94-007203 In Re: A Rule To Establish The Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2 vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, March 15, 1995.

Summary: Petitioner has met the requirements of Section 190.005(a), Florida Statutes.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: A Rule to Establish )

the Lakewood Ranch Community )

Development District 2. ) DOAH CASE NO. 94-7203

_________________________________)

REPORT OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

A local public hearing in this proceeding was held before William R. Cave,

Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, on February 23, 1995, at

the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 500 15th Street West, Bradenton, Florida.

The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the

purpose of taking testimony and public comment and receiving exhibits on the

Petition of SMR Communities (Petitioner) to establish the Lakewood Ranch

Community Development District 2 (District).

This Report of Findings and Conclusions (report) is prepared and submitted

to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to

Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.013, Florida Administrative

Code.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Does the Petition to establish the Lakewood Ranch Community Development

District 2 meet the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and

Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code?

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Rhea F. Law, Esquire

Erin R. McCormick, Esquire

Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal

and Banker, P.A.

Post Office Box 1438

Tampa, Florida 33601-1438

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petitioner filed the Petition to establish the Lakewood Ranch Community

Development District 2 with the Secretary of the Commission on December 17,

1994. On December 16, 1994, the Petitioner delivered a copy of the Petition,

together with the $15,000 filing fee, to Michael Pendley, Administrator of

Community Planning for Manatee County. A copy of the Petition was admitted into

evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12.

The Secretary of the Commission certified that the Petition contained all

required elements and forwarded it to the Division of Administrative Hearings

for the assignment of a hearing officer. The Commission published a Notice of

Receipt of Petition in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 20, 1995, as

required by Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code.

By order of the undersigned dated January 5, 1995, the local public hearing

was scheduled to be held on Thursday, February 23, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. in

Bradenton, Florida. The Petitioner published a Notice of Local Hearing in

accordance with Section 190.005 (1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.011,

Florida Administrative Code, and mailed copies of the notice to others as

provided in Rule 42- 1.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. As required by

the January 5, 1995 order, the Petitioner filed its list of witnesses on January

23, 1995. Also as ordered, the Petitioner filed the prepared testimony of five

witnesses, together with attached exhibits, on February 15, 1995. There was no

testimony filed in opposition to the Petition.

Manatee County filed a Notice of Intent to be a Party, Notice of

Appearance, and List of Preliminary Witnesses, dated January 20, 1995, in

accordance with Rules 60Q

Code.

Petitioner presented the testimony of Rex Jensen, Vice President, Real

Estate, SMR Communities and Vice President, Real Estate, Schroeder-Manatee

Ranch, Inc., and agent of the Petitioner in this proceeding; Michael A. Kennedy,

an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis in public infrastructure design,

permitting, cost estimation, and construction for special districts and

community development districts; Betsy Benac, an expert in land use and

community planning; Gary L. Moyer, an expert in special-district management and

operation; and Henry H. Fishkind, an expert in economics, finance and

statistics, including infrastructure financing and the use of community

development districts and special taxing districts. The names and addresses of

the witnesses are attached to this report as Exhibit 1. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-

12, were received as evidence. A list of Petitioner's exhibits in this

proceeding is attached to this report as Exhibit 2.

Senior Assistant County Attorney for Manatee County, Mark Barnebey,

testified at the hearing. Manatee County's Exhibit 1, a Resolution by the

Manatee County Board of County Commissioners in support of the proposed

community development district, was received as evidence. The name and address

of Counsel appearing on behalf of Manatee County is attached to this report as

Exhibit 3. A description of Manatee County's Exhibit 1 is attached to this

report as Exhibit 4.

Public comment was received at the hearing from Arun Gade. The name and

address for this member of the public who spoke at the hearing is attached to

this report as Exhibit 5.

A transcript of the local public hearing was filed by the Court Reporter

with the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 28, 1995. A copy of

the transcript is being transmitted with this Report of Findings and

Conclusions.

Petitioner timely filed a Proposed Report of Findings and Conclusions in

accordance with Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Overview

1. The Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to

establish a community development district (CDD or District) of approximately

2,080 acres, located entirely within the unincorporated area of Manatee County.

The proposed District will be located generally south of the Braden River, north

of the Manatee/Sarasota County line, and east of I-75, within the

unincorporated area of Manatee County. The proposed District will be eligible to

exercise all powers set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, including, but

not limited to, the ability to finance, own, operate and maintain certain

community facilities and services. The special powers set forth in Section

190.012(2) (a-f), Florida Statutes, may be exercised with the consent of Manatee

County, and pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement.

2. Currently, the land uses in the area to be included in the proposed

district are primarily agricultural (improved pasture). A former borrow pit

which has been almost totally reclaimed into a lake also exists on-site.

Existing land uses adjacent to the proposed District include:

agricultural/shell mining/polo club to the south; vacant/agricultural to the

west; a golf course community to the northwest; vacant/agricultural and

residential to the north; and asphalt processing plant/agricultural to the east.

3. All of the land to be included in the proposed District is included in

either the University Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) or the Cypress

Bank DRI, except for approximately fifteen to twenty acres. This additional

acreage has been included in the proposed District boundaries to bring that

property which will be used as right of way for a future thoroughfare within the

District.

