The Petition includes t he elements required by

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

62 . 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

f or the area by the future land element of

the adopted local government comprehensive

plan.

63 . As established herein, the Petition included the

description of services and facilities, and the designation of

future public and private land uses as require d.

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

Petition is to be processed by application of the standards in

section 190.005 .

65 . Section 190.005(d) provides, in pertinent part,

that:

A local publi c 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

66 . 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

para graph (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. Whet her the establishment of the

district is i nconsistent 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 sufficien t size, 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 that 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.

67 . E ach of the statutory criteria in section

190.005(1)(e) has been satisfied.

68 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that the

statements cont ained in the Petition are true and correct.

§ 190.005(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat.

69 . The evidence in t his proceeding establishes that the

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

with either the Pasco County C omprehensive P lan or the S ta te

C omprehensive P lan. § 190.005(1)(e)2., Fla. Stat.

7 0 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that,

after the removal of the C ontraction P arcel, the A mended

District will continue to be of sufficient size, sufficiently

compact, and sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one

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

Stat.

71 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that ,

after the removal of the C ontraction P arcel, the Amended

District will continue to be the best al ternative available for

delivering community development services and facilities to the

remaining a reas. § 190.005(1)(e)4., Fla. Stat.

72 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that the

services and facilities that will be provided by the Distric t to

the expansion areas are not incompatible with the capacity or

uses of any local or regional community development services and

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

73 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that,

after the removal of the C ontraction P arcel, the District is

amenable to separate special - district government.

§ 190.005(1)(e)6., Fla. Stat.

CONCLUSION

Section 190.005(1)(e) , as ap plicable to a petition to

amend the boundar y of a CDD pursuant to section 190.046(1)(f),

prov ides that the Commission Ðshall consider the entire re cord

of the local hearing, the T ranscript of the hearing, resolutions

adopted by local general - purpose governments,Ñ and t he factors

set forth in section 190.005(1)(e)1. through 6. in determining

whether to grant or deny the petition. Based upon the foregoing

findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned

concludes that the proposed boundary amendment satisfies the

statutory requirements, and that there is no reason not to grant

the Dist r ictÓs req uest to amend its boundary by removal of the

2 ,196.846 - acre, more or less, C ontraction P arcel.

DONE AND ENTE RED this 25th day of May , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, 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 25th day of May , 2018 .

C OPIES FURNISHED:

Cynthia Kelly

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

The Capitol

Office of the Governor

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Molly Weller , Agency Clerk

Transportation and Economic

Development Policy Unit

Room 1801

The Capitol

Tal lahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

Lindsay Whelan, Esquire

Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A.

Suite 300

119 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1591

(eServed)

Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire

Hopping, Green, and Sams, P.A.

119 South Monroe Street Suite 300

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

(eServed)

Nicholas Primrose , General Counsel

General Counsel to the Commission

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Suite 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)