[1. Impact Fee Schedule Update. Staff will present the report with updates to the Impact Fee Schedule based on discussion at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on September 2, 2025. Staff seeks direction to move forward with updating the Impact Fee Schedule.]

CLOSE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. >> WE WILL GO DIRECTLY INTO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. MR. ROBISON?

>> >> IN MORNING MR. CHAIR, MICHAEL ROBISON, DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT. WE HAVE THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE, YOU ALL HAVE SEEN A COUPLE OF THESE ITERATIONS. WE WILL JUMP RIGHT INTO THE.

STRAIGHTFORWARD, HERE'S THE DIRECTION, THE STAFF IS LOOKING FOR . IMPLEMENTATION OR NOT OF THE CONSERVATION IMPACT FEE. THE FEE LEVELS, THE RATES YOU WOULD LIKE THE MAT, DISCOUNTS, ANY WAIVERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LASTLY, THE BUYDOWN, WHAT'S ALSO CALLED THE SUBSIDY. WE WILL START WITH THAT . YOU'VE SEEN THIS TABLE BEFORE. AGAIN THIS IS A NEW FEE SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO IMPLEMENT IT. . THIS FEE YOU SEE BEFORE YOU WOULD APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL EXCUSE ME, HOTELS AND MOTELS ONLY. THE MAXIMUM FEE THAT YOU COULD CHARGE, FOR THE DATA ANALYSIS IS BEFORE YOU. ANY RANGE WITH THAT AND BELOW, WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY DATA, SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO DO THAT. WE DID SOME ROUGH ESTIMATES ON TEN-YEAR PERMITTING SO TAKE THAT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT BUT MAYBE $3 MILLION ANNUALLY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO USE TOWARDS CONSERVATION. ALSO, WITH THIS, BECAUSE INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED FOR IMPACT FEES, THERE WOULD BE SOME LIMITATIONS ON THIS FEE, SHOULD YOU IMPLEMENT IT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAD A PARCEL THAT WAS ONLY WETLANDS, NOTHING WE COULD DO ON IT, YOU COULDN'T PUT ANY KIND OF IN THE STRUCTURE SUCH AS A TRAIL OR TRAILHEAD, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE FUNDS FOR IT. HOWEVER, IF WE WERE ABLE

[00:30:02]

TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE COULD USE THOSE FUNDS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PUBLIC WRECK. WE WOULD PUT GUIDELINES ON WHAT TO USE THE MONEY FOR. SO, WITH THAT, WE CAN DO THIS A COUPLE OF WAYS, MR. CHAIR, WE CAN SEEK GUIDANCE ON EACH ONE OR I CAN GO

THROUGH THE FULL PRESENTATION. >> THAT WAS MY QUESTION TO YOU, CAN WE TAKE THIS ONE AT A TIME?

>> WE CERTAINLY CAN. >> WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EACH ONE OF THESE OR DO WE? OKAY. SO

LET'S DO IT NOW. >> SO WITH THAT WE ARE SEEKING DIRECTION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO IMPLEMENT THE CONSERVATION FEE.

IF YOU DO SO, ARE THESE THE FEES YOU WOULD LIKE TO IMPLEMENT? IF

NOT, WE CAN GO LOWER. >> YOU ARE SAYING THIS IS THE HIGHEST WE CAN GO, THIS IS STRICTLY CONSERVATION FOR PURCHASING LAND THAT WOULD BE PUT INTO CONSERVATION?

>> YES SIR. >> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> SURE. >> MY THOUGHT IS THAT IT'S A NEW IMPACT FEE, AND OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T USE THESE FUNDS THE SAME WAY THAT WE USE THE LAND FUNDS BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. WE ARE GOING TO KEEP MORE OF OUR GREEN SPACE GREEN IN PERPETUITY. OBVIOUSLY WILL HAVE TO ACTIVATE IT AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC BUT GIVEN THE FACT IT IS A NEW FEE, IN ADDITION TO THE CONSIDERATION OF ELIMINATING THE BUYBACK FOR THE COMMERCIAL, SO, THIS IS ANOTHER FEE THAT WE ARE ADDING TO ELIMINATE THE BUYBACK, IN ADDITION TO RAISING THE IMPACT FEES , I'M NOT SURE WE SHOULD MAX OUT THIS CONSERVATION IMPACT FEE GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT IS A NEW AND PERHAPS TO SOME, AND UNANTICIPATED FEE BUT I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO LISTEN TO OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW BUT THAT'S MY INITIAL THOUGHT.

>> IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, SORRY.

>> I WANTED TO SHARE THAT THIS WAS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR FROM THE RESIDENCE IN THIS COUNTY . THEY DEFINITELY WANT TO SEE MORE CONSERVATION IN THIS COUNTY AND I THINK THIS IS ONE WAY WE CAN HELP GET TO THAT GOAL THAT SO

MANY SHARE. >> THANK YOU. YES MA'AM.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME VERSION OF THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD MAX IT OUT. I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE ENTIRE ONE AS A WHOLE BEFORE WE MAKE DECISIONS.

>> I'M OKAY WITH THAT. ALSO, IF I CAN SHARE MY OPINION. THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE NEEDED FOR A LONG TIME. THERE'S BEEN CONSIDERABLE CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW DO WE FUND OUR LAMP FUND AND I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE VEHICLE, BUT I KNOW THERE'S A NEED FOR US TO HAVE THE ABILITY WHEN CERTAIN PROPERTIES COME UP AS A COUNTY TO PUT IN CONSERVATION, WE NEED TO HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO IT. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH SOMETHING.

>> THROUGH THE CHAIRS, I WANT TO CLARIFY, SO YOUR IMPACT FEES ARE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOME TIME WHEN THE, PURCHASE PROPERTIES, THIS FEE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO ACTIVATING THOSE LANDS AT A MINIMUM, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN'T JUST HOLD IT. SOMETIMES WE GET A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THAT TYPE OF EXPENDITURE WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT

CLARIFICATION. >> WELL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 300 MILLION , RATHER $3 MILLION A YEAR, POSSIBLY. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT $30 MILLION IN 10 YEARS. I THINK DISCUSSION YESTERDAY WAS WE CAN BORROW ON THIS LIKE WE COULD ON A TRADITIONAL IMPACT FEE. SO, IF WE PASS THIS WE CAN'T GO AND BUY LAND THAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR, FOR CONSERVATION RIGHT AWAY AND PAY FOR IT WITH THIS FEE OVER TIME.

>> COMMISSIONER, IN THE PAST, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS TO BORROW AGAINST A GENERAL FUND WITH A DEDICATED IMPACT FEE, SO THAT IS A ROUNDABOUT WAY OF BORROWING AGAINST THE IMPACT FEE.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO, DO WE WANT TO TRY AND SET A NUMBER NOW AND MOVE ONTO THE NEXT FEE LEVELS? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION, DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION?

>> I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION. I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS CUT IN HALF, JUST AS A PLACE FOR US TO START. I UNDERSTAND THAT WOULD NOW, THE ESTIMATES WOULD ONLY COME AT ABOUT 1 MILLION AND HALF DOLLARS A YEAR AS OPPOSED TO $3 MILLION A YEAR. I'M PLEASED WE WILL BE

[00:35:02]

ABLE TO ADD THIS TO OUR LAMP FUND , AND I'M HAPPY TO SEE THIS ON THE AGENDA BUT IT'S A NEW FEE AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE, THIS WILL BE UNANTICIPATED, JUST ALLOWING THEM TO CATCH UP, WE CAN ALWAYS RAISE IN THE FUTURE BUT FOR, JUST TO GET PEOPLE STARTED, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT COME IN AT ABOUT HALF OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW.

>> I'M ON THE LAMP BOARD AND NOT THAT THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME BUT I DO KNOW LAND IS EXPENSIVE AND MY CONCERN WITH LOWERING IT IS THAT IS NOT MUCH AT ALL, $1.5 MILLION A YEAR. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO MUCH AT ALL. $3 MILLION IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE BUT EVEN $3 MILLION ISN'T A LOT AS FAR AS WHAT IT COSTS. SO I DO NOT SUPPORT LOWERING IT.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER ARNOLD, ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE TRY TO

WRANGLE SOMETHING HERE? >> YOU KNOW, TAKING THIS ONE AT A TIME, I THINK IT HAS TURNED OUT TO BE THE WRONG APPROACH AND THE REASON I SAY THIS IS BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT INCREASING FEES ACROSS THE BOARD ARE LOOKING AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE FEES AS WE GO FORWARD. I THINK THOSE WILL COME INTO PLAY. I LIKE TO MOVE IT TO LAST BECAUSE WE HAVE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE FIRST AND IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO IMPACT FEES ON A WHOLE, I THINK IT MIGHT DETERMINE SOME OPINION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL FORWARD WITH THIS , CAN WE DO THAT? LET'S MOVE ON TO THE FEES.

>> FEE LEVELS FOR ADOPTION. SO MAYBE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION, MAY BE SOME CONFUSION ON THIS. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL HELP. SO, WE HAVE DATA ANALYSIS PROVIDING A MAXIMUM CALCULATION . THE STATUTE HOWEVER HAS COME, WE HAVE NEW STATUTES THAT HAVE COME AND SAID LOOK, WE DON'T WANT TO GO ANY HIGHER, WE DON'T WANT ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO GO HIGHER THAN 50% OF WHAT THE FEES ARE. ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU SEE THE MAXIMUM, YOU WOULD NEED A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION FOR THIS TO MOVE FORWARD. THAT MEANS 50% INCREASE, OR LOWER, IS WHAT YOU WOULD NEED THREE VOTES FOR, OR MAJORITY. AND BELOW THAT, IS JUST THE PHASING, HOW IT'S IMPLEMENTED, THAT IS STATUTE DRIVEN. THAT IS TO, YOU KNOW, EASE INTO THOSE HIGHER FEES, SO IF YOU GO LESS THAN EXCUSE ME, UP TO 25, IN TWO YEARS, 25 TO 50%, FOUR EQUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND ULTIMATELY, IT SAYS, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO INCREASE ABOVE 50% HOWEVER, IF YOU DO, YOU WILL HAVE TO MEET AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE AND WE MOVE OVER TO THE RIGHT COLUMN AND THAT MEANS A SUPER MAJORITY. SHOULD THIS GET KICKED DOWN THE ROAD, JANUARY 1, YOU WOULD NEED A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO IMPLEMENT THIS. IT WOULD REQUIRE A STUDY THAT DEMONSTRATES WHY YOU NEED TO GO THIS HIGH. WHICH OF COURSE THAT WOULD TAKE TIME TO DO THIS.

AND YOU WOULD BASICALLY DEMONSTRATE WHY YOU NEED TO GO TO THIS HIGH LEVEL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY. THOSE ARE THE PROCEDURES THAT WE WOULD NEED TO IMPLEMENT WHICHEVER WAY YOU GO. THAT SAID, WE WILL MOVE INTO THE ACTUAL FEES THEMSELVES. THIS IS A SNAPSHOT OF THE FEES. WE CAN'T FIT ALL THE FEES ON HERE BUT TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA I THINK THIS IS WHAT THE CONSULTANT HAD PRESENTED LAST TIME. THAT SAID, THIS IS SHOWING YOU THE CURRENT IMPACT FEE, AND THAT'S IN BAYS, 50% MAXIMUM LIGHT GREEN, AND ULTIMATELY THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE, MAXIMUM, IN LIGHT BLUE. YOU CAN SEE IN RESIDENTIAL, LOOK AT THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN, LET'S TAKE THE 50% MAX, IT'S NOT THAT GREAT, 22%, 36, IT'S STILL AN INCREASE BUT IF YOU GO INTO SOME OF THE NONRESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES THEY JUMP UP A BIT, IF YOU LOOK AT FAST CASUAL, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE TO BE HAD.

EVEN IF YOU STICK WITH JUST THE 50% YOU ARE GOING FROM $25,000-$38,000, AND THAT'S 64%. THE PERCENTAGES ARE THE DIFFERENCE FROM EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE TO CURRENT. SO, I HAVE THE CHARTS, WE CAN PUT THEM UP THERE IF YOU NEED TO LOOK AT OTHER FEES BUT THAT'S A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF ALL OF THEM.

NONRESIDENTIAL, PARTICULARLY THE LOWER TIERS, THE SMALL SQUARE

[00:40:01]

FOOTAGE, ISN'T THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE.

>> THANK YOU, MIKE. NOW, THERE'S A SMALLER RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE , IF WE ADOPT THE REPORTS, RECOMMENDATION WOULD ACTUALLY GO DOWN, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> LET ME GET MY GLASSES HERE. >> WOULD YOU MIND MOVING TO THE CENTER PODIUM? TOM, IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN ON THAT?

>> YOU CAN SEE IF YOU LOOK TO THE LEFT, IN RESIDENTIAL, YOU SEE THE TWO ROWS, THOSE ARE TEARS, YOU CAN SEE THE PERCENTAGE THAT HAS GONE DOWN FROM THE CURRENT IMPACT FEE OF $10,000-$14,000 RESPECTIVELY, THEY WOULD GO DOWN WITH A 50% AND THEY WOULD GO DOWN WITH EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. ALL OF THE OTHERS HOWEVER, TO INCREASE. THE BOARD HAD GIVEN DIRECTION TO LOOK AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WAIVERS TO THAT.

THIS WOULD FALL IN LINE WITH THAT, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE THAT IN TERMS OF OFTEN MANY OF THOSE HOMES ARE OFTEN ON THE SMALLER SIDE, SO IT COULD HELP YOU KNOW, AUGMENTS BOTH. THANK YOU.

>> TO THE BOARD I WOULD THINK, LET ME JUST GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS. THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE ISSUES WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF OPINIONS. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT NEW GROWTH PAY FOR ITSELF. AND IN READING THE REPORT, I FEEL CONFIDENT WITH SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF A 50% INCREASE AS IT SHOWS ON THIS ANALYSIS. I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE GOING TO THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

NEW GROWTH NEEDS TO PAY FOR ITSELF BUT TO BE OVERLY BURDENSOME, THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT, ESPECIALLY IN NEW HOUSING SO I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE REPORT. AND THAT IS MY COMMENT,

COMMISSIONER ARNOLD? >> I AGREE WITH THAT

WHOLEHEARTEDLY. >> THAT WAS QUICK.

>> MR. ROBISON, I'VE BEEN INUNDATED WITH EMAIL'S WHO ARE ESSENTIALLY COPYING AND PASTING WHAT THEY SAW ON THE PFEIFFER ST. JOHNS COUNTY FACEBOOK PAGE AND ACCUSING THE COMMISSIONERS IN 2018 OF LOWERING THE FEES AS A SWEETHEART DEALS TO DEVELOPERS. IT'S ALL A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD WHICH IS WHY I'M BRINGING IT UP IN A PUBLIC MEETING. IN 2018 , WHAT DID THE COMMISSIONERS DO TO IMPACT FEES?

>> SURE, I DID LOOK INTO THIS, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. MAYBE THERE'S SOME CONFUSION OUT THERE. THERE WERE TWO TABLES, AND I CAN GET THEM . IF ONE WERE TO LOOK AT THE FIRST TABLE, I CAN SEE WHETHER A BEAK CONFUSION. THE BOARD CHOSE TO IMPLEMENT MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL . HOW THEY DID THAT WAS THEY FIRST, TO EASE THE TRANSITION, NOT UNLIKE WHAT I TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WITH THE PHASING, THEY DECIDED TO ONLY IMPLEMENT 75% OF THE MAXIMUM FOR THE FIRST YEAR SO FROM 2018, MARCH, WHATEVER IT WAS, TO THE END OF 2018, THEY SAID, WE ARE NOT GOING TO HIT YOU WITH THE FULL AMOUNT, HOWEVER 2019 COMES ALONG AND THAT'S WHEN THE BOARD DECIDED TO IMPLEMENT A FULL MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATED ON THE RESIDENTIAL AT THAT POINT AND THE 40% BY DOWN ON THE NONRESIDENTIAL.

