9 o'clock and we will begin the Butnham County Board of County Commissioners meeting and regular Port Authority meeting. Um, invocation by Roger Phillips from Bula Baptist Church. Please silence your phone and stand if you're able to do so, followed by the
pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Newold. The Bible gives us a lot of instruction about how we're to live our lives. In the sixth chapter of the book of Ephesians, he talks about putting on the armor, being ready uh for the battle and for the struggle. Then he tells us where
the struggle's going to be and pray in the spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests with this in mind. Be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people. So, I'd like to do that right now. Father, I give you thanks, Lord, for this day. Lord, I thank you for the privilege of
being a part of this meeting, Lord, to be able to stand here uh in this warm and comfortable place. Lord, thank you for bountiful blessings that you've shown onto us and to this country, Father, and to this uh great nation and to this state, Lord. We thank you for
our homes uh here in Florida and uh Putnham County and Palaca. And Lord, these are your people. And Father, we do uh enter into a struggle each and every day, a struggle that we're not unequipped for, but that you give us all that we need. Lord, you've laid uh out
the the armor that we need. And so, Father, help us to put it on uh to be uh in the battle for you uh for goodness and for righteousness sake. And so thank you for these that are uh willing to uh give of their service and their talents
and their abilities Lord to to lead uh this uh county and this state. Uh Father, thank you for these that have shown interest Lord that have come to participate uh in this democracy. Father, we thank you for all of our leaders uh and we thank you for the
privilege of uh just uh being a part of it. In Jesus name I pray. Amen. >> Amen. To the flag of the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Thank you. >> We need approval of the minutes. Madam Chair, I move approval of the minutes of the regular meeting July 22nd, 2025 as taken in our packet. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion to second. All in favor signify by saying I.
>> I. >> All right, so we will recess the BOCC and call to order the solid waste collection and disposal district meeting. Um, any mayors that are in the audience, please come on up. Today we have with us the city of
Palaca, Crescent City and town of Interlan. >> Correct. >> All right. Thank you. If you guys wish to speak at any time, you have a button and uh you can turn on your mic. So going into the approval of the solid waste disposal minutes from
the July 22nd meeting. >> Madam Chair, I move approval of the RS for July 22nd. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> All right. Into item B, review and
approval of special assessment role. Someone presenting that >> or we're just discussing it. You're just accepting the role as presented by the property appraisers office. >> Okay. >> My apologies, madam chair. My internet
crashed on me. I'm getting there. >> All right. So, the role is in front of you or is there any questions or comments? All right. Do we open this up for the public discussion? Um,
is there anybody in the public who would like to speak regarding solid waste collection and disposal? All right, seeing none, back to the board. >> Madam Chair, I move that we accept and approve the special assessment role for implementation of the fiscal year 202526
solid waste rate resolution. >> We have a motion and a second. >> All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Like sign. Motion carries. All right, we will close the solid waste collection and disposal
district meeting. Thank you, mayors. >> Thank you. Appreciate you. >> We will now convene the port authority meeting. Is there any public comment on port authority items? All right, hearing none. grant application for US Department of
Transportation's Maritime Administration's port infrastructure development grant program. >> Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, I'll take that. This morning, uh port manager, Mr. Sullivan's attending a uh Florida Ports Council board meeting this week. Uh as you saw in the packet, there's a grant
application we'd like to submit uh for $10 million to the uh US DOT Maritime Grant Program. Uh the requirements are that we have a letter of support from the bord of county commission, I'm sorry, from the port authority as well as matching funds. The project is
estimated at a cost of 15.275 million. We've applied for a $10 million grant. We also have to supply a letter of commitment that will cover the remaining uh 5.275. As you will see in your application or
in your packet this morning, your board packet, we have commitments from FDOT for 1.9 commitments from Fstead of 1.375. We'll need about a $2 million commitment from the board this morning to move forward with this grant application. Included in the application
is two letters that we will request that the Port Authority signed this morning, one with all five, and then one with the chair. >> All right. Are there any questions for the presenter? >> Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized. Madam Chair, thank you so much. And and I want to say, you know, when we can go
after a $10 million grant and we can leverage the money that we're looking at or actually a $15 million combined, um I take that deal all day long and twice on Sunday, if you will. Um that's just really good good business for us. And
it's good not only for us, but you got to imagine that this is what economic development looks like in Putnham County. Here we are expanding our port operations. And some people go, I didn't know you had a port. But it's going to really move goods and services here. So
I'm telling you, I think this is a wonderful thing. And whenever we can work with our partners and leverage that kind of money to secure more money, that's what we need to be about. So thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you staff. Madam Chair, if I could just piggyback a little bit on that. Uh the
grant application itself will be for the uh new bulkhead, new donk as well as underground infrastructure. It's been a uh a pro a project that's been discussed quite a bit locally as well as uh at the state and federal level. We've got a lot
of local support. I want to thank the chamber for their help on securing uh letters of support from our local businesses here in Putham County. I also want to give a thanks again uh to former representative Bobby Payne for getting us a seat on the Florida ports council. I think it's been a uh uh a huge
opportunity for us to uh to become known in in the inland port business. You know, I also want to give thanks to uh uh the folks that that have helped along the way. We had Randy Fine, Congressman Randy Fine out this past week as well who toured the port and is excited about
the things that we're doing as well. You know, Mr. Sullivan has done a good job on promoting uh that project. Uh you guys named him the port manager a couple years ago. I think he's done an outstanding job on on securing these funds of sitting on the board and representing Putnham County at the Port
Authority meetings. And uh just want to say thank you and and let you know that we will also continue to look for other grant opportunities and funding sources to help cover that $2 million match as well. >> So, thank you. >> Very good. Is there a time frame on um on this regarding the grant itself for
the $10 million? >> Uh no ma'am. We we we will be we have to apply by next Friday, a week from this coming Friday. So when Commissioner Alexander gets back, we'll ask for him to sign the letter as well. >> And then we'll probably three to six months out. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Commissioner Harvey.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing I forgot to mention for the viewing audience and the people that are sitting here today, um, we've always had the river and we've always had the port, but what's changing in this business is the outer beltway bridge. Okay? So, the
Shams Bridge has been very low, not allowing boats to go underneath there that would fit the needs of our port. and some of our ship builders couldn't finish the ships until they got on the other side, the north side of the Shan's Bridge. With the outer beltway coming
along and that that bridge being high, we're not going to have that issue anymore. So, that's why you're hearing week after week, month after month talking about this port and what this is all about and what it means to Putin County. So, thank you, Madam Chair. >> Yes. Yes, sir. So, it's actually creates
once we finish it, it'll be a functional cargo port. >> Um, Mr. Yes, ma'am. I apologize. I should have mentioned this as well. I just want to remind everybody that's here as well as in the audience and watching on YouTube that we will have a uh an update of our
project at our next commission meeting, our next port authority meeting the second Tuesday and Tuesday where our consultants will be in town to discuss our project and give you an update as to where we're at. >> All right. Very good. Commissioner Pal, you're recognized. >> I just want to reiterate,
>> excuse me. I just want to reiterate uh what Commissioner Harvey said. Um the Shan's Bridge being um taken down in a higher structure uh put up is going to make a huge difference to our working waterfronts. Um our ship building
businesses that we have here are going to it's going to absolutely just blow them off the top. I've talked to some of those people that manage those places and they have told me they have turned down literally hundreds of government contracts for naval vessels that they just can't build them because we can't
get them under the bridge. So, it's it's going to blow the top off that industry in our county and this is just a a really good thing and and I'm I'm excited about it sitting here thinking about how what it's going to do for us. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Yeah. And you know what, one of our goals as commissioners and with the in
connection with the chamber is to raise the the pay rate for people in the community to raise that that income level so that we can have higher paying jobs and that that gives us those kind of opportunities. >> That that'll absolutely do it. When that kind of money starts rolling into the county from government contracts, it's
it's going to be huge for everybody. >> That's that's a game changer for us. All right. With that being said, um is there a motion? Madam Chair, I move that we authorize the Port Authority and Board of County Commissioners to sign a letter addressed to the Secretary Duffy, US
Department of Transportation, expressing support of the grant application and signed letter of commitment for funding project in excess of the grant. >> We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I.
>> All right, motion carries. Um, any discussion regarding Port Authority items from the board? All right, hearing none, we'll close the port authority meeting and go into presentations. First up, we have Sam Carter from the Waterways and Trails
Committee. >> Welcome, Sam. >> Thank you very much. Um, I am here representing uh Josh's uh uh Commissioner Alexander's uh waterways and trails committee. And uh I've I've come today to uh to honor one of our
longtime members and that would be Ken Mafy. And uh Ken has been a longtime member of the waterways and trails committee. He started improving things here in Palaca along those lines way back in 1975 when he ex established the
first um uh uh nature trekking outfit here in town with paddling and so forth. and then moved into uh uh the Bartram realm by establishing u a connection with the state of with Tallahassee to
come to town to talk about the significance of Mount Royal which is now a national historic site. Kim was involved with all that good stuff. He actually formed the Bartum Trail Society in 1978, I believe, and uh um in order to to get
some of that good stuff done. And then then he became the tax collector for the county. And uh later on and u subsequently he um was in was very instrumental in establishing Dun Creek
as a state park here in Putham County. and he served on the Dun Creek U CSO as president for years and years. Um when uh as uh when he retired from uh the tax collector business after 16 17 years at
that uh Commissioner Nancy Harris pegged him to come on to the waterways committee and which he had an immediate effect by um establishing the uh Bartram Trail in uh Putnham County uh committee
to establish the Bartum Trail. And uh with that he uh took a trip uh as part of his vacation after um um after uh serving the county to to London. And he took with him a letter from this
commission asking that all of the artifacts that they had from William Bartum that he created here in Palanka uh we wanted them back. And so um they were very gracious in saying we understand but you can't have them back.
But they did give us um u prints, original prints and scans of his original artwork which we still have which is worth a lot of money and uh we appreciate Kim for that. He um uh again served uh the waterways and trails
committee and um and has u has been an instrumental part of the growth of waterways and trails here in Putham County. And we just want to say thank you Ken. Thank you.
[Applause] >> Mr. so happy. It's so nice to see you again and uh it is my honor today to give you this certificate of appreciation on beh be behalf of the Putnham County Board of County Commissioners and the Putnham County
Trail System. This certificate is proudly presented to Ken Mappy in recognition of your dedicated service as a member of the waterways and trails committee. Ken has been dedicated to the development of Putnham Trail since the early 1990s, serving in many capacities,
including as an appointed member of the board of county commissioners waterways and trails committee. His knowledge, skills, and vision in working to provide residents and visitors with the best possible trail system are deeply appreciated. Presented this 26th day of August, 2025. Thank you, Ken, for
everything you have done for Putinham County. We appreciate you and we love you. [Applause] a picture with your family. >> Right in the middle. This is a
one more. Yes, >> Madam Chair. Thank you. Ken, if you Ken Mafy, can you hear me? >> That's okay. >> I just want to say to you, Mr. Mafy, how
honored I am to have you as a friend. You've been a wonderful statesman, if you will, through this county all the years. I know we don't agree on everything. We don't need to. You've always been a good personal friend and a blessing to Putnham County. And I thank
you from the bottom of my heart for all the hard work that you've done over the years to move Putnham County forward and make it a better place. So, thank you, sir, very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Mappy. [Applause] Next up, we have um Meridian Healthcare.
Mimi, is she here in the audience? I don't see her. Okay. Um next we have Lorie Parker from human resources employee of the month. Good morning. Um, the employee of the month for June
is Sean Silver. I know a lot of you know him. He's been in and out of the buildings for seven years now. >> Um, he is wellliked, well known, and he really does a great job. And this is your plaque. And >> um, JT has some things to say. Uh just
want to say that everybody uh that's worked with Sean in the past knows he's always got a smile on his face, does the best that he can for the county, and is a great representative of general services. Uh and it's a pleasure to work with you every day, sir. >> Thank you, sir. Thank you. >> I know anytime I need something, you're
always smiling and uh and it's nice to see you cleaned up. You usually are our working clothes all the time, which I respect that. Trust me, I respect that. So, congratulations on your award. It's definitely welld deserved. Thank you.
