20-004890 In Re: Joint Petition To Amend The Villages Of Westport Community Development District vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, February 26, 2021.

Summary: The Joint Petition to amend the boundary of the Villages of Westport CDD satisfies the statutory requirements established in sections 190.005 and 190.046.

S TATE O F F LORIDA

D IVISION O F A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

I N R E : J OINT P ETITION T O A MEND T HE Case No. 20 - 4890

V ILLAGES OF W ESTPORT C OMMUNITY

D EVELOPMENT D ISTRICT

___________________________ ________ ____/

A DMINISTRATIVE L AW J UDGE ' S R EPORT T O T HE

F LORIDA L AN D A ND W ATER A DJUDICATORY C OMMISSION

On January 29, 2021, a local public hearing was conducted before E. Gary

Early, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH), by Zoom Conference and at the Holiday Inn Express Ï

Bartram Park, 13934 Village Lake Circle, Jacksonville, Florida 32258 .

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner Villages of Westport Community Development District :

Wesley S. Haber , Esquire

Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 323 14 - 6526

For Petitioner CC Westport, LLC :

Kenneth R aymond Artin , Esquire

Bryant Miller Olive , P.A.

255 S outh Orange Ave nue, S ui te 1350

Orlando, Florida 32801

S TATEMENT O F T HE I SSUE

The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commissi on

(Commission) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Joint Petition to

Amend the Villages of Westport Co mmunity Development District ( Joint

Petition) to amend the boundary of the Villages of Westport Community

Development District (District) by remov ing approximately 1,058.56 acres ,

and adding approximately 3.63 acres to the land comprising the current area

encompassed by the District .

The local public hearing was conducted pursuant to sections 190.046(1)(f)

and 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony and

public comment and receiving exhibits on the Joint 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

to adopt a r ule amending the boundary of the District as requested by the

District .

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On September 1, 2020 , the District filed the Joint Petition with the

Commission. T he District previously provided the Joint Petition and its

e xhibits, along with the requisite filing fee, to the City of Jacksonville ,

Florida ( the City of Jacksonville ) .

The Joint Petition seeks to contract the boundary of the District by

removing approximately 1,058.56 acres (the C ontraction P arcel) from , and by

adding approximate ly 3.63 acres (the Expansion Parcel) to , the 1,476.34 acres

comp r ising the E xisting District, which will result in a District boundary

encompassing approximately 421.03 acres (the Amended District) . Within the

boundary of the Amended District are three par cels that are excluded from

the boundary of the Amended District (the Excluded Parcel s ) , and are not

affected by this Amendment .

The District is located entirely within the City of Jacksonville. Section

190.005(1)(c) provides that the municipality contai ning all or a portion of the

lands within the proposed Amended District has the option to hold a public

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

held a public hearing relative to the proposed boundary amendment on

Octobe r 27, 2020 , a nd adopted Resolution 20 - 652 - A, recommending approval

of the boundary amendment.

On November 5, 2020 , the Commission certified that the Joint Petition

contained all required elements and referred the Joint Petition to DOAH for

the purpose of conducting the local public hearing required by s ection

190.005(1)(d). On January 15, 2021 , a Notice of Receipt of Petition was

published in the Florida Administrative Register.

On November 23, 2020, the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO)

certified to the Commission that the Joint Petition contained no potential

inconsistency with chapter 163, Florida Statutes , or the City of Jacksonville

2030 Comprehensive Plan .

The local public hearing was held on Friday , January 29, 2021 , at

9 :00 a .m. , at the Hol iday Inn Express Ï Bartram Park, 13934 Village Lake

Circle, Jacksonville, Florida 32258 , with the Administrative Law Judge

appearing by Zoom conference . Petitioner s published notice of the local public

hearing in accordance with s ection 190.005(1)(d). At t he local public hearing,

Petitioner s presented the live and written testimony of :

1. Vivian Carvalho, District Manager, employed by PFM Group

Consulting, LLC , who was accepted as an expert in district management and

finance ;

2. James Stowers, Vice - Chairm an of the DistrictÔs Board of

Supervisors ;

3 . Neal Brockmeier, P.E., the Project Director, employed by Prosser,

Inc., and District Engineer for the District , who was accepted as an expert in

land development and public infrastructure construction; and

4 . Kelly McCarrick, Vice President of CC Westport, LLC .

