EDITED: I HAD INADVERTENTLY PICKED UP THE WRONG LINE ITEM FOR KENALL REQUESTS 2285 AND 2136. THE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BELOW.
The 2025 Florida Legislative Session opened on Tuesday, March 4. In my last update I outlined the process that is generally used as County’s request Legislative Funding. I used the very important request for funding to address the traffic issues at I-95 and International Golf Parkway as an example of the process.
This week I’ll provide an update on that specific request and some of the questions asked, as well as sharing a list of all Appropriations requests I could locate for St. Johns County from our Florida Representatives.
A later post this week will include Appropriations Requests from Senator Tom Leek.
Update on the I-95 Interchange Improvements at International Golf Parkway
The Improvements for the I-95 Interchange at International Golf Parkway are certainly much needed. In my last post I had noted some differences between what the County had submitted and what was in the Appropriations request. I have found a few answers that I will share here.
Representative Kendall had continued to work with FDOT representatives after the initial reviews and a lower cost estimate for the county was submitted, thus explaining the reduction from 6,000,000 to 3,500,000 and an increase for the Federal Funding from 32,000,000 to 34,000,000.
It appears there may have been a gap in communication of the numbers back to the county and that has now been addressed.
In the Attestation Form submitted by the County on March 5, some caveats were added that addresses some differences.
The Lobbyist name was changed to Joe Mobley
A statement was added, “If state and federal funds are appropriated, the County is prepared to provide $2 million as a local match.”
Study was changed from Yes to No – FDOT has directed $500,000 to PD&E, which will start this spring or early summer.
As of Friday, March 7, there was no indication that Congressman Rutherford had submitted a request for the needed Federal funds. Important to note that as a federally funded Interstate, that is a key element in getting this project approved. A question to be asked is, how does this fit into the I-95 widening project? (planned for 2026 – 2027.) And another question, will the state approve funding for this project if there are no federal funds available? We will continue to follow along!
Here is a list of the Appropriations requests I was able to identify as being specific to St. Johns County. Representatives Sapp and Greco have districts that cover multiple counties. I tried to identify as closely as possible which of their requests would impact only St. Johns County.
From Representative Kim Kendall
Number
Request
Amount
Attestation Received
2285
First Coast Technical College – Firefighter & EMT Program Enhancement Expansion
760,285
Yes
2136
St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office Re-Entry/Co-Responder Program
300,000
Yes
1857
Switzerland Vocational & Community Center
70,000
Yes
1847
First Coast Technical College – Industrial Agriculture Program Enhancements
650,000
Yes
1722
St. Augustine Airport Student Maintenance Training Program
250,000
Yes
1499
I-95 Interchange Improvements at International Golf Parkway
3,500,000
Yes, with caveats
Total
5,530,285
From Representative Sam Greco
2890
The Institue for Classical Education at Flagler College
1,500,000
Yes
2889
World War II Themed Education and Exhibit Building
500,000
2886
St. Augustine Volusia Woods Extension – West Augustine Septic-to-Sewer Project
1,100,000
Yes
2125
The Arc of the St. Johns – Transportation Facility
750,000
Yes
2110
St. August land Purchase engineering, Design and Construction of Resilient Structure on Anastasia Blvd
2,500,000
Yes
2100
St. Augustine Youth Services – intensive In-Home Therapeutic Programs
450,000
Yes
2098
EPIC Behavioral Healthcare – St. Johns EPIC Recovery Center Women’s Substance Abuse Residential
750,000
Yes
2095
St. Augustine Beach Stormwater System Resiliency
1,910,000
Yes
2094
Historic Markland House Restoration
2,000,000
Yes
2092
St. Augustine Teen Center Boys & Girls Club
400,000
Yes
2083
EPIC Community Services – Sober Living Transitional Housing Project Expansion
2,500,000
Yes
2082
St. Johns County Intracoastal Flood Management
8,000,000
Yes
2081
K9s for Warriors – Veterans Suicide Prevention Program
1,500,000
Yes
2080
St. Johns County Council on Aging Shelter & Shade Project
572,000
Yes
Total
24,432,000
From Representative Judson Sapp
2223
HorsePlay Therapy Center – Equine – Assisted Regional Rehabilitation Center
1,700,000
Yes
2184
St. Johns County Police Athletic League (PAL) Diamond of Dreams
1,000,000
Yes
2177
St. Johns River State College – Renovation of Classroom Building and Workforce Training Center Addition
18,773,926
Yes
2172
District 23 Regional Medical Examiner’s Office
6,000,000
Yes
Total
27,473,926
To do your own research and read the details of each request, here is a link to Search Appropriations: 2025 Appropriations Requests
Learn more about each Representative, including how to contact and share your opinions on any of these requests, at the links below. At each link you will find an email form as well as phone number for the Representatives. You will also find a link to all of their Sponsored Bills. More to come on some of those bills as the Session progresses.