>> THE BOARD IN 2018 VOTED TO IMPLEMENT THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM -- WHEN YOU SAY MAXIMUM THAT'S THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM?

>> AT THE TIME WE DIDN'T HAVE WHAT DICTATED THE PERCENTAGE. IT WAS ALL ABOUT WHAT THE DATA ANALYSIS WOULD SUPPORT. A PHD WOULD COME IN AND DO THE ANALYSIS AND THAT'S THE MAXIMUM YOU CAN CHARGE AND I CAN DEFEND IT IN COURT.

>> INTERESTING. THAT'S SO INTERESTING. THIS BOARD HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO VITRIOL, PEOPLE ANGRY BASED ON WHAT NICOLE CROSBY IS TELLING PEOPLE THE BOARD DID BACK IN 2018 AND WHEN I TALKED TO STAFF AND EXPERTS, THAT'S NOT AT ALL TRUE. IT'S

[00:45:02]

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? >> YES, NOW, I THINK WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS BECAUSE THE REPORT ACTUALLY PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD CERTAINLY WORK IN OUR COUNTY, THEY CERTAINLY DID SUPPORT THAT. IT WASN'T THAT IT WAS, THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY WHERE TAXPAYERS WOULDN'T HAVE TO HELP SUPPLEMENT THAT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M FINE WITH DOING THE 50%. I THINK THAT IS DEFINITELY A COMPROMISE. IT'S NOWHERE NEAR WHERE IT SHOULD BE.

BUT IT CERTAINLY IS BETTER THAN WHERE WE ARE AT. SO I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THAT. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IN JUST A YEAR, IT WILL TAKE US FOUR YEARS TO GET TO THIS BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH.

AND IT'S A TAPERED THING. THAT'S THE ONLY PORTION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY THAT I REALLY LIKE IS EXTRAORDINARY, YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES AND THEY ARE EFFECTIVE A LOT SOONER THAN HAVING TO WAIT FOR FOUR YEARS. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, I FEEL LIKE OUR HANDS ARE TIED AND WE REALLY NEED TO DO THE 50% COMPROMISE

BUT RULY, IT IS A COMPROMISE. >> WE HAVE BOARD CONSENSUS FOR THE RECOMMENDED 50% INCREASE FROM THE REPORT. OKAY. WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE FOR CONSENSUS, DO WE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. LET'S MOVE ON TO DISCOUNTS FOR AFFORDABLE

HOUSING. >> THE BOARD GAVE DIRECTION TO LOOK INTO THIS. THIS WOULD BE A WAIVER BY STATUTE. THIS IS THE ONE CATEGORY WHERE THE BOARD CAN TREAT THE FRIENDLY THAN THE OTHER CATEGORIES. SO YOU CAN WAIVE ANY AMOUNT YOU CHOOSE WITHIN THE DIFFERENT PERCENTAGES AND WE WILL GET INTO THAT IN JUST A SECOND. I JUST PUT THIS TABLE UP. THIS THE ANNUAL MEDIAN INCOME, ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS ROUGHLY 2 1/2 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD. 30% OF AMI BEING VERY LOW, ALL THE WAY UP TO 30%, IT'S JUST TO GET YOUR MIND THINKING THAT WAY THEN WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAIVER. AGAIN, THIS IS FOR RESIDENTIAL. YOUR CURRENT IMPACT FEE IS THERE IN BEIGE, AND THESE ARE EXAMPLES FOR PERCENTAGES THAT WERE THROWN OUT YOU SEE 10% POTENTIALLY FOR 80% AMI, ANYTHING UNDER 80% PROBABLY MAKES THE MOST SENSE GIVEN OUR CONSENT AGENDA WITH REGARD TO TAXES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO ANYTHING UNDER AMI, YOU COULD CHOOSE 10%, YOU COULD CHOOSE HALF OFF, YOU COULD CHOOSE A

[00:50:02]

FULL WAIVER. SO THAT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION. I BELIEVE THAT IS IT FOR THAT. QUESTIONS, JOE IS HERE AS WELL. I APPRECIATE HIM BEING

HERE. >> WERE YOU ABLE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE WAIVERS WOULD BE UNDER THE RECOMMENDED 50% INCREASE? YOUR CURRENT IMPACT FEES NOW. WHAT WILL IT LOOK LIKE WHEN WE CHANGE

IT? >> WE HAVEN'T DONE THE

CALCULATION. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I'M THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THIS UP, BECAUSE IT WAS COMMISSIONER WALDRON WHO HAVE THE BRAINCHILD OF ENACTING A ZONING DESIGNATION AND AFTER WE SAW THE BIG SPIKE POST COVID WITH ALL THE LUMBER AND ALL OF THE OTHER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND LABOR, THE WORKFORCE HOUSING STARTED TO BECOME LESS AND LESS AFFORDABLE. I THINK WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR YEARS. AND I KNOW SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT BUT WHAT I'VE LEARNED IN FIVE YEARS AS YOU CAN EITHER REDUCE THE COST OF THE LAND WHICH, YOU CAN'T DO. IT'S A FREE MARKET, THE LAND COSTS WHAT IT COSTS, OR, YOU CAN GET GOVERNMENT FEES OUT OF THE WAY, AND THAT SEEMS LIKE A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS PATH FORWARD, IF WE WANT TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT BRINGING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO SUPPORT ALL THE WORKERS WHO WORK HERE.

AND HELP WITH THE TRAFFIC SITUATION. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION THAT MIGHT MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT CLEANER, IF THE HOUSING IS UNDER 80% AMI, THEN WE DO A 50% WAIVER, INSTEAD OF HAVING IT FALL INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, HAVING 40% OR LOWER IS UNREALISTIC GIVEN THE COST OF EVERYTHING. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE SUGGESTION THAT WE JUST HAVE 50% WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES FOR ANYTHING THAT FALLS UNDER 80% AMI.

>> COMMISSIONER TAYLOR? >> I'M ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND A BIG CONCERN IS 80% REALLY IS NOT NEARLY ENOUGH FOR SO MANY PEOPLE. SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DOING THE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS. I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP EVEN MORE PEOPLE.

>> OKAY. DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS FOR AN 80% , ANYTHING LESS THAN 80% WOULD BE A 50% REDUCTION IN IMPACT FEES, SOUND GOOD? ANY

OPPOSITION? >> I THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS FOR

THAT. AND THEN BY DOWNS. >> FINALLY THE NONRESIDENTIAL BUY DOWN. THEY BOUGHT DOWN TO THE GENERAL FUND, 40% OF THAT FEE TOTAL. IN ESSENCE, IF YOU ARE A NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER, YOU ARE PAYING 60% OF THOSE FEES FROM 2018 TO CURRENT. SO UP TO THIS POINT, IT'S BEEN ROUGHLY ABOUT $14 MILLION THAT'S BEEN BOUGHT DOWN FROM THE GENERAL FUND. YOU MAY ASK THE QUESTION AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN ANSWER IT AS IT WORKS, THE PERCENTAGES OF RESIDENTIAL TO NONRESIDENTIAL HAVE REMAINED ROUGHLY THE SAME AND THAT 85% RESIDENTIAL, TO 15% NONRESIDENTIAL. IT'S NOT APPLES TO APPLES, THERE'S A LOT MORE TO IT. WE CAN'T TELL YOU, HAS IT WORKED OR NOT. WE CAN TELL YOU IT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. SO, WITH THAT SAID, THIS IS ULTIMATELY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REMOVE THAT BUY DOWN OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO

KEEP IT? >> I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE REMOVE THIS. I'VE HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEAR. OUR RESIDENTS ARE LOOKING AT EVERY TAX DOLLAR. WE GET A NUMBER OF FEMALES ABOUT THIS. THIS IS JUST ONE MORE THING THAT THE COUNTY HAS TO HELP PAY FOR AND I'M ALL IN FAVOR FOR REMOVING THAT.

>> THANK YOU. I CAN TELL YOU I ALSO HEARD FROM THE VOTERS IN THEY ARE WANTING TO DO AWAY WITH THIS, ALSO, BUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IN MIND IS, SO, CAN WE, IF THIS IS ELIMINATED, DO WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY UNDER OUR ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO GO IN AND NEGOTIATE WITH EACH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT GOES BEFORE THE BOARD OR COMES BEFORE THE COUNTY, WE CAN HAVE AN ABILITY TO TREAT THAT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS?

>> IT GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE SELECTIVE ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD GIVE, SHOULD YOU SEE A PROJECT YOU SEE FIT, YOU COULD

[00:55:02]

GIVE DISCOUNTS AND THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON IN THE PAST WHERE WE'VE DONE THAT. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PINPOINT WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE

TO GIVE. >> LET ME TURN THE QUESTION OVER TO LEGAL. WE ARE GETTING INTO A GRAY AREA WHEN IT COMES TO PICKING AND CHOOSING OR IS IT SOMETHING WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY

TO DO? >> NO, SO, THERE ARE MANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT PROVIDE TAX REBATES AND TAX INCENTIVES FOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES THAT ARE COMING INTO THE COUNTY. YOU CAN BASE THAT BASED ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CRITERIA. IT TAKES A LOOK AT HOW MANY JOBS ARE CREATED, KIND OF WHAT TAX SPACES WILL BE CREATED AND WHAT ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE IT IS TO THE COUNTY FOR OFFERING ANY TYPE OF REVENUE MAXIMIZATION AGREEMENT.

>> WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IN HOUSE?

>> YES SIR. >> I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING THE NONRESIDENTIAL BUYBACK. I THINK WE HAVE

CONSENSUS AT LEAST FOR TWO. >> I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN A

VERY EFFECTIVE POLICY. >> I AGREE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE DESPERATELY NEED AND I WILL GET ON MY SOAPBOX FOR A SECOND.

HAVING A VERY SMALL COMMERCIAL TAX BASE HAS PUT US IN THE POSITION TO DEPEND ON ROOFTOPS FOR OUR TAXES. THAT'S NOT A HEALTHY PLACE TO BE. I THINK WE NED TO INCREASE OUR COMMERCIAL FOOTPRINT SO WE ARE LESS DEPENDENT UPON ROOFTOPS FOR OUR FINANCIAL VIABILITY. I THINK IF WE WERE IN A BETTER POSITION, WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITIES TO DO THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY AND A LITTLE BETTER FOR THE COUNTY. SO I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

WE HAVE CONSENSUS FOR THAT, WHERE ELSE DO WE NEED TO GO?

>> YOU HAVE CONSENSUS ON THE THREE ITEMS, YOU SKIPPED OVER

THE CONSERVATION IMPACT FEES. >> OKAY, PERSONALLY, IF I CAN GO FIRST, I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF IMPLEMENTING THAT AT 50% OF WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED TODAY, SO WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND REEVALUATE IT AND SEE IF IT'S SOMETHING EFFECTIVE, BECAUSE IF IT IS EFFECTIVE, I WOULD BE FOR RAISING IT UP ANOTHER 50% OR THE OTHER 50% IN A YEARS TIME AND WILL GO ON THE RECORD AS STATING THAT I WILL LEAVE THAT CHARGE IF IT'S EFFECTIVE, COMMISSIONER

WHITEHURST? >> YOU SPARKED A THOUGHT AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS A GOOD THING. THIS IS GOING TO HELP US KEEP ST. JOHN'S COUNTY GREENER AND HELP US PRESERVE MORE TREE CANOPY BUT COSTS ARE INCREASING, LET'S NOT FORGET.

NOBODY UP HERE IS FORGETTING THAT BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, LET'S NOT FORGET THAT THIS FEE IS PAID FOR BY THE END-USER . WE ARE IMPACTING PEOPLE'S POCKETBOOKS EVERY TIME WE SIT UP HERE AND PASS AN INCREASE IN FEES, WE CAN CALL IT A FEE, A TAX, ANYTHING WE WANT TO, THE GOVERNMENT DECISIONS HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE EVERYDAY FOLKS, AND WE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THE MIDDLE CLASS IS UNDER ASSAULT FINANCIALLY, AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL AND PRUDENT ABOUT THE DECISIONS WE MAKE SO OF COURSE WE CAN RAISE THE CONSERVATION IMPACT FEE IF WE DEEM FIT BUT IT'S BETTER TO START AT A PLACE THAT IS EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO DIGEST IF IT'S A NEW FEE.

THAT'S MY OPINION. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DO WE HAVE CONSENSS AT 50%? WE HAVE CONSENSUS FOR THAT. ANYTHING

ELSE? >> THIS WAS A DIRECTION FOR THEM, SO WE DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT OR ANY VOTES OR ANYTHING. BUT, WHY DON'T WE HEAR AGENDA -- PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> WE HAVE A DESIGNATED SPEAKER, NORTHEAST FLORIDA BUILDERS

ASSOCIATION, 10 MINUTES. >> DID YOU SAY 10 MINUTES?

>> I DID. >> OKAY, MR. NICHOLAS, NORTHEAST FLORIDA ELDERS ASSOCIATION. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. THANKS FOR GIVING US ADDITIONL TIME. WE APPRECIATE IT. I WILL START IT OFF BY SAYING, THERE ARE CONCERNS WITH THE IMPACT FEE INCRASES IN THE STUDY THAT IS PROVIDED. ONE THING TO CONSIDER WILL HAVE TO BEAR DUE TO THE NT- HIGHER LEVELS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR TRANSPORTATION, HEAT AND FIRE , CASE LAW AND STATE STATUTE REQUIRED THAT NEW AND EXISTING HOMES HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE. SO IF ENHANCED LEVELS ARE USED TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT FEES THAN THE COUNTY MUST

[01:00:10]

EXPEND MORE FUNDS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN IMPACT FEES TO BRING LEVELS OF SERVICE UP OVERALL THIS CAPITAL COMMITMENT BY THE COUNTY WE BELIEVE DESERVES MORE DISCUSSIONS, HEARINGS AND MEETINGS. WE NOTE THAT THE CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDY WILL MEET STAFFING AND MAINTENANCE AND ANYTIME THERE STAFFING AND MAINTENANCE, THAT CANNOT BE FUNDED BY IMPACT FEES. IT'S ONLY CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. THIS WILL ADD MORE COST TO THE COUNTY WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO GROW THE COUNTY'S $1.9 BILLION BUDGET AND THE SUBSEQUENT BURDEN ON TAXPAYERS. ALSO, NOTE HOW LARGE ST. JOHNS COUNTY BUDGET HAS GROWN SINCE IT'S NOW $1.9 BILLION. JACKSONVILLE'S ABOUT TO PASS A $2 BILLION BUDGET WITH ROUGHLY, THAT'S ONLY 5% LARGER THAN ST. JOHNS COUNTIES. FOR COMPARISON, ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS 300,000 STUDENTS AND THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE HAS OVER 1 MILLION CITIZENS, SO ONE THIRD OF THE POPULATION WITH ROUGHLY THE SAME SIZE BUDGET. FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, THERE ARE STEPS WE BELIEVE ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED THAT WERE NOT TAKEN WITH THE STUDY, INCLUDING AN ANALYSIS OR ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING FACILITY DEFICIENCIES AND A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF OTHER FUNDING SOURCES FROM NEW HOMES THAT FEE PAYERS SHOULD BE CREDITED FOR. ST. JOHN'S COUNTY WILL HAVE FUTURE GROWTH PAY FOR EXISTING PROBLEMS THAT IT DID NOT CAUSE WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED BY STATE STATUTE. THEY'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE CREATION OF AN ENTIRELY NEW CONSERVATION FEE THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN NORTHEAST FLORIDA AND APPEARS TO HAVE NO PRECEDENTS IN ANY OTHER COUNTY. IT COMMITS THE COUNTY TO FUND THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE BUT THIS TIME FOR CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE AT THIS HIGHER LEVEL OF SERVICE WHICH WILL ADD SUBSTANTIAL COSTS TO THE BUDGET. AND YOU HEARD FROM STAFF, YOU DON'T JUST BUY THIS LAND AND LET IT SIT THERE. YOU HAVE TO ACTIVATE IT WHICH WILL ADD TO THOSE COSTS, I WOULD ALSO NOTE ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS ALREADY ACHIEVED CONSERVATION GOALS THAT SURPASS EVEN INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION GOALS, RECOMMENDED BY THE GLOBAL DEAL FOR NATURE, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM AND THE UNITED NATIONS WITH ONE THIRD OR 33% OF THE COUNTY UNDER CONSERVATION ACCORDING TO DATA FROM PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF ARE THE COUNTY HAS ALREADY SURPASSED THE DEAL FOR NATURE BEING PUSHED BY THE UNITED NATIONS WHICH CALLS FOR 30% OF THE PLANET TO BE PROTECTED BY 2030. THAT'S A GOOD A COPPERSMITH. THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT THIS IMPACT FEE COULD IMPACT SENATE BILL 180 AS WELL AS REQUIREMENTS IN THE IMPACT FEE STATUTE. AND I WILL SHOW YOU REAL QUICK THIS COUNTY DOCUMENT . IT SHOWS THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING BUDGET, SO FOR 2024, AS YOU CAN SEE, $132 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES ARE SITTING THERE. AND FISCAL YEAR 2025, THERE'S $156 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES. FISCAL YEAR 2026, IT'LL BE ROUGHLY $160 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES THAT WE PAY THAT WILL BE SITTING THERE. SO, AS FAR AS GROWTH, WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE OUR INDUSTRY HAS PAID HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN IMPACT FEES AT THIS POINT. THIS ISN'T A NEW THING EITHER. IN RECENT YEARS THE COUNTY HAS HAD MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN IMPACT FEES WITHOUT SPENDING THEM. WHY ARE THESE FUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN PAID FOR BY NEW GROWTH NOT BEING DEPLOYED FOR THE BENEFIT OF CURRENT ST. JOHNS COUNTY CITIZENS WHOSE MAIN CONCERN IS TRAFFIC ? ALSO HOW IS NEW GROWTH NOT PAYING FOR ITSELF WHEN WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN IMPACT FEES AND ALSO HELP KEEP CITIZENS TAXES LOW, AND SPEAKING OF GROWTH PAYING FOR ITSELF, I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU DATA FROM THE ECONOMIST AT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS SHOWING THE POSITIVE IMPACT NEW HOMES HAVE ON NEW JOBS, SORRY, AND TAX REVENUES. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE ONE-YEAR IMPACTS OF BUILDING 100 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IS $28.7 MILLION IN LOCAL INCOME, $3.6 MILLION IN TAXES AND OTHER REVENUE IN THE CREATION OF 394 LOCAL JOBS. THE