4. The existing land uses within the proposed District are consistent with

the adopted Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. The future general distribution,

location and extent of land uses proposed for the District are included in the

Applications for Development Approval for the Cypress Banks DRI and the

University Lakes DRI, and generally include residential, recreational,

community-serving commercial and business/office uses. The Development Orders

for these DRIs indicate that the development within the proposed District is

consistent with the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan.

5. The Petitioner currently intends for the District to construct or

otherwise provide for a water management and control system; water supply

systems; sewer; wastewater management, reclamation and reuse systems; bridges

and culverts; district roads and street lighting. With Manatee County's

consent, and pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement, the proposed District may also

exercise other special powers, as authorized under Section 190.012(2), Florida

Statutes, for the purpose of providing parks and facilities for indoor and

outdoor recreational, cultural, and educational uses; fire prevention and

control; school buildings and related structures; security; mosquito control;

waste collection and disposal. Once completed, some of the facilities will be

owned, operated, and/or maintained by the District. Some facilities may be

dedicated to other governmental entities, which will operate and maintain them.

6. The Petitioner intends for the District to maintain roadways until

dedicated to and accepted by Manatee County or some other governmental entity,

at which time the County or other governmental entity will assume maintenance

responsibility. A non-potable water system to be utilized for irrigation

purposes will be owned, operated and maintained by the District.

7. The estimated cost in 1994 dollars for all identified capital

improvements is $58,599,791, with construction scheduled to take place from 1995

through 2003.

8. The Petitioner expects that the District will issue bonds to be used

exclusively to provide the capital to construct and to acquire the planned

infrastructure. The bonds will be repaid from the proceeds of non-ad valorem

assessments on all specifically benefited properties. Funds for District

infrastructure operations and maintenance may also be generated through non-ad

valorem assessments.

9. The sole purpose of this proceeding was to consider the establishment

of the District as proposed by the Petitioner.

Summary of Evidence

I. Statutory Criteria for the Establishment of the District.

10. Section 190.005 (1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires the Commission to

consider six factors in making its determination to grant or deny the Petition

to establish the District. The evidence presented on these factors is

summarized in the following paragraphs.

A. Whether all statements contained within the Petition have been found

to be true and correct.

11. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 was identified for the record as a

copy of the Petition and its attachments, as filed with the Commission. Rex

Jensen reviewed the contents of the Petition and the attached Exhibits, and

approved its filing. Rex Jensen found that no changes or corrections were

necessary.

12. Michael Kennedy reviewed Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 6 and Table 1 to Exhibit 7

to the Petition, and found that no changes or corrections were necessary.

13. Betsy Benac reviewed Exhibit 8 to the Petition and determined that

there were amendments to Exhibit 8. The amendments to Exhibit 8 were admitted

into evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 8. Petitioner's Composite

Exhibit 8, as amended, is true and correct.

14. Henry Fishkind reviewed Exhibit 7, and found it to be true and

correct.

15. With the change set forth in the Finding of Fact 13, all statements in

the Petition and its attached exhibits were shown to be true and correct.

B. Whether the creation of the District is inconsistent

with any applicable element or portion of the State

Comprehensive Plan or of the effective local government

comprehensive plan.

16. Betsy Benac reviewed the establishment of the proposed District from a

planning perspective for consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter

187, Florida Statutes, and the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan, adopted

pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. In addition, Henry Fishkind

reviewed the establishment of the District from an economic perspective for

consistency with the State and local comprehensive plans. Gary Moyer reviewed

the establishment of the District from a management perspective for consistency

with the State Comprehensive Plan.

State Comprehensive Plan

17. From a planning perspective, Goals 10, 16, 21, and 26 of the State

Comprehensive Plan, and the policies supporting these goals are particularly

relevant to the establishment of the District. Goals 18 and 21 and the policies

supporting those goals are relevant to the establishment of the District from an

economic perspective. Goal 21 is also relevant to the establishment of the

District from a management perspective.

18. Policy 13 under Goal 10, "Natural Systems and Recreational Lands,"

encourages the use of public and private financial resources for the development

of state and local recreational opportunities. The District may, with the

consent of Manatee County, provide community recreational facilities.

19. Goal 16, "Land Use," recognizes the importance of locating development

in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth.

The District will have the fiscal ability and service capacity to efficiently

provide an excellent quality and range of facilities and services to development

in Manatee County.

20. Goal 18, "Public Facilities," directs the State to protect the

investments in public facilities that already exist, and to plan for and finance

new facilities to serve residents in a timely and efficient manner. The District

will provide facilities and services in a timely and efficient manner to the

area within Manatee County to be served by the District, allowing the County to

focus its resources outside the District and thus, provide facilities and

services to County residents in a timely and efficient manner.

21. The "Governmental Efficiency" goal, Goal 21, requires that Florida

governments provide the services required by the public in an economic and

efficient manner. The District will have the fiscal capability to provide

quality public services to those who benefit from and pay for those services.

The size and configuration of the District would allow for the delivery of these

facilities in an efficient, cost-effective manner. In addition, because it is a

limited- purpose local government, the District can provide focused delivery,

management, and maintenance of these services more efficiently than a general-

purpose government.

22. Goal 26, "Plan Implementation," encourages the integration of

systematic planning into all levels of government, with emphasis on

intergovernmental coordination. The development plan for the District

contemplates the delivery of improvements in coordination with the general-

purpose local governments in the area. In addition, Section 189.415, Florida

Statutes, requires the District to file annual Public Facilities Reports with

Manatee County, which the County may use and rely on in its Comprehensive Plan.