[Applause] >> Yeah. Bring your family up. Come on up. >> And all your Oh, yeah. >> Okay. Very good. Turn that around. >> One more. Good. >> Congratulations again.
>> Okay, next we'll go into our planning and development public hearing. First up, we have PUD 25-0000001 Miner. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. As mentioned, this is PUD two uh 25-0000001. Uh, I am Michael Graves of Putnham
County Planning and Development Services, and this is for David J. Miner 2 and Natalie Living Trust. Uh the reszone request is from agriculture to a plan unit development on parcel 13092600000000310012 approximately 10.41 acres located at 689
North Highway 17 in Palaka, Florida. Uh the applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment for the purpose of establishing a family compound of up to nine residential units on this property. Uh the applicant uh the parcel is
designated as agriculture on the future land use map in addition to agriculture on the current zoning map. Uh the subject lands have approximately 220 ft of road frontage on US Highway 17. And according to the GIS reference map,
there are some wetlands uh less is depicted on the applications the applicant's uh wetlands delineation. Uh the FEMA flood zone layer indicates FEMA flood zone X is present on the site as opposed to any special flood hazard areas. Uh the applicant's desire is to
allow for a family compound as mentioned before to stay in a family trust as opposed to separating the parcel into nine approximately 1acre lots via the type 3 family subdivision. Uh should this PUD be approved, the applicant will then resubmit to the
development review committee to satisfy additional development requirements. Uh the DRC will review uh final plans to ensure that the uh development is compliant with all local, state, and federal development regulations. Uh then they may apply for permits afterwards in
order to start building the homes on this site. Uh here you can see an aerial view of the property. It's the one right in the center there. Uh here you can see the future land use. Here you can see the zoning. A quick
note is at the bottom there. You see the commercial kind of spills out onto their property. That's not actually commercial on their property. It's all zoned agriculture. There seems to be a small glitch with our uh GIS map. Uh here are the FEMA flood zones. You'll
notice that it's all FEMA flood zone X. And here are the wetlands. Again on the delineation provided it is much less than what is depicted here. Uh staff recommends approval of the request to uh agriculture to plan unit development with the staff amended
development agreement as the request is consistent with the requirements for PUD zoning consistent with future land use designation and consistent with other comprehensive plan goals objectives and policies. And at their August 13, 2025 meeting, the Putnham County Planning
Commission recommended approval of the same. >> Are there any questions? >> Mr. Harvey. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, yes. For some reason, I've been following this for a long time. I thought this was under 10 acres and all of a sudden today, it's 10.4.
>> Originally, it was under 10 acres. At a certain point, Mr. Miner uh incorporated another parcel that he owned to the south into it, which pushed it over 10 acres. Was that by his choice or our choice or >> I believe ultimately it came down to the
applicant's choice uh due to insufficient road frontage and concerns about the uh current existing use on the properties. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> All right. Are there any other questions for the presenter? All right. Hearing none. Um public
comment. Is there any public comment on this item? All right, moving back to the board. What's the board's Does the applicant want to speak? Okay, come on up. Good morning. 116 Sheffy Road, David Miner. All right, so it is over 10 acres
now, but originally it was we have three parcels there. Part of this whole putt is to because it was uh it was easier to do. You're right. It it does give us better access to the road, but we already had an easement at the other end. As far as I'm concerned, the the
joining it together should not have been just joining it together. That's part of the PUD. We wouldn't have done this if PUD wasn't being processed. Okay? So, there was a little spot in the back, little spot on the front, that kind of thing. That was really a pain for the tax collectors and zoning to take care
of. So as far as I'm concerned, the reason why this was was happening this way is because it joins it together. So which falls under the 10 acres being separate, but we were told that it was better to join it. Well, that also
throws us over a threshold. Now, originally the threshold was, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not I'm not the the legal counsel here. As far as I'm concerned, it should have uh it should just go on through as one meeting because the fact is we started off with
different processes. And it was put in front of zoning first, which it should have been DRC first and then zoning and then county commissioner. If we would have been in the right chain of command done that way and we're not the ones that made the appointment, we've already
been done on our second meeting. So, I just want to make the board realize that and I don't know if legally you can accept the one meeting and go on with it because we've already got our u subject tank permits. They're done. They've already been uh done the perk test and all that. building and zoning's already
got all the uh engineering and the letters that u you know to use multiple homes and stuff like that. So it's on our end it's all done. So there is a Florida statute that if if a mistake was made that we should get more time because let's face it we're trying to
beat the putt. We're trying to take the pud and beat the uh >> impact fee. And uh as far as I'm concerned, we should be able to either have the uh grace to not have to pay that or take care of it today and say,
you know, yay or nay. >> I I'll I'll comment on this. So, um I think there's a couple things that you're bringing up, not just one thing. So, wanting to wave the impact fees is a different conversation, but having the nine acres versus the 10 acres. Is it
not true that on the southern piece where you have that commercial um use that um you was bringing it into the pud so that you wouldn't have to turn it into a C4? >> No, because the the the usage the usage even though it's owned agriculture
there's some usage that allows you to do some commercial. I know that dealing with LEO Natalie is working on um uh the stipulations of what you can do on a property is commercial. One of the things is that you don't have to worry about the um because just like the handy
way there or the the kangaroo or whatever it is, they changed the name too much for me to remember, but uh that's zoned agriculture. Is that a commercial facility? Yes, there's usage. There's usage and there's zoning. So, the usage we want to use the two
buildings up front will be commercial. But so is the AT&T substation. That's right there. It's zoned commercial. It's zoned agriculture. But let's face it, AT&T is a commercial facility and uh so the usage will be commercial in those two buildings. Everything stays agg
though. So did I make that clear as mud? >> Yeah, clear as mud. Thank you. >> That's exactly the right comment. Anybody want to weigh in on this? All right. Well, the fact that you that went in front of the zoning board at 10 acres, if we were to approve it at their nine acres, you'd have to go back to the
zoning board. Is that correct? Yeah. Because what the zoning board was at 10 acres, not or not the zoning board. Yeah. >> The planning commission. So if we went today and said, well, no, it's going to be the 9 whatever. Guess what? You got to go back. >> Okay. Well,
>> I mean, unless I'm wrong on that, am I wrong? >> Not to my knowledge, Madam Chair. Uh there is the other issue that he would still need to go to a second DRC meeting afterwards. Even if he was to go to uh DRC preliminary and then go to planning commission as opposed to going to planning commission being kicked back to
DRC, there's no way he would have made the September 8th deadline. >> Right? So if you have an argument for waving of the impact fees, which I know is what you're really the ultimate issue is is you don't want to pay the impact fees. I think that you make your argument and you make whatever I don't know is there an application or some
kind of process that you would follow to ask for an exemption. >> Mr. Commando, is there is there a process if somebody is applying for an exemption to the impact fees and they feel like they have good legal reasoning? >> Rich, go ahead. >> Somebody I mean there's not a there's
not a basis. It was part of what the discussion was with the board as far as setting what that hard date was. And I think you have the consider you've considered the fact that wherever you move that date, somebody's going to fall before that date and also come make a similar argument.
>> But his argument isn't based on the date. His argument is based on the fact that he believes um had we not he got caught up in the whole DRC review that was part of the I mean we we can go back and watch the public meeting. I mean
it's it's easy to see. So that's his argument. is >> I understand Mr. >> So he feels like that the staff and if I'm saying speaking for you you feel like staff made a mistake and therefore you're not meeting the deadline >> right because there is a Florida statute that states that if if the mistake is
made on the county's part then we get more time and that's all I'm asking for. Okay >> and I'm happy to look into that. I haven't >> I've given I've given each one of the county in their mailbox I've given a copy of it. >> That meeting was for Rich and I this afternoon. This zoning is different. The the what you have before you is very
different matter than whether or not he qualifies for an exemption. Okay. So, I have everything ready for legal and I to meet on that this afternoon. >> Again, I think it's a separate issue we got to get through today. >> Chair to move this one step forward and um and recommend for approval of the
reszone PUD 25001. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> Uh excuse me. >> Yes. You need to vote for when to make the second meeting. We can't uh approve this today. This is meeting one of two.
>> Uh and it should be noted that staff has made every accommodation to expedite this procedure uh including not not doing the initial DRC review which was initially waved, but the planning commission demanded we do that anyway. As well as the fact that we're having a meeting today in the first place as Mr.
reminder went to the planning commission of this month and traditionally he would go to the board of county commissioners at the second meeting of next month for his first meeting. >> I got what you're saying. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So, we pushed this through as the first meeting today. >> Meeting one of two.
>> Okay. >> That part of your motion? >> Yeah. We'll just amend the motion to to recognize this the first meeting and like to set the second meeting as soon as possible. >> I'll amend my second to include that. >> All right. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I.
>> All right. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Um Retha Adams land a future land use map amendment and a reszone and I've asked um planning staff to do one. Can you do this as one
or do we have to separate them? >> Michael, we should be able to do them as one if the board is in favor of it. >> Okay. All right, then. Uh, once again, for the record, uh, Michael Graves, Planning and Development Services. This is going to
be CPA2-0000004 and ReZ-00008 uh, for Reapa Adams. Uh this is a smallcale future land use map amendment from commercial to urban service as well as a uh reszone from uh
commercial two to residential 2. Uh the applicant is Missa Adams uh with an agent of Sarah Mayor of Deubberry. The parcel is 0.22 acres located at 205 North Highway.
parcel ID 011026 0250 0260 0120. The applicant is requesting a future land use map amendment to allow for the redevelopment of a single family uh home on the property as well as the reszone
for the same. Uh the subject site is zone commercial 2 as previously mentioned and has a future land use of commercial. The applicant has also requested to reszone this to uh from commercial 2 to res residential 2
uh that it has heard in concurrency with this uh map amendment. Uh the parcel has approximately 70 ft of road frontage on north highway 17 and the parcel is developed with a admittedly dilapidated single family residence that was greatly
damaged during hurricane Ian. Uh the applicant propo uh proposes replacing the existent residence with the assistance of the uh rebuild Florida project. Uh should the map amendment and reszone be approved uh the applicant will have
the right to obtain their building permits and move forward else-wise the uh subject the subject site uh shall be allowed to maintain commercial development as approved by the DRC. Uh here you can
of the property, the future land use, the zoning, the FEMA flood zone. Note that it is not a special flood hazard area, and the lack of wetlands on this property. Staff recommends approval of the request to
amend the future land use map from commercial to urban service and from and amend the zoning from residential two, sorry, from commercial two to residential 2 as the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Putham County Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Code and is compatible with existing development in the area. At their uh meeting, the uh Putnham County Planning Commission recommended approval of the same. >> All right. Thank you. questions. Commissioner Harvey. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, basically, this is before us today because it's a
non-conforming site, right? >> Correct. >> And due to the hurricane and the damage, >> you can't put that back the way it was. So, the zoning needs to be changed to make sure that they can do what they need to do. >> If the home was uh damaged less than 50%
of its value prior to the hurricane, then we could allow for building permits to repair. However, because the home was so badly damaged by Hurricane Ian, we absolutely need to reszone and perform a map amendment. >> Interesting. All right. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions for the
presenter? Is the applicant here would like to speak? Is there any comments from the public? >> All right. Back to the board. Madam Chair, I move that we make a motion that we accept staff recommendations for approval that request to amend the
zoning map from commercial CR to urban services and because it's consistent with the planning account commission and um this is going to be CPA 25-00004, Miss Retha Adams.
