Filing # 62484189 E-Filed 10/06/2017 08:05:41 AM
STACY M. BUTTERFIELD Clerk of County Court Polk County Recorded By Court

Filing# 62176235 E-Filed 09/29/2017 10:19:21 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION

POINCIANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, a local unit of special-purpose government organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, and POINCIANA
WEST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT,
a local unit of special-purpose government organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida,

Plaintiffs,

V.

Case No. 2016-CA-004023

Section: 04

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, and THE TAXPAYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS and CITIZENS OF POINCIANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and POINCIANA WEST COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, including
NON-RESIDENTS OWNING PROPERTY OR SUBJECT TO TAXATION THEREIN, and OTHERS HAYING OR CLAIMING ANYRIGHTS, TITLE, OR INTEREST OR PROPERTY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS HEREIN DESCRIBED, OR TO BE AFFECTED
IN ANYWAY THEREIN,

Defendants.
-----------------�'
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS GIVEN that the Defendants William Mann and Brenda Taylor appeal to the Florida Supreme Court the Court's Final Judgment Not Validating and Not Confirming Bond Issuance Herein Described for Failing to Properly Apportion the Special Assessment Among the Real Properties Specially Benefitted, signed on

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/201711:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1006

August 31, 2017,  and rendered on September 1, 2017.  The nature of the order appealed is a final order denying bond validation, a copy which is attached hereto.

Isl J. Carter Andersen
J. Carter Andersen, Esq. Florida Bar No. 143626 candersen@.:ibushross.com ksalter@bushross.com Harold D. Holder, Esq. Florida Bar No. 118733 hhokier@bushross.co111 aHowers@bushross.com BUSH ROSS, P.A.

1801 North Highland Avenue Post Office Box 3913 Tampa, Florida 33601-3913
Telephone: (813) 224-9255
Fax: (813) 223-9620
Counsel for Defendants William Mann and Brenda Taylor

2

2016CA-004023-0000-00

Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1007

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY that this Notice of Appeal has been e-filed and e-served through the Florida Courts eFiling Portal this 29th day of September, 2017, on the following:

Michael Eckert, Esq. Douglas M. Smith, Esq. Lindsay C. Whelan, Esq. Michael A. Alao, Esq.
Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 119 S. Monroe St., Suite 300 Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 michaele@hgslaw.com dougs@.1 hgslavv.com lwhelan@hgslaw.corn michaela@hgslaw.corn lindah(g,hgsla,v.com
Robert Gang, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 333 SE 2nd Ave.
Miami, FL 33131 gangr@gtlaw.com

Victoria Avalon, Esq. Assistant State Attorney Post Office Box 9000-SA Bartow, FL 33831-9000
vavalon@sao10.com appeals.felonypolk@sao I0.com
Martin Kessler, Pro Se
759 Largo Pass
Poinciana, FL 34759 mdk4l 30@aol.com
Courtney M. Keller, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
450 S. Orange Ave., Suite 650
Orlando, FL 32801 keHerc@gtlaw.com FLService@gflaw.com nef-iws@gtlaw .com

Isl J. Carter Andersen
J. Carter Andersen, Esq.

3

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE
STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1008

INSTR# .2017170010   OR BK 10252   PG 0983   09/01/20'17   04:08 PM
STACY M. f.lUTT!;RFlf.i,.O C�rk of C<1w1ty Couii Polk Corniiy Rec.,ordiid By Court

1NTH.EC!RCUITCOURTOF THE TENTHJUDtCIAL CIRCUIT tN A..\l"D FOR POLKCOUNTY, FLORIDA

POINCIANA COlvlMUNITY DEVELOP.MEN! OlS'TRICT,
a local unit ofspecial purpose governmentorganized and existlng under.the lawsofthe State ofFlori®, and POINCIANA WESTCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, a focal unit ofspecial purpose government -0rganizaj and existing underthe laws ofthe State ofFlorida,

Plaintiffs,

Section:04
V,

THE STATE OF FtA.. at)d 'tH.B TAXPAYERS, PROPERTY OWNERS and CITIZEN$ ()F
POJNC!ANA COMMUNl'fYDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and POINCIANA WEST COM.�1UNITY DEVELOPMENT
OlSTlUCT, including NON..,RE$1DENTS OWNING PROPERTY OR SUBJECTTOTAXATION THEREIN, and OTHERSHAVINGOR CL<\lMJNG ANY RIGHTS, TITLE, OR INTEREST OR PROPERTY TO BE AFFECTED .BY THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS HEREIN DESCRIDED, OR TO BE AFFECTEIHN ANY WAY THEREIN,
---De-ffltld-an-ts. ------------
DNA& JYPQMEm �2:r l1u.uM,two �nr1m £QNEmMJNQBON}) l§§lfa\N$;� DRIINDES(JUBEDEQRFAfl,,�9 I2 PRQPEIU,X A!!fORllQN  nm§RjtCW,
MSE§�IEN{ AMQN§ IDElffiALfflQPESil&S§tf'ClALLl'. Hl':!1/UUED

nns CAUSE is before t}le Court on Plaintiffs,.POJNCIANA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT, a local unit ofspecial-purpose government -0rganl:z¢,d and existing underthelaws ofthe StateofFlorida (hereafter "District One''), rut4 POINCIANA

WEST CO.MMl.rNITY DEVEI..O.PMENT DISTIUCT, a local unit ofspecialNpurpose

Filed .Polk Ct1unty Clirk ofCom·t	09/0l/2017 02:33 PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

t

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1009

OR BK 10252 PG 0984

govemmet}t organized and �istjng under the laws ofthe St�e ofFlori� (h� "District TW()"), CmriplamtSeeking Validation afPOJNCTANA COM.MUN.fTYDEVELOPMENT DISTRICTSpecial Asse.ssme.nt Bomb in ,in Aggregate Principal AmountNot to Exceed

$102.000,000,00, filed November 22, 2016. The Court, having reviewed the Complaint, pleadings, applicable statutory and case law, and havingheard and considered the arg\Jtn�ts of the Parties at an evidentiaryhearing on July l4111 and lglli.2l"'� 2017, followingan Order to Show Caust!, filed May4, 2017, and otherwisebeing folly informed in the matter, finds as follows:

Ava.tar Pt<>perties, Inc. (hereafter "Developer'�), is thedeveloper ofthe Solivtta residential eomnmnity, .fioinciana,. Polk Councy-, Florida, for individuals fifty�five )'\OOtS and older. Solivita residents, viapaymentofmembership fees and other expenses, have access to awide rangeof community am(!llities (huitt between the yem 2001. and 2009); includinggolfcoum� dining facilities, pools, and fitness facilities (here!lftf:r "Existing Ameniti�'j.
There arebetween 5,.590 ;md 5,595 real properties, amlxture ofowner-occupied residei1ces .ana undeveloped lots stillownedby the Developer{hereafter «J-fomoowners''). These

instant action.

