Three agricultural enclave certification applications scheduled for the August 19 St. Johns County Commission meeting have now been withdrawn by their applicants.
Star IV Investments, involving approximately 176 acres, was withdrawn on August 7, 2026.
Adler Creek, involving approximately 594 to 610 acres, was withdrawn on August 10, 2026.
Osceola Lakes, involving approximately 1,133 acres, was also withdrawn on August 10, 2026.
The withdrawal of three applications within four days is a significant change to the agricultural enclave matters expected to come before the County Commission on August 19.
AI generated view of Ag Lands
I previously published separate assessments of all three applications based on the application materials and County information publicly available at the time. Those assessments will remain available as records of the applications as submitted and the questions identified during the County review process.
Withdrawal means these applications will not proceed to the County Commission for certification on August 19. It is not the same as a denial. From what I can ascertain, County Staff had not completed their certification review, although some review questions were noted in the record. The Commission will not be voting on whether any of the three properties satisfied the statutory requirements for certification under Florida’s new agricultural enclave law.
The withdrawals also do not establish a formal County interpretation of the law or create a precedent for the applications that remain under review.
I have not yet seen a publicly documented explanation for the withdrawals. Unless the applicants provide additional information, it would be inappropriate to assume that all three were withdrawn for the same reason—or to speculate about whether they may be revised and resubmitted later.
What is clear is that the August 19 agenda has changed substantially. Three large and closely watched applications will no longer be considered, while the broader questions surrounding the new agricultural enclave law—and the remaining applications—are not yet resolved.
I will continue following the County’s review process and reporting material developments as they occur.
Assessments of the remaining 2 Ag Enclave certification requests scheduled for August 19 will be published this week. They are the Heritage Development East and West. Two more applications have been filed and are scheduled to be heard by the Commissioners in September.
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.
We are down to the final days of what has been a contentious year of campaigning. Several of our key local elected officials will be decided in the August primary—not in the November general election:
County Commission Districts 2 and 4
School Board District 1
City of St. Augustine Commission Seat 5
The City Commission race will appear only on the ballots of voters who live within the City of St. Augustine.
This is not the primary to sit out.
Know Which Races You Can Vote In
This year, our County Commission races are Universal Primary Contests. Because all the candidates in these races are members of the same political party, every registered voter in St. Johns County may vote in them, regardless of party affiliation.
Many voters are confused about districts and which candidates will appear on their ballots.
For School Board, you may vote only for the candidate representing the district in which you live.
County Commission works differently. Commissioners must live in the districts they represent, but they are elected countywide. That means every registered voter in St. Johns County may vote in the District 2 and District 4 County Commission races—not only voters who live in those districts.
There has also been considerable discussion about where County Commission candidates are required to live.
A candidate does not have to live in the district throughout the campaign. The residency requirement must be met before taking office.
That distinction matters in the District 2 race. One candidate lived in District 5 during most of the campaign and recently shared that he moved into District 2 on August 1. Some voters have questioned whether he lives in District 2; he has responded that he does.
Voters can decide for themselves whether the timing of that move matters to them. But the legal question of residency and a voter’s judgment about a candidate’s connection to the district are two different questions.
Don’t Let Someone Else Choose for You
Every election cycle, a LOT of organizations produce voter guides recommending their preferred candidates.
In 2022, I was at a polling location where representatives were distributing three different guides: a Trump Club voter guide, a Republican Executive Committee voter guide and a Republican Liberty Caucus voter guide.
One young man stood there holding all three, trying to decide which one he should follow. Meanwhile, the people distributing them were arguing and shouting at him:
“Use this one!”
“No, use this one!”
If you wait until you arrive at the polls to pick up a voter guide, you have missed your opportunity to cast a genuinely informed vote. You are leaving your choice to another group whose priorities you may or may not share.
Voter guides can provide useful information. But they should be part of your research—not a substitute for doing it.