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.
The Regular Session of the 2025 Florida Legislative Session opens March 4 so it’s time to start paying attention to bills important to St. Johns County!
Yes, there have been special sessions to address specific topics (i.e., Immigration) but the full regular session doesn’t open until March.
While there will be many bills to follow through the Legislative Session, one of the important items for St. Johns County residents is, what funding will we receive this year for local projects?
At the conclusion of session each year, we like to hear how much money our Legislative Delegation was able to secure for local projects. For example, in June of 2024, the County announced that for the 2025 fiscal year we had received $26.4 Million in state funding for 5 local projects. But, have you ever wondered how that happens?
I thought I’d share the process using a real life example of a project important to any of us who utilize the World Commerce Center corridor. Let’s follow it through!
Background
For St. Johns County, preparation for the session usually begins in December. That’s when the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meet to review and vote on the Legislative Priorities for the upcoming session.
These priorities come in from a variety of sources but ultimately are consolidated and presented to the Commissioner’s for a vote. The usual process in St. Johns County has County staff preparing a list of priorities and presenting to the Commissioners for their review and approval. That list is created from recommendations not just from county departments but from representatives of the community on various committees.
The Board of County Commissioners votes on the Priorities and the next step is to present to our Legislative Delegation when they meet in the County. Timing of the Delegation meeting varies. If Session is beginning in January (during election years) the Delegation meets in December. In 2025 Session begins in March so the Delegation meeting was scheduled for January.
This year the process for approving the County’s priorities worked a little differently. In an unusual move, at the first Board of County Commissioner’s meeting after the general election, newly appointed BOCC Chair Krista Joseph invited Representative Kim Kendall’s delegate, Tatum Wang, to read a letter from Representative Kendall with a recommendation for one of our Transportation Priorities.
Proposed Solution
During her campaign, Representative Kendall had promised a solution to the growing traffic issues at the I-95 and International Golf Parkway exchange. She worked hard to find a solution and her proposal was presented at the November 19 meeting by Ms. Wang along with a request to include this solution in the County’s Legislative Priorities for 2025 as part of the Top 5 Transportation Priorities
There was some discussion about how this may impact the existing top 5 Transportation Priorities for the County. In particular, Commissioner Whitehurst was concerned that we not do anything to impact currently approved and funded projects in the Top 5 by bumping with a project that is not yet funded. Ms. Wang countered that the project was already there, and just needed a change request. After some discussion about the confusion, the County Administrator confirmed that the project is NOT in the Top 5 priorities.
After the confusing discussion about whether it was already in the priorities or not, consensus was reached have staff bring back more information in the Legislative Priorities discussion in December.
Moving forward to the December Legislative Priorities discussion December 17, our County Director of Transportation, Dick D’Souza, presented the Transportation Priorities. He was joined by an FDOT representative who provided some context about the funding of projects. While there are funded projects that impacted International Golf Parkway, the interchange at I-95 was not on the list of funded projects. He also clarified that normally Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) funding is not used for Interstate projects as there is other funding available for those type of projects. That created the opportunity for Representative Kendall to appear in person to present her proposal on the changes to the I-95 and International Golf Parkway interchange.
This was another unusual move on this project. We don’t normally see our Representatives involved in the Prioritization of items they will then be requesting on our behalf.
Representative Kendall’s proposal involves a change order to a $4 Million project to address the light at Buc-ee’s and replace it with a $40 Million dollar project to re-do the interchange. Her proposal involved obtaining Federal funding to support the project.
She had discussed this with Representative John Rutherford who advised this is typically an 80/20 split which translates into a Federal request for $32 Million and a State request for $8 Million. (Remember those numbers.)
Representative Kendall was asking the Commission for a “heavy lift” with a letter of support for this project and to shift the existing county transportation priorities to make this happen.
During commissioner’s discussion after presentation of the transportation priority list, it was made clear that the item must be on the top 5 priority list to be considered for the appropriations. Eventually it was added as item 6, that could be considered item 5.
The proposed change includes adding a new entry ramp from the east, for traffic headed south (a change from having to turn left onto the southbound ramp) and creating an extended exit ramp from the north, so traffic would cross IGP and turn onto World Commerce Parkway to access Buc-ee’s and Costco.