Under the AMENDED AND RESTATED SOLIVITA CLUB PLAN (hereafter +'Club Plan"), each Homeown� has access to thefaisting Amenities bypaying monthly ''Club Membership Fee[sl" (hereafter"Club Fee(s)") in perpctuity (as a covenant running with the land) in acoord w:ith tlw "'Club Membership Fee Scheduleapplicableto a particular Home, ..," (hmafter �'Club Fee Scheme'), Depending in which "phase" that one buys areal propertyin

EUcd Polk CountJ Clerk of Court	09/01/2017 02:33 PM

OR BK 10275 PG 1010

OR SK 10252 PG 09$5

Solivita, that homeowner is obligatedto pay a.different monthly amount as bis or her Club Fee than that ofhis or her neighbors, afee that increases onedollur per year for several years, For the year2016, different Horneowµers who purchased their homes in di�t phasesw�obligated to pay $65.00, $74.00, $75.00, $84.00, or $85,00 per toonth.1 See Joint Ex, 48 (the Club PlanX Pets.' fa, 19 (a copy ofthe SOLIVlTA J)ECLAR.A'TION),
District One and District Two were lawfully es.tablisht.d local units of special purpose governments uru:i.�.:r Fla. Stat ch. 190 (2017), eslabli!ili.ed November 1. 1999 at1d Octol;i« 6; 2006 respectively, The Districts have the-power to levy ad valorem tair.es and non•ad valorffli special ass�ssments ·�d exeNi$e special powers related to recreation. See Joint Ex.a.. S (ccpy ofFla.
Adm.in. Cooe. t. 42A.A.�l.001 (adopted Nov. 1; 1999)), 7 (Final Judgment, validating Oi$trlci One, filed March 13, 2000undertrial case no. Z()OO�CA-000040), 9 (District One•s Resolution No. 2016--066), 12 (District One's Res¢lution No. 2000--19}; l S (District One·s Resolution No. 2008-14), 17 (Ordi�ee No. 2006«0�2, enacted by tlle Board <>fCo� Comnris$ioom, Polk Col:lrity, Fla.), 20 {Final Judgment; validating District Two� filed Feb. 21. 2007 under trial case no, 2007•CA�000154), 21 (Oroi:nance No. 2016-034, enacted by the Board ofCounty Commissioners, Polle Comity, Fla.), 24 (District Two's R�lution No. 2007,:;18).

i<m-tal� theClub Fee Scb.ei.ttc'� diffmntClubf'�e categories wereas folli>ml: 1) $62,00 per month iJl 2013 me�to$19,00.per m(!-Oth in 203◊ �r, 2)$71,-00 per mouth in 2-013 inCrtll$00. to $90,00 in 2032
�fter. 3} $71.00:p«monili in 2013 inc� to $92.00 m 1034 dwrewr, 4) $Sl00 per lll<lnth in20t3
incret1<!ed to$112.(li)in 204:3 �f, 5) $72,00 permonth ln2013increa&ed fQ $91.00 in 2032 themifter, 6)
$!12.00 per month in ZOB � to $.102..00 in 2033 thereafter, 7) $82..00t->er month in 20H Jncreased to S1Q3.00 irt 2034 �ft�, 8) $81-00 �mtlnth irt 2013 �akd.to $1OM(Hn2037 �a.fl.er, 9) $8LOOlX'l' moult an  2013 � to $1 l.l,00 in Z043 thA!reaft.er, 10) $82.00 p«.mo:nthin ZOB inc�d to$103,00 i:n 20.34 thereafter, ll}$82.00 pet month in 20l3lnc�- t<> $104.00 in 203$ �er. aud 12} SS2.00 per 1nontb in: 2013 � ID $108.00 in2{)39 'lh�.
3

.Fifod Polk o,unty Clerk of Court	09/01/2017 02;33 P1"l

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE

OR BK 1 0275 PG 1011 

OR $k 10252 PG ti900

Each District is overseen by a•five-member Board ofSupervisors {hereafter •1Board(s)") who, over time, transition from being appointed by the Oevelo-pe:r to being elected by the Homeowners ofeach District. At the time the instant circumstan� Robe.rt Znnbardi was the Chairman of the Board for District. On� and CharlesCase was the Chairman ofthe 8oard for District Two. Both Mr. Zimbardi and Mr; Case testified at t.lus bond validationhearing. &.e Joint Composite Bxs. 16 {copies ofOath.of'Otlice by board membeni ofDistrict One's Board), 25 (copies of Oath ofOffice by board meinbers ofDisttict Two's Board).
In accord with Ha. Stat. ch. 75(201 7), the Districts came before this Court to validate bond issuance, riot to e:xceed $ 102 million dollm, issued in one ormore series, proceeds from the sale ofwhich to· finance the p�hase ofthe Existing A.menitie$ and construction ofnew,

First introduced atthe November 18, 2015 joint meeting ofthe Districts' Boards; in accoaj with chapter 190 and Fla. St�. ch. 170 (1017),.the Districts first approved and. �ged iJl

plan to construet the Prospective Ameoitiei. under the Developer's direction. including a

maximum) were topay their r�pe;ctive special �ent amounts over thirty years via imltallmentpa.yments, &e Defs. ' Ex. 128 (minutes ofthe Nov, I 8, 2015 joint m�--ting ofthe Districts• Boam); Joint F..x s, 27 (minutes of.the Nov. 1 6, 2016joint meeting of the Districts' Boards), 28 (District One's Resolution No. 2017-02 and attached MASTER TRUST
4

Fifod Polk County Clei·k of Court	09/01/2017 02;J3 PM

OR BK 10275 PG 1012 

OR SK 10252 PG 0987

INDENTURE), J3 (iniml.tes oftheFeb. I0, 2017joint meeting ofthe Districts' Boards), 34 (Disttlct One's Resol1.1tion No. Wl7•04), 35 (District Two's Resolution No. 2017--06). :36 (District One•s Resolution No. 2017-05), 37 (District Two's Resolution No. 2017;.()7).
Throughout Negoti�tions,it has been the Districts' Bo�' intention that the Homeowners will not be specially assessed an runount that exceeds the:amount oftheir res�tive individual fi.'\ed 2016 Cluh Fee multiplied by the thirty-year bond term. See Trial Tr.

{excerpt portions ofCharlie Case)J9:1440:1, July 19, 2017 (Chairman Case testified. ''Q. Do you know.why the fees varyl" A, 1do not. .But l do know that when we started the,,�the process, we had �teed the residents that nobody would pay a dime more tlwt they're pa�today if this agreem.ent shomd go forward. And, ifanything, they would pay less, Q. You're taUdng about the olub membership fee component-A. 1 am. Q. -•would not- A. For an�y. Q. -increaso- .
A. Right,"); see also Jo.int fa. l2 at p� 1 (The min� ofthe July 28, 2016joint meeting ofthe Districts• Boards reflect discussion ofthe Valuation Ri.wort artd "1t1he fee per amt will be based 011 every-0ne's. Z016 club membership fees with the iritent�ing to not ex� .the CUttent amount ofst.ch fees.'').
At, a step i.n Negotiations. in the No�nber .10, 2016 joint meeting ofthe Oistmts' Board.ii, the Districts entered into an interloc.al agreement in acoord with Fla. Stat. sec. 163.0l (2017), .&eloint EJl.i,t :30 at page 5 (minutes ofNov, 30, 2016joint meeting {)ftheDistricts' Boards), 31 (INTER.LOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN tthe Diatricts] REGARDING MUTUAL COOPERATION FOR THE FINANCING, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN AMEN1Tll3S TO BE ACQlllRED, RECONSTRUCTED. AND CONSTRUCTED).
s

