Posted in St. Johns County

What’s Coming up at the November 7 St. Johns County Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting

All regular County Commissioner meetings are the first and third Tuesdays of the Month in the County Auditorium at 500 San Sebastian View.

One highly anticipated item is on the agenda – the Ponte Vedra Resort PUD!


There are 3 Proclamations and one Certificate of Recognition to be presented at Tuesday’s Meeting.

  • Proclamation Recognizing November 11, 2023 as Veteran’s Day
  • Proclamation Recognizing November 2023 as National Adoption Month
  • Proclamation Recognizing November 15 – 17, 2023 as Entrepreneurship Week at the Link
  • Certificate of Recognition for 10 Years of West Augustine’s participation in Keep Calm and Walk for Cancer

Public Comment is at Time Certain of 11:30. This continues to cause some confusion as other presentations may be interrupted to allow for the Time Certain Public Comment. Remember to stick around and they will resume interrupted presentations after Time Certain Public Comment.

There is another Time Certain Agenda item on the November 7 Agenda and that is the Ponte Vedra Resort PUD. This will be heard at a Time Certain of 1:00.


Consent Agenda Items

There are 40 items on the Consent Agenda Several of the items are minor, related to easements for utilities.

Some items of note:

Consent Agenda Items 3 & 4

Granting a 10 year historic property partial ad valorem tax exemption for 301 North Main Street, and 316 North Main Street, Hastings, beginning January 1, 2024 and expiring December 31, 2034. Details are here: 301 North Main Street

Background:

“St. Johns County Ordinance No. 2022-55, St. Johns County Historic Preservation Property Tax Exemption Ordinance, applies county-wide and establishes procedures for application to and review by the Cultural Resource Review Board (CRRB) for private properties seeking a property tax exemption for improvements to historic preservation in accordance with Florida Statutes. This preservation incentive contributes to stimulating business investment for commercial projects and higher property value retention for residential neighborhoods. The application submitted to the County was approved by the CRRB on June 12, 2023. The historic ad valorem tax exemption application is now before the Board of County Commissioners to approve or deny the tax exemption beginning January 1, 2024 for a period of ten (10) years and for permission to enter into a covenant with the property owner as required by Florida Statutes.”

301 North Main Street

This structure was previously known as the Stanton Motors Building and has been in existence since 1927. At the time, this was the oldest family-owned Ford dealership in Florida. The structure was determined to be a Significant Cultural Resource by the Cultural Resource Review Board in June of 2022. As part of the revitalization of Historic Main Street Hastings, this building as had extensive rehabilitation including restoration of interior and exterior deterioration, roof repair, and removal of accumulated debris.

The amount of the exemption is to be determined by the Property Appraisor.

Follow the link above to see historic pictures of the building.

316 North Main Street

There are two structures located at 316 N Main Street. The main structure was known as the “Big Brick Garage” while the second structure was used as the print shop for the Hastings Herald. These structures were determined to be Significant Cultural Resources by the Cultural Resource Review Board (CRRB) in August of 2022. The rehabilitation of the structures located at 316 N Main Street included repair of fire damage, vandalism, and restoration of interior and exterior deterioration.

Pictures of this building can be seen in the presentation at this link: 316 North Main Street


Consent Agenda Item 5

This is a School Concurrency agreement for the Browning Subdivision that was approved by the School Board in the October 10, 2023 School Board Meeting.

Link to the Concurrency Agreement here: Browning Concurrency Agreement

NOTE: Concurrency agreements were discussed in the Joint Meeting of the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners. If the School Board has approved the Concurrency Agreement, the development process continues forward to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. If the School Board votes NO, and does not approve the Concurrency Agreement, the developer cannot continue forward in the process.  They must either wait for capacity to be available or continue working with the School Board to gain approval of Concurrency. The Board of County Commissioners cannot consider the school conditions as part of their review process if the School Board has approved the Concurrency.


Consent Agenda Item 27 is awarding a bid for the construction of the CR 2209 Extension Central Segment. This segment is a four-lane from Silverleaf Drive to State Road 16 and includes a twelve-foot multi-use path, five foot sidewalks, and a stormwater pond.

The back-up materials are at this link: CR 2209 Construction


Regular Agenda Items

Item 1 is a presentation of Total Earned Unused and Undistributed Revenue. No presentation on-line as of Friday.

Item 2

Approval and Recognition of FIND Grant Project Agreement for Genovar Land Acquisition

“On February 7, 2023, the Board approved the submission of a Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) grant application for reimbursement of Genovar land acquisition costs. FIND awarded a $1,055,500 grant for acquisition of the 31 acres of Genovar property located North of SR 312 and South of Nix Boat Yard and situated along the San Sebastian River with deep water access for a public boat ramp, parking, and passive recreation. Parks and Recreation is requesting authorization to sign FIND Project Agreement #SJ-23-217 for Genovar Land Acquisition.”