[01:05:02]

RECURRING ANNUAL IMPACT SO YEAR AFTER YEAR OF BUILDING 100 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IS $4.1 MILLION IN LOCAL INCOME , 1 MILLION IN TAXES AND OTHER REVENUE, AND 69 LOCAL JOBS. AND I'LL SHOW YOU REAL QUICK FOR THE RENTAL APARTMENTS, THOSE ARE ONE-YEAR IMPACTS, $11.7 MILLION IN INCOME, AND 101 LOCAL JOBS, SO EVERY YEAR, $2.6 MILLION IN LOCAL INCOME, $503,000 IN TAXES AND OTHER REVENUE AND LOCAL JOBS. BUT, BEYOND OUR CONCERNS WITH THIS IMPACT FEE STUDY ARE THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. AS I MENTIONED, HOUSING STARTS IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY ARE AT THEIR LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 2015 AND IT FACES HEADWINDS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IN LARGE PART DUE TO HIGH INTEREST RATES AND THE HIGH COST OF HOUSING DRIVEN BY LIMITED SUPPLY AND THE FEES CHARGED BY COUNTIES. ALSO WITH THE MEDIAN PRICE NOW AT $595,000, SO ALMOST $600,000 NOW, ACCORDING TO THE REALTORS, THIS APPEARS TO BE THE WRONG TIME TO DRAMATICALLY RAISE FEES.

WE CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR MORE WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ESSENTIAL WORKERS LIKE LAW ENFORCEMENT, TEACHERS AND NURSES AND THE TEASE -- THE FEES WILL MAKE HOMES MORE EXPENSIVE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. A BIG PART OF THE RISE IN HOME PRICES IS THE RISE IN FEES. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THESE TWO CHARTS, ALSO FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS, THIS IS THE COST OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND BUREAUCRACY ON THE PRICE OF AN AVERAGE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

IT'S A TOTAL OF $93,000 DUE TO GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND BUREAUCRACY. IMAGINE IF WE COULD REDUCE SOME OF THAT, AND A CHUNK OF THAT DOES COME FROM GOVERNMENT FEES AND OTHER TAXES.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY SHOWING, IT'S 24% OF THE COST OF EVERY HOME.

AND IT'S EVEN MORE PRONOUNCED FOR MULTI FAMILY, SO, APARTMENTS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. FOR THEM, IT'S ALMOST 41% OF THE COST OF EVERY APARTMENT IS DUE TO GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND BUREAUCRACY INCLUDING THESE FEES. AND WE REALLY DO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE FEES NEED TO GO UP BUT WE ASK THESE RESIDENTIAL FEE INCREASES BE MODERATED SOME, SO AS NOT TO BURDEN NEW HOMEBUYERS AND ESSENTIAL WORKERS AS MUCH. AS A REMINDER, BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS DO NOT PAY THESE FEES, THEY ARE SIMPLY PASSED ON TO FUTURE NEIGHBORS. BUT AS ALWAYS, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO

ST. JOHNS COUNTY CITIZENS. >> THANK YOU MR. NICHOLAS. GOOD

MORNING, WELCOME. >> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, MY NAME IS DR., I RESIDE AT 109 KINGS QUARRY LN. , I RESIDE AT 109 KINGS QUARRY LN. AS A HOMEOWNER AND SENIOR SUBSIDIZE GROWTH BENEFITING DEVELOPERS . I MOVED FROM MARYLAND TO ENJOY FREEDOM FROM BIG GOVERNMENT AND OFFICIALS WHO DO NOT LISTEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS. INCREASE THE IMPACT FEES TO THE MAXIMUM LIMIT . WHY DO I SAY THAT? I SAY THAT BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING UPON A REVIEW OF A REPORT FROM YOUR OWN CONTRACTOR, SUBSTANTIATES THE FACT THAT THERE IS OVERWHELMING PROOF FROM COLLECTED DATA THAT THE CURRENT IMPACT FEES ARE THOROUGHLY INADEQUATE . I AM NOT STATING THIS AS A LAYPERSON. I AM A DR. OF SCIENCE. I KNOW LIARS FIGURE AND FIGURES CAN LIVE. IN THIS CASE YOU HAVE TO RELY UPON THE DATA DEVELOPED BY YOUR CONTRACTOR OR ELSE THE PUBLIC IS BEING TAKEN ON A JOYRIDE WHEN YOU NEGLECT THE IMPACT OR THE INPUT FROM YOUR CONTRACTOR . THE SUBJECT IS ACCOUNTABILITY. I WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT YOU MAKE DECISIONS BASED UPON FACTS. IF YOUR CONTRACTOR IS NOT COLLECTING FACTS THAT YOU BASE YOUR DECISIONS UPON, THEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING WRONG. WHY EMPLOY A CONTRACTOR? THEREFORE, I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO MAXIMIZE THE IMPACT FEES BASED UPON THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES ,

[01:10:14]

WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED BY YOUR CONTRACTOR WHO IS PAID WITH OUR TAX MONEY, WHICH PROVIDES YOU THE JUSTIFICATION TO INCREASE THE IMPACT FEES GREATER THAN 50%. THE FACTS ARE FACTS. I WAS AMAZED TO FIND OUT THAT RESIDENTS OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAVE IMPACT FEES THAT ARE LOWER THAN OUR SURROUNDING COUNTIES. I SINCERELY HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE MY COMMENTS SERIOUSLY IN MAKING YOUR DECISION. THE PUBLIC IS NOT TO BE A SLAVE TO GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO SERVE, NOT TO BE A SLAVEHOLDER.

THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MY COMMENTS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD MORNING.

>> 32084. LAST MEETING I WAS HERE, AND I ASKED YOU TO ADOPT A PROVISION FOR A WAIVER OR REDUCTION OF IMPACT FEES FOR DEVELOPERS PROVIDING SIGNIFICANT WORKFORCE HOUSING, MAKING IT AFFORDABLE TO THOSE IN 80% AMI OR BELOW AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE FACT THAT Y'ALL SEEM TO TAKE THAT PRETTY SERIOUSLY HERE THIS MORNING. WE ARE URGING THE BIGGEST REDUCTION OR WAIVER POSSIBLE FOR 80% AMI OR BELOW. SO WE HOPE YOU CAN MAKE IT EVEN LOWER. ONE OTHER ITEM WE'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER IS A WORKSHOP ON IMPACT FEES AND HOW THEY WORK IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. SITTING HERE WATCHING THIS AS A CONSTITUENT, I HAVE TO SAY, I REALLY APPRECIATED COMMISSIONER TAYLOR LAST WEEK AND THE WORK SHE PUT INTO IT BEFORE SHE CAME TO THE MEETING TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS AND HELP US UNDERSTAND IT. HONESTLY, IT WOULD WORK IN YOUR FAVOR, THE MORE WE, YOUR CONSTITUENTS UNDERSTAND THIS AND CAN HELP INTERPRET IT IN THE COMMUNITY. SO, IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT CONSTITUENT INPUT, I URGE YOU TO HAVE A WORKSHOP THAT WE ARE ABLE TO COME AND ASK OUR QUESTIONS AND GET CLARITY ABOUT BECAUSE THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND GOING TO BE VERY CONTROVERSIAL, IF YOU RAISE IT TOO MUCH SO I THINK IF ONE OF Y'ALL AT THE END OF THIS MEETING WOULD ASK FOR A WORKSHOP , WE WOULD APPLAUD THAT, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? MR. MAYNARD, GOOD MORNING.

>> SCOTT MAYNARD, 59 SHADOW PL. IN 2006, THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE PASSED THE FLORIDA FEE ACT, IN 2013 HOUSE BILL 319 ALLOWED TO REDUCE THE IMPACT FEES FOR AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING AND IN 2019 AND HOUSE BILL 7103, THEY ALSO ALLOWED GOVERNMENTS TO WAIVE IMPACT FEES FOR AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING WITHOUT HAVING TO OFFSET THOSE ASSOCIATED REVENUE LOSSES. WHILE THE CHAMBER WOULD SUPPORT THE WAIVER OF THESE IMPACT FEES UP TO THE ALLOWABLE 120% OF AMI, AS COMMISSIONER TAYLOR MENTIONED, WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THERE IS A COST TRADE OFF. MANY OF THE WORKERS IN OUR TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY SECTOR FALL AT OR BELOW THE 80% AMI FIGURE, AND WE FULLY SUPPORT TAKING CARE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN NEED, FIRST. THIS WOULD SEND A STRONG MESSAGE THAT YOU SUPPORT THOSE INDIVIDUALS WORKING IN THE LARGEST SECTOR OF OUR ECONOMY. THIS PROGRAM AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND FORCES ITSELF, THE DEVELOPER CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WAIVER WITHOUT FIRST BUILDING THE FACILITY AND PROVING THAT THOSE IN THE FACILITY MEET THE INCOME SEGMENTS. SO WE ARE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL FROM THE LAST BOARD MEETING, TO WAIVE THE IMPACT FEES OF THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS . IMPACT FEES ARE INTENDED TO ENSURE GROWTH PAYS FOR GROWTH.

BUT WHEN HOUSING FOR LOWER INCOME WORKERS CANNOT BE BUILT AT ALL, GROWTH STALLS AND THE TAX BASE LOSES. BY CONTRAST, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WORKFORCE HOUSING CONTRIBUTES TO SALES TAXES AND ECONOMIC MULTIPLIER FACTS FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS BEING ABLE TO LIVE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND NOT BEING PART OF THE 42,000 NOT COMMUTE IN EVERY SINGLE DAY . UNLIKE THE NONRESIDENTIAL BUYDOWN, THE AFFORDABLE -- AFFORDABLE WAIVER DOES NOT REQUIRE OFFSETS MAKING THIS MORE EFFICIENT AND A LEGALLY SUPPORTED POLICY TOOL. FAMILIES WHO SERVE IN OUR COMMUNITY DAILY ARE DISPLACED BECAUSE OF RISING HOUSING COSTS, IF ST. JOHNS COUNTY CAN REMOVE THESE BARRIERS, THIS WILL IMPACT OUR WORKFORCE GREATLY AND ALSO PROVIDE OUR WORKERS THE

[01:15:03]

OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE WHERE THEY WORK AND NOT HAVE TO COMMUTE IN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MS. BRADY, WELCOME BACK.

>> THANK YOU, BETH BRADY 1368 BIRMINGHAM RD. S. I'M A CONSERVATIONIST. I'M IN CHARGE OF 6500 ACRES THROUGH DIFFERENT MEDICATION BANKS, I WATCH THE WILDLIFE EVERY DAY ON MY PHONE.

I'M ALL ABOUT PROTECTING WHAT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED HOWEVER IN THIS CONSERVATION IMPACT FEE, THE LANDS WILL NOT ONLY BE USED BY NEW RESIDENCE, IT WILL BE USED BY ALL RESIDENTS, SO ALL RESIDENTS PAY, BUSINESS REQUIRE THAT IT BE RECREATION, NOT CONSERVATION, WHY IS THE FUTURE POPULATION HIGHER AND THE IMPACT FEES STUDIED, SHOULDN'T IT BE THE SAME? TO ME, THIS SHOWS ONE OR BOTH OF THESE STUDIES ARE FLAWED. VOTE TO WAIVE FEES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAIVER AND 120%. I KNOW THE CONSENSUS WAS AT 80. WOULD YOU CONSIDER BECAUSE AT 80%, YOU HAVE TO USE FREE FUNDS AND GRANTS. WORKFORCE HOUSING IS IMPORTANT. WOULD YOU CONSIDER FROM THE 80 TO 120 MAYBE BEING AT 75, SOME SORT OF A DISCOUNT, EVERY DOLLAR COUNTS WHEN YOU'RE MAXIMUM IS $270,000. SMALL BUSINESSES CAN'T AFFORD AND INCREASE IN THE FEES. THEY GET A LOAN, SO THE COSTS ARE FAR MORE THAN WHAT YOU SEE. AND THE NUMBERS THAT ARE PUT UP HERE ARE PER 1000 FT.÷. SO IF YOU LOOK AT A BUSINESS, JUST MCDONALD'S THAT'S 3000 FT.÷, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY ARE PAYING IS GOING TO PREVENT NEW BUSINESSES FROM COMING IN AND THEN WHEN THEY ROLL THAT INTO A 30 YEAR MORTGAGE, THE COST, IT'S INSANE. SO I WOULD -- AND PEOPLE ALSO DON'T REALIZE SMALL BUSINESSES AND THEIR PROPERTY TAXES, 40% OF THEIR PROPERTY TAXES GO TO SUPPORT SCHOOLS , WHEN THEY HAVE NO IMPACT ON SCHOOLS. SO EVERY TIME WE COME UP AND WE ADD ANOTHER FEE THAT THE BUSINESSES DON'T GET TO VOTE ON, IT MAKES IT HARDER AND HARDER FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND ALL THAT HAPPENS IS WE DON'T GET SMALL BUSINESS, WE GET THESE HUGE BUSINESSES THAT EVERYONE COMPLAINS ABOUT. LET'S SUPPORT THE SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE IN

THIS COMMUNITY, THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> AT SLAVEN. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR LISTENING TO EACH OTHER, YOU ARE DOING A LOT BETTER. I SINCERELY MEAN THAT.