The District offered Composite Exhibit A , consisting of the prefiled testimony

of Ms. Carvalho, and including as attachments thereto Tabs VC - 1 through

VC - 11 ; Exhibit B , consisting of the prefiled testi mony of Mr. Stowers ;

Composite Exhibit C, consisting of the prefiled testimony of M r. Brockmeier ,

and including as attachments thereto Tabs N B - 1 and N B - 2 ; and Exhibit D ,

consisting of the prefiled testimony of Ms. McCarrick . A ll exhibits were

received in e vidence .

Roughly eight members of the public appeared by Zoom. Three of them,

Alice Sanders, Melissa Story, and Danylle Connor, who are residents in the

completed development phase s of the area proposed as the Amended District,

provided public comment. Th e comments went beyond the more traditional

three - minute statements, and included a number of questions regarding the

infrastructure provided by the District, fees before and after the proposed

boundary amendment , plans for development of the Contraction P arcel, and

other similar concerns. Counsel and witnesses for Petitioners were open and

informative in their responses.

The record of the proceeding was held open for 10 days to allow for the

submission of additional written comments or documents from the public. On

February 8, 2021, six filings were received by the undersigned , placed on the

public docket , and have been considered in the development of this Report.

The filings have been placed onto a thumb drive which accompanies the

record.

On February 15, 2021, Petitioners filed an affidavit in reply to the public

comments, which is on the public docket of this proceeding.

The one - volume transcript of the local public hearing was filed with

DOAH on February 10, 2021 . Petitioner s also filed a Proposed Report of

Findings and Conclusions on February 22, 2021 , which has been considered

in the preparation of this Report.

References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (20 20 ), unless otherwise

noted.

O VERVIEW

The District is seeking the adoption of an amen dment to Florida

Administrative Code Rule 42 QQ - 1.002 to remove the a pproximately 1,058.56 -

acre C ontraction Parcel, and to add the approximately 3.63 - acre Expansion

Parcel as described in the Joint Petition . After the contraction and addition ,

the Amended D istrict will contain approximately 421.03 a cres.

The Contraction Parcel and the Expansion Parcel are both owned, in their

entirety, by CC Westport, LLC. CC Westport, LLC , provided written consent

to the proposed amendment of the DistrictÔs boundaries. Fu rthermore, t he

favorable action of the Board of Supervisors of the District constitutes

consent for all of the lands within the District, as is evidenced by District

Resolutions 2020 - 06 and 2020 - 11, and by its status as a party to the Joint

Petition .

The District is presently providing certain infrastructure improvements to

the lands within its boundaries, except that the District is not currently

providing facilities or services to any land within the Contraction Parcel.

F acilities or services to be provi ded to the Contraction Parcel will be provided

by a future community development district (CDD) and/or the developer of

the Villages of Westport development.

The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the amendment of the

District boundary as pro posed. Information relating to the managing and

financing of the service - delivery function of the Amended District was also

considered. Inasmuch as s ections 190.046 and 190.005 provide the statutory

criteria to be considered, this report summarizes the rel evant and material

evidence relating to each relevant section of the statute.

S UMMARY O F T HE R ECORD

A. Joint Petition Contents and Related Matters

1 . The Joint Petition was submitted to the Commission on September 1,

2020 . A copy of the Joint Petition , a long with a check in the amount of

$ 15, 000. 00, was previously subm itted to the City of Jacksonville on

August 31 , 2020 .

2 . The Joint Petition incorporated the following Exhibits:

a . Joint Petition Exhibit 1 , which is a depiction of

the general location of the E xisting District

boundary.

b . Joint Petition Exhibit 2 , which is the metes and

bounds description of the E xisting District

boundary as incorporated by reference in Florida

Administrative Code Rule 42 QQ - 1.002.

c . Joint Petition Exhibit 3 , which is t he metes and

bounds description of the C ontraction P arcel.

d. Joint Petition Exhibit 4 , which is the metes and

bounds description of the Expansion Parcel.

e . Joint Petition Exhibit 5 , which is the metes and

bounds description of the Amended District afte r

removal of the C ontraction P arcel and addition of

the Expansion Parcel .

f . Joint Petition Exhibit 6 , which is a general

location map of the Amended District .

g . Joint Petition Exhibit 7 , which is the written

Consent of the owner (at the time of the fi ling of the

Joint Petition ) of 100 percent of the lands within

the C ontraction P arcel and Expansion Parcel

expressed its consent to the amend ment of the

boundary of the Dist r ict .

