You never know what surprises will pop up at the St. Johns County BOCC meetings these days! And Tuesday did not disappoint!
The meeting began with a touching Proclamation Recognizing February 2025 as Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month. Such an important topic anywhere but in St. Johns County this was brought home even more so with the incident involving the young lady who accepted the proclamation. Madison Schemitz was a victim of a brutal attack by an ex-boyfriend in 2023. She still carries the scars of that attack but has dedicated herself to spreading awareness about healthy and unhealthy relationships.
Watch the presentation and hear from Madison at this link: Teen Dating Violence Awareness Presentation
Consent Agenda
Commissioner Murphy asked for Consent Agenda Item 17 to be brought forward to the Regular Agenda for discussion. This item became Agenda Item 1a.
Regular Agenda
Agenda Item 1 – Constitutional Officers Update
SJSO reminded the public that if they get a call asking to pay a fine with gift cards, they do not accept gift cards for payments. That is a scam. And he urged parents to pay attention to what websites their children are visiting. TPC is coming so folks in that area are reminded of the traffic congestion that occurs during TPC.
And don’t forget the Battle of the Badges, a fund raising event started by Sheriff Hardwick. This is a family friendly event to raise funds for the Diamond of Dreams in the south part of the county. Learn more about it and buy tickets here: Battle of the Badges Event
Property Appraiser’s update included information that taxable value on the tax rolls is up 10.4% for the year. With recent changes in state law, homesteaded property is increased at 3% or CPI, whichever is lower. CPI this year came in at 2.9% so homesteaded property assessed value will increase by 2.9%. Deadline to file for homestead exemptions is March 1.
You can file your homestead exemption on-line now at: Homestead Exemptions Site
The Court of the Clerk introduced the Interim Inspector General to present the 2025 Audit Plan. The Full Audit Plan can be found at this link: SJC Audit Plan
Editorial Comment: As a former Chief Audit Executive, I appreciate the time and effort put into these plans and the transparency with the information. Frequently I see residents who are not familiar with Audit Standards and international Professional Practices Framework (IPPF) opine about what was or was not included in the audit reports. There is no evidence that St. Johns County is not adhering to standard audit practices.
Agenda Item 1a turned into the first surprise of the day. This was Consent Agenda Item 17 that Commissioner Murphy asked to move to the Regular Agenda for discussion.
The background materials for this item are here: Consent Agenda Item 17
This item was just to approve extension of the Grant Agreement for the funds to build the Shore Drive Trail.
As a reminder, this trail was approved by the County Commissioners on March 5, 2024. There was a public announcement of the project and the much lauded intent to honor the legacy of the late Commissioner Paul Waldron with this trail.
Read the announcement here: Paul Waldron Trail Announcement
At the time it was approved, a survey had been performed and over 50% of the respondents had been in favor of the project.
Commissioner Murphy brought the item forward for discussion so the approval could be revisited. After more public comment and discussion, the approval to extend the grant agreement was denied. Because the grant was specifically to build the trail, those funds cannot be used to build a sidewalk in the area. This effectively killing the project that had been approved in March of 2024.
No Trail and No Sidewalk to address the safety issues voiced by the residents.
Agenda Item 2 – Non Residential Concurrency – “At the December 17, 2024 meeting, the Board directed staff to bring back an agenda item to consider the removal of the non-residential transportation concurrency exemption. Staff are returning with an ordinance and supplemental information for discussion and direction. This item will come back to the Board for a vote on adoption no sooner than February 18, 2025.”
Watch the discussion and presentation here: Agenda Item 2 Presentation
Residents may have seen a news report on First Coast News last week that included some erroneous statements about this Agenda item. Commissioner Whitehurst asked if anyone from the news station had reached out to anyone at the County to confirm details in the story and they had not. Commissioner Whitehurst then asked a clarifying question about the statement in the article that commercial development is not paying any impact fees. Mr. D’Souza confirmed that is an incorrect statement, “everybody pays impact fees.” Commercial development is being assessed impact fees and paying impact fees.
Questions were asked about Buc’ee’s, Costco, and Wal-Mart not being included in assessments and paying fees. It was clarified that these trip counts were included in the DRI assessment for World Commerce Center and therefore did pay concurrency fees. This ordinance change being requested ONLY applies to commercial businesses outside of a DRI.
