[Call to Order]
[00:00:08]
>> NOW CALL TO ORDER THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, JUNE 23RD, 2020.
GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WE ADOPTED PROCEDURES SO THE PUBLIC HAS A MEANS TO COMMENT WITHOUT PHYSICALLY ATTENDING. ALONG WITH PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING E-MAIL, THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO COMMENT BY TELEPHONE WHILE WATCHING GTV OR BY POSTING ON THE WEBSITE. IT ALSO PROVIDES A TELEPHONE NUMBER TO CALL INTO THE MEETING, EVEN IF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DON'T PROVIDE COMMENT THOSE THAT DO DO NOT NEED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. IF YOU RECEIVE A BUSY SIGNAL PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE WHILE COMMENTING. THERE WILL BE A DISPLAY. IF WE HAVE DIFFICULTIES,ER WE WILL HANDLE THOSE AND RECESS IF NECESSARY. COMMISSIONER BLOCKER HAS CALLED IN. ARE YOU THERE?
>> YES, GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER. WE HAVE FOUR PRESENT THIS MORNING. WE'LL HAVE THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> I'VE ASKED THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNS PROVIDE THE INVOCATION THIS MORNING.
>> WE'VE JOINED IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ALLEGIANCE]. >> THANK YOU, YOU MAY
[Item 1]
BE SEATED. NOW PROCEED TO THE AGENDA AND PROVIDE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER EACH OF THESE PRESENTATIONS THIS MORNING. WE BEGIN WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE, A STATE OF EMERGENCY,MR. MCCORMICK. >> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS AN EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION WHICH IF APPROVED BY THE BOARD WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF EXTENDING THE LOCAL STATE OF EMERGENCY FOR SEVEN DAYS WHICH IS THE LIMIT PROVIDED BY -- BY STATUTE.
I KNOW THE BOARD HAS BEEN RECEIVING PERIODIC UPDATES FROM ADMINISTRATION, FROM -- FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE -- THE COUNTY'S DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ON THIS TOPIC. SO UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, IT IS PROFFERED TO THE
COMMISSIONER BLOCKER, ANY QUESTIONS?
>> YES, SIR. >> I'LL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. >> I MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION 2020-19, EXTENDING THE STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY AND BY ST. JOHN'S COUNTY ORDINANCE.
>> I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND.
A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNS AND SECONDED BY DEAN. WE'LL PROCEED TO
PUBLIC COMMENT. >> GOOD MORNING, AT THIS TIME THE BOARD WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS THAT ARE ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. THEY HAVE HAVE A COMMENT PERIOD. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, SHOULD COME TO THE PODIUM OR PHONE IN. EACH PERSON WILL BE PROVIDED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK AND SHALL PROVIDE WITH THE RULES OF THE QUORUM.
[00:05:01]
IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE BOARD AS A WHOLE AND NOT INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER AND MAY NOT DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE FROM THE BOARD.MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM DISRUPTIVE DEMONSTRATION OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF ANY C COM COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD MORNING, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE
RECORD. >> GOOD MORNING, TOM REYNOLDS, ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH.
YOU'RE VOTING ON THE EXTENDING OF THE EMERGENCY BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOU TO THE ATTENTION ON THE LATEST STUDY ON THE CORONAVIRUS RELATING TO THE UPTICK IN -- IN THE FLORIDA AND ARIZONA.
I READ IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT.
IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED NOW TO AIR CONDITIONING. I WANT IT PUT THAT ON YOUR RADAR, BECAUSE IT MAKES SO MUCH SENTENCE. IN FLORIDA WE WEREN'T GETTING AS MANY TRACES BEFORE IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS WARM AND PEOPLE HAVE THEIR AIR CONDITIONING AND SWAMP COOLERS ON IN ARIZONA AND NOW IT IS FLOATING AROUND.
THE ONLY THING I GATHERED ON READING THAT STUDY IS I GOT TO TELL YOU F I WAS IN A POSITION I WOULD TURN THE AIR CONDITIONING UP HIGHER SO IT WOULDN'T BE LOW.
THE WARMER IT IS AND LESS DRY AIR, IT IS ALL ABOUT KEEPING THE AIR DRY OR IF IT IS MOIST LIKE IN ARIZONA IT CAN FLOAT AROUND.
I'M THINKING WE COULD GO UP A FEW TEMPERATURES IN THE AIR CONDITIONING.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO A COMMISSION RULING ON CANCELING THE CONCERTS FOR THE SUMMER.
I BELIEVE IF ANASTASIA ISLAND, I UNDERSTAND WE ONLY HAD TEN CASES HERE.
DON'T BE AFRAID TO GO AGAINST THE GRAIN.
NOBODY KNOWS THE HOME COURT BETTER THAN YOU.
I LOOK FORWARD TO PROPER COMMENT ON
MR. REYNOLDS. >> GOOD MORNING, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, ANYBODY ON THE LINE? MR. CHAIRMAN, I GUESS, IF YOU MIND GIVING A SECOND? MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.
DISCUSSION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO EXTEND THE DECLARATION OF THE -- OF THE STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY.
[Item 2]
>> PASSES 5-0. WE MOVE ALONG TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, CARES ACT FUNDING
AGREEMENT. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. AT YOUR LAST REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING WE WERE PRODUCED WITH THE CARES ACT THROUGH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
AT YOUR DIRECTION IT WAS BROUGHT PACK BY CONSIDERATION. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THE AGREEMENT.
HOWEVER, SINCE YOUR LAST MEETING, WE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE DIVISION AND THEY CLARIFIED FOR US THE FUNDING AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL.
SO YOUR FIRST DISBURSEMENT, THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS WHICH TOTAL ACCORDING TO THE DIVISION, THE TOTAL AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY AND THE REMAINDER PAID
[00:10:04]
ON REIMBURSEMENT BASES.ANY QUESTIONS I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING, COMMISSIONER DEAN ASKED A QUESTION A WE HAVE FUNDING WE DON'T MAKE USE OF, ANY THAT WE DON'T MAKE USE OF, ACCORDING TO THE DIVISION IT RESTS WITH THE STATE AND THE COUNTY WILL DETERMINE IF IT IS DISBURSED AT OTHER PLACES. IF THOSE FUNDS ARE NOT SPENT, NEAR RETURNED TO THE TREASURY.
IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS ROSS.
>> THANKS. APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH HAVE WE SPENT TO DATE AND ANTICIPATE WE'LL QUALIFY FOR THESE FUND?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO REACH OUT TO OMB BUT THERE'S GUIDANCE ON ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES, FOR EXAMPLE DURING THE TIME WE HAVE EOC ACTIVATED IN THEIR PAYROLL ASSOCIATED WITH OVERTIME THAT'S ELIGIBLE SIX FIGURE, SINCE NEEDING THE DIVISION HAS PUT OUT GUIDANCE ON ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES.
I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER ON HOW MUCH WE SPENT. WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THOSE THINGS CATEGORIZE AS AND FALL UNDER ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES.
THINGS WE'VE DONE TO PREPARE FOR COVID ARE ELIGIBLE. ANY REMEDIAL MEASURES WE'VE TAKEN . SOME MODIFICATIONS WE MADE TO THE BUILDING GO TO ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES, AS WELL AS YOUR PAYROLL.
THAT'S THE NUMBER WE SPENT I HAVE TO REACH
OUT TO OMB. >> TO DATE WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 2.2 MILLION DOLLARS THAT ARE ALLOCATED SPECIFICALLY TO COVID-19 RELATED EXPENSES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT MISS ROSS WAS REFERRING TO.
ANYTHING NORTH OF THAT IS AT A MINIMUM.
THIS IS QUALIFIED AS ACTUAL EXPENDITURES
RELATED TO COVID-19. >> IN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE I KNOW THAT WILL CHANGE BECAUSE WE CONTINUE TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY IN DIFFERENT
WAYS. >> JUST ON TOP OF THAT DOES THAT INCLUDE WHAT THE OFFICERS SPENT? FROM WHAT I READ THAT
WOULD REIMBURSABLES. >> IT IS STRICTY BCC
RELATED EXPENSES. >> WE COULD BE CLOSE
POSSIBLE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT.
PROPOSED MOTION. >> MOTION IS SIMPLE.
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.
I HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CARES ACT FUNDING AGREEMENT. SEE NOBODY.
>> GOOD MORNING, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> TODD REYNOLDS ST. AUGUSTINE.
I JUST HEARD MISS ROSS GO OVER THE SECOND PART ANSWERING HENRY DEAN'S QUESTION.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I HAVEN'T HEAR, I HAVEN'T HEARD IF THERE'S HAZMAT PAY THAT CAN CAUSE THAT WITH THE PUBLIC.
FOR EXAMPLE, I SURE HOPE AN I LIKE TO HAVE AN ANSWER TO THIS, IS FIVE DOLLAR AN HOUR PREMIUM GETTING PAID TO THE EMTS ON THE CALL. THE FIRE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC.
I ALSO LIKE TO KNOW IF THE DEPUTY SHERIFFS ARE HAVING A HAZMAT PAYMENT.
IF THEY'RE IN CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC, THEY WORRY AND THEIR FAMILIES WORRY, JUST DUE TO THE WORRY ALONE, THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR HAZMAT PAY.
I DIDN'T READ IT ANYWHERE AND MAYBE IT IS HAPPENING AND I DON'T KNOW.
ALSO TOO ON THE FUNDING, I'LL TELL YOU STRAIGHT OUT, I SURE HOPE THAT WE DON'T GIVE ONE PENNY BACK, NOT ONE CENT BACK BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT NO MATTER WHAT. ALL TAXPAYERS WILL END
[00:15:02]
UP PAYING FOR IT, EVERY PENNY THAT WAS SENT TO YOU. SHAME ON THIS COUNTY IF THEY DON'T USE EVERY PENNY BECAUSE OTHER COUNTIES WILL USE IT.LET'S GET OURS AND FINALLY TODAY, THE LAST THING I HAVE FOR YOU GENTLEMEN IS I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE
MR. REYNOLDS. >> GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING, MARK BRISCOE, 256 KINGSTON
>> THANKS FOR -- FOR TAKING MY CALL.
I WAS COMMENTING ON THE REMOVAL OF THE CONFEDERATE MONUMENT IN ST. AUGUSTINE.
I'M NOT FROM THE TOWN I MOVED HERE FOUR YEARS AGO FROM CONNECTICUT, RATHER LIBERAL STATE WHERE I DID NOT HAVE A VOICE.
AND I JUST DON'T BELIEVE A REMOVAL OF A MONUMENT IS GOING TO DO GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, PARTICULARLY SINCE IT IS THE HISTORY OF THE AREA AND OUR NATION.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES FOR THE WAY PEOPLE VIEW THINGS, PARTICULARLY RACE, YOU CAN'T FORGET ABOUT WHAT GOT US TO THIS POINT. THE REMOVAL OF MONUMENTS LIKE THAT IS NOT A VERY GOOD -- IT IS A CONFUSED MESSAGE TO YOUNG PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE NOT WELL VERSED IN HISTORY AS SOME OF THE FOLKS ON THE PANEL ARE. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT AND USE IT AS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE AND TO TEACH PEOPLE WHAT GOT US TO THIS POINT WHERE THERE WAS A CONFEDERATE AND WHAT TRANSPIRED AND IT IS PART OF OUR HISTORY. IT SHOULD BE LEARNED AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM IT.
THAT'S MY COMMENT. I'M REALLY ACTUALLY QUITE SICK OF THE MONUMENTS, TOTALITARIAN STATE. IT IS IN THE DONE IN A REPUBLIC, THAT'S MY COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MARK. >> ALL RIGHT, BYE.
>> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS WILLIAM PORTER, 265 KINGSTON DRIVE. JUST WANT TO VOICE MY OPINION THIS MORNING. I THINK THE REMOVAL OF THE MONUMENT IS RIDICULOUS.
I MEAN -- ST. AUGUSTINE IS NOTHING ABOUT HISTORY. WE REMOVE THAT IT OFFENDS SOMEBODY. WE WILL REMOVE EVERYTHING THAT OFFENDS EVERYONE.
THE BEST WAY TO REPEAT THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST IS TO FORGET WHAT HAPPENED AND FORGET HOW IT HAPPENED.
YEAH, I MOVED HERE BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY, ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.
