[1. NEFRC Educational Summit on Overdoses. At the direction of its Board of Directors, the Northeast Florida Regional Council will be conducting an Educational Summit on Overdoses (focusing on opioids/fentanyl). The summit will bring together key stakeholders and policy makers to discuss overdose related data in Northeast Florida. The summit will highlight several successful programs that have been implemented by counties in the Region, in hopes they can be replicated in other communities. The focus will be on sharing best practices, understanding needs, and identifying gaps as we start the conversation on a regional level. The summit will include information from behavioral and mental health facilities, hospitals, health departments, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the National District Attorneys Association, local fire rescue departments, law enforcement and others. This educational summit will be held at World Golf Village in St. Augustine, FL on Thursday, March 31, 2022. More details are to follow, and a save the date flyer for the event is attached. Speakers include: Dr. Raymond Pomm, Gateway Community Services, Nancy Russo, SMA Healthcare, Dr. Huson Gilberstadt, Ascension, Major Scott Surrency, Putnam County Sheriff’s Office, Glenn East, Clay County Fire Rescue]

REGULAR AGENDA START WITH NUMBER ONE.

THE AND EF ARTSY EDUCATIONAL SUMMIT ON OVERDOSES.

>> IT WAS CHAMPIONED BY TWO OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS AND DISCUSS ABOUT ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND DECIDED TO TAKE IT AS A REGIONAL ISSUE, THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO TALK TO ABOUT A REGIONAL LEVEL AND TO PROMOTE NORTHEAST FLORIDA TO GET RESOURCES INTO NORTHEAST FLORIDA.

AS A RESULT OF THIS STAFF CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF DOING AN EDUCATIONAL SUMMIT ON OVERDOSES. AND WHEN STAFF GOT INTO THIS AND STARTED LOOKING AT THE ISSUE, WE REALIZE THAT THE ISSUE IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN JUST OPIOIDS AND FENTANYL.

YES WE ARE SEEING THE DEATHS COME FROM AND PEOPLE GETTING KILLED AS A RESULT OF THESE SPECIFIC SUBSTANCES, BUT THERE IS A LARGER ISSUE HERE. WHICH IS ADDICTION.

WE'VE SEEN ADDICTIVE QUALITIES AND INCREASE IN THE PAST FEW YEARS AND IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY THOUGHT WE SHOULD ADDRESS HEAD ON. AS A RESULT OF THIS WILL GET TO THIS EDUCATIONAL SUMMIT. HELD ON MARCH 31 HELD IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY WORLD GOLF VILLAGE.

WE WERE REALLY GOING TO FOCUS ON A FEW KEY FACTORS, THE STIGMA BEHIND IT, GETTING PEOPLE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE COME OUT AND

[00:30:01]

ASKED FOR HELP. SAY HEY YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

LET'S GET YOU HELP AND DO STUFF TO GET YOU ON THE RIGHT PATH.

THE MENTAL HEALTH SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER TREATMENT.

WE ARE TALKING NEUROSCIENCE OF THE BRAIN AND WHAT IS GOING ON CHEMICALLY. BUT THEN IN NORTHEAST FLORIDA WE HAVE A NUMBER OF COUNTIES DOING SOME SORT OF A PROJECT ADDRESS THE ISSUE. ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS IS HOW ARE THEY FUNDED? HOW ARE THEY COMING, WHAT CHALLENGES DO THEY SEE SO WE REALLY WANT TO HIGHLIGT THOSE PROJECTS. AS WELL AS WHAT ARE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS AND FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENTS WHAT DO THEY SEE WHEN THEY RESPOND TO THESE CALLS? WHAT DO THEY SEE EVERY DAY ON THEIR DAILY JOB? WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WELL IN A 2021 SURVEY, 41 MILLION AMERICANS AGES 12 AND OVER HAD A SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER.

OF THOSE 41 MILLION AMERICANS ONLY 4 MILLION SOUGHT TREATMENT.

YOU CAN KINDA INFER OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT DID NOT GET SPECIALIZED TREATMENT, THERE IS PROBABLY THREE GROUPS CONTAINED IN THAT. THERE IS THE GROUP THAT IS NOT READY FOR RECOVERY, THERE IS THE GROUP THAT DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO SPECIFIC PROGRAMS OR PROJECTS TO HELP THEM.

OR, THERE IS THAT OTHER GROUP THAT MAY NOT BE AWARE OF IT OWED JUST DO NOT HAVE IT AVAILABLE. SO WE REALLY WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE HEAD ON. BETWEEN 2018-2,019TH THERE WERE 2,000 PEOPLE IN NORTHEAST FLORIDA THAT NEEDED 911 MEDICAL SERVICE. AS YOU ALL KNOW EVERY TIME 91 IS CALLED EACH RESCUE UNIT, THAT IS A COST.

AND THAT IS A COST THAT THE COUNTIES ARE INCURRING.

I DID PURPOSELY LEAVE THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE OUT OF THIS FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETIMES AND A LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES, THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE OVERSHADOW WHAT IS GOING ON OUTSIDE THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE.

WHEN YOU ADD THEM INTO THIS THE NUMBER GOES UP TO OVER 4,000 INDIVIDUALS IN NORTHEAST FLORIDA ALONE.

THE METHODOLOGY AND WHY WE ARE DOING THIS WITH STAFF WITH THE WAY THE STAFF ADDRESS THE ISSUE BUT IT DOWN INTO THESE THREE TOPICS. THE BEHAVIORAL MENTAL HEALTH SIDE WHAT IS ADDICTION? WHAT ROLE DOES STIGMA PLAY? WHAT RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE? SUPPLY AND DEMAND? HOW CAN WE CURB THAT, HOW CAN WE LOWER THE DEMAND FOR SUBSTANCES? WHAT ARE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS NEED? THE FUNDING SOURCES IMPORTANT, WHAT OTHER PROJECTS OUT THERE? HOW ARE THEY FUNDED? HOW CAN WE GET MORE OF THAT FUNDING INTO THE REGION? WHAT GRADES MAY BE AVAILABLE? BUT ALSO WHAT IS JUST FREE, IT IS JUST A SOCIETAL AND MINDSET CHANGE OF HOW WE ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

SO WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

JUST TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW OF THESE SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THESE WILL BE SOME OF THE PROJECTS SAVE LIVES, MOST OF YOU HEARD IT OUT OF JACKSONVILLE IT'S MATCHING PEERS WITH INDIVIDUALS IN THE HOSPITAL WHEN THEY COME TO THE HOSPITAL WITH AN OVERDOSE. BUT THEN THERE IS ALSO SOME OTHER THINGS. AND WE HAVE TWO HOSPITAL SYSTEMS THAT WILL ALSO COME INTO SAY HOW THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM AS LEARNED AND CHANGE THEIR PRESCRIPTION PRACTICES AS WE BECOME MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE WITH THE SUBSTANCES.

OVERDOSE TWO ACTION IS A STATISTICAL GROUP, THEY WERE KIND ENOUGH TO PROVIDE ME WITH STATISTICS AND WHAT THIS IS FOR ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. LOOKING AT 2019, COMPARED TO 2021, INDIVIDUALS THAT WENT TO AN EMERGENCY ROOM WITH ZIP CODE DATA WHEN THEY PROVIDED INFORMATION, WHO WENT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM AS A RESULT OF AN OVERDOSE OR CONSUMING A SUBSTANCE? SO THESE THREE ZIP CODES STOOD OUT. 32034, FROM 2019-2021, PSALM 198% INCREASE. 32097, SAW A 70% INCREASE, 32046 HUNDRED AND 82%. INDIVIDUAL 75 YEARS AND OLDER CZAR IN AN INCREASE OF 621%. 55-74258%, AND 35-54 -YEAR-OLDS SEEING 66%. BREAKING THAT DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, MAY ALSO SAW AN INCREASE OF OVER 106% AND FEMALES SAW AN INCREASE OF HUNDRED AND 17%.

SO IT IS AN ISSUE THAT TOUCHES ALL ASPECTS OF SOCIETY, ALL OF OUR ZIP CODES AND ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT RESIDE HERE IN FLORIDA. THESE WILL BE SOME OF THE SPEAKERS THAT YOU WILL HEAR FROM THAT DAY.

JUST TO COME TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF GLIMPSE INTO WHAT THEY WILL TALK ABOUT. DR. PALM WILL SPEAK TO NEUROSCIENCE, AND GIVING A PRESENTATION WOULD PAINLESS AS A RESULT OF SIGMA. WHAT ROLE THAT PLACE, AND THEN SOME OF OUR OTHER COUNTY PROJECTS THAT WILL BE COMING IN AS WELL AS WELL AS THE DEA WILL BE HERE TO PRESENT TO US.

THE EVENT WILL BE MARCH 31 AND WORLD GOLF VILLAGE IN SAINT AUGUSTINE. THEN IT IS A FREE EVENT THAT WILL BE DONE VIA AWARD CEREMONY AND IS THE SAME SYSTEM.

AND THAT WILL BECOME OUT HERE IN THE NEXT WEEK AND IT IS ALL READY TO GO WE ARE JUST WAITING ON THE PERFECT TIME TO SEND IT

[00:35:04]

TO EVERYBODY. THAT WILL COME THROUGH YOUR COMMISSIONERS WHO SIT ON THE BOARD OF REGIONAL COUNSEL.

AND TO COUNTY STAFF AND WE HOPE THAT YOU CAN ATTEND.

THE TARGET AUDIENCE WE LOOK FOR IS TO MISS A PALI AND COUNTY LEADERSHIP. YOUR ADMINISTRATION'S FIRST RESPONDER LEADERSHIP, BUT A GROUP THAT IS NOT ON THIS LIST THAT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE IS YOUR SCHOOL BOARD OFFICIALS.