A question was asked about what would trigger a 100 trip threshold – response was a 10,000 sq foot day care center or a 25,000 sq ft medical office, or a fast food restaurant with a drive-through.
Commissioner Murphy asked if there had been any commercial development since the ordinance change in 2018 that would have triggered the concurrency fee assessment, and the response was that there had not been anything that large come through since 2018.
Commissioner Murphy shared that he would only be supportive of this if it protected the smaller businesses because the big box stores have the deep pockets and are going to come regardless.
He also asked for and received clarification that concurrency fees are paid up front by the developer and then that amount is used as a credit to buy down their impact fees that are paid at the time of construction. What that means is this is essentially a passthrough for big businesses but may be a barrier for a smaller business just trying to open up.
This is a complicated topic as there are components in the Comprehensive Plan and components in the Land Development Code. It is easy to get them confused. I do suggest you watch the presentation to hear the explanations from Mr. D’Souza.
What was clear during public comment is that most residents don’t understand that the big box stores are coming into areas of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) and they ARE paying the concurrency fees. This ordinance change would not impact those at all. From statements made it appeared that they did not hear the explanation that the big box stores WERE included in the concurrency fee assessments paid by the DRIs when they were approved and that they HAD paid concurrency fees.
Certainly no one anticipated a Buc’ee’s gas station when World Commerce Center was approved, but the developer DID pay concurrency fees at the time. This ordinance would have no impact on that or on the incoming Wal-Mart that was recently permitted.
There is also confusion about this one time FEE vs recurring TAXES that are paid by commercial and how this impacts the county’s revenue.
The motion to transmit this ordinance failed 3:2 (Joseph, Taylor)
Disclosure: As Chair of the St. Johns County Public Policy Committee, I did assist in the presentation of the Chamber’s opposition to this change. Our concern was the impact on our small businesses in the county that would not have been protected in this specifica ordinance.
Agenda item 3 – Morning Side Drive. appeal PVZVAR 2024-02 Approval – This is a repeal of a Ponte Vedra Zoning Board approval of an impervious surface ratio to accommodate a swimming pool.
The motion to uphold the zoning ruling passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 4 – Ponte Vedra lakes Boutique PUD -this was a request to incorporate a smaller piece of property into an existing PUD. Approved 5-0.
Agenda Item 5 – This is for a LAMP acquisition of property on Bishop Estates Road.
Highly ranked by the LAMP Board in 2024, there are 2 parcels that will be acquired by the County. The larger area is under consideration with the North Florida Land Trust to work with the Bailey family to perhaps run a horse therapy operation and to place some of the land in conservation.
Watch the presentation here: Bishop Road Estates Property Acquisition
This was approved 5-0.
The County Board recessed and the St. Johns County Community Redevelopment Agency convened.
Agenda Item 6 – Interlocal Agreement between the St. Johns County Community Redevelopment Agency and Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District. This item is to use Tax Improvement Funds (TIF) to support road improvements in Flagler Estates.
While in session as the CRA, Commissioner Murphy requested and received consensus to direct staff to present a utility cost funding item to address lighting infrastructure costs.
They reconvened as the Board of County Commissioners.
This was approved 5-0
Agenda Item 7 – Appointment of a St. Johns County Municipality member to the Northeast Florida Regoinal Council (NEFRC). Virginia Morgan of St. Augustine Beach was approved to replace former St. Augustine City Commissioner Roxanne Horvath.
Commissioner Reports
Commissioner Whitehurst raised concerns from residents of Shearwater who are requesting a sound wall to protect them from the noise of the coming First Coast Expressway. Commissioner Murphy suggested that the North Florida TPO could conduct a sound study to aid in moving this concern forward. By consensus this will move forward.
He also reminded folks about the Mobile Mammogram that will be at the Admin Building on February 25th.
And, congratulations to the St. Johns Golf Club for awards received from the PGA of America. Check out the Press Release here: St. Johns County Golf Club Recognitions
Commissioner Arnold – a big thank you to Senator Tom Leek for filing a bill to select St. Johns County as the location for the Florida Museum of Black History. Press Release is here: Bill to Support the Black History Museum
Commissioner Taylor – The second big surprise of the day came in Commission Taylor’s comments. She raised a concern about an email that she had received from a member of staff with allegations about inappropriate workplace behavior that had been ignored. In a surprising move, Commissioner Taylor read from the email specifics of the complaint. She stated that the complaint was public record since it was emailed to her. She indicated that the correspondence alleged it had been escalated to County Administrator Andrews and that she had failed to respond.