Look Beyond the Campaign Message
Read the candidates’ answers to questionnaires. Watch the recorded forums. Compare what candidates say to different audiences.
Forums are especially helpful because they reveal more than prepared campaign positions. They can give you a glimpse of how a candidate thinks, communicates and responds when challenged.
Before casting your ballot, consider:
Does this person represent the values I want on the board?
Do they demonstrate the character and judgment the office requires?
Do they understand the responsibilities—and the legal limits—of the position they are seeking?
What do they stand for, beyond what they oppose?
What specifically do they want to accomplish to move our county forward?
Have they explained how their proposals would be implemented and funded?
Do they have the temperament to work with colleagues, staff and community stakeholders?
How do they respond when challenged or asked a question they did not anticipate?
Are their claims supported by facts?
Are they offering workable solutions, or primarily identifying people and institutions to blame?
Do they demonstrate a meaningful connection to the district they seek to represent, even though the entire county votes in County Commission races?
Who is supporting and funding their campaign, and what might those supporters expect from them?
No candidate will agree with you on everything. The question is whether that person has the values, competence, judgment and temperament to govern responsibly.
I have been sent some endorsements for candidates and been asked to share them. I am intentionally not including endorsements, just the forums and tools for you to do your own research.
I have included links below to recorded candidate forums and official election information. Take the time to watch and read them before you cast your ballot.
Then show up—during early voting or on Election Day—and make your own decision.
League of Women Voter’s Interview with Tammie McClafferty.Candidate for School Board District 4
There was an April Candidate Forum sponsored by the St. Johns County Republican Assembly. I was unable to find a link to the video of that event. If I locate it, I will add to the post.
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.
And the Commissioner and School Board races have shifted with some surprises. The biggest shift this year is that the 2026 elections for Board of County Commissioners are Universal Open Primaries. What does that mean? Because all candidates who qualified for these races are members of the same political party and there are no write-in candidates, Florida election law requires these races to be conducted as Universal Open Primaries, allowing all registered voters to participate regardless of party affiliation.
For the first time in recent history, all registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, will be able to vote in the Primary for Commissioner. In the past, voters who had registered as NPA, Democrat, or one of the minor parties had no voice in the Commissioner votes.
That means this year more voters will have a direct voice in selecting County Commissioners than in past election cycles. Whether that translates into higher turnout remains to be seen, but it certainly creates an opportunity for broader participation in local government. Previously, many voters just stayed home as the Commissioner’s race was the most critical vote for the County in the Primary. This year, having more non-Republican registered voters show up at the polls could impact the down ballot votes for School Board and special districts, as well. This will be an exciting year for all St. Johns County voters!
As of the close of qualifying, here is what the ballot currently looks like for St. Johns County voters.
Commissioner Races:
Commissioner, District 2
As anticipated, incumbent Commissioner Sarah Arnold did not file to run. In a surprise move, a 4th candidate entered the race just 5 days before qualifying, and qualified.
As you listen to candidates and learn about their platforms this year, I encourage you to hear from them directly. Attend a town hall. Ask questions. Visit their websites. Follow their social media pages.
Too often, voters learn about candidates through attack ads, social media rumors, or secondhand commentary. This year, let’s make an effort to evaluate candidates based on their own words, ideas, and vision for St. Johns County.
Let’s learn what a candidate stands FOR, not simply what they oppose.
Let’s learn how a candidate intends to move our county forward, not just how they plan to stop someone else.
Most importantly, let’s remember that public service requires courage. Every candidate on this ballot has stepped forward, completed the qualification process, and offered themselves for public scrutiny and voter consideration. Regardless of who earns your vote, that commitment deserves a measure of respect.
Behind every candidate are family members, friends, neighbors, and supporters who care deeply about them. Let’s have spirited debates, ask tough questions, and engage thoughtfully—but let’s also be kind to one another.
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.
It’s an election year! And we already have some very heated races in St. Johns County!