I LOVE ST. AUGUSTINE. WE REMOVE MONUMENTS LIKE THIS. WE TAKE DOWN THE PAVILION IN THE SQUARE NOW BECAUSE THAT WAS A SLAVE TRADE CENTER. WE TAKE DOWN THE FORT BECAUSE WE CHOKED AND KILLED A BUNCH OF FRENCH AND SPANISH. IT IS JUST -- I THINK IT IS RIDICULOUS. REMOVAL OF ANY KIND OF MONUMENT, IT PUT THIS AND BEEN THERE, IT IS SUCH A POOR EXAMPLE FOR OUR CHILDREN IS THAT, OKAY, SOMETHING HURT SOMEBODY'S FEELINGS AND LET'S GET RID OF IT AND TAKE IT DOWN FOR EVERYBODY. THE CATHEDRAL WILL BE NEXT BECAUSE THERE'S PEOPLE THAT DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, IT HURTS THEIR FEELINGS WHEN THEY SEE A CHURCH, STATUE OF CHRIST. I THINK IT IS A VERY, VERY POOR EXAMPLE FOR OUR CHILDREN THAT WE'RE BRINGING UP THAT OKAY, WE DO AWAY WITH ANYTHING THAT HURTS SOMEBODY'S FEELINGS OR SOMEBODY HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION.
IT IS TIME THE COMMISSIONERS STAND UP AND HAVE THE GUTS, THIS IS OUR HISTORY.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT WHAT HAPPENED.
THERE'S A LOT OF BAD THINGS THAT HAPPENED BUT IT IS HISTORY. THE MONUMENTS ARE THERE TO HELP US REMEMBER, THERE'S CERTAIN THING WE DON'T WANT TO DO OR SEE HAPPEN AGAIN. ANYWAYS, THAT'S MY THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS, I APPRECIATE THE TIME
[00:20:05]
THIS MORNING. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.
PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED. I ENTERTAIN A MANAGES TO PROCEED WITH THE CARES ACT FUNDING
SEEING NONE WE PROCEED WITH THE ROLL CALL VOTE.
[Item 3]
>> PASSES 5-0. WE'RE MOVING INTO ANY OTHER BUSINESS, MR. MCCORMACK, YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ITEMS. GO WITH THEM AS YOU SEE FIT.
AT THE -- AT THE BOARD'S REGULAR MEETING, THE TOPIC OF CONCRETE AT THE BIG OAK PROPERTY NOW OWNED BY FEOT AND THE DISPOSITION OF THAT CONCRETE HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE HOMEWORK AND HISTORY OF HOW THE PRESENT SITUATION CAME TO BE AND THE PRESENT SITUATION I THINK IS -- IS -- IS SUMMED UP AS THE -- AS THE FDOT HAS A CONTRACTOR OR PERMITTEE THAT IS CRUSHING THE CONCRETE AND REMOVING IT FROM THE PROPERTY OR MANS -- MANS TO REMOVE IT FROM THE PROPERTY WHEREAS THE COUNTY'S POSITION IS THAT THE -- THAT THE CONCRETE IS OWNED BY THE COUNTY AND SHOULD BE USED FOR THE REEF PROGRAM.
BASED AGAIN, I THINK ON THE TREMENDOUS WORK DONE IN THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS AND OVER THE WEEKEND, I LIKE TO THANK JOY ANDREWS FOR HER VERY -- HER VERY DETAILED TREATMENT OF THIS AND REACHING OUT AND FACT FINDING.
MISS REBECCA FROM MY OFFICE HAS REVIEWED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THIS SCENARIO.
I THINK AT THIS POINT I LIKE TO HAVE MISS LEVINE GIVE A VERY BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HER FINDINGS AND THEN WE HAVE DRAFTED A DEMAND LETTER TO FDOT AND TO THE UNITED BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT CORPS TO IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST THEIR ACTIVITY PERTAINING TO THIS CONCRETE, THE COUNTY'S CONCRETE ON THAT PROPERTY. MISS LEVINE, IF YOU COULD GIVE A VERY BRIEF DESCRIPTION.
>> REBECCA, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY.
SO VERY BRIEFLY THEN THE -- THE -- THE CONCRETE MATERIALS CAME TO THE COUNTY FOLLOWING THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SEBASTIAN BRIDGE AND THE BRIDGE OF LYONS AND FALL ON COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND FDOT, THE MATERIALS WERE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY FORMALLY OWNED BY THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY. OVER THE YEARS, THE COUNTY HAS PERIODICALLY USED THE MATERIALS WHEN FUNDING WAS AVAILABLE FOR DOING SO. SUBSEQUENT TO THE -- TO THE -- TO THE FDOT ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY THERE WERE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN FDOT AND THE COUNTY REGARDING THE COUNTY COMING AND TAKING THE CONCRETE OFF OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS OF INCLUDING IN PART THE COUNTY HAD ISSUED AN RFP WHICH RECEIVED NO RESPONSES.
THE MATERIALS ARE STILL ON THE PROPERTY.
UNITED BROTHERS WANTED TO JUST TAKE IT AWAY.
THERE WAS SOME FURTHER COMMUNICATION BETWEEN FDOT AND THE COUNTY WHERE -- WHERE FDOT MAY HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT WAY WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE A CONTRACT TO REMOVE THE MATERIALS FROM THE PROPERTY.
SO AT THAT POINT FDOT TOLD UNITED BROTHERS THAT THEY COULD PROCEED WITH REMOVING THE CONCRETE WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE NOW.
[00:25:04]
WE DRAFTED A LETTER TO GO TO FDOT.>> MR. CHAIR, I DO HAVE A LETTER I COULD READ THE WHOLE THING OR THE FIRST PARAGRAPH AND THE -- AND THE FINAL PARAGRAPH WHICH ARE THE PUNCH LINES. THE MIDDLE OF THE LETTER GOES INTO THE DETAIL AND THE HISTORY BEHIND THIS THAT MISS LEVY JUST BRIEFLY
DESCRIBED. >> LET'S GO WITH THE
CONDENSED VERSION. >> THIS IS A LETTER TO FDOT AND IT WILL BE COPYED TO -- IT -- THE SECRETARY BUT ALSO OBVIOUSLY THE -- THE DISTRICT HERE. IT CAME TO THE COUNTY'S ATTENTION THAT FDOT HAS PERMITTED THE REMOVAL OF PILES OF CONCRETE, THE BRIDGE MATERIALS, LOCATED ON PROPERTY FORMALLY OWNED BY THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY AT BIG O ROAD. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO DEMAND THAT FDOT AND UNITED BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT CORPS, UNITED BROTHERS, IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST THE DRUGS AND REMOVAL OF THE BRIDGE MATERIALS FROM THE PROPERTY. PRIOR TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY WAS USED BY ST. JOHNS COUNTIES A STORAGE AREA FOR REEF MATERIALS.
THE MATERIALS WERE GENERATED AS A RESULT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE AND WERE DEPOSITED ON THE PROPERTY AS PART OF THE DEMOLITION PROCESS.
THE BRIDGE MATERIALS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY SUBJECT TO FEDERAL PUBLIC LAW WHICH DIRECTS ANY STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THAT DEMOLISHES A BRIDGE WILL RETAIN THE MATERIAL.
THEY HAVE TAKEN MATERIAL PERIODICALLY FROM THAT, I BELIEVE THE MOST RECENT WAS --
>> 2017. >> GOING MORE TO THE PUNCH LINE. BASED ON THE FOREGOING, ST. JOHNS COUNTY DEMANDS THAT FDOT AND UNITED BROTHERS IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST THE DESTRUCTION AND REMOVAL OF THE BRIDGE MATERIALS FROM THE PROPERTY THAT IT ISSUE -- THAT FDOT ISSUE NO FURTHER PERMITS OF THE BRIDGE MATERIALS FROM THE PROPERTY. FURTHER AND I'M GOING TO DO A PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST.
PURSUANT TO 119 THE COUNTY REQUESTS THAT FDOT, I COULD GO THROUGH IT, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT IS HOW THEY SELECTED UNITED BROTHERS AND PERMITTED UNITED BROTHERS AND ANY OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY HAVE PERTAINING TO THE HISTORY OF THIS MATTER, ET CETERA. THAT ESSENTIALLY IS IT. I WILL HAVE A -- I WILL HAVE A -- WE'RE GOING TO WORK OUT PROBABLY A VERY QUICK TIME FOR THEM TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE -- THE CEASE AND DESIST BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND AND I THINK ADMIN VISITED THE SITE JUST VERY RECENTLY THAT THE -- THAT THE ACTIVITY OUT THERE APPEARS TO BE ACCELERATING.
I'M CONCERNED IT MAY BE ACCELERATING BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE COUNTY IS LOOKING AT THIS MATTER AND TAKING THE POSITION BUT IT SEEMS TO ME FROM THE E-MAIL TRAIN THAT -- THAT THERE HAS BEEN A RECOGNITION THAT -- THAT THESE MATERIALS ARE -- ARE YOU KNOW COUNTY PROPERTY. AND THAT THERE IS -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DISRUPTION OF COUNTY PROPERTY AT THIS POINT.
IN FAIRNESS, FDOT HAD REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY PERTAINING TO THE DISPOSITION OF THIS RECENTLY AND THEY -- THEY DID RECEIVE A MESSAGE BACK BASICALLY A KIND OF NO OBJECTION. IT DID NOT COME FROM -- FROM -- ANY PERSON WITH AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. NOW, WITH THISLETTER, WE ALSO ARE CONTEMPLATING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WHICH IS BASICALLY GETTING A COURT ORDER TO HAVE THEM STOP.
[00:30:01]
ESSENTIALLY STOP WHAT THE COUNTY BELIEVES TO BE COUNTY -- DESTRUCTION OF COUNTY PROPERTY. WE WILL LOOK AT THAT.WE WANT TO GET A SENSE, WE'LL SEND THIS OUT TODAY. WE'LL HAVE A -- AT LEAST A PHONE CALL WITH THEM NO LATER THAN TOMORROW AND THEY'RE EITHER GOING TO IMMEDIATELY STOP OR IN THE.
IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN WE'LL TAKE THE NEXT STEPS. SO I INTEND TO SEND THIS LETTER OUT. THE BOARD CAN AUTHORIZE ME. MY SENSE IS THROUGH THE AUTHORITY THE BOARD HAS GIVE THROUGH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GENERALLY TO PROTECT THE COUNTY INTEREST AND I CURRENTLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS.
I GUESS I WANTED TO BRIEF YOU ON THIS.
I DO THINK PERTAINING TO LITIGATION, I WOULD ASK -- I WOULD ASK FOR -- FOR AUTHORITY FOR THAT. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
I WOULD ASK FOR THAT. SO MY INTENT IS TO -- TO SEND A DEMAND LETTER OUT TODAY AND IF NOT IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED TO AND COMPLIED WITH BY FDOT AND UNITED BROTHERS THEN TO FILE LITIGATION PROTECTING THE COUNTY'S INTERESTS.
I GUESS IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE -- THE -- IT WOULD BE JUST STATED VERY GENERALLY TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IT PROTECT THE COUNTY'S PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, THROUGH LITIGATION, IF NECESSARY.
APPRECIATE THE SUMMARY, OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS GOING ON AND WHERE WERE TODAY.
MISS ANDREWS IS THERE AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT HAS BEEN ALTERED OR REMOVED FROM THE SITE AT THIS POINT IN REGARDS TO A PERCENTAGE? AN ESTIMATION?
25, 50, 70? >> IT IS A GIGANTIC SECTION AND IT IS LARGE AND CAN'T
QUANTITATE THAT. >> BUT IT HAS
>> ABOUT 35 YEARS AGO WHEN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT BOARD MEMBERS AND THE NINE BASIN BOARD MEMBERS THAT OPERATE UNDER THE SWIFT MUD BOARD AND WERE IN DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THAT, THEN THE GOVERNOR CAME OUT AND SAID WHAT DISTRESSED HIM THE MOST IS WHEN TWO ENTITIES COULD NOT AGREE AND WERE SPENDING MONEY SUING EACH OTHER. I THINK OUR STAFF HAS DONE A GOOD JOB WITH DUE DILIGENCE AND DOING WHATEVER THEY CAN.
DISTRICT 2 THAT COVERS OUR AREA AND THE SECRETARY, BEFORE WE WOULD CONSIDER SENDING A LETTER THAT INCLUDES A THREAT TO LITIGATION OR THREAT OF LITIGATION.