h . Joint Petition Exhibit 8 , which consists of

Resolutions 2020 - 06 and 2020 - 11 , by which the

DistrictÔs Board of Supervisors has approved and

consented to the amendment of the boundary of the

District .

i . Joint Petition Exhibit 9 , which is the Future

Land Use Map for the City of Jacksonville that

depicts the distribution, locati on , 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 . Joint Petition Exhibit 1 0 , which is a map of the

current major trunk water mains, sewer

interceptors , and outfal ls within the proposed

Amended District.

k . Joint Petition Exhibit 1 1 , which describes the

facilities and services that have been completed in

the first three phases of construction in the

Amended District and the costs of construction, and

the infrastruc ture improvements planned for

construction in the fourth phase of construction in

the Amended District and the estimated costs of

construction .

l . Joint Petition Exhibit 1 2 , which is the Statement

of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) prepared in

accordan ce with the requirements of s ection

120.541, Florida Statutes.

m . Joint Petition Exhibit 1 3 , which is the DistrictÔs

and the LandownerÔs authorization s of Wesley S.

Haber of Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. , and

Kenneth R. Artin of Bryant Miller Olive , P.A. , to

act as their respective a gents relative to the

boundary amendment .

3 . The Joint Petition established that the District is not currently

providing any facilities or services to the Contraction Parcel . According to the

Joint Petition , t he Contraction Parc el is presently subject to debt service

assessments and operation and maintenance assessments levied and imposed

by the District, however, the Landowner will pay such assessments in full

prior to the effective date of any amended r ule approving the boundar y of the

Amended District . There will be no changes in the facilities provided by the

District as a result of the removal of the C ontraction P arcel.

4. The Joint Petition described the Amended District as including four

phases of construction. Infrastruct ure improvements for the first three

phases, which are fully platted and developed and include 540 lots, have been

completed. The infrastructure improvements for the fourth phase will allow

for the development of 227 lots and are intended to be constructed by the end

of 2021.

5 . The Joint 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 amended , are not inconsistent with applicable

elements or portions of the adopted State Comprehensive Plan or the City of

Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan.

b. The area of land within the District, as amended , is part of a

planned community. The District , as amended , 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 amended , continues to be the best alternative for

delivering community developme nt 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 amended , will not be incompatible with the capacit y and use of existing

local and regional community development services and facilities.

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

amenable to separate special - district government.

6 . The Commission certified that the Joint Peti tion 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 o n December 30, 2020;

January 8, 2021; January 15, 2021; and January 22, 2021, in t he Jacksonville

Daily Record , a newspaper of general paid circulation in the City of

Jacksonville , wh ich newspaper complies with the requirements for

publication of legal and official advertisements , pursuant to c hapter 50,

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

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

including a map showing the Contraction P arcel, and other relevant

information.

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

Friday, January 29, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., by Zoom conference , and physically at

the Holiday Inn Express Ï Bartram Park, 13934 Village Lake Circle,

Jacksonville, Florida 32258 .

9 . The Exhibits received in evidence at the hearing consisted of: Hearing

Exhibit A, consisting of the p re - f iled w ritten t estimony of Ms. Carvalho;

Hearing Exhibit B, consisting of the prefiled written testimony of

Mr. Stowers; Hearing Exhi bit C, consisting of the prefiled written testimony

of Mr. Brockmeier; and Hearing Exhibit D, consisting of the prefiled written

testimony of Ms. McCarrick. The four witness es also offered live testimony in

which the y fully adopted their pre - filed written testimony.

1 0 . M s. CarvalhoÔs pre - filed testimony , Hear ing Exhibit A, included the

following exhibits, all of which were received into evidence at the hearing:

a . Tab VC - 1 , which is the Joint Petition , an d which includes each of the

Joint Petition Exhibit s listed in paragraph 2 herein;

b. Tab VC - 2, a d epiction of the general location of the E xisting District

boundary , and of the Contraction Parcel, the Expansion Parcel, and the

Outparcels ;

c. Tab VC - 3, the September 1, 2020 , cover letter of transmittal of the

Joint Petition to the Clerk of the Commission ;

d. Tab VC - 4 , the August 31, 2020 , cover letter of transmittal of the

Joint Petition and the $15,000.00 filing fee to the Director of the Department

of Planning and Development for the City of Jacksonville ;

