18-006390 In Re: Petition To Expand The Bella Collina Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, March 7, 2019.

Summary: Petitioner satisfied all statutory requirements for expanding the boundaries of an existing community development district.

S TATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: PETITION TO EXPAND THE Case No. 18 - 6390

BELLA COLLINA COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

_______________________________/

REPORT TO THE FLORID A

LAND AND WATER ADJUD ICATORY COMMISSION

D. R. Al exander, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings, conducted a local public hearing in this

case on February 14, 2019, at the Bella Collina Clubhouse,

16350 Vetta Drive, Montverde, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Andrew C . d'Adesky, Esquire

Patricia R. McConnell, Esquire

Latham, Shuker, Eden &

Beaudine, LLP

Suite 1400

111 North Magnolia Avenue

Orlando, Florida 3280 1 - 2367

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented in this proceeding is whether the

Petition to Expand the Boundaries of the Bella Collina Community

Development District (Petition) meets the applicable criteria in

chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2018), and Florida Administrative

Code Chapter 42 - 1. The purpose of the local public hearing was

to gather information in anticipation of quasi - legislative

rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission

(Commission).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On Novem ber 19, 2018, the Bella Collina Community

Development District (Petitioner or District) filed its Petition

and attached exhibits with the Commission requesting that the

Commission adopt a rule expanding the District by adding

approximately 5.11 acres. Pri or to this time, the Petition and

exhibits, along with the requisite filing fee, were delivered to

the Town of Montverde (Town) and Lake County (County). Both the

Town and the County elected not to hold an optional public

hearing on the Petition. On Dece mber 5, 2018, the Secretary of

the Commission certified that the Petition contained all required

elements and referred it to the Division of Administrative

Hearings to conduct a local public hearing, as required by

section 190.005(1)(d).

Notice of the publ ic hearing was published in accordance

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

conducted on February 14, 2019, the District presented the

testimony, live and written, of Randall F. Greene, owner of the

expansion parcel; Steven Boyd, a regi stered professional

engineer, District Engineer, and accepted as an expert; and

George Flint, the District Manager. Petitioner's Exhibits 1

through 3 were accepted in evidence. One member of the public

attended the hearing, but no members of the public o ffered

testimony. No written comments were submitted after the local

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

A one - volume Transcript of the hearing has been prepared.

Petitioner filed a proposed report of findings and conclusions,

which has been considered in the preparation of this Report.

O VERVIEW OF THE DISTRICT

1. Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule to add

approximately 5.11 acres to the District (Expansion Parcel), as

described in the Petition. After expansion, the District will

c ontain approximately 1,810.11 acres. The District was created

in 2004 and lies wholly within the County just south of the Town

and east of the Florida Turnpike.

2. The entirety of the Expansion Parcel is owned by

DCS Real Estate Investments, LL C , an d the landowner has provided

written consent to the proposed expansion of the District

boundaries.

3. The District is presently providing certain

infrastructure improvements to the land within its boundaries and

intends, once expanded, to construct or p rovide similar

infrastructure improvements within the Expansion Parcel in the

future.

4. The sole purpose of this proceeding is to consider the

expansion of the District boundaries as proposed by Petitioner.

Information related to the managing and fina ncing of the service -

delivery function of the District as expanded (Expanded District )

is also considered. Because sections 190.046 and 190.005 provide

the statutory criteria to be considered, this Report summarizes

the evidence relating to each relevant section of the statutes.

SUMMARY OF THE RECORD

A. Whether all statements contained within the Petition

have been found to be true and correct.

5. Exhibit 1 consists of the Petition and its exhibits as

filed with the Commission. Mr. Flint testified tha t he is

familiar with the Petition, and he generally described the

exhibit that he, or others under his supervision, prepared. He

testified that the contents of the Petition and the exhibits

attached thereto were true and correct to the best of his

knowle dge.

6. Mr. Boyd testified that he is familiar with the

Petition, and that he prepared, or had others prepare under his

supervision, several of the exhibits attached to the Petition.

Mr. Boyd testified that these exhibits were true and correct to

the bes t of his knowledge.

7. Finally, Mr. Greene testified that he is familiar with

the Petition and that he executed the Consent and Joinder to

Petition to Expand the Boundaries of the Bella Collina Community

Development District. He also testified that the c ontents of the

Petition and the exhibits attached thereto were true and correct

to the best of his knowledge.

8. Petitioner has demonstrated that the Petition and

exhibits are true and correct.

B. Whether the amendment of the District boundaries is

incon sistent with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government

comprehensive plan.