I JUST PERSONALLIER EMBRACE GOVERNOR GRAHAM'S WORDS THAT WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WE CAN. IF WE HAVE TO LITIGATE, I GET THAT. SITTING HERE I'M REMINDED OF HIS WORDS AND I HOPE IF WE HAVEN'T HAD GOOD COMMUNICATION WE THEY ARE THE DISTRICT SECRETARY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT STEP HAPPEN UNLESS THERE'S AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT. I SHARE THOSE COMMENTS IN SORT OF THE SPIRIT OF US TRY TO WORK THIS OUT. WITH OUR OTHER PUBLIC
AGENCY. >> I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. I BELIEVE JOY HAS GOTTEN IN CONTACT AND WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN RESULTS SO FAR. WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM MR. THIBAUD YET BUT SO FAR ON THE LOCAL LEVEL, WE GOT NO RESPONSE OR THAT THERE'S A VALUE TO IT. THERE WAS -- YOU KNOW, ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, WHEN WE STARTED AND IT FIT RIGHT HERE AND YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T FILE IN A ROOM. THEY REALLY STEPPED UP. ONCE IT IS GONE, THEY TALK ABOUT IT AND MAKE IT OR REPLACE IN SEVEN
[00:35:04]
YEARS. THAT'S A CONCERN IF SOMEHOW WE CAN'T CONVINCE THEM TO STOP BEFORE WE WORK IT OUT WITH THEM, THE MAJORITY WOULD BE GONE.THAT'S AN ISSUE WE HAVE TO CONSIDER TOO.
I DON'T WANT TO LITIGATE BECAUSE OF
THIS TAX DOLLARS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK MISS ANDREWS, I LIKE AN INDICATION, IF WE REACHED OUT TO DISTRICT TWO OR THE STATE SECRETARY'S OFFICE, THEN IF WE NOT RECEIVED POSITIVE FEEDBACK OR INDICATION THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH, THEN I'M -- I'M INCLINED TO GO AHEAD WITH A DEMAND LETTER. I HAVEN'T BEEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE.
THE POINT I WANT TO RAISE IS GIVE ME COMFORT BEFORE WE START FILING
INJUNCTIONS. >> ON THE PREVIOUS MEETING, I THINK THE CHAIRMAN WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD TO SEND A LETTER TO ASK FOR SOME ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION, RECOGNIZING THE CONCRETE OWNERSHIP OF THE CONCRETE.
SUBSEQUENTLY MR. JOE JORDAN WHO IS THE CONTRACT MANAGER, I THINK THE DISTRICT CONTRACT MANAGER WAS UNDER THE INSTRUCTION FROM THE DISTRICT TO SECRETARY GREG.
MR. GREG EVANS TO BASICALLY INDICATE TO US THEY HAVE GONE TOO FAR WITH UNITED BROTHERS IN THIS PROCESS AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO STOP.
THEY HAVE PRETTY COOPERATIVE REGARDING FUTURE DEMOLITION AND ANY ROAD CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL HAPPEN WITH 16 AND I95 WITH NO CLEAR INDICATION ON THE TIMELINE OF WHEN THIS MATERIAL WILL BECOME AVAILABLE.
THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE CONVERSATION.
I THINK THEY RECOGNIZE OUR POSITION AND RECOGNIZE THE ENTHUSIASM OF OUR COMMUNITY. I WOULDN'T SAY IT HAS BEEN ADVERSARIAL. I WOULD SAY IT IS CORDIAL AND COURTEOUS, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO INDICATE TO THE COUNTY AFTER RECEIVING A LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN THAT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE IT ACTUALLY STOP ANY
DEMOLITION ONSITE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT GIVES ME COMFORT THAT WE'VE DONE AS MUCH AS WE CAN AND COMMUNICATED WITH THE SECRETARY, IN ADDITION TO THE LETTER THAT YOU SIGNED AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WE'RE -- THEY'RE -- THEY FEEL LIKE AT LEAST THE DISTRICT 2 SECRETARY FEELS LIKE THEY'RE IN A POSITION WITH UNITED BROTHERS AND THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH THE ISSUE IN THE WAY WE WOULD LIKE. I'M COMFORTED IF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE IN PROCEEDING WITH SOME TYPE OF DEMAND LETTER.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> THE REQUEST TO STOP REMOVING COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY FROM THE CURRENT LOCATION IS CLEAR.
IS THIS A REQUEST BY EITHER SIDE TO MOVE THE MATERIAL SINCE IT IS ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS OWNED BY ANOTHER ENTITY WHICH WE HAD AGREEMENT THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED BY THE D.O.T., WHETHER THIS MATERIAL STAYS OR MORE MATERIAL COMES IN TO REPLACE IT, ARE WE PROPOSING TO KEEP IT IN THE SAME LOCATION OR PUT IT SOMEWHERE
ELSE. >> THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY CONCRETE PROPOSAL ON WHAT MATERIAL IS GOING TO THE COUNTY'S OWNERSHIP.
THERE'S NO DISCUSSION ON THE LOCATION OF THE
PLACEMENT. >> SO WE OWN MATERIAL THAT WAS AGREED TO BE HELD ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY, THAT ENTITY SOLD THE PROPERTY ON WHICH OUR MATERIAL IS BEING STORED AND THAT'S -- NOW THE MATERIAL IS BEING REMOVED. IS THAT IT?
>> YES. >> THAT'S THE SUMMARY, I DON'T WANT ANY MORE DETAILS, ONLY QUESTION I HAD AND IT IS ANSWERED.
>> I FEEL OBLIGATED TO SAY THIS, SO THE COUNTY OWNED -- THE COUNTY HAS A PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, THEY DIDN'T PURCHASE THE CONCRETE, ET CETERA, MY SENSE IS THE COUNTY HAS PROPERTY INTEREST, MAYBE BROADLY DESCRIBED AS COUNTY PROPERTY, I WOULD SAY PROPERTY INTEREST.
THE OTHER THING IS -- COMMISSIONER JOHNS YOU MENTIONED THE COUNTY CONTRACTED TO HAVE IT STORED ON THIS PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE SEEN AN ACTUAL YOU KNOW -- MISS ANDREWS, I DON'T KNOW
[00:40:03]
THAT WE'VE SEEN AN ACTUAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE AIRPORT WE HAD ON THE PROPERTY TO DO THAT.IF THERE IS ONE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE SEEN THAT. I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE OF AN INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT.
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY FORMAL AGREEMENT.
>> RIGHT. SO THAT'S -- THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, KIND OF HOW THAT HAPPENED. THE OTHER THING INTERESTINGLY, WE HAVEN'T SEEN A CONTRACT BETWEEN -- BETWEEN FDOT AND THE CONTRACTOR HERE UNITED BROTHERS TO -- TO -- TO YOU KNOW, CHOP UP AND -- AND PERHAPS EVENTUALLY REMOVE THE MATERIAL.
THEY HAVE A PERMIT AND IN OUR REVIEW THE PERMIT HAS EXPIRED. WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THAT THERE'S AN ACTUAL CONTRACT FROM FDOT TO EVEN HAVE UNITED BROTHERS DO THIS WORK.
IN FACT, IF I MAY MENTION AS WELL, WE HAVEN'T SEEN WHERE FDOT ON ITS OWN INITIATED BECAUSE OF A TIME FRAME AND SOMETHING URGENT, WE'RE -- THROUGH OUR PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST WILL DETERMINE HOW THIS BALL EVEN GOT ROLLING.
CONCEIVABLY IT COULD HAVE BEEN A CONTRACTOR THAT WANTS TO -- TO -- SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MONEY SOME PLACE AND WENT TO FDOT AND INITIATED. I'M IN THE SAYING THAT'S THE CASE BUT IT IS CERTAINLY A POSSIBILITY. SO -- BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER JOHNS, I THINK THE GENERAL POINT OF YOUR -- OF YOUR COMMENT AND QUESTION WAS CORRECT. IT WAS YOU KNOW THE COUNTY THAT HAD COORDINATED WITH THE AIRPORT TO PLACE IT ON THAT PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AND THEN WHAT HAD HAPPENED AFTER THAT. THANK YOU.
>> WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE MATERIAL? THE OTHER QUESTION IS THIS, IN REGARD TO LOOKING FOR PERMISSION TO GO FORWARD WITH IT, WHERE THE STORAGE WAS INITIALLY, I DEFINITELY HAVE TO BE IN AIRPORT AUTHORITY MINUTES, WOULDN'T THERE?
RIGHT, WE'RE -- WE'RE -- I'M GOING TO BE COORDINATING WITH THEIR COUNSEL TO SEE WHAT INFORMATION THERE IS ON THAT.
WE DISCUSSED GOING TO THE AIRPORT TO SEE ON THEIR SIDE WHAT DOCUMENTS THEY MAY
HAVE IF ANY. >> MISS ANDREWS, IS THERE A VALUE BEEN ESTABLISHED ON THIS
MATERIAL? >> I'M LOOKING AT THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS, HE SAID THIS MATERIAL IS ABOUT 1.9 MILLION DOLLARS.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS -- THIS IS
SIGNIFICANT VALUE. >> I WILL MENTION TOO JUST FOR THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION HERE, IT COULD BE THAT FDOT AND THE UNITED BROTHERS SAY HEY, WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED AND DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO AND OKAY, FINE.
AND THEN THE COUNTY CAN PROCEED AS THE COUNTY WOULD INTEND. IT COULD ALSO BE THAT IF THE FDOT STOPS THEY MIGHT SAY, OKAY, COUNTY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SAYING, THIS IS COUNTY PROPERTY, SO YOU NEED TO GET IT OFF THE FDOT PROPERTY AND THEY COULD -- THEY COULD REASONABLY DEMAND THAT AND A TIME FRAME FOR THAT. I WANTED TO INSURE IF THAT WAS THE COMEBACK THAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE IN POSITION TO HAVE A LOCATION AND BASICALLY THE COST OF REMOVING THAT.
SO. >> VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? LOOKING FOR THE VALUE OF IT TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE IT, I THINK WE FOUND 320,000 DOLLARS AND THERE'S AN IMPORTANT WATERWAY.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE SOME FUNDING AS WELL TO REMOVE THE MATERIAL, NOT REMOVE IT BUT REPLACE IT AND MOVE IT IN PLACE WHERE IT SHOULD BE. THERE ANYTHING ELSE? IF NOT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO --
>> I SEE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS -- MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS COMMISSIONER BLOCKER.
I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION, MR. -- MR. CONRAD, YOU'VE BEEN QUIET BUT WHAT IS
YOUR TAKE ON THIS? >> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER, I'VE BEEN KEPT ABREAST ON WHAT IS GOING ON. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND MISS ANDREWS, NOT TO OVERSTEP, I WANT TO CONCUR A BIT WITH KOLL MISSIONER DEAN'S COMMENTS, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK BACK CHANNELS LEGISLATIVELY WITHOUT PUTTING ANYBODY'S NAME ON THE RECORD TODAY. I DO HAVE SOME CONCERN
[00:45:04]
ABOUT US MOVING STRAIGHT INTO LITIGATION. I HAVE CONCERN FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THE EXPECTATIONS THAT THIS CONCRETE WAS GOING TO BE OURS TO BE ABLE TO USE FOR A REEF PROJECT.I SAY THAT JUST TO MAKE THE BOARD FULLY AWARE. AND I THINK IN MCCORMACK MADE THAT CLEAR OF WHERE THIS IS GOING AND POTENTIALLY ENTERING INTO LITIGATION WITH ANOTHER STATE AGENCY WHERE IT MAY BE, IT MAY BE UNCLEAR WHAT -- WHAT THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS WERE TO THE CONCRETE. WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, THERE HAS BEEN -- THERE HAS BEEN MULTIPLE EFFORTS TO REACH OUT TO D.O.T.
THROUGH BACK CHANNELS AND MISS ANDREWS HAS BEEN WORKING TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT THE -- WHAT THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ARE WITH UNITED BROTHERS, BUT JUST TO COMMISSIONER BLOCKER'S QUESTION, I ECHO COMMISSIONER DEAN TO PROCEED WITH CAUTION.
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD IN SUPPORT OF THAT
>> I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING -- THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER DEAN SAID, WE NEED TO BE IN CAUTIOUS WHEN WE ENGAGE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER STATE AGENCIES.
