HB 4025 creates the Duke Farm Stewardship District, an independent special district and local government unit for a defined area in Lee County. The act sets out the district’s boundaries, governance structure, transition rules for board membership, administrative requirements, and the district’s general and special powers. It is designed to provide a single coordinated entity for long-range planning, infrastructure financing, and stewardship of the area’s development and conservation needs.
The district is authorized to plan, finance, construct, operate, and maintain a wide range of public infrastructure and services, including water management, water and sewer systems, reclaimed water, roads, transit facilities, parks, security, waste collection, communications systems, health care facilities, schools, and environmental mitigation. It may levy special assessments, benefit special assessments, maintenance assessments, fees, and charges, and it may issue revenue bonds, assessment bonds, refunding bonds, and, under specified conditions, general obligation bonds. The bill also establishes procedures for budgets, audits, public records, competitive procurement, disclosure to purchasers, and eventual transition from landowner-controlled governance to resident-elected governance.
The bill’s main legal effect is to create a new special district chartered by special act, with authority that supplements but does not replace Lee County’s comprehensive planning, zoning, permitting, and land development powers. The district is expressly limited from exercising general-purpose local government functions such as comprehensive planning or zoning, and its actions must remain consistent with applicable county plans and regulations. The act also amends the legal framework governing special districts by setting detailed rules for taxation, assessments, liens, bond issuance, foreclosure, public notice, and district property status, while making clear that district debt is not a burden on Lee County or the state.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is favorable toward the district’s creation and its role in facilitating orderly, long-term development. The legislative findings emphasize coordinated infrastructure, sustainable land use, economic development, conservation, and reduced fragmentation compared with multiple separate districts. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no additional evidence of public debate, but the enrolled bill and chaptered status indicate the measure advanced successfully through the legislative process.
The primary points of potential contention are the district’s broad financing authority, the use of special assessments and possible ad valorem taxation, and the initial landowner-controlled board structure before resident control is phased in. The bill also gives the district significant operational flexibility, including bond issuance, lien enforcement, and the ability to require use of district facilities, which may raise concerns about taxpayer exposure, developer influence, and costs borne by future property owners. At the same time, the act includes disclosure requirements, public hearing procedures, and limits on county burden to address accountability concerns.
The bill creates a new independent special district in Lee County and places it within Florida’s special-district framework under chapters 189 and 190, while also establishing a special charter that controls where it conflicts with general law. It authorizes the district to levy non-ad valorem assessments, special assessments, maintenance assessments, and, once constitutional conditions are met, ad valorem taxes; to issue multiple forms of debt; to place liens on benefited property; and to enforce collections through tax-roll and foreclosure mechanisms. It also requires public budgeting, audits, records access, purchaser disclosures, and a recorded notice of creation, while preserving Lee County’s land-use authority and limiting the district to infrastructure, services, and related financing functions.
Likely areas of contention include the district’s authority to impose assessments and, later, ad valorem taxes; its power to issue debt backed by district revenues and potentially taxing power; and the initial governance model that gives landowners voting control before a resident-elector transition occurs. Other possible concerns are the breadth of special powers, including infrastructure, environmental remediation, and service provision, and the possibility that district costs could be passed to future homeowners through assessments and fees. Supporters would likely emphasize coordinated infrastructure, long-term stewardship, and reduced burden on county government, while critics may focus on accountability, developer control, and financial obligations imposed on property owners.