>> All right. I believe that comes down to the board if you wish to make this a single motion for the two cases. >> I think the other one's an ordinance to >> Okay, they're both ordinances. >> Well, both of them are. Yes. >> All right. >> Well, I'll second it. >> All right. We have a motion to second on
the floor. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All right. Second. We have the resone. >> Madam chair, if it pleases the board, we just went through that process. The applicant's not here and I don't think if you can ask if anybody in the audience wants to speak about the
reszone but if not I'm ready to make a motion. >> Is there anybody who wants to speak regarding reszone Adams? >> All right seeing none >> madam chair I move the approval for the ordinance number 2025-024
the reszone re25-00008th Adams >> second. >> We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion carries. >> All right. We're going into public hearing regarding sheriff's office sex offender ordinance. It's in your packet.
>> We heard from uh regarding this last week. Um Mr. Sharp, do you wish to speak on this ordinance? >> All right. Are there any questions from the board? Is there anybody in the public who would like to speak regarding the sex offender ordinance number
2025-021 for or against? All right. For those who um might not know, what this does is this creates um stricter um regulations regarding um sex
offenders um a little bit harder than the statues. All of the counties around us have those. And so what we're trying to do is make sure Putnham doesn't become a dumping ground for sex offenders. As we saw um at the beginning of the year, I think it was beginning of the year, maybe end of last year, where
we had a a trailer park and a lot of out of town offenders were coming in to be housed here. And specifically, uh 50% of our registered sex offenders are not from Putnham, nor was their offense occurred did did they occur in Putinham.
So, uh, we're working on trying to make our citizens safe. With that, um, Commissioner Paliser, you're recognized. >> Um, after reading the, uh, ordinance, um, I was very impressed as how thorough and you certainly crossed your tees and
dotted your eyes. I don't think you left a stone left unturned. So, I'm very proud and happy that you and the sheriff, Mr. Sharp, are protecting our children as like this because this is a a great thing. And I'm I'm very supportive of this and u I'm telling you
I read it two or three times and I just kept go Lord they they there's not a stone they did not flip over here that there's no escape holes that I could find. So I'm very proud and happy for for this to see this come forward. Thank you >> Commissioner Harvey. >> Thank you Madam Chair and I I echo what
Commissioner Palier said. You know, we have a welcome sign on all corners of coming into Putinham County, but doesn't say welcome to Putnham County, the sex offender capital of the world. We don't want that. I'm all for people who want to rehabilitate their life. I'm all
about that. But we had a community that was basically that was their their motus of operation. Bring people to this one place and store them all here. That's not what this county is about. And um I I commend the sheriff's department, the
under sheriff, Mr. Blunt here, Alex Sharper, the general counsel for the sheriff, and our sheriff for seeing that there was a problem here and addressing it quickly. Uh because we do want to be the welcome center of Florida. And we want people to come, but not like this.
And um if they're going to if they want to come here and try to take advantage of our our our youth, then they don't belong here, period. They belong somewhere else. and hopefully behind bars. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Right. Is there anyone who wants to speak? I'll give one more opportunity.
All right. With that, what's the motion from the board? >> Madam Chair, I move that we approve ordinance number 2025-021, an ordinance of the board of county commissioner, Putin County, and I'll just read it just title only. That's all. But the sex offender ordinance
that's been presented to us today. >> I'll second that. >> You have a motion to second. Any further discussion? You got to read the whole title. >> All right, here we go. An ordinance of the board of county commissioners of Putham County, Florida, creating section 28-3 in the code of ordinance of Putnham
County to be known as a Putnham County sexual offender and sexual predator act providing findings, intent, definitions, and residency requirements. Authorizing collection of registration fees
prohibiting presence lutering >> lording >> lordering or prowling within child safety zones with exceptions restricting participation in Halloween activities with exceptions prohibiting cohabitation of offenders. Establishing
accountability for property owners, landlords and leaseors. Requiring notice for the temporary emergency shelters. Providing penalties for violations. providing for applicability and severability and providing for an
effective date. >> Now I'll second it. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion carries unanimously. >> All right. Um we're going to be going into agenda items. Um we do have a long
board meeting today. We have consent agenda items and then we'll have updates and new business. If you wish to speak on agenda items, please make sure you've put your card in. Um the this portion of the agenda is designed to allow citizens an
opportunity to bring matters to the attention of the board. It is not reasonable to expect that the board will engage in debate or deliberation about matters on which the board has received no prior information as part of the agenda. Please limit your time to three minutes. Public comment cards are conveniently placed at the meeting room
entrance and should be submitted prior to the meeting at to the deputy clerk who sits to the right of the podium. Do we have any public comment cards on agenda items? We will have an opportunity for public comment on miscellaneous items.
Our famous Mr. Woodward, come on up. I'm going for infamous, but I'll accept famous for the time being. >> Okay, we'll take we'll like take that for the time being. >> Michael Woodward, 517 South Francis Street, Interlock. I'm here to point out two troubling
things about item 11 C. First, if uh I could direct your attention to page 416 of your agenda packet, which is the cover page for this agenda item. In the summary highlight section, the
last sentence reads, "The restrictive covenants required are detailed on the attached spreadsheet with details of projected costs." the restrictive covenants required are detailed on the attached spreadsheets with details of
the projected cost. uh rather in an artfully crafted sentence, but I think the intent of this sentence is to indicate that all of the items on the following page, the list of uh proposed amenities
are actually required are legal obligations the county has uh in regard to this property because of the covenants that came along with the transfer of title from Florida Community Trust to Putnham County. Directing your
attention to page 417 on that list, just past the center, just past the midpoint is playground. Nowhere in the covenants or other legal documents, the documents that are
appended as part of this agenda packet, is the word playground ever mentioned, let alone required. In fact, things like playgrounds appear to be prohibited by the relevant legal documents. Directing your attention to
page 457 under the section that says project site obligations imposed by FTC on the FTC recipient. The project site shall be managed only for the conservation, protection and
enhancement of natural and historical resources and for the passive natural resource-based public outdoor recreation which is compatible with the conservation, protection and enhancement of the project site along with other
related uses necessary for the accomplishment of this purpose. doesn't sound like a playground. Second, turning your attention back to page 416, right at the top of the page, uh we see
this item is titled Tangle Wild Riverfront Park Project update. Uh as indeed it is titled on page two of the agenda. It's also referred to that again under the summary highlights as Tangle Wild
Riverfront Park. Here we find that Tangle Wild Nature Park has been renamed as Tangle Wild Riverfront Park. I went out there on Friday to look at the sign to see if anybody had changed
that. Well, not yet. It still says Tangle Wild Nature Park, which has always been the intended use for that property. Taken together, the misrepresentation of the playground as being a required facility and the elimination of the word
nature from the park's name suggests an agenda at work to abandon or dilute Tangle Wild's specialized role as a place for the public to enjoy nature and learn about it and instead to convert
Tangle Wild into a more generic park. I hope that is not the case. >> Thank you for your comments. >> All right. There any other items? Public comment on agenda items.
All right. Uh going into consent, are there any commissioners wishing to pull an item? Commissioner Pelisier, >> go somewhere else for a minute. >> Okay. Commissioner Neville, >> I didn't have anything to I think I would like to have a little more
discussion on this. Just a quickie. Um I'll admit I did not catch that in the in the reading. Um and I have yet to walk that part. So we I'll >> we're going to have it when we have go into discussion and and um under item 11, we'll have a detailed discussion.
you remember the purpose of those three items was whenever um Commissioner Alexander had brought up a a project that he wanted to do. Um we specifically said, "Well, what about the projects that we haven't completed?" Okay. >> And so that's what we're going to have those those discussions. I think you we'll have plenty of time to have
>> I have nothing to pull and we'll be sure to bring that up for discussion. >> This is under item 9 A through F. >> I have nothing to pull. >> All right. >> I have none, Madam Chair. >> All right. This is item 9 A through F. I have none. >> Okay, Madam Chair, I move that we move
the consent agenda items A, B, C, D, E, and F. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. I'm sorry. >> Any further discussion? All right. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All right. Item nine is done. Code enforcement. We have one fine reduction
case. Is there anyone here for this fine reduction case? Madam chair, seeing no one here for the fine reduction case. Morning. >> Morning Thomas. >> Hey, Thomas. How are you doing today? >> But um seeing no no one here, I'd like
to make a motion that we approve staff recommendations to reduce the fine to the actual hard cost of to our back to our citizens of $1,587 to be paid within 80 180 days on the case 22-0000
210 0. Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> We're going to take a quick break before we get into our updates and discussion under item 11. Three minute break.
going into updates and discussion again. Uh what happened at our last board meeting was we had a commissioner that had a project regarding an additional boat ramp and the discussion that we had was we needed to get updates on the current projects that we had in play,
where they were at and whether or not they would be funded. And so, um, Miss Julianne, if you'll move forward with those three project updates. >> I'll be happy to. Um, on the Dun Creek boat ramp project. Now, this is the, uh, platus side, if you will. Um, the the
property was purchased in October 2023, we engaged CRG architects to help us develop the conceptual site plan, the develop the construction plans, and worked through regulatory permitting. Um then in November of 24, we brought back to the BOCC a conceptual design for that
boat ramp. It does include a two-lane boat launch um as well as parking spots for boat and trailer and a development of a restroom. At the time, the BOCC advised staff due to cost concerns, they wanted to try to move forward in a
phased approach. So phase one was that parking area and the two uh launch boat ramp. And so we are working through all the regulatory permitting processes and um construction documents related to that phase. Then the restroom would of
course be phase two. Um based on our latest estimate from engineers and I told you guys there was going to be a lot of grace with these projects on cost estimates, right? um because they are truly just that they are a basis for budgeting purposes. Um the boat ramp and
parking area would be 1.4 million and then a restroom facility of about 200,000. I included the latest um plans from Maverick Engineering on that boat ramp so that you can see where we are. Currently, the parking area is mostly
impervious surface. It's in a gravel. Um that helps us with our storm water management obviously area so that we can truly maximize that parcel uh to its best ability. I'll take any questions that you might have on Dun Creek.
>> All right, Commissioner Paliser, you're recognized. >> Um Miss Young, how many acres did we purchase there approximately? I can't read that. >> About two and a half. >> So there's going to be a significant amount of parking there, isn't there? >> Yes, sir. It's proposed to have roughly 60. um just over that. Now, we may end
up when we do the final engineering site just for mobility of those trucks and tractor or trailers, you may end up losing a few of those spots, but you're going to have a significant number of boat trailer parking. >> That's been a concern of mine, especially like Browns Landing, which
has no parking. >> Um this is going to be a significant improvement when we can bring in that that kind of extra space to allow people to turn around, get around, you know, get their boats launched and then get parked. So, looks good. Looks good. >> Mr. Harvey, you recognized.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank you for your hard work with DOT getting this was a purchase from the county actually, not just a lease. Um, so this is good. And then I'm hearing and may I say, Mr. Suggs, that on the
restroom idea, can may I expound on that? >> Sure, you can, sir. that you would like to kind of do what we did with the fire department, if you will. The fire department's where we have one one master plan basically and we replicate that in the community. You're wanting to
do the same thing with the ba the restrooms and and I applaud that because that's a that's something we just plop down and say, "Okay, here's our plans and let's move on to the next one." I appreciate that. Let's give credit where credit is truly due. We've been putting in restrooms and
looking at restrooms and other facilities. And so, uh, our staff, Mr. Grimes, Miss Young, and myself sat down. And it was, it was an idea that was born out of that discussion with those two folks to, uh, create a template, so to speak, so that we would have something
shelf and ready to go, engineered, so when the opportunity presented itself, we'd already be in a position to move forward with it. And I mentioned to you I mentioned to you yesterday um the town of Interin they purchased a prefab bathroom. You would not know it's prefab
block came in on the trailer. They picked it up with a crane set it on a concrete pad. Um it was a pretty good price on it. I don't back then it was a long time ago but um that was a really great idea. Hooked right to plumbing and they moved right on. So you know there's
all kinds of options out there. But I really appreciate that. And this is going to be great for that area. You know, you're going to have the the Palaca side of the bridge and the Satsuma side of the bridge. And you know, there's going to be plenty of opportunity to put boats in and move up
and down the river or down Dun Creek down to the to the Crescent Lake. So, this is going to be a really good addition. But do want to give kudos to our chairwoman who started that process when she got here and and brought that through. uh the prior board which was a
little bit more um challenging at times. >> Uh thank you for those comments. Um Commissioner Nebula recognized. >> What kind of time frame can we start seeing activity out there on the site? >> So we're still in the permitting phase which is quite laborious between state u
the water management and the army corps of engineers. Um we're closing in to being very close to having bid ready construction plans but we're in that permitting. We um are going to begin with the engineering team's bi-weekly
meetings. So that kind of tells us we're really ramping up. So I think we have our first one Thursday and then we'll continue to have those meetings to try to make sure everybody stays focused and and rolling forward. >> Um so uh Mr. Mr. Grimes might remember
when we were looking at at this property, um there were some concerns that came up about that canal and the depth of the water and the width of it and what size boats could go out there. And I remember having you take me out there and I got out of the truck and there's actually an an existing um boat
uh what is it? What would be >> boat house? >> Boat house that would would house like five or six boats on it. So, we went to the the furthest one inland and um pulled put a stick in the ground in the water and it was at least 10 feet. We
when we put that um that um pole was it was it not 10 feet? Was about eight feet. >> Wouldn't give it that much credit. I'd say three. >> No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. Come on, man. I was standing there. It was taller.