THIS COMMISSION USED TO BE PRETTY FRACTURED, LIKE TWO WEEKS AGO BUT YOU'RE LISTENING TO EACH OTHER AND PEOPLE ON THE IMPACT FEES AND EVERYBODY HAS RAISED QUESTIONS. THE KEY PRINCIPLE AS I SEE IT, WE NEED TO INTERNALIZE THE EXTERNAL COST FOR DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK YOU ARE DOING THAT AND THE STUDY HAS DONE THAT. ST. JOHNS COUNTY LED THE WAY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA TWICE WITH CASES THAT WENT ALL THE WAY TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. THE FIRST IMPACT FEE CASE WAS IN 1947 IN ILLINOIS, WHICH WAS HEADED BY MY LATE COLLEGE ROOMMATES LATE GRANDFATHER. I STATED HIS HOUSE, I STAYED WITH THE GRANDMOTHER ONE TIME IN 1994 DURING SPRING BREAK WAS -- WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL IN MEMPHIS.

ACROSS THE STREET WAS THE HOME OF FRANK L BAUM, THE AUTHOR OF THE WIZARD OF OZ. BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM DEVELOPERS, KIND OF OUT OF WIZARD OF OZ. AND THERE WERE SCARE TACTICS DONE AT PRIOR MEETINGS AND EVERYONE HAS SETTLED DOWN AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE NEED A CHIEF ECONOMIST IN THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY. I UNDERSTAND WE HAD ONE.

I NEVER SAW THEM AT A MEETING BUT IT'S BASIC, WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH ECONOMIC ISSUES, WE SHOULD NOT BE LISTENING TO LOBBYISTS AND THE FELLOW WHO TESTIFIED WITH, HE'S NOT AN ECONOMIST. HE'S A LOBBYIST. HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY EXPERTISE, HE QUOTES FROM NHP, WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT. WE NEED OUR OWN CHIEF ECONOMIST, WITH A PHD, SOMEONE YOU CAN WALK INTO THE OFFICE AND TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, TELL THEM WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW, RATHER THAN CONSTANTLY CONTRACTING OUT. I KNOW REPUBLICANS LOVE TO CONTRACT OUT, BUT I WOULD STRONGLY COUNSEL AND URGE THAT WE NEED A CHIEF ECONOMIST AND WE ALSO NEED A CHIEF SCIENTIST BECAUSE ALL OF THE TIME THESE DEVELOPMENT CASES, WE HAVE LOBBYIST TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO AND MAKING

[01:20:03]

ASSERTIONS ABOUT NATURE AND CRITTERS AND TREES, AND THEY DON'T KNOW ANY MORE ABOUT THAT THAN A HAWK. LET'S STOP RELYING ON LOBBYISTS TO TELL US WHAT TO DO AND LET'S GET THOSE TWO POSITIONS FILLED, A CHIEF ECONOMIST, AND A CHIEF SCIENTIST. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK? WE CAN DO BETTER BUT YOU ARE ARE DOING A GOOD JOB ON THIS IMPACT FEE STUFF. I'M IMPRESSED. I THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM AGREES IT NEEDS TO GO UP, AND THE QUESTIONS EVERYBODY RAISED, THEY ARE EXCELLENT QUESTIONS I'M SURE YOU WILL GET TO THE RIGHT ANSWER. BUT CHIEF ECONOMIST, AND A CHIEF SCIENTIST, THAT'S NOT TOO MUCH

TO ASK, IS IT? >> THANK YOU, SIR. MR. RYAN,

WELCOME BACK. >> JOE RYAN, 699 STANDISH DR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THIS. I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY THE ASSOCIATION, THE HOMEBUILDERS THEMSELVES DON'T PAY FOR THE IMPACT, HE SAID THEY DO BUT IT'S THE HOMEOWNERS, RIGHT, BUT NO MATTER WHO PAYS FOR IT, IT SHOULD BE THE TAXPAYERS. WE SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THAT AND THERE'S BEEN A CLAIM MADE THAT RAISING IMPACT FEES, THEY CANNOT BE USED FOR DEFICIENCIES. BUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DEFICIENCIES AND EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE MEANS WE NEED TO RAISE IMPACT FEES WHICH I CONGRATULATE YOU ON DOING. AS FAR AS, ARE THE WORKERS COMING DOWN FROM COUNTIES, TO WORK IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, THAT SEEMS LIKE A NONSTARTER. I DROVE TO JACKSONVILLE EVERY DAY AND I CAN TELL YOU, ALL OF THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO JACKSONVILLE. I DON'T THINK ALL OF OUR WORKERS ARE GOING TO BE HURT . I THINK THEY MOSTLY LIVE HERE ANYWAY, FOR THE MOST PART. THAT ONLY MAKES SENSE IF EVERYONE WAS A LCC, INAUDIBLE ] NO CCD FEES, THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE ON THE HOOK OF PAYING FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THOSE ROADS, FOREVER, BASICALLY. . THE IMPACT FEES SHOULD INCREASE AND I THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THAT.

>> THANK YOU MR. RYAN. WELCOME BACK.

>> KBJ LADY, , IT'S INTERESTING, PEOPLE COMING IN HERE, LIVING IN JACKSONVILLE, TELLING US WHAT TO DO. AND SOMETIMES I THINK, MAYBE I'M JUST TAKING IT WRONG WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE COME UP HERE AND GIVE YOU ALL KINDS OF FACTS, IS IT THEIR BOTTOM LINE THEY ARE THINKING OF? AND I THINK, A LOT OF THIS GOES BACK TO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN THIS COUNTY, ARE WE GOING TO BECOME MORE AND MORE LIKE JACKSONVILLE OR ARE WE GOING TO TRY TO KEEP WHAT WE HAVE HERE. IT'S TOO BAD, THE VOTE WAS GOING TO BE 3-1 BUT IT GOT CHANGED TO 4-0. BUT, DON'T BE SCARED BY SOME OF THE QUOTE, FAX, FLORIDA STATUTE THIS, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THIS, WE GOT A DEPARTMENT WITH ATTORNEYS THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE STANDING UP WITH US AND NOT BEING KOWTOW OUT AND MANIPULATED BY OUTSIDE PEOPLE. AND, I UNDERSTAND ABOUT WORKFORCE HOUSING BUT I THINK WE NEED TO STOP USING THAT WORD, WORK

[01:25:02]

FORCE, BECAUSE WHAT I BELIEVE AND WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THIS ROOM, THE DEVELOPERS ARE USING THAT TO MAKE A BOOK. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, WHO'S GOING TO MAKE A BOOK, WHO'S GOING TO HAVE THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT, ROI, THEY COME UP AND THEY SAY YOU CAN'T DO THIS OR THAT BECAUSE THEIR BOTTOM LINE IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED, ARE THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY GOING TO BE HELPED OR ARE WE GOING TO BE WONDERING, WHOSE BOTTOM LINE ARE WE GOING TO FIX AND I THINK WE NEED TO FIX THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING THE TAXES, YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GET ANYMORE PROPERTY TAXES, WE CAN HAVE THE POLICE AND WE CAN'T HAVE THE FIRE, WE WILL HAVE WHAT WE NEED BUT PLEASE DON'T BE INTIMIDATED BY PEOPLE WHO COME UP HERE AND QUOTE THEMSELVES AS GIVING THE FACTS, UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE FROM OUR STAFF. WE APPRECIATE WHAT THEY DO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND PLEASE, DO NOT USE THE WORD BI TCH, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW

WHY, COME TALK TO ME. >> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THANK YOU, ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON TO 1A.

>> I FEEL THE NEED TO ADDRESS IT WHILE IT'S FRESH IN MY MIND. I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR AUSTIN OPENED HIS REMARKS BY SAYING WE HAVE A $1.9 BILLION BUDGET AND DUVAL COUNTY HAS A $2 BILLION BUDGET AND THAT'S MISLEADING FOR THIS REASON. WE INCORPORATE OUR UTILITY FUNDS INTO OUR BUDGET. WE INCORPORATE OTHER ENTERPRISE FUNDS INTO OUR BUDGET, SO, WHEN YOU STRIP AWAY ALL OF THOSE FUNDS, WHEN YOU STRIP AWAY THE CARRYOVERS, WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON TONIGHT, 6.7 MILLS THAT WE TENTATIVELY SET, IT'S ABOUT $399 MILLION. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE DISCRETION OVER. IT'S IMPORTANT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE WE HEAR FROM SOMEONE AS CREDIBLE AS AUSTIN NICHOLAS YOU MIGHT BE INCLINED TO BELIEVE IT. IF DUVAL COUNTY INCORPORATED JDA, THEIR UTILITY INTO THEIR BUDGET, THEY WOULD HAVE A NEARLY $4 BILLION BUDGET BUT THEY DON'T, THAT IS SEPARATE FROM THE BUDGET SO THEIR BUDGET COMES IN AT AROUND $2 BILLION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE

[Additional Item]

SURE EVERYBODY HAS THE FACTS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WE WILL MOVE

ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1A. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.

I MANAGE THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT. LET ME START BY APOLOGIZING FOR A RED FOLDER ITEM BUT AS YOU WILL SEE, OUR HANDS WERE TIED AND WE HAVE ABOUT 1.8 MILLION GOOD REASONS TO CONTINUE WITH THIS. AND THAT IS NAMELY BECAUSE THAT IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS LEFT IN THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. SLIDE SHOWS OUR PROJECT. WE WERE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO RECEIVE A $2.8 MILLION GRANT FROM THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A REUSE LINE ALONG INTERNATIONAL GOLF PARKWAY HERE, WHICH WE HAVE COMPLETED. WE ALSO INSTALLED A 2 MILLION GALLON STORAGE TANK AT OUR RECLAMATION FACILITY, AND WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF SOME DELAYS AND CHALLENGES CONSTRUCTING A REUSE LINE. HASN'T ANYONE DRIVEN THROUGH THE INTERSECTION IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? WE WERE TRYING TO SECURE A RIGHT OF WAY FOR OUR REUSE LINE THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION AND ALSO ALONG THE CORRIDOR. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE WERE SOME DELAYS. WE HAVE WORKED THOSE ALL OUT NOW AND WE HAVE THAT CORRIDOR ESTABLISHED AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND WE ARE ACTIVELY CONSTRUCTING THE REUSE LINE ALONG STATE ROAD 60.

THE TIMING ISSUE, BRINGING US HERE, WE ATTENDED THAT WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNMENT BOARD MEETING LAST TUESDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER WHERE THEY GRANTED US THAT TIME EXTENSION, IF WE FOLLOW NORMAL TIMELINES WE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU ON OCTOBER 7TH HOWEVER, THIS COST SHARE AGREEMENT EXPIRES ON SEPTEMBER 30. THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. IT'S A SIMPLE ASK .

[01:30:10]

IS BASICALLY TO EXTEND OUR COST SHARE AGREEMENT FOR SIX MONTHS.

IT WOULD NOW EXPIRE ON MARCH 30 OF 2026. THIS WILL GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO COMPLETE THAT RIGHT OF WAY, CONSTRUCTION OF ERROR BREEZE LINE THERE, AND ALSO RECLAIM THE ADDITIONAL $1.8 MILLION DUE TO US IN THAT AGREEMENT. AS MENTIONED, THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD AND OUR SIMPLE ASK IS TO GRANT US THIS MOTION HERE. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND

UNDERSTANDING. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

PUBLIC COMMENT? >> AT THIS TIME THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON 1A. SEEING NO ONE RISE, WE WILL

CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025- 338 --

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

[2. Public Hearing * Robinson Improvement Company, LLC: Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act - Special Magistrate Report and Recommendation consideration. On November 5, 2024, the Board denied Robinson Improvement Company's request to rezone 2,763 acres to PUD (PUD2024-09). Robinson Improvement filed a request for relief from the denial under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act ("FLUEDRA"). Pursuant to FLUEDRA, the parties mediated the dispute and agreed to ask the Board to schedule a new rezoning hearing. The Board declined. The parties then proceeded to a public hearing before Special Magistrate J. Michael Traynor. Special Magistrate Traynor issued his Report and Recommendations on August 19, 2025. FLUEDRA now requires the Board to consider accepting, modifying, rejecting, or not taking action on the Report and Recommendation.]

SECOND. LET'S CALL FOR THE VOTE, THANK YOU. AND THAT PASSES 4-0. MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. RYN?

>> RYAN ROSS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, I AM HERE TO ADVISE THE BOARD REGARDING THE ONGOING PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING ROBINSON IMPROVEMENT COMPANIES REQUEST TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 208 AND 214. AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE THROUGH A STATUTORY PROCEEDING UNDER FLORIDA'S LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT, TO REFRESH YOUR RESURRECTION, GIVE BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AGAIN, THIS IS OVER 2673 ACRES BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 208 AND 214. AND JUST TO SUMMARIZE WHERE WE ARE AT, AND WHAT THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IS, AND IN THE END, WE DETERMINED THERE'S ABOUT 1600 ACRES IN QUESTION. AS IT STANDS WITHOUT ANY ACTION, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DEVELOP ONE UNIT PER ACRE OF THAT LAND AND IN 2019, THE BOARD APPROVED A COMP PLAN AND THAT SHIFTED THE LAND-USE , AT THAT TIME AND WITHIN THAT, PLAN AMENDMENT, IT IMPOSED A CAP OF 3332 DWELLING UNITS AND SAID THEY WOULD NOT COMMENCE ANY DEVELOPMENT UNTIL 2026. AT THE SAME TIME, THE BOARD AGREED TO A RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT WHERE ROBINSON WOULD DONATE 7.4 ACRES OF RIGHT AWAY WITH THE INTENT TO DEVELOP COUNTY ROAD 209 CONNECTOR IN THE PROPERTY AND THE COUNTY HAD UNTIL 2034 TO REQUEST THAT DONATION. THIS IS WHAT IS AT PLAY RIGHT NOW AND WHAT THE BOARD WAS CONSIDERING LAST NOVEMBER WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE, THROUGH THE TYPICAL NORMAL REZONING PROCESS. SEEKING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM OPEN RURAL TO PUD, AND INCREASE THE DENSITY TO THE 3332 DWELLING UNITS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WAS ENACTED IN 2019, AND AGAIN, TO EXTEND COUNTY ROAD 2209 THROUGH THE PROPERTY. SO, BOTH THE PCA AND THE BOARD BOTH DENIED THE REZONING APPLICATIONS LAST FALL. AT THAT TIME, RATHER THAN SEEKING TO CHALLENGE THE DENIAL THROUGH AN APPEAL TO CIRCUIT COURT OR ANOTHER LEGAL AVE., ROBINSON INVOKED FLUEDRA TO RESOLVE THE PROCESS, THERE'S A TWO-PRONGED APPROACH. FIRST WE HAD TO GO TO A MEDIATION AND AS A RESULT, WE AGREED THEY COULD ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER GRANTING THEM A NEW REZONING HEARING AND NOT WAITING THE FULL YEAR THAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE REQUIRED FOLLOWING A MILE. THE BOARD DENIED THAT IN MAY, SO THE NEXT PRONG OR THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS WAS TO GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING WITH DENNIS -- A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WE HELD THAT

[01:35:04]

HEARING IN JULY AND THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RELEASED HIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THE MAIN FINDINGS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MADE WAS ONE THAT ROBINSON IMPROVEMENT DID HAVE A REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT IT COULD UP ZONE ITS PROPERTY OR INCREASE ITS DENSITY AND CONFORMITY WITH THE 2019 AMENDMENT. SECONDLY, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOUND WHEN YOU COUPLE THAT REZONING DENIAL TOGETHER WITH THE PREVIOUS RIGHT-OF-WAY DONATION THAT CREATED AN UNFAIR BURDEN ON THEIR PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DID NOT STOP THERE. HE ALSO RECOMMENDED SEVERAL LIMITATIONS THAT WOULD, IN HIS ESTIMATION, SLOW THE GROWTH, LIMIT THE RATE OF CHANGE, LIMIT THE INCREASE AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE LIMITATIONS RIGHT HERE THAT HE RECOMMENDED. I LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THIS IS A REPORT AND A RECOMMENDATION. IT'S NOT A BINDING ORDER , THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE DOES NOT HAVE THE JUDICIAL, LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BIND THE BOARD TO A PARTICULAR ACTION. INSTEAD, YOU HAVE FOUR OPTIONS UNDER THE FLUEDRA STATUTE. YOU CAN ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OR MODIFY ANY OF THOSE LIMITATIONS. IT'S OUR POSITION WE WOULD STILL NEED TO BRING THIS TO THE BOARD, FOR A FORMAL REZONING HEARING WITH ALL OF THE REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AT A FUTURE DATE, TO HAVE A REZONING CONSISTENT WITH WHATEVER THE BOARD DECIDES AND WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS IT MAKES REGARDING THOSE LIMITATIONS OR THE BOARD COULD VOTE TO REJECT IT, FINALLY, THE BOARD COULD TAKE NO ACTION, AND AT THAT POINT THE REPORT RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE DEEMED REJECTED, THAT WOULD BE THE DEFAULT IF THE BOARD TAKES NO ACTION, IN THAT CASE, THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IF THEY ARE REJECTED THEN WE ARE BACK TO SQUARE ONE IN TERMS OF ROBINSON IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS TO PURSUE LEGAL REMEDIES TO CHALLENGE THE ORIGINAL REZONING. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT AND WE ARE HERE TO ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE REPORT AND WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND FOR THE BOARD'S GUIDANCE ON HOW TO PROCEED FROM THIS POINT FORWARD.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD? LET'S GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THE BOARD WILL HEAR COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. YES