Background materials are here: Genovar Land Acquisition


Item 3 – REZ 2023-10 135 Nix Boat Yard

Link to materials: Nix Boat Yard

“Request to Rezone approximately 0.59 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Commercial Warehouse (CW) with conditions, specifically located at 135 Nix Boat Yard Road. The Planning and Zoning Agency heard this request at their regularly scheduled public hearing on October 5, 2023, and recommended approval with a vote of 5-0. Agency members discussed the previous daycare facility and when it relocated. There was one public comment that questioned the buffering, traffic, parking and proposed clientele. In response, the applicant discussed a proposed 20/B buffer; since the PZA hearing, the applicant has included an additional condition to the Rezoning that states a 20/B buffer will be installed and maintained on the west side of the property adjacent to the existing Commercial Office.”

Application Summary:

“The Applicant is seeking to rezone approximately 0.59 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Commercial, Warehouse (CW) with conditions. The applicant’s narrative states the recent use of the property was a Daycare Center and points out that the surrounding properties are commercial. The narrative states that the request for a Commercial Warehouse zoning would allow a local business to further grow; the new owner of the property is Fishbites Trading LLLP which manufactures and distributes artificial baits worldwide. The applicant provides the following conditions to the zoning: • Uses are limited to light manufacturing, production, packaging and shipping, and associated office space and showroom • All uses shall be fully enclosed inside buildings with no outdoor storage • Loading zones shall be permitted • The applicant waives any right to develop the property pursuant to the Live Local Act, Chapter 2023- 17 Laws of Florida, and any subsequent amendment • ADDED since PZA 10/05/2023: The applicant will install and maintain a 20/B buffer on the west side of the property adjacent to the existing Commercial Office.”

More details in my post on the October 5 PZA Meeting: October 5 PZA Agenda Blog


Item 5 is the First Reading of Proposed Amendments to the St. Johns County Beach Code.

Link to materials here: 1st Reading of Updated Beach Codes

This came about as a result of a request from Commissioner Alaimo at the October 3, 2023 Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting.

The specific changes related to the use of electric bikes, drones, and motor vehicles on St. Johns County beaches.

Section 3.14 – Aircraft

No one operating, directing or responsible for any aircraft, seaplane, helicopter, glider, balloon, dirigible, parachute, drone or other aerial apparatus shall take off from or land within park property or the beach.

Section 3.15 – Electric Motorized Devices

It shall be unlawful for any person to:

  • Operate any e-bike, e-scooter, or other electric motorized device in a careless manner. Careless operation of an e-bike, e-scooter, or other electric motorized device shall include but is not limited to:

1. Operation of an e-bike, e-scooter, or other electric motorized devices with another person on the handlebars or in any position in front of the operator;

2. Operation of e-bike, e-scooter, or other electric motorized devices at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions, having regarded to the actual and potential hazards then existing, including but not limited to, the safety of the operator or any other person or property;

3. Failing to yield to pedestrians;

4. Weaving in and out of pedestrians traffic or stationary beachgoers;

5. Operation of e-bike with more riders, operators, or passengers than for which it was designed; or

6. Any occurrence where inadvertence to the safe and normal operational procedures of the e-bike, e-scooter, or other electric motorized devices causes or is likely to cause damage to any person or property.

All operators shall at all times yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and shall take such precautions as may be necessary before parking, or before moving a vehicle previously parked, to avoid accident or collisions with or injury to any persons or property.

Section 5 Traffic and Parking Regulations

Section 5.03 Prohibited Acts

(k) Operate any motor vehicle so as to intentionally cause sand to be thrown into the air or across any beach area.


Agenda Items 6 and 7 are consideration of appointments to the Contractors Review Board and the Cultural Resources Review Board.


Item 7 is the Time Certain 1:00 Hearing of the Ponte Vedra Resort PUD.

This item has been hotly debated across in the press, in public meetings, and on social media.

“Request to rezone approximately 90.5 acres of land from Open Rural (OR), Single Family Residential District (R-1-B), Single Family Residential District (R-1-C), Multiple Family Residential District (R2), Commercial District (R-3), and Recreational District (R-4) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow the redevelopment of resort lodging, restaurant, recreational, commercial, and office facilities within the Ponte Vedra Inn & Club and the Lodge Property.”

Link to materials is here: Ponte Vedra Resort PUD


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.