TOUCHING THIS THING EARLY, CATCHING IT IN SCHOOLS, IS THE MOST VITAL IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS.

WITH THAT THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR YOU, THIS IS TO SAVE THE DATE MARCH 31, WORLD GOLF VILLAGE FREE EVENT TO ATTEND AND YOU WILL GET THE EVENT REGISTRATION PAGE AND NEXT WEEK OR SO WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. NOLAN? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MR. KNOWING TO YOU AND ALL OF YOU I WANTED SAY SAY THANK YOU.

A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE THE PERCEPTION WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS ARE DOING WELL AT ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED. I CAN TELL YOU WE HAVE EXPERIENCES IN MY FAMILY THAT HAVE HELPED ME UNDERSTAND THIS ADDICTION CAN ACROSS SOCIOECONOMIC LINES, THEY AFFECT PEOPLE FROM ALL COMMUNITIES AND BACKGROUNDS.

WHERE THE PERCEPTION MAY BE THAT ST. JOHN'S COUNTY THIS WOULD NOT AFFECT US, I THINK THE REALITY IS FROM FOLKS WHO WORK IN THESE FIELDS, THEY WOULD TELL YOU THAT IT CERTAINLY DOES AFFECT US HERE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. IN ALL COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT NORTHEAST FLORIDA AND SO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU

DO. >> THANK YOU.

[Items 2 & 3]

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU YOU ALL HAVE A GOOD

MORNING. >> WE WILL TAKE UP ITEMS TWO AND THREE AND HERE'S HOW WITH THE APPROVAL OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HERE WAS WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST.

I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE APPLICANT WISHES TO WITHDRAW ITEMS TWO AND THREE THIS MORNING.

SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE A QUICK PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, AND THEY TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THAT IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT WE WILL ONLY ADDRESS THE ITEMS THAT WITHDRAWAL OF ITEMS TWO AND THREE. AND THEN I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE ASSUMING THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE VOTE I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.

JUST ONE VOTE ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE.

SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL GO REASONABLY SMOOTH.

NEVERTHELESS WHAT SAY THE APPLICANT?

>> FIRST OF ALL GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS GOOD TO SEE YOU AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION OUR REQUEST TODAY IS TO CONTINUE TO A DATE UNCERTAIN OF THESE TWO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS FROM TODAY TO A DIFFERENT DATE. ALSO THERE ARE TWO COMPANION APPLICATIONS ONE IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION. THE SECOND IS A PUD REZONING APPLICATION THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR YOUR BOARD ON MARCH 15.

AND SO WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THAT ENTIRE DOCUMENT PACKAGE, BE CONTINUED FROM PUBLIC HEARINGS TO A DATE UNCERTAIN. THAT WE WILL WORK WITH STAFF TO RESCHEDULE THESE HEARINGS, WE JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK TO DO ON TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FOR THE PROJECT.

>> OKAY, I WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT NOW ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE TOGETHER. ITEMS TWO AND THREE AND THE ISSUE IS WHAT ALL -- WITHDRAWAL THESE ITEMS TO A FUTURE DATE, AND ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE TOGETHER? DOES IT IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE WE WILL HAVE IS THERE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW IT TO A TIME UNCERTAIN ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE?

IS THERE EMOTION? >> MR. CHAIRMAN I WILL MOVE WE

WILL WITHDRAW THESE ITEMS. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD TO WITHDRAW ITEMS TWO AND THREE AND ALSO NOTE THAT THE COMPLIMENT AND PUD THAT WERE SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 15 ALSO BE POSTPONED AND MOVED TO AN UNCERTAIN TIME.

WITH THAT PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 5-0.

>> COMMISSIONER DEAN? EXCUSE THE INTERRUPTION SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT MOTION, IT WAS TO CONTINUE THE ITEMS, AND NOT WITHDRAW, WITHDRAW HAS A DIFFERENT MEANING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR

[4. St. Johns County Florida Taxable Special Obligation Revenue Note, Series 2022: South Ponte Vedra Beach Dune and Berm Restoration Project. On January 18, 2022, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution 2022-25, associated with the South Ponte Vedra Beach Dune Restoration Project, awarding a contract for Bid No. 22-32 contingent upon approved financing and directing the County’s financing team to prepare the loan documentation necessary to finance the South Ponte Vedra/Serenata Beach Dune Restoration Project, to be brought back for BCC consideration on February 15, 2022. The agenda item presents the prepared financing, including the Authorizing Resolution, TD Bank proposal and the Loan Agreement. If approved, a Tourist Development Fund Category 5 reserve was established, as part of the adopted FY 2022 Budget, for the purpose of participating in the annual debt service. Staff would recommend the appropriation of up to $400,000 from Tourist Development Category 5 reserves for initial debt service payment for this project. ]

THE RECORD. >> I WILL ACCEPT THAT ON THE RECORD. THEY ARE CONTINUED AND TO A TIME

UNCERTAIN. >> THANK YOU.

>> IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY ITEM FOUR.

>> GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN DEAN COMMISSIONERS JESSE DONE DIRECTOR FOR THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ITEM FOUR IS THE I WILL BRING THAT UP ON THE SCREEN.

[00:40:02]

AND WE SAID WE WOULD BRING BACK THE FINANCING ON FEBRUARY 15.

SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR TODAY.

IT IS TO GO OVER THAT. WHAT I AM GOING TO DO IS I AM GOING TO BRING JAKE GLOVER FROM PFM TO PROVIDE A TRANSACTION OVERVIEW. PFM IS OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR.

>> CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS JAKE GLOVER FROM PFM FINANCIAL ADVISORS. I AM HERE TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HERE.

AGAIN, AS JESSE MENTIONED, ON JANUARY THEY GAVE US DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FINALIZING THE DOCUMENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH FINANCING THIS PROJECT. IN ORDER TO PROVE TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE QUICKLY AND IN CASE THAT DIRECTION WAS PROVIDED.

WE ACTUALLY WENT OUT FOR AN RFP FOR A BANK LOAN AND 2021.

SO THAT WE COULD MOVE QUICKLY IF GIVEN THE DIRECTION TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU WITH THIS FINANCING SO THE PROJECT CAN GET STARTED.

SO THAT RFP WAS DONE AGAIN IN LATE 2021, WE ACTUALLY GOT 12 RESPONSES TO THE RFP WHICH IS A GREAT NUMBER.

I WILL NOT READ ALL OF THE BANKS THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE THIRD BULLET THAT ALL THE BANKS THAT RESPONDED.

THAT NUMBER OF RESPONSES JUST SHOWS THE CREDIT STRENGTH OF THE COUNTY AND PEOPLE'S WILLINGNESS TO LEND TO YOU.

SO YOU SHOULD TAKE COMFORT IN KNOWING THAT.

THE HIGH CREDIT RATINGS THAT COUNTY MAINTAINS RC HELPS WITH THE PROCESS. WE REVIEWED THE PROPOSALS WITH YOUR STAFF, THIS CLOCK STAFF, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TO DETERMINE THAT TD BANK PROVIDED THE BEST OPTION FOR FINANCING.

BASED ON THEIR MOST ATTRACTIVE INTEREST RATES AND TERMS AVAILABLE. WE WERE ABLE TO FOLLOW IN YOUR DIRECTION ON JANUARY 18, ACTUALLY LOCK AND THE TAXABLE INTEREST RATE OF 2.24%. AND THAT IS FIXED FOR THE ENTIRE TERM OF THE FINANCING. AGAIN, THESE BONDS WILL BE PAID OFF BY OCTOBER 1 OF 2031. AND ANOTHER IMPORTANT FEATURE IS THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO BE PREPAID AT ANY TIME WITHOUT PENALTY.

SO THE EXTENT OTHER FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE FOR THE PYROGENIC IT CAN BE PAID DOWN FOR REDUCED DEBT COSTS MOVING FORWARD.

INCLUDED ON THE PRIOR BEACH FINANCING THAT WE DID, AND DID SO ON THIS ONE AS WELL JUST TO GIVE YOU THE ULTIMATE FLEXIBILITY OF MOVING FORWARD. IF APPROVED, WE ARE ACTUALLY READY TO ISSUE 7,635,000 SPECIAL OBLIGATION REVENUE BONDS TO FUND THIS PROJECT. ANDY FINANCING WOULD CLOSE ON FEBRUARY 18 OF 2022. SO WE ARE READY TO MOVE QUICKLY, ASSUMING WE WILL GET APPROVAL TODAY WE WILL CLOSE THE FINANCING AND LOT THESE TERMS IN.

YOU CAN SEE IN THE FIRST BULLET THE REQUESTED ACTION AND THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZES NOT TO EXCEED $8 MILLION WORTH OF DEBT. BUT AGAIN WE WILL ONLY ISSUE 7.6 MILLION TO FUND THE PROJECT. AND PAY THE COSTS OF ISSUES AND FINANCING. SO THAT IS A BRIEF OVERVIEW I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH OR THE FINANCING TERMS BEFORE YOU

TODAY. >> THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY I THINK WE ARE READY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM FOR THIS IS FINANCING FOR THE SELF PUBLIC COMMENT.

IS THERE PUBLIC COMMENT? YES, MA'AM?

>> IRVINE BULLET 4370 COASTAL HIGHWAY TO SAINT AUGUSTINE 32084. I JUST WANT TO SAY TWO THINGS TIMELINESS, THESE FOLKS THE NORTH OF ME, AND THEY HAVE BEEN WAITING MUCH LONGER THAN ANYBODY ELSE TO GET THEIR SAND.

AND THEY HAVE HOUSES HANGING ON THE EDGE.

SO TIMELINESS IS OF THE EVIDENCE AND FAIRNESS.

THEY WILL PAY EIGHT TIMES WHAT I PAY FOR MY SAND.