From a planning perspective, all decisions of the District are made at board

meetings which are publicly noticed and open to the public, maximizing input

from landowners and residents of the District.

23. The establishment of the proposed District is not inconsistent with

any applicable goal or policy of the State Comprehensive Plan.

Local Comprehensive Plan

24. From a planning perspective, the future Land Use Element, the Public

facilities Element and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Manatee

County Comprehensive Plan relate specifically to the establishment of the

District. From an economic perspective, the Comprehensive Plan generally

requires that economic growth not burden other citizens or other units of local

government. The proposed District will provide that assurance. The proposed

district will provide the focused efficient and effective delivery of specific

services to a defined group of county citizens.

25. The Future Land Use Element and supporting policies provide that

future land uses should be encouraged to locate in areas suited for such use, as

measured by the level of public facility availability and investment. The

proposed District will insure the investment necessary to provide the public

facilities to handle the approved development potential of the District.

26. The Public Facilities Element and supporting policies require that new

growth pay its share of needed capital facilities, including the full cost of

installation of all wastewater collection systems and water distribution

systems. The proposed CDD will provide the funding for the installation of a

wastewater collection system and a potable water system.

27. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element and supporting policies

require efficiency in service delivery through a government environment which is

conducive to the efficient and effective provision of services to county

citizens. The proposed district will provide the focused efficient and

effective delivery of specific services to a defined group of county citizens.

28. Nothing in the Local Comprehensive Plan precludes the establishment of

a community development district.

29. The establishment of the District is not inconsistent with any of the

applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the Manatee County Comprehensive

Plan.

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

sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is

sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one

functional interrelated community.

30. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Michael Kennedy, Betsy

Benac, Gary Moyer, and Henry Fishkind. The lands that comprise the District

consist of approximately 2,080 acres, located entirely within unincorporated

Manatee County, and generally east of I-75 south of the Braden River, north of

the Manatee/Sarasota County line.

31. The land within the proposed District is all currently included within

the approved University Lakes DRI and Cypress Banks DRI except for approximately

15 acres, which additional acreage was included in the proposed District

boundaries so that property which will be used for right-of-way for a future

thoroughfare is located within the District. The land within the proposed

District is master planned to be a part of a functional, interrelated community

with a balanced mix of uses to support the projected population.

32. The area of land within the proposed District is bounded by major

thoroughfare roads and the Braden River, and forms a compact and contiguous area

creating a functionally interrelated community.

33. From an engineering perspective, the property is sufficiently

contiguous so that the proposed facilities and services can be designed,

permitted, constructed, and maintained in a cost efficient, technically-sound

manner. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous to allow for the

efficient, cost-effective, functional and integrated use of infrastructure.

34. From a service delivery standpoint, the proposed District is designed

to have sufficient population density and size to require all of the basic

facilities and services of a community. The District will provide its residents

and landowners the benefits of phasing the District's services over a time frame

which takes advantage of the low cost of long-term capital, as well as providing

economics of scale.

35. From engineering, planning, economics, and management perspectives,

the area of land to be included in the District is of sufficient size and is

sufficiently compact and contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated

community.

D. 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.

36. All five witnesses offered testimony on this criterion. It is

presently intended that the District will fund the construction of water

management and control systems; water supply; sewer; wastewater management

reclamation and reuse systems; bridges and culverts; district roads; and street

lighting. It may also, with the approval of the County, and pursuant to the

Interlocal Agreement, construct parks and facilities for indoor and outdoor

recreational, cultural, and educational uses; fire prevention and control;

school buildings and related structures; security; mosquito control; waste

collection and disposal. Once completed, certain of these improvements will be

dedicated to other governmental entities to own, operate, and/or maintain.

37. The proposed District will maintain roadways until dedicated and

accepted by Manatee County or some other governmental entity, at which time that

governmental entity will assume maintenance responsibility.

38. It is expected that the District will issue bonds to finance these

services and improvements. These bonds will be repaid from the proceeds of

special assessments on benefited property within the District. Use of special

assessments will ensure that those benefiting from District services help pay

for those services.

39. The following five alternatives for providing the necessary facilities

and services to this were identified: (1) a municipal service taxing unit

(MSTU)/municipal service benefit unit (MSBU) under Chapter 125, Florida

Statutes; (2) a special assessment district under Chapter 125 or 189, Florida

Statutes; (3) the County; (4) the Developer; or (5) a homeowners' association.

40. In evaluating alternative methods for delivering community development

facilities and services, factors to consider include whether an alternative is

able to provide the best focused services and facilities; whether the

alternative has an entity to manage the delivery of facilities and services;

whether the alternative is a stable provider of facilities and services and can

provide a long-term perspective; and whether the alternative can secure long-

term financing to pay for all facilities and services at a sustained level of

quality.

Public Alternatives

41. A MSTU/MSBU generally focuses on only one service or facility, which

is not sufficient to serve the comprehensive development of a new community. It

also requires County administration of the operation and maintenance of the

infrastructure. Moreover, MSTU/MSBU debt is debt of the County, and MSTU/MSBU

taxes count against the County's millage cap. The County would be relieved of

direct administrative duties and costs related to the provision of the proposed

facilities and services if the proposed District is established. In addition,

District debt does not affect the County's borrowing capacity, and District

taxes do not count against the County's millage cap.