SIR, MR. MILLER. >> AS AN IMPROVEMENT COMPANY I WAS INVOLVED IN ALL STAGES OF THIS. THE STATUTE AS RYAN EXCELLENTLY DESCRIBED IS TO AVOID LITIGATION. IN THIS CASE, WE WENT TO MEDIATION AND MET WITH YOUR STAFF AND CAME UP WITH AN AMENDED PUD THAT WE PRESENTED. YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO HEAR WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE. WE WENT TO A FULL DAY HEARING AND A MONTH LATER THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CAME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION. UNDER THE STATUTE, YOU HAVE 45 DAYS TO ACT ON THAT RECOMMENDATION. UNLESS, WE CONSENT TO A LONGER TIME PERIOD. WE BELIEVE THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD OPTIONS FOR MY CLIENT AND THE COUNTY IN THESE RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFICALLY HAVING THE ROAD BUILT FIRST, SLOWING THE GROWTH, THERE'S ONLY 350 UNITS, HAVING A FIRE STATION, HAVING THE LOCATION OF THE SCHOOLS. THOSE ARE ALL ISSUES WE THINK SHOULD BE STUDIED IN LIGHT OF YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN LIGHT OF YOUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND WE THINK IT'LL TAKE MORE THAN 45 DAYS WHICH I BELIEVE RUNS OUT NEXT MONDAY. SO I'M HERE TO SAY, WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY BUT WE CONSENT TO A LONGER TIME PERIOD TO STUDY THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. THANK

YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO? I SEE MISS KILL LADY --

>> BJ KALADY. MR. ROSS DID A GOOD PRESENTATION . I WAS THERE ALL DAY LONG. IN 2024 THE PZA DENIED THIS PUD SEVEN MY ZERO, 2024, THEY DENIED THIS PUD, 5-0, 12 COUNTY INDIVIDUALS VOTED THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS

[01:40:01]

BECAUSE OF DENSITY. 3332 UNITS AND IMPACT ON TRAFFIC. MARCH 28, 2025, THE MAGISTRATE MET WITH COUNTY STAFF AND DEVELOPED -- DEVELOPER AND RESULTED IN NO RESOLUTION. WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE OF THAT, MARCH 28, THEN WE HAD JULY 25, 25, THE MAGISTRATE HELD A HEARING, INTERESTING. ON AUGUST 19, 2025 THE MAGISTRATE PROVIDED HIS REPORT. EVEN THOUGH THE MAGISTRATE RULED AGAINST THE COUNTY'S POSITION, SINCE AUGUST 19, 2025, HAS THE COUNTY AND THE DEVELOPER AGREED TO RECOMMENDATIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE ON PAGE 8 ? THERE'S OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS BUT THESE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE IMPORTANT THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AND MAYBE WILL BE IN 45 DAYS OR WHATEVER.

THAT'S MY QUESTION. HAS THE COUNTY AND DEVELOPER AGREED TO RECOMMENDATIONS ONE THROUGH FIVE? IF NOT, OPTION NUMBER FOUR, THE MOTION SHOULD TAKE NO ACTION, THE MATTER WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REJECTED. THIS WILL PROTECT QUALITY OF LIFE, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. I'M CONCERNED THAT WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THIS AND NOW THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEVELOPERS WANT TO EXTEND IT WHICH MAY BE FINE. I JUST HOPE WE CAN HAVE MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS SINCE THE MAGISTRATE ALSO ATTENDED THESE MEETINGS. WE NEED TO HEAR IT, TOO, SO EVERYONE WHO WAS PRESENT, THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER, CAN HAVE A SAY IN THIS THING AND LET'S GO TO COURT. LET'S FIND OUT IF THERE ARE OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD SIT ON THE COURT IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY THAT WOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS. WE HAD 12 OF YOU SAY NO AND WE STILL WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. WHO'S BOTTOM LINE ARE WE LOOKING AT? THAT IS MY CONCERN.

IF YOU WANT TO EXTEND IT, FINE, BUT WE WANT TO KNOW WHEN THESE MEETINGS ARE, I SURE HOPE IT'S NOT AN ALL DAY DEAL, I SURVIVED IT. PLEASE BE CAREFUL IN WHAT YOU DO ON THIS ONE. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND I KNOW HE'S GOT RIGHTS FOR HIS PROPERTY BUT WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERATE OF THE ENTIRE COUNTY AND WHAT'S GOOD

FOR EVERYBODY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MS. KALADY.

>> I AGREE. ED SLAVEN.COM. I SUPPORT OPTION NUMBER FOUR, NO ACTION. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE , JUDGE TRAINOR, DID A MAGNIFICENT JOB, HE HEARD FROM 21 WITNESSES AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS YOU TAKE NO ACTION, IF THEY WANT TO SUE THE COUNTY, LET THEM DO IT.

THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE LAWYERS. I THINK JFK'S FAVORITE CONSERVATIVE REDDISH POLITICIAN WAS LORD FALKLAND WHO SAID WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CHANGE , IT IS NECESSARY NOT TO CHANGE.

LET ME REPEAT THAT. WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CHANGE, IT IS NECESSARY NOT TO CHANGE. YOUR DECISION WAS A REFUNDABLE BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHEN I WOULD STICK WITH NO ACTION, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ADOPTED. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO NEGOTIATE, AND I WOULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO A WONDERFUL LAW REVIEW ARTICLE BY PROF. ELLEN FROM YALE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, CIRCA 1994. WE HAD HIM SPEAK ON A PROGRAM, GOT TO MEET HIM. BUT HE WROTE A MAGNIFICENT ARTICLE CALLED AGAINST SETTLEMENT SAYING THAT SOME CASES ARE SO IMPORTANT, YOU DON'T WANT TO SETTLE THEM. STAY THE COURSE, PLEASE. AND THE POINT THAT PROF.

FISK MADE WAS IN CASES LIKE BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION, CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THAT WAS A SECRET SETTLEMENT, LIKE THEY LOVE TO DO THESE DAYS? NO. BROWN WON, BOARD OF EDUCATION LOST.

AND WE HAVE A BETTER COUNTRY AS A RESULT. WE WILL HAVE A BETTER COUNTY IF YOU FOLLOW ACTION NUMBER FOUR. NO ACTION. AND LET THEM SUE, IF THEY WANT TO. I THINK THEY ARE BLUFFING, I THINK THEY WANT TO TAKE PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND AND DO AN IN ROAD TO ALL SORTS OF EVILS. 21 WITNESSES TESTIFIED, VERY IMPRESSIVE, BUT ONE OF THE POINTS I MADE IN MY TESTIMONY WAS, YOU'VE GOT PESTICIDES, INSECTICIDES, ALL OF THIS STUFF,

[01:45:06]

FERTILIZERS ON TOP OF THIS LAND, FOR 115 YEARS, CAN YOU IMAGINE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR ELDER PEOPLE HOUSING, DO YOU WANT GRANDBABIES PUTTING THEIR HANDS IN THE DIRT? AND ONE OF THE POINTS I MADE IN MY TESTIMONY IS, LOOK AT THE HEALTH COURSE AND LOOK AT CHESTER JOKES, WHAT HE DID TO THAT PLACE, HE GOT SUBSIDIES FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA. TAXPAYERS HELP TO SUBSIDIZE THAT PLACE. TO CARVE UP A DONALD ROSS GOLF COURSE.

>> THANK YOU MR. SLAVEN. ANYBODY ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? WE WILL

CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> BACK TO THE BOARD.

>> MR. CHAIR? >> I HAVE SOME APPREHENSION. I WANT TO SAY I FEEL GOOD THAT THE DECISION THE BOARD MADE. I KNOW THAT I MADE MY DECISION BASED ON THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN. IT'S BECAUSE OF MY RESPECT FOR JUDGE TRAINOR. AS MR. SLAVEN MENTIONED, USE A WELL-RESPECTED JUDGE AND MADE POINTS IN HIS DECISION WHICH IS IN WRITING WHICH IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD THAT HAS GIVEN ME A PAUSE AND HAS CAUSED ME TO REFLECT ON MY DECISION. SO, I THINK WE HAVE AN OFFER TO POSTPONE AND DELAY AND SEEK MORE INFORMATION. WE DON'T HAVE THE STATES THOUGHTS BACK ON OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ESTHER MILLER RAISED WHEN HE WAS AT THE PODIUM. INSTEAD OF MAKING A SNAP DECISION TODAY, I THINK THE PRUDENT MOVE IS TO POSTPONE THIS DECISION. WE CAN ALWAYS CHOOSE TO REJECT IT AND MOVE FORWARD AND TAKE NO ACTION, WE CAN ALWAYS CHOOSE TO ADOPT IT. THE OPTIONS DON'T CHANGE FOR US BUT I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE WITH TAX DOLLARS WHEN WE CAN STILL BE SEEKING MORE INFORMATION BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US POSTPONE THIS DECISION.

>> COMMISSIONER ARNOLD. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT COMMISSIONER WHITEHURST SAID. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THIS IS THE PROJECT THAT FOR ME, NECESSITATED THE FORMING OF THE AG COMMITTEE THAT I'VE BEEN SO PASSIONATE ABOUT. THAT ISN'T UP AND RUNNING. ONCE THEY ARE SEATED, I WOULD LIKE TO GET THEIR OPINIONS ON THIS AGAIN, IT'S SEEKING MORE INFORMATION THAT WE DON'T HAVE YET. SO I'M RELUCTANT TO TAKE A MOVE TODAY

AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. MY QUESTION WOULD BE WITH NO MOTION, CAN WE MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE?

>> I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO SEEK MORE INFORMATION.

>> TO CLARIFY, THIS WILL NOT BE, LEGALLY WE WON'T CONSIDER THIS AS AN OPTION FOR NO ACTION, THIS IS A POSTPONEMENT OF THE CONSIDERATION. WE WILL TAKE THIS BACK TO YOU WHENEVER WE BRING IT BACK TO YOU FOR THE SAME LIST OF FOUR OPTIONS.

>> YES SIR. >> OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION.

HEARING NO SECOND , WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, LET'S MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE VOTE IS. YES, TO POSTPONE, THE VOTE IS NO, TO NOT POSTPONE, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THAT WILL BE A DENIAL, COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANYONE ELSE FOR ANY COMMENTS? WE

[3. Presentation of Phase 1 Proposals under RFP 2417 - Public-Private Partnership for Re-Development of World Golf Hall of Fame. At the March 18, 2025, BOCC Meeting, the Board unanimously voted to proceed with a "P3" solicitation for the ReDevelopment of the World Golf Hall of Fame. An RFP was broadcast on June 18, 2025, with Proposals due on July 31, 2025. The RFP was set up into two (2) phases. Phase 1 is for the concept of the proposed projects to be submitted with basic information and requirements. Two (2) Phase 1 Proposals were received. The RFP provided for Staff to determine whether or not submitted Phase 1 Proposals as "Pass/Fail" based upon whether or not the proposal fulfills the County's requirements. Both submitted Proposals were determined to "Pass" the minimum requirements articulated in the RFP. The basis of the proposals are presented to the Board for consideration of "shortlisting" to Phase 2. Phase 2 of the RFP requires the County to develop (or have developed) a Design Criteria Package ("DCP") for the project(s) which include a construction component and then requires Proposers to provide a much more in-depth submittal of documentation and information related to the project proposed in the Phase 1 Proposal. Phase 2 Proposals and Presentations will be brought back before the Board for ranking. Board has three options for decision with today's agenda item: 1) select both Proposals to proceed to Phase 2; 2) select one Proposal to proceed to Phase 2; or 3) reject both Proposals.]

WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS, JAMIE LOCKLEAR PURCHASING

[01:50:05]

DIRECTOR. IT'S THE PRESENTATION OF PHASE 1 PROPOSALS UNDER RFP 2417. CONSIDERATION FOR A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WORLD GOLF HALL OF FAME. THE INTENT OF THE AGENDA ITEM IS TO BASICALLY KIND OF GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WE'VE DONE THUS FAR, GO THROUGH THE HIGH POINTS OF THE PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE IN HAND AND COME TO THE BOARD FOR NEXT STEPS AND DECISIONS. ESSENTIALLY PROJECT OVERVIEW, AND MARCH OF THIS YEAR, THE BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO DO AN RFP FOR PROPOSALS AND THAT WAS POSTED IN JUNE AND PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED ON JULY 31. THE RFP WAS A TWO PHASED SOLICITATION. PHASE 1 IS INTENDED TO BE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL SUMMARY PROPOSALS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THE TIMELINE, THE PROPERTY INTEREST AND HOW THE INTENT TO SECURE THOSE INTERESTS, AND THE APPLICATION FEE THAT'S REQUIRED BY POLK COUNTY POLICY AND FLORIDA STATUTE. PHASE 2, IF IT'S ELECTED TO GO THAT ROUTE BY THE BOARD IS A MUCH MORE IN-DEPTH DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT OF EITHER OR BOTH OF THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING TO SUBMIT ON THE TEAM, THE TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES, THEIR FINANCIAL APPROACH, HOW THEY HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS AND PROBABILITY TO FINANCE THE PROJECT , WHAT THEIR APPROACH IS AN FULFILLMENT OF THE VISION AND REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING A PUBLIC BENEFIT. SO, THE PROPOSALS. WE RECEIVED TWO PROPOSALS, THE FIRST IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER, IS THE GOLF PROPOSAL FROM CAPITAL GROUP OF FLORIDA WHO TEAMED WITH ALCHEMY ATTRACTIONS. THIS PROPOSAL PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE ACTIVITIES AND THINGS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THEIR PROJECT. THEY INCLUDED THINGS LIKE OR CONSIDERATIONS LIKE GOLF AND RECREATION, FOOD, BEVERAGE AND RETAIL. THERE WAS DETAILS ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE ACTIVITIES IN EACH ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR YOU IN THE PROPOSALS. THE PROPOSAL PROVIDED PLANS FOR HOW TO USE THEIR FACILITIES, WHETHER IT WAS RENOVATIONS TO EXISTING FACILITIES AND PROPOSED NEW FACILITIES. AND IT WAS BASICALLY WHERE RENOVATIONS WERE TO THE IMAX AND HALL OF FAME BUILDING, THE RETAIL RING AND OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY WOULD PROPOSE NEW FACILITIES, MINI GOLF COURSES, PLAY ZONES, A WELLNESS SPA AND SO ON. THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR A RENDERING OF THEIR PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH WAS PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSAL. A PROPOSED TIMELINE OF THE PROJECT WHICH IS FOR FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT THROUGH CONSTRUCTION WHICH PROVIDES INITIATION IN JULY 2026 AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION IN NOVEMBER 2029. THEY ALSO PROVIDED THEIR PROPOSED TEAM, WHICH IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SLIDE . THE NEXT PIECE WAS SECURING THE PROPERTY INTEREST. THEY PROVIDED A PHASED APPROACH WHICH ENTAILED INTERIM DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ALL OF THE PROCESS TO GO THROUGH . THEY PROPOSED A LAND LEASE AND PROPOSED A TRIPLE NET MASTER LEASE THAT WOULD BE CREATED IF SELECTED , FOR 32 YEARS THAN THEY'VE ALSO PROPOSED A SUBLEASE OF 30 YEARS WHICH WAS TWENTY-YEAR IN INITIAL TERM THROUGH ALCHEMY ATTRACTIONS. ADDITIONALLY IN THE PROPERTY INTEREST THERE WAS FUTURE PHASES CONTEMPLATED WHERE THEY SPOKE TO HELP THE COUNTY RESOLVE LITIGATION, MODIFYING THE RESTRICTIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES BEING ADDRESSED AND OTHER OPTIONS THEY PROPOSED AS FAR AS SILVER PROPERTIES, GO INTO A LONG-TERM SUBLEASE AND ALSO COLLABORATION WITH CONVENTION CENTER OPERATORS, ALL OF THE VARIOUS OPERATORS THAT WOULD COME INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. THE SECOND PROPOSAL AGAIN, IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER WAS THE FOUNTAINS AT WORLD GOLF VILLAGE WITH CROSS REGIONS REAL ESTATE.