YOU'VE BEEN QUIET, LOOKING TO YOU FOR LEADERSHIP, THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTS.
>> ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONER BLOCKER.
>> I CAREFULLY LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSIONS HERE AND THE POINTS MADE.
THIS IS THE ELECTED BOARD, I THINK IT -- THE ADMINISTRATOR AND ADMINISTRATION HAVE BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND GOOD SENSE ON THIS. I DO THINK WHAT THE COUNTY HAS DONE SO FAR HAS NOT HAD THE DESIRED EFFECT. I DO THINK WHEN IT IS -- IT IS TITLED A DEMAND LETTER OR SOMETHING ELSE, I DO THINK A -- I THINK A -- I THINK A -- A KIND OF CLEAR RECITATION OF THE COUNTY'S POSITION TRULY DOCUMENT WOULD BE IMPORTANT. THE BOARD -- THE BOARD WILL MEET AGAIN I PRESUME ON JUNE 30TH, WHICH IS ONE WEEK FROM TODAY.
SO YOU KNOW, THE BOARD COULD -- COULD AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OR NOT OBJECT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FROM SENDING A LETTER AND THE QUESTION FOR -- FOR -- FOR LITIGATION I THINK COULD BE YOU KNOW, RESERVED FOR THE NEXT TIME THAT THE BOARD MEETS WHICH IS IN A WEEK.
I THINK AT THAT TIME WE WOULD REALLY HAVE SOME CLARITY ON -- ON WHERE -- ON WHERE FDOT AND PERHAPS BIG FDOT HAS ON THIS.
I AM SENSITIVE TO, THOUGH, THAT -- THAT THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE SOME SENSE OF AN ACCELERATION ON THE PROPERTY AND GET IT OVER BEFORE THE COUNTY CAN STRENGTHEN ITS POSITION AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
I'M SENSITIVE TO THAT, I DO THINK A FIRM DOCUMENT, LETTER SHOULD BE PROVIDED.
>> BACK TO THE BOARD. IF YOU LIKE WE COULD
HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC COMMENT. >> ACCELERATION ON
THE PROPERTY. >> COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
YOU HAVE NO CONTRACTS. THIS IS THE SLOPPIEST WORK, WHEN SMITH ASKED THE QUESTION AND THEY SAID 1.9 MILLION I NEARLY FELL OUT OF MY SEAT, THAT 1.9 MILLION DOLLAR VALUE IS NOT BEING HANDLED CORRECTLY.
I HEARD IN THE CONVERSATION EXPIRED PERMIT. EXPIRED PERMIT, NO CONTRACT, COUNTY POPERTY.
THIS IS GRAND THEFT. SOMEBODY GOING OVER THERE ON COUNTY PROPERTY, THEY NEED TO BE LOCKED UP. THIS NEEDS TO GO TO COURT. AND WHEN I HEAR MCCORMACK READ THE LETTER OUT LOUD, THE CEASE AND DESIST. THAT'S ONE OF THE WEAKEST CEASE AND DESIST LETTERS I EVER HEARD. THIS IS 1.9 MILLION DOLLARS, HE NEED TO BEEF IT UP.
[00:50:01]
IF WE DON'T GET THIS 1.9 MILLION DOLLARS, SOMEBODY'S HEAD NEEDS TO ROLL AND BE GONE FOR THIS. WHO IS IN CHARGE WITH THE CONTRACTS, THAT'S PATRICK FRANCIS MCCORMACK, I LIKE HIM BUT THIS IS SUPER SLOPPY. WHEN I HER THEM SAY IT IS A BIG PILE, I CAN'T WONDER WHY IS NOT NEIL SCHWANKY NOT THERE. HOW MUCH DOES THIS WORK? THIS WAS ON AIRPORT AND THEN I HEARD WATER BOARD.IF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY TURNED AND WHOSE POLICY, OH, HIM, THEY'RE BEST BUDDIES.
I GOT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING, I'M NOT A FAN. I'VE SEEN HIS SLOPPINESS, I KNOW WHAT HE'S DONE IN THE PAST WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.
IF HE'S THE CITY ATTORNEY, LET'S GO TO THE OTHER ATTORNEY. IF HE'S THE ATTORNEY FOR THE WATER BOARD, THAT GUY IS COMPLETELY CLUELESS. HE'S IN PUBLIC RECORDS. WHEN I SAT IN ON THE WATER BOARD MEETINGS, I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHERE DID THEY GET THIS GUY.
HE'S QUESTIONED AND HE HAD NO ANSWERS AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO ANYBODY.
HE'S BEEN BULLING THEM, NO CONTRACT.
GENTLEMEN, I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THIS CONTRACT. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE AGENDA TO ME A LONG TIME AGO.
THIS IS TYPICAL SLOPPINESS THAT GIVES GOVERNMENT A BAD NAME. WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE MARKET RIGHT HERE. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT, IT IS THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY UNDER MCCORMACK, IF WE DON'T GET IT, CHEATED OUT OF IT, MCCORMACK NEEDS TO BE FIRED. THANK YOU FOR DISCUSSING THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC OF 1.9
MILLION DOLLARS. >> THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEE NO OTHER PUBLIC
COMMENT. >> BACK TO THE BOARD, TAKE A MOTION IF SO DESIRED.
>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SEND A LETTER WITH CAUTION AND DISCUSS IT NEXT WEEK, IF NEED BE. I WOULD ALSO MAYBE ASK ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL IF YOU ALL COULD GET A ZOOM MEETING WITH MR. -- MR. THIBAUD AND COULD GET AN ANSWER FROM THE TOP. IF THEY'RE IN THE GOING TO HELP US, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT TO GET AT IT BY NEXT WEEK.
>> SECOND. >> FIRST AND SECOND, DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE PROCEED WITH ROLL CALL VOTE.
MR. MCCORMACK, ANY OTHER BUSINESS?
AT THE -- AT THE LAST REGULAR BOARD MEETING THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COVID-19 EFFECTS ABOUT THE SUPPLY CHAIN AND CONSTRUCTION AND WE HAVE DRAFTED AN EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION AND ALTERNATE PERTAINING TO -- TO -- TO -- TO TOLLING OF TIME FOR CERTAIN PERMITS.
THERE IS A SECTION IN THE FLORIDA STATUTES AT 252.363 THAT PERTAINS TO -- TO -- TO THE -- TO THE TOLLING OF TIME FOR CERTAIN PERMITS IN THE EVENT OF A -- OF A NATURAL EMERGENCY. AND WHETHER THE COVID-19 COB CONSTITUTES A NATURAL EMERGENCY IS NOT CLEAR.
IT APPEARS THE DTDR FOR PROFESSIONAL REGULATION IF ONE APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT IT IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND THAT TAUGHT WOULD PERTAIN.
HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT CLEARLY -- IT DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A NATURAL EMERGENCY OR A MANMADE EMERGENCY, SO THERE IS SOME GRAY AREA. ALTERNATIVELY, WE HAVE DRAFTED A PROCLAMATION THAT IS MORE TAILORED AND -- AND I HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE
[00:55:03]
COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO GET THEIR INPUT AS TO WHETHER -- WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE -- THE TIMELINE SHOULD BE. THAT IS IN THE -- IN THE SECOND NOTICE. HOLD ON IF A MOMENT.-- FOR A MOMENT. SO GOING UNDER THE STATE STATUTE, WERE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THIS IN A NATURAL EMERGENCY, THE TIMELINES ARE SET OUT THROUGH THE STATE STATUTE. YOU COULD READ THOSE IN PARAGRAPH TWO. THE EXPIRATION OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER ISSUED BY ST. JOHNS COUNTY, EXPIRATION OF BUILDING PERMIT AND EXPIRATION OF PERMIT ISSUED BY -- YOU CAN SEE THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE THERE.
AND ALSO THAT GOES TO YOU KNOW WHEN CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS HAVE TO BE DONE IF -- IF THE PERMIT GOES IN PHASES. ALTERNATELY WE HAD DRAFTED LANGUAGE THAT GOES TO SORT OF BROKEN OUT MORE BY -- BY DEPARTMENT AND FUNCTION WHERE THE -- THE TOLLING WOULD GO FOR BUILDING PERMITS AND APPROVALS ISSUED THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE -- FROM THE DATE -- FROM THE DATE HERE OF, THE DATE OF TODAY'S MEETING IF THE BOARD WOULD APPROVE THIS. CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED THROUGH THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT, SIX MONTHS, DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND PERMITS EXCEPT FOR TRANSPORTATION -- TRANSPORTATION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY THE ST. JOHNS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND FROM MAJOR ROAD NETWORK TRANSPORTATION FACILITY CONSTRUCTION, SO -- IT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION, DEDICATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAYS AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DRAINAGE. THERE'S IN AUTOMATIC EXTENSION, HOWEVER, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED FOR TENSION FOR SIX MONTHS AND PROVISION OF EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.
THAT WOULD BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
>> SO ESSENTIALLY, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS THE COUNTY COULD -- COULD TAKE THE POSITION OF -- NOT TO GRANT EXTENSIONS AT THIS TIME.
THE COUNTY COULD TAKE THE POSITION OF SORT OF ANALOGOUS TO THE -- TO THE DEPARTMENT OF A PROFESSIONAL REGULATION WHERE THEY CONSIDER THE COVID-19 TO BE A -- A NATURAL EMERGENCY AND IN WHICH CASE THE -- THE STATE LANGUAGE WOULD KICK IN OR ALTERNATELY, THE COUNTY THROUGH ITS EMERGENCY POWERS COULD GRANT EXTENSIONS AGAIN MORE -- MORE -- MORE BY THE -- BY THE DEPARTMENT AND FUNCTION AS I HAD DESCRIBED, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING PERMITS, CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, THE UTILITIES, DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND PERMITS EXCEPT FOR TRANSPORTATION AND THEN THE MAJOR ROAD NETWORK TREATED ON A CASE BY CASE. SO THE BOARD COULD CONSIDER AND ADOPT THIS TODAY.
AGAIN THE BOARD WILL MEET AGAIN ON THE 30TH. IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO -- WOULD LIKE TO I THINK HAVE MORE TIME TO CONSIDER THE -- THE OPTIONS ON THIS, AND I WOULD -- I WOULD PROFFER IT BACK
TO THE BOARD. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? COMMISSIONER BLOCKER, HAVE ANYTHING? I KNOW YOU PROBABLY [INDISCERNIBLE].
PUBLIC COMMENT. >> WE HAVE A PUBLIC
[01:00:02]
COMMENT ON EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATES.>> GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, GOOD TO SEE YOU.
I WANT TO THANK YOU AND PATRICK MCCORMACK PUTTING FORTH THESE DRAFT EMERGENCY PROCLAMATIONS, AS YOU'RE PROBABLY WELL AWARE, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN EFFECTED IN THEIR EMPLOYMENT BY COVID-19 AND SO -- AND ALSO THE SUPPLY CHAIN THAT IS NEEDED FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO REAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN INTERRUPTED AS WELL.
SO EITHER ONE OF THESE PROCLAMATIONS WOULD DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT EVEN IF YOU HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY, AN IMPROVEMENT THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO YOUR BUSINESS, YOU PROBABLY ARE HAVING TROUBLE FINDING LABOR AND YOU'RE ALSO PROBABLY HAVING TROUBLE FINDING SUPPLIES AND SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER ONE OF THE TWO OF THESE. ONE IS UNDER CHAPTER 352 AND THE LANGUAGE THAT MR. MCCORMACK HAS HERE IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE STATUTE SO THAT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL IN MY OPINION AND HIS AS WELL. I THINK THIS CLASSIFIES AS A NATURAL EMERGENCY BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS NOT NATURALLY OCCURRING.
THE ULTIMATE PROCLAMATION DOES WHAT IT NEEDS BY THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WHICH IS EXTENDING CERTAIN THINGS THAT -- APPROVALS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED BY THE COUNTY. SO THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED TO DATE THAT PEOPLE MIGHT BE STRUGGLING TO GET SOMEBODY TO COME DO THEIR FENCING OR FINISH INSTALLING THEIR IRRIGATION OR WHATEVER AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE INTENT OF THE SECOND PROCLAMATION. I WOULD ASK IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADOPT THAT ONE, YOU NOT ONLY INCLUDE EXPIRATION DATES AND OTHER DEADLINES. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE MAY BE IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, TWO-STEP PROCESSES FOR INSTALLING LANDSCAPING OR WHATEVER.