e. Tab VC - 5, which consists of Resolution 2020 - 652 - A by which the

Council of the City of Jacksonville recommended approval of the Joint

Petition to the Commission ;

f. Tab VC - 6, the November 5, 2020, certification from the Commission

that the Joint Petiti on contained all required elements and referred the Joint

Petition to DOAH for the purpose of conducting the local public hearing

re quired by section 190.005(1)(d);

g. Tab VC - 7, the Notice of Receipt of Petition published in the

January 15, 2021, Florida A dministrative Register , Volume 47, Number 10,

Page 368 ;

h. Tab VC - 8, the December 9, 2020, Amended Notice of Hearing b y

Zoom Conference setting January 29, 2021 , as the date for the local public

hearing ;

i. Tab VC - 9, the proof of publication that the n otic e of the public

hearing was advertised on December 30, 2020; January 8, 2021; January 15,

2021; and January 22, 2021, in the Jacksonville Daily Record, a newspaper of

general paid circulation in the City of Jacksonville ;

j. Tab VC - 10, the November 23 , 202 0, certification from the DEO that

the Joint Petition contained no potential inconsistency with chapter 163 , or

the City of Jacksonville 2030 Comprehensive Plan ; and

k. Tab VC - 11, the current annual operations and maintenance

assessments for each parcel in the 1,856 - unit E xisting District ($176.68) , and

the anticipated annual operations and maintenance assessments for each

parcel in the 767 - unit Amended District ($427.54).

11 . Mr. BrockmeierÔs pre - filed testimony, Hearing Exhibit C, included the

following e xhibits, all of which were received into evidence at the hearing:

a. Tab N B - 1, consisting of the State Comprehensive Plan, chapter 187 ,

Florida Statutes (2020) ; and

b. Tab NB - 2, consisting of the City of Jacksonville 2030 Comprehensive

Plan.

1 2 . Three mem bers of the public provided comment at the hearing. Six

documents were filed as p ublic comment after the local public hearing.

1 3 . The T ranscript of the local public hearing was filed with DOAH on

February 10, 2021 . The District also filed a Proposed Repor t of Findings and

Conclusions on February 22 , 2021 , which has been considered in the

preparation of this Report.

S UMMARY O F T HE T ESTIMONY A ND E VIDENCE

14 . The standards applicabl e to a determination of whether to grant or

deny the Joint Petition are those in section 190.005(1)(e).

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

Petition have been found to be true and correct.

15 . M s. Carvalho testified as to the accuracy of the information contained

in the Joint Petition . She als o prepared, or had others prepare under h er

supervision, Joint Petition Exhibit 12 , the SERC . M s. Carvalho Ôs testimony

constitutes competent, substantial evidence of the accuracy of the statements

in the Joint Petition and the exhibits attached thereto.

16. Mr. Stowers testified to his familiarity with, and the accuracy of the

information contained in the Joint Petition , including the Joint Exhibits .

M r. StowersÔs testimony constitutes competent, substantial evidence of the

accuracy of the statements in the Joint Petition and the exhibits attached

thereto.

17 . Mr. Brockmeier testified that he prepared, or had others prepare

under h is supervision, Joint Petition Exhibits 1 through 6, and 9 through 11 .

M r. Brockmeier testified that these exhibits accurate ly depict and describe

the boundaries and legal descriptions of the parcels of property at issue ; the

City of Jacksonville Ôs future land uses for the parcels of property at issue ; the

location and description of the existing major trunk water mains, sewer

interceptors , and outfalls associated with the Amended District ; and the

types of facilities constructed and installed, and those anticipated in the

Amended District . M r. Brockmeier Ô s testimony constitutes competent,

substantial evidence of the accuracy of Joint Petition Exhibits 1 through 6,

and 9 through 11 .

18 . M s. McCarrick testifi ed that s he is familiar with the Joint Petition ,

and that s he coordinated the execution of Joint Petition Exhibit 7 , the

Consent and Joinder of Landowners to the Amendment of the Boundaries of

the Villages of Westport Community Development District. M s. McCarrick Ôs

testimony constitutes competent, substantial evidence of the accuracy of the

statements in the Joint Petition , and of the consent of the landowners in the

Existing D istrict 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 Joint 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 comprehensive plan.

20 . M r. Brockmeier reviewed the proposed Dist rict boundary amendment

for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan .

21 . The State Comprehensive Plan Ñprovides long - range policy guidance

for the orderly social, economic and physical growth of the State . Ò Of the

subjects, goals, and policies in th e State Comprehensive Plan,

M r. Brockmeier identified Subject No. 15 - Land Use ; Subject No. 17 -

Public Facilities ; and Subject No. 25 - Plan Implementation, as relevant from

a planning and engineering perspective to the proposed amendment .

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. Brockmeier testified that the Amended District

will continue to have the fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services

and facilities to a population in a designated growth area. M r. Brockmeier Ô s

testimony constitutes competent, substantial evidence that the proposed

boundary amendment is not inconsistent with the land use goal of the State

Compre hensive 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. Brockmeier testified that the removal of the C ontraction P arcel from the

boundary of the District will not have an impact on the DistrictÔs existing

public facilities and services, and the future facilities and services serving the

Contraction Parcel will be provided by a newly established CDD (s) .

M r. Brockmeier further testified that the removal of the Contraction Parcel

from the boundary of the District will not have a significant impact on the

DistrictÔs existing public facilities and services , and will better allow for the

timely, orderly , and ef ficient planning and financing of new infrastructure

within the Contraction Parcel. Mr. Brockmeier Ô 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 coordinat ion and maximizing

citizen involvement. Mr. Brockmeier testified that allowing the Amended

District and the Contraction Parcel to be overseen by separate CDDs (or

other operation entity in the case of the Contraction Parcel) will result in an

increased lev el of coordination between the State, the City of Jacksonville ,

the relevant CDD , and its residents and landowners , as the CDDs will be

serving a more localized geographical boundary allowing for maximized

citizen involvement. M r. Brockmeier Ôs testimony co nstitutes 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. Brockmeier also reviewed the Amended District for consistency

with the City of Jacksonville 2030 Comprehensive Plan .

27 . Chapter 190 proh ibits a CDD from acting in any manner inconsistent

with the local governmentÔs comprehensive plan. When initially established

in 200 4 , the District demonstrate d that the development of the lands within

its boundary was consistent with the City of Jacksonvi lle Comprehensive

Plan. There is nothing in the record of this proceeding to suggest that the

contraction of the DistrictÔs boundaries in the manner proposed will cause the

Amended District to be inconsistent with any portion or element of the City of

Jack sonville 2030 Comprehensive Plan .

28 . M r. Brockmeier Ôs testimony constitutes competent, substantial

evidence that the proposed boundary amendment will not be inconsistent

with any applicable element of the City of Jacksonville 2030 Comprehensive

Plan . The re 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 City of

Jacksonville 2030 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 Amended District will include approximately 421.03 acres, located

e ntirely within the City of Jacksonville .

31 . M s. Carvalho testified that the Amended District has sufficient land

area, and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to be developed, and has in

fact been developed as one functional, interrelated community, an d that the

boundary amendment will have no impact on that functionality.

32 . M r. Brockmeier testified that the area of land within the District was

originally developed as a planned community, was previously determined to

be of sufficient size, compactnes s , 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 and addition of the Expansion

Parcel will allow the lands within the proposed Amended District to continue

to operate as a functionally interrelated community, as it remains of

sufficient size, compactness , and contiguity.

33 . The testimony of M s. Carvalho and M r. Brockmeier constitute

competent, substantial evidence that the Amended District will be of

sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and sufficiently contiguous to be

developed as a single functionally in terrelated 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 will be served by the Amended District.

34 . The District is presently providing infrastructure improvements to the

lands within the boundary of what is proposed as the Amended District , but

provides no infrastructure improvements to the lands within the boundary of

the C ontrac tion P arcel. Facilities or services to be provided to the Contraction

Parcel will be provided by a future CDD (s) and/or the developer of the

Villages of Westport d evelopment.

35 . M s. Carvalho testified that to date, the District has been the

mechanism use d to plan, finance, construct, operate , and maintain the public

facilities and services within the E xisting 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 the continued operation

of the facilities and services to the lands within the Amended DistrictÔs

boundar y . Accordingly, the Amended District is the best alternative to

provide s uch facilities and services to the area to be served.