Proposal from Representative Kendall – author added highlights of new traffic pattern.
On January 10, the Legislative Delegation for St. Johns County convened, and Chair Joseph formally presented the County priority list. Commissioner Taylor took the opportunity to address the specific request for the funding for I-95 and International Golf Parkway.
That started the ball rolling for Representative Kendall to file a request for the Appropriations of funding for the project.
There are rules defined about how to submit, what can be submitted, and guidance on how to complete the forms. All appropriation requests for this session were to be submitted by 5:00 February 14 so we can now see all the submissions. You can search the list here: List of Submitted Appropriations Projects
These steps even include an Attestation by the Representative (under penalty of perjury) that all the information submitted is correct! A very thorough process!
But let’s keep following our I-95/IGP interchange project through the pipeline!
The County Government Affairs department works with our Legislative Delegation to prepare the request for appropriations.
Our County staff presented a request for $6 Million for a Fixed Capital Outlay.
The total cost of the project was noted as $40 Million with $6 Million coming from the State and $32 Million coming from Federal funds (an 80/15 split) and local funds of $2 Million. The $2 Million was noted that it was not guaranteed but that if state and federal funding were received, the county would provide $2 Million as a local match. (Remember Representative Kendall had talked about an 80/20 split of $32 Million Federal funding and $8 Million State funding.)
The County noted that the Construction/Renovation/Land/Planning Engineering costs for the project are $8 Million.
The request also noted that a study had not yet been done but that FDOT has directed funds to a study anticipated to start in the spring of 2025.
When we look at the Appropriations request submitted, we see there were some changes from what was submitted by the County.
The request for a Fixed Capital Outlay is now $3.5 Million, not $6 Million.
The Total Cost of the Project is the same, $40 Million but the request on file indicates that the split of funds is $34 Million from Federal funding and $3.5 Million from State funding (an 85/8.8 split) and an additional $500,000 from the State (not included in this appropriation.) The $2 Million from the County is indicated as Guaranteed in writing. The statement that the County would provide $2 Million in a local match if the Federal and State funding was received was not in the filed request.
The question of a study to confirm the need for the project is answered as “yes” with the caveat that funding for the study has been secured.
In the submitted request, the Construction/Renovation/Land/Planning Engineering costs for the project are $3.5 Million.
Reconciling the Differences
This table summarizes the financial changes to the submission
Line Item
County Request
Submitted Request
Fixed Capital Outlay
6,000,000
3,500,000
Total Operations & Fixed Capital Outlay
6,000,000
3,500,000
Amount Requested from the State
6,000,000
3,500,000
Federal
32,000,000
34,000,000
State
0
500,000
Local
2,000,000
2,000,000
Total
40,000,000
40,000,000
Construction/Renovation/Land/Planning Engineering
8,000,000
3,500,000
Other changes in what was submitted:
Name of the lobbyist representing the County in this request was submitted as Joe Mobley but is presented in the request as Martin Florentino.
$2 Million from the County is noted as guaranteed in writing, not that it is contingent upon receipt of Federal and State funding.
Rather than confirming the study has not been completed, the submission checks the “yes” box for the study having been complete but in the explanation states that the study will be included in the future.
A check of the Federal Appropriations website indicates Congressman Rutherford has not yet submitted a request for this funding.
While it is ultimately the responsibility of the submitter to attest to the accuracy of what was submitted, there are several open questions about this funding request.
Why were the amounts changed?
Who provided the changed numbers?
Was anyone at the County involved in the changes prior to the submission?
Can the Construction/Renovation/Land/Planning Engineering be done for the reduced amount of 3.5 million rather than the 8 million requested?
Where is the additional $500,00 in state funding derived?
Has Congressman Rutherford been consulted and agreed to the new number for Federal Funding?
When will Congressman Rutherford be submitting a request for the Federal Funds?
What happens if the State funds are approved but the Federal Funds are not approved?
Is it accurate to say that the need for the funds has been documented by a 3rd party study, if the study hasn’t been concluded (or even started?)
Would the funds be in jeopardy if the study has not been completed?
We’ll keep following this important funding request through the process and keep you updated as we learn more!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 – NonResidential 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.”
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.
Difference between Prop Share and Impact FeesProp Share (Concurrency)Impact FeesPermitting HistoryOrdinance Change
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.
Lots under discussionAerial view of all plats under discussionProposed Usage of lotsPotential Future Use
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.
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).
“(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.