9. Mr. Boyd reviewed the proposed District boundary in

light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan found

in chapter 187, which provides long - range policy guidance for the

orderly social, economic, and physical growth of the State by way

of 25 subjects, goals, and policies. He testified that the

Expanded District is not inconsistent with any applicable

provi sions of the State Comprehensive Plan.

10. Mr. Boyd also reviewed the Expanded District in light

of the requirements of the County Comprehensive Plan. He

testified that the Expanded District would not be inconsistent

with any applicable element or portio n of the County

Comprehensive Plan.

11. Petitioner has demonstrated that the Expanded District

will not be inconsistent with any applicable provision of the

State Comprehensive Plan or County Comprehensive Plan.

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

of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated

community.

12. The Expanded District will include approximately

1,810.11 acres, located entirely within the unincorporated part

of the County.

13. Mr. Flint testified that the Expanded District has

sufficient land area, and is sufficiently compact and contiguous

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

functional, interrelated community and that the boundary

expansion has no impact on functionality.

14. Mr. Boyd testified that the area of land within the

District was originally developed as a planned community and was

previously determined to be of sufficient size, compactness, and

contiguity to be developed with facilities and services as one

functionally interrelated community. The facilities and services

planned for the Expansion Parcel are of the same kind as

currently within the District and will operate as part of one

functionally interrela ted community following the expansion of

the District boundaries. As a result, the Expanded District

remains of sufficient size, compactness, and contiguity to

function as one interrelated community.

15. Petitioner has demonstrated that the Expanded Di strict

will be of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and

sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally

interrelated community.

D. Whether the Expanded District remains the best

alternative available for delivering community developm ent

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

Expanded District.

16. The District is presently providing certain

infrastructure improvements and services to the lands within its

boundaries and intends to construct and provide such

in frastructure improvements and services to the Expanded Parcel

in the future.

17. Mr. Flint testified that, to date, the District has

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

maintain the public facilities within the existing District; the

District has already constructed the entirety of the facilities

and services needed to adequately serve the Expanded District;

and the District is providing the associated maintenance and

operations that will allow for the Expanded District to continue

to operate the facilities and services to the lands within its

boundaries. Accordingly, the Expanded District is the best

alternative to provide such facilities and services to the area

to be served.

18. Mr. Boyd testified that due to the fact 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, the District has proven in

the past that it is the best alternative available. Further , the

District is the only entity capable of serving the Expansion

Parcel with the proposed community development facilities and

services. Therefore, even after the addition of the Expansion

Parcel, the Expanded District is capable of continuing to

effici ently finance and oversee the operation and maintenance of

necessary capital improvements within the community.

19. Petitioner has demonstrated that the Expanded District

remains the best alternative available for delivering community

development services and facilities to the area that will be

served by the Expanded District.

E. Whether the community development services and

facilities of the Expanded District will be incompatible with the

capacity and uses of existing local and regional community

develo pment services and facilities.

20. Mr. Flint testified that the services and facilities of

the Expanded District are identical to those being 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.

21. Mr. Boyd testified that the services and facilities to

be provided by the Expanded District are not incompatible, and in

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

existi ng local or regional community development facilities and

those provided by the existing District.

22. Petitioner has demonstrated that the community

development services and facilities of the Expanded District will

not be incompatible with the capacity a nd uses of existing local

and regional community development services and facilities.

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

District is amenable to separate special - district government.

23. Mr. Flint testified that the addition of the Expansion

Parcel will not affect the ability of the Expanded District to

operate as a separate special - district government, and that

expanding the boundaries of the existing District will not change

the way the unit of government is operating either now or in the

future.

24. Mr. Boyd testified that even with the addition of the

Expansion Parcel to the existing District boundary, the area

within the District remains an appropriate size to comprise its

own community with individual facility and service needs .

Moreover, the Expanded 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

boundaries.

2 5. Petitioner has demonstrated that the area that will be

served by the Expanded District is amenable to separate special -

district government.

G. Ot her requirements imposed by statute or rule.

26. Chapter 190 and chapter 42 - 1 impose specific

requirement s regarding the Petition and other information to be

submitted to the Commission.

27. The Commission has certified that the Petition meets

all of the requirements of sections 190.046 (1) and 190.005(1)( a ).

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

include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), which

meets the requirements of section 120.541. The Petition contains

a SERC.

29. Mr. Flint explained the purpose of the SERC, the

economic analysis presented therein, and the data and meth odology

used in preparing the SERC.

30. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits

to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to expand

the boundaries of the District -- the State and its citizens, the

County and its citizens, the Town and its citizens, and property

owners within the existing District and Expansion Parcel.