42. Although a dependent special district may provide more than one

service or facility, it would still require County involvement, and dependent

special district taxes would count against the County's millage cap. Debts

incurred by a dependent special district are debts of the County, as are those

of the MSTU/MSBU. In contrast, debts of a CDD are not debts of the County, and

CDD taxes do not affect the County millage cap.

43. The County, is not well equipped to address the special services and

facility needs of individual communities. The responsibility for planning,

financing, implementing and operations of the community would rest on the Board

of County Commissioners. The County government is not set up to handle this

kind of community-specific, long-range planning. If the County finds it

difficult to deal with growth, it may divert attention and resources from

existing communities to other areas where development is just starting. It is

unlikely the County would be able to provide stable financing and management for

facilities and services to the proposed District.

Private Alternatives

44. The District is also superior to the Developer or a Homeowners'

Association in the provision of long-term financing of infrastructure. Neither

the Developer nor a homeowner's association would have the power to levy and

collect taxes. In contrast, the ability of the proposed District to obtain

long-term, fixed rate financing is the least costly method of financing

available in the current market. There would be no continuity of management

functions. The developer would have responsibility for the planning, financing

and implementing of the infrastructure and the homeowners association would

manage and operate the infrastructure. This would limit the Developer's

incentive to plan for contingencies during the operating and management phases.

45. SMR Communities has experience in working with an existing CDD, and an

officer of SMR Communities testified that the Lakewood Ranch CDD 1 has been

successful in obtaining financing and constructing infrastructure for the

planned residential community. SMR Communities expects that the proposed

Lakewood Ranch CDD 2 will similarly benefit its landowners and residents in the

years ahead, particularly as SMR Communities ceases to be the major landowner.

46. None of the reasonable public or private alternatives provides the

same cost- efficient, focused delivery and long-term maintenance and management

of the proposed public facilities as would the District. The District is the

best alternative available for delivering community services and facilities to

the area.

E. Whether the community development services and

facilities of the District will be incompatible with

the capacity and uses of existing local and regional

community development services and facilities.

47. Testimony on this criterion was provided by Michael Kennedy, Betsy

Benac, Gary Moyer and Henry Fishkind.

48. There is no planned duplication of facilities and services. There is a

potable water main and a wastewater force main under construction by the County

which will serve the proposed District. The District will supply the additional

facilities and services necessary for development that are not provided by local

general-purpose government or other governmental entities.

49. The facilities to be constructed by the proposed District will be

integrated with the existing facilities, and some of these facilities will be

dedicated to Manatee County.

50. Manatee County presently does not maintain a stormwater management

system servicing the area within the proposed District. Given this area's

location within a potable watershed, the long-term maintenance of the stormwater

system is a critical component which will be provided by the District.

51. The project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to State

or County standards and must be consistent with the local comprehensive plan,

building codes, and land development regulations.

52. From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the

services and facilities to be provided by the District will not be incompatible

with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development

services and facilities.

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

is amenable to separate special-district government.

53. Testimony on this criteria was provided by Michael Kennedy, Betsy

Benac, Gary Moyer, and Henry Fishkind.

54. From a planning perspective, the area to be served by the District

requires basic infrastructure for development to occur. The District is of

sufficient size and is sufficiently compact and contiguous to allow

infrastructure to be provided and maintained in an efficient and cost effective

manner. These services and infrastructure have been carefully planned to avoid

duplication of existing local and regional facilities and services and to

maximize efficiency of cost and effort to deliver such improvements.

55. From an engineering perspective, having a separate unit of special-

purpose government enhances the orderly provision of facilities and their long-

term maintenance as well as the ability of the government to respond to the

needs of the residents of the District.

56. From a financial perspective, it is expected that the District will

levy assessments and fees on the landowners and residents within the District

who benefit from the improvements in order to fund the construction and

maintenance of the improvements. The District will not be dependent on the

County for funding, nor is the County liable for any obligations of the

District. Therefore, it is more economically and functionally efficient to have

a separate special-district government to manage the activities related to the

improvements to the land within the District.

57. From a management perspective, the proposed District requires basic

infrastructure; is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan; is sufficiently

compact and contiguous and of sufficient size to allow for the provision and

maintenance of infrastructure in an efficient, cost-effective manner; and is the

best alternative for providing public facilities and services; therefore, it is

amenable to separate, special-district government.

58. From engineering, planning, economic, and management perspectives, the

establishment of the District meets all of the statutory criteria in Section

190.005(l)(e), Florida Statutes.

G. Public Comment on the Petition.

59. Public comment was received at the public hearing. Mr. Arun Gade

asked for clarification concerning the repayment of the bonds which the proposed

District intends to issue. The bonds will be repaid by special assessments

placed on the underlying, benefited property, by the District. The assessments

will be paid by the owners of the property.