BECAUSE THEY SIGNED ON EARLY TO PAY FOR SAND.

AND SO THEY WERE CUT OUT OF SOME BETTER DEALS.

IT'S I HOPE YOU ALL WILL GO AHEAD AND DO IT IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO IT AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO IT QUICKLY.

IT IS TWO YEARS LATE QUICKLY BUT PLEASE THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM FOR?

IS THERE EMOTION? >> MR. CHAIRMAN I WILL BE PROUD

TO MOVE THIS RESOLUTION 2022,. >> 58,.

>> ACCEPTING THE APPROVAL FROM TD BANK OF HER OWN AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY FLORIDA TAXABLE SPECIAL OBLIGATION NOTES. SERIES 2022, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT BUT NOT TO EXCEED $8 MILLION.

>> IS THERE A SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM FOUR PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT PASSES 5-0. ONE OF THE NEAT THINGS ABOUT THIS PROJECT JUST A SECOND I WILL CALL ON YOU.

[00:45:03]

IS IMPORTANT IN MY MIND, UNLIKE THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD IN TRUCK CALLS FROM THE BERM ENHANCEMENT.

THIS PROJECT WILL USE OFF SHORT SAND FOR SAND SOURCING.

SO WE WON'T HAVE THE PROBLEMS WITH TRUCKS UP AND DOWN COASTAL HIGHWAY OR USING ANY OF OUR PARKING FACILITIES.

SO I AM REALLY HAPPY ABOUT THAT. IT WILL RAISE A LOT OF HEADACHES. JESSE?

>> THERE IS A SECOND MOTION ASSOCIATED WITH AGENDA ITEM.

>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT MOTION AS WELL.

I WILL MOVE TO AUTHORIZE A TRANSFER OUT TO $400,000 FOR TOUR'S DEVELOPMENT TAX ON CATEGORY FIVE RESERVED FOR THE INITIAL SERIES 2022 DEBT. SERVICE PAYMENT.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES 5-0 THANK YOU.

>> AS JESSE IS WALKING AWAY I WANT TO COMPLEMENT AND PAT ON THE BACK TO THE STAFF JESSE AND JOE AND DAMON WHO IS IN THE AUDIENCE FOR THE HARD WORK THEY ARE DOING.

THERE IS SO MUCH GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES IS UNBELIEVABLE REALLY. WHAT THEY ARE CHARGED WITH AND

[5. Public Hearing * MAJMOD 2020-07 Tolomato River Farms PUD. A request to remove approximately 1.31 acres, change the overall layout of the project on the northern side, remove a planned shared access point, relocate the planned RV/Boat Storage area, add commercial square footage, and change lot layout. The property is located at 3301 and 3303 Coastal Highway in the Vilano Beach area. The Planning and Zoning Agency recommended approval with a 5-1 vote at its December 16, 2021 regular meeting. The Agency discussed the types of commercial that may occur in the PUD and the elevation of the property in relation to SR A1A and the adjacent County Park. The applicant responded that the type of uses will be limited by the size of the proposed building and parking. The applicant proffered that one-half of the building will be used as a market and associated related activities (such as packaged and preprepared foods, vegetables, food products for meals, local coffee, gallery and display space for local artists) and the second one-half of the building will be used for professional offices (which may include uses such as mail and package services, photography studio, and/or other personal services). The applicant revised the MDP Text to reflect this change as recommended by the PZA. ]

THEY ARE WORKING REALLY HARD AND THEY DESERVE RECOGNITION.

SO WITH THAT SAID, ALL RIGHT, ITEM FIVE, THAT IS A QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM? ITEM FIVE DO WE HAVE X PARTIES

COMMISSIONER BLOCK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAD A MEETING ON NOVEMBER 18, 2021 ABOUT A PARTIALLY 1:00 P.M.

WITH MR. DEREK WOOLVERTON AND GARY PHILLIPS.

WE DISCUSSED THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY HAVE A PLAN AND THE HISTORY IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AS WELL AS SOME OF THE IMPACTS OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.

WE ALSO HAD A MEETING ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22, SO WE ARE GOING TO GO ON REVERSE ORDER. 2021 APPROXIMATE 10:00 A.M. WITH MR. JARE OVERTON, KAREN TABOR AND MR. PHILLIPS IS PRESENT AS WELL. WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THE WORK THAT THEY DO TO MODIFY THIS PROJECT.

THE SCOPE OF IT AN ADDITIONAL EFFORTS THAT WERE TO MAKE THIS NOT IMPACTFUL ON THE RESIDENCE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN ON WEDNESDAY JANUARY 12, AT 12:30 P.M., I MET WITH MS. KAREN TAYLOR AND DEREK OVERTON AND GARY PHILLIPS. WE DISCUSSED THE CHANGES IN THE PROJECT FROM THE ORIGINAL P YOU D THAT WAS PRINTED.

THE MODIFICATIONS UPFRONT AND PARKING WE DISCUSSED PARKING.

AROUND THE STORE ACCESS FROM THE HOUSES TO THE STORE AND UP THE STREET. AND I THINK THAT IS IT.

>> THANK YOU, ON JANUARY 12, ALSO I MET WITH PEOPLE TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT THE REVISED PROJECT, AND THE DIFFERENT AMENITIES OF THE PROJECT. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT I THINK I HAVE RECEIVED NINE OR TEN E-MAILS, REGARDING THIS PROJECT.

AND ALL OF THOSE E-MAILS WERE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. FROM THE CITIZENS ALL ALONG THE COASTAL HIGHWAYS. WITH NONE OBJECTING.

THAT'S ALL I NEED TO REPORT. QUESTIONS?

>> ON JANUARY 12 AT A POSSIBLY 1:00 P.M. WITH KAREN TAYLOR AND DEREK WOOLVERTON, AND GARY PHILLIPS AND STAFF, TO DISCUSS EXPIRED PUD CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS THAT THEY ARE MAKING BRINGING THEM BACK. AND HOW THIS WILL BE A LESS INTENSE USE OF THE LAND THAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

AND I TO HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT A DOZEN OR SO E-MAILS IN FAVOR OF

THIS PROJECT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MET ON THURSDAY JANUARY 6, 10:30 A.M. KAREN TAYLOR, DEREK OVERTON AND GARY PHILLIPS, WE DISCUSSED THE SCOPE IN THE PLANS IN THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT. ALSO THE PROPOSED MARKETPLACE, AND I TOO RECEIVED AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF E-MAILS

IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. >> THANK YOU.

MR. TAYLOR? >> THANK YOU GOOD MORNING KAREN TAYLOR 77 ACROSS THE STREET. WITH ME IS DEREK WOOLVERTON, AND MICHAEL PRESENTER WHICH IS JAMES WHITE HOUSE.

ALSO SO WE WILL GO THROUGH, WE CERTAINLY GAVE YOU A LOT OF INFORMATION AT OUR MEETINGS SO WE WILL KEEP THIS BRIEF.

BASICALLY THIS IS JUST A OVERVIEW OF WHERE THIS IS, IT IS NORTH OF THE TOWN CENTER WEST OF THE OCEAN ON THE INTERCOASTAL.

AND JUST SOUTH OF CARPENTER ROAD.

JUST KINDER TO GIVE YOU A RELATION IT IS NORTH OF THE

[00:50:02]

SURFSIDE SUBDIVIION, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT YOU CAN SEE TO THE NORTH, THE VILLAGES OF MILANO AND THOSE THAT ARE ALSO A SIMILAR TYPE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

FUTURE LAND USE AS A RESIDENTIAL SEE, CONSERVATION, CONSERVATION RELATED TO THE ADJACENT LAND USE OF THE RESIDENTIAL C.

THIS IS KIND OF JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU THE PDF ITSELF WHICH IS 20.48 ACRES. IT ACTUALLY HAS TWO PARTS TO IT WHICH WE WILL CALL THE NORTH PARCEL.

IN THE SOUTH PARCEL, THE SELF PARCEL IS 3.6 ACRES OF IT.

THE OTHER IS 16.88. AUNT VERY LITTLE CHANGE TO THE CELL PARCEL WHICH WE WILL GET INTO.

>> GOOD MORNING JAMES WHITE HOUSE ST. JOHN'S LAW GROUP HERE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY. AS KAREN SAID, YOU KNOW YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, IT IS SOUTH OF NEW SALEM PARK.

REALLY, ONE OF THE BIG REASONS THAT PRECIPITATED THIS MAJOR MODIFICATION WAS THE FACT THAT THIS APPROVED BACK IN 2022, THERE WAS A SHARED ACCESS. THIS WAS THE MAP FROM THE ORIGINAL PD THAT WHEN IT WAS APPROVED.

THERE WAS A SHARED ACCESS WITH THIS COUNTY WHEN HIS COUNTY LAND IN SALEM PARK WAS TO BE DEVELOPED BACK THEN.

AND SO WE CAME TO AN AGREEMENT OR THE OWNERS CAME TO AN AGREEMENT BACK THAT THAT THIS WAS A SHARED ACCESS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. AS YOU KNOW NOW, SALEM PARK THE PARKING HAS BEEN DONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY.

IT IS NOT SHOWN ON THE OVERHEAD. IT IS ACTUALLY I THINK? I THINK THIS IS IT RIGHT? OR JUST OUT OF THAT YES.

SO ANYWAY, THAT IS OKAY, OKAY THAT IS WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS ENDED UP BEING DEVELOPED UP HERE FOR THE PARKING.

SO THE SHARED ACCESS IS NOT NEEDED ANYMORE.

SO A MAJOR PART IS NECESSARY TO CHANGE THAT ACCESS.