>> We'll do it again. Okay. We'll go around and check it again. But it was >> it it was deep enough is what I'm saying. And then the space between the bridge and the boat ramp is more space than what we have out at the Boswick area. So I feel comfortable that that
boat ramp will be utilized. Um I know there's some concerns about not getting bigger boats in there. Um but I don't really know. I mean until we until we get it built I think there is I think there's more room there than what people realize. Um, >> I think that if you look at the
preliminary design also, I don't mean to interrupt you. No, you're fine. >> The preliminary design of that shows kind of a boat ramp that comes up into the land a little bit, which will give us a little bit more of that turning radius that's needed inside that canal, >> right? >> Um, but I mean, it's not one for a
extremely large vessel, but I mean, the everyday boater will absolutely be able to use that and launch and um plenty of parking. So, I thought thought it was a a pretty good start. I think it total of 68 parking places, but In my opinion, it needs to be trimmed down just a just a
>> Well, and if if we're doing gravel, then how are you you're not really mark going to be able to mark the parking space. >> Very true statement. >> So, that I mean, that is a challenge, I guess. Um people I've been to plenty of boat ramps and people figure it out. They figure out how to park whether it's good, bad, or indifferent, people figure
out how to park. >> Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm also excited about the Fisher as we go through our agenda. We talked about where we're going to these that um you know that was a concern the other day was u the planes
are still in the air and some of these have been in the air for a long time. This one hasn't been in the air that long but we're seeing the landing gear light come on and they're fixing to let the landing gear out and we're going to hear that on the next two topics too and
how we're going to land those planes. So I I really want to say thank you. Um, nobody I don't think any of us were were upset about the other boat ramp on the other side. It was just that we've got planes still circling out there that
need to come in and our and our public was promised in some cases, especially on the next two of certain things we're going to do. And um, staff, I'm going to say this before we ever get to that. Y'all did a great job in a very short time coming together to put that
together. Um, I didn't know if you could get it done, but you did. And with all the other things that goes on around here, that every day you walk in and don't have a clue what fire to put out, that the fire has come. And I just want to say thank you because it it really
shows that y'all hear us and you understand us and you and we're all working in the same direction. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. U moving on to Georgetown Riverfront park update. >> Yes, ma'am. So, Georgetown Riverfront is one of two parks that we received um that we still have open if through the
Florida Communities Trust. We received it in 2011 and in 2021 through a partnership with UFAS, we engaged graduate students from University of Florida Horticultural Department to help us um with that development to incorporate the required components of
the management plan. Then in September of 2023, um we engaged CRG architects to begin development of phase one again, which was the boat ramp and related parking areas. Um so we've gotten through the conceptual design and we're working through development of
construction plans and the regulatory permitting with St. John's River Water Management and the Army Corps of Engineers. Um we've done some preliminary work like site surveys and topos and tortoise surveys and geotech um studies. So there the restricted
covenants um are outlined again in very high level budgetary estimates here. We have to have four recreation facilities when we so in the in the big overarching right the management plan will say you need four recreation facilities or you need four whatever and then in a later
document that's where we've agreed with FCT what those recreation components are going to be and each one of them get assigned a point matrix. So the boat ramp has a much higher point matrix than a horseshoe pit at the time. That's what
we agreed upon. That's what everybody said. Yep. That's where we're going with it. So, um, we have the boat ramp and the parking area inclusive of the soft launch in design. Currently, we're required to have an observation platform, a picnic pavilion, which we
have the horseshoe pits, which we can put out there at any time. We've tried it over in the past after before the park has been more developed. Without some activity, the horseshoes end up missing. Um, so we have come and gone with the horseshoe pits, but we can put
them back out there, not a problem. Uh, parking facilities for the boat ramp is already part of that end design. Now, the other side of that park, that park splits, the road splits in two different directions and you can't drive this direction. Um, if you're looking at 309
coming up from the river, right? You can only drive this way. So, the rest of the educational pavilion and the playground area, the picnic pavilion will have to have its own dedicated parking as well. so that we can transgress uh e eress people. Um it is required to have bike
racks, interpretive signage, 12 regularly scheduled educ educational classes, a restroom facility and a walking trail which is stipulated to be a minimum of a quarter mile long made of pvious surface. Um there is a
substantial amount of wetlands on that park and our goal has always been to mitigate those wetlands. That's something when we brought UF in um was one of their main objectives is to help us keep that natural wetland area there for all to enjoy. Um so this again I've
given you just a couple of pieces of the documents from Georgetown um for your review and and questions related to the park. >> All right, Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think Julian, one thing you said that we need
to hear probably more and more um when this application was was done back in 2011, we're the ones that said this is what we want to do, >> right? >> We're the ones who said add the points to this. We won we won the project based
on what we said we were going to do. >> That's right. Now, there's been some negotiating since that time, but truly these are things that that board at that point decided this is what we want for that area and we were in competition
with many places throughout Florida. Um, that's why we won it because of that. So, I think it's important to know I'm not I wasn't on the board at that time. I commend the board for for getting this property. I think it's a wonderful spot,
but that was one of the planes that we really need to bring in for a landing. That one and the next item we're fixing to talk about. And again, I commend y'all from putting all this together and the future talk we're fixing to have about the funding of this um because
truly I can see the landing gear coming down on this plane very very soon. So, thank you. Thank you very much to staff and and I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you, Commissioner Newold. recognized. >> Well, I'm proud and fortunate this one's
coming down in my district. This is a a complicated design. Um, it's a big ask. I think it's going to be a park like none of it that we have in Putnham County. I mean, you can go to other coastal and and other counties that have waterfront amenities. And this is more
commonplace. This is a first for us. It's going to be complicated. It's been on the books a long time. I am glad to see it really come to fruition, but it's it's I want us to be careful as we come down the stretch that we don't just
um check the boxes in some of these amenities. We need them to be first class and educational and and something to look other people to look at and say, "Wow, they did a great job." Not just they checked the boxes and they got all this stuff done. So, thank you for your
hard work and yeah, this one's coming home soon. So, thank you. >> Um, I guess I one concern is a boat ramp with a soft launch for non-motorized vehicles costing $3 million. It's like
we have boat ramps for that include, you know, concrete and and and all of that. How how $3 million is a lot of money. that that first off it's a rough estimate because engineering is not where they need to be but that there is a significant amount of drive surface
from the road down to the parking lot makes more sense to me >> as well as two different parking lots there's a down parking lot and an upland parking lot >> we did in order to stay out of the wetlands we could not locate all of the
needed parking area down near the ramp so we have a few slots down near the ramp, but then the main parking area is up on 309 309. Um, so it it is there is a substantial amount of civil work there
to get from the road down to the ramp. Um, there is also a teeny sliver of a pie of wetland that we do go through and we'll have some additional engineering required for it. >> Okay. Well, um that was just my biggest concern, but hearing that it includes parking lots and driveways makes more
sense than it's just simply the boat ramp, the soft launch boat ramp. Um when I was running for office, I was down in Georgetown and people were upset. They were upset that we'd had this property on the books, but we haven't been able to do anything with it. Now, I know that we all have um over the time and we
certainly went through a recession and all of that that we had some some financial hardships that we had to get through with all of our that we needed versus what what these type of projects. So, I'm glad to see that we're making some headway. Um, I'll ask you the same question.
Do we have a time frame? I mean, are we looking at a couple more years? Probably. I would think this isn't since we're still in design. >> So, the good news is as we finish this meeting today, once we get down to the next few items, um, I believe for the first time ever, we'll enter fiscal year
26 um, with adequate funding to truly move this project forward. And at that point, once funding is available um from our side of the house, that's when we can really start pushing contractors to do something. >> Well, that's exciting. That's very exciting. Commissioner Harvey,
>> thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I think two things were just said that are profound. Uh Commissioner New said just don't check the box. And I think that's that I think that's one of the profound statements really that I've heard in a while because sometimes we do want to
get things off of our plate and move it as quick as we can and checking the box is a simple I was telling the commissioner this morning trying to put the round peg in a square hole. Um we try to get these things moving and sometimes we force things to happen and it's not a great idea. So, I think
checking the box statement was very profound. And Commissioner Wilkerson, I want to say something you just said. The prior boards didn't have the money to do these things. They were hoping to get grants and other other funding sources to get this thing done and it just
wasn't there. And we went through some lean times. We built we made some tough decisions back in in the early days and now we're seeing that we have a little bit. we put some money away, you know, from from the better place plan. So, I
I'm excited that we we're not just checking the box and we're not just spending money. We have a plan in action to make this happen, but I always say it's easier to govern when you have money. We didn't have money back then and it was very difficult to govern and
we were losing employees because we did not have the funds. And I remember the firefighters standing there desperately asking for help because they were overworked. They couldn't work anymore. They were they were about to pass out now. And things have changed. So
again, I'm not condemning any prior board. They took on a project that they needed to take on. It's a great piece of property. And now we're going to see this come to fruition in the next few years. And I'm excited as I can be. Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> One other question. Didn't we dedicate some of the boater the dollar fee that you get from from your license to this this boat ramp and Dun Creek? >> So, what we said was we were going to store the fishing fund money in reserves until we get the construction costs back
for Dunge Creek and Georgetown. And then the board was very up in the air as to whether we wanted to divide it in half or we just wanted to see which projects still needed additional funing. And so those dollars are sitting there um waiting on that day where we can then determine what we need to do with them.
>> But we did earmark them for one or the other projects. It's just not money that's available to be spent on >> That's correct. No, they are in a restricted um expense line that cannot be spent until the board makes a decision as to how we go. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. And again, um we needed these updates to make other
decisions. Um we'll go on into Is everybody done with questions? I've got something I want to say. >> Commissioner Palis here. >> Um, we're talking about boat ramps and I mentioned it earlier. I'd like to see us look into Browns Landing. I really don't think there's anything, but I'd like to really explore and be sure that there's
not any more room there possibly for parking because it's it's just very limited. >> Yeah, it needs help. >> And like I said, I don't know that there is, but I certainly would like to be able to have a definitive answer. There just need more land. There's there's nothing else we can do. Uh, so if that's something we could look into and find out that I sure would appreciate it.