H. Agency Comment on the Petition.

60. The Secretary of the Commission distributed copies of the Petition to

the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning

Council (TBRPC) and requested that these agencies review the Petition. By

letter dated January 10, 1995, Secretary Linda Shelley of the DCA replied that

the Department had completed its review of the Petition and had no objections to

the proposed CDD. Secretary Shelley further stated that the development

proposed for the area within the District had been reviewed and determined

consistent with Chapters 163, Part II and 380.06, Florida Statutes

61. The TBRPC responded to the Commission Secretary's request by letter

dated January 6, 1995. The TBRPC stated that it had reviewed the Petition, and

found it consistent with the approved Development Orders for the property

located within the District.

II. Other requirements imposed by statute or rule.

62. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida

Administrative Code, impose certain specific requirements set forth below

regarding the Petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission.

A. Elements of the Petition

63. Section 190.005(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to

contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the

District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 contains such a description. This

statutory section also requires that any property within the external boundaries

of the District which is to be excluded from the District be specifically

described. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 includes this information. There

is no real property located within the external boundaries of the proposed

District which is to be excluded from the District.

64. Section 190.005(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to

contain the written consent to establishment of the District of the owners of

100 percent of the real property to be included in the District. Petitioner's

Composite Exhibit 12 contains the written consent of Schroeder- Manatee Ranch,

Inc., the owner of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the

proposed District.

65. Section 190.005(1)(a)3., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to

contain the names of the five persons, all residents of the State of Florida and

citizens of the United States, who will serve on the initial Board of

Supervisors. The five persons designated in the Petition, and their addresses

are:

Rex Jensen

7550 Lorraine Road

Bradenton, Florida 34202

C. John Clarke

7550 Lorraine Road

Bradenton, Florida 34202

Mary Fran Carroll

7550 Lorraine Road

Bradenton, Florida 34202

Roger Hill

7550 Lorraine Road

Bradenton, Florida 34202

Anthony Chiofalo

7550 Lorraine Road

Bradenton, Florida 34202

All of the designees are residents of the State of Florida and citizens of the

United States.

66. Section 190.005(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes, requires that the Petition

contain the proposed name for the District. The Petition provides that the

proposed name of the District to be established is "Lakewood Ranch Community

Development District 2".

67. Section 190.005(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, requires that the Petition

show current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls, if in

existence. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12 contains a map of the proposed

District showing information concerning existing and proposed major trunk water

mains, sewer interceptors, and outfalls.

68. Section 190.005(1)(a)6., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to

set forth the proposed timetable for construction of services and facilities and

the estimated cost for such construction. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12

contains this information in a table entitled "Lakewood Ranch Community

Development District 2: Proposed Infrastructure Construction Cost Estimate and

Timing".

69. Section 190.005(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to

designate the future general distribution, location and extent of public and

private uses of land. This has been designated by the Future Land Use Plan

Element of the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit

12 provides this information. In addition, the future general distribution,

location and extent of land uses for the proposed District were identified in

the Applications for Development Approval for the Cypress Banks DRI and the

University Lakes DRI.

70. The Petition contains all information required by Section

190.005(i)(a)1.-7., Florida Statutes.

B. Economic Impact Statement

71. Section 190.005(1)(a)8., Florida Statutes, requires the Petition to

include an economic impact statement (EIS) which meets the requirements of

Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes The EIS prepared by the Petitioner is

attached to Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 12.

72. The Petitioner's EIS meets the requirements of Sections 120.54(2)(c)1.

and 120.54(2)(c)2., Florida Statutes, that an EIS include an estimate of the

costs and benefits of the establishment of the District to all affected agencies

and persons. It concludes that the economic benefits of establishing the

District exceed the economic costs to all affected agencies and persons.

73. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption and review of

reports to be submitted by the District, the State and its citizens will incur

no costs from establishment of the District. The District will require no

subsidies from the State to fund District improvements. Benefits will include

improved planning and coordination of development, as well as long-term

professional management and maintenance of District facilities.

74. Costs to Manatee County and its citizens for the establishment and

operation of the District will be offset by the $15,000 filing fee and other

fees paid by the Petitioner or the District. The County will not be responsible

for the debt service on any bonds used to fund District improvements. Citizens

of the County will receive the benefits of planned development, and the County

will be relieved of the fiscal and administrative burden of providing the

improvements provided by the District.

75. The Petitioner will incur substantial costs to create the District and

will pay substantial sums in non-ad valorem assessments as the largest landowner

in the District in the initial stages of development. In addition, the

Petitioner will provide most rights-of-way and easements. The Petitioner will

benefit from the establishment of the District because of a more efficient cost

of management of infrastructure, increased flexibility in meeting the demands of

the marketplace, and tax exempt financing for infrastructure.

76. Landowners within the District will pay District special assessments

or fees for certain facilities; however, these facilities will be required for

development regardless of the existence of the District. Benefits to these

landowners/consumers will include a higher level of public services and

amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of improvements provided

by the District on a timely basis, and a share of control over decisions

involving community development services and facilities.

77. The EIS also meets the requirements of Sections 120.54(2)(c)3. and

120.54(2)(c)4., Florida Statutes, because the EIS includes an estimate of the

impact of the proposed rule on competition, the open market for employment, and

on small business, as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business

Assistance Act of 1985. The implementation of this rule is expected to have a

positive impact on competition, and is expected to have only a nominal, positive

effect on the open market for employment and small business.

78. The EIS also meets the requirement of Section 120.54(2)(c)5., Florida

Statutes, because the statement includes a comparison of the costs and benefits

of the proposed rule to the probable costs and benefits of not adopting the

rule.