SO THIS ACCESS ON THIS ORIGINAL POD APPROVAL APPEAR HAS BEEN MOVED A LITTLE BIT TO THE SELF NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE COUNTY PROPERTY. THE NEW PUD MAP CLEARLY SHOWS THAT AND I WILL HAVE A LARGER BLOWUP OF IT IN A SECOND PERIOD BUT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE TWO GOING BACK AND FORTH, THEY ARE NOT USUALLY DIFFERENT IN THE WAY THAT WE WILL BE DEVELOPED, AS COMMISSIONER WHITE HOUSE NOTED. THERE IS A REDUCTION ON THE DENSITY OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE GOING ON HERE.

AND THERE IS A SALVE PIECE THAT IS PART OF THIS AS WELL THAT IS NOT BEING CHANGED. IN ANY CASE WE HAVE TO INCREASE THAT BECAUSE AS PART OF THE PUD. THERE IS A NUMBER OF SORT OF SMALL CHANGES THAT ARE GOING ON, AND HERE AND THERE IS SOME REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY AND CONSERVATION OF THE PROPERTY.

THERE IS AN INCREASE OF THE THE BUFFER IN THE FRONT BECAUSE REQUIRED 30 FEET ALONG COASTAL HIGHWAYS.

SO WE ARE GOING FROM 25 OVER 230 IN THE FRONT THEN THERE IS A COUPLE PLACES ON THE MAP WHERE IN THE PUD.

BECAUSE WHEN WE MOVED THE DRIVE MILES FROM THE NORTH, CLOSER TO THE MIDDLE, WE STILL HAVE THAT GOES UP ALONG THE EDGE.

AND SO I THINK IT IS A LITTLE REDUCED OF WHAT THE TEMPLATE IS.

BUT IT IS THE SAME PLACE WHERE THE ROAD WAS GOING TO BE ANYWAY ON THE PREVIOUS PUD. NUMBER TWO THAT IS ALL AREA THAT IS NOT DEVELOPED A COUNTY AREA SO DOESN'T AFFECT ANYBODY ON THAT SIDE. A COUPLE OTHER THINGS IS THAT THERE IS IN THE MULTI FAMILY IN THE FRONT, THERE IS INCREASED TO THE HEIGHT, BECAUSE THAT THERE IS THE WAY THE PLAN THAT DIPS DOWN AND REALLY, IT IS TO PROVIDE THE REVIEW NUMBER ONE.

BUT THE HEIGHT FOR FLOODING OR ANYTHING THAT COMES ACROSS THAT WAY. AS YOU KNOW, THE WATER CAME ACROSS IN MATTHEW. SO IN ANY CASE THAT IS THE REASON FOR THOSE. WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF THINGS WITH THE PCA AND YOU GOT A RECOMMENDATION.

WE TALKED ABOUT THEM AT LENGTH, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE ADDRESS. IT WAS THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PIECE THAT IS IN THE FRONT. IT REFLECTS ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. BUT THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PIECE IN THE FRONT, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE PCA OF WHAT WAS GOING TO BE IN THERE. AND TRYING TO START A BIG COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND NERVE PEACH.

NORTH BEACH. WE HAVE A RESIDENT UP TOP AND

[00:55:10]

COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DOWN AROUND IT.

A GOOD EXAMPLE WHEN AS I WAS A KID THEY HAD NORTHEAST CAMPGROUND AT LEAST MUSSINA DID AND THEY HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA INSIDE THERE AND THEY HAD MEETING ROOMS AND OFFICE AREAS. FOR PEOPLE TO MEET WENT THERE WAS NOTHING OUT IN THAT AREA. IN ANY CASE I THINK THAT IS A REFLECTION OF THAT. AS YOU SAW FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT WILL ALSO REPLY THE TAX TO GO BACK TO SAY ON THE COMMERCIAL ON THE BOTTOM WILL BE LIMITED TO HALF OF IT.

HALF OF IT WILL BE SORT OF OFFICE SPACE AND MEETING SPACE FOR PEOPLE. AND THEN THE OTHER HALF WILL BE THIS LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD MARKETS THAT HAS PREPACKAGED FOOD AND FRESH FRUIT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

NOTHING TO THE COMMENTS OF PCA THAT'S WHY YOU SAW A POSITIVE

RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PCA. >> WE ALSO AND HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE MARKETPLACE WHICH IS THE REDESIGNATION.

WE DO HAVE TO EXTEND THE PHASING OBVIOUSLY.

BECAUSE IT EXPIRED FOR THE DIFFERENT THINGS.

WE ALSO HAVE A BUFFER WAIVER AND VARIANCE THAT WAS CREATED AFTER THAT PUD, WE'VE ALSO DONE SOME ARE OPERATING AROUND THE LINE THERE. SO TO GO TO THAT IF WE DO NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE JAMES YOU'VE ACTUALLY KIND OF GONE THROUGH MOST OF THOSE, AND KINDA SHOWED PROBABLY THAT MARKETPLACE WAS ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS OF PCAA.

SO, THAT IS ACTUALLY THE LANGUAGE, BUT IT IS VERY LIMITED TO THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF USES AS JAMES MENTIONED.

IT IS NOT A GENERAL COMMERCIAL GENERAL TYPE THING, THERE IS NO GAS STATIONS, IT IS A VERY SMALL SITE.

AND YOU CAN TAKE IT FROM THERE, THERE IS A FLOOR PLAN THAT GOES

WITH THAT TOO. >> RIGHT, THANK YOU KAREN.

AGAIN THIS IS SORT OF THE FLOOR PLAN THE GENERAL FOR PANT GOES BACK TO THE STUFF I HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.

WE CONTINUE TO GO ON THEIR A LITTLE DEPICTION.

YOU KNOW THE SITE WE DON'T NEED TO REHASH THAT.

I THINK THAT YOU KNOW THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT PUD'S WE TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC IN CURRENCY AND COMPATIBILITY OF THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION SINCE IT WAS ALREADY APPROVED PREVIOUSLY WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT 2022 AND WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THOSE THINGS ABOUT COUNTY CODES FOR THOSE PARTICULAR THINGS AS YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE GOT LEAVES A LOT OF SUPPORT I THINK. FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYBODY IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT IT? BEFORE ORGANZA, BUT I THINK IS NOT TO BELABOR THE ISSUE AND WE TALK ABOUT IT WHILE IT'S IN HIS INFANCY AND I WEAR HAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THANK YOU.

>> IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> YES OR WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT NOW IS THE TIME. SEEING NONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

>> THIS IS IN DISTRICT FIVE ACTUALLY, AND I WILL MAKE A MOTION, AND I WILL PREFACE THE MOTION BY SAYING THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING PROJECT IN REVIEW. IT ACTUALLY TAKES WHAT I THINK IS AN UNTITLED PROJECT, TO MAKE IT BETTER.

SO I AM VERY PLEASED THAT IT TURNED OUT THIS WAY.

SO I WILL MOVE TO AN ACT 2022-12 APPROVING THE 202007 TOTAL MODEL RIVER FARMS PUD BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACTORS.

[6. Public Hearing * REZ 2021-35 Red Moon Properties. Request to rezone approximately 1.34 acres of land from Commercial Neighborhood (CN) to Residential, Manufactured/Mobile Home or Single Family (RMH(S)) to allow for one (1) singlefamily home on each of the six (6) platted lots of record. This request was heard before the Planning and Zoning Agency at their regularly scheduled public hearing on January 20, 2022, and was recommended for approval 5-0. ]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT PASSES 5-0. OKAY NUMBER SIX.

NUMBER SIX I THINK THAT IS, YES IT IS.

NUMBER SIX IS QUASIJUDICIAL, SO ANY X PARTAKE COMMISIONER

BARKER? >> NO MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> YES MR. CHAIRMAN I HAD A CALL FROM MR. BILL MILLER ON THURSDAY ABOUT 4:00 P.M., AND WE SPOKE ABOUT THE CHANGES FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.

ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE BEACH WALKOVER, I KNEW HE WAS ON THE AGENDA SO I DID NOT THINK IT WAS OKAY.

[01:00:01]

I ALSO DID A SITE VISIT HAS BEEN ABOUT THE SITE A FEW TIMES

LOOKING AT A COUPLE OF THINGS. >> 0 THANK YOU COMMISSIONER?

>> I HAVE NO MR. CHAIRMAN. >> I HAVE NONE, IT WAS WHO IS PRESENTING ON ITEM NUMBER SIX? YES, SIR.

>> HOW YOU GUYS DOING TODAY? NICE FOR YOUR TIME, MR. WALDRON

HOW ARE YOU DOING? >> GOOD.

>> JUST CHECKING IN ON THAT KNOW I AM JUST HERE TO PRESENT THIS PROJECT, WORKING TO REZONE SIX LOTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED AND WE ARE LOOKING TO REZONE THOSE TO RESIDENTIAL.

RESIDENTIAL HS, SIMILAR TO THE 12 LOTS THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR THE SAME APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD, IF APPROVED IT WILL CONSTRUCT SIX RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON THAT PROPERTY TO BE COMPLETED.

BY THE END OF 22. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

OKAY PUBLIC COMMENT? >> OKAY WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, WE ARE NOW TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX.

SEEING NONE, WE ARE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> YES, SIR MR. CHAIRMAN I WILL MAKE IN A MOTION TO ENACT 2022-13 BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT THE SUBJECT ON ONE

CONDITION, AS PROVIDED. >> SECOND PERIOD.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE VOTE.

AND IT IS APPROVED 5-0. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, THAT IS OUR LAST QUAD SITE JUDICIAL X PARTAKE.

[7. Public Hearing * REZ 2021-28 631 Oakland Avenue. Request to rezone approximately .23 acres of land from Commercial General (CG) to Residential, Single Family (RS-3) to accommodate construction of one (1) single-family home. This item was heard before the Planning and Zoning Agency at their regularly scheduled public hearing on January 20, 2022, and was recommended for approval, 5-0. ]

>> AND I HAVE NOT, ITEM SEVEN, THE OAKLAND AVENUE PROJECT, OAKLAND AVENUE. GOOD MORNING?

>> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS KEENAN I AM REQUESTING TO REZONE 631 OAKLAND AVENUE FROM CG TO RESIDENTIAL.

SO WE CAN BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE THERE.

AND THIS REQUEST RECEIVED 5-0 IN FAVOR DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM SEVEN, SEEING THAT WILL CLOSE PUBLIC ON.

>> I WILL MOVE ITEM SEVEN MOTION TO ENACT OR AND IS 2022-14 BASED

[8. Impact Fee Credit Transfer Presentation. The County has received several requests to transfer unused road impact fee credits to other development projects. The presentation discusses current state and county law and options the Board may consider. ]

ON COURT FINDINGS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT PASSES 5-0.

>> NUMBER EIGHT, WHO ON THE STAFF IS PRESENTING THIS ITEM?

>> MS. VALLIERE? >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS CHRISTINE VALLIERE SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.

TODAY, FOR THE CHAIRMAN DIRECTION WE HAVE AN AGENDA AND THEM FOR YOU TO DISCUSS. IN IMPACT FEE TRANSFERS.

I HAVE THAT FEW SLIDES TO SET THE TABLE FOR THE DISCUSSION.

BEGINNING WHY DO WE HAVE ON USED ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDITS? GENERALLY THIS OCCURS DUE TO PROPORTIONATE FAIR SHARE AGREEMENTS, WHICH MAY RESULT IN EXTRA CREDITS BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER AGREES TO PAY FOR THEIR UNFORTUNATE FAIR SHARE.

THEN WHAT THEY WOULD ULTIMATELY USED TO OFFSET AN IMPACT FEES LATER AND DEVELOPMENTS. SO THEY COULD HAVE EXCESS CREDITS, WHICH RIGHT NOW THEY ARE LOOKING TO TRANSFER.

GIVEN CHANGES IN STATE LAW. WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE IMPACT THESE STATUES RECENTLY. WE MADE CLEAR THAT IMPACT FEE CREDITS ARE ASSIGNABLE AND TRANSFERABLE WITHIN THE SAME IMPACT FREEZONE OR DISTRICT. OR AN ADJOINING DISTRICT, WHEN THERE IS A SHOWING OF BENEFIT BETWEEN THE PROJECT OR FUNDS CREATING THE CREDITS AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

[01:05:02]

IS LANGUAGE IN SECTION 13, THAT STATES CREDITS MAY BE ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE FROM ONE PROJECT TO ANOTHER WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

IT DOES INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THAT IS SIMILAR IN A STATUTE WHICH TALKS ABOUT TRANSFERRING BETWEEN ZONES.

WHEN THERE IS A BENEFIT. THE STANDARD AGREEMENT IN THE COUNTY'S TEMPLATE, OR THE STANDARD LANGUAGE IN THE COUNTY TEMPLATE AGREEMENT ALSO PROVIDS FOR APPROVAL OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS, TRANSFER IMPACT FEE CREDITS, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY. THERE IS A PROVISION IN ARTICLE 11 OF THE LDC, WHICH PERTAINS TO CURRENCY MANAGEMENT THAT LIMITS TRANSFERABILITY OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS HOWEVER, THAT LANGUAGE IS PREEMPTED BY THE RECENT CHANGE IN FLORIDA STATUTES.

SO, THE POTENTIAL OPTIONS THAT THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER IN THIS TOPIC, ALL ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDIT TRANSFERS COULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD. THE BOARD MAY DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, SO THAT THOSE REQUESTS ARE CONSIDERED ALL OR IN PART AT STAFF LEVEL.

THE BOARD MAY CHOOSE TO CONSIDER ONLY THOSE REQUESTS THAT INVOLVE TRANSFERS BETWEEN DISTRICTS IN BENEFIT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN THE BOARD COULD TAKE NO ACTION, AND DISCUSS ANY OTHER OPTIONS.

>> OKAY ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU WANT TO

JUMP INTO? >> DO YOU WANT TO GOING TO

PUBLIC COMMENT? >> WE CAN SURE,.

>> SURE ALL RIGHT WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS TIME ON AGENDA I AM IN NUMBER EIGHT.

THE CREDIT TRANSFER DISCUSSION. YES SIR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

RECORD. >> GOOD MORNING TOM INGRAM 233 EAST BAY STREET JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA.

I AM HERE LAND-USE ATTORNEY AT PRACTICE AT ST. JOHNS COUNTY FOR OVER 20 YEARS NOW. AND I HAVE TWO PENDING REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL OF IMPACT FEE CREDIT TRANSFERS ONE INVOLVES THE FOUNTAINS NORTH PROJECTS AT 21095, THE REQUEST IS TO BE ABLE TRANSFER CREDIT TO FOUNTAINS EAST, AND EXCUSE ME AS FOUNTAIN SOUTH BUT AS YOU KNOW THE FOUNTAINS IS BASICALLY ONE PROJECT, THAT IS IN THREE PUD'S THAT ARE ALL ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER THEY ALL SHARE ACCESS TO OUR INVESTMENT ONE RECEIVES IN CREDIT FOR RIGHT OF WAY CONTRIBUTIONS.

THEY DID NOT HAVE A PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. THAT IS ONE OF THEM, IT IS IN THE IMPACT FEE CREDIT DISTRICT. THE OTHER IS A NESTLING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY THEY RECEIVED CREDITS FOR MANY YEARS AGO FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO WIDEN COUNTY ROAD 210 WEST OF I-95 THE REQUEST IS TO TAKE SOME REMAINING CREDIT WHICH IS NOT APPRECIATED WITH INFLATION IS QUITE DEVALUED NOW.

IT IS A TRANSFER IT TO THE BRIDGEWATER PUD WHICH IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF 210, IT IS THAN 4 MILES AWAY FROM THE SITE, AND HUNDRED YEAR POLICIES YOU DID ANALYZE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT ANY PROJECT WOULD IMPACT TRAFFIC WITHIN A 4-MILE RADIUS.

THE STAFF IS ALSO COMPLETED THAT THERE IS A BENEFIT TO BRIDGEWATER FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT THAT WAS CONDUCTED MANY YEARS AGO.

WITH THAT, I JUST YOU KNOW, GENERAL STATEMENTS ON THE STATUTE. AS TWO OF YOUR ATTORNEYS YOU SHOULD NOTE THE FIRST THE RULE OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION IS TO IMPLY MEANING. THE WORDS ON THE PAGE CLEARLY SUPPORT THE HOLDERS OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS ARE ENTITLED TO TRANSFER, AND THIS IS NOT AN OPTION.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THIS STATUTE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY, TAKEN BY YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY.

THAT THE LEGISLATURE RESPONDED, AND CHANGE THE STATUTE AGAIN.

IT DOES APPLY TO ANY CREDITS AND IN THE ZONING CONTEXT, YOU PROBABLY FOR THIS MANY TIMES THE DECISIONS IN THE ZONING, ARE GIVEN FAIRLY BROAD DEFINITIONS BY THE COURTS.

HOW YOU APPLY POLICIES TO ZONING DECISIONS.

SO IF THE FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO WHY ZONING WAS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED, YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO WIN AS THE COUNTY, AND I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE, UNFORTUNATELY, IN THIS CASE THIS IS A STATE STATUTE. THERE IS NO DEFERENCE GIVEN TO THE COUNTY INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE THE COURSE WILL JUST READ THE WORDS ON THE PAGE. AND MAKE THE BEST DECISION THEY KNOW HOW. I BELIEVE IT IS CLEAR AS THE

[01:10:08]

TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX HAVE CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND YOU ARE TRYING TO MEET THOSE. AND KEEP YOUR BALANCE BUDGET, THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX TO LOOK AT RAISING

FUNDS, SUCH AS MOBILITY FEE. >> THANK YOU SIR THAT IS THE TIME. ANYBODY ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? YES OR MR. FISHER.

NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE FOR THE RECORD.

>> MY NAME IS WILLIAM FISHER, 10130 MCMAHON AVENUE FLAGLER ESTATES. PRESIDENT OF FLAGLER ESTATES WROTE IN WATER CONTROL DISTRICT. AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED SEVERAL TIMES, WHERE IS FLAGLER ESTATES SHARE OF THE IMPACT FEES THAT ARE CHARGED? WE CAN USE THE FUNDING FOR PAVING THE ROADS, FLAGLER ESTATES ROAD IN WATER CONTROL DISTRICT ALSO IMPOSES A TAX. THE COST OF THE MATERIALS THESE DAYS IS OUTRAGEOUS. WE NEED A LITTLE HELP.

CONSIDER IT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU MR. FISHER I APPRECIATE IT ANYBODY ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> GOOD MORNING BJ COLLETTI WITH THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE CITY LIMITS OF STATE AUGUSTINE. LISTENING TO THIS I WILL GET THE BACKUP EVENTUALLY. I KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T DENY THIS, BECAUSE OF THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED BECAUSE THE LOBBYIST GOT IT THERE. BUT THE THING IS, I THINK THIS SHOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THIS BOARD, AND YOU WILL JUST PASS IT LIKE YOU HAVE IN THE PAST. SO THE PUBLIC CAN KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. STAFF SHOULD NOT BE ONE MAKING THE DECISIONS. THERE IS TOO MUCH MANIPULATION WITH THE STAFF, AND THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE TOO AS YOU ALL ALLOW DEVELOPERS AND THE LAWYERS TO GET UP HERE.

AND NOT HAVE THE STAFF MAKE THE PRESENTATION.

YOU HAD JUSTIFY THAT IN YOUR MIND AND I STILL DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS RIGHT. BECAUSE COVID-19 IS OVER WITH.