Filed Polk County Clerk <•fCourt	09/tH/2017 U2:.33 PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

OR BK 1 0275 PG 1013 

ORBK 10252 PG 0988

Consequently, the Districts and .the Developer entered into an ASSET SALE AND PURCHASE AOilBEMEN't {hereafter «A:greement''). The A�entprovided fo.r a $73.7 million dollar�eprice and that the "''.Buye.r shall pay the Purchase Prfoe in.cash at Closing...Sellerand Buyer further agree and aclmowledge that the Purch� Price and Bonds shalfbe reduced by the Equalization Amount." See P'ls.' Ex. 15 (minutes ofthe Oec. 13, 2016 joint meeting ofth.e Districts' Boards}; JoinfEx. 52 atpages 8, B, & 17 (The Agreement which further provided that the Club Plan and the SOLIVrtA DECLARATION an,.to be arnerided·to reflect a clmnge in owner of1he Amenities.), 53 through S6 (four iunendments to the Agreement); Pis.• fa:i l (fifth. amendment ofthe Agreement).
As a step in Negotiations, the rn.strlcts entered into an agreement with the Dtiveklper by which the Developer agreed to defray the cost ofthe Districts' '•due diligence•• (i.e. hiringof oonsuitanu and completion ofsupporting stu,die$ and report11}. &e Pls.' Ex. 9 at pages 2-3 (minutes ofthe April 20, 2016jointm�gofthe Di.lltticts' Boaros)� Defil.' E.x. 26 (BOND FINANCING TEAM FtJNDING AGREEMENi BETWEEN [District One and the Developer]).
As astep in Negotiations, the Boards hired the consultant Environmental Financial Group to do the SOLlVlTA RBCREATIONAL AMENITY ASSET VALUATION STUDY and
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT (hereafter "Valuation Report''). Having oomiidered two Other bidding consul.tan.ts, the Boards considered in Envitoninental Flnaiwinl Group's favor "tt]be fact they are· independent and do not work \\'itn anyone here makes it valid .for us to take them seriously." The Boards further noted that all three bidding oorurultants recommen<led an '':income
business approach kl do the vah1atfon." See Pis.' Ex. 8 at l l�l3 (minutes offue March :30, 2016 joint mooting ofthe Districts• Boatds);see also Trial Tr, (excerpt portions ofCharlie Case)
6

f1led Polk County Clerk of Court	09i1H/20l7 (t.2:33 PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 1 0275 PG 1014 

ORBK 1 0252 PG 0989

29:18-29:21, July 19, 2017 (Cha:irtnan Casetestified. ''Q. And the boards chose EFO [Environmental Financial GroupJ because they considered EFO independertt, oorre«?.A. Yei.-i"); Trial Tr. (excerptportions ofRobert Zimhurdi) 10:13�10:14, July 2(\ 2017 (Chairman Zimbardi te.-.-tUiect ..A..,[SJo we wanted an independent evaluation and oo we went with EFG/1).
The Valuation Reportprovidedthat Environmental Financial Group was ''instructed by

Revenue into an acquisition value." The ''maximum aequisition valtiation"wasdetennined to be
$73,1 m.Hlfoi,. dollffl, before accounting for the Assessment Equafo•.atioo .Payment (discussed below). The Valuation Report SUl)ported issuance ofa maAnnum of $102 million dollandn bonds, considering all·fact-Ors including an approximate cost of$l l/2 million dollars t9 construct the Prospective Amenities. The Valuation Report further concluded that "[t]he residents• willingness to pay a fixed c-apitat ti..--e each year over a thirty-year hQnd term defines the maximum af.tbrdable assess acquisition value. Thls is an incoine--based approach using the leverage created hy a fixed and dedicated revenue stream, thus cn:ating.a pracfica.1 indicator of
�'Set value." The Valuation Report found the value "unique to Solivita'' and ''not reflective of
what might be availllble,.,on the open mark«:�Stie .Joint Exs. 50 at pages 4�:5 {the Valuation Report), 51 at page 1 ano· page 1 ofthe section dtlw "$oQrcc$ and Uses ofFoods" {a copy ofthe
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT). To :reach the '<maxim:um8S(!et �uii.ition value," per the Valuation Report, calculationwasbased on "'fixed'" 2016 Club Fee amounts, ranging between
$65.00 and $85.00, for 5,590 subject real properties, tabulated over thethirty year life ofthe subjecU:xmds, See id, at pages 6, 17�18.

7

Filed Polk County Clerkof Court	09ilH/20t7 Ul:33 P!W

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1015

OR 6K 1 0:Z:52 PG 0900

methodology consultant since the Pistricts' creation. Fishkind & Associates, Inc.• did the. MASTER ASSESSMENT MEfHOOOLOOY [for Districts One Md Tw-0] RECREATION
FACILITIES ACQUISITION report (hereafter "Assessment Methodology Report',. Se.e Joint Bx:. ii at page 7 (minutes ofthe Nov. 16, 2016jointmeefing ofthe Districts' Bmltds); Pls: Exs. 18 (FINANCIAL ADVISORY AGREEMENT between Dimrict One and Fishkirui & Associa�. Inc,), 19 (FINANCIAL CONSULTING PROPOSALby Fishkind & Associates, h\�.• to completethe Assesmnent Metltodology Repnrt); see also Joint Exs. 45 & 46 tThe Assessment Methodology Ileport was incorporated into District One's ResolutionNo. 2017..08 and District Two's Resolution No, 2017�10}.
Working fromthe Valuation Report's oondusi.on� the Assessment Methodology Report listed the varied special benefit$ that the l-fomoown� will rec.eive; including but not limited to

benefits. and elimi�fon ofpe:rpet'Ual Club Foos. Byaddingtogethct the $7:l1millfon dollur purchase price ofthe .ExistingAmenities and the $1 1.2 million dollar oons1tU1,,'tfott c-0st ofthe Prospective Amenities, totally approximately $84,885.543.00; tre.atfng eacll � property as a single dweHing_, and dividingthat amount by total lltlhject re.al properties. each.rc:al pro� Vv-US found to haw a "benefit pet'unit'.' of$15,17L68. See Joint E.x. 45 at � 6 & 8 ofUie

Without more, the "preadjusted allocation [per) urut" was $1 7,371 .65 f-Or 1.1Uthe Homeowners to.be specialty as.<1essed. However, to execute the Dist:rkts' Boards' intent to retain the fixed 2016 amounts ofthe Club Fee Scheme wbe.n the special �ments are levi� the
8

Filed Polk County Ckrk of Court	09/01/2017 (l2:33 PM

OR BK 1 0275 PG 1016 

ORSK 1 0252 PG 0991

As..,;essment Methodology Report inoorporated the ..Assessment Equalization Payment" of
$3,935;533.00� defined as a "contribution of infrastructure reflected in a dedm.'iion from the pill'Chase price:' Applying the Assesm:nent Equalization Payment against the ''preadJusted allocatk111 (perJ unit/' lfome<>wnm who paid different Club Fee amounts in 2016 w�e to be