[01:55:01]

THE PROPOSAL WAS THE FOUNTAINS AT THE VILLAGE WHICH ESSENTIALLY BROUGHT RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES, INDEPENDENT LIVING COMMUNITY, RETAIL OPPORTUITIES, RESTAURANTS AND COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE PROPERTIES, HOW THEY INTEND TO USE THEM WITH THE REUSE AND REPURPOSE WITH THE REMODELING CONSIDERATIONS, ADDITION OF NEW FACILITIES AND THEY ALSO STATED THEY WOULD NOT BE USING CURRENT FACILITIES AS IS. ON THE SCREEN IS THEIR PROPOSED RENDERINGS OF THEIR PROJECT , AND THEIR PROJECT TIMELINE IS BEFORE YOU AS WELL WHERE THEY SPOKE TO BEGINNING NEGOTIATIONS COME ALL THE WAY THROUGH THEIR TARGETED COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 2027 WITH OPERATIONS COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 2027. THEIR TEAM, AGAIN, IS BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN WITH A SINGLE PURPOSE ENTITY BEING, THEIR PROPERTY INTEREST, THEY SPOKE WITH -- ON AN AS IS BASIS, THEY PROVIDED IN THEIR PROPOSAL THAT THEY HAVE A CURRENT PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH WORLD HEALTH FOUNDATION FOR THE 37 ACRES THAT ARE SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE BEGUN CONVERSATIONS WITH ADDITIONAL PROPERTY HOLDERS FOR THE 187 ACRES SURROUNDING THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY. THEIR FINANCING PLANS, THEY SPOKE TO BORROWER'S EQUITY BEING A PORTION, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL BANKS. SO THOSE WERE THE SIX COMPONENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED FOR THE PAST FAILED DECISION BY STAFF.

THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE PHASE 2. PHASE 2, THE SCHEDULE IS BEFORE YOU WHERE DCP'S ARE CONSIDERED BECAUSE THERE IS CONSTRUCTION CONTEMPLATED IN BOTH PROPOSALS. THAT WOULD BE THE SCHEDULE BEFORE YOU WHERE WE WOULD HAVE THE DCP'S PROVIDED AND THEY WOULD BE ON A DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THOSE PROPOSALS. SO THE BOARD HAS ESSENTIALLY THREE OPTIONS. YOU CAN MOVE TO BRING BOTH PROPOSALS INTO PHASE 2, ONE OR THE OTHER, OR, NEITHER.

ESSENTIALLY WE WILL CONTINUE TO PHASE 2 FOR CONSIDERATION OF THESE PROPOSALS OR WE WILL REJECT THEM AT HAND AND CLOSE THE SOLICITATION PROCESS. AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

>> YES, I DID HAVE A QUESTION, THE FOUNTAINS, THE SECOND PROJECT YOU PRESENTED WITH THE RESTRICTIONS, HOW DOES THAT FALL WITHIN ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY?

>> THE CONTEMPLATION IS THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE IN PLACE UNTIL THEY ARE NOT IN PLACE. THESE ARE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL PROSPECTS.

THEIR PROPOSED PROJECTS AND THEY HAVE TO BE CONTEMPLATED WITH HOW THEY WILL ADDRESS THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND HOW THEY WOULD ADDRESS THOSE WOULD BE MORE DETAILED IN THEIR PROPOSALS.

THESE ARE THE CONCEPTS OF THE PROPOSALS BUT UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE IN PLACE. SO THAT'S A CONSIDERATION OF HOW THEY WILL DEVELOP THE PROJECT IF THEY MOVE

FORWARD. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> COMMISSIONER, TO ADD TO THAT, THE PGA FOUNDATION IS CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION WITH THE DRI, AND THEY ARE LITIGATING THAT AS WE SPEAK, FOR THE OTHER 37 ACRES, IT'S NOT INCLUDING OUR ACREAGE BUT THAT DETERMINATION WILL MOST LIKELY GUIDE THEIR DIRECTION ON OUR PROPERTY AS WELL. THAT MAY RESOLVE ITSELF EARLY NEXT YEAR DEPENDING ON HOW THE LAWSUIT

MOVES. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I JUST HAVE ONE. YOU KNOW, IT WAS DISCUSSED IN STAFF, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE IS, IF THERE'S AN OBVIOUS CHOICE THAT WE WOULD NOT MAKE TO SAVE THEM THE COST OF GOING TO PHASE 2 BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING THAT WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S EITHER ONE OF THESE THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN TO, FROM CONCEPTION TO CONSTRUCTION. I WOULD SUPPORT TAKING THEM BOTH TO PHASE 2.

[02:00:05]

>> THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. DO YOU WANT TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT

FIRST? >> WE CAN HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> I WOULD SECOND THAT.

>> >> THE BOWED -- BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT. I'VE SPEAKER CARDS, DOUG SMITH, IS DOUG SMITH IN THE AUDITORIUM? GOOD MORNING, WELCOME, MR. SMITH.

>> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> DOUG SMITH 1205 MONUMENT RD., JACKSONVILLE, FL. I'M THE CEO OF CROSS REGIONS REAL ESTATE. THE OWNER APOLOGIZES FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO BE HERE. HE WAS PLANNING ON BEING HERE AND GOT STUCK IN MIAMI. SO YOU GOT STUCK WITH ME.

>> IT HAPPENED TO ME. >> WE HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. WE HAVE THE FOUNTAINS AT ST. JOHN'S, THEY ARE AT 210 AND 95. PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT'S A 100 ACRE DEVELOPMENT, STILL A LOT COMING . WE PLAN ON TAKING THE SAME USES DOWN TO THE FOUNTAINS AT WORLD GOLF. THERE, WE HAD TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY AND PROPERTY OWNERS ON BOTH SIDES OF TO 10, TO BE ABLE TO BRING THAT TO FRUITION. IT CALLED FOR SOMEONE WHO HAD A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH, SOMEONE WHO IS WORKING WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WHICH YOU HAVE TO DO AND WE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO DO THAT. EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE IN GREEN, BOTH SHADES OF GREEN IS WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE UNDER CONTRACT AND ARE MOVING TOWARD PURCHASING. THE IMAX AND HALL OF FAME BUILDING IS THE HORSESHOE-SHAPED AREA, OKAY, AND IT HAS THE LAND THAT IT SITS ON. THAT'S ALL IT HAS AN RIGHTS TO PART ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAKE, NOT A GOOD CONCEPT GIVEN WHERE WE ARE TODAY. SO, THE OTHER PROPOSER WITH GOLFTOPIA THAT SHOWS USING THESE OTHER PARCELS THAT WE HAVE ON CONTRACT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY , HOW THEIR PROPOSAL WOULD GO FORWARD, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO RIGHTS TO ANY OF THE PROPERTY THAT THEY ARE SAYING THEY ARE GOING TO DO IN THE PROPOSAL. THE ONLY THING THEY CAN DO WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS THE HORSESHOE-SHAPED SPACE THERE. LIKE SHE DID SAY, WE HAVE TALKED TO ROB SCHOLZ AND THE FOLKS TO LOOK AT A LARGE, COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT THERE, THAT WILL MAKE THE CHANGE. THIS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE BROKEN UP, OBVIOUSLY. AND YOU ACCEPT OUR PROPOSAL, IT WILL NOT BE BROKEN UP. SOMEBODY WILL COME IN THERE AND TAKE IT AND USE THE WHOLE THING TOGETHER TO BRING MASTER DEVELOPMENT TO THE AREA. WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, I.T. LAND ACQUISITIONS ABOUT THOSE RESTRICTIONS AND ALSO, WE HAVE NOT SOLVED THAT YET. BUT WITH THAT APPROACH, WE BELIEVE WE CAN SOLVE THAT, AND HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO DO THAT BEFORE OF THE LAWSUIT HAS TO COME TO FRUITION OR BE COMPLETED. WE BELIEVE THAT WE CAN BRING ALL THE PARTIES

TOGETHER -- >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> TO DEVELOP A PROJECT -- >> THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT THE NEXT SPEAKER CARD BELONGS TO RICH EQUINE.

GOOD MORNING, SIR. >> RICH , 1205 MONUMENT RD., JACKSONVILLE, FL. THANKS FOR HAVING US OUT. I'M WITH CROSS REGIONS REAL ESTATE ALONG WITH DOUG. AGAIN, I'M THE BACKUP TO THE BACKUP PLAN. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT CROSS REGIONS TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENTS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY. OUR FLAGSHIP IS THE FOUNTAINS PROJECT. IT'S ANCHORED BY THE ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL ON A 100 ACRE CAMPUS AND OVER THE YEARS OUR TEAM HAS BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY DEVELOP OVER 22 RESTAURANTS, A LOT OF WHICH ARE LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES. WE ARE CURRENTLY BREAKING GROUND ON A HILTON FLAG HOTEL. WE ARE WORKING ON A 174 UNIT SENIOR LIVING PROJECT. WE HAVE A FUTURE PLAN FOR ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE. ALL OF THIS TIES TO OUR CORE FOCUS

[02:05:04]

WHICH IS CONTINUING CARE FOR SENIOR ADULTS. IT'S THE CORE PRINCIPLE OF OUR COMPANY COMBINED WITH HIS EFFORT AT THE TIMING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH, SCREENING AND PREVENTION WHICH THE COUNTY HAS GIVEN SUPPORT TO. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THIS WORLD GOLF VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AND ANCHOR OUR FIRST MANUFACTURING AND DRUG DEVELOPMENT FACILITY FOR TIMING AT THIS LOCATION. SO I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF COMPETITION WITH THE STEEL AND A LOT OF CHALLENGES TO OVERCOME BUT I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT WE HAVE THE HORSEPOWER AND THE TRACK RECORD TO PULL EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND MAKE THIS A SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN CROSS REGIONS IN THE COUNTY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. SEEING NO ONE ELSE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT OH -- WE'VE GOT ONE MORE. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> I'M MARIO CAPRI ME FROM CAPITAL GROUP, I'M THE COO. I DIDN'T SEND ANY BACKUP, I'M HERE. I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH ANYBODY IN THE COUNTY TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE THAT THIS PROJECT IS.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE MAIN PIECE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ON, IS THE ANCHOR OF THE PROJECT, WE COME UP WITH 100% OF THE FUNDING ON ALL OF OUR PROJECTS WHICH IS USUALLY THE DETERRENT OR THE PROBLEM WITH GETTING PROJECTS COMPLETED. SO WE WOULD WELCOME TO WORK WITH ANYBODY INCLUDING THE OTHER PROPOSER , TO LET THEM HAVE WHAT THEY WANT TO HAVE, LET THEM DO WHAT THEY ARE GOOD AT, IF IT FITS WITHIN THE MODEL OF WHAT THE COUNTY ONCE, WE ARE MORE OF AN INCLUSIVE APPROACH, WE WANT TO WORK WITH PEOPLE AND WE BELIEVE WE CAN SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM.

>> ANYBODY ELSE FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE? WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. BACK TO THE BOARD, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> CALL FOR THE VOTE? AND THAT PASSES FOR -0. THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THIS LOOKS

[4. Public Hearing * VACROA 2025-02 - Public Hearing to vacate a portion of Vermont Boulevard right-of-way. The applicant has requested St. Johns County vacate a currently unopened portion of right-of-way known as Vermont Boulevard, located between Second Street and Third Street within the Vermont Heights Subdivision; immediate adjacent to Lots 1 & 2 of Block 74. Based on staff's review thus far, no party will be unreasonably affected by the requested vacation.]

LIKE THIS IS A QUALIFIED JUDICIAL AND WE WILL NEED TO

EXPORT A, MR. TAYLOR. >> GOOD MORNING --

>> WAIT JUST A MINUTE. WE'VE GOT HOMEWORK TO DO.

>> NO EMAIL'S FROM RESIDENCE OR STAFF AND NO MEETINGS.

>> NO RECORD OF ANY EMAIL'S OR MEETINGS.

>> I'VE HAD ONE CONVERSATION WITH ONE RESIDENT WHO DIDN'T EXPRESS AN OPINION FOR OR AGAINST.

>> OKAY. MARVIN VACROA AT 4062 VERMONT BLVD. 4062 VERMONT BLVD.

WE HAVE LIVED THERE, ME AND MY FAMILY, ABOUT, GOING ON 19 YEARS NOW. AND, LIKE I SAY, IT HAS BEEN A BLESSING TO LIVE IN ST.

JOHNS COUNTY. WE HAVE GREATLY BENEFITED FROM BEING HERE. SO WE'VE GOT A SITUATION WHERE WE ALL KNOW THE WEATHER CONDITIONS HERE IN FLORIDA , A LOT OF RAIN, HURRICANES, RECENTLY, WE HAD A LOT OF RAIN . THE PROPERTY BEHIND OUR PROPERTY IN THE BACK, WE HAVE A PROPERTY LINE AND OUR PROPERTY IS A LITTLE HIGHER THAN THE PROPERTY THAT IS ADJACENT TO US, WHICH IS A LOT OF GROUP AND A LOT OF WORDS, AND THERE'S AN OAK TREE ABOUT 40 FEET FROM OUR PROPERTY LINE . AND OVER THE YEARS THAT WE'VE LIVED THERE THERE'S A LOT OF VINES THAT HAVE GROWN OVER THE OAK TREE, AND IT'S CREATED LIKE AN UMBRELLA AFFECTS, WITH A LOT OF HOLES IN IT. SO, YOU CAN IMAGINE THE RAIN , AND IT'S SATURATED THE GROUND, WHICH IS LOWER THAN OUR PROPERTY AND 19 YEARS, THE RAINWATER HAS SAT ON THE ROUND AND IT HAS RAN OVER TO OUR

[02:10:04]

PROPERTY WHERE OUR SEPTIC SYSTEM IS. NOW, LAST YEAR, WHEN HURRICANE HELENE CAME HERE AT MIDNIGHT, MY ALARM SYSTEM TRIGGERED. I HEARD IT GO OFF, IT WAS SHEETS OF RAIN COMING DOWN SO I FLIPPED THE SWITCH, TURNED IT OFF, WENT BACK IN, I COULDN'T DO NOTHING, THERE WAS WATER ON TOP OF MY SEPTIC SYSTEM ABOUT THAT DEEP. IT WAS GOING UP TO THE SIDE OF MY FOUNDATION, OF MY HOUSE. SO I WAITED A COUPLE OF DAYS, THE SUNSHINE CAME OUT, AND I RESET THE PUMP AND I PUMPED THE SEPTIC TANK, AND WATER CAME STRAIGHT UP FROM THE DREAM FILLED, SEWER AND WATER CAME UP, THAT TOLD ME THAT THE DRAIN FIELDS AND UNDERNEATH WERE SATURATED. SO, I DECIDED TO CHECK THE TANK IN THE BOTTOM.