79. Where there are reasonable alternative methods for achieving the

purpose of the rule which are not precluded by law, Sections 120.54(2)(c)6. and

120.54(2)(c)7., Florida Statutes, require that an EIS describe these

alternatives and make a determination of whether any of the alternatives are

less costly or less intrusive than the proposed method. Petitioner's EIS meets

these requirements and concludes that none of the reasonable public or private

alternatives provides the same cost-efficient, focused delivery, and long-term

management and maintenance of the public facilities and services to be provided

by the District. The District is the preferred alternative because it is a

special-purpose unit of local government with a single purpose: the provision

of infrastructure and services for planned, new communities.

80. The EIS meets the requirement of Section 120.54(2)(c)8., Florida

Statutes, because the EIS includes a detailed statement of the data and

methodology used in preparing the analysis.

81. The Petitioner's EIS meets all the requirements of Section 120.54(2),

Florida Statutes.

C. Other Requirements

82. Petitioner has complied with Section 190.005(1)(b) Florida Statutes,

which requires that the Petitioner submit a copy of the Petition and pay a

filing fee to the local general-purpose government.

83. Section 190.005(l)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to

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

circulation in Manatee County for four consecutive weeks immediately prior to

the hearing. The notice was published in the Bradenton Herald for four

consecutive Thursdays, beginning on January 26, 1995.

84. Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code , requires the Commission

to cause to be published a Notice of Receipt of Petition in the Florida

Administrative Weekly. This notice was published on January 20, 1995.

85. Rule 42-1.011(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code , requires the

Petitioner to furnish proof of publication of the Notice of Local Hearing to the

Secretary of the Commission. The Affidavit of Publication was transmitted to the

Secretary of the Commission as required on February 21, 1995.

86. Rule 42-1.011(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires the

Petitioner to mail a copy of the Notice of Local Hearing to all persons named in

the proposed rule, the affected local government, and the Secretary of the

Department of Community Affairs. Such individual notices were mailed as required

by the rule.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the record of this proceeding, it is concluded that:

87. This proceeding is governed by Chapters 190 and 120, Florida Statutes,

and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.

88. The Petitioner has met the requirements of Section 190.005(1)(b),

Florida Statutes, regarding the submission of a copy of the Petition and payment

of a filing fee to the local general- purpose government.

89. The proceeding was properly noticed pursuant to Section 190.005(1)(d),

Florida Statutes, by publication of an advertisement in a newspaper of general

paid circulation in Manatee County and of general interest and readership once

each week for the four consecutive weeks immediately prior to the hearing.

90. The requirement of Rule 42-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, that a

Notice of Receipt of Petition be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly

was also met.

91. The Petitioner has met the requirements of Rule 42-1.011(1)(a),

Florida Administrative Code, that the Petitioner furnish proof of publication of

the Notice of Local Hearing to the Secretary of the Commission.

92. The Petitioner has also met the requirements of Rule 42-1.011(1)(b),

Florida Administrative Code, that the Petitioner mail a copy of the Notice of

Local Hearing to specific persons named in the rule.

93. All portions of the Petition and other submittals have been completed

and filed as required by law.

94. The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the petition

meets the relevant statutory criteria set forth in Section 190.005(1)(e),

Florida Statutes.

95. The statements contained within the Petition and its attachments as

corrected are true and correct.

96. The creation of the District is not inconsistent with any applicable

element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or the effective Manatee

County Comprehensive Plan.

97. The area of land within the District is of sufficient size, is

sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one

functional, interrelated community.

98. The District is the best alternative available for delivering

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

the District.

99. The community development services and facilities of the District will

not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional

community development services and facilities.

100. The area to be served by the District is amenable to separate

special-district government.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the

undersigned recommends that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida

Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 190 and 120,

Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Administrative Code, establish the Lakewood

Ranch Community Development District 2 as requested by the Petitioner by formal

adoption of the proposed rule attached to this Report of Findings and

Conclusions as Exhibit 6.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

___________________________________

WILLIAM R. CAVE

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 15th day of March, 1995.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert Bradley, Secretary

Florida Land and Water

Adjudicatory Commission

The Capitol

Suite 1601

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Rhea F. Law, Esquire

Erin R. McCormick, Esquire

Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs,

Villareal and Banker, P.A.

Post Office Box 1438

Tampa, Florida 33601-1438

Rex Jensen

Vice President - Real Estate

Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc.

7550 Lorraine Road

Bradenton, Florida 34202

Gregory Smith, Esquire

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Suite 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Dan Stengle, Esquire

Al Bragg, Esquire

Department of Community Affairs

2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Mark P. Barnebey, Esquire

Senior Assistant County Attorney

Manatee County Attorney's Office

P. O. Box 1000

Bradenton, Florida 34206

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Report of

Findings and Conclusions. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in

which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within

which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will

issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for

filing exceptions to this Report of Findings and Conclusions. Any exceptions to

this Report of Findings and Conclusions should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.

EXHIBIT 1

Petitioner's Witnesses at Hearing

1. Rex Jensen

Vice President - Real Estate

SMR Communities

7550 Lorraine Road

Bradenton, Florida 34202

2. Michael A. Kennedy

Sr. Vice President

Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc.

133 South McIntosh Road

Sarasota, Florida 34232

3. Betsy Benac

Manager of Planning

Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc.