JUST TRYING TO TALK ABOUT EXPIRATION DATES AND OTHER DEADLINES THAT MAY BE IN THE PERMITS OR APPROVALS. I VERY MUCH THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS TODAY.
I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR WHATEVER REASON.
>> GOOD MORNING, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> TOM LITTLE, 50 BRIGTINE COURT.
THIS SEEMS IMPORTANT TO BE ADDED ON.
FROM LOOKING AT IT AND LISTENING TO IT, I DON'T GET TO HEAR THE END OF ATTORNEY SMITH, WHAT SHE'S SAYING, IT SOUNDS GOOD IF THE VIRUS IS A NATURAL DISASTER, SURE.
GET ALL YOU CAN. IF WE'RE GETTING REIMBURSED. I GOT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING, I WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO VOTE FOR ANYTHING IF I WAS IN ANYBODY'S SHOES UP THIS TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS GIVEN MILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS A BREAK AND BUSINESS AND DEVELOPERS OR OCEANFRONT HOMEOWNERS. I'M NOT RUNNING IT LIKE THAT. IF THERE'S SOMETHING ON THE TABLE AND WE'RE GETTING REIMBURSED, GET IT ALL. I DO WANT TO TELL YOU, THOUGH, THERE'S THREE COUNTY VIOLATIONS HERE. THERE ARE -- NUMBER ONE, PROPERLY ADMINISTRATED AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTY AND PROMOTE DECISIONS THAT BENEFIT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, ACTIVELY PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND THERE'S A FOURTH, PASS PUBLIC SCRUTINY.
I GOT TO TELL YOU, I'M NOT PICKING ON PATRICK. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND NOT ON AGENDA.
IMPORTANT ISSUE NOT ON THE AGENDA.
THEY COULDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THIS AT FIVE MINUTES TO 5 LAST NIGHT.
THIS IS SLOPPY WORK. WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? THE SAME DEPARTMENT.
FINALLY TODAY, COMMISSIONERS, I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT WITH THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY TODAY THEY'RE NOT PRACTICING SOCIAL DISTANCING AND SITTING VERY CLOSE AND THAT YOUNG LADY HAS A BEAUTIFUL WHITE JACKET BUT SHE SHOULDN'T SIT CLOSE TO A MAN THAT IS PATRICK'S AGE.
HE MIGHT BE SHOULD BE WORKING ON AT HOME.
[01:05:04]
THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU MAY HAVE TO HAVE A PEP TALK WITH PATRICK. IT MAY BE FINE IF HIM TO ENJOY HIS 25,000 DOLLAR A MONTH MONTHLYPENSIONS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I SEE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED, WE'RE BACK TO THE BOARD AND THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.
ANY DESIRE? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I LIKE, IF WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE WHICH ONE
WE'RE GOING TO DO. >> WHETHER YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD OR DELAY AND WAIT, YOU HAVE ONE THAT STANDS OUT, I'LL TAKE ANY OF
IT RIGHT NOW. >> I LIKE THE COUNTY VERSION MORE THAN THE OTHER VERSION AS FAR AS -- IT HAD SET DATES AND I THINK THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE DO HAVE TO LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT CONTINUES.
I KNOW TALKING TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, THEY HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING DOORS AND SUPPLIES AND IT WOULD STEADILY GET WORSE.
TO ME IT WOULD CAUSE A LOT OF UNDUE BURDEN.
YOU COULD SAY TO THE BIG BUILDERS THEY HAVE A BURDEN ON AN INDIVIDUAL TO PUT IN A HOUSE OR A TRAILER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT
DOING IT. >> COMMISSIONER DEAN.
>> I SUPPORT COMMISSIONER WALDRON'S POSITION AND ADD THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITS INVOLVED IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PERMITS ARE HELD BY A SMALL BUSINESS OR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS WHO -- WHO REALLY DON'T FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS.
ARE THERE SOME MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CORPORATIONS THAT MAYBEN FIT FROM THIS, PROBABLY. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY IN MY OPINION OF THE NUMBERS OF -- OF PERMITS INVOLVED ARE THOSE HELD BY SMALL BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN AND HOMEOWNERS WHO REALLY NEED THIS RELIEF.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THE COUNTY VERSION AND I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THIS IS AN EMERGENCY.
WHEN YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY AND YOU'RE FULLY APPRISED OF THE ISSUES YOU VOTE.
I RECOMMEND THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
COMMISSIONER BLOCKER? >> NO, SIR.
MOTION. >> PATRICK, I MAY NEED SOME HELP, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS MOVE TO APPROVE THE --
>> THE TITLE -- I LIKE TO APPROVE EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION NUMBER 2020-20, A PROCLAMATION EXTENDING EXPIRATION DATES OF CERTAIN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER DUE TO COMPLICATIONS CAUSED BY COVID-19 AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 250.1 FLORIDA STATUTES AND ST. JOHN'S COUNTY NUMBER 2019-40.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEAN, A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?
>> BEFORE THE BOARD VOTES I WOULDN'T TO MAKE SURE THE BOARD WAS COGNIZANT OF, THERE'S A PROVISION IF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FINDS OR DECLARES THAT COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONSTITUTES A NATURAL EMERGENCY THEN THE -- THE -- THE -- THE SECTION 2502336 THE STATE LANGUAGE WOULD KICK IN.
THAT'S PART OF THIS ACTUAL PROCLAMATION.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMISSIONERS WERE
AWARE OF THAT. >> MOTION AND SECOND, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE, ROLL CALL VOTE.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> MR. CHAIR, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED SENATE BILL 1066.
I BELIEVE HE SIGNED IT ON JUNE 20TH, SO JUST A -- A VERY FEW DAYS AGO AND AS THE BOARD IS AWARE THAT THAT SENATE BILL HAD -- HAD -- HAD SOME LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO -- TO IMPACT FEES THAT ARE -- ARE OF A SKRN, I
[01:10:02]
BELIEVE FOR ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ THE SECTION I'M TALKING ABOUT HERE. SO FROM SENATE BILL 1066 WHICH IS NOW PART OF THE LAWS OF FLORIDA, IMPACT FEE CREDITS ARE ASSIGNABLE AND TRANSFERRABLE AT ANY TIME AFTER ESTABLISHMENT FROM ONE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL TO ANOTHER THAT IS WITHIN THE SAME IMPACT FEE ZONE OR IMPACT FEE DISTRICT OR THAT IS WITHIN AN ADJOINING IMPACT FEE ZONE OR IMPACT FEE DISTRICT WITHIN THE SAME LOCAL GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION AND RECEIVES BENEFITS FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS OR THE CONTRIBUTION THAT GENERATED THE CREDIT.I COULD PUT THAT UP ON THE OVERHEAD.
NOW GENERALLY, IN LEGISLATION WHERE THERE IS A NEW PROVISION, IT IS -- IT IS PROSPECTIVE RATHER THAN RETROSPECTIVE.
FOR VARIOUS REASONS I THINK -- THERE CERTAINLY CAN BE DEBATE ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE, HOWEVER, IT IS MY VIEW THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS PROSPECTIVE AND WOULD APPLY TO NEW IMPACT FEE, YOU KNOW, CREDIT AGREEMENTS OR -- OR PROVISIONS THAT THE COUNTY APPROVES. AND THAT -- THAT -- IT IS NOT RETRO ACTIVE. FURTHERMORE THE COUNTY HAS -- HAS CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS IN MY VIEW IN IMPACT FEE CREDIT AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS LANGUAGE COULD BE VIEWED AS -- AS -- AS ESSENTIALLY REWRITING THOSE IN A SENSE, I THINK THAT COULD BE A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.
SO THIS LAW BECOMES EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST.
IT HAS ALREADY [INDISCERNIBLE] FLORIDA, THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS UJULY 1ST, WHICH IS COMING UP. MY INTENT IS TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE HOLDERS OF THESE -- OF THESE IMPACT FEE CREDIT AGREEMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY OUT THERE AND ALREADY SIGNED BASICALLYTATING MY VIEW OF THIS LANGUAGE AS I JUST DESCRIBED TO YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO INFORM THE BOARD OF THAT. THE BOARD DOES NOT NEED TO AUTHORIZE ME TO DO THAT.
IF THE BOARD -- IF THE BOARD WOULD OBJECT FOR ME TO DO THAT, THEN OF COURSE I WOULD NOT DO THAT. BUT THAT'S MY INTENT.
AND I THINK THAT FAIRLY WOULD -- WOULD YOU KNOW, SET THE EXPECTATIONS FOR SOMEONE THAT MAY HAVE THESE IMPACT FEE CREDITS AND ARE WONDERING WHAT TO DO WITH THEM GIVEN THIS NEW LANGUAGE.
I WILL SAY THE VIEW I JUST EXPRESSED IS LIKELY TO BE -- NOT ENTIRELY AGREED WITH BY SOME IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND -- WITH THAT, I'M SURE THERE WOULD BE SOME FOLLOW-ON DISCUSSION OR PERHAPS MORE -- MORE -- MORE ACTION AFTER THAT.
BUT BECAUSE THIS IS A -- THIS NEW LANGUAGE, I THINK IT DOES -- I THINK IT DOES -- I THINK POTENTIALLY EFFECT EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT IS OUT THERE INCLUDING EXPECTATIONS PERTAINING TO COUNTY AGREEMENTS THAT IS MY INTENT TO SEND OUT THAT -- THAT LETTER.
THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER DEAN?
>> WELL EVEN THOUGH THIS LAW TAKES EFFECT JULY 1, WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO STOP IT IN ANY SHAPE FORM OR OTHERWISE.
SO IT IS GOING FORWARD, JULY 1.
UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS ITEM, I DON'T SEE AN EMERGENCY HERE. WHAT I SEE IS A
[01:15:03]
POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INVOLVED AT STAKE, POSSIBLY. I THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO SCHEDULE THIS FOR AN APPROPRIATE REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING AND NOTIFY ALL OF THE PUBLIC, ALL OF THE PUBLIC, ALL OF THE INTERESTS THAT MAY BE INVOLVED AND LISTEN TO THEM AND TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND THEN TAKE WHATEVER ACTION WE DEEM APPROPRIATE SO I WOULD DISCOURAGE US FROM SENDING OUT. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST IF THE BOARD DOES AGREE WITH ME THAT WE NOT SEND OUT ANY LETTER AT THIS TIME. I THINK WE SHOULD AGENDA THIS FOR A REGULAR MEETING FOR FULL DISCUSSION AND THEN TAKE WHATEVER ACTION WE DEEM APPROPRIATE.THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION,
COMMISSIONER. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON IT OR WE COULD DO VIA CONSENSUS. WE COULD DO -- WE COULD DO A CONSENSUS, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AND COMMISSIONER DEAN, PUT THAT IN FORM OF A MOTION.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO, I MOVE WE WITHHOLD AN ACTION ON THIS ITEM AND REQUEST OR INSTRUCT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WITHHOLD ACTION ON THIS ITEM UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THIS ISSUE CAN BE AGENDAED AND HAVE FULL DISCUSSION FROM ALL INTERESTED PARTIES.
>> I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT. >> PUBLIC COMMENT ON SENATE BILL 1066. MR. CHAIRMAN, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER DEAN WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
THERE -- THERE'S A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW BY SOME OF US THAN MR. MCCORMACK JUST ESPOUSED AND YOU HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE COUNTY THAT PAID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE THAN THEY WERE OBLIGATED TO FOR THEIR PROJECTS.
IT IMPACTED THE CREDITS AND WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY EFFECTED BY THE WALL.
THEY WOULD BE HEARD. WE APPRECIATE THE EFFORT AND LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING TO YOU IN A DIFFERENT VENUE OR DIFFERENT TIME. THANK YOU.
>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR
I THINK WHAT HE SAID WAS EXCELLENT.
REALLY, IT IS NICE THIS WAS BROUGHT UP, BUT THESE THREE ITEMS, AGENDA ITEM 3 IS THREE IMPORTANT ITEMS. YOU KNOW PEOPLE GOT TO BE PROVIDING YOU THIS. AGAIN, I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.