WHEN I LOOKED IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TANK, THERE WAS A HOLE IN THE LEFT CORNER OF THE TANK, AND I KIND OF LOOKED INSIDE THE TANK AND I CAN SEE WHERE THE WALLS WERE CRACKED. SO, I CALLED MORE SEPTIC, WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN TREATING OUR SEPTIC TANK OVER THE YEARS. THEY DO A VERY GOOD JOB. SO HE COMES OUT, AND HE SAID HE WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE TANKS. SO HE PULLED THE PERMIT, AND THE STATE INSPECTOR CAME OUT AND HE DID HIS SOIL TEST.. HE TOLD US THAT THE WATER TABLE HAS RISEN TOO HIGH, YOU SAID YOU CAN NO LONGER HAVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM BACK THERE BECAUSE IF YOU PUT SOMETHING BACK THERE, IT'S GOING TO FLY. IT WILL CONTINUE TO FLOOD. SO, THEY CAME OUT TOGETHER, THEY KIND OF SURVEYED AROUND WHERE THE NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM CAN GO IN FOR THE HOUSE, AND HE LOOKED ALONG THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS REALLY THE ONLY PLACE IT COULD GO BUT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH WITH THERE, HE SAID WE CAN'T PUT IT THERE BECAUSE IF IT FLOODS OUT, IF THE SEPTIC EVER FLOODS, IT'S GOING TO COME INTO YOUR HOUSE.

SO, THEY LOOKED AROUND THE PROPERTY, AND RIGHT OUTSIDE OUR PROPERTY LINE, NEXT TO OUR DRIVEWAY, WHICH RUNS TO BOULEVARD, THE DRIVEWAY RUNS ALL THE WAY OUT, HE SAID THE SEPTIC , HIM AND BJ SAID THE SEPTIC NEEDS TO GO RIGHT HERE. SHE THOUGHT AT FIRST, WE OWN THE PROPERTY, ME AND AJ, MY NEIGHBOR, BECAUSE WE HAVE MAINTAINED THE PROPERTY FOR THE PAST 19 YEARS, WE'VE KEPT IT UP. I MEAN IT LOOKS AS GOOD AS OUR YARD OUT THERE. SO, WHAT HE RECOMMENDED , HE SAID BECAUSE THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN, HE SAYS YOU HAVE TO RELOCATE IT AND WE RECOMMEND THIS PLACE RIGHT HERE. HE SAID IT WILL TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. HE SAID, HAVE THE COUNTY VACATE 40 TO 45 FEET OUT FROM YOUR PROPERTY LINE. THE SEPTIC, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM, WE WILL PUT A RAISED BED SEPTIC ON THERE. PROBLEM SOLVED, HE SAID HE WOULD APPROVED IT AND IT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. FOR SOME REASON, ME AND AJ, HIS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHERE THE SEPTIC'S ARE BELOW THE GROUND.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DID THAT, BUT THEY DID. IF YOU LOOK AROUND VERMONT HEIGHTS, ALL OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS, MOST THAT I'VE SEEN ARE ABOVEGROUND, AND EVIDENTLY, THEY ARE WORKING WELL. SO, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR, IS TO VACATE THAT LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY, MINE AND AJ'S, BECAUSE HE'S IN THE SAME SITUATION I AM, THE OAK TREE, THEM ROOTS ARE COMING TOWARDS OUR YARDS. AND ME AND ANOTHER FRIEND, WE DUG DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE TANK BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO TRY AND PATCH IT, TEMPORARILY. AND WHAT WE FOUND OUT WHEN WE WENT DOWN TO THE CORNER OF THE SEPTIC, WE HIT A RESERVOIR, AND THE WATER CAME POURING IN, LIKE A STREAM. SO THERE'S WATER UNDERNEATH, AND

[02:15:06]

I'M SURE IT'S THE SAME SITUATION WITH HIS BACKYARD, SO WE ARE ASKING TO VACATE THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR, AND YOU SEE IT UP THERE, IN THE BOX IN YELLOW, AND YOU CAN SEE IN MY BACKYARD, THE BLUE TARPS, BACK THERE, I PUT THOSE TARPS OVER MY DRAIN FIELDS IN MY SEPTIC AREA SO RAINWATER COULDN'T GET IN THERE, BECAUSE IF IT DOES, WE CAN'T TAKE A SHOWER. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT.

>> THANK YOU, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT BUT BEFORE WE DO, WE HAVE A DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. BASSETT?

>> THANK YOU. >> I THINK AJ HAD SOMETHING --

>> THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION, AJ CAN COME UP FOR A REBUTTAL. MR. BASSETT, YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES AS YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THE NECESSARY STEPS TO BE A DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.

>> THE MACQUARIE BASSETT 4162 VERMONT BLVD. THE MACQUARIE BASSETT 4162 VERMONT BLVD. WHEN VERMONT WAS DEVELOPED, THE SUBDIVISION INCLUDED APPROXIMATELY SIX PARTS THAT WERE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC IN PERPETUITY AS COMMON ELEMENTS, THOSE ARE TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL RESIDENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND ARE NOT PRIVATELY OWNED. THEY ARE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC . ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE HER RIGHT AWAY TO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY ARE NOT ON. RIGHT HERE, IS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER RIGHT THERE AND IT STATES THAT ALL RIGHT-OF-WAY PARTS ARE DEDICATED FOR THE PUBLIC USE, IT'S 100% OWNED BY VERMONT HEIGHTS. EVERYBODY SYMPATHIZES WITH THE SARTAIN'S AND DON'T KNOW WHY THEY CAN'T REPLACE THE EXISTING SEPTIC TANK. . WHEN HE PUT THOSE HOUSES AND HE DID PUT IT DOWN BELOW BUT SOME OF THE OWNERS DECIDED THEY WANTED A BIG MOUND IN THEIR BACKYARDS. SOME OF THEM KIND OF TOOK IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. EVERYBODY SYMPATHIZES WITH HIM, BUT THERE'S GOT TO BE A REASON IT CAN'T BE SOLVED BECAUSE BERNIE JUST CAME OUT LAST WEEK AND PARKED ON MY PROPERTY TO DO ANOTHER HOUSE ON SIXTH STREET RIGHT ACROSS FROM WHERE I LIVE. WHAT WOULD THE SARTAIN'S DO TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE IF THE PROPERTY DID NOT BORDER THE COMMON AREA? THE THING IS, YOU GIVE AWAY THIS PROPERTY, EVERYBODY ELSE THAT LIVES ON THESE COMMON AREAS CAN COME UP HERE AND DO THE SAME THING AND SAY I WANT THIS PROPERTY, AND WE ARE TALKING LIKE 35 TO 45 DIFFERENT PARCELS THAT CAN BE TAKEN AWAY AND YOU DON'T OWN IT, OR ST. JOHNS COUNTY DON'T OWN IT. I ENCOURAGE ST. JOHNS COUNTY TO HELP THEM RESOLVE THE PROBLEM AS THEY WOULD FOR ANY PROPERTY OWNER, FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT BORDER THE SPACE, THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT I IMAGINE, OTHER COMPANIES THEY CAN CONTACT TO FIND OUT WHAT COULD BE DONE. I WOULD SUGGEST WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT HIS TANK IS CRANKED -- CRACKED, YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THE TANK AND THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME OF THERE, WE ARE 35 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. WE ARE THE HIGHEST PLACE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY BUT THE PROBLEM IS OUT THERE, HIS YARD MAY NEED TO BE RAISED UP, WHERE THEY LEVEL THE DIRT FROM THE GET GO. I'VE DONE A LOT OF THE ROADWORK OUT THERE MYSELF, TRYING TO HELP EVERYBODY OUT. BUT YOU CAN'T GIVE A PROPERTY AWAY JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S GROWTH IS UP IN THE BACKYARD FROM ANOTHER LOT. HE COULD WORK WITH OTHER LOT OWNERS TO SEE IF HE COULD GET THE PROPERTY FIXED, BUT THIS IS A SITUATION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT. THE COMMON AREA REALLY BELONGS TO VERMONT HEIGHTS , AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT Y'ALL WANT TO DO ABOUT IT.

THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY, THANK YOU.

[02:20:03]

>> THANK YOU MR. BASSETT. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? YES SIR, WELCOME, PLEASE STATE YOUR

NAME AND ADDRESS. >> MR. SARTAIN. WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR 19 YEARS. OUR DRIVEWAYS GO RIGHT THROUGH IT. THERE ARE A BUNCH OF THE PARCELS BUT'S OF THEM DON'T HAVE HOUSES, DRIVEWAYS, SO NOBODY IS MAINTAINING THOSE PROPERTIES . HE IS STATING THAT THE PUBLIC CAN COME IN AND USE THOSE BUT HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF SOMEONE WAS 10 FEET FROM YOUR FRONT DOOR, ANYBODY CAN COME IN, HAVE A BARBECUE, DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. HOW SAFE WOULD YOUR FAMILY FEEL. WE WANT THIS PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO DO WITH AS WE LIKE TO MAINTAIN OUR YARDS, THE FUTURE, GOING FORWARD WE WILL DO LITIGATION TO GET MORE PARCELS TO BE ABLE TO FENCE IN OUR YARD JUST LIKE HE HAS A FULL FENCE, FULLY ENCLOSURE IN HIS YARD . WE WOULD LIKE TO FEEL SAFE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE THIS ISSUE. WE WORKED WITH THE COUNTY A LOT. I KNOW THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS A HEAD SCRATCHER AS FAR AS THE WAY EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PARCELED TECHNICALLY THE HLA DOESN'T EXIST THAT OWNS THE PUBLIC PROPERTY. SO WE ARE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO FEEL SAFE IN OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, REALLY, FOR ME, PERSONALLY, I WANT MY SPACE

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE THAT. HI. STILL IN THE MORNING, GOOD MORNING, HOW ARE YOU?

>> AS I STATED BEFORE -- >> SIR, I JUST NEED TO SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND YOU WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT HASN'T ALREADY SPOKEN. OKAY WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> OKAY. MOORE'S AND THE STATE INSPECTOR, THEY TRY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT BECAUSE OF THE WATER TABLE, THE ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE RAIN THAT HAS BEEN DROPPED IN THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY ON THIS OTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY, IT IS SATURATED THE GROUND AND NOW THERE'S A RESERVOIR OF WATER UP UNDER THERE, AND IT'S COMING INTO MY SEPTIC SYSTEM. THEY CANNOT PUT A RAISED BED SEPTIC IN THAT SAME AREA, THEY'VE ALREADY SAID THAT, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM, SO THEY SURVEY THE PROPERTY, THEY LOOKED AROUND THE PROPERTY, AND THEY SAID THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE OR THE BEST PLACE FOR THE SEPTIC, A RAISED BED IS RIGHT IN THAT YELLOW TRIANGLE OR NOT TRIANGLE, RECTANGLE, IN THAT AREA THERE , LIKE 40, 45 FEET OUT. SAID IT WOULD GO PERFECTLY RIGHT THERE. THE STATE INSPECTOR SAID, YOU KNOW, GET IT APPROVED, BRING IT TO MY DESK, HE WILL APPROVE IT AND THE PROBLEM IS

SOLVED. >> OKAY, WE'RE BACK TO THE BOARD. MY QUESTION, WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS?

>> YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO VACATE A RIGHT OF WAY. SO WE ARE CLEAR, THAT TRIANGLE BOX THAT WAS THE PLOTTED VERMONT BOULEVARD, IT WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED THERE. A LOT OF PLOTS BACK IN THE 1920S, THEY HAD A DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC USE.

THAT'S CORRECT THAT IT DOES NOT GIVE THE COUNTY ANY INTEREST UNLESS IT ACCEPTS SUCH DESIGNATION. WE HAVE MINUTES FROM 1934 WHERE THE COUNTY OF THE ROADS WERE SPOKEN ABOUT AND PROVIDING MAINTENANCE WHICH RECONSTITUTED AND ACCEPTANCE, SO WE CAN VACATE THAT RIGHT OF WAY.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? AND THAT CASE I WOULD MAKE A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT 2025,

VERMONT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. PASSES 4-0.

[5. Public Hearing * MAJMOD 2025-03 St. Augustine Industrial Park. Request for a Major Modification to the St. Augustine Industrial Park PUD (Ord. 1994-10, as amended) amending the phasing and expiration schedule to account for a proposed 200,000 square foot expansion to an existing warehouse/distribution facility. A revised Master Development Plan (MDP) Text and Map is provided to reflect the proposed changes. The subject site is specifically located at 3660 Deerpark Boulevard. This request was heard by the Planning and Zoning Agency at their regularly scheduled public hearing on Thursday, August 7, 2025, and was unanimously recommended for approval by a vote of 7-0. There was minimal discussion about traffic impacts and improvements.]

WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE WHICH IS ALSO

QUASIJUDICIAL. >> I HAVE NO EMAIL'S FROM STAFF

OR RESIDENTS AND NO MEETINGS. >> I HAVE NO RECORD OF FEMALES

[02:25:08]

OR MEETINGS. >> I HAVE NO RECORD. WE WILL MOVE INTO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

>> GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIR, MY NAME IS MICHAEL SZNAPSTAJLER, I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH , HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT DEER PARK LLC, HERE TODAY IS OUR CLIENT CONTACT DAVID ARCHIBALD, AND MY PARTNER JESSICA GAL. IT'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD MATTER.

I KNOW YOU'VE HAD A BUSY MORNING, IT'S A PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO UPDATE THE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE ST. AUGUSTINE PARK PUD. SO HERE IS THE OVERALL INDUSTRIAL PARK FOOTPRINT, THE SITE IS WEST OF 95, NORTH OF STATE ROAD 207. THE RAILROAD ICEX THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 1999 TO ALLOW 1,800,000 FT.÷ OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 200,000 FT.÷ OF OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE OVERHEAD, THE DEVELOPMENT IS PARTIALLY COMPLETE. THERE ARE NO VARIANTS WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE YOU ALL TODAY. THE SURROUNDING USES ARE TO THE SOUTH AND WEST OF THE SITE, NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS IS OPEN RURAL, AND COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE AND COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE TO THE EAST OF 95 , YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE USES THAT ARE THERE. AGAIN, THE PUD WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 1994. IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED OVER TIME TO ADD ADDITIONAL ACREAGE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. THERE WAS A MODIFICATION IN 2005 42 TRAFFIC CONNECTORS FROM DEER PARK TO THE PROPERTY LINE EAST OF THE PUD AND IN 2007, ANOTHER MODIFICATION OCCURRED FOR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONNECTIONS TO THE PROPERTY . TODAY'S REQUEST IS STRAIGHTFORWARD, JUST GOING TO MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FOR A PLANNED EXPANSION OF ONE OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. IT'S ALL WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE PUD. IT'S A 200 FOR A PLANNED EXPANSION OF ONE OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. IT'S ALL WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE PUD. IT'S A 200,000 FT.÷ EXPANSION SO NO INCREASE IN DENSITY OR PERMITTED BUILDING AREA FROM WHAT'S ALREADY AUTHORIZED IN THE PUD ITSELF. WE ARE CHANGING THE SCHEDULE FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. STAFF DID ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ON LANGUAGE RELATED TO FIRE PROTECTION STANDARD SO WE INCLUDED THAT AS WELL. THIS WENT BEFORE PZA IN AUGUST AND WE RECEIVED A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THIS NEXT SLIDE JUST SHOWS MORE ZOOMED IN ON THE AREA OF CONCERNED , ALONG WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN SO IT HAS SHIFTED TO THE EAST AND WEST. IT DOES FACE NORTH. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S AN EXISTING BUILDING OF 321,000 FT.÷ IN THAT AREA TO THE LEFT, THAT'S THE PLANT EXPANSION OF 200,000 FT.÷ . AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, NO NEW WAIVERS OR MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED. STAFF HAS ALLOWED CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUD WHERE THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE. AND THE APPLICANT HAS INCORPORATED THE SCHEDULE INTO THE PUD. WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SLIDE, THE TABLE IS THE CURRENT SCHEDULE FOR THE PUD, AND THE PARAGRAPH IS THE NEW SCHEDULE, AND IT'S JUST TO SAY THAT THE PROJECT WILL COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THREE YEARS , AND THE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE COMPLETE WITHIN EIGHT YEARS. I THINK WE WILL MOVE QUICKER THAN THAT BUT THAT WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE SO WE ARE HAPPY TO INCORPORATE THAT. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT FOR TODAY. THE TEAM IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MIKE OR HIS STAFF? SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. SEEING NO ONE RISE TO SPEAK, WE WILL CLOSE FOR

THIS AGENDA ITEM. >> BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION. MOTION TO ENACT ORDINANCE 2025- 34 .