133 South McIntosh Road

Sarasota, Florida 34232

4. Gary L. Moyer

Gary L. Moyer, P.A.

10300 NW 11th Manor

Coral Springs, Florida 33065

5. Henry H. Fishkind

Fishkind & Associates, Inc.

12424 Research Parkway

Suite 275

Orlando, Florida 32820

EXHIBIT 2

List Of Petitioner's Exhibits

1. Letter to Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) from

the Florida Department of Community Affairs concerning the Petition

2. Letter to FLWAC from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

concerning the Petition

3. Receipt from Manatee County for $15,000.00 filing fee for review of

Petition and copy of check

4. FLWAC's Notice of Receipt of Petition published in the Florida

Administrative Weekly January 20, 1995

5. Individual letters transmitting Notice of Local Hearing to Manatee

County, to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Community Affairs and to

all persons named in the Petition; copy of published Notice of Local Hearing;

and copies of certified mail return receipts

6. Affidavits of Citizenship and Residency for proposed initial members

of the Board of Supervisors

7. Bradenton Herald Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Local Hearing

8. Amendments to the codified Manatee County Comprehensive Plan

9. Boundaries of the proposed District depicted on the Manatee County

Future Land Use Map

10. Development Orders for Cypress Banks DRI and University Lakes DRI

11. List of districts managed by Gary Moyer and infrastructure provided

12. Petition to Establish the Lakewood Ranch Community Development District

2, and attached exhibits.

EXHIBIT 3

Counsel Appearing on Behalf of Manatee County

Mark P. Barnebey, Esquire

Sr. Assistant County Attorney

Fla. Bar No. 370827

Manatee County Attorney's Office

P. O. Box 1000

Bradenton, Florida 34206

EXHIBIT 4

Exhibit of Manatee County

Number Description

Resolution 95-23 by the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners, in Support

of the Petition to Establish the Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2

EXHIBIT 5

Member of the Public Who Appeared at Hearing

Arun Gade

4533 Windsor Court East

Bradenton, Florida 34203

EXHIBIT 6

THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE:

42W-1.001 Creation. The Lakewood Ranch Community Development District 2 is

hereby created.

Specific Authority 190.005, F.S.

Law Implemented 190.005, F.S.

History--New

42W-1.002 Boundary. The boundaries of the district are as follows: COMMENCE

AT THE SECTION CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 29, 30, 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 35 S.,

RANGE 19 E.; THENCE S 01o'11'37" W, ALONG THE SECTION LINE COMMON TO SECTIONS 31

AND 32, TOWNSHIP 35 S., RANGE 19 E., A DISTANCE OF 221.07 FT. TO THE

INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF "UPPER MANATEE RIVER ROAD" (A

120 FT. WIDE PUBLIC R/W), FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY

AND WESTERLY R/W OF SAID "UPPER MANATEE RIVER ROAD", THE FOLLOWING COURSES: S

75o29'27" W, A DISTANCE OF 399.90 FT. TO THE P.C. OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE

SOUTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1960.00 FT.; THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE

ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40o58'50", A DISTANCE OF 1401.88

FT. TO THE P.T. OF SAID CURVE, THENCE S 34o30'37" W, A DISTANCE OF 319.17 FT. TO

THE P.C. OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1610.00 FT,; THENCE

RUN SOUTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF

57o52'37", A DISTANCE OF 1626.33 FT. TO THE P.T. OF SAID CURVE; THENCE S

23o22'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 320.00 FT. TO THE P.C. OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE

NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 860.00 FT.; THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE

ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62o53'43", A DISTANCE OF 944.05

FT. TO THE P.T. OF SAID CURVE; THENCE S 86o15'43" E. A DISTANCE OF 120.00 FT. TO

THE P.C. OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 620.00 FT.;

THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF

86o17'11", A DISTANCE OF 933.71 FT. TO THE P.T. OF SAID CURVE; THENCE S

00o01'28", ALONG SAID WESTERLY R/W OF "UPPER MANATEE RIVER ROAD" AND THE

SOUTHERLY EXTENSION THEREOF, A DISTANCE OF 1745.06 FT. TO THE INTERSECTION WITH

THE SOUTHERLY R/W OF "UNIVERSITY PARKWAY" (A 200.00 FT. WIDE PUBLIC R/W), SAME

BEING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 35 S., RANGE 19 E (COUNTY

LINE); THENCE S 89o58'32" E. ALONG THE SOUTHERLY R/W OF SAID "UNIVERSITY

PARKWAY", A DISTANCE OF 120.00 FT. TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY END OF

R/W FOR SAID "UNIVERSITY PARKWAY"; THENCE CONTINUE S 89o58'32" E, ALONG THE

SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 (COUNTY LINE), A DISTANCE OF 41.80 FT. TO THE

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31, SAME BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION

32, TOWNSHIP 35 S., RANGE 19 E.; THENCE 89o58'32" E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF

SAID SECTION 32 (COUNTY LINE), A DISTANCE OF 5320.24 FT. TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER

OF SAID SECTION 32, SAME BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 35

S, RANGE 19 E.; THENCE S.89o58'32" E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION

33 (COUNTY LINE), A DISTANCE OF 5320.24 FT. TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID

SECTION 33, SAME BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 35 S, RANGE