COMMISSIONERS, I WANT TO TELL YOU, THIS IS -- SOMETIMES PEOPLE THINK THIS IS SNEAKY AT THE END. I HAD MANY PEOPLE TELL ME, THAT YEAH, THEY DID THIS AT THE END.
THEY DID IT IN COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.
IF THEY DO IT, IT IS IMPORTANT.
BUT IF IT IS AN EMERGENCY AND THEY GOT SNEAKY. I ALWAYS SAY THAT EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH THE VOTES.
AGAIN, DEAN SAID SOMETHING KEY.
HE SAID WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS TO STOP THIS NOW. SO MY -- MY QUESTION IS, WHERE WAS THE COUNTY'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT WHEN THIS WAS GOING IN? DID THEY BRING THIS TO YOU? DID YOU WRITE A LETTER AND SAY DON'T DO THIS? VETO THIS. IT IS SOUNDING LIKE IT COULD HURT US. AGAIN, I REALLY THINK THAT -- I HOPE YOU HAVE THE TALK WITH -- WITH PATRICK MCCORMACK, I'LL TELL YOU IF SOMEBODY SAT IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY AND THEY WERE JUDGING THE LEAD COUNTY ATTORNEY, PATRICK MCCORMACK WOULD LEAVE WITH F MINUS. TODAY HE FAILED.
FINALLY, ONE LAST THING COMMISSIONERS, I KEEP FORGETTING TO CALL COMMISSIONER JOHN AND THANK HIM FOR HIS SERVICE.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY SIGNS OF HIS AROUND.
[01:20:02]
PLEASE GET SIGNS UP, COMMISSIONERS.I SEE NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.
MOTION AND SECOND ON THE TABLE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE WE'LL PROCEED WITH ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER BLOCKER. IT IS 4-0 AT THIS
THAT'S THE DIRECTION. >> ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD? ALL RIGHT. IT IS.
COMMISSIONER DEAN. >> THANK YOU.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PREPARED ITEM TO PRESENT BUT OVER THE LAST THREE OR FOUR DAYS, PARTICULARLY OF THE WEEKEND I HAVE NOTICED A -- A SPIKE IN COVID-19 NUMBERS AND CASES. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER IN THE STATE AND ALSO IN THE COUNTY AND I WILL JUST GIVE YOU MY BEST ANECDOTAL EXAMPLE OF -- OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN MY WORLD AND WHAT I THINK WE MIGHT DO ABOUT IT. I GO ACROSS THE STREET TO PUBLIC TWO OR THREE TIMES A WEEK.
WHEN I GO IN PUBLICS, ALL THE -- THE CLERKS AND EMPLOYEES ARE WEARING MASKS.
AND ABOUT HALF OF THE CUSTOMERS INCLUDING MYSELF ARE WEARING MASKS.
AND -- WE MIGHT AS WELL -- NONE OF US MIGHT AS WELL NOT BE WEARING MASKS IF 50 PERCENT OF THE CUSTOMERS ARE NOT WEARING MASKS. I HAVE A CONCERN THAT WE ARE EXPOSING OUR ENTIRE COUNTY RESIDENTS AND VISITORS UNNECESSARILY.
I HAVE AT LEAST ONE SUGGESTION.
I THINK MANDATING THE WEARING OF MASKS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL IS PROBABLY AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY AND WOULD PUT A BURDEN ON LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT THEY CANNOT DEAL WITH WHEN THEY'RE DEALING WITH -- WITH SERIOUS CRIME IT WOULD BE IN MY OPINION DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO ISSUE CITATIONS FOR NOT WEARING A MASK. WHAT I -- WE SORT OF PROCEEDED WHEN WE DEALT WITH OUR BEACHES IN MARCH SORT OF IN A PHASED STEP AND ALSO WHEN WE OPENED THE BEACHES BACK IN A PHASED STEP. I MENTION THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER DOING SOMETHING WITH THE ISSUE OF MASKS IN THIS COUNTY AND WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, AT LEAST I WOULD BE PREPARED TO VOTE FOR A STRONG MESSAGE, A STRONG ENCOURAGEMENT TO ALL OF OUR PUBLIC -- I SHOULD SAY PRIVATE BUSINESSES THAT HAVE -- HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS, SUCH AS PUBLIC, SUCH AS WALMART AND HOME DEPOT.
ALL OF OUR BUSINESSES, I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO REQUIRE THE WEARING OF MASKS WHEN A CUSTOMER IS ENTERING THE -- THE FACILITY. I THINK WE SHOULD MACHINE TORE THIS WEEKLY AND -- AND WHAT I WOULD HOPE IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR RESIDENTS AND -- AND VISITORS RECOGNIZE THE BENEFIT, I THINK IT IS A FACT.
I THINK IT IS PROVEN AS A SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT WEARING A MASK HELPS TO PROHIBIT THE INCREASE OF COVID-19 CASES AS OPPOSED TO IN THE WEARING MASKS. TO ME, IT IS A MINOR INCONVENIENCE THAT CAN SAVE LIVES.
IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO EXPRESS IN OUR STRONGEST WORDS TO REQUIRE THAT CUSTOMERS WEAR MASKS WHEN THEY ENTER THAT FACILITY.
I KNOW THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF I GUESS A TOUCHY ISSUE. I HEARD PEOPLE RAISE THE ISSUE THAT THAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AND I HAVE THE RIGHT IT BEAR THAT RISK.
MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS AGAIN IT IS A PROVEN FACT, AT LEAST THE SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL I
[01:25:03]
READ, IT IS A PROVEN FAC THAT REALLY PROTECTS THOSE IN FRONT OF YOU, MORE THAN IT DOES YOU. IN OTHER WORDS YOU'RE WEARING A MASK AS A FAVOR TO YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS THAT YOU'RE IN CONTACT WITH AND I FIND MYSELF IN VERY CLOSE CONTACT IN STORES LIKE PUBLICS BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN SOCIAL DISTANCING.WHERE WE CAN MAINTAIN SOCIAL DISTANCING AND THE OUTDOORS AND IN OUR HOME WHEN WE'RE ALONE, I SEE NO REASON TO WEAR MASKS YET.
BUT CERTAINLY IN ENCLOSED SPACES SUCH AS GROCERY STORES AND DRUG STORES AND DEPARTMENT STORES I THINK WE SHOULD STRONGLY SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO THOSE -- THOSE BUSINESSES THAT WE THINK THAT THEY SHOULD -- THEY SHOULD REQUIRE CUSTOMERS TO WEAR MASKS AS THEY ENTER THOSE FACILITIES. SO THAT -- THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION THIS MORNING.
I THOUGHT ABOUT IT OVER THE WEEKEND.
I ENCOURAGE US TO DISCUSS THAT.
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY IN MY OPINION.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PASS IN A MONTH OR TWO OR THREE. I RECOMMEND THAT WE SEND THAT MESSAGE TO OUR BUSINESSES IN OUR COUNTY TODAY. BUT I'M CERTAINLY WANT TO HEAR FROM EACH OF YOU.
>> ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING ELSE?
>> MR. CHAIR, MY COMMENTS ARE ALONG THE SAME LINE. THINKING A LOT A LIKE.
I'M THINKING SIMILAR TO -- WE DECIDED TO CLOSE THE BEACHES AND OPEN THE BEACHES.
WE HAVE A TASK FORCE THAT WE RELY UPON.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE DO, WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO.
WE DIDN'T CLOSE OUR PRIVATE BUSINESSES.
WE CLOSED THE COUNTY OWNED BEACHES.
WE DID NOT CLOSE OUR COUNTY OWNED PARKS BUT THE FED DID CLOSE THEIRS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING.
I'M HEARING AN INCREASE IN THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN AND THE LACK OF LEADERSHIP, NOT LOCALLY SPECIFIC BUT THE LACK OF KNOWING WHAT TO DO. PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO THE EXPERTS FOR DEFINITIVE INFORMATION. WHEN THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT SAYS WE RECOMMEND THIS, IT DOES NOT PROVIDE A DEFINITIVE DIRECTION.
FROM A BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE WHETHER AS A BUSINESS YOU DECIDE TO REQUIRE IT OR NOT REQUIRE HAS DIFFERENT IMPLICATIONS FOR DIFFERENT BUSINESSES. SOME SEE IT AS ADVANTAGE AND OTHERS SEE IT AS DISADVANTAGE. IT IMPACTS THE BUSINESS WHEN THEY'RE LEFT TO MAKE THE DECISION ON THEIR OWN VERSUS A RECOMMENDATION OR REQUIREMENT.
WE'VE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE THAT MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS HAS DONE.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS DECISION AND SAY HERE'S THE DIRECTIVE GO ENFORCE IT AND FIND OUT IT IS EITHER PHYSICALLY PRACTICABLE OR OTHERWISE NOT POSSIBLE IT ENFORCE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS EFFECTIVE. I WANT TO HEAR BACK FROM THE STATE HEALTHCARE DEPARTMENT THAT IF THIS IS SOMETHING WE ACHIEVE AND PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT. I HEARD WHAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THE BENEFIT. IT IS NOT THAT UNIVERSAL. I'M NOT READING ABOUT MASKS. IT SAYS YOU MUST WEAR MASK, WHICH ONE, HOW OFTEN DO WE HAVE TO CHANGE THAT, WHO WILL ENFORCE THAT OR CHECK IT? I WANT PEOPLE TO BE PROTECTED. IF WEARING A MASK IS DEFINITIVELY THE WAY TO DO IT I WANT TO REQUIRE IT. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A REQUIREMENT THAT TURNS OUT TO BE SHORTSIGHTED OR INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE PROVIDED.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A SITUATION WORSE BY MKING A REQUIREMENT AND IT DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE GOAL. I LIKE TO HAVE INFORMATION BY OUR NEXT TUESDAY BOARD MEETING AS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WE HAVE, THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE WHATEVER IT MAY BE AND THE EFFECTIVENESS BY WAVER DETAILS WOULD BE NECESSARY SO THAT WE'RE NOT BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR I WAS NOT SUGGESTING WE REQUIRE ANYTHING.
I'M NOT REQUESTING THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO TAKE ON ADDITIONAL BURDEN.
I'M IN THE REQUESTING THAT WE DO SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES OR MANDATES PRIVATECERTAIN WAY.
I WAS CAUTIOUS IN MY RECOMMENDATION TO SAY THAT WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE AND URGE PRIVATE BUSINESSES TO REQUIRE A MASK OF
[01:30:04]
THEIR CUSTOMERS. STRONGLY ENCOURAGE, NOT MANDATE OR REQUIRE.THAT'S MY POSITION FOR THE REASON YOU RAISED I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT OUR LEGAL AUTHORITY IS TO REQUIRE. MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS THAT IN THE FUTURE, BUT AT HE'S THIS MORNING, I THOUGHT WE SHOULD START A DISCUSSION AND FROM MY STANDPOINT ENCOURAGE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE WEARING OF MASKS INSIDE, INDOORS, IN PUBLIC FACILITIES WHERE SHOPPERS ARE BUMPING INTO EACH OTHER LITERALLY, IN THE WEARING MASKS.
>> I HOPE I DIDN'T IMPLY THAT I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT. THAT WAS MY PERSPECTIVE AND MY STATEMENTS IN CONVERSATION WITH YOU. NOT IN OPPOSITION.
>> I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC WHEN MAY BE LISTENING AND THE STAFF AND TO EACH OF YOU TOO, THAT I WAS TRYING TO MOVE IN SOMEWHAT MEASURED PHASE.
IF WE HAD GREAT COOPERATION FROM THE PUBLIC AND THE BUSINESSES BY TAKING THIS STEP WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO INTO A
MANDATED SITUATION. >> MY PERSPECTIVE IS PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR DEFINITIVE ANSWERS.
WE NEED TO BE UNIFIED AS A COUNTY.
THE COUNTY LOOKS TO THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THE DECISION. OUR DECISION IS BASED ON EXPERTS FROM MANY DIFFERENT FIELDS.
IT IS MANY CONVERSATIONS BEFORE RECOMMENDATIONS BROUGHT TO US THAT IT IS HEAVILY VETTED WHETHER IT IS THIS OR NEW DEVELOPMENT, POLICY CHANGE.
I WANT IT MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL OF THE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE BEFORE BEING ASKED TO MAKE THE DECISION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE IT ON SOUND SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND WE RESTORE, REDUCE THE FEAR.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE HEALTHY AND SAFE. THANK YOU.