Posted in PZA, St. Johns County

What’s Ahead at the St. Johns County Planning and Zoning Agency Meeting on November 2

Planning and Zoning Agency (PZA) meets the 1st and 3rd Thursdays each month at 1:30 in the County Auditorium at 500 San Sebastian View

The Full Agenda for Thursday is here: PZA Agenda


Agenda Item 1 is in District 3

Woodlawn Apartments – a request for a Zoning Variance to replace 24 unused parking spaces with an approximately 7,560 square foot recreation area, located at 200 S. Woodlawn Street.

Agenda Item 2, also in District 3

A request by Mavis Tires for a Non-Zoning Variance to allow three (3) proposed building signs to exceed the required maximum Advertising Display Area (ADA) of 200 square feet per business by approximately 58 square feet, located at 1960 State Road 207.

Agenda Item 3, District 5

A request from Texas Roadhouse for a Non-Zoning Variance to allow for a Pole Sign height of 120 feet in lieu of the 85-foot maximum height as currently allowed within the St. Augustine Centre PUD. This is on Outlet Center Drive.

Site location for Texas Roadhouse

Agenda Item 4, back to District 3

Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for a Manufactured/Mobile Home as a residence in Residential, Single Family (RS3) at 900 West 4th Street.


Agenda Item 5, District 2

Request from Down Yonder for a Special Use Permit to allow for on-site sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages in connection with a proposed restaurant. This is located at 2455 State Road 16, a former Denny’s restaurant.


Agenda Item 6, District 1

Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for an indoor/outdoor wedding and special event venue, located at 2353 State Road 13 N; request includes the Emergency Vehicle Access to the Pole Barn is by way of adjoining property at 2369 State Road 13 N. Request includes the Emergency Vehicle Access to the Pole Barn is by way of adjoining property located at 2369 State Road 13 N. This property was previously a private grammar school.

If this one sounds familiar, it was originally heard by the PZA on March 3, 2022 and approved by the PZA at that time 5-2. There was a concern about compatibility within the Res-B designation and this being primarily a residential area. Concerns from the public included potential noise, how many people may be present and alcohol consumption. A nearby neighbor expressed concerns about music during events.

The project did not commence within the 1-year deadline so the Order became void. The applicant has provided minor changes to the plans including emergency access to the pole barn from an adjacent site and not using the northern buildings as part of the event venue.

Location of proposed Wedding Venue

Agenda Items 7 & 8 are minor setback variance requests.

Agenda Items 9 & 10 are in District 3

These 2 items are from Sushi 99 St. Augustine. Both are related to a request for a Special Use Permit to allow for the on-site sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages at 270 Plaza Boulevard, Suite 1 and 2. One is to allow the on-site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and the other is to allow the same within 1000 ft. of a church.

A similar request was approved in 2022, in the same shopping center, for Publix to sell package alcohol within 1000 ft. of a church.

Site location with proximity to existing church

Agenda Item 11, District 5

This request is for a Major Modification to the Twin Creeks PUD to add a new access connection point along CR 210 West for the Light Industrial parcel located to the south.

“The new access will be a right-in right-out (RIRO) road intersection and does not propose a full median opening in this location. The request is being made in order to facilitate reasonable access to the JEA utility site that is located in this Light Industrial area, which is currently being accessed via a temporary access point located along CR 210 W. Additionally, the new access point is part of the County’s ongoing efforts to work with the developers of Twin Creek DRI/PUD to improve traffic in area, including the widening CR 210 West.”

Location of new access point

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.

Posted in BOCC, PZA, St. Johns County

What’s Ahead this Week in St. Johns County Government

This week has some important meetings on the St. Johns County Government calendar.

Start Monday, October 30, with a “Meet and Greet” from 4 – 6 PM in the County Auditorium.

The final candidates for the St. Johns County Administrator position will be on hand for you to get an in-person look at who is in the final running.

Oh, and they’ll be serving Ice Cream if meeting the candidates isn’t enough to entice you!

photo from Canva

On Tuesday, October 31, beginning at 9:00 AM in the County Auditorium, the County Commissioners will conduct interviews of the four final candidates for the county Administrator position. These will be conducted in public, with the candidates recusing themselves from each others interviews.

This puts a panel interview into a whole new light, with the public in person and observing your interview!

You can watch them live on GTV. Link to GTV


Moving ahead to November, the Planning and Zoning Agency will have it’s first meeting of the month on Thursday, November 2, at 1:30 in the County Auditorium. I’ll be sharing the Agenda soon.


Interested in the Beach Management Plan?

On Friday, November 3, the County will be conducting discussions with the top 2 ranked firms for this project. Discussions in the County Auditorium will be closed to the public but recorded “in accordance with public records laws.”