19 E,; THENCE S, 89o58'32" E, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 34

(COUNTY LINE), A DISTANCE OF 678.98 FT. TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY

LINE OF "LORRAINE ROAD", (A 120.0 FT. WIDE ROADWAY); THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY

LINE OF SAID "LORRAINE ROAD", THE FOLLOWING COURSES; N, 00o01'28" E. A DISTANCE

OF 1402.77 FT. TO THE P.C. OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF

10560.00 FT.; THENCE RUN NORTHERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A

CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01o56'28", A DISTANCE OF 357.76 FT. TO THE P.T. OF SAID CURVE;

THENCE N 01o55'00" W, A DISTANCE OF 2240.90 FT. TO THE P.C. OF A CURVE CONCAVE

TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 3060.00 FT.; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG

THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10o28'18", A DISTANCE OF

559.26 FT. TO THE P.T. OF SAID CURVE; THEN N 12o23'18" W, A DISTANCE OF 982.01

FT. TO THE P.C. OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2190.00

FT.; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL

ANGLE OF 13o14'44", A DISTANCE OF 506.28 FT. TO THE P.T. OF SAID CURVE; THENCE N

00o51'27" E, A DISTANCE OF 1.87 FT. TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE

OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 35 S, RANGE 19E, SAME BEING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF

SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 35 S, RANGE 19 E; THENCE S 89o57'56" W, ALONG THE SECTION

LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 27 AND 34, A DISTANCE OF 120.02 FT. TO THE SECTION

CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 27, 28, 33 AND 34, TOWNSHIP 35 S, RANGE 19 E; THENCE N

89o30'25" W, ALONG THE SECTION LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTIONS 28 AND 33, A

DISTANCE OF 2662.03 FT. TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SAID SECTION

28; THENCE N 00o45'47" E, ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF SAID

SECTION 28, A DISTANCE OF 5314.17 FT. TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST 1/2 OF

SAID SECTION 28, SAME BEING THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 35 S.,

RANGE 19 E; THENCE S 89o31'21" E, ALONG THE SECTION LINE COMMON TO SECTIONS 21

AND 28, TOWNSHIP 35 S., RANGE 19 E, A DISTANCE OF 2670.79 FT. TO THE NORTHEAST

CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28, SAME BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21;

THENCE N 00o30'20" E. ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF

243.17 FT. MORE OR LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE "BRADEN

RIVER", SAID POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT "A"; THENCE RUN IN A

GENERALLY NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION, ALONG THE SINUOSITIES OF THE CENTERLINE OF

THE "BRADEN RIVER", 5332 FT. MORE OR LESS TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS

POINT "B", SAID POINT LYING N. 73o19'40" W, A DISTANCE OF 3962.56 FT. FROM POINT

"A" PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED; THENCE S 45o40'07" W, A DISTANCE OF 2166.37 FT. TO THE

INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 35 S., RANGE 19 E.;

THENCE S 00o40'07" W.

ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 28, A DISTANCE OF 5135.03 FT. TO THE

SECTION CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 28, 29, 32 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 35 S, RANGE 19 E;

THENCE N 89o30'25" W, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 32, A DISTANCE OF

4003.06 FT. TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN BOUNDARY

AGREEMENT LINE AS DESCRIBED AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1323, PAGE

1534, PUBLIC RECORDS OF MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE N 00o29'12" E, ALONG THE

WESTERLY LINE OF SAID BOUNDARY AGREEMENT LINE, A DISTANCE OF 829.46 FT. TO THE

INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY R/W OF AFOREMENTIONED "UPPER MANATEE RIVER ROAD",

SAID POINT BEING ON THE ARC OF A CURVE WHOSE RADIUS POINT LIES N 89o30'48" W,

1060.00 FT.; THENCE RUN SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID EASTERLY R/W AND THE ARC OF

SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 75o00'15", A DISTANCE OF 1387.61 FT. TO

THE P.T. OF SAID CURVE; THENCE S 75o29'27" W, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY R/W 259.49

FT.; THENCE N 10o30'33" W. A DISTANCE OF 120.29 FT. TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE

NORTHERLY R/W OF SAID "UPPER MANATEE RIVER ROAD"; THENCE S 75o29'27" W, ALONG

SAID NORTHERLY R/W, A DISTANCE OF 287.54 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING AN

LYING IN SECTIONS 21, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 AND 34, TOWNSHIP 35 S, RANGE 19 E;

MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA.

LESS:

R/W FOR "UPPER MANATEE RIVER ROAD" AND LESS R/W FOR THAT PART OF "UNIVERSITY

PARKWAY" LYING WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF "UPPER MANATEE RIVER ROAD".

CONTAINING 2080.59 ACRES MORE OR LESS.

SUBJECT TO SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS, IF ANY, FOR THE "BRADEN RIVER".

Specific Authority 190.005, F.S.

Law Implemented 190.005(1)(f)1., F.S.

History-- New.

42W-1.003 Supervisors. The following five persons are designated as the initial

members of the Board of Supervisors; Rex Jeneen, C. John Clarke, Mary Fran

Carroll, Roger Hill and Anthony Chiofalo.

Specific Authority 120.53(1), 190.005, F.S.

Law Implemented 190.005(1)(f)2., F.S.

History--New.