>> MR. CONRAD, Y'ALL SENT OUT, THE COUNTY SENT OUT A MEMO ON -- IN REGARD TO MASKS.
CAN YOU READ THAT AND DO YOU HAVE IT? ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMMUNICATION MAY PULL
IT UP MORE QUICKLY. >> I DO HAVE IT.
I'M PULLING IT UP. I THINK IT IS RIGHT HERE. ST. JOHNS COUNTY RECOMMENDS, IT IS LENGTHY, ST. JOHNS COUNTY RECOMMENDS ALL BUSINESSES COMPLY WITH HEALTH ADVISORY. ON JUNE 20TH, TO PROTECT VISITORS AND CITIZENS FROM THE VIRUS. IT ENCOURAGES ELDERLY POPULATIONS TO STAY INSIDE THEIR HOME.
ALL PERSONS WHO WORK IN LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES SHOULD BE TESTED ON A ROUTINE BASIS. GOVERNOR ORDERED THE PROFESSIONAL BUSINESSES TO INCREASE INSPECTIONS TO INSURE THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE. THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS ALL INDIVIDUALS SHOULD WEAR MASKS WHERE SOCIAL DISTANCING IS NOT POSSIBLE UNLESS CERTAIN CONDITIONS APPLY. INDIVIDUALS OVER THE AGE OF 65 AND ANY AGE WITH HIGH RISK HEALTH CONDITIONS SHOULD LIMIT INTERACTIONS THROUGHOUT THE HOME. ALL SHOULD REFRAIN IN GATHERINGS OF PEOPLE. FOR GATHERINGS OF FEWER PEOPLE, THEY SHOULD MAINTAIN AT LEAST SIX FEET FROM EACH OTHER AND WEAR FACE COVERING. ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS IN PHASE TWO, RESTAURANTS AND BARS MAY OPERATE 50 PERCENT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT INDOOR CAPACITY AND FULL CAPACITY OUTSIDE WITH APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING.
BARS MAY OPERATE. CONCERTS AND BOWLING ALLEYS CAN WORK. GYMS AND FITNESS CENTERS OPERATE AT FULL CAPACITY WITH PROTOCOLS. SALONS AND TANNING MAY OPERATE WITH SAFETY GUIDELINES OUTLINED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND THE REST IS WHERE TO GO TO FLORIDA.GOV.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS WELL SAID, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT -- WHAT YOU'RE DETAILING COMMISSIONER DEAN WAS IN REGARD TO A RECOMMENDATION. THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS PUT OUT AND IT SAID THERE'S NO
[01:35:03]
MANDATE, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT, BUT IT IS A RECOMMENDATION FOUNDED ON WHAT -- WHAT CDC AND THE GOVERNOR HAS SAID.SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS ADEQUATE AND -- A
WOULD YOU NOT AGREE? >> I SIMPLY AS ONE COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO SEE US SEND A MESSAGE TO SPECIFICALLY PRIVATE BUSINESSES SUCH AS PUBLICS WALMART AND HOME DEPOT TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO MANDATE. HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE, TO ENCOURAGE THOSE BUSINESSES FOR THEM TO THINK ABOUT MANDATING THAT ANY CUSTOMER THAT ENTERS SHOULD WEAR A MASK.
IT IS NOT MANDATING, IT IS ENCOURAGING LOCAL BUSINESSES. I MAY BE SPLITTING HAIRS, NO OFFENSE MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THAT GOT A LITTLE PERSONAL THERE.
>> I THINK IT IS -- AGAIN, IN BABY STEPS I LIKE TO SEND A MESSAGE TO ENCOURAGE OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES TO THINK ABOUT REQUIRING MASKS.
I THINK IT IS THE RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO AND I FEEL AS COMMISSIONER COMPELLED TO MAKE THAT SUGGESTION.
>> WALDRON. >> I WANT TO ASK THE ADMINISTRATION KIND ALONG DEAN'S GUIDELINES TOO, IF WE REACH OUT TO BUSINESSES CAN WE HELP THEM OBTAIN MASKS AT A REASONABLE RATE? DO WE SUPPLIES OF MASKS THAT WE EVEN KNOW ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM? IT MAY BE EASIER TO IMPLEMENT IF WE SAID HERE'S 150 MASKS TO HAND OUT OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS AND I'M GUESSING THAT COULD BE PAID FOR BY THE CARES ACT. YOU'RE PUTTING THE BURDEN -- THEN YOU RUN INTO BUSINESSES TOO AND WE SAW THIS AS GUIDELINE CHANGE ABOUT SMOKING AND EVERYTHING, WHAT DO YOU DO IF SOMEBODY COMES IN NOT WEARING A MASK. DO YOU KICK THEM OUT? THEY'RE YOUR CUSTOMERS.
IT MAKES IT HARD. IF YOU PROVIDE A MASK, IT MAY BE EASIER TO MANDATE THEM WEARING A
MASK. >> CERTAINLY WE HAVE THE FUNDS WITH THE CARES FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE PROBABLY ENOUGH MASKS 46 MILLION DOLLARS, SUPPLY AND DEMAND, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEMAND IS, IF WE CAN PROCURE ALL OF THOSE. WE HAVE SOME, YOU'RE AWARE OF HELPING THE PROCUREMENT OF THE SMALL BUSINESS CARE PACKAGE THAT PROVIDED MASKS AND GLOVES. I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE COULD BRING MORE, TO WHAT EXTENT BASED ON SUPPLY AND DEMAND. WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE
FUNDS TO PROVIDE THAT. >> HOPEFULLY WE COULD CONTINUE THAT PROCESS WITH BUSINESSES SO THAT THEY RUN OUT AND NEED MORE ASSISTANCE, WE WOULD BE THERE TO HELP THEM.
>> I WOULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT THAT.
I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT RECOMMENDATION FROM COMMISSIONER WALDRON IF WE WERE TO TAKE ACTION TODAY.
>> COMMISSIONER BLOCKER, YOU HAD A
I THINK I HAVE AN INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE ON THIS BECAUSE I WORK IN THIS ENVIRONMENT WORKING WITH COVID-19 EVERY DAY. I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER DEAN'S THOUGHTS ON THIS WITH THE SCIENCE AND DETAILS, BUT I THINK THERE'S A STRONG ARGUMENT TO BE MADE FOR THE FACE COVERINGS, WHAT OUR ROLE AS GOVERNMENT IS, MANDATING IS DEBATABLE, BUT THIS IS A BENEFIT TO WEARING FACE COVERAGE. SEEING IT UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL, IT IS -- IT CERTAINLY IS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE THAT WORKS AND IS -- IS EFFECTIVE. AGAIN OUR ROLE AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS DEBATABLE BUT -- BUT I THINK FINDING A WAY TO -- TO VOLUNTARILY ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES TO FACILITATE THAT I THINK WOULD BE PRUDENT AND HELPFUL.
I DON'T THINK IT IS THE OVERREACH OF GOVERNMENT TO ENCOURAGE THAT.
THAT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY. CUSTOMERS CAN -- CAN MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS ABOUT WHERE THEY WANT TO PURCHASE PRODUCTS.
ENCOURAGING BUSINESSES AND FINDING A WAY TO HELP WITH THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
YOU HAVE MANY BUSINESSES THAT WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT IF WE WERE ABLE TO HELP FACILITATE FACE COVERINGS AND PROPER PPES, PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT.
I'LL LEAVE THOSE THOUGHTS OUT THERE.
>> COMMISSIONER WALDRON I THINK SPOKE TO THE POINTS I WAS GOING TO BRING UP.
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE UNDER THE CARES ACT, ET CETERA.
ONE MECHANISM THE COUNTY COULD POSSIBLY UTILIZE IS INSTEAD OF A COUNTY MANDATE, TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY, SAFE, LIKE A PLACARD OR -- OR A POSTER OR
[01:40:08]
SOMETHING AND BUSINESSES THAT AGREE TO CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE MASKS AND THERE MIGHT BE OTHERS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO POST THAT.IT IS PURELY VOLUNTARY THING BUT IF THEY DO, THEN -- THEN THEY GET SOME CREDIT FOR THEMSELVES FOR -- FOR -- FOR HAVING, BEING ABLE TO POST THAT AND THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT AT LEAST THOSE -- THOSE BASIC GUIDELINES ARE PROVIDED.
MR. CONRAD, DON'T WE ALREADY HAVE THAT, VOLUNTARY PROGRAM ON THAT.
>> WE DID LAUNCH I THINK IT IS TWO TO THREE WEEKS AGO, ST. JOHNS SAFER PLEDGE WHERE BUSINESSES FOLLOW GUIDELINES AND PROTOCOLS. IT IS SOMETHING THEY FIND IN MARKETING IF THEY FOLLOW CDC GUIDELINES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS. YES, SIR, COMMISSIONER
BLOCKER. >> DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARDS TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY AND INCORPORATE THAT IN TO
THAT PROGRAM? >> IF THE BOARD MOVES FORWARD TODAY I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN EASY THING TO ADD THAT REGARDING THE ST. JOHNS. I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER BLOCKER.
>> WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, BASED ON HEARING THAT, IF YOU ALLOW AND I WOULD ASK FOR CONSENSUS. IT IS A VOLUNTEER PROGRAM. WE HAVE BUSINESSES ADHERING TO IT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE AN
EASY HAUL. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT? WE DO HAVE ONE, I KNOW OF ONE, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONE CALL IN FOR IF YOU BELIEVE COMMENT.
>> WE'LL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MASKS.
GOOD MORNING STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
FOR THE RECORD. >> TOM REYNOLDS, ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH FLORIDA.
I THINK IT IS GREAT HENRY DEAN GOT UP.
I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT TO RECOMMEND IT.
AND I KNOW MYSELF SINCE ANOTHER SPIKE THAT I HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES.
I'VE BEEN WEARING MY MASK ALL THE TIME NOW.
IT IS ALSO ABOUT PAYING ATTENTION.
NOW I FIND THIS QUITE -- VERY GOOD SOCIAL DISTANCING IN PUBLIC BUT I GO A LONG TIME AND HENRY PROBABLY GUESS WHEN IT IS BUSY, BECAUSE THAT'S THE BUSIEST PUBLICS FOR NORTH FLORIDA. I THINK GETTING WORD OUT, IF YOU'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THE -- FOR THE -- FOR THE FACE MASK IS PSALM IDEA.
I THINK RECOMMENDING THEM IS REALLY GOOD.
I GOT TO REMIND YOU YOU KNOW THIS, WE'RE - HOME TO THE NATION'S OLDEST CITY.
WE HAVE A HUGE ELDERLY POPULATION HERE.
WE ALSO HAVE A YOUTH POPULATION THAT -- I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, COMMISSIONERS, THEY'RE IN THE PAYING ATTENTION.
MY SON HAS BEEN WORKING FOR ME.
MY DOCTOR TOLD ME DON'T BE AN IDIOT.
HE SAID, IF YOU DO GO OUT -- I SAID I'M NOT GOING TO AT THE MOMENT.
I GOT TO TELL YOU FIRST HAND BECAUSE I TOOK A COUPLE OF BIKE RIDES RECENTLY AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT THEY'RE NOT PRACTICING, WHAT HUNTER CONRAD JUST READ ABOUT BARS AND SOCIAL DISTANCING.
THAT'S IN THE BEING PRACTICED.
IT IS IN THE BEING PRACTICED AND ON THE BEACH AND ESPECIALLY AT THAT DUMP DIVE AT JACK'S BARBECUE. I COULD TELL YOU THAT SALT LINE IS NOT THE SAME.
THAT'S THE SAME THAT HAS 60 PARKING LOTS AND THEY'RE PARKING IN THE COUNTY SPOT SO WHEN PEOPLE FROM YOUR PART OF TOWN COME DOWN, THEY DON'T HAVE A PARKING SPOT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. I LIKE WHAT SMITH SAID. I LIKE WHAT PAUL WALKER SAID, I WANT THEM TO BILL US AND STICK THEM ON THE BILL WHEN THEY ASK FOR MONEY BACK. SO COMMISSIONERS, I WANT TO IT WILL YOU, I LOOK OVER AT PATRICK MCCORMACK AND I SEE HE'S NOT SOCIAL DISTANCING AND HE AND THE YOUNG LADY PUSHING THE MICROPHONE BACK AND FORTH AND NOT WIPING IT OR HAVING ANYTHING THERE.