At the conclusion of the discussions, there will be a public evaluation meeting to announce the updated scores for the 2 finalists.

Presentation Schedule

9:30 AM – 10:10 AM

Olsen Associates, Inc.

10:20 AM – 11:00 AM

Atkins North America, Inc.

11:15 AM

Final Ranking Meeting (Public Meeting)


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.

Posted in BOCC, St Johns County Schools, St. Johns County

Recap of the Joint Meeting of the St. Johns County School Board and the Board of County Commissioners

Yesterday was a rare occurrence, a joint meeting of the 2 Board that have the future of our County in their hands.

The live audience was sparse, with more School District and County employees on hand than general public. This may be because of short notice and little publicity about the meeting.


The meeting opened with a surprise guest invited by Commissioner Chair, Christian Whitehurst.

Commissioner Whitehurst had met with Senator Travis Hutson last week and discussed some of the items on the agenda for the joint meeting. He invited Senator Hutson to speak to the group. As he introduced Senator Hutson, he pointed out that the school concerns are a “three-legged stool” with the School District, the County, and the delegation in Tallahassee providing solutions.

Senator Hutson shared that he had already begun some work on deregulation around education. He noted that St. Johns County has always been a high growth county, since he was elected to the House, working with Senator Thrasher at the time, they brought millions of dollars back to the county for education. He shared that the money that can be brought back to the county is based on a mathematical formula based on the needs and performance of the county.

Last year the total funds that could be used were about $40 million in total and 3 or 4 other counties made that list, with St. Johns County falling to be bottom of that list. Out of that dollar amount, St. Johns County only got about $1 million based on needs, compared to the other counties on the list.

He noted this is a statewide issue. There are policies on the books that have “hamstrung” the school districts with the bureaucracy. Example is that you have to build schools to hurricane standards now. This is requiring schools to be built to higher standards than necessary and that increases the cost. Not all schools need to be built that way – changing this formula could allow funds to be used for additional schools, not hardening schools.

There are also limits on how specific dollars can be spent for specific uses. That means dollars are tied to very specific uses – they can’t be used for other uses.

In the next couple of weeks, they will be launching a series of deregulation bills (for education) and will be working directly with the school board and others to refine those bills. Senator Hutson’s bills will be specifically about construction and the physical impact. He has a draft, but it is not ready for prime time.

During comments from the dais for Senator Hutson, School Board Member Canan mentioned the frustrations about money for the teachers as well as some of the mandates that are placed on teachers by Tallahassee.

Commissioner Dean took the time to point out that many of the homes that are being built today were actually approved long before the existing School Board and County Commissioners were on the boards.; 80% of the homes constructed since 2016 were approved during the process between 2000 and 2008. Roughly 40,000 homes remain to be built that were approved prior to 2008.

You can watch Senator Hutson’s comments and the following discussion at this link: Senator Travis Hutson Remarks


Overview of the School Construction Funding Process

Next up was School Superintendent Tim Forson and a presentation on how new schools are funded.

Mr. Forson talked about the complexity of funding sources for building new schools.

There are 2 silos of budget funds, Operating Funds and Capital Funding. The two funds cannot be intermingled or used for other purposes. Operating Funds are more Human Resources focused, daily operations of the schools. Capital Funding is for buildings.

He shared that when the county was building schools in 2006, 2007, and 2008, there were significant state dollars that were used with local dollars to build the schools. That state funding is now gone.

Today, new construction of schools falls on the local communities. State sources and PECO (Public Education Capital Outlay) funding no longer exists. That is not because the state is not allocating the funds; it is because the funding sources have dried up.

NOTE: PECO funding comes from the state gross receipts tax from the sale of electricity, gas, and communications services (cable, cell phones, and land lines). As these tax receipts have decreased, so has funding for PECO.

There is no state source that will help build schools in today’s environment.  

Commissioner Dean asked about the money from the Florida Lottery that is supposed to fund education. The lottery money is largely for Bright Futures, not K-12 education.

Looking at Local Sources, there are 4 primary sources:

  • Local Discretionary Capital Outlay Millage (was 2.0, is now 1.5 mills)
  • School Impact Fees
  • School Concurrency Proportionate Share Mitigation Payments
  • Half-Cent Sales Surtax

Capital Outlay millage can ONLY be spent on capital projects.

Impact fees are tiered based on the value of the home – timing is an issue.

School Proportionate Share Mitigation are based on a formula that is applied to a new construction project.