>> Sure, be happy to. >> All right. U moving into Tangle Wild. >> Okay, Tangle Wild. So, let me first say, um, Mr. Woodward is not the first attorney to tell me my grammar may be off from time to time. I kind of had flashbacks to eighth grade English class there. So, I still obviously have some
work to do. Um, the park name is not being renamed. We did design, we added riverfront in there so that you all knew it was on the riverfront because as I talked to many of you, I heard over and over, I don't even know where Tangle
Wild is. And so there is a riverfront parcel and there is a parcel north of West River Road and it is all one continuous park. Um, so we can alleviate that off the top. Um the park again was through a flu Florida communities trust
in August of O2 and in that we had stipulations and requirements. Again I only give you snippets of what was there. So what happens is it says you have to have x number of recreational components and when we did that we then went back to them and said this is what
we intend to have. So um it it is never the vision or the intention of what was submitted to make that an athletic complex. However, it was intended to incorporate a nature area with playgrounds and recreational um
facilities that support um those types of activities. So um think ravines, gardens, right? Very conservative. It is a beautiful place to be. But as you go down those paths, there are different recreation amenities that are there. We
are absolutely not trying to negate the the nature or the conservation of that land, but simply provide for those recreation components that bring us into compliance. Another one at this particular park is a staffed uh museum
and meeting space that is required. Again, that may be something we want to have some further conversation with Florida Communities Trust on, but we don't want to have those negotiations until we're truly making some progress on all of the stipulations that are in
there because we are way outside of compliance related to this park. The only thing we have done at this park is an ADA soft kayak launch with um kind of dock ramp area that leads down to the riverfront. Um, outside of that, the
structure that is there is not safe. Um, and there is a vaulted restroom, but it does not have plumbing. So, the amenities that are there are certainly not um something that Florida Communities Trust would say makes us compliant at that parcel.
>> Can um I'll ask a question then I'll go to commissioners. Um, is there an option of just giving it back? So, we don't you don't give it back, you buy it back. Okay. >> Um, we explored it with Georgetown. I have not gotten a fair market price on
what it would be to give Tangle Wild back. Um, but I also would advocate that although there may be some components that sound daunting, Tangle Wild is in a great location for a park area north of
17. You don't have a park area that serves that West River Road Baldwick what's coming from Klay County area. You truly don't. The only thing we have is a boss community park which is footprint limited and we cannot add any more recreational features and still comply
with the what they need for the blueberry festival. Right. Um, and so I would advocate to you that the Tangle Wild location is probably a great asset for our community to have for recreation space to incorporate into trails and
bike racks and nature walks and um, all of the things that I think was the original intent. >> Thank you for that. I I don't disagree with you. It's just a staffed museum means something into perpetuity, not just, you know, I mean, that's a big expense for the county. An ongoing
staffed person is a different situation than what we've seen in the past. So, >> it does and and that is again an area where I believe once we're up and running, we have a real plan that we probably could um negotiate with Florida Communities Trust and and attempt an
operation much like we do with our community centers. We have part-time staff throughout the week for some recreational um components. And so, you know, we have part-time staff that staffs the Edgar Johnson Senior Citizen Center. We could work through something
like that, I believe, um and still meet the intent, but not the burden of putting that on the county as having a full-time office there. >> Thank you for that, Commissioner Newer recognized. Well, I am glad to hear that's it's not a a prohibition to have that type of I'll call it mixed use, you
know, play and education because if if you're going to get I think it is reasonable and compatible to have young kids exposed to that nature-based education. You know, that's how you're going to get them introduced to it and get them accustomed to that type of
activity. So, I'm glad there is no prohibition of that. Um, yeah, that one that one will be complicated as well. So it would but you're right, there's not much up in that area and we're going to have growth coming down that 17 corridor and that would be a great amenity if we
can pull it off. So I hope we can hope we can get there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Harvey. You're recognized. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um my question is going to be a little bit more legal, I think, because Mr. Woodward brought up
the covenants on this property. Um, I'm sure that when the Florida Trust got us the land or we applied for the land though the that document was sent to them and they saw the covenants on there. Then they saw
maybe the overlay of what we wanted to do. I don't know if they compared the two and crossed off what you couldn't do or could do, but I guess my question is this, and maybe it goes along the lines of Commissioner Wilkinson, but I do
believe we do need a park out there. If the covenants are going to restrict us from carrying out the park plan, and I'm not saying they will or won't. I mean, is this a dead horse that we're just trying to breathe life into, or is
it something that we can say the covenants were there and we understand those, but the master plan got on top of that and that's how we got this place. I'm just asking. I I don't know the answer. >> So, my understanding is they were
already in possession of the restriction and the documents. Um, I can't speak as to what they reviewed when they went through the plan, but I know from our side of it, sorry, I'm getting a little feedback from our side of it. I don't know that the plan and what the restrictions are mutually exclusive. You can still have um those restrictions in
place and do what we're planning to do. >> Thank you. And and I'm with you on the other part. you know, when you were talking about a full-time part-time person being out there, uh, we could have a partnership, you know, with the
people who love nature that live in West, I mean, North Putinham. Um, they could have their own group and do something along those lines. U maybe it could be virtual where you hit a button and somebody gets up and hi, I'm so and so and let me tell you about this part.
I mean, I don't know the answer, but I think there's there's things there that we could possibly do. Um, but again, the main part of Tangle Wild, which we think is at the river, is not that's only seven acres. >> That's right. >> The 16 acres across the road is really
where the bulk of Tangle Wild is that I don't even think I've been on that property. I've been on the Riverside many times, but not on that property. So, I'm looking forward to having the discussion soon on the next couple items about how we bring that one in. But, um,
I do think it's important to keep. So, thank you. Thank you, staff. >> All right. So, those were the updates. Is there any other questions or comments? All right. Moving into new business. Again, we're going to have a long We have a long day. Um, items A through J. Item A is CRG presentation.
That's been moved to 11:00. Um so we'll start with um administration human resource policy. >> Thank you commissioner. Um one of the initiatives that came from the board initially and then was reiterated with each of the five of you as we talked
about budget initiatives was simply um staff retention. Um, as you know, um, Commissioner Wilkinson, kind of at your spearheading, we assembled a team, um, of county employees from various departments and various levels from entry level. Um, we did not allow any
senior management, if you will, to serve on it. Miss Lorie Parker led and facilitated that um, progress. And out of that, we got a lot of ideas of things they wanted to incorporate. And this is just the first of many of those initiatives that they looked at and said, "Hey, this matters to us." and and
in some respects um things that are very easy for us to align um and make a huge impact for employees and their um satisfaction with their job. So, as you'll see, um I'll go briefly through each one of them. Policy 204, holidays.
The revision seeks to align holiday hours with an employes regular work shift. Um policy 2.05 is our birthday holiday. Again, out of the committee, the revision seeks to provide more flexibility for employees who do not want a birthday holiday. Um, it would
amend it to one personal holiday per fiscal year. Um, again, policy 305, annual leave. The revision seeks to revise how employees on probation acrew vacation leave and also increasing the max carry forward of what you can acrue
before you lose your vacation. um if you have not been able to take those vacation hours and then um policy 411 experience pay. So we currently had a um flat stipen built in and to encourage
the progression of professional development. We simply want to morph that stipen into a reoccurring step that each employee will then have a professional outlet. Even if they remain in that same position for 30 years of employment with Putham County, they can
truly see and we can coach through a professional development program for every employee at every level. >> All right. Very good. Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I applaud staff. I applaud the group that worked on this.
I think it's a great positivity for our for our employees. You know, our employees are our best asset. Um, and I think that we know that and we're trying to make this happen for them a little bit better for them. I do have a couple questions though. >> Fair enough.
>> When I was chairman, it was like, why don't we take off this day with that day, right? >> Yep. >> I got that a lot. Then I got,"Well, the governor shut down. Why don't we shut down? Is there any way that we can maybe
have a very short conversation of allowing the chair and the county administrator, whatever, to make some decisions as we go down. We we know the workload. We understand that. But we also know that, man, a four-day weekend
around Christmas time really good. If it can happen, some days it can happen. Especially Christmas falls on Wednesday where you can't tie the whole week up. I get that. But there's times that, you know, I used to have a day in my office that I had when my employees
and I'm we all have employees and they call up and they're hacking and coughing and and you know, they're not sick. I mean, so I had a day called I feel too good to go to work today. You know, they didn't have to hack and cough. They just said, Larry, I feel too darn good to go
to work today. We've all had that day where you want to go to the beach and enjoy life a little bit. So, I guess my point is what can we do to say the governor takes calls it off. Can we help our employees or there may be a
situation where there's a holiday we didn't put it in our book. We might have should have maybe could have. Who makes that decision? And I just want to have that talk. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I mean, I guess the question is we
certainly will be happy to look into that. We would need to make sure we understand the implications and the unintended consequences to anything like that. Um, but we will certainly talk it through and look at where and how and if those caveats could be incorporated.
Now, these policies presented to you are set to become effective October one pending your approval, but we could always bring you back something um of in trying to meet the intent of your initiative.
>> Commissioner Palis, you're recognized. >> Um I applaud staff for taking these steps. Um that certainly makes us more competitive with the other employers throughout the county. Um and and we do care about our employees and we want to do everything we possibly can to retain
them because uh experienced employee is very valuable, extremely valuable. And um I think I think this is a great thing. Um I know at the uh Georgia Pacific the um um birthday holiday they call a floating holiday >> and they take it anytime they want for
whatever reason they want and u that might be another term you call it. So, just throwing that out there, but this is this is good and I look forward to anything else we can do to improve those relationships with our employees throughout the county. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, and I and I will comment on that. So, when I worked at the water
management, it was a flexible holiday. I don't care what you call it. Um, and I always took mine on Veterans Day because believe it or not, at the water management, they didn't have Veterans Day off. Didn't make any sense, but I always wanted to participate in the Veterans Day parade and and and all of that to honor my dad. So, I think 11
holidays on the books is is good. Um I don't know that I agree with Commissioner Harvey's comments. Um I think that obviously um what it's important to me as a as a government employee for 21 years. I understand the
challenges that we face and so I retention is like you said it's been on my forefront on Mr. Suggs forefront um because I always think that the more you're paying for um hiring and and hiring and training and hiring training,
it cost us more on the long end. And um so I appreciate the fact that we've gone this far. I look forward to what we have in the future to work on and I want to thank the people that served on that committee because you know, you had to talk about things that might not necessarily be comfortable and some of them were simple things, some of them
were a little bit more complex. we went over them and we'll start doing what we can, you know, periodically to make those adjustments. So, thank you for that. Um, Mr. Suggs, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, as you know, we we started this conversation back around January of this year.
>> And so, I do appreciate the fact that you've taken the lead and and are spearheading this process. you know, and going back to uh Commissioner Harvey's comments about trying to look at um opportunities to to maybe mirror the state's uh holiday schedule sometime.
You know, one of the things we tried to do last time and I we looked at it when the governor decided to give I think it was the 4th of July some extra days with the way that we have our staff structured now with the 4-day work week and the things of the nature. We really have to plan ahead for those things. And
so that was a conversation that uh administration has had. So we we'll look at those things and see if there's something we can possibly do in the future. Uh but uh but you know I think uh this past year uh with the 4-day work week and what we're doing today with the policy changes uh with the things that
we we're putting in place and I know there's more things to come I think we're heading in the right direction. uh retainage of staff was something that was very critical to all of us. U you know and making sure that we got our pay scales up, we got our uh our numbers of
folks that were leaving down. Our vacancies are now uh very limited and I think that's all due to the uh the working relationship that administrations have with the board, previous board and this board. So I think we're headed in the right direction. But those those are all
things that we can continue to look at and work on. I think is certainly uh beneficial to everyone. And so uh the only thing I I'm just going to say at this point is is we hear you and we absolutely want to do all we can for our staff. Uh but we need to make sure that
we provide the service level that we can as well. So we'll we'll continue to look at those things and wherever we can adjust we will. >> All right. Very good. Is there is there a motion? >> Yeah. I would move for approval of the revisions presented to the human
resources policy. 2.04 on holidays, 2.05 on birthday holidays, 2.05 on annual leave, and the 4.11 on experience pay. >> Second. >> We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Motion carries. Madam
>> chair, can we take a two minute break? >> Yeah, we can take a break. Thank you, chair. Um the commissioners at the last meeting requested staff amend the procurement ordinance um for some efficiencies in um process and thresholds and so looked at surrounding
counties and truly kind of fell somewhere in between them. Um however, the the recommendations are to remove the requirement of the board chair to cosign. No other county that I can find has that requirement. Um, and from an efficiency standpoint, removal of it uh
is recommended. And to revise the thresholds to the following, I put a grid together to show you what's current as well as what's proposed. And then also um although not asked for, I would ask that we incorporate the budget policy. Currently, our budget policy is
not in a document that gets transmitted to MUN code. And frankly, um, from transparency sake, I would just like it in there. Um that's truly just a staff request. >> All right. Very good. Um so I'll start with this one. We you were um asked to
do this for efficiency purposes at the last board meeting. Um when I look at the attached chart, I see that um of course there's St. John's County in there and comparing Putnham to St. John's County never makes sense in my opinion for a whole host of reasons. I could get on a box of why we are not St.
