Pursuant to the Uniform Community Development District Act of 1980, Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, the Orlando City Council established the Randal Park Community Development District on December 11, 2006 (Council document no. 0612111005).

The district is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and the Beachline Expressway (S.R. 528). Community development districts are independent special districts that finance, construct, and manage basic community development services such as roads, parks, and stormwater water facilities.

In 2010, the Orlando City Council adopted ordinance #2010-54, which ordinance contracted the original boundaries of the district to reduce the area of the district by 47.7 acres of land, such ordinance being requested by the Board of Supervisors of the district for the purpose of matching the external boundaries of the district to the then-recently amended Randal Park planned development zoning district.

The District's Board of Supervisors, having obtained written consent to a further contraction from 100% of the property owners within the district (including the area to be excluded) has now again petitioned the Orlando City Council to contract the external boundaries of the district, this time from 579.78 acres to 576.73 acres, a contraction of just over 3 acres. The purpose of the contraction is to (1) cure a surveying error in the legal description of City Ordinance #2010-54 (relating to approximately 0.67 acres of land), and (2) to remove approximately 3 acres of land acquired by the Central Florida Expressway Authority for State Road 528.

In making its determination to grant or deny the petition the Orlando City Council must consider the testimony and evidence provided at a public hearing and the following factors found at section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes:

1. Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct.

2. Whether the establishment of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan.

3. Whether the area of land within the proposed new district boundaries is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community.

4. 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.

5. Whether the community development services and facilities of the district will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities.

6. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special district government.