The Half-Cent surtax can only be spent on the four designated categories:

  • Meeting the Needs of an Increasing Student Population
  • Maintain High Quality Educational Facilities
  • Provide New Technology to Prepare Children for 21st Century Learning
  • Continue to Keep Children Safe

Timing of the sources:

The Millage is property tax – the school district doesn’t see that until the first time a property owner pays their property taxes. They money has to accumulate over time to fund new construction. Timeline is about 18 months before the district sees that money.

School Impact fees – paid by the homeowner when the new home is closed on.

School Concurrency fees – Mitigation fees. When a large project is phased, the proportionate share is paid when they are ready to move forward on a project. This is money that the school district gets in advance.

Sales Tax – purely economically driven

Why don’t more of these funding sources come earlier? It is taxpayer dollars and you can’t get too far ahead of the funding sources.

Not every county has Impact Fees and not every county does the work on the Proportionate Share funds. This is because not every county has capacity issues.

Not every county has the additional sales tax revenue for funding.

Observation was made that Florida’s funding of schools is not the same as other states and that can be confusing for parents coming from other states. The tax structures are so different as well as how schools are funded.

Commissioner Dean raised a question about the common belief that new schools cannot be built until the schools are at least 50% over capacity.

Answer? Statutes have changed over the years, since Mr. Forson has been involved since 2006, they have never been held from building a school because of a capacity number issue. They create a 5 year work plan, develop that workplan, and it’s approved. What stands in the way is the flow of dollars, not the state saying yes, you can build or no you can’t build.

You do need to build new schools at a size to operate in the black – there must be enough funding based on numbers of students to operate in the black.

The bonding capacity IS regulated by the state so the reduction in Millage from 2 to 1.5 did have an impact. They must complete a project before they can issue more bonds.

NOTE! School Board members have been perpetuating this urban legend – refer them back to this presentation the next time you hear it!

Commissioner Joseph asked if the School Board wanted more input into the approval of new homes.

Mr. Forson pointed out there are some legal considerations into how that happens. There are statutory and local requirements and mandates that drive the process. He did point out, they are at the table. The School Board does see the project and approves the mitigation portion before it goes to the Board of Commissioners.

School Board Member Mr. Canan wanted to refer the audience to the sales tax portion of the funding and underscore its importance. This was voted on and put in place at a time when school funds were drying up and there was no money for new schools. He asked Mr. Forson what the sales tax had funded.

Response:

  • 2 new schools
  • 2 partial schools that would probably have been only 1 school
  • 1 school expansion
  • 5,655 student stations have been built as a result of sales tax

The district would probably have about 4000 fewer seats in the system.

Mr. Forson indicated that In 10 years, the district has grown by 13,467 students to 52,000 students. Doing some fact checking, numbers in 2012 were 32,187 and numbers today are at ~52,000.

During that time, they have built 9 new schools, 3 expansions, and 3 are under construction now.

40% of that construction was based on sales tax funding.

There was further discussion about communication between the School Board and the County Commissioner’s regarding approval of new developments. Both School Board representatives and County representatives emphasized there is communication, and the School Board is engaged and aware of all new developments. They determine the proportionate fair share the developers pay and that is approved by the School Board before the Commissioners make their determination.

You can watch Mr. Forson’s presentation here: Superintendent Forson’s Presentation


Presentation of school-related infrastructure projects

Colin Groff Interim Deputy County Administrator presented on the Infrastructure projects.

He began the discussion with an explanation about the concurrency and proportionate share process.

When a developer brings forward a project, before anyone on the Board of Commissioners sees it for approval, that project has gone through the School Board and they have looked at the concurrency and said, “yes we have the capacity.” If they do not sign off on the project, it stops right there and does not move forward until the capacity deficit is addressed.

If the capacity is not there, the developer may choose to pause, or to pay the proportionate share agreement that is approved by the School Board for the developer to fund their portion of future schools.

Important to note that the process stops and the project does not move forward to the County Commissioners for review unless there is capacity or an agreement to fund future capacity. The School Board does play a role in that process.


Capital Project Updates

Dr. Asplen presented on the current school projects. He answered a question about a new High School with a projected date of around 2027 – 2028.


Colin Groff presented on the school related Infrastructure Projects


Adam Teckler, Legislative Affairs Manager, presented some next steps.

State Board of Education Report is due by November 1

Purpose is to reduce unnecessary regulation on public schools. Expected to review cost per student station formula and options for high growth school districts. May also address student transportation.


After a brief recess, they heard Public Comment.

Public comments were shared about:

  • Teacher pay
  • Appreciation for this meeting and hope for continued joint meetings
  • Don’t forget the older communities and their school needs
  • Need for more middle schools and high schools

You can watch the entire presentation at this link: https://stjohnscountyfl.new.swagit.com/videos/277579


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.

Posted in BOCC, St. Johns County

What Happened at the October 17 St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners Meeting?

