The August 5th Commission meeting was long and included items that were not only important; they were contentious. We’ve been seeing fallout on social media for the past 2 weeks in response to the meeting. My intent here is to provide you links and data so you can read, watch, and come to your own conclusions based on your own impressions and not just soundbites you may see on social media.
The highlight of the opening was a presentation in Remembrance of Bobby Hall, former St. Johns County Fire Chief.
You can watch the video of the presentation here: Chief Bobby Hall Remembrance
Regular Agenda Items
Debate
There was an interesting dialog about additions and deletions to the Regular Agenda for the day. Commissioner Joseph asked to move Agenda Item 9, the Second Reading of proposed Amendments to the Land Development Code – Trees, to the August 19th Meeting. She indicated that they had just received a legal document an hour before the meeting and had not had time to read the document. Commissioner Taylor motioned to move the item to August 19 and Commissioner Murphy seconded.
A question was raised in Public Comment about whether they could hear it at this meeting and push the vote to August 19 because many people had planned to be at the meeting to speak about the ordinance. The County Attorney advised that since this was a noticed Public Hearing, the Commission has to hear Public Comment.
There was implied that the papers that had been delivered referenced a lawsuit against the County. Commissioner Whitehurst asked the county Attorney if anything in the document would change the information he had provided to them in their briefings as they prepared for the meeting. Attorney Kommando advised this was no different than public comment or an email from any other resident.
Commissioner Murphy suggesting amending the motion that if Commissioner Joseph needed to leave, they defer the hearing to the next meeting.
Commissioner Arnold suggested moving the item to Agenda Item 1, just in case Commissioner Joseph needed to leave.
Commissioner Taylor also pointed out she hadn’t had time to read the documents provided to her that morning.
Commissioner Arnold wanted it put on the record that the documents were delivered the day before, (August 4) and not just that morning. And asked again why it couldn’t be moved to the morning because it was not a time certain on the Agenda.
What was interesting about this debate was the question of when the referenced materials were received. On August 4, in the afternoon, there was a big push on social media for people to show up at a time certain of 1:00 to push back against the developers threatening to sue the County. There were posts complaining that the Developers had not given the residents time to organize against this late threat of a lawsuit. The question then is, how did a member of the public get this packet of information prior to Tuesday’s meeting if it was not delivered on Monday? And why was there a push to show up at a time certain of 1:00 when a time certain was not published on the agenda?
We don’t have the answers to those questions.
The motion to move the item to the 19th failed, 3:2 with Taylor and Joseph being the Yes votes.
Watch the discussion here: Discussion on Agenda Item 9
Background materials for Agenda Item 9: Agenda Item 9 – Tree Ordinance
Agenda Item 1 – E-Bike Safety Resolution
“A resolution promoting safety for operators of e-bikes, e-scooters, and other electronic motorized devices; encouraging safe usage practices, education, and enforcement efforts; and providing for an effective date.”
This is really more than just a Resolution and it’s important to understand everything they are doing in conjunction with the Resolution.
You can watch the presentation here: E-Bike Resolution Discussion
Director Martin from the Sheriff’s office shared a recap of what they have been doing regarding e-bikes over the summer and what the plans are going forward. SJSO has increased 1 X 1 communication with e-bike riders, created and updated pamphlets about e-bike safety, added QR codes that can be shared to help parents find information. They have had contacts with over 200 e-bike readers over the summer for enforcement or education. One of the big areas of education has involved educating parents to know what they are buying, before they make the purchase for their kids.
They shared that their current actions are to give education and a warning at first contact and enforcement at a second contact. The example provided was an e-bike rider who had been stopped and educated about wearing a helmet previously, was stopped again and this time given a ticket for not wearing a helmet.
They have also partnered with the School District to create opportunities to teach e-bike safety classes within the schools.
The schools have started with education in school assemblies, levels K-8. Commissioner Murphy has been leading a team to work on education solutions for our residents. A curriculum has been developed and the goal is to get that into the school system before Christmas of this year. This will be delivered to all 3 middle school grades before the winter break this year. They are also discussing e-bike camps for hands-on education. Additionally, they are working on web-based education that can be made available to anyone to view; parents, children, trainers, anyone with an interest.
The Resolution was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item 2 – Presentation of St. Johns County’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
“The Clerk of the Circuit and County Comptroller’s Office recently published the County’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year ending on September 30, 2024. The ACFR is prepared in accordance with Sections 218.32 and 218.39, Florida Statutes, and requires acceptance from the Board of County Commissioners. The County received an unmodified opinion on the fair presentation of its financial statements. The Board should accept the FY 2024 ACFR as audited by Forvis Mazars, the County’s auditing firm. This presentation will allow the Board the opportunity for further discussion with the auditors. The ACFR and SAS 114 letter are available on the Clerk’s website: Financial Report”
The auditors presented a clean audit report:
“The independent accounting firm of Forvis Mazars, LLP, whose report is included herein, has audited the county’s financial statements. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of the county are free of material misstatement. The independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by county management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Based upon the audit, Forvis Mazars, LLP concluded that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unmodified opinion that the county’s financial statements are fairly presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024.”