�ially �wsed at different mtes as follows;

See Joint Ex.. 45 at pages 4, to and �ge titled ''Exhibit 'A' Assessment Roll" ofthe Assessment Methodology Report.
At some point in Negotiatio� involved p&ties diacussed two options to retain the Club Fee scheme while transltioning from·a privately.contracted scenario to that ofpublicly owned Amenities. Either the Developer wiU be paid approximately $4 million dollars more and. after ao.tual payment, the Developer wiHvoluntarily pay down somehomeowners• actual spedal IIS$e$$tnenl amowtts ro :reccmstitute the Club Fee Scheme post•bond issuance. Alternatively, pte--

.fikd Polk Com1tyClerkof Court	09,tlH/2017 U2:33 PM

OR BK 10275 PG 1017

OR BK 1OZ52 PG 0992

bond issuance. said purchase price will be :reduced by an approximate $4 million @llar contn'bution/credit ofinfrastructure (i.e. the Assessment .Equalization PaymenfJallowingthe Homeowners to be specially a.••l11essed at different rates to retain the Club Fee $¢heme without otherwise impacting assessment matbem.atics. See Defs.' Eu. 157•100 & 15'7-103 (email

AttheMarch 15, 2017 joint meetitlg oft.he Districts• Boards, Resolution No. 2017-08

and Resolution No. 2017•lO were ratified,.finalizing the �ent and levying ofsaid speci.$1. as.<iessm�1ts pending the outoome ofbond validation. St'e Joint Bxs. 44 (Theminutes<»fthe
March 15, 20I7joint meeting ofthe Districts' Boards; also tetlecting the..Districts' Boards' Jit1hlic affinn.ation ofthe special benefits,), 45 (District One•s Resolution No, 2017.0S), 46 (District Two's ResofotJon No. 2017-:.t()),

Bond validation must legally satisfy a tllree-prong test. This Court'a inquiry is ''sharply limited..•only to detennitling ifa public body has tll.e authority to issue the subje{;t bonds [first prong] andifthe purpose ofthebonds is legallsecond prong} and ensuring that the bond issue complies 'With all legal requirements [thhxl prong]." Warner Gible Commim.ications v. City of Niceville, 520 So. 2d 245; 246 {Fla. 1988); see also Dottowm v. Okaloosa C®nty, 82 So. 3d 801
{Fla. 2012) (Where a public body has •••not exerciied its ttttingpower or pledged its crooit, the
obligation rmtst merely serve a puhtic purpose.. .[but ifhaving done so]. , .the purpose ofthe
10

Filed P(llk County Clerk of Court	09/0l/Wl7 02:33 PJ\t

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1018

OR BK i0:ZS2 PG 0993

obligation must serve aparamount purpose·and any benefits to II private party .must be incidental, . .'Where qnly a public purpose is required, however, 'it is immaterial ifthe primary bene.ficiary ofa projeetbe a private party, ifin the public in:terest, even thoughindirect, is present and sufficiently strong.,.. Further, "[{)his Court applies the oompetent, sub$tantial evidence standard of review to the trial court•s·findings oftact and·de novo review to the
conclusions oflaw."); Keys CitizenforResponsible (k.wemment, inc, v, Florida K$ys Aqueduct
Authority, 795 So. 2d 940, 944 (Fla. 2001) (Bond valjdatioo �ings is not the vehicle th.rough. whleh the Cou� rules on ..collateralissues•. ,directly tQ the power to i.-.suelbe.seeutities and tbe validity ofthe proceedingsrelated thereto,"); 11-iiccosukee Tribe ofIndians ofFlorida i•. South Florida WatbMona�m<mtDistrict, 48 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 2010) (The ultimate "eoonomic feas ibility ofa revenue project., is likewise beyond the sc-0pe ofbonds validation, Ft1rtb�. "'legisfative �larations ofpublic purpose are presumed valid and should be considered co�t unless pa.t�tly erroneQus.'")l State, V. Housing Finance Authority �fPolkCounty,376 ${). 2d
11 58 (Fla. 1 979),

Specifically. special assessments must additionajly satisfy atwo-prong test. The Court must find that "the property burdened bythe llSSessment mu.st d«ive aspecial b�efit from the service provided by the a.$st.<1�ent," the first prong. and •'the assessment for the se:rvietm must be properly (''.fairlt' an.d ''reasonably'•] apportioned mong the properties receiving the benefit/' the second prong. A public's body's legislative determinations ofboth prongs.c.arry a "presumption ofoorrecmess"•and are �d by a trial court mlless said detmninati-Orui are found to be
..arbitrary• and "capricious," See City o/'WfnterSprings v. State, 776 So. 2d 25S* 257-61 (Fla. 200l)(Further, a"court may �gnize valid alternative methods ofapportionment" but, unless
found to be ru:bitrary, ••a court should Mt substitute itsjudgment fut that ofthelocal legislative
11

Filed. Polk County Ckrk of Court	09/01/2017 tt2:::33 PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1019 

OR Bk 1 0252 PG (1994

the choice ofmethodology'' or evenjust "an un_{'.)Opular decision," the public body's legislative determinationsmust be upheld unless found ttl he arbitrary,); .vee alsoMorris 1-•. City 1,fCape Ccm,l, 163, So. 3d 1 174 (Fla. 2015) (To derivea speci.til benefit, "'the test is whether there is a "logi� relationship" between the services provided and the benefit ro n:ru proPffiy.'").

Defendants have challenged bonds validation principally on the grounds oflack ofpublic purpose, lack ofcon1pliance with Florida law, and si,'\ecial assesSlllents are not properly apportioned an1ong the speciallybeoofitted Homoowners,jn additionto lesser argument�.

Underpinning Defendants• main cliallenges are two argmnents. First, Defendants argued that the .Developer improperly controlled, coerced, and/or unduly influenced relevant i11dividuals and entities involved in Negotiations to maximize the Developer's profitstherefrom{hereafter "Control Argumei:tt"), Second, Defend.mts argued that·the income haSf.ld :methodology and

Per Defendants' Control Argument. the Developer's interlocking relatiO.lllihips with entities and individuals, throughoutNegotiations, unduly influenced the Districts' Soards' ultimate approval ofthe Developer's approximate p:rcdetennined purchaseprice ofthe Existing

retaining ownership or selling to the Districts. See TrialTr. (excerpt portions ofRQbert Zimbanli) 15:5-15:8. July 20, 2011 {Chairman Zimbardi testified. ''Threat i8-'is your

12

Filed Polk Cotmty Cluk of Court	09/01/2017 02:33 PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