31. Beyond administrative costs related to rule amendment,

the State and its citizens will only incur modest costs from

expanding the District as proposed. Spec ifically, State staff

will process, analyze, and conduct a public hearing on the

Petition to expand the District boundaries. These activities

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

these costs to the State are likely to be minim al for a number of

reasons. First, review of the Petition does not include analysis

of the development to be served by the District. Second, the

Petition itself provides most of the information needed for State

staff's review. Third, the State currently employs the staff

needed to conduct the review of the Petition. Finally, no

capital expenditure is required to review the Petition.

32. The cost of petitioning for the expansion of the

District boundaries will be paid entirely by the developer,

DCS R eal Estate Investments, LLC, pursuant to a funding agreement

with the District. Also, the Expanded District will incur costs

for operations and maintenance of its facilities and for its

administration. Those costs will be completely paid for from

annual assessments against all properties within the Expanded

District benefiting from its facilities and services.

33. As an existing District, the ongoing cost to various

State entities related to the Expanded District relate strictly

to the receipt and proc essing of various reports that the

Expanded 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 Expanded District's reports will be

minimal. The Expanded Di strict is only one of many governmental

subdivisions required to submit various reports to the State.

Additionally, pursuant to section 189.18, the Expanded District

will pay an annual fee to the Department of Economic Opportunity

to offset such processin g costs.

34. It is not anticipated that the County or Town will

incur costs in reviewing the Petition, as the District has

remitted a filing fee to the County and Town to offset any such

costs. Additionally, the County and Town are not required to

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

hold a public hearing. As with the existing District, the annual

costs to the County and Town related to the ongoing operations of

the Expanded District are also minimal. The Expanded District is

an independent unit of local government. The only annual costs

incurred by the County and Town will be the minimal costs of

receiving and, to the extent desired, reviewing the various

reports that the Expanded District is required to provide the

County an d Town.

35. Petitioner has demonstrated that the SERC meets all

requirements of section 120.541.

36. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of

section 190.005(1)(b) in that the County and Town were provided

with a copy of the Petition and were pai d the requisite filing

fees prior to Petitioner filing the Petition with the Commission.

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

notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general paid

circulation in the county where the distric t is located for four

consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published

in a newspaper of general paid circulation in Lake County

( Orlando Sentinel ) on January 21, January 28, February 4, and

February 11, 2019.

H. Public Participation

38. During the local meeting, one individual asked for the

specific location of the Expansion Parcel, which was answered in

detail by the District Engineer.

CONCLUSIONS

39. This proceeding is governe d by chapters 120 and 190 and

chapter 42 - 1.

40. The procee ding was properly noticed pursuant to

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

newspaper of general paid circulation in Lake County of general

interest and readership, once each week for the four consecutive

weeks immediately prior to the hearing.

41. Petitioner has met the requirements of

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

and satisfaction of the filing fee requirements.

42. Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the

Petition meets t he relevant statutory criteria set forth in

section 190.005(1)(e).

43. All portions of the Petition and other submittals have

been completed and filed as required by law.

44. All statements contained within the Petition are true

and correct.

45. The exp ansion of the District is not inconsistent with

any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan

or the effective County Comprehensive Plan.

46. The area of land within the Expanded District remains

of sufficient size, is sufficiently com pact, and is sufficiently

contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated

community.

47. The Expanded District remains the best alternative

available for delivering community development services and

facilities to the area that will be served by the Expanded

District.

48. The community development services and facilities of

the Expanded District will not be incompatible with the capacity

and uses of existing local and regional community development

services and facilities.

49. The area to be served by the Expanded District remains

amenable to separate special - district government.

50. Based on the record evidence, the Petition satisfies

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

reason not to grant Petitioner's request for e xpanding the

boundaries of the existing District, as requested by Petitioner.

DONE AND ENTERED this 7 th day of March , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

D. R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Admi nistrative 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 7 th day of March , 2019 .

CO PIES FURNISHED:

Cynthia Kelly , Secretary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Room 1802, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Nicholas A. Primrose, Esquire

(Attorney for the Commission)

Executive Office of the Governor

Suite 209, The Capitol

400 South Monroe Street

Talla hassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

Molly Weller, Agency Clerk

Transportation and Economic

Development Policy Unit

Room 1802, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

(eServed)

Andrew C. d'Adesky, Esquire

La tham, Shuker, Eden & Beaudine, LLP

Suite 1400

111 North Magnolia Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32801 - 2367

(eServed)

Patricia R. McConnell, Esquire

Latham, Shuker, Eden & Beaudine, LLP

Suite 1400

111 North Magnolia Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32801 - 2367

William Cho r ba, General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building, MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)