Tuesday’s meeting was long and contentious. No doubt you’ve seen some social media coverage and local news coverage of some of the topics covered.

I’ll try to break it down for you here and provide you links and source information to form your own opinions.


The meeting opened with a Recognition Award for Commissioner Sarah Arnold.

The St. Johns County Professional Firefighters Association presented an award to Commissioner Arnold in recognition of her efforts to establish a Mental Health program for the Firefighters. The award was presented by David Stevens, President of the St. Johns County Professional Fire Fighters. He shared a moving story about what it is like being a firefighter and the mental/emotional toll it takes to do the job day-in and day-out. He reminded us of the 3 firefighters lost to mental health issues in last year.

He explained the tradition of the presentation of the fire ax to an individual. Because the fire ax is a tool that represents saving lives, it is generally reserved for those who have saved lives, like a retired fireman who spent his entire career helping people. On special occasions, they present that ax to elected officials who have put forward legislation or initiatives that help and save firemen.

He noted that one year ago, Commissioner Arnold proclaimed men and women in fire rescue are in crisis and rallied her fellow commissioners to put forward the initiative for mental health that is in place today. They declared, “Commissioner Arnold, you are our hero.”

The representation from the fire department was large. It was quite moving to see the presentation.

You can watch it here: Firefighter’s Presentation to Sarah Arnold


This was followed by a Proclamation recognizing the 100th Anniversary of Kiwanis of St. Augustine

The third proclamation of the morning was timely. St. Johns County has been recognizing St Johns County Israel Friendship Day for 3 years. The timing of this year’s proclamation falls during a horrific time for Israel.

You can watch the presentation here: St. Johns County Israel Friendship Day

We learned during the acceptance of the proclamation that much aid has been sent from St. Johns County already. The Rabbis who spoke expressed appreciation for the support and love that they have felt from the community.

Commissioner Dean read a resolution of support for Israel into the record, as it defends itself from the war from Hamas. You can watch and hear the resolution here: St. Johns County Resolution for Israel


Public Safety Update

Director Beaver from the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office emphasized that the Jewish community should know SJSO is staying on top of what is going on and monitoring. Sheriff Hardwick has been reaching out personally to the Jewish Community. He shared that just a few months ago members of the staff visited Israel.

Interim Fire Chief Sean McGhee shared a story from last week’s news of a St. Johns County Fire Rescue K-9 providing a blood transfusion for a K-9s for Warriors K-9 in Duval County.


Consent Agenda

For the Consent Agenda, Commissioner Joseph asked to pull Items 8 and 33, suggesting that Item 8 should be sent back to the LAMP Board for review. Both items were moved to the Regular Agenda for discussion.

Attorney Migut reported that the applicant would like to pull Agenda Item 2.


Regular Agenda

Before beginning the Regular Agenda, Commissioner Joseph asked if Item 3 could be moved forward to Item 1, because there were many in the audience there for just Item 3.

Commissioner Whitehurst expressed concern that there were many residents from Rock Springs Farms for Item 2 and they had been waiting several months for this item to make it to the agenda. He indicated items 1 and 2 should go quickly so the agenda was not altered.


Item 1 was a request for a Non-Zoning variance to waive roadway standards to allow the building of a single-family home on a lot on Hickory Lane. This item was presented by the landowner who wishes to build a home on the property they purchased on Hickory Lane. Three neighbors spoke in opposition to the request. The variance was approved unanimously.

Item 2 was the long awaited Rock Springs Farms PUD modification that would release the HOA from maintaining the county owned public park. For several months residents of Rock Springs Farms have been coming and asking for relief from maintaining the County owned park. Commissioner Alaimo championed addressing the situation and it was finally brought to the Agenda. After a very well done presentation by the President of the HOA, the modification was approved unanimously.


Agenda Item 3 was a discussion item for the Review and Analysis of 14 Goals introduced at the July 18, 2023 Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting. In the published materials for this item there was no ordinance proposed, just an analysis of the goals and how they might become part of the Land Development Code.

This was the hot topic of the day and took a long time, interrupted by General Public Comment at Time Certain of 11:30. I’ll consolidate the Tree discussion and update on the General Public Comment in a separate section.

The discussion on trees spanned over three hours with the break for public comment. While it was posted on the Agenda as a Discussion item, there were many emails and social media posts encouraging people to attend and make their voices heard. Many people came into the meeting expecting this to be a vote on a new Ordinance to protect trees.

I’m including a link that starts at the beginning of the discussion and will also include a link to the subsequent discussions with the Board that will be of interest. My intent is to make it easier for all to follow and learn.