OR BK 1 0275 PG 1 020

OR6K 10252 PG 0995

terminology, It was another option that was availa&le to them. And yes, we did consider1 you know, the ramifications ofa third party owning facilities."). Another �ple is tht: Developer's executive vi® president ofdevelopment at the ti.me,1'(.'lnyIorio, served ou Di�rktTwo's Boa,rd until his resignation was accepted � the March 30, 2016 joint meeting ofthe Districts' l3oatds, See Pls! EJ<. 8 atpage :\ (acceptance ofTony Iorio's 8!:lid resignation). fa support. ofDefendants' Control Argument, Oefendoots also entered into evidence email intercommunkations between the individual� and entities involved in Negotiations2

purpose because the private Developer and their .intent to obtain maximum profits from the purchase offaisting Am�ties was an impermissible primary private beneficiary and private p� overwhebnmg any de minims. tml>Uepurpose. See Oronge Ccwi� Industrial De\>e/(JpmentAutlwrity v, Stat�. 427 so, 2d 174 (t<1a. 1983) (Under the paramount public purpose standard, the court invalidated a. local public body's industrial development reV1."!lue J;wnd i$Suance to expand aprivate local news taci.lity be<:ause such was a paramount private

P�tive Amenities in accord with Fla. Stat. sec. 190,016(1)(c) (2017) {'"The price or priefi

2See Oefa.' Ex. 14, 28-29., 31 B, 3440, 42, 45, 47-48, 51-58, 62, 65, 68--69, 70, 79, 81-85, 89-90,
97-100, 102, 1 06-t07; Ill, 122, 127, 153-$-1 53-7, 1 53•7, 153•11, 153�16, 1S3·19, J S4•22; -
2+154--25, 154-27-154•31, 154-33, 154-36-154-37. ----42. 15444, 154-SO, lSS-53,
155.55, LS SJ US J8, lSS-62, 15$-04, 1 56--08, 156-70, 156-74, t S&-71�156-78, 156--84-156--
87, 156,89, 1 57-98, 157-100, 15.7-1()3; 158-1 ll, JSS-1 17, 158-119; 158-121, 158-123-158-125,
159-1.34-1 59-135, 159-138, 162-150, 171-1 , 172¥173, 175«176, 179, 181, 183, 194, 205, 209,
21 1, 232-233, 247, 260«262. 270, 273, 278, 284, 305, 31 l-313, 326-327, 33 1·332, 336•1.

Filt�d   Polk County CkrkofCourt	09/\)1/2017 U2:33 PM

OR BK 10275 PG 1021

OR BK 10252 PG 0996

for anybonds sold, f:itclum:ged, or delivered may be: (a) The money paid for the bonds; (b) � principal amount, plw. accrued :interest fo the date ofredemption or exchange, otoutstanding

bonds, the amount ofany indebtedness to contractors o.r other persQns paid with such bond.� or the fairval\le ofany properties exch�ged fo:r tbe bonds, as determined by the boatd."},.

determine a $73.7 million dollar purchase price forE,�isting.Amenities didnot a(.Wl.ll'l.t for the actual te1tl property value ofthe Existing Amenities. Consequently, the Districts' Boards failed to 1:omply with the legal requirement to determine the fair valueofthe Existing Amenitie$ i.n

�pliance :with suh�on 190.0l 6(l)(c). ln contrast, Defendant..01' expert, Michael Mcf:i'.lveen, a state certified general real estate appmiser ofUroan fa-ont>mic-s, Inc,; testified thathe a:pprai.,oo
the '<ma:rket value" of the Existing Amenities at $19.ZS million dolll'!fll as of on or about April 11* 2017. See also Pe£$, Ex. 184 at page titled OPINION OF MARKETVALUE and pa� 1-3 (Per the APPRAISAL OF SOLIVlTA COMMON AREAFEATURES LOCATED WlTHlN POINCIANA AND POlNClANAWEST, POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, market value was
defined as "'(t)he most probable price, � ofu specific date, in cash,...fur which the speci:fk propertyrigb:ts should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive matket under all ct>nditions requisite to a fair sale...' the market value estimate by the Cost Approach is performed in twg sfop$. The fum step is to <lStima� the market value oflhe fee simple interest oftheland and the second .�ep is to estimate the matket.value oftile improvements!'),
Conelusfons of Law
.The F]rst t:muofBond Validation
14

Fikd ]1olk County Clerk <ff Omti	09/01/2017 02:33 PM

OR BK 10275 PG 1022

OR BK 10252 PO 0997

As to the first prongfor bond validation, the Court finda that Plaintiffs dem()tistnlted th� both Districts One and Two respectively bad the legal authority under ehaptet 190 to issue the bonds an4 levy special assessments forthe financing thereof, Defendants did not contest this first pron.g ofbond validation,

As to the second prong for bond validation, th� Court finds that Plamtiffi; demonstrated a public purpose forbond issuanceto finance thepuroha>le and oonstruction ofExisting and·
Proi..-pective Amenities in aec{ltdance withflll. Stat sec. 19Q.012 {2017) wbfoh provides fur the DistricW fu:wncing, t.stablish.in& and mi.untaining parks and faci lities fur recreational, cultural, and educational purposes. See a1$c Joint Exs. 34 & 35 (District Orte's Resolution �o. 2017--04 and District Tw:{l•s R¢801:ution No. 2017�ll6, both whijm provide "acquisition ofcertain amertity

earlier version ofthe Asse.<;sment Methodology Report that listed the subject special benefit$.); TrialTr. (excerpt portions ofCharlie Caoo) 12:13�12:22, July 19, 2017 (Chairman Case testified.
"Q; . ,{W]hat were the primaryb<mefits you sawth�two�ld be achieved hy this wmsaction, A.
Again, it was tbe--the ownembip and oontt"ofofthe fadlit:ies. the addition ofadditional amenities to the point of$1 1.2 million. We thought there'dbe increased property vahies and it wmitd have better services to the residents."), The Court finds no patently erronoous declaration ofpubli� purpose for the purchase and construction ofth.e Existingand Prospective Amenities, that said publicpurpose is sufficiently present and strong, and, conseqaet\tly, the Districts'

15

Filed. Polk Comity Clel"k of C0t1rt	09/01/2017 02:33 PM

OR BK 10275 PG 1023

OR Bl<.10252 PG 0998

Having foun4 said public purpose tiufficiently strong and p� the C.omt finds n() hmm that the private Developer is a primar;· l;>eneficiary bysellingthe Existing .i\menltfes to �e Distrlcu for $73,7 million dollars, The puhliQ purpose forpurcbamng and rorurtructing the Et.isting and Prospective Am�ties is !lot overwbelmeii.by the Districts' "Soards' actiuiesee to
die Develop�•s firm stance on its ts:rget� puoohase price, privately benefiting the Developer. The Court does not find circumstancel! ofthe instant action amatter of paramount public purpose as the Districu have not pledged its cre&t or �erds«I its. l\d valorem taxing power.