THIS SHOULD BE CONTINUED TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD SO YOU CAN PASS IT IN THE PUBLIC WILL KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE

IMPACT FEES THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, WHEN ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? OKAY SEEING HIM WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THANK YOU, OKAY COMING BACK TO THE BOARD, WE PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA AS IN AGENDA ITEM BUT IT IS ALSO SERVING AS A WORKSHOP BECAUSE WE AGREE TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON IMPACT CREDIT TRANSFERS. BEFORE WE WENT FORWARD WITH ANY MORE INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS FROM APPLICANTS.

THAT WAS MY GOAL TO HAVE A THOROUGH DISCUSSION AND HOPE TO MAKE A DECISION THAT MIGHT MAKE AND ALLOW US TO CONSIDER IT NOT THAT IT WILL PROVE IT NECESSARILY.

BUT AT LEAST CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS.

WITH THAT OTHER ANY COMMENTS? >> MR. CHAIRMAN I APPRECIATE YOU HAVING THIS ON THE AGENDA TODAY. MY CONCERNS ARE THROUGHOUT MY TIME ON THE BOARD. WE BEEN HERE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. WE HAVE BEEN PROMISED PUBLIC BENEFIT BY DEVELOPERS, CONTINUOUSLY THAT DAY.

AS TO THE ROADWORK THAT THEY WILL DO, AS THEY PROBABLY WOULD BENEFIT. BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE TRANSFER ABILITY IMPACT FEES. NOW THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT WAS PROMISED TO THE BOARD. SO TO THE BOARD APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS NOT THERE ANYMORE IT HAS TO BE TRANSFERRED. AND THAT BURDEN, ON IMPACT AND ROADS WILL FALL AGAIN TO THE TAXPAYER OF ST. JOHN'S COUNTY.

I THINK IT IS A BIG ENOUGH ISSUE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS STATUS SAID, BUT I THINK IT IS A BIG ENOUGH ISSUE, I'VE ASKED LORRAINE AND THEM TO PLAY A TAPE OF ONE HENRY ON IR ON IT.

JUST TO KINDA SEE WHAT IS PROMISED AND WHAT WE WILL LOOK AT OF THE PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE ACTION AGREEMENT ACTUALLY SAYS. IF YOU DON'T MIND FOR A FEW

MINUTES TODAY. >> WE NEED TO TURN UP THE VOLUME AND START OVER WE CANNOT HEAR IT.

>> MR. CHAIR I AM SORRY IF WE CAN HAVE TOM UP IN THE BACK WITH PUTTING THE VOLUME UP MAYBE THAT MAY WORK?

[01:15:07]

THE VOLUME IS ALL THE WAY UP ON THE COMPUTER AS WELL.

THAT SECTION HAS TO BE COMPLETE. YOU ARE COMMITTING THAT THAT HAS

TO BE DONE. >> APOLOGIES MR. CHAIRMAN THAT

IS THE MAXIMUM VOLUME. >> IT STOPPED PLAYING.

20 MILLION IT IS GUARANTEED. >> YOU HAVE ON YOUR CONSENT AGENDA A CURRENCY AND IMPACT FEE CREDIT THAT IS CONTINGENT ON YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE PUD REZONING APPLICATION. THIS SLIDE IS A SUMMARY OF THAT DOCUMENT. YES, COMMISSIONER MORRIS, THAT DOCUMENT SAYS THAT IF THIS ROAD, IF THE ESTIMATE IS 15 MILLION AND A COST $20 MILLION TO BUILD, WE HAVE TO SPEND $20 MILLION TO BUILD IT. IT IS THE DEVELOPERS RISK.

>> BUT TO YOUR POINT, BECAUSE THE THE CURRENCY AND IMPACT FEE PART OF THE AGREEMENT IS QUITE DENSE.

WE PUT TOGETHER A SLIDE THAT WALKS THROUGH AND I WILL CALL IT THE FIVE-YEAR TIMELINE. SO THAT YEAR ONE STARTS ON THE DAY THAT YOU ADOPT IF YOU CHOOSE TO ADOPT TODAY.

SO YEAR ONE IS THE POND ACQUISITIONS AND DESIGN THAT CAUSE SUPPRESSED ME $2.6 MILLION THAT MEANS THE DEVELOPER IS PAYING THAT MONEY UNDER ITS OWN POCKET.

SO IT WILL FUND DIRECTLY THAT UPON SITE ACQUISITION IN THE ROAD DESIGN OF ITS FUNDS. AND THEN IN YEAR TWO, THE ROAD PERMITTING SIZE. SO ONCE THE ROAD IS DESIGNED IT HAS TO BE PERMITTED TO DOT THE EPA, AND THE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THAT IS WHEN THE CASH MONEY STARTS COMING INTO THE COUNTY TO BE PLACED IN ESCROW. AND SO THAT BY THE TIME SO YOU GOT THE $2.6 MILLION IN-KIND PLUS IS 1.59 MILLION IN ESCROW, IN YEAR NUMBER TWO. BY THE TIME YOU HAVE 212 PLOTTED UNITS WITHIN THE PROJECT. THAT MEANS PLOTTED NOT NECESSARILY CONSTRUCTED. YEAR THREE, THEY HAVE TO BOND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD. IN THAT SAME YEAR THEY PAY THREE $.7 MILLION TO THE COUNTY IN CASH TO FOR YOU TO HOLD IN ESCROW. AND THEY ALSO, SO THAT IS THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE AMOUNT. THEY ALSO START PAYING THE PUBLIC BENEFIT DOLLARS OF $1,847,000.

SO BY THE TIME YOU GET 581 UNITS, SO YOU'LL HAVE $9.7 MILLION EITHER ON IN-KIND PLANS OR ROAD PERMITS AT THE COUNTY CAN USE, IN CASH, IN CASE THEY DEFAULT.

SO THAT IS THE MECHANISM BY 500 BY THE EARLIER OF 581 UNITS.

THAT ROAD REACHING CAPACITY AS MR. NGUYEN TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.

THEY HAVE TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD.

THEY ARE PAINT THE REST OF THIS MONEY OUT OF THEIR POCKETS DIRECTLY TO CONTRACTORS TO BUILD A ROAD UNDER THEIR GUIDANCE.

WITH DOT INSPECTORS AND ALL OF THAT BECAUSE THAT IS JUST PART OF THE DOT PROGRAM. SO THIS JUST SHOWS YOU, BY END OF YEAR FIVE THEY HAVE COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD AT

THEIR COST AND THEIR REST. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNS.

>> I NOTED THAT YOU HAD. >> THIS IS SOME OF MY CONCERN FOR YOUR FIVE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NEXT YEAR.

THEY HAVEN'T STARTED THE ROAD AT ALL.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD, BY DEVELOPERS FROM TIME TO TIME THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT.

THIS PUBLIC BENEFIT NO LONGER EXISTS.

DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF WHAT WAS, IF WE COULD ASK WHETHER THE PROPORTION OF A FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT.

AND I AM NOT PICKING ON THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR BUT IT IS ONE THAT HAD A RESIDENT CONTACT ME ABOUT HOW AND WHEN THE ROAD IS GOING TO BE COMPLETED? IT KINDA HELPED SIGNIFY MY ANGST OR SOME OF THE THINGS. WHAT DOES THE PROPORTIONAL FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT STAY THEY HAVE TO PAY TO FIX THE ROAD?

AND BUILD A ROAD? >> YES GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIR

[01:20:03]

AND COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD FOLLOWING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT MANAGER.

YOUR QUESTION IS WHAT IS A PROP SHARE? THE PROP SHARE AMOUNT IS BASED ON THE IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS, THAT WHEN WE ASSESS THAT IMPACTS ALL OF THE IMPACTED AND ADVERSELY IMPACTED ROADS.

IN SEGMENTS. AND THE COST IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THAT, THEY PAY A PROP SHARE BAYS BASED ON A NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT IMPACTED THAT PARTICULAR SEGMENT.

FOR EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE 20 TRIPS, IMPACTING THAT SEGMENT.

AND IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THAT SEGMENT, THAT 20 TRIPS WILL COST APPROXIMATELY 100,000 I'M JUST GIVEN A HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER.

>> I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS,.

>> OKAY SORRY. >> FOR THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION WE JUST ASK AND LISTEN TO COMMISSIONER MORRIS' QUESTIONS WHAT WAS THE AGREEMENT WITH THEM FOR THE PROPORTION

FAIR SHARE AGREEMENT? >> THEY AGREED THAT THE PROP SHARE THAT WAS RECALCULATED FOR GRAND OAKS WAS ROUGHLY ABOUT 10 MILLION. SO THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY 50 MILLION, SO THE PUBLIC BENEFIT WHEN THEY WERE PROPOSIG

IS AN ADDITIONAL 5 MILLION. >> NOW WOULD THAT BE TRANSFERABLE NOW? UNDER NEW STATE LAW?

THAT $5 MILLION? >> YES, IT WILL BE TRANSFERABLE.

>> SO IT IS REALLY NOT TRULY A PUBLIC BENEFIT OTHER THAN THEY

ARE FRONTING THE MONEY. >> YES BUT PART OF THE AGREEMENT THAT WE AGREED WITH THEM IS THAT WOULD BE IMPACT FEE CREDITABLE.

SO THE 15 MILLION THAT THEY POTENTIALLY WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ALL OF IT. BUT POTENTIALLY WHEN WE RECEIVE THAT, THAT COULD BE FOR IMPACT FEES CREDITS.

>> WHAT DO WE ESTIMATE THE COST OF THAT ROAD TO BE BUILT NOW

UNDER DOT? >> [LAUGHTER] YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

>> THE BOARD NEEDS TO KNOW, THIS IS MORE EDUCATIONAL FOR US.