36 . M r. Brockmeier testified that the E xisting District has provided

community development facilities and services effectively and efficiently to

the areas served from the date the District was establis hed, and that it is the

best alternative available for delivering community development services and

facilities . A fter removal of the C ontraction P arcel and addition of the

Expansion Parcel , 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 . Ms. McCarrick testified that the developer, CC Westport, LLC, or its

subsidiaries or designees will fund the cost of the facilities and service s

needed for the development of the Contraction Parcel. After construction, the

infrastructure and facilities within the C ontraction P arcel will be conveyed

to a future CDD , the City of Jacksonville , or to an applicable homeownersÔ

association for ownershi p and maintenance, as is appropriate depending on

the type of infrastructure or facilities that are actually constructed .

38 . The testimony of Mr. Carvalho, Mr. Brockmeier , and M s. McCarrick

constitute competent, substantial evidence that the Amended Distr ict

remains the best alternative available for delivering community development

services and facilities to the area that will be served by the Amended District.

There was no evidence to the contrary.

Section 190.005(1)(e)5. - Whether the community develo pment services and

facilities of the Amended District will be incompatible with the capacity and

uses of existing local and regional community development services and

facilities.

39 . M s. Carvalho testified that the services and facilities of the Amended

District are identical to those provided by the E xisting District and , thus , are

not incompatible with the capacity and use of existing local or regional

community development services and facilities.

40 . M r. Brockmeier testified that the services and faci lities 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 E xisting

District. Ther e will be no duplication or overlap of facilities or services as a

result of the elimination of the Contraction Parcel from the District.

41 . The testimony of M s. Carvalho and Mr. Brockmeier constitute

competent, substantial evidence that the community de velopment 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 the contrary.

Section 190.005(1)(e)6. - Wh ether the area that will be served by the

Amended District is amenable to separate special - district government.

42 . M s. Carvalho testified that the removal of the C ontraction P arcel will

not affect the ability of the Amended District to operate as a separ ate special -

district government, and that contracting the boundar y of the E xisting

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 . Mr. Brockmeier 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 currently

developed only include lands within t he 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

serv e 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 M s. Carvalho and Mr. Brockmeier constitute

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 1 90 .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 Joint Petition incl udes a

S ERC .

46 . M s. Carvalho explained the purpose of the SERC , the economic

analysis presented therein, and the data and methodology used in preparing

the S ERC . H er testimony is accepted.

47 . The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to al l persons

directly affected by the proposed rule to amend the boundar y of the District ,

including the State of Florida and its citizens, the City of Jacksonville and its

citizens, and the property owners within the E xisting District , the Expansion

Parcels, and the C ontraction P arcel.

48 . T he s tate and its citizens will only incur modest costs from amending

chapter 42QQ - 1 and the DistrictÔs boundary as proposed , including reviewing,

processing, and analyzing the Petition, and conducting public hearings .

O ng oing 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 and its

various entities . C osts to the s tate agencies that will receive and process the

Amended DistrictÔs re ports are expected to be minimal , if any . The District is

one of many governmental subdivisions required to submit reports to the

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

will pay an annual fee to the DEO to offset process ing costs.

49 . It is not anticipated that the City of Jacksonville will incur costs in

reviewing the Joint Petition , as the District remitted a $15,0 00 .00 filing fee to

the City of Jacksonville to offset any such costs. As is the case with the

E xisting Dis trict, annual costs to the City of Jacksonville 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

the City of Jacksonville will be the minima l costs of receiving and r eviewing

the various reports that the Amended District will be required to provide to

the City of Jacksonville .

50 . The costs of petitioning for the boundary amendment are being paid

entirely by the landowner and master developer of the Contraction Parcel

and Expansion Parcels, CC Westport, LLC , pursuant to a funding agreement

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 , and will continue to be pa id from , annual assessments against

properties within the District benefiting from its facilities and its services.

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

requirements of s ection 120.541 .

Other P rocedural Elements

52 . The District has complied with the provisions of s ection

190.005(1)(b)1., in that the City of Jacksonville was provided a copy of the

Joint Petition and was paid the requisite filing fee prior to the District filing

the Joint Petitio n 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 general circulation in the City of

Jacksonville for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was

published in the Jacksonville Daily Record , a newspaper of general paid

circulation in the City of Jacksonville on December 30, 2020 ; January 8,

2021 ; January 15, 2021 ; and January 22, 2 0 21 .

54 . The Commission has certified that the Joint Petition meets all of the

requirements of s ections 190.046(1)(f) and 190.005(1)(a) .

Public Comment

55 . Members of the public attended the public hearing via Zoom and

public comment was provided by Alice Sanford, Melissa Story , and Danielle

Conner.