Negotiations. to secure theirprcdete:tmined purchase price.to maximizetheir profits; Beyond the expectant negotiated �ve-.aud-t!:lke and mtlmate cooperation and e<>tnmunkationbetween individuals and entities invo.lved in a complex real estate purchase and bonds issuance process; at best:, it appear$ to the Court that the Developer may haw engage4 in tactics of�on on its behalfto maximize profits. Howevei-, the C01.trt finds this does not evidence improper control, undue jnfluence, or coeri:fon. See Trial Tr, (excerpt pot'tions ofCbadie Case) 12:23·13: 14, July 19, 2011 (Chui.rm.an C. testified. "Q. .Onrfog the due dillgen-ce ami negotllltions periods. di.d AV{ the Deveioper]do anything lhat youwould co.nslder to � inappropn!lte? A, No. Q. Did it tryto overpower your will andforcmg you to.accept this deal? A. No. Q. Diel it use any influence
th.irt you would consider to he inappropriate? A.No., ,Q, Are you aware ofany facts that would
lead you to believe that AV consp-i� with the districts in this transaction'? A. Absolutely not''); TrialTr, {excerpt portions o:fRobert Zi.mbardi) 11: I hl I: 13, July 20, 20! 7 (C.haimum Zimbatdi testifie4. "Q, What is your respons,e to the allesafioll truit AVand Tony Iorio exerted undue
influenceon t1,eboards? A. I havenot e:xperienced that'').
.16

li'il1..1d Polk Couuty Ckrkof Court	09/0"l/2017 02:33 PM

OR BK 10275 PG 1024

OR BK 1.0252 PG 0999

Tire Court found the following cases instructive regarding undue intluen<;e. d� and threatening an otherwise legally permissible action. SeeLutgert R l,utge-rt, 338 So, 2d lJ 11 (Fla, 2d DCA 1976); Franklin v; Wallack, 516 8o,2d 1371 (Fla, 5th DCA 1991); Spillers "'� Five Pein�' Guaramy Bank� 335 So! 2d $51 (Fla. bt DCA 1976),

As to the third prong ofbQnd validation, the Court finds that Plain:tif& complied with all legal requirements to issue the bonds and fovy special assessments, inc:luding statUtorily requisite notification and holdingofpublic hearings and pas..�g� ofresolutions under chapter 190, Fla.
Stat s�, 163.01 (2t.ll7) (pf(:)vidmg forinterfocal agreements), and Fl.a. Stat. sec. li0,08 (2017)

First, having :found insufficient evidence for.Oefenmurts' Control Argument, any argument that the Districts' Boards' approval oftbe purchase and construction of the Existing and Prospective Amenities was.not legal, being arbitnny and capritjous, based on the Conltnl Argument must likewise faH.
Seoond,theCourt finds that the circwnstru1ces. ofthe instant action de ntit fall undet subsedion l911016(l)(c) which applies insituations where property is exchanged fur the literal bonds; in such situations Uw legal concept offair value, or {as argued by Defendants) the market value ofthe Existing An}etuties, may become applicable. In the instant actio11; the Court finds that bonds are being is..-iued furthe purpose ofbeing sold to bond purchaser{s) for monetary funds which is then used to pay the Developer for -purchase and oonsttuction ofExisting and Prospective Amenities. in addition to associated costs, See <llso Joint Ex. 52 at page 16 {In the

l.7

Filed Polk County Clerk ofCourt	09/01/2017 02:33 PJW

OR BK 1 0275 PG 1 025

OR BK 10:252 PG 1000

are necctlsaty to acquire the �assets..•:•).

valuation methodology, rather than an altemati� valuation mefu-Odology such as market value

particular objection fails b®aWJe, while alternative valuation metbooolosi-es may render a more favorable outcome.t.o Defendants� them.come based approach utilized by theDistricts. via tbclr conS1,1ltants• expertise, wasamt arbitrary or capricious, For the Court, the dispute ofvaluation methodologies allowed forreasonable people's differing opinions th.ereoo. Further, the Court finds said dispute merely a di$agreement betw¢en Plaintiffs' ex� Scott Harder of Environmental Fi:nai.wial Croup, woo testified as to the use ofan income based. valuation
mctthodology in the .initant .circumstan� and Defendants• expert, Miclulel McEtveen, who testified as to the use ofmarket value ba-'led on oost approach inthe iMtant circumstances. Consequently, the Court must defer � tlie presumed vruidity ofthe Districts'. chosen income
based valuation method91ogy�

Further. the Court notes that a developer is entitled to seek �yment for its inCQme stream stemming from membemhip-type fees when negotiating a real property purchase by a local governing body. See Palm Beach County v. Ccve ClubInw.stors, LTD, 734 So. 2d 379 (Fta.
1999}(Where the county pur<:hased amobile home lot within ainobilehome �mmunity with am.enities, said oom.nmnity's ow11et was entitled to he paid·for its loss ofincome from said lofs owner's obligation to.pay recreatimlal fees for use ofsaid am.enities.),

Fifod Polk County Clerk of Court	09/01/2017 OU33 PM

OR BK 10275 PG 1 026

OR BK 102�2 PG 1001

As to �tendants' lesser atgl."lment$, the Court first finds thatrul.inguponthelegility of the underlyingClub Plan orthe Club Fee Scheme, as privately CQnti-actl)d betw-een the Developer and Solivita homeowners, under Fla, Stat. ch; 720 (2017) to hecollateral to "®ncl vali(Uttion.
Consequently. the Court shiut not nite on any �entbased thereon within the context <>fbond vaHdation,3
The Court further fu)ds thatdurt a licensed appraiser under Fl.a. Stat, cli..475 (1017) is not a legal requirement in the Districts• Boarnt1• choice ofconsultant and valuation meth-Odology in the instant circum.'lttUlces.

Fla Stat. sec; 190,021(2) (2017), !he Court. finds subsection 190;021(2) legally inapplicable in

The CoQrt finds. the lesser l!f�ent that the Pismcts failed to provide forcompetitive bidding for ccmttooted service$ under Fla. Stat, sec, l9!1033(1) {2017 ) to be collafo.ral ti.'l bonds validation, There is neither t-eoorli evidence oor testimony that the Distlicts have entered into such oontrncts that would be subject to competitive bidding under subseeti-0n 190.033{1) at this time..

'DefeooQrtt.s had argued that Distrkts' Boards' $provalofaaid $7'3.7 nillliointollatpurcba�prlc¢-0f&istlng. Amenities. via art illt<lme�� tm..wd upon an mesai Club PIM and Club Fee Schem� wu, itielf, IU'bitraQ'and �iOOl!,

Filed folk County Clerk of Court	OWOl/2017 02:33 P!W

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

19

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1027

OR 6K 10252 PG 1002

As to the first prong especiallyfur special assessments, the Court finds that Plaintiffs demol'lslrat®, thatthe Homeowners burdened withthe subjectspecial assessments did receive special benefits Via purchasing Existing Amenitfos imd oonstroct\on of:?ro�ctive Amenities. The Court finds a logical relatiormhip between said acquisition and the special benefits therefrom, The Court finds no evidence that theDistricts' determination ofwhat the special benefits are was �if:rW!( ()r capricious, Defen&mts did not contest this first prong especially for

Pl.µntltl'$ (ailed to p�ly. fairly, Md·reasonably apportion me subject special asse!lSm,ettts levied among the Homeowners s�iaUy benefiting from the purchase and construction ofthe Existing Amenities and  Pro$pective Aroeo,itie$. The Court finds Plaintiffs'  apportionment ofthe