I strongly urge you to watch the entire discussion here and not rely on 3rd party interpretation of what was said. Commissioner Taylor Comments and discussion
This is 2 meetings in a row that Commissioner’s comments include targeted complaints about the County Administrator.
Commissioner Taylor read from a document that had clearly been prepared earlier and asked for a vote to have an independent investigation. Commissioner Joseph joined in the discussion reading further from the email about the culture in the county. She also asked for consensus for a firm from outside the county to conduct an independent workplace investigator.
When Attorney Komando was asked if they could proceed with requesting an outside investigation, he took the opportunity to point out this email was most likely NOT public record as there exemptions that are in place to protect the employee from any type of disclosure. He informed the board that the county does have an outside firm that would handle these types of complaints.
Commissioner Arnold asked if they could get more information before making a decision as she hadn’t seen the email.
Commissioner Joseph suggested a 10 minute recess to allow everyone to read it as it is “in everybody’s junk mail.”
Commissioner Murphy asked if it was reported to HR and if HR had performed an investigation.
County Administrator Andrews advised that she would not comment on the specifics of the case out of respect for the parties involved but it had been addressed and proper actions had been taken with HR and legal counsel involved.
Commissioner Joseph pushed that the employee who wrote the email had not had a response in 5 months. Administrator Andrews advised that she would be happy to share the timeline but declined to hash it out in public.
Commissioner Joseph asked for consensus to have the outside investigator perform the work. Mr. Kommando advised that this is something that would be done anyway, they did not need the direction from the board.
As follow up to this discussion point, I requested a copy of the email, if it was indeed public record. I was advised by the County legal staff that it is NOT public record and is covered under Florida State Statute 119.071(2)(g)1, (k), and (n).
The statute is here: Florida State Statues Link with referenced sections copied below.
“(g)1. All complaints and other records in the custody of any agency which relate to a complaint of discrimination relating to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status in connection with hiring practices, position classifications, salary, benefits, discipline, discharge, employee performance, evaluation, or other related activities are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution until a finding is made relating to probable cause, the investigation of the complaint becomes inactive, or the complaint or other record is made part of the official record of any hearing or court proceeding.”
“(k) A complaint of misconduct filed with an agency against an agency employee and all information obtained pursuant to an investigation by the agency of the complaint of misconduct is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution until the investigation ceases to be active, or until the agency provides written notice to the employee who is the subject of the complaint, either personally or by mail, that the agency has either:
1. Concluded the investigation with a finding not to proceed with disciplinary action or file charges; or
2. Concluded the investigation with a finding to proceed with disciplinary action or file charges.”
“(n) Personal identifying information of the alleged victim in an allegation of sexual harassment or the victim of sexual harassment is confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution if such information identifies that person as an alleged victim or as a victim of sexual harassment. Confidentiality may be waived in writing by the alleged victim or the victim. Such information may be disclosed to another governmental entity in the furtherance of its official duties and responsibilities. This paragraph is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s. 119.15 and shall stand repealed on October 2, 2027, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature.”
In a subsequent news story, the reporter indicated that someone had anonymously leaked the email addressed to Commissioner Joseph to the press. Let us hope that the investigation identifies who leaked the email as they would be in violation of the referenced state statute referenced above.
Commissioner Murphy shared that beginning 2/10 portions of Watson Road West will be closed and shared about the community meetings to discuss the closures.
Commissioner Joseph applauded Roads and Bridges in their timely response to resident’s complaints about potholes. She also raised a concern about Sprinter vans and how the ordinance can be changed to address these being classified as Recreational Vehicles.
Update on the county Attorney Search
After the first 30 days, the committed felt their pool was not large enough so advertised for an additional 30 days. They will close the advertisement on February 21. Interviews will begin March 5th with consideration by the Board hopefully by March 18th.
If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.
Beth Tate 
Excellent as usual. The cited statute should cause the Commissioner who read the email publicly to reconsider her actions.