Some items were brought up during Public Comment on this item that are worth clarifying. There is frequently a reference to a fraud event in the SJSO that was investigated and addressed in 2021. Under Auditing Standards, the auditor only includes items pertinent to the current audit period. This report was for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024 so the 2021 Fraud event would not be included in the audit report unless it was on-going.
A question was asked about why an external auditor was paid to perform the audit. That is required by state statute (in addition to being best practice.) It’s important to have an independent audit firm conduct audits of any governmental or corporate organization.
The report was approved unanimously.
Agenda Item 3 – Enclave at World Golf (Workforce Housing)
“Request to rezone approximately 18.5 acres of land from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Workforce Housing (WH), located at 3740 Pacetti Road. The Planning and Zoning Agency (PZA) heard this request at their regularly scheduled public hearing on June 26, 2025. The Agency recommended denial with a vote of 4-2, with support of the denial made by members Hilsenbeck, Spiegel, Labanowski and Olson. Dissenting votes were cast by Perkins and Green. Member Matovina was absent. During the meeting, the applicant provided an updated Traffic Study and pointed out the desire to develop up to 63 townhomes on the subject site. Discussion was made regarding area road improvements, the affordable housing units within Samara Lakes, the effectiveness of the Workforce Housing product, whether eligible renter/buyer households would need to have dual incomes, and the increase in onsite wetlands, traffic, proposed U-turns, and student safety.”
This was denied 5-0
Agenda Items 5 & 6 – Schneider Family Campground
This was a request to rezone 77 acres of land from Open Rural to Commercial Rural with conditions. The property is located at 8000 US Hwy 1 South and is about 2.25 miles south of State Road 206.
There was much interesting discussion on this item, including concerns about a completely separate RV Resort. It was ultimately approved 5-0.
You can watch the video here: Agenda Items 5 & 6
Agenda Item 7 – Public Hearing on Proposed Increases to Solid Waste Special Assessments.
This is an item of import to every resident and there have been many questions and concerns about the increase. It is worth your time to watch the presentation and the Commissioner’s discussion before their vote.
I’m including slides here. Some important points that came out in the presentation:
- All homeowners pay the same rate for Waste Collection services; it is not pro-rated based on assessed value of your home or size of your lot. It’s the same for everyone.
- There is financial assistance available for those that cannot afford the fees. The County does not want to be in the business of placing liens on homes.
- The verbiage in the letter sent to residents is required by law.
- The fees included are the MAXIMUM that can be charged and the county will continue to work diligently to keep the costs low.
Further notes below.
Interesting note on Level of Service. The Level of Service in the bid was for Unlimited handling of each type of waste. Republic Service, that previously served the northern part of the county had already moved to automated service only for recycling and did not want to bid on Unlimited Waste handling for the full county.
Note that the 2nd lowest bid was significantly higher than FCC’s bid. Waste Management, who previously served the southern part of the county submitted a bid almost 2x the FCC Bid.
This is the full chart for 5 years. It is the maximum that could be charged.
The counties with an asterisk are in the process of evaluating their rates for 2026. Note that Clay County does not provide recycling pick-up.
During Public Comment concerns were raised about a few items:
- Short Term Rentals are not paying their fair share. They pay the same rate while they may have many times more trash cans to be picked up. The County confirmed this is something they are looking at addressing in the future.
- Some residents suggested eliminating recycling or changing it to every 2 weeks. This would increase the amount of waste tonnage to be dealt with so there would be little cost savings associated with such a move. Residents who do recycle heavily would also be negatively impacted.
- There were suggestions to go to every other week on yard waste. For many neighborhoods this would be an unacceptable level of service.
The motion to accept the maximum increase was approved 5-0.
Watch the discussion here: Agenda Item 8 – Waste Collection Fees
Agenda Item 9 – Proposed Amendments to the Land Development Code – Tree Ordinance
The County consultant presented the proposed updates to the Tree Ordinance
As anticipated based on the discussion at the beginning of the meeting, this was a contentious discussion. It is important to watch the discussion yourself and hear the explanations provided before coming to a conclusion about the final vote.
You can watch here: Agenda Item 9 – Tree Ordinance
The first motion, to approve all 3 changes was voted down, 2-3, with Murphy, Arnold and Whitehurst being the no votes.
After more discussion, the first two items, Specimen Tree Measurement and Tree Bank Fund Increase were approved 3-2 with Whitehurst and Arnold being the No votes.
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 