John's County. Um, so if we take that out because that's truly an anomaly, then when you get up to the quote thresholds, it looks like the cap on for most formal solicitations is 50,000. I believe that to be true. Um, however,
they too have not updated their code since 2019. Um, so where you where you fall, I know that the college um locally is higher than that. Um, I think they're at 250 currently again. And that 250,
just so that you know, that 250 has a correlation, a rational correlation. That's the federal government's declaration of when a bid's required. So, a lot of times when you have federal funding, um, rather than jurisdictions who don't want to apply two sets of
rules because that's what the feds require, um, they will simply adopt the federal procurement thresholds. And that's exactly what St. John's County did because otherwise you have to apply both sets both your local jurisdiction and your federal jurisdiction of
procurement rules into every decision made and then you take the most stringent of each of them. Um and so again that number wasn't made up out of thin air I guess is what I was um conveying. >> I gotcha. Well I wish I had the funding that the federal funds that the federal
government does but we don't. So my concern is is that we already um are at 65,000 and if we move that threshold to county admin um to a 100,000 that's a 54% threshold increase. I'm not I'm not
there. I think that the 60 I'm good with all of the other items being proposed until we get down to county admin um having a threshold up to 100,000 and then the formal bid for the VOCC of over 100,000. I think for transparency purposes
um I would I'm good at 75. I'll give you a 15% increase. Um but I'm not there at 100,000. And it's not anything against admin or our current group. I think you guys do a great job. But when we make these policy changes, we have to look at the future. Who's in these seats in the
future? And um for me, um it's about transparency and risk mitigation. And I just think that um 75,000 is more than what our surrounding counties are doing. And it is reasonable. And so that's that's my recommendation, but I'm only one vote. Commissioner Harvey, you're
recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So my question to you then if um so we're looking at the proposed that'll be three quotes county administrator up to 75,000 would that change the formal bid also to
75,000 and up at that point? >> Yeah I think I mean in my opinion the citizens should see because we won't if I'm correct we wouldn't see anything under 100,000 would be coming in front of the board of county commissioners. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Right. So, I think the citizens for
transparency purposes would want to see things that at 75,000 and up. And again, that's we're already higher than our surrounding counties with the exception of St. John's County, and that still adds a 15% increase. We're at 65,000. I have no problem moving that to 75,000.
>> I think what what kind of started the conversation was staff felt like their hands were tied in trying to move projects out faster and that was a number. And if the surrounding counties, the other ones haven't adjusted theirs since 2019, then, you know, they're
going to be looking at theirs, too. We all know costs went up. But I was, we were I this commissioner wanted to see staff be able to go a little bit quicker and move projects out, but I understand your concern and and it doesn't fall on
death ears at all. So, um I I guess I my question to staff is is 75,000 going to handcuff you or are you still going to be okay at that point? >> I know. I'm sorry. >> So, the question that we keep coming
back to, and this is really from the board, right? $10,000 additional spend threshold on the projects that we work on every single day aren't going to change a lot of the end results. It's completely up to you guys and we'll
work within the parameters, but understand that by the time we have an agenda item or an initiative that needs to be done and then we have to get it to the board of county commissioners, that's what you all as commissioners have said. you have a a problem with the
time frame. And so we're trying to find somewhere in there a happy medium. Um understanding that sure the citizens and the board want some knowledge of what's going on for projects greater than. You have to remember these are budgeted
projects too. So you've already once allocated dollars to the division for its operations andor to the project for its initiative. Um, so the board has been involved in some level one time and then this is the procurement side. So it
truly is y'all's tolerance. Staff will follow any guidance that you provide. >> Thank you. Um, okay. Thank you. Thank you, >> Commissioner Palis. You're recognized. Um, I think Commissioner Alexander's who
originally brought this forward, I seem like um and I I agree with it, but move of upping the amount, but I also fall in line with Commissioner Wilson that um I I just the conservative of me. I'm don't want to turn loose a blank check, so to
speak. Uh, I know some of these bids come back that are um, you know, marginally close, but I think I'd like to for the purpose of guarding the citizens money. I want to be have some knowledge of that. And I also agree with Commissioner Wilson. We're not St.
John's and we're not Mary and we're not Valuchia and we're not uh, any of those other big counties that were listed there. I think when you know Colombia is along our size, uh, get something a little closer to us if we can. and they don't have to necessarily be next door to us, but just get some counties that are within 30 40,000 of our size to kind
of see exactly what they're doing and if it's working there, maybe it'll work here. Um, I think that covers everything I wanted to say. Thank you, Commissioner. >> Well, and if you look at the if you look at the report that she provided, and I appreciate her doing that, the formal solicitations for one, two, three, four,
six of the counties are at 50,000 and we're already higher than that. And I'm not saying that we don't change it because we are changing the threshold for quotes. Um, under the proposed 0 to 5,000 would still remain one with county admin and instead of 5 to 10 for two
quotes, we would have 5 to 25 for two quotes at county admin. 25 to 75 at county admin and taking out the board chair. So that gives them they don't have to wait on the board chair to come in for a signature. But at the same time, 75,000 I do believe in my and this
is just me speaking. It's it's our job to be accountable in good stores of our tax dollars. And I just feel like the citizens should see that. That's my thoughts. Um I'm sorry, Commissioner Newer recognized >> and I don't mean to be contrary, but I I really would like to see some of these projects moved along a little faster. I
think we have a a good set of checks and balances. Um, if we do choose to go with this recommendation, I mean, it really it puts the onus squarely in our administrators administrator and the administrative team's purview. Um, and I do get that
they could change over time and uh I I suppose you could have issue in the future, but I mean not a lot goes on around here that we don't know something about and and I feel like we get good information from that staff. I'm pretty comfy with uh with that level. I mean,
we are certainly not St. John's, but I think we are um on the cusp of growth and activity more so than a few of those other smaller counties that were pulled. Um anyway, I'm I'm pretty comfy with with the presentation. That's just where
I stand. Thank you. >> All right. Um Mr. Suggs, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh first of all, let me just say that uh this end of the DAS here appreciates the level of of respect and trust that you have in the
way that we conduct the county business from day to day. You're right. We didn't ask for this. This this was a directive from the board to come back and and do these things. uh you but one of the things I share with each one of the commissioners is the thing that you guys have done a great job with uh in helping us is
putting together a procurement ordinance that holds us accountable for every dollar that would that we spend and I think that is that is a checks and balance that you have in place that that would allow us to do the things that's being uh proposed here today with some
with with a lot of oversight. I do absolutely agree transparency is is a is a critical piece of this this this process. I appreciate Commissioner Newbold's comments of of not of being that there's very little that you guys don't know about. You guys are very
active. You come to our offices every day and we appreciate that as well. you know, but I will go back and say as staff didn't initiate this conversation, staff uh was excited about the opportunity because we do have a lot of
projects. When Miss Julianne reads the project list, you see just how much work is being done. And sometimes it does become cumbersome to be able to have to tell someone, "No, you're going to have to wait till we get it back in front of the board." And that could be two, three weeks down the road uh for for us to
bring it to the board to get final approval to do what we could have done three weeks earlier. But but it is absolutely uh you guys are the policy setters and we will work with uh uh the tools that are given to us. uh we we have done that for eight years and I applaud my staff
for getting the amount of work done that they've done and with the with the uh procurement being what it is and so uh you know it's it's absolutely uh your decision and we will honor either either way that we go but know that there is an ordinance in place that holds us
accountable and so if uh if there's ever a question uh that is that is certainly the the avenue to take and uh we'll be as transparent with you folks as as we always have been. So, but thank you for the consideration and again you guys are
the policy setters and we'll absolutely work with the tools that that we're given. >> All right, back to the board. >> Madam Chair, um it appears in the recommendation that staff wants to bring back a clean ordinance for adoption. Is that correct? So I I I move that we uh
accept the procurement policy with the exception of um the three quote the 25,000 to 75,000 uh county administrator and the the formal bid will start at 75,000. >> I'll second that.
>> Is there any discussion? We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Right. All in favor say I. I. >> Any oppose? Like sign. All right. Motion carries. All right. Um, is Mr. Kimire here?
>> Yes, right there. >> All right, come on up. We're going back to administration, new business, um, governmental complex, page 465 in your packet >> or your computer.
>> Hey, Joe. Good. So, you were asked today to give us some um potential uses for the phase out renovation for the vacant building here at the governmental complex, which is just the rest of the building for public input or for public knowledge. The rest
of the building here, the old Pantry Pride building. Don't get Mr. Harvey started on his stories, but um yeah, the rest of the building. >> Yeah. So, roughly you have about 19,500 square feet adjacent to the space next to you. >> Could you pull that microphone? I'm sorry.
There you go. Yes. So, you have about 19,500 square f feet. This space adjacent to the the office space you have next door. Um, we were looking at some different options for dividing that space and utilizing it for additional storage. Right now, a lot of storage is
being held in the back of that building. And whether or not we want to maintain, you know, half of the building for that purpose or scale it back, that would be fine. But that would roughly give us around 10,000 square ft to subdivide as we uh or as you see fit. Um in talking
with some people uh they were talking about potentially moving some uh facilities from one location to another. I think one of the opportunities was the the tax collector's office could be moved into this building, bringing them essentially home to the rest of the
county and uh potentially daycare space for people that have uh children that need to that work with the government offices that they can drop off their children and uh it could hold them during the course of the day. Um, and there's also the opportunity for any
kind of locker room, showers, or any kind of physical activity spaces as well. So, those are all kind of the the spaces that we were considering using for the the adjacent space next door. If we and all of these would be uh
uh programs or facilities that would work in the best interest of everybody in the county administration offices and everybody else in the county as well that works for the county. So you have plenty of room. Uh looking at typical sizes, you know, you could
get a a daycare facility, you need about 4,000 square feet for that. office space, you need about 2,000 square ft, you know, for office space for little nodes of different or specialty compartments within the building. So, that's what I've been working on.
And then I was hoping to talk to you and and address the board and say, what do you think would be a good use for some of the spaces in there? Now I know we have a plethora of you know spaces like this. So we don't need massive office or meeting rooms uh and and we have some
conference room spaces but you know that offers another opportunity that we can actually build something out that would be a conference room space that the county could use and it could also be on lease to other people that would want to use the space as well. >> Right. >> It has a lot of frontage on the parking
lot and everything. There's plenty of parking and there's plenty of areas for uh uh see the I don't know how you could say just the the available space is it's present. You know, you're not putting
something in an area where it's already highly congested and you already have a lot of traffic issues. You you have a space that you could potentially put a lot of people in and actually use it for rental space for others in the county. There's not a lot of large rentable spaces in the county and I I know that
some people are looking for it, you know, in the in the uh uh in the realm of 200 people, 200 to 250 people, people are looking for spaces that being in Putnham County and that list is very short on on spaces
that are available. So, it's another opportunity to generate revenue. >> All right. Very good. Um Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And yes, I worked at Pantry Pride as a young man back in the same plaza that I started in. But that's not
the question. The question I have is is a bunch. Number one. >> Sure. >> Um, years ago, we talked about, we've actually talked to a few people who were interested in renting some of that and four offices and large meetings at the same time.