Here is the presentation on the 14 goals: Background materials on the Tree Goals

Pages 1 – 38 of the presentation are largely background.

Staff found several of the goals were interrelated, so they combined items where appropriate.

You can watch the presentation by staff here: Staff Presentation on Tree Recommendations

Goals 1 and 2 – Lots of Record – Proposed: Lots of Record east of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) and Lots one acre or larger west of the ICW shall provide 80” of trees per acre through preservation or replanting.

Goal 6 is for the Tree Bank – Proposed: Update the Tree Bank Fund Fee

Two options presented.

  • Option 1: Payment is the current market value of average cost of the purchase of replacement trees.
  • Option 2: $150 per lost tree inch.

Goal 11 is for the Commercial Exemption – Proposed: Delete the exemption for commercial projects.

Three Options presented:

  • Current Tree Bank Fee – Cost: 80” removed = 80” X $25 = $2000
  • Average cost of a 2” Live Oak is $442. Cost: 80” removed = 4:2” trees or 40 X $442 = $17,680
  • $150 per lost tree inch. Cost: 80” removed = 80” X $150 = $12,000

Goal 3 is for Specimen Trees – Here are the three slides explaining Specimen Trees:

Goals 4, 8, and 9 were for Development Buffers, Natural Vegetation, and Grading. Proposed:

  • Keep natural or undisturbed as much as possible buffers of original, natural vegetation/trees to protect neighboring properties.
  • Preserve minimum of 20% of upland natural vegetation, not including Upland Buffers
  • Disallow grading with 15 feet of a property line or buffer

Goal 7 is for Early Clearing – Proposed: Eliminate the Clearing and Grading Construction Plan application. Developers that do have clear plans for construction will submit construction plans and request early land clearing with the first round of construction plan review, tying the clearing to eminent construction of the development.

Goal 10 is for Drainage – Proposed: Attention must be given in the planning stage by county staff to drainage so that the water table in preserves does not change post-construction.

Goal 12 is Tree Bank Fund Use – Proposed: Ensure that disbursement of funds from the county’s tree bank goes 100% towards the purchase and installation of trees. Disbursement of the Tree Bank Fund shall be made only with approval of the BCC.

Goal 13 is for Pine Trees – Pine Trees are typically grown as “crop trees” and are an important part of our silviculture. They have been on the “Exempt” list of trees considered for tree inch value. The proposal is to keep exempt, except for Slash and Longleaf Pines.

Goal 14 is Notifications – Proposed: Notice to homeowners within 300’ of clear cutting, prior to cutting.

Goal 5 is Increase Fines – Proposed: Trees removed illegally should be subject to a fine 10X the current fine to discourage such violations.

At the conclusion of the staff presentation, Commissioner Joseph clarified that it was not her intent to force people to put trees on their property.

Public Comment – 39 people spoke during Public Comment on the analysis. The majority were for doing something to save the trees. Some agreed that something needs to be done, but to proceed with thought and caution. No one was in direct and full opposition to updating the Land Development Code to provide for saving trees.

The topic then came back to the Board for discussion.

You can watch the discussion at this link: Board Discussion on Tree Goals

It’s worth a watch to get the full context of the discussion and form your own opinions. Here’s a brief synopsis:

Commissioner Joseph asked for consensus to move through each item, one by one. Other Board members did not respond to that request.

Commissioner Joseph tried to initiate discussion about Item one with no response from the other Commissioners. She then moved onto item six about the Tree Bank. Again, there was no input from others.

Commissioner Dean spoke and shared that he had come into the meeting with the expectation that this was a “listening and learning” experience. He thanked Commissioner Joseph for bring it forward and said he had thought today was a day to listen and learn, hear from the public, give it further thought and then come back with a suggestion going forward.

Commissioner Dean called out areas that he thought he could support:

  • Some limitation on clear cutting
  • Preserving our buffers
  • Higher permit fees
  • Higher fines for violations
  • Some increase in conservation of trees for PUDs.

He did want to hear more from the public and wants to look at this in the context of Comp Plan amendments that the county is undertaking.

He stated he was impressed with a number of the recommendations but was just not prepared to vote on them Tuesday. He said that did not mean he was not in favor of the others; it just meant he didn’t have enough information on the other 9 items.

Commissioner Whitehurst added his thoughts that he was very much in favor of conservation but wanted to understand any negative consequences. He has concerns that this could violate Florida statutes and could cause higher prices for homes and that would harm the middle classes in St. Johns County.

Commissioner Joseph made a point that many people had come to the meeting Tuesday with the expectation that something would be voted on. Her view was this was “sad” and she hoped “everybody remembers this in a year when some of those people run for re-election.”