[02:30:03]

>> I SECOND. >> CALL FOR THE VOTE . AND THAT

[6. Public Hearing * REZ 2025-06 RaceTrac at Dixie Highway. Request to rezone approximately eight (8) acres of land, located at the southwest corner of the County Road 204 / US 1 South intersection, from Open Rural (OR) and Commercial Intensive (CI) with conditions to Commercial Highway and Tourist (CHT) with conditions. This request was heard by the Planning and Zoning Agency at their regularly scheduled public hearing on Thursday, August 21, 2025, and was unanimously recommended for approval by a vote of 7-0.]

PASSES 4-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> GOING TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX.

>> I HAVE NO EMAIL'S FROM STAFF OR RESIDENTS ACTUALLY, WAIT, I DO HAVE A MEETING WITH COURTNEY GRAVER, THE APPLICANT AND STAFF.

>> I HAVE NO RECORD OF EMAIL'S OR PHONE CALLS BUT I DID MEET YESTERDAY WITH COURTNEY GAVE HER AND WE MET HERE IN THE OFFICE TO

DISCUSS THIS SITE LOCATION. >> COMMISSIONER ARNOLD?

>> I HAVE NO RECORD OF FEMALES BUT I DID HAVE A MEETING WITH

COURTNEY GRAVER. >> I DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF EMAILED, I HAVE MET WITH COURTNEY ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS AND I'VE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL RESIDENTS WHO WERE IN

FAVOR OF THE PROJECT. >> I WILL KEEP IT QUICK BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO STAND BETWEEN YOU GUYS AND LUNCH. SO COURTNEY GAVE HER, I REPRESENT THE RACETRACK INC., VIA THE PURCHASER OF THIS PROPERTY WHICH IS OWNED BY EXTREME INVESTMENTS.

WE HAVE A WHOLE TEAM HERE, ALAN BELL, THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AS WELL AS BETH LEE TROTT WITH PRIME LEE AND OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER. THE PROPERTY IS ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THE COUNTY JUST PAST THE 95 INTERCHANGE . IT'S IN COMMISSIONER MURPHY'S DISTRICT. THIS REQUEST IS A REZONING FOR 8 ACRES. WE CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY HAS SPLIT ZONING WHICH INCLUDES CI WITH CONDITIONS AS WELL AS CHT, SO THROUGH THIS APPLICATION WE ARE BRINGING AND TWO AND HALF ACRES OF OR TO CHT AND BRINGING THAT CIA INTO CONDITIONS, MOSTLY BECAUSE THE CI WAS RELATED TO AN OLDER SITE PLAN WHICH IS NO LONGER PROPOSED FOR THIS SITE, THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE NEXT USE DESIGNATION SO CHT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THAT. AGAIN, THIS IS A CONVENTIONAL REZONING BUT WE DID PRESENT A SITE PLAN. THERE ARE UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT THE SITE INCLUDING WE HAVE A SPECIMEN TREE ON THE SITE WHICH WILL BE RETAINED. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WETLANDS ON THE SITE, NONE OF THOSE ARE PART OF THIS APPLICATION. THEY WILL REMAIN IN THE OR ZONING. WE'VE AGREED TO A CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO GET THOSE WETLANDS IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. WE ARE MANY MILES AWAY FROM UTILITIES, SO THIS WILL BE ON WELL AND SEPTIC. SO AS PART OF THAT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THE RACETRACK WILL NEED TO DO TO SATISFY FIRE FLOW AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR THE SITE. WE'VE ALSO HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH FDO T. . THIS IS WHAT IS CALLED A SIGNALIZED CUT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY WILL PUSH TRAFFIC THAT IS EXITING THE SITE EVEN IF THEY WANT TO TURN LEFT TO GO NORTH BACK TO ST.

AUGUSTINE, THEY WILL BE FORCED TO TAKE A RIGHT-HAND TURN AND THEY WILL COME TO US, SIGNALIZED A U-TURN AND THE WAY THE SITE IS DESIGNED, ALL OF THE SEMI TRUCKS WILL BE EXITING ON THE SOUTHERN END, AND THAT CUT IS ALSO SIGNALIZED. SO MR. WALSH CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS, CURRENTLY FIVE RACETRACKS IN THE COUNTY, AND THIS ONE WILL BE LARGER. IT'S PROPOSED TO BE 8100 FT.÷. SO THIS IS A SIMILAR BUILD THAT THE RACETRACK HAS DONE. THIS SITE WILL PROBABLY, I THINK THE ESTIMATE IS 35 FULL-TIME JOBS AS WELL AS PART-TIME WORK AS THE MARKET EXPANDS, AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS, WE'VE WAIVED THE LIVE LOCAL ACT AND WITH THAT WE GOT OUR UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FROM PZA SO WE THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

>> I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING OUR SPECIMEN TREES. I KNOW IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. ALSO THE WETLANDS. WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT CUT COMING OUT, WORKING WITH D.O.T., THE IDEAS OF A ROUNDABOUT WERE

[02:35:01]

FLOATED BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE DOING A LOT OF WORK TO MAKE SURE THIS IS AS GOOD OF A PROJECT AS COULD BE. MY QUESTION, IS, AND I APPRECIATE THE WAIVER OF THE LIVE LOCAL ACT. YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO PUT A GAS STATION HERE?

>> I WILL BE CLEAR, SO RACETRACK IS THE CONTRACT PURCHASER . SO AS PART OF THAT, THEY ARE INVESTED IN THIS PROJECT BUT THEY HAVEN'T CLOSED ON IT. WORST CASE SCENARIO, IF THEY DIDN'T CLOSE, THE REZONING WOULD BE CHT, SO YOU COULD SEE SOMETHING ELSE GO THERE BUT THEY ARE SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS INTO THIS PROJECT SO I WILL WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT IT CLOSES AND WE SEE A RACETRACK. BUT NOTHING IS GUARANTEED.

>> PUBLIC COMMENT? >> THE BOARD WILL NOW HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX. SEEING NO ONE, WE

WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> BACK TO THE BOARD AND IN MY DISTRICT, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO ENACT THE ORDINANCE. PLEASE VOTE. THAT PASSES, 4-0. WE WILL MOVE RIGHT

[7. Community Redevelopment Agency Fiscal Year 2026 Annual Budget. Pursuant to section 163.387, Florida Statutes, moneys in the Community Redevelopment Agency Trust Funds may be expended only pursuant to an annual budget adopted by the Community Redevelopment Agency and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The CRA recommends the FY 2026 annual budget for the Flagler Estates, Vilano Beach, and West Augustine community redevelopment areas as attached.]

INTO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. OH, SORRY. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, LET ME GO BACK. WE ARE NOW RECESSING THE REGULAR WARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AND CONVENING AS ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.

>> OF MORNING, WADE SCHROEDER, THIS IS A CRA ITEM, FLORIDA STATUTE 163.387 REQUIRES THE BUDGETS OF A CRA BE APPROVED BEFORE ANY EXPENSES CAN TAKE PLACE. UNDER THE COUNTY CRA UMBRELLA, THE COUNTY HAS THREE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CRA'S, WEST AUGUSTINE, FLAGLER AND TO GO THROUGH THE FUNDING, ANNUAL FUNDING RELATED TO THE CRA, THEY ARE FUNDED THROUGH WHAT IS CALLED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING OR TIFF, AND THAT IS THE INCREMENTAL INCREASES IN TAXABLE VALUES WITHIN EACH CRA. THE INCREASE, THE GENERAL FUND MILLAGE RATE IS APPLIED TO THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE. THAT'S HOW THE REVENUES ARE RECEIVED EACH YEAR FOR EACH CRA. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THE BUDGET, BUDGETS WERE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION. THEY WERE PREPARED THROUGH THE STEERING COMMITTEES OF EACH OF THE CRA'S. SO I'M AVAILABLE IF THERE ARE

QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET. >> ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, DO WE NEED PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? OKAY, WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> BACK TO THE BOARD. DO WE HAVE

A MOTION? >> MR. CHAIR, MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE COMMUNITY

REDEVELOPMENT AREA. >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE. THAT CARRIES 4-0. WE WILL NOW A JORDAN THE

[8. CA#04 - GMP Amendment for Early Package for Northeast Park under Construction Manager Agreement #24-MCA-WHA-19753 with Wharton-Smith, Inc - RFQ No: 1530. On May 9, 2024, the County entered into Construction Manager Agreement #24-MCA-WHA-19753 with Wharton-Smith, Inc ("WSI) as the top ranked firm under RFQ No: 1530; Construction Manager at Risk Services for Multiple Parks. The initial contract was for preconstruction services related to the Regional Parks (Central Community, Central Sportsplex, Northwest Community and Northeast Community) and improvements to Davis Park. The initial contract authorized the performance of the preconstruction services, and established the Construction Manager Fee of 4.9% to be applied to all Guaranteed Maximum Price ("GMP") Proposals. Since the effective date of the contract, WSI has been working with the County and the County's design firm to review and value engineer the design of the parks for the purposes of accomplishing the work within the County's established budgetary limitations. This CA#4 serves to incorporate the GMP for the Early Package for Northeast Community Park, which is a forty (40) acre site. The scope for this package includes site clearing, import fill dirt, site civil earthwork & rough grading, underground utilities, parking lot retention ponds and drives for four (4) natural grass softball/little league baseball fields, two (2) natural grass multi-purpose fields, and six (6) pickleball courts. This CA#4 serves to incorporate the GMP negotiated between WSI and County Staff for this scope, at a GMP amount of $16,751,216.00, with a substantial completion date of May 31, 2027. Additionally, this GMP Amendment shall serve to adjust contract language in order to address the progress of the Contract schedule. Staff recommends Board approval to execute CA#4 as provided herein.]

ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND RECONVENE THE REGULAR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING.

>> >> HELLO COMMISSIONERS, I'M NOT DANIEL WOODCRAFT. I AM JAMIE LOCKLEAR , IT'S FOR THE GMP AMENDMENT FOR THE EARLY PACKAGE FOR THE NORTHEAST PARK WITH WHARTON SMITH, THIS IS UNDER THE CONTRACT WE DID FOR THE FOUR BIG REGIONAL PARKS, YOU'VE SEEN THEM COME FOR THE SPORTSPLEX PARK , THE EARLY PACKAGE IS BASICALLY THE HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS ALL THE SITE WORK PREPARING FOR THE SECOND PACKAGE WHICH SHOULD COME TO YOU AT A LATER DATE. THIS PARK IS LOCATED OFF DIEGO PLAINS NORTH, IT'S APPROXIMATELY A 40 ACRE SITE. THIS PACKAGE WILL PROVIDE FOR TWO ROYALTY PURPOSE -- MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS AS WELL AS ALL OF THE PARKING AND DRIVES, THERE'S AN ESTIMATED $1.5 MILLION IN OWNER DIRECT

[02:40:02]

PURCHASES WHICH WOULD BE A $75,000 TAX SAVINGS. THE GMP IS ABOUT $16.7 MILLION. THIS IS PART OF THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR THE REGIONAL PARKS AND PART OF THE BOND THAT THE BOARD ELECTED TO GO FORTH FROM FINANCING. THE COMPLETION DATE FOR THE PACKAGE IS MAY 2027. AND NOT PART OF THIS PACKAGE BUT JUST FOR YOUR REFERENCE, THIS IS THE SITE OF THE NORTHEAST LIBRARY, CURRENTLY THIS IS THE RENDERING OF WHAT THE LIBRARY WILL LOOK LIKE. YOU WILL SEE THAT COME FORWARD BUT IT'S KIND OF A, IT'S PART OF THE NORTHEAST PARK PROJECT ITSELF, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LOOKSEE OF WHERE THINGS ARE MOVING TOWARDS. AND THE MOTION IS BEFORE YOU AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I KNOW WE TOOK OUT A HUGE BOND FOR THE PARKS, AND I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT MOST OF THE NEW FIELDS WERE GOING TO BE TURF AND THIS LOOKS LIKE IT'S NATURAL.

>> THERE ARE SOME TURF FIELDS. THE FIELDS ON THIS SITE ARE NATURAL GRASS. THAT'S PART OF THE DESIGN PROCESS OF WHAT BEST SUITS THE PROJECT SITES THEMSELVES. AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GET THAT

INFORMATION BACK TO YOU. >> PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK? MR. HUNT.

>> GOOD MORNING, CHARLIE HUNT, COMING -- AND WE SEE THE TRUE PRICE OF THAT, THAT'S $16 MILLION, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PRICE WITH THE INTEREST ADDED ONTO IT FROM THE BOND THAT WENT 4-1 TO GET APPROVED. LET'S SEE SOME HARD NUMBERS LIKE THAT, OF WHAT IT'S REALLY GOING TO COST THE COUNTY WITH ALL THE INTEREST PILED ON TOP OF IT BECAUSE IT SHOWS IN THE BUDGET IT'S PROBABLY AROUND $2 BILLION -- $2 MILLION WITH INTEREST, SO YEAH, SHOW THE TRUE COST OF LONG-TERM INTEREST, BUILT UP ON THAT AND BE TRUTHFUL TO THE PEOPLE. THAT'S ALL YOU'VE GOT TO DO.

SHOW THE INTEREST OF THE BOND THAT Y'ALL GLADLY PASSED AND THAT THE COUNTY AND THE RESIDENTS WILL CARRY ON FOR WHAT, 20 YEARS ON THIS ONE? LET'S TALK ABOUT BUDGET DEBT.

>> THANK YOU MR. HUNT, WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK #SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> IT GOES BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2025-320, AUTHORIZING THE DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE CONTRACT NUMBER FOUR, FOR NORTHEAST COMMUNITY PARK EARLY PACKAGE UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AGREEMENT 1973 WITH WHARTON SMITH NOT TO EXCEED $16,751,216 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

>> I SECOND THAT MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, CALL FOR THE VOTE. AND THAT PASSES, 4-0. LET'S MOVE ON

[9. Contract Amendment No: 08 for Implementation Advisory Services by Plante & Moran, PLLC under RFP No: 23-13; ERP Consulting Services. On February 24, 2023, the County entered into a Professional Services Agreement No: 23-PSA-PLA-17684, with Plante and Moran, PLLC (“Consultant”) to perform Enterprise Resource Planning Consulting Services to assist the County with the development of scope, procurement, design and implementation of a new ERP System. The Consultant has submitted Contract Amendment No. 08 to expand existing services, including data conversion support from the legacy system to the new platform, organizational change management assistance, and subject matter expertise for system implementation. These services will be performed as directed by the County in accordance with the proposed scope and Contract. The increase is attributed to the need for greater involvement of higher-level resources, given the project’s complexity. Approval of this Contract Amendment will increase the Contract Price by $393,400.00, for a revised total of $2,693,440.00. Staff recommends Board approval to execute Contract Amendment No: 08 for the Implementation Advisory Services, as provided.]

TO LET'S SEE, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE. LAST ONE ON OUR

LIST. MS. TAYLOR? >> OF MORNING, I WILL MAKE THIS QUICK AND I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE WAY OF LUNCH AND I WILL BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM TODAY. ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, THIS ITEM IS RELATED TO THE ENTERPRISE RESOURCE COMMISSION.

I SERVE AS THE EXECUTIVE SPONSOR OF THE ERP PROJECT WHICH IS RELATED TO THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU. SO, AS A QUICK REMINDER THAT ERP IS GOING TO REPLACE OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM, BUDGET AND PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS. THE GOAL IS TO MODERNIZE OUR BUSINESS INFRASTRUCTURE AND CREATE ACCURATE, ACCESSIBLE AND

[02:45:03]