>> But my question to you is, what are the bones of the of the building? I mean, is it is it going to take a lot to rehab that in your professional opinion? I guess I think the roof is good, right? >> If the roof is good, which I haven't been on top, so I don't know about the
roof. I know it has leaks. I think I But >> um it would be like just about any other project. It was a merkantile type space. It was outfitted with old mechanical equipment that basically just came down through the roof. And in order to uh
adjust it for a space that would be what you're talking about for you know office spaces it would go into a general kind of construction costing for renovation. Um it's not really necess because now we're taking something that was uh
providing similar air flows into any kind of Dixie or Publix or something you know where it just has the the rooftop unit that just distributes the air and returns it back in the center to a ducted system. you know, that's going to be a pretty costly endeavor to do something like that. Partitioning the
space and the building into different allocable or rentable spaces. Also, everybody's going to want their own, and we could talk about the logistics of that, but everybody would want their own meter, their own uh, you know, costs associated with just their individual space, unless you worked into some kind of a program where they provided a cost
to you and you just provided uh utilities for everybody. But I mean, it's no more than the cost. It's a lot less than the cost of building anything new. The exterior walls are in great shape. Uh, you have a
large space. The floors, the concrete and the floors there and you have a roof and a ceiling and it's a insulated space essentially. So, you do save a lot on the exterior structure of the building and that's typically between 20 to 25% of the cost anyway. Everything else is going to be on the inside. So,
>> did you look at the other buildings in the plaza too or just that one building? Um, I mean the other rentals down there, the old You probably don't know the old barber shop and the town falies and the >> No, I I really focus just on that. >> Just past the uh Chinese restaurant,
there's three different facilities there if I'm not mistaken that used to be there. Um, and then over towards the veteran center, there's a couple I think one building that's still vacant there. um because I think we need to look at a holistic approach of what we could
possibly do and what we want to do and what's our goal there. Um I do applaud the fact that you know I I'm happy with the fact that they might be thinking about moving into this area the other constitutionals but at the same time I'm
concerned about drying up downtown Palaca if they do do that. So, I don't know the I mean, that's going to be a decision they'll make. But I do think it's time that we look at all of our facilities that we have, just not on this complex, but on this complex to
start with and see what's available, what what can we use? What don't we? We have buildings that have been sitting vacant for years and years and years. And we got people begging for space. So maybe it's time to invest in oursel and and look at building out of what what we
want to look like in the future. And I know we got people knocking on our door asking us. So that's a good problem to have, right? >> Absolutely. Yes. >> I know. So thank you. But I would encourage you. I don't know where your scope of work stopped at, but there's a lot more than just the old Pantry Pride
building. >> Okay. >> In this complex. >> Yeah. I I'll >> And what you probably don't know is the is the grass pad out front used to be an old security feed and seed. Remember that? >> And that was a big building out there.
Uh so even that could be used for something one day if if we had a big master plan of where we're going to go in because look, let's be honest, we got plenty of parking. Parking is not an issue here, okay? It's we don't have a
lot of facilities being used out. That's the key. >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Absolutely. >> Commissioner Palis, you're recognized. >> Um, Commissioner Harvey, I'll take you back a step further. The old KFC and Granny's Roller Rink. >> I remember Granny's roller. >> Not forget that. >> And the Burger Chef.
>> That's correct. >> All right. Same on point. >> We're just going down memory lane a little bit. Okay. >> Big old hamburger though. I tell you that. >> Yeah. Um, since I took this seat, uh, that's been something on my mind that I wanted to see is this whole complex
utilized because it's just sitting here. Uh, and I took a tour over there and you know, if there's a leak over there, it's not a big one. I've not seen anything that's u, and I think I saw staff nodding their head that they re-roofed it some time ago or did some repairs or something along along those lines. Um, I
brought this forward um, several weeks ago and have been kicking this can right on down the road and I'm not going to quit kicking it. Uh, I hope to get two more to kick it with me. Um, we've got great space that needs to be utilized. Uh, downtown is a whole
different issue. I think that's a private sector um situation. Um, I I I apologize for how I brought it forward because coming from the private sector, I don't wait on nobody else. I don't need nobody else. I do it and I make it
happen. And I'm not uh very good at that part of it. So, but in government, I understand that's how it works. It just I uh I was ready to go with it. So anyhow, I would like to invite uh property appraiser, tax collector to the table and get some input from them where
they what they'd see and like to do, but the parking is terrible. Um I've spoke this morning with Mr. Richie, uh our IT man, and he seems to think the idea is a good thing to move this way. Um I u I I just the sign says governmental complex,
and that's what I want to see it utilized as. Now, that parking lot we have out there is it we got a lot of land, but it's not designed very well. It needs some new linage and uh I don't know who drew it, but it's not good. Um and if we needed to add on some parking,
we could do that. As long as the big oak tree don't come down, it stays. >> Um but um no, I want to see this project move forward. I want to have some more conversation. Like I said, bring it and tax collector and property appraiser to the table and let them have some input on it. But, uh, I think bringing them
out here is definitely the way to go to enhance our facility and make it more user friendly. And as I say, one-stop shopping while you're here. You can get your hunting license, fishing license, you can go over and take care of your voter ID card. You got something at building and zoning. Whatever you need to do, you can do it right here. One
stop. And there's because there's no parking down downtown. And that's horrendous. But, uh, anyhow, I want to see this move forward. and you stole a little of my thunder about the uh child care for our employees. That's uh that's that's a bonus that we I'll have in back on my mind. Also,
>> we have not voted on that just for official record. >> Uh Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. And and I'm a little concerned too about competing with private sector on that, but that's okay. We'll get to that conversation. I guess my question now because I I want
to wave in support. I want to move forward. Um, what does that mean? What does that mean when Commissioner Palace says he gets a couple more on board? You know, in our business, it takes three to to move things forward. So, where do we go from here? You're standing here
saying we got good bones, right? >> We got space for parking. Might not be exactly the right lines, but we can fix that. That's that's might be the cut to run back with the master plan. Can we I just ask a question. Is I mean some very high
level direction would help. >> Do you want 15,000 foot of office space? Do you want 5,000 foot of retail? Just some generalized real high level. >> Well, since I have the floor, I think there's no doubt that we talked to it
years ago and that's something they need to do and if you ever went up to their building, that's terrible up there. So that's the the lowhanging fruit right now. And then building out maybe just big spaces right now where we can clean
it up, put a floor in there, put walls, and then how do you want to look like? What do you need? Okay. Yeah. >> I remember when I first got here, the business park, um it was a conversation about dividing that up. And I said, "No, we don't need to do that. Just leave it whole and let you tell us what you want
to do with it." So I think we need to look at the whole plaza and I agree the tree needs to stay but you know what what do we look at? Do we have good bones or do you say that needs to go this can be combined we could take that office building to make a bigger veteran
service >> you know there I think those are the conversations we need to have right now and say that's what we want to look at in the next few months. Okay. So, I know I know. Are you done for a second? >> I feel like this needs to be a workshop um or some other further bigger
conversation because um we're not going to figure that out today. And and and there's some questions that has to be answered. One of those is is funding obviously that's a big deal. Um how how do you fund it, right? And then what is it you're trying to accomplish and and
all of those things. So I think um now that we know that there's good bones um we have to do some kind of costbenefit analysis to come back and say you know is it better to have retail? Is it better to have it for other offices?
What does that cost mean to us? And um that's where I'm at is I think we just have to schedule a workshop. Um Commissioner Pelar, I know you had your your button pushed. Is that >> I did I retracted it. If you want to workshop it that's fine. But the um I still feel like it's governmental complex and that's where it needs I
don't I don't want to see money wasted on uh making it uh you might say just versatile that oh you could go this way you go that way know what you're doing from the start build it that way and save a lot of money whatever >> and I think those are conversations we work out in the workshop I think you
know like you said to have some of the constitutionals come forward and >> absolutely >> and and have all that that meeting publicly. >> Absolutely. >> All right. And and so I guess what we would be looking at in the future is what would the cost be on a roughly I don't know if there's a range of square footage and I know that's going to
depend on what we do in that square footage. >> Of course. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Joe. Appreciate you. >> All right. Um we are in impact fee discussion on replacement structures.
>> Is that in our packet? >> Thank you, chair. That's a discussion. It's in your packet. Um so we're final in the finalized details of our go live date for impact fees. Water and wastewater as you remember when we passed the ordinance did not have a um kind of dormant phase in approach. So
they're active but the general impact fee active date is set for September 8th. Um a question has arisen on how to uh treat replacement units. We've researched it, staff has researched it. We've consulted with other
jurisdictions. We've also consulted with our consultant that we engaged as well as legal counsel. Um so the current application is that if a structure was on a parcel as of March 1, 2024, the property is exempt from an impact fee if
they were doing a replacement a like forlike change out of that structure. They were going to demo and rebuild the same like forlike structure. um March of 2024 was the engagement of the consultant making it the default date or the assessment of land in its current
state was assumed as the cost factor in how we determine appropriate fee structures. So remember impact fees are all based in the um analysis behind the math and making sure the math stands
true to litigation. And so everything we do impact fee related comes back to validating how we got that fee for the math of what the implication what the impact fee application is going to be the methodology.
>> All right. Commissioner Harvey. >> Thank you Madam Chair. So, my concern yesterday was this and when I sat down with staff was, let's just say general public person A built a house in April of 2024.
>> Could they could they expand their home >> after that date? >> And the answer is yes, they could do that. Um, I think that was my biggest heartburn was to make sure that and and I don't mind going back to that date that we accepted or we engaged with the
consultant. I think we got to we got to land on some date. I just want to make sure that the the public because we had one today where the person couldn't rebuild because of zoning and that's a whole different conversation. But, you know, if somebody build a home and
something happened to it, we sure don't want them to have to pay an impact fee based on that date. So, um, that was a concern of mine and I've been assured that that's not going to happen. So, um, I'm in support of that date. Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Let's be clear on what we're talking about. So what we're saying is if there was a structure on a property before March of 2024 that's gone. So it was built whenever it was built but that structure that house we'll use single
family residents. >> That structure is not in place in February of 2024. >> They come to our they come and they want to rebuild that house. They would have to pay the impact fee >> because we have set a hard date.
in part because when the consultants conducted their analysis of what vacant property was, they viewed that as a vacant piece of property. So the impacts that come from rebuilding um the impacts are what they considered
to present to you. >> So the fact that they use data going all the way back to 2010 doesn't has no consideration >> to 2010. >> Um yeah, we did. I mean I I have it right here >> 2019 >> 2019 I think >> there's information in here that goes
back to 2010 >> there may be information >> when they talk about population when they talk about other things there is data in there for 2010 >> so madam chair some of it's I would refer to it as window dressing I mean some of it's background and information as to what the progression of growth is
through the county but the statute that passed I was last year the year before says they have to use data from the 12-month time period So even though it's in there, I don't know that that necessarily is part of the consideration for the calculation in the methodology.