56 . On February 8, 2021, written post - hearing comments were filed in the

public docket by Phyleshia Jackson - OÔNeal, Alice Sanford, and Randall and

Virginia Merideth.

57 . The public comments included, among others, those regarding notice

of the public hearing, levels of operations and ma intenance assessments for

the Amended District, and development plans for the Contraction Parcel. The

written comments were largely directed to what the residents believed to be

unfulfilled promises of amenities and improvements (schools, churches,

recreat ional areas , etc. ) that were to be provided within the boundaries of the

E xisting District.

58 . In response to the public comments, Petitioner filed a rebuttal

affidavit o n February 15, 2021.

59 . The public comment included a suggestion that the notice fo r the

public hearing was inadequate . As set forth herein, Petitioners met the

requirements in s ection 190.005(1)(d), by publish ing notice of the local public

hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Jacksonville for

four consecutive wee ks prior to the hearing.

60 . There were a number of public comments related to the impact the

boundary amendment will have on the DistrictÔs o peration and m aintenance

(O&M) a ssessments. Using the amounts in the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget, per

lot O&M a ssessm ents for the proposed A mended District will be increase d

from $176.68 per year to $ 427.54 per year. The reason for the increase is that

t he O&M a ssessments for the improvements made in the Amended District

will be limited to the 767 existing and proposed l ots in the A mended District,

and will no longer be spread across the roughly 1,000 undeveloped lots in the

Contraction Parcel. Since the District has not installed any improvements on

the Contraction Parcel, there are no maintenance expenses incurred by th e

District associated with the Contraction Parcel. Ms. McCarrick explained

that, in the short term , the removal of the Contraction Parcel will increase

the O&M assessments on the landowners in the Amended District. However,

long term O&M assessments will b e less for homeowners in the Amended

District because they will not share in expenses related to maintaining

improvements to be constructed to support the development of the 1,000

additional lots in the Contraction Parcel.

61 . There were also a number of public comments related to the impact

the boundary amendment will have on the development of the overall

Villages of Westport Project , particularly as related to social and recreational

amenities . Ms. McCarrick noted that the District has no role in determ ining

how the remainder of the property will be developed . Section 190.004(3)

provides that Ñ[a]ll governmental planning, environmental, and land

development laws, regulations, and ordinances apply to all development of

the land within a community developm ent district.Ò The master developer

holds the land use entitlements for the Villages of Westport as a planned unit

development that would allow planned commercial/retail development,

recreational amenities, schools , and church es to be built based on market

demand. The L andowner , through Resolution 2020 - 06, has expressed its

intention to provide the Amended District access to share in the use of any

amenity facilities constructed in the Contraction Parcel , subject to a

proportionate share of the cost of oper ating and maintaining the facilities .

62 . The public comments do not alter the findings regarding compliance

with the statutory criteria for CDD boundary amendments set forth herein.

A PPLICABLE L AW

63 . This proceeding is governed by chapter 120, sections 190.005 and

190.046 , and Florida Administrative Code C hapter 42 - 1.

64 . The District was established by the adoption of c hapter 42 QQ - 1,

effective June 14, 2004. The boundary was previously amended following the

issuance of a n Administrative Law JudgeÔs Rep ort to the Florida Land and

Water Adjudicatory Commission . See In Re: Petition for Rule Amendment -

Villages of Westport C mty. Dev . Dist . , DOAH Case No. 0 6 - 0351 (DOAH

Report June 22, 2006 ; Chapter 42 QQ - 1 amendment Apr . 16, 2007 ).

65 . Section 190.046(1) provi des, 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 provide d in this case] shall be

processed 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 of the distr ict and may not establish

a new district or cause a new 6 - year or 1 0 - 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 petition 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 from the district as provided in

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

66 . The Consent and Joinder of Landowner introduced as Exhibit A, Tab

VC - 1, Joint Petition Exhibit 7 , establish es that the District provided the

requisite consent of t he Expansion Parcel and Contraction Parcel landowner,

thus meeting the landowner consent requirements of section 190.046(1)(g).

67 . The District satisfied the statutory notice requirements by providing

the City of Jacksonville with a copy of the Joint Pet ition 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).

68 . A local public hearing was conducted in accordance with chap ter 120,

as specified in the published notice.

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

(1) The exclusive and uniform method for the

establishment of a community development district

with a size of 1,000 acres or more shall be pursuant

to a rule, adopted under chapter 120 by the Florida

Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission,

granting a petition for the establishment of a

community development district.