Continuing the return to Proclamations, February 2025 will be recognized as Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month
Regular Agenda Items
Agenda Item 1 – A return to the Constitutional Officers Update as part of the regular agenda. Sheriff Hardwick and Property Appraiser Creamer will present updates. There are no materials for the public to review prior to the meeting
Agenda Item 2 – Non Residential Concurrency. This should be another educational presentation. Many residents confuse Concurrency fees and Impact Fees. The January 21st meeting had a very informative presentation on Impact fees.
I’m hoping to see the same type of information presented about Concurrency Fees. This item is on the agenda as a result of a request from Commissioner Taylor at the December 17, 2024 meeting. There is a view that because of the 2018 exemption for non-residential concurrency fees the county has lost revenue. Staff was directed to come back to the Commissioners with an updated ordinance and supplemental information for discussion and direction. If approved, this will come back for a vote of adoption on February 18th, 2025.
For this item, staff has brought forward the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to require concurrency on all developments in the County. There is a separate action for changes in the Land Development Code that will be brought forward later. Hopefully the presentation Tuesday will explain the difference between the Comp Plan changes and Land Development Code Changes.
Agenda Item 3 – 500 Morning Side Dr. Appeal of Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board’s (PVZAB) approval of a Zoning Variance. The variance allows for a maximum Impervious Surface Ration of 44% in lieu of the required 40% to accommodate a swimming pool at 500 Morning Side Drive. This appeal was filed by a neighbor with adjacent property to the location.
The materials for the appeal can be found here: Agenda Item 3
Agenda Item 5 – Ponte Vedra Lakes Boutique PUD – request for a Major Modification to the PUD to allow for a unified design. This was approved by the PVZAB in December.
Agenda Item 5 – Purchase and Sale Agreement for Acquisition of land located on Bishop Estates Road. The LAMP Board had recommended purchase of this property in 2024. This is Lot 26 and Lot 27 on Bishop Estates Road.
Agenda Item 6 – under the auspices of the Community Redevelopment Agency
Interlocal Agreement – St. Johns County Community Redevelopment Agency and Flagler Estates Road and Water Control District. This is for approval of a project to pave many of the deteriorating and unimproved roads in Flagler Estates.
Agenda Item 7 – Appointment of a St. Johns County Municipality member to the Northeast Florida Regional Council (NEFRC) This is to fill the seat formerly held by St. Augustine City Council member Roxanne Horvath.
The full agenda can be found at this link: Full Agenda
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.
What in the World Happened at the January 21, St. Johns County Board of County Commissioner’s Meeting!?!
You may be wondering that after seeing some of the local news headlines! Tuesday’s meeting was a 6 hour meeting that has had people talking ever since!
If you want to get to the newsmaking bits, you can skip to the Commissioner’s Updates.
Proclamations were back with a Proclamation recognizing January 2025 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month.
Consent Agenda
Item 14 was pulled from the Consent Agenda and moved to the Regular Agenda.
Item 2 was pulled from the Consent Agenda because there was some documentation that needed updated before presenting to the Commission.
Public Comment (about an hour on Tuesday)
Theme of the day was concerns about the Indian Head Biomass facility and it’s impact on the surrounding communities. There have been complaints dating back many years about the operations at this facility.
After Public Comment, Commissioner Joseph advised that the County will look into the issues with Indian Head.
Regular Agenda
Regular Agenda Item 5 was moved to the February 18 Agenda.
Commissioner Joseph asked the Fire Rescue Chief to share with the public how St. Johns County is prepared for Wildland Fire prevention and Mitigation. Watch the presentation here:
Agenda Item 1A – Non-Exclusive franchise agreement to Hicks Rolloff and Recycling, LLC for the collection and transportation of non-residential solid waste. This was Item 14 from the Consent Agenda.
This evolved to a discussion on contractual language around ownership of companies doing business with the county. Currently the language in the contracts specifies that no County Commissioner, County Officer or County employee, directly or indirectly owns more than 5% of the total assets or capital stock of the Contractor nor will any such person directly or indirectly benefit by more than 5% from the profits or emoluments of the agreement.
Commissioner Murphy would like to make that more restrictive and that it should be no ownership. The County Attorneys will be reviewing the language and bring this back for discussion at the next Board Meeting.
Agenda Item 2 – St. Johns County Impact Fee Update Study. County Ordinance requires this be reviewed every 5 years. This is a topic that should be of interest to any resident concerned about development in the county. We frequently hear that we should charge higher impact fees, or that impact fees should be paying for the infrastructure improvements in the county.
This discussion is a great lesson in Impact fees; what they are, how they are calculated, and how they can be used. If you are interested in understanding, I highly encourage you watch the discussion and reference the materials for the study.