Commissioner Alaimo spoke up and echoed Commissioner Dean’s thoughts that he wasn’t prepared to vote on these items thinking it was just a discussion item. He referenced the work on the Comp Plan and shared that he thought this would be the time to review and get input from experts on the revisions. He expressed the concern that if this was going to cost the developers money, they would just pass that on to the home buyer. He wants to get more input from the public during the Comp Plan related Town Halls.

Commissioner Arnold thanked the staff for all the work they had put into the analysis. Her opinion was they need more analysis with subject matter experts and that this is premature.

Commissioner Whitehurst said he just couldn’t vote on something that could increase the cost of a home in St. Johns County.

Commissioner Joseph made a motion to move forward the 5 items Commissioner Dean had mentioned. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion.

There was additional public comment on the motion with 10 people speaking.

Interim Administrator Andrews brought up the Comprehensive Plan updates and that this is one element of the Comprehensive Plan. She shared the timeline for the process and the Town Halls that are to begin in November.

Commissioner Alaimo asked for clarification on the Motion that had been put on the floor.

Editorial Note: No one could clearly articulate what the actual motion was. I have received calls, emails, and texts during and since the meeting asking me for clarity on the motion. In the video you can see the confusion about what was being voted on.

Commissioner Dean shared more insight into his thinking. He clarified that the reason he made the second for the motion was that there is a clear path to use the plan and the process to engage the public more and to engage the staff to address questions and get any misconceptions cleared up. He wanted to be clear that the changes need to be clearly vetted and understood before they make a decision.

Commissioner Joseph wanted to keep the motion as made today because it will be a year before the Comp Plan changes come to fruition.

Commissioner Alaimo shared that he believes this should be part of the Comprehensive Plan and the process in place for that plan.

Commissioner Arnold agreed with that position.

The motion was finally voted on and failed, 3-2, with Arnold, Whitehurst, and Alaimo voting No.


General Public Comment

General Public Comment at time certain 11:30 started with a surprise entry from former Fire Chief Scott Bullard.

You can watch Mr. Bullard’s comments, followed by others in support of Mr. Bullard, at this link; Bullard’s Public Comment

Mr. Bullard spoke in defense of his career and spoke against recent actions of the Interim County Administrator and one Commissioner. He is seeking to be returned to his former role of Battalion Chief and be allowed to finish his career in St. Johns County.

Others, including Mr. Bullard’s wife, spoke in his defense, as well.

David Stevens, President of the Firefighter’s Association, spoke up and shared examples of actions that Mr. Bullard had taken that led to the complaints levied against Mr. Bullard.

Mr. Stevens comments can be heard here: David Stevens Comments


Regular Agenda Item 5 was the Agreement between the St. Johns County Community Redevelopment Agency and Vilano Beach Main Street, Inc. This was approved unanimously.

Regular Agenda Item 6 was an update from County Attorney David Migut on the County Administrator Recruitment Process.

The list of candidates had been narrowed down from 105 to 5 by the selection committee:

  • Joy Andrews
  • Scott Andrews
  • Sarah Campbell
  • James “Jim” G. Doar
  • James “Jim” K. Harriott, Jr.

Mr. Scott Andrews has withdrawn from the process.

The Board was able to vote on the final interview slate. They could have added to or taken away from the candidates recommended by the selection committee.

Previous meetings regarding the selection process can be reviewed here:

October 6 – Public Meeting for County Administrator Recruitment

October 9 – Selection Committee Interviews

October 30 has been set aside as a day that the Commissioners can interview the finalists one on one, in private, if they choose.

Also on October 30, there will be a public “Meet the Next county Administrator” ice cream social event from 4 – 6 PM on October 30th in the Rotunda of the Administration Building.

There will be a special Board of County Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, October 31 at 9:00 AM. The Board will interview the candidates selected Tuesday. The meeting is open to the public. Candidates have been asked to recuse themselves from the meeting so as not to give any candidate an advantage, having seen the other questions and answers provided.

They chose to proceed with the 4 candidates.


Agenda Item 7 was the Consent Agenda Item 8 regarding a proposed Land Management Plan from the LAMP Board. This item was sent back to the LAMP board for further discussion and a more clear recommendation.

Agenda Item 8 was the Consent Agenda Item 33 about a resident serving on 2 appointed Boards. After discusson with the attorney, it was determined this would be allowed and did not set a precedent as the Board as the ability to approve any future such situations.

Commissioner’s reports

After a very long day, the Commissioner’s reports were rather light. Of note was Commissioner Whitehurst’s comments that Wednesday, October 18 marked the one year anniversary of the loss of Commissioner Paul Waldron. There will be a memorial celebration of his life sometime in December.


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.