WHERE IS THE SAYING, COMMISSIONERS, LEAD BY EXAMPLE. THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT
[01:45:04]
HENRY DEAN DID WELL. I APPLAUD HIM BECAUSE HE'S THINKING OF THE RELDERLY PEOPLE AS WELL. COMMISSIONERS, I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE -- THE SHERIFF WOULDN'T DO IT ANYWAYS IT WOULD REQUIRE WORK.I LIKE TO SEE SOCIAL DISTANCING IN THE BARS. I'M CONCERNED THAT THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE, I'M TELLING YOU THEY'RE FOOLISH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOD BLESS THE WHOLE BUNCH OF YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED. BACK TO THE BOARD, I ENTERTAIN DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE. COMMISSIONER DEAN.
>> I DON'T HAVE A WRITTEN MOTION, BUT I RECOGNIZE WHAT HUNTER CONRAD READ INTO THE RECORD AND I LIKE THAT A LOT.
I READ IT BEFORE. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SAFE PROGRAM THAT WE GENERATED.
I WOULD SUGGEST IN MY OPINION IT WOULD BE NICE, EACH WEEK WE SEEM TO ISSUE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY A NOTIFICATION OR PRESS RELEASE OF SOME KIND. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US AS A COMMISSION DOUBLE DOWN ON THIS MASK ISSUE, WITHOUT A MANDATE, WITHOUT A REQUIREMENT BUT AS OF TODAY ENCOURAGE LOCAL BUSINESSES, JUST ENCOURAGE THEM TO REQUIRE MASKS OF THEIR CUSTOMERS WHEN THEY ENTER. I THINK THAT IS A MESSAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE SENT AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEND THAT MESSAGE VIA A PRESS
>> YES. >> I'M SORRY, HARD TO GET YOUR ATTENTION OVER THE PHONE.
I AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER DEAN SAID. IF WE HAVE A PROGRAM IN PLACE THAT -- THAT WHY DON'T WE INCORPORATE INTO THAT PROGRAM.
SO I WOULD -- I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO DO THAT. IS THAT SOMETHING WE
COULD INCORPORATE IN? >> THE POINT OF ORDER AT THIS POINT, WE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, WE NEED A SECOND TO IT TO PROCEED.
YOU'RE OFFERING ANOTHER MOTION AT THIS POINT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A SECOND ON COMMISSIONER DEAN'S.
>> I'LL SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DEAN AND SECOND BY WALDRON.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
ACTUALLY I AM GOING TO SAY SOMETHING.
I GET VERY NERVOUS ABOUT PUTTING MORE DEMANDS ON BUSINESSES. I UNDERSTAND IT IS A RECOMMENDATION. WE'VE PROFFERED THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THIS POINT.
I EXPERIENCED YESTERDAY A BUSINESS THAT MANDATED THE WEARING OF FACE MASKS AND TURNED DOWN THAT BUSINESS.
TO ME THAT WAS A CHOICE IN A FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM WHERE THEY TURNED AWAY BUSINESS AND THEY WEREN'T ADHERING TO THEIR GUIDELINES. THAT WAS A BENEFIT THAT SET THEM APART. I'M SURE FOLKS FELT THAT WAS A PLACE THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THEIR BUSINESS TO AS A RESULT.
I JUST -- I HAVE A REAL CONCERN ABOUT STEPPING INTO THAT REALM.
IT IS A PERSONAL ONE, BECAUSE I THINK BUSINESSES SHOULD OPERATE FREELY AND WOULDN'T DO A MANDATE AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE CAREFUL WITH THAT AND CLEAR WITH THAT. WE PROCEED WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE.
>> NOW COMMISSIONER BLOCKER, IF YOU LIKE TO PROCEED WITH YOUR PREVIOUS MOTION.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD -- I WOULD MAKE A MOTION AT THIS TIME THAT WE INCORPORATE WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE. I BELIEVE THAT'S CALLED THE PLEDGE FOR ST. JOHNS THAT WE ADD THAT AS RECOMMENDATION WHERE LOCAL BUSINESSES CAN VOLUNTARILY INCLUDE FACE MASK COVERING AND AGAIN VOLUNTARY AND THEY COULD BE RECOGNIZED AS -- AS TAKING THAT
PLEDGE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLOCKER?
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND.
WHAT WE DIDN'T MENTION BRIEFLY IN THE LAST MOTION THAT PASSED 3-2 IS COMMISSIONER WALDRON'S RECOMMENDATION ABOUT MAKING SURE IF WE GO FORWARD ENCOURAGING BUSINESSES AND THEY TAKE A STEP ON IT TO REQUIRE MASKS THAT WE PROVIDE MASKS TO THEM AS NEEDED. I DON'T WANT TO NOT ONLY -- I DON'T WANT TO PUT AN ADDITIONAL DEMAND ON BUSINESS. I DON'T WANT TO PUT AN ADDITIONAL COST ON BUSINESS.
I THOUGHT WE WERE IN AGREEMENT IF -- IF WE
[01:50:03]
DID PASS THIS AND THE BUSINESS WENT FORWARD REQUIRING MASKS, THAT WE WOULD PROVIDE THE MASKS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING. I THINK WE UNDERSTOODTHAT. >> I THINK WE UNDERSTOOD THAT UP TO A CERTAIN LEVEL OF FUNDING THAT 46 MILLION CAN COVER T I'M SURE WE'LL GO WITH IT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON -- ON TYING THIS TO THE PLEDGE. PLEDGE ST. JOHNS --
LET ME ASK THIS IN REGARD TO STAFF, HOW MUCH STAFF TIME WILL THIS TAKE TO COMPLY WITH AND WILL THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL BURDEN THAT WE NEED TO BE UNDERSTANDING OF?
>> MR. CHAIR, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME, BECAUSE -- WE NEED TO GET WITH THE BUSINESS THAT IS ARE ALREADY PART OF THE PROGRAM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY COME UP TO -- UP TO -- UP TO DATE WITH THE -- WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF THE PROGRAM WHICH WOULD BE THE -- THE -- THE REQUIRED MASK. THERE WILL BE SOME WORK IN TRYING TO PREPARE THOSE MASKS FOR DISTRIBUTION, AND FOR ANY BUSINESS THAT IS DECIDE TO PARTICIPATE TO PICK
THIS UP. >> HOW MANY BUSINESSES INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAM?
>> I CAN'T SAY WITH CERTAINTY.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU, THE CARE PACKAGES, WE HAD A NUMBER THAT REACHED OUT TO ME, THERE WAS A NUMBER THAT DIDN'T PICK UP THEIR PACKAGES. THERE'S STILL SUPPLIES THERE THAT THE BUSINESSES THAT REGISTERED FOR THE PROGRAM FOR THE CARE PACKAGES DIDN'T UTILIZE, SO WE'LL HAVE SOME THERE AS WELL AS THE ABILITY TO PURCHASE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ARE A PART OF THAT AT THE MOMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IN RYAN IS FAMILIAR WITH THAT. OTHERWISE I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER AT THE MOMENT.
>> COULD WE GRANDFATHER THOSE IN IN? DO YOU THINK IT IS NECESSARY. OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN INTEREST IN SAFETY AT THAT POINT.
THERE'S -- JUST MOVE FORWARD AND HENCEFORWARD IT WOULD BE NOT RETROSPECT BUT PROSPECTIVE. I WANT TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE IT IS NOT A REDO OR ANYTHING, NOT TRYING TO AMEND THE MOTION.
THERE'S A PROGRAM IN PLACE, WE'RE TRYING TO ADD ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO IT.
HOW PRACTICAL IS THAT TO MAKE IT VALID AS WELL AS EFFECTIVE TRYING TO HELP A BUSINESS, NOT TRYING TO IMPEDE IT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.
>> ALL RIGHTY, ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD? COMMISSIONER JOHNS?
>> THE BOARD'S CONSENSUS, I LIKE TO ASK THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE STATE ORGANIZATION COME TO OUR NEXT MEETING AND TALK ABOUT THE CONCERNS THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE BRINGING TO US AND THAT WE HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT BECAUSE THEY'RE HEALTHCARE EXPERTS.
WE NEED IT UNDERSTAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR COMMUNITY TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE EXPERTS WHAT IS EFFECTIVE, WHAT DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO VERSUS THE STATE BECAUSE I HEARD INTEREST SOME LAWSUITS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL BASED ON DECISIONS LOCAL LEADER MADE WITH GOOD INTENT BUT WITH NOT NECESSARILY ALL OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE -- OF THE LIMITATIONS WITH WHICH THEY COULD MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD THE COMMUNITY. I WANT THE COMMUNITY SAFE AND MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS AS FAR AS WHAT IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS.
DO WE HAVE A -- I THINK THAT'S -- THAT'S A GOOD THING TO HAVE AS DR. ALCOTT AT THE NEXT MEETING WHICH WOULD BE THE 30TH OF JUNE TO HAVE AN UPDATE.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL.
COMMISSIONER WALDRON. >> I HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS. I ALSO -- I ALSO FIRST OF ALL LIKE TO PRAISE STAFF ON THE TEST PACKET THAT WAS RECEIVED, THE MARKETING PACKET THAT MISS JOY AND OTHER STAFF AND THE MARKETING AND PROBABLY GAVE US A [INDISCERNIBLE] AND DID A WONDERFUL JOB IN-HOUSE.
IT IS CLEAR AND CONCISE, EASY AND NOT TOO MUCH THERE. I APPRECIATE THEM DOING THAT. KIND OF WANT TO LOOK AT MORE ECONOMIC STUFF THAT WE CAN MAYBE HELP
[01:55:01]
OUT WITH ON THAT LEVEL INTERNALLY.THEY DID SUCH A GOOD JOB WITH IT.
MAYBE GO TO THEM SOMETIMES FOR SOME OTHER PROJECTS TO HELP OUT WITH.
ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST MENTION THAT THE PASSING OF NICK PERVIC THAT COACHED FOR A LONG TIME. HE HELPED OUT WITH OUR RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND TEACHING TENNIS TO ANYBODY THAT WOULD GO HAVE A LESSON.
HER SON WORKS IF THE COUNTY OVER AT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
YOU KNOW, HE TOUCHED A LOT OF LIVES IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY OVER THE YEARS.
COMMISSIONER SMITH, I KNOW HE'S PROBABLY HAD TO BE TEACHING OR COACHING FOR 40 YEARS.
>> HE COACHED MY DAD AND HE COACHED ME.
SO HE WAS THERE FOR AT LEAST TWO GENERATIONS OF SMITHS AT ST. AUGUSTINE HIGH SCHOOL. MY CONDOLENCES TO THE
COUNTY. >> THAT'S HOW LONG HE STAYED. HE WAS GUIDANCE COUNSELLOR WHEN I WAS THERE.
>> ME TOO. >> I WANT TO SEND MY CONDOLENCES TO HIS FAMILY.
THAT'S IT. >> JUST BEFORE WE -- WE MOVE TOWARD ADJOURNMENT, WE HAD COMMISSIONER BLOCKER WAS LEFT OUT OF A VOTE PREVIOUSLY. HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT? I THINK WE LOST THE CALL.
LEGAL? >> WHAT YOU COULD DO IS BRING THE MATTER BACK UP AND HAVE A REVOTE IF YOU LIKE TO DO THAT.
IT DOESN'T LEGALLY REQUIRE THAT.
IF A MEMBER IS ABSENT FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER, THE MEMBER IS ABSENT, EVEN IF IT IS TEMPORARY. HOWEVER, IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF -- OF -- OF REVOTE ON THAT MOTION, THE BOARD CERTAINLY COULD DO
THAT. >> I DON'T THINK THERE'S A NEED TO REVOTE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE COMMISSIONER BLOCKER WOULD HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS VOTE HEARD.
THE MOTION PASSED 4-0 IF I TOOK NOTES CORRECTLY. I DON'T WANT TO PULL IT UP FOR REVOTE. I DID WANT TO PROFFER COMMISSIONER BLOCKER'S OPPORTUNITY TO PUT HIS VOICE IN THE MATTER IF THAT WAS VIABLE.
BUT WE HAVE TO REVOTE, WE WOULD HAVE TO REVOTE WITH THE SAME MOTION AGAIN, IS THAT
WHAT I'M HEARING? >> YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE PROCEDURALLY --
WE'LL LET IT STAND. ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS COURT? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WITH ALL
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.