(a) A petition for the establishment of a community

development district shall be file d 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 i s to

be excluded from the district shall be specifically

described, and the last known address of all owners

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 proposed district showing current

major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors

and outfalls if in existence.

6. Based up on available data, the proposed

timeta ble for construction of the district services

and the estimated cost of constructing the proposed

services . 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 distribut ion,

location, and extent of public and private uses of

land proposed for the area within the district by the

future land use plan element of the effective local

government comprehensive plan of which all

mandatory elements have been adopted by the

applica ble general - purpose local government in

compliance with the Community Planning Act.

8. A statemen t of estimated regulatory costs in

accorda nce with the requirements of s. 120.541.

70 . The Joint Petition includes t he elements required by

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

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

If the petitioner seeks to contract the district, the

petition shall describe what services and facilities

are currently provided by the district to the area

being removed, and the designat ion of the future

general distribution, location, and extent of public

and private uses of land proposed for the area by

the future land element of the adopted local

government comprehensive plan.

72 . As established herein, the Joint Petition included the description of

services and facilities, and the designation of future public and private land

uses as required.

73 . As established in s ection 190.046 (1) ( f ) , the Joint Petition is to be

processed by application of the standards in section 190.005 .

74 . Sec tion 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 paragraph

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

The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission shall consider the entire record of the

local hearing, t he transcript of the hearing,

resolutions adopted by local general - purpose

governments as provided in paragraph (c), and the

following factors and make a determination to

grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a

community development district:

1. Whether all statements contained within the

petition have been found to be true and correct.

2. Whether the establishment of the district is

i nconsistent with any applicable element or portion

of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective

local g overnment comprehensive plan.

3. Whether the area of land within the proposed

district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact,

and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as

one functional interrelated community.

4. Whether the district is t he 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.

76 . E ach of the statutory criteria in section 190.005(1)( e) has been

satisfied , as established by competent , substantial evidence described herein .

77 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that the statements

contained in the Joint Petition are true and correct. § 190.005(1)(e)1.,

Fla. Stat.

78 . The evi dence in t his proceeding establishes that the amendment of the

District's boundar y will not be inconsistent with either the City of

Jacksonville 2030 Comprehensive Plan or the S tate C omprehensive P lan.

§ 190.005(1)(e)2., Fla. Stat.

79 . The evidence in thi s proceeding establishes that, after the addition of

the Expansion Parcel and 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 functio nal interrelated

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

80 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that , after the addition of

the Expansion Parcel and removal of the C ontraction P arcel, the Amended

District will continue to be the best alternative available for delivering

community development services and facilities to the remaining a reas that

will be served by the district . § 190.005(1)(e)4., Fla. Stat.

81 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that the services and

facilities that will be provided in the Amended District 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.

82 . The evidence in this proceeding establishes that, after the addition of

the Expansion Parcel and removal of the C ontraction P arcel, the District is

amenable to separate special - district government. § 190.005(1)(e)6., Fla. Stat.

C ONCLUSION

Section 190.005(1)(e) , as ap plicable to a petition to amend the boundar y of

a CDD pu rsuant to section 190.046(1)(f), prov ides that the Commission

Ñshall consider the entire re cord of the local hearing, the t ranscript of the

hearing, resolutions adopted by local general - purpose governments,Ò 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 ictÔs

request to remov e approximately 1,058.56 acres from, and add approximately

3.63 acres to, the 1,476.34 acres that comprise the Existing District, which

will result in a District boundary encompassing approximately 421. 03 acres ,

and to amend Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42QQ - 1, consistent

therewith .

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 26th day of February , 20 21 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

E. G ARY E ARLY

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahasse e, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

t his 26th day of February, 2021.

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Barbara R. Leighty, Clerk Wesley S. Haber, Esquire

Transpor tation and Economic Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Development Policy Unit Post Office Box 6526

Room 180 2 , The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32314 - 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001

Joshua E lliott Pratt, Esquire

Kenneth R aymond Ar tin, Esquire Florida Land and Water

Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. Adjudicatory Commission

Suite 1350 Governor's Legal Office

255 South Orange Avenue The Capitol, Room 209

Orlando, Florida 32801 Tallahassee, Florida 323 99 - 0001

Chris Spencer, Secretary

Florida Lan d and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

Room 1802, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0001