First, the Cot1rt distinguishl\$ the use ofthe Assessment Equalization Payment i:n�hond issuance and the Developer's post-bond issuancepay down of some Homoowners' actual �at a.,'lSdlsment amounts. Plaintiffs argued that the assessment methodology showed alt real properties ·were prosp�vely to be equally assessed prior to �pplyi:ng the Alls$sment Equalization Payment. The Court does not find said "preadjusted allocation {per} unit" of
$17.371.65, a mere temporaty C()tnponent ofa complex :matoomatical calculation, satiidies the second pro11g of fairly apportioned special assessments. The speci�ly b�efited Hoinwwners are to be a�tually assessed at different tatesto eftei...--tuate the Districts' Boards' intent to retain the
Cluo Fee Scheme at fixed 2016 Club Fee amounts; it is this relationship the Court mu.,,qt evaluate.
20

Riled Polk County Clerk of Court	09tlH/2017 02:33 PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFIELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1028

ORSK 10252 PG 1003

Local governing bodies are bound by Florida law to demonstrate apportionment of special• assessment$ amongst speciallybenefited real properties is not srbitrocy and capricious but is propel', fair, and reasonable. Even where methodologies differ, Florida courts have approved scenarios where different speciallybenefited real properties have been specially assessed at dHiere.n:trates, However, thekey to such court approval is that the local governingbody demom.'trated that certain individual real properties received ahigh11:r valutd oran additional type of special benefit for which !here WU acorrelatinghigher cost and, consequently, justified a staggered scheme ofdifforen* mnounts specially assessed to difrorent real properties, See D(movan v. Okaiocsa County, 82 So. 3d 801 (Fla. 2012) (ln part. the oount.y adopted two separate categories for special assessments� stonn damate reduetio.n and recreation. The county determined that the storm damage reduetion twne6t was specialty assessed against only beaehfrontreal properties because only beacllftont pmpertid were specially benefited therefrom, In contra$t. all subject reat properties were specially assessedtheir.P© rota shtlt'e for the expense ofthe re<:reation special benefit. Competent and substatitiru evidence supported the fairness and reasoru1.bleness ofthe apport(onment. ofspecial assessments, based onreasonable and objective factors.).
The Court .finds that the Florida Supreme: Court 11� this key ooruiideration best in South TrailFire Centro/District v. State, 273 So, 2d 380 (Fla, 1973). ''The ffiafmet ofthe assessment is immaterial.and may vary withinthe district, aslong as the amount ofthe assessment for eachtract is not in excess ofthe proportional benefits as compared to other assessments on othertracts." Id'. at 384.

21

Filed Polk County Clerk of Court	09/01/2017 (t2;33 PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

CERTIFICATION ON LAST PAGE STACY M. BUTTERFI ELD
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

OR BK 10275 PG 1029

QR BK 10252 PG 1 004

4
Mcm) '"' Ci

ty ofCape Cmal, l63 So. ld 1 174 (Fla. 2QlS) (It wus not uroitnlty to speeially assess at differ®t rates,

a."two-tier"approach, fur all iwpropenl� oolb de-.-eloped Mid und��I� and fur de,-eloped real� f0t flrefightmg ffl'v�. All mil pt'()petty g�y �red !rolll !'lrefi� �. but developed real properties had an added benefit ofprot«tion agaillst !lll:W:tutal damage.); City ofWinter Springs I�.Stau. 116 .So. �255 {Fla.
2001} (I� isubject:re;u properties tobe � w(rt'e a mixtimi of�le familyhom<,s, m.utlifmnity:t,uildll!gll, .md
a fawco1mnro;ial properties. The city.first det4lmtincd that lhe·average single fami ly home wu 22.00 sqµare � Using this base ,-alue, 11n...equh'alent:tc!li� 11nit value ofl," tlw city !bffltproportioo«i lb� amowit ofthe
�ial �cnt fur eacli individual �•based on � foota�. (For example, a4400 squarc foot
multifamily llllit willbe. specially assessed twicethe amount ofa 2200 square foot single family home.))i Citiuns Mvotmmg Res}X)iMbliEm,iromne1ttal Soluti(lflS, lnc, -i,•. City pfMrtrcQ Island, 959 So. id 203 (Fla. 2001)
(l:�xpamwii oh waste'warer �t.a,lld C<>llection � Ql)fy�ially�ffedi	miw.u$ffi. ThecityW':lUldnot
ktveso e�anded ifno� for theiot1u.x of�w�l'S ¢!� �ng Wa&Wwater m:atment and collele4"iu ayatetti. 11 WM not itbimttY or inequitable toapecWlfi$$e$ only xww U$ertl thcir pro mta ahure ofthe tollll �-Ost! ofsaid expamlm1, distl�ngnew u!lel"5 from eiti!!ting use1$,); Ham�on: v. Wilson, 69'.l So. 2d 945 (Fla, l997)(rti.e county&Ollghtto � illegal dumping in unim:oi:pomted �8$ ofdu, coµ!lty, the sp(jCial � fur solid w11$te dispooal wiia levied o!lly 11gahtst �tial �es in �rared areas <!fthe ootu1l:y bu.t not ag.umt nl$lden!W properti� withinnm.llil.ipaliti«i or ��1111 p�.s in �ted RmS, n-.i latter categoriea ofprop� paidfuftbis. set1,"ieethrough on-site ti!'rlll$ � which wWt, equal to !he oost ofsolid �� t'm those�- The amount ofihe spei;:w M�!l51mfflt levied agmmt twJldentia! properti« inunincorporated properties reflected the m:tuat eost ofthe ll«Vi«> andwas equally dis1ributed an10ngst 1h0$C $pQCialJY benefiu:d, The court fonnd the �ill �esit& were tWt atbitraty.)/.San1s0la Cowrzy .v, $11.rai;()/!l Church, 667 So. 2d 11!0 (I-'la. l995} ('!'heootmty speciidly &$..<\ell!led tffldemllll �d eommerofal mill propfflies at dlfl'erent rates and di<i n.ot Wffl
\tt1deve!ope<i real properties at all for setvicct b�on eachxealpropeny's projected itotlXl�ter dmlbarseduew each real property's ''hurit:llnta! impernolli l!rl!a".md lml<l �-Thiti avportio�ntmethod Wll-.'l notm:Wttmy and
�'!Ill �blyrn�edto fuc 5f)ecial benefit �hrelllproptiey�h,-ed via ttr-atmentofpolluted �<a� nmoff.}; City qfBfJCl'l l.atfJn v.State, 5�$ So. 2d 25 {Fla, !992) (The dty properly apportioood speeial �lllffllts amongst the S!)®ially benefited mill properties �ed ®the ad valottm1 real property value$. Over time, a.real property tlmt ��fitoo !i:om the �W. benefit :mould e�pe:cien€(: tillin,.,"t'(!ued property v.tlue �d.
�erttly, pay ahigherspecial llllliC5al:tlent 1han II neigbboring propcny trurt,. over time, did not benefit as well, refflllting iu.a lowet.pt'()perty value.); �h "l'rull}'ire ControlDistrict, Stint$Qta .Cmm{V v. Siate efFla.., 273.So, ld 380 {Fla. 1973) (Special �ntraws were properly apportiooed emongdifferent.real piop,ertyi:aregories fur fu�ghting ffl'V�il.); CJwr1otM CilMty v, Fiske, 3$0 So. 24.578 (rNII. 2d DCA 1977) {"'.fhlrlily, t.M.eutlre costof I.he gffllkes to tl1& �idential t11iiu iS equaUy dIBlributed amont 511® unit.'!. It nec�ly folto� thentbre, that
�ini:,, all msidlmti& units � eq_lllll pro �sbatell oflllce oosls fur t!qpal pro.ml# !l� offb.¢> servie<>, too proport:io11&te 'benefiu/ equal the apponi◊tted¢001!.j; [)e$id,m.:1 Corp. v. City QfIJ<!fti..'!.m lJeac.,lt, 39 So. 3d 4&7 (Fla. 4lh DCA 2010) (Special use� rateis wt:te properly apportiQru:<d ant!.)!ig diftmnt real property <:ategoms for firefighting servk�.); Workman Enterprise,. Inc, v. 1Jmw1do Cmn1ty, 790 So. 2d $98 {Fltt. 5thDCA 2001) (S�i#l
�t ra� were properlyapportioned a:mong different xea1 property ��tegoriea furfitefightiug !lel'\'i«I&.).