Having lived here 23 years, I know that for those of us who work in Jacksonville or travel a lot for our work, we often don’t even have time to pay attention to local elections.
Many of us have no idea who our Commissioners are or what they do for the County. Not too long ago a local business person told me he was reaching out to Mayor Deegan for help on something. I asked him why, and he said because she’s the Mayor! I pointed out his business is in St. Johns County and he might want to reach out to our County Commissioners. He didn’t know who any of them are.
That’s not a reflection on this individual – it’s just an example of how in the northern part of the county so many of us work, shop and play in Jacksonville that we naturally know more about the Jacksonville scene than what is happening in St. Johns County.
Today I thought I would spend a little time sharing information about the 2026 Election process in St. Johns County so you can start educating yourself and be prepared to get out and vote in the Primary (August 18,2026) or General Election (November 3, 2026.)
Let’s start with, are you registered to vote? And is your voter registration current? Check out the Supervisor of Elections website and confirm your status. You can do that here: Check My Status
And if you are a newcomer to St. Johns County or Florida, you may not be familiar with our Closed Primary process. If there are qualified candidates from more than one Party, it will be a closed Primary. That means when you go to the polls you will be presented with a Ballot showing only the candidates in your registered party. As an example, if you are a registered Republican, you will only see the Republican candidates on your ballot. If you are a registered Democrat, you will only see the Democratic candidates on your ballot. And if you are not affiliated with any party (No Party Affiliation) you will only see candidates for Non Partisan positions.
Before a candidate appears on a ballot, they have to go through Qualifying. You can see the Qualifying dates for St. Johns County positions on this page: Qualifying Dates & Fees
Most of our County offices have a Qualifying date of June 12. That means that any candidates currently showing on the Candidate List have not yet qualified to be on the Primary Ballot in August.
Today I’ll share known info about 2 of our most visible elected positions, County Commissioners.
We have two County Commissioner seats up for election this year, District 2 and District 4. Those seats are currently held by Sarah Arnold, District 2 and Krista Keating Joseph, District 4.
Commissioner Joseph has filed and shared about her desire to return to the Board for another term. Commissioner Arnold has not filed and all indications are that she is not going to run for re-election.
For District 2, we have 3 Active Candidates. That means they have filed but have not yet qualified.
Timothy Ray Burres is a former SJSO Law Enforcement Officer and is actively running. He has a registered website that is not yet active: VoteTimBurres and has an active FaceBook (FB) page: Vote Tim Burres for SJC Commissioenr
Martin Valerian Pyszczymuka is a 4 year resident of St. Johns County. He has an active website and indicates that he has gathered enough petitions to qualify for the ballot. His website is here: VoteMartin2026.com and his FB page is here: VoteMartinForCountyCommissioner Interesting note on his website is that he is opposing Sarah Arnold who has not filed to run. His website also addresses questions regarding residency eligibility and states that he plans to relocate into District 2 prior to the election.
District 4 has 4 Active Candidates. Again, they have filed but not yet qualified.
James Austin Galloway – At the time of writing, I was unable to locate an active campaign website. Mr. Galloway appears to be using his personal FB page for his platform: James Galloway
Krista Keating Joseph – Sitting District 4 Commissioner. Thanks to the alert reader who pointed me Commissioner Joseph’s active website: Vote Krista She also appears to be using her personal FB page for her campaigning. KristaKeatingJoseph
Heather Lane Neville – Born and raised in Northeast Florida and resident of St. Johns County since 2007. Has an active website: VoteHeatherLaneNeville and FB Page ElectHeatherLaneNeville
As you evaluate candidates this year, I encourage you to spend time learning what each candidate stands FOR — their priorities, leadership style, and vision for the future of St. Johns County.
Local government decisions shape our roads, growth, schools, public safety, and quality of life in very real ways. Thoughtful participation matters.
In a climate where political conversations can quickly become negative, perhaps we can focus more on ideas, solutions, and the future we want to build for our County together.
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.
Beth Tate 