WE WE HAVE ALWAYS PROJECTED THE CAUSE FOR THE 3-MILE IS NOT 30 MILLION. THEY MAKE A STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO PAY 50 MILLION AND CONSTRUCT THAT THAT 3-MILE SEGMENT. THE REASON THE COST ESTIMATE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE APPLICANT, AND FOR DISCUSSION OF THEM ABOUT SEVERAL WEEKS AGO IS ABOUT $59 MILLION FOR THE

THREE-MILE SEGMENT. >> BUT WHAT WE WERE PROMISED TO THE BOARD, TO APPROVE THIS, WAS THEY WOULD PAY THE COST OF THAT

NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. >> THAT WAS ON THE RECORD VERBALLY YES, SIR. I'D LIKE TO GET THE BOARD'S FEEDBACK, I KNOW HOW TO TAKE IT WHEN WE ARE SITTING HERE AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE ONLY ONE OUT HERE.

IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES WE WILL TALK ABOUT RAISING THE TAX.

TO COVER THESE WE ARE NOT GOOD STEWARDS IN MY OPINION.

WE DID NOT HOLD THEM TO WHAT THEY SAID.

AND THAT IS WHAT THAT IS WHY, I HAVE A HARD TIME TRANSFERRING CREDITS, BECAUSE TO MEET WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE AND SAY HEY DID YOU PROMISE THIS IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT? BECAUSE IF YOU ARE TRANSFERRING THEM IT IS NOT A PUBLIC BENEFIT IN MY EYES.

OF WHAT YOU PROMISE TO GET YOUR SUBDIVISION APPROVED.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY? I SEE OTHER NAMES.

>> BEFORE I CALL ON OTHER COMMISSIONERS, I JUST WANT TO SAY I AM SORT OF GETTING TO BE, I AM STARTING TO UNDERSTAND MAY BE A LITTLE BIT, OF WHY WE HAVE $220 MILLION FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE. SO WITH THAT SAID, CHRISTIAN WE

WILL START WITH YOU. >> THIS IS THROUGH THE CHAIR TO MS. VALLIERE, WHEN YOU ARE MAKING THE PRESENTATION I WANT TO UNDERSTAND AND CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD.

THESE CREDITS WERE BASICALLY BUILT BY DEVELOPERS OVERPAYING THAT PROPORTION FAIR SHARE OBLIGATION?

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> YES.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT CLEARLY.

>> YES FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THERE PROPORTION FAIR SHARE CALCULATED UNDER THE METHODOLOGY PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE, WAS APPROXIMATELY $10.1 MILLION. THEY AGREED TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL $4.8 MILLION AS A PUBLIC BENEFIT, IN THIS CASE THEY DID NOT SEEK IMPACTING CREDITS FOR THAT 4.8 MILLION, THEY DID FOR

THAT PROPORTION FAIR SHARE. >> THANK YOU THAT ANSWERS THAT

[01:25:03]

QUESTION. I THINK THAT I AM CONCERNED IN THE SAME VEIN AS COMMISSIONER WALDRON, AND THAT WHEN WE VOTE ON THE PROJECT CARE, WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT IS ENFORCEABLE. THROUGH LEGAL MEANS.

SO WHEN WE HEAR A DEVELOPER TELL US THAT HEY IF THE ROAD COST 20 MILLION EVEN THOUGH WE PROMISE 15, IF THEY COST 20 WE WILL PAY THAT TOO, IS THAT NOT ENFORCEABLE?

>> IT MAY BE ENFORCEABLE IN DIFFERENT WAYS, AND THEN FORCING THEM TO BUILD THE ROAD. THERE IS A LIMITATION IN THE CONCURRENCY STATUTE, THAT SAYS THE COUNTY CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO PAY MORE THAT THERE PROPORTION FAIR SHARE.

WE HAVE BY AGREEMENT COMMITMENTS OFTEN THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL PAY MORE AND THAT PROPORTION FAIR SHARE.

BECAUSE THEY DO IMPACTING CREDITS, AND THEN THEY CAN REQUEST IMPACTING CREDITS FOR THAT ENTIRE VALUE, AND USE THEM TO OFFSET THE COST OF IMPACT FEES THAT COME LATER IT THE DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT COULD LIMIT THE WAY THE COUNTY ENFORCES THE AGREEMENT, BUT THAT COULD BE OTHER MECHANISMS AND REMEDIES TO ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT IN THE SITUATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER IS BACKING OFF THEIR ORIGINAL

PROPOSAL. >> OKAY, I KNOW YOU AND I'VE BASICALLY BEEN HERE FOR A YEAR. IN YOUR OPINION OF THE YEAR THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HERE HAVE YOU SEEN US TAKE THOSE ACTIONS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO OWN FORCE THOSE AGREEMENTS? THAT WERE MADE YEARS AGO? TO ENFORCE THE DEVELOPERS TO

FILL THEIR OBLIGATIONS. >> THIS IS THE FIRST INSTANCE THAT I HAVE SEEN SEEK TO WALK BACK THERE AGREEMENT.

>> OKAY THANK YOU, THAT IS VERY HELPFUL.

SO, THAT IS ONE SIGHT OF IT THAT WAS COMMISSIONER WALDRON'S CONCRT WHICH IS MY CONCERN TOO. SECONDLY WE ALL FIVE COMMISSIONERS SET UP HERE, I KNOW COMMISSIONER OUT YOU WERE HERE. BUT WE UNANIMOUSLY MADE A MOTION TO SEND A LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT LAST YEAR.

ASK HIM TO NOT SIGN THE HOUSE BILL IN THE SENATE BILL THAT SORT OF CHANGED THESE CREDIT TRANSFER AGREEMENTS.

SO WE ALL UNANIMOUSLY SPOKE AGAINST THIS BILL THAT WAS HANDED DOWN BY THE LEGISLATURE. IT PASSED ANYWAY, IT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW, BEING THAT IT IS LAW, AREN'T WE JUST BEATING OUR HEADS AGAINST A WALL? ARE THERE ANY ACTIONS THAT WE CAN TAKE NOW, I WE PREEMPTED? I KNOW I USE THE WERE PREEMPTED, CAN'T WE TAKE ANY ACTIONS AS A BOARD TO PUSH BACK ON THAT?

>> IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO TAKE A BLANKET STANCE AT THIS POINT, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS IN THE 1987 IMPACTING ORDINANCE REGARDING TRANSFERABILITY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE BOARD. ALSO A SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN THE STANDARD AGREEMENT TEMPLATE. IT COULD BE A BETTER LEGAL POSITION IF THE BOARD CHOSE SELECTIVELY TO CHALLENGE A SPECIFIC INSTANCE THAT PERHAPS GOES BE ON THE BENEFIT ANALYSIS, DESCRIBED WHEN THEY ARE SEEKING TO TRANSFER BETWEEN ZONES.

>> ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS THERE MAY BE A CASE THAT PRESENTS ITSELF OR WE MAY HAVE A LEGAL WAY TO OVERBUILD THAT.

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAMBERS.

>> THIS IS WHY WE NEED MOBILITY FEES THIS EXAMPLE RIGHT HERE.

I WANT TO GO AWFUL COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST SAID.

I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT I WILL IT EASY STAFF AT LEGAL STAFF IDENTIFY SOME OF THOSE MECHANISMS, TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY MAKE COMMITMENTS TO THE PEOPLE OF STS IMPORTANT. AND I THINK THEY'RE A LEGAL MECHANISM WE CAN EXPLORE. AND THEN WE NEED TO DEVELOP A TOOLKIT ON THAT. IF THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES OF THIS IS NOT THE FIRST EXAMPLE. AGAIN WE COME UP WHERE WE MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT IS IN FRONT OF US. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE BEST DECISION FOR THE COMMUNITY. IT IS DISCONCERTING TO SEE THIS LATER. MY QUESTION IS DOES IS TRANSFER CREDITS LIMITING THE OBLIGATION FOR DEVELOPERS TO FULFILL THAT

PUBLIC BENEFIT? >> NO IT DOES NOT.

>> OKAY, EVEN IF THE CREDITS ARE TRANSFERRED, THEY ARE STILL OBLIGATED TO FULFILL THESE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. >> I THINK WE AS A BOARD, TO ADDRESS THIS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE LEGAL TEAM HERE AND HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE. IF WE ARE COMING UP HERE, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE MAKE COMMITMENTS TO THE CITIZENS OF ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND WE NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

MR. CHAIRMAN THAT SHOULD BE OUR NEXT WORKSHOP FIGURE THAT OUT.

THIS IS ACTUALLY UNACCEPTABLE THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE NOT FULFILLING OBLIGATIONS. A KNOCK ON ANYBODY BROUGHT THIS UP. DON'T SINGLE OUT THIS ONE

[01:30:01]

DEVELOPER HERE, OTHERS ARE DOING IT AS WELL.

>> THERE WAS E-MAILS AND THINGS. >> I KNOW WHY YOU DID IT WE ARE LOOKING AT IT AND WE ARE LOOKING AT A TEAM WITH CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT GOING FORWARD. SO THANK YOU MR. JIMMY.

>> THERE IS A COUPLE COMMENTS I WANT TO MAKE ON THE COMMISSIONERS COMMENT. I DON'T SEE THIS AS AN OVERPAYMENT I SEE IS A MISCALCULATION.

LIKE WHEN YOU ORDERED SOMETHING IF IT COST WHEN IT, IS THAT AN OVERPAYMENT? OR DID YOU MISCALCULATE WITH THE COST ONCE? I THAT IS WHY WE NEED A MULTIPLIER IF WE DON'T HAVE FEES HOW DO WE KEEP IT UP? WE MAY NEVER HAVE ORDERS THAT MIGHT BE 20-YEARS-OLD.