Note that Impact Fees are limited in how they can be used. They cannot be used to fund capital projects outside of the designated impact area.
Another important note is that Impact Fees are ultimately paid by the new homeowner. The Builder includes this charge in new home builds. Having built 2 homes in St. Johns County, I have paid that impact fee to the builder 2 times. The impact fee is not absorbed by the developer; it gets passed through to the initial homeowner.
Agenda Item 3 – World Golf Village Hall of Fame Update and Discussion – this was another interesting discussion item. What is probably of great interest to newer residents in the county is the history of the property and how we came to have this very complicated situation around the facility.
Agenda Item 4 – “This is the second reading and adoption hearing of a proposed amendment to the Ponte Veda Zoning District Regulations (PVZDR) Ordinance No. 2003-05, as amended; Amending Section IX.D,” off-street parking- General provisions” to modify San Juan Drive Parking Requirements and limitations. The first reading of the proposed ordinance was held at the 10/15/24 Board of County Commissioner meeting.”
Agenda Item 6 – “Request for a Large-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation from Rural/Silviculture (R/S) to Rural Commercial (RC) for approximately 120 acres of land, specifically located at 8000 US Hwy 1 South.”
This was approved 5-0
Commissioner’s Reports
Commissioner Whitehurst – A concern had been brought to him about county vehicles being parked at the courthouse and causing congestion and parking issues at the courthouse. Growth Management Director Mike Roberson advised this is related to construction. He will confirm they are using the spaces designated for their use during the construction. He recognized that a St. Johns County resident is the first female Chief of Staff and former Congressman Mike Waltz is now the National Security Advisor. He also attended the Field of Dreams opening day ceremony. This is a special needs field in District 1.
Commissioner Joseph surprised the room by reading a multi-page document critical of County Administrator Joy Andrews. During the 10 minute diatribe, she blamed Ms. Andrews for the FCC debacle, for not getting the 14-point tree ordinance implemented, the county recommendation to not raise the Impact Fees, the Comprehensive Plan (that we have not yet seen), employee attrition, and of being pro-developer in the execution of her duties. As she concluded, she indicated this was not personal but a concern for the good of the county. She ended by calling for a vote of no-confidence in Ms. Andrews. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion.
The room was stunned.
By now you have seen some of the news coverage about this portion of the meeting. Local reporters had been alerted to tune in to the meeting for a big news moment. “Backfired” and “Tense Moments” were words used in the press to describe this portion of the meeting. As with some of her past prepared documents, there has been discussion in the community about who may have had a hand in writing the document for Commissioner Joseph to read.
I encourage you to watch it yourself and come to your own conclusions.
I’ll quote some of the residents who spoke up during public comment,
We can do better. The divisiveness has to end.
This has been the most transparent County Administrator we have had.
We have to stop being petty. Find a way to get along.
We need to stop and work together. Stop the pettiness.
Commissioner Whitehurst shared his opinion that the county has never had anyone of the caliber of Joy Andrews. She has spent an 18-year career growing in the county administration, beginning in the budget office. He pointed out that the Commission sets the policy and Ms. Andrews executes based on the direction of the Commission.
Commissioner Arnold reiterated that it was the BOCC that made the decision to hire FCC and it was not appropriate to blame Ms. Andrews for it. She expressed that this seems to be a very personal attack.
Commissioner Taylor supported Commissioner Joseph’s comments.
Commissioner Murphy agreed with Commissioner’s Whitehurst and Arnold that the blame should go to the Commissioners, not Ms. Andrews. He said he believes it is unwise to make a move of this magnitude and would not support a change.
Commissioner Joseph said she will not be quiet. She added a comment that of course she would not get along with Commissioner’s Arnold and Whitehurst because they voted against her for Chair in the first place.
Commissioner Joseph then called on Ms. Andrews for her report. Ms. Andrews was able to pull herself together after this 25 minute attack and discussion on her performance and give updates on the availability of cold weather shelters that would be open that night and potential disruption of services related to the icy weather coming to the northwest part of the county.
The Director of Human Resources provided an update on the County Attorney search. There will be open meetings as they proceed with the selection process. There have been 8 candidates who have submitted applications.
County Attorney Update
Legislative Session begins March 3.
Mr. Kommando demonstrated moral courage and shared that while it may not be in his best interest to comment, (as he is one of the 8 candidates for County Attorney) in his estimation, Ms. Andrews is one of the best County Administrators he has worked with. He added that many of the concerns raised were executed under direction of the Commission at the time. Ms. Andrews takes her input from the Commission and does not work behind the scenes for her own agenda.
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 