FHt:�d Polk County (Jerk ofCourt	09/01/2017 02:33 PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

OR BK 10275 PG 1030

OR 8k 10252 PG 1005

The C-0t1rt finds no testimony or record evidence ofhigher valued or additional special benefits which the Districts intended t-0 retain (or add) ofwl.ricll therewas a correlating high.er rost and, eo1isequent1y. justified the Homeowners being specially assessed at differentrates. For ex.ample, therewas no testimony or record cvidell\:.e show:ing that Homeowm$ who pay higher Club Fees have a<¾---ess to greater mnnber c,fAmenities or uc� to Amenities at earli� or later time.periods. The only basis .for the Club Fee Scllem� the sole basis upon whieh the DHitricts' Boards approved to speciallyassess the Homeowners at diffem.tt rates, is the Dev�Jo-p«'s originul su�j�.ttve decision to implemtmt the Club Fee Schfflle. See Trial Tr, (excerpt portions of 01arlie case) 40:2041:25� July 19, 2017 {Chainnan Cilse testified, ''Q. But did any ofthe consultants oow,.goo by the distri<:-ts explain to the boards the reason why the club memberships were set at the rates that•they we.re set'? A. Notthat 1 recall. Q..So that wasn't part ofthe board.$' e<.'lnsidenttion? A. The key pmt ofthe consideration ofthe board will that they wouldn't iO up. Q.

tb.efees wouldn't go up, not the bm.is parL;Q. So the board-the hoards wimted to cap the amount ofrees. They didn'twanttheamount <>ftees to go up,A That's correct. Q. But the boan1s did not consider what t.hi.ise fees were based on. A We did not, to my knowledge.'); Tri.al
Tt:, (excerpt portlons ofRobert Zimbarili) 27:13-27:25, July 20, 20t7 (Chainnan ,zimbardi testified. "Q. Do yon know how it was determined that different piwerties w@ld paydifferent club f�? A No. Q, Did anyone ever explain to you the clubffleinbership .fees or-to you or to MY ofthe bomds ofsuperv.isors? A. Not to me. Q. That wasn't part ofwhat the board considered in entering this transaction as to the basis for the club fees, correct? A. l don't remember that comingup at any ofthe meetmgs,").

23

Fifod Polk County Clerk of Court	09/01/2017 02:33 Pi\l

20l6CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

OR BK 10275 PG 1031

OR BK 1 0252 PG 1 006

Consequently, the Court finds no reasonable, fair,and proportional relationship betwee11 the final differt.'llt special assessment amounts ro be actually levied a�nst the Homeowners and the special benefits attributed to the Homeowners, All specially benefited.Homeowners have access to allExistlngAmenities and Prospective Amenitil:1$, In fact,. the Assessment --­ Methodology Report noted that all subject real properties, boththos.eowned by current owners and undevcl9ped lots, had an equal ''benefit perunit" oUl$,l71.68, However, after accounting for the Assessment Equalization Payment, the Homeowntlt'!! are actually W be $pecially asffl!SOO

To the extent that the Courtref'etfflced or cited witnesses' trial testimony or trial exhibits ei100-ed into evi�ertw, the Court finds such to l,e crajiblei See Fla, Highway Pt:arol �� In Re
.rbrcfeiture of$29,980.M, 802 �kt 2d ll71(Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (A trial court may find a witness' testimo�y qedibte ot tiot.as thetrial QOurt's functionis to evaluate and.weigh testimony and
evidence to arrive at its tinditi�.).

ACCORDINGLY,based upon the above findings -0ffact and eoMhisions oflaw, it is ORDERED A.ND AUJU:DGED that Plaintiffs, POL"4ClANA COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, a local unit ofspecial pui:pose govenuntint organized anl'.l existing
under the laws ofthe State ofFlorida, and POlNCIANA WEST COMMUNITY DEVELOl3ME?\1T DlSTRlCT, a focal unit ofspecial purpose govenunent organized and existing under the laws ofthe State ofFlorida., Camplaint Seeking Validation qfPOlNClANA COlvfM{llv1TYDEVELOPMENTDlS'IRJCTSpecial Assessment Bonds in an Aggregate PrlnctpalAmormt Not to li:<ceed $102.()()(},()(){)_()0 is hereby DENIED because.Plaintiffs failed to properly apportion the special assessment amongthe real properties specially benefitted. The

Filt:�d Polk Cou�ty Clerk of Court	09/01/2017 02:33 PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM

OR BK 10275 PG 1032

OR BK 1 0252 PG 1007

POINCIANA COMMUNITY DEVl!LOP.MENT DISTRICT Special Assessment Bonds,.ofthe

+s.t::

$I02,000,QOO;OO, and, the proceedings therefore, including the Bond Resolutfon(s) and the Tru.�t Indenture. be, and the sai.ne hereby are,. NOT validated and NOT coofnmed and dedated to NOT be fully authorized by and in..c.ompHance with law.
(){)NE AND ORDERF.-D in.8.uiow, Poll< County, Florida, on this	Jl..{J;_   day of
2017.

Copit$ 1-'urnlshed 1·0:
•Michelle D:tal:\ BUSH ROSS, PA. P;O. ·Bex 3913,Tailllpll,. ft 33!\0l
-C.tttt:r An.deman, susa R0$S, :P.A., f;O. &l!.3913, 1�FLlJ@l
Harold Hold«, BUSH ROSS, P'A,P.O. Belt 3913, T&nlffl,f(...33601
-Victoria J. Avmoo, Asmstant State Attorney, !:>;O. B.oii:: 9000-SABartow, FLl3S3l�9000
·Manin K�tler,_prol«, 159La� Jluli, P«nciana, Florida 34159
-Rob(tt C. Geng, OR.EBNBERQ TRAURrG. W, m S,R 2nd Aw., Miami, FL 1H3l
-Doogw M.Suilih. HOPPINGGREEN &SAMS, l:'-0. Box 6526.. T�FL 32314

Fittid Polk County Clt�rk of Court	09/0:1/2017 02:�U PM

2016CA-004023-0000-00	Received in Polk 09/29/2017 11:16 AM