THAT IS WAY MORE THAN IN THIS THING.

WHEN YOU TRANSFER EVENTUALLY, NOTHING AGAINST MS. CHRISTINE SAID. IT EVENTUALLY ENDS UP THAT THE TAXPAYERS WILL HAVE TO PAY ALL OF IT TO IMPROVE 207 OR 16.

BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO WALK UP AND HAVE THESE IMPACT CREDITS. WE DON'T HAVE TO FIX THEM.

EGO HERE IS WHAT WE COLLECTED. AND THAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE TAXPAYERS AND I DON'T THINK IT IS RIGHT.

ONE THING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT I KNOW IT INCREASES TAXES BUT IT INCREASES SERVICES. WHEN I WAS YOUNG HERE, AND DEVELOPMENT TOOK OFF, WE WERE PROMISE PAPERWORK ITSELF.

AND IN THIS DISCUSSION DOES NOT PAY FOR ITSELF.

BECAUSE YOU CANNOT KEEP UP WHEN INFLATION BIG INFLATION RIGHT NOW, LIKE TO SET ABOUT THE ROWS THEY HAVE TREMENDOUSLY INCREASING COSTS. IN THE OTHER AGREEMENTS ALLOW THE MULTIPLIER THEY ARE JUST A BAND-AID.

AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T MEAN TO JUST PICK ON THIS ONE, BUT THE COMMISSIONER IS CORRECT WE NEED TO LOOK AT MR. CHAIRMAN.

SO WE GO AND GET MAKE SURE WE HAVE WAYS TO ADHERE TO WHAT THEY HAVE TOLD THE BOARD. YEAR FIVE OF THIS PROJECT IS NEXT YEAR. AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT IF YOU DRIVE 16 YOU WANT THAT ROAD TO BE FOUR LANES.

AND ESPECIALLY IF WE HAVE ANOTHER 581.

>> MR. CHAIR CAN I DRESS THE GRAND OLD STUFF I DIDN'T EXPECT THIS TO BE ON THE AGENDA TODAY. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT AN AGREEMENT AND APPLICATION AS AN ADMIN FILE.

I DO REPRESENT GRAND OAKS. THEY ARE NOT OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH ANYTHING AND THEY HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY PROMISES, THAT AGREEMENT SAYS IF YOU PLANT SO MANY UNITS, THEN IT TRIGGERS A ROAD OBLIGATION, IT HASN'T REACHED THAT POINT, AS MR. SAID, THE ROAD BECAUSE IT IS NOW OVER $50 MILLION.

SO SURE THEY ARE LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES.

BUT IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THEY HAD VIOLATED AN AGREEMENT

OR BROKEN A PROMISE. >> OKAY.

>> IF I CAN JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT MISSED CHAIRMAN.

>> THAT IS NOT THE STATE THAT THEY WROTE THE PROMISES, BUT WAS TOLD US ON THE FOURTH. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT GOING FORWARD, AND HOW IT LAYS OUT TO HOLD THIS THEME.

>> I WILL ALLOW BJ TO SPEAK, SO BJ,.

>> I ONLY NEED ONE MINUTE BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO PUT ON SOMETHING ELSE. THIS REALLY CONCERNS ME, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, THAT I WANT TO SAY IT WAS ADVERTISE, IMPACT FEE CREDIT TRANSFER PRESENTATION, IT WAS NOT ADVERTISED AS A WORKSHOP, WHICH WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR WHICH MR. WALDRON HAS BEEN ASKING FOR. SO THIS IS NOT DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE WE NEED A REAL WORKSHOP AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADVERTISED WITH THE WORD IN IT.

SO THE PUBLIC CAN COME AND SIT HERE IF THEY NEED TO ALL DAY.

SO THIS LAWYER HAS BEEN COMING UP HERE AND FIND YOU YOU LET HIM TALK AND EVERYTHING. BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS AGENDA ITEM STATED. AND THAT IS NOT FAIR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. BECAUSE YOU HAD A TWO AND HALF HOUR WORKSHOP ON THE GROWTH OF THE COUNTY.

AND PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND THEY STAYED HERE.

THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT I AM SEEING RIGHT NOW, I AM GLAD YOU ARE DISCUSSING IT, BUT PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY DECISION TODAY WITHOUT HAVING A REAL WORKSHOP AND ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS THAT IS MY CONCERN KENTE -- TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOW ME TOO

SPEAK. >> LET ME MAKE A SUGGESTION, WE

[01:35:07]

NEED A FOLLOW-UP WORKSHOP AND WE NEED THREE THINGS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WAYS THAT WE CAN IN THE FUTURE HOLD DEVELOPERS NOT ANY SINGLE DEVELOPER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY TO THE COMMITMENT AND THE PROMISES THAT ARE MADE WITH THIS BOARD, THAT THE PEOPLE EXPRESS US TO KEEP AND MAINTAIN.

SO WE NEED TO HEAR FROM LEGAL WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE.

ALSO I THINK WE NEED TO I'VE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO I RESPECT THEIR OPINION ON THIS YEAR LIKE LAND USE, THAT DON'T REALLY HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY.

HAVE ENCOURAGED ME TOO ASK EACH OF YOU TO JOIN ME IN THE FEES IN JACKSONVILLE AND IT WAS A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE.

THIRDLY I AGREE WITH BJ. I THINK WE NEED AN ADVERTISED WORKSHOP AND I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE UP TWO ISSUES THAT I JUST LAID ON THE TABLE AS A RESULT OF THAT DISCUSSION.

SO WE ARE NOT MAKING ANY DECISIONS TODAY BJ WE WILL HAVE THAT WORKSHOP IF YOU AGREE WITH ME TO ADDRESS MOBILITY FEES AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS AND HOW THEY ARE ENFORCED. IS EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? WE WILL DO THAT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER IF NOT IN MARCH CERTAINLY NO LATER THAN APRIL. AND GET SOME CLEARNESS AND UNCERTAINTY OPERATING UNDER THE SAME RULES IN THE SAME POLICIES.

>> YES MR. YES MR. CHAIR IF I MAY COMMISSIONERS JUST SO THE BOARD IS AWARE AND THE CITIZENS THAT ARE HERE TODAY THAT ARE ALSO AWARE. IT IS PART OF THE PROCESS AND PLANNING THE 23 TO UNDERGO THERE IS A COST TO IT SO IT IS PLAIN PLAN FOR TO UNDERGO IMPACT FEES AND ANALYSIS WHICH IS WHAT WE HEARD FROM THIS WE NEED TO DO IT AGAIN IT IS DONE PERIODICALLY.

ADDITIONALLY WE ARE PAINTED IN BUDGET PROCESS FOR MOBILITY FEES AS WELL THAT IS A MULTIYEAR REVIEW AND IT IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE BUT BOTH OF THOSE ARE BEING PLANNED FOR FISCAL YEAR 23 BUDGET SO JUST TO SET THE STAGE AS WE START TO TALK ABOUT THIS WORKSHOP AND THE COMMISSIONERS OF WHAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS ALSO UNDERSTAND THOSE TWO FEES WILL BE UNDERGONE OVER THE NEXT YEAR END THE MOBILITY FIELD WILL BE STUDIED OVER COURSE OF THAT.

THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS AND WORKSHOPS THAT THE CONSULTANT WILL DRIVE AND LEAD SO THERE IS SOMEBODY THERE THAT CAN DISCUSS IT IN A VERY EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL WAY THAT STAFF MAY NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS. SO THOSE THINGS ARE PLANNED IN

[9. Local Government Infrastructure Surtax Option. Following the January 25, 2022 Growth Management Workshop and the February 1, 2022 BCC meeting, staff was directed to review existing County infrastructure needs and provide a recommended list of capital improvement projects. The presentation includes estimated costs for countywide infrastructure improvements and proposed funding strategy for the Board’s consideration and discussion. ]

THE 23 BUDGET IF YOU SHOULD APPROVE THAT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE BOARD AWARE OF THAT.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. SO DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON MOVING FORWARD FOR THE WORKSHOP FOR THOSE TWO ITEMS.

>> ALL RIGHT LET'S MOVE TO ITEM NINE,.

>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE THIS IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTEREST FOR STRUCTURED SURTAX OPTION DISCUSSION ALSO KNOWN AS THE SALES TAX. SO I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH A BRIEF INFORMATIONAL OVERVIEW, I WILL GIVE YOU BACKGROUND BASICALLY ON HOW WE CAME TO THIS DISCUSSION THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU IN THAT THIS FAR.

WE HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AS WELL AS SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT STAFF. WHO ARE HERE ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS THAT MAY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE RELATED TO THIS BASED ON YOUR DISCUSSION TODAY.

SO FIRST OF ALL JUST AN OVERVIEW OF HOW WE GOT HERE.

FOLLOWING THE 25TH GROWTH MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP IN THE BCC MEETING, WE WERE DIRECTED TO REVIEW CURRENT COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDED LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE FUNDED SHOULD THIS BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY ULTIMATELY DECIDE TO IMPOSE A 1% INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX.

THIS COULD BE PLACED ON NOVEMBEM THE VOTERS TO DECIDE.

ONE OF THE REASONS OF LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE IS OBVIOULY THERE IS LESS BECAUSE WHEN YOU PUT IT ON EIGHT NORMALLY SCHEDULED ELECTION. AND THIS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT WILL FALL EXCLUSIVELY INTO FOUR CATEGORIES ROAD INCH AND LIBRARIES. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE DEEMED INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER THE FLORIDA STATUTE WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU ATTEND THE PRESENTATION. I THINK WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT AND WHAT MOST PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW IS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION.

IS WHAT DOLLARS WOULD GO WHERE? BASED ON WHERE STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED TO THIS POINT. THERE IS A COUPLE OF THINGS I

[01:40:02]