>> Well, one of my concerns is um when we looked at this, I mean, I think we all across the board said we didn't want to hurt our current citizens and we didn't have the option apparently of taking and saying, well, the current citizens don't have an impact fee, but if they go to
build something new, like my children, your children, but the new people coming into we didn't get to differentiate. I mean, that's against the law. we can't pick and choose. We all worked that out and hammered that out. So, um, my challenge is when I thought that they weren't going to have to pay an impact
fee because there was a structure in place at some point in the past, I didn't know there was a like a a time frame on that. I was hoping that we would lessen the burden from our existing citizens. You know, it'd be nice to So, are you saying, Mr. commando
that other than the March of 2024 date or is there can we go back and like talk about the fact that there was a moratorum in place and and those kind of things >> you can set that hard and fast date at whatever the commission wants that date to be but what this is what I mentioned
to commissioner Harvey on a separate topic whatever date you pick somebody's going to come forward with something that's prior to that >> oh I understand that I understand that so um Zach can you tell me when our moratorum when we we took impact fees from 2006 to
what time in 2009 or 10. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh so the impact fees were adopted on October 10th of 2006 with an effective date of February
1, 2007. The moratorum was passed with ordinance 20092 March 1st, 2009. >> March 1st, 2009. Well, one thing I think for sure, and I'll I'll use Mr. Grimes as an example, he likes to tell us that
he paid an impact fee when he bought his house. So, I think Mr. Grimes should never have to pay an impact fee again because he's already paid his impact fee. So, is there already an exception for people that have paid their impact fees? If he were to tear his house down and then two years later his daughter
inherits the property, would she have to pay the impact fee? >> His structure was standing as of March 1, 2024. So, it was calculated as a structure that had a impact already. So, no, if Mr. Grimes demos his
house tomorrow and does not build it back for 5 years, he doesn't have an impact fee. >> Okay. Okay. So, do we have any situations where people would fall into that category where they've paid an impact fee in the past and their house might not be standing as of March 2024?
We don't know that. If if we did, it would be minimal, right? >> And hypothetically, we could always have a scenario. I just wouldn't I just think that somebody shouldn't have to pay the impact fee twice. That's that's I didn't know if that was an exception we could make. >> I I agree and I'm always cautious about
legally making exceptions because again then you start to affect the defensibility of the methodology. Um I don't know that we've had anyone that has come to us with that scenario. If they do then we'll do everything we can to work with them. >> Okay. All right. Commissioner Pel,
you're recognized. First off, >> first off, let me make it very clear. I'm in favor of impact fees. We have to have impact fees to be able to take care of the people in our county for the amount of growth that is about to be brought upon us. Um, and I'm unclear and
and Mr. Commando, I may need some guidance or Miss Young or Mr. Grimes, whoever has that knowledge. I'm going to reference a a family piece of property in Boston that I know of that um they are giving their son five acres. There's
a well and septic already there. I don't know if there was a house there or a mobile home, but anyhow, it was already the utilities were there or still are there. How does that affect them? >> They would have to pay them back. In that scenario, if there was an old
family home there on March 1, 2024 as the family was building their other home, then they would not pay an impact fee. If that's been a vacant parcel or they're splitting it off from a different parcel and creating a whole new parcel, then it would have an impact
fee. >> And that would be regardless of date. If we create a new parcel um regardless of date of application that scenario is we have taken one parcel who had a single family house on it and we took that one
parcel and made two parcels with two single family houses on it which is the impact. >> I understand what you're saying and it does make some sense to me. I just don't like that close of date. I don't like that close a date. Um
I I mean there's I don't think there's a massive amount of these scattered throughout the county, but I do think there's some. Um but I just don't like the idea of um to me that impact of of whatever that was done
at that time even though there's not a home there has been created in my mind. Doesn't make it right. It just makes it mine. I understand we don't like it, but legally we can't do it because the assumption there is that son is now going to move a
family in that house and you're going to have two families now residing on a parcel which one had one at one time had one. Um I totally understand and we and that's where we talked about in the very beginning for lifelong residents lifelong residents who have bought
property for the hope of having a child that wants to live next to them. It is it stinks. But it's also the cost of doing business for the government and to ensure we provide the services.
>> So legally, you're saying that we cannot go any further back than this March date of 2024. >> No, go ahead, Rich. >> No, we just said you have to pick a date that's uniform and fair that gets applied to everyone.
>> Give me some parameters of what that date may be for window. So I mean can it be four years, five years, six years, 10 years? I don't know. I >> think the further you go back, the harder it is to defend because again you're you're basing not you the consultant based the methodology on 12
months of data. >> Okay, I'm done. Commissioner Nebo, >> as I understand it, they took a a window of time and I thought it was more than a year. I thought it was a greater period than that. I thought it was five years, but anyway, they they they had a number
and they said, "Hey, there's this many structures out there, so we're going to be able to potentially have impact fees on all these other structures." So the farther you go back, the the less effective this process is. Um,
is that is that is that correct? >> So the the reason we hire consultants is because they're a lot smarter than I am. Um, but a lot of factors go into how they make that calculation. Some of it is what the cost of the different service the government provides was at
that time. Okay. And I I that was my understanding of why the legislature wants the um the data used in the methodology to be for a 12-month period because the cost of something five years ago. So if you you try to bridge that
gap to the cost today is significantly greater than it would have been just for the past 12 months. >> And this is really just related to parcels that previously had a home on them that there is no home existing now. I mean, if you just left it wide open, I could tell you I had three homes on my piece of property in 1812.
>> That's another dilemma. >> Yeah. So, I mean, we got to pick a date. So, um, it was my understanding that that there was some fiveyear data here. I would be comfortable with going back five years. It gives
folks some time, but it it's not a terribly burdensome time period. I say we suck it up for a 5year period and run forward. >> I mean I do see that there's it says right here land sales between 2019 and 2024 were used. Um so you can flip
through the um and there is different data in here. Um this one's between 2019 and 2024 depending on um you know which which topic they're looking at. Mr. Grimes, you're recognized.
>> Yeah. Being my scenario was brought up, I want to bring up the scenario. Um, I may be one of the largest families in the county that's been here the longest. And in 2009, when I built my home, there was two houses on that parcel of property. The county land development
code made me divide a piece of property up. They told me I couldn't have more than 25 one home on 25 acres. Now, there was two homes on that master track land. I got to pay an impact fee because that didn't count because the next home
because I had to divide the parcel in two. So that real life scenario happened to me. I had to pay it. I paid the $9,000 back in 2009 for my home. So this scenario has happened. I mean if we're talking about how we did it in the past, I mean how was implemented in the past, it was not
a concern back then because I approached this board in 2009 and asked why was it impact? because there was two homes on that piece of property and it's because I had to divide it in two. So that real world scenario has happened. Sixth generation on the same piece of property. So I mean at some point, you
know, how fair is it to go back, right? Because I want a $9,000 refund uh for my seat because I paid it, right? Because of the exact scenario you guys are trying to digress and go back to. I paid that fee. My family owned that land for hundred and something years and by the action of the board caused me to do it.
There was no consideration back then. I mean, it was a hard fast deadline. And the problem is it had two homes on the property. Could document both of them. Both of them had a well and a septic tank for both homes. I still got to pay it because it was 30 foot on the other side of the new arbitrary property line we had to make in order to divide an
agriculture property back to 25 acres. >> I'm I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry you had to deal with that, buddy. Yeah, but but if I had to pay, why is it not fair for everybody else to have to pay it? >> I get your point, Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized.
>> I'm still trying to digest that, Madam Chair, but I am sorry, too. But let me ask you this. I got a couple questions. I heard a March 1, 2020 going back to that date. Is that correct? >> Uh was it 2019? What was it you said,
Commissioner? >> I just I just specified five years. >> Okay. that that takes us back to 2020. I I need to ask this qu. Is that a defensible position to the attorney? And I know that's hard to I know it gets
less defensible the farther we go out, right? Yes. I when the core of having a defensible position is that it's applied uniformly across the county. So yes, I think the if you go back five years, I think that's a defensible
position. I mean, it's again, I'm not certain how many properties are going to fall into the category of having had a structure and then no longer having a structure that would try to claim an exemption from the impact fee. I guess we could go back and look at um some of the solid waste adjustment board or
value adjustment boards where people indicate that they no longer should pay taxes because they don't have a structure on the property anymore. Again, how many of those come up a year? Maybe two, three. >> I agree. So the other part is assuming Commissioner Palisier said his example
if they had a well and septicate you almost had to think there was some kind of resident sitting there. >> I would I would >> I don't know that I mean I understand the thought process but I don't know that that I mean that could also go back significantly further than five years. I
I get that. But do we have a caveat in our ordinance right now that if somebody paid if the JR Grimes of the world pay the impact fee? Do we have something in there that we can say if you paid it
then you don't have to pay it again period? >> Again, we haven't had that come to us as a concern. So I we haven't even started looking into >> but if that wouldffect >> if we did have I mean if we did have somebody that stood up and said I paid the impact fee I don't have a residence
right now but I want to build one. We don't even have a mechanism to talk about it do we? >> Well that's where I think as staff we would have to talk to them and we'll work through kind of >> again a lot of things depend on timing. When did you pay the impact fee? What was there? Is the structure that's still
there there now? So remember the other part is the impact fees is not a person. >> The impact fees is attached to that land and residence, right? >> So if JR picks up and moves a block down the road and says, "Hey, I don't want to pay the impact fee because J.R. paid it
once." >> No, I was referring to land. I was I apologize. >> I'm not talking person. I'm talking you paid it on that partial land. Do you ever pay it again? And that if because we're going to go back >> that's what we're talking about right
here, right? It it you guys are going to have to pick a date by which we say if there was a structure on this date then you're exempt from paying the impact fee for a like forlike swap. If there was not then you have there's an impact fee.
>> So what's going to prove that? Is it a demolition permit that's going to say I have one there? because we hear all the time people demo their homes and don't get a permit. I mean, so >> so the the advice of the c of the consultant and legal counsel was that
the applicant wishing to claim the exemption is responsible for proof of the criteria. So that >> you know I I don't know that we would want to create a definitive list of what that means because
um I would imagine that people may have a number of ways of proving it. You know maybe maybe they've got a family photograph in front of a house and now that house isn't there. Maybe they've got an electric bill. I mean I I think there's probably a number of different ways that if there was a structure there they could prove it and try to show when it was there.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. the closer we if we don't go back too terribly far. I mean, the property appraisers got good GIS data for, you know, more than five years. I mean, you could look at anybody's parcel and tell if there was a home there recently. Unless you get back too far and that's
pretty good data and if it's up to the the applicants um you know, if it's their responsibility, I think it can be done within five years. >> So, the report was done um on a 2024 time frame, but it does it go back to fiscal year 2019 or 2020? That's the
question that I have because I think he was talking about a fiveyear time frame. It looks like is it fiscal year 2019 >> that the report was based on you mean? >> Yes, sir. And and while he's checking that out, um Commissioner Paliser, >> um Miss Young, um
>> you said the impact fee is attached to the property, correct? So, Mr. Grimes, he says, "I'm leaving. I'm going to move two miles down the road and build a new house." He's got another impact fee >> if it's a big piece of property that he's moving to. >> To easy to move to and and his impact
fee, whoever he sells his house to, old house is theirs and they're >> it's in the value of that home he's selling. >> Okay. And a tax record would prove that there was a structure on this property talking about something becoming. I I can't support that 24 date at all, but I
can line up with Mr. Commissioner Newold on on the five-year deal. It's certainly more within my realm of acceptance and I'm not super happy with that but it's I understand we have to pick a date and we have to something to stand on but that I think's being pretty fair as you know
going back that far. >> Sure. And to answer your question, um the data it looks like was fiscal year 19 >> is we pulled all of that data. Now then the consultant analyzed that data to come up with and how much weight they
put in in 19 versus 24 only the consultant could answer but that is the data we provided to them. >> So fiscal year fiscal year 19 equals 10 beginning 1018. >> That's correct. >> That's correct. All right. Um Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized.
Thank you, M. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, in I still got to get one more thing clear in Mr. Grimes's situation. That was that was almost mandated by the county. >> You're welcome. >> That was mandated by the county that you
had to do this and that second structure did not fit into that lot line. I think there needs to be a caveat when the county mandates that you do that. You had two structures there to begin with. I totally see your point. And just
because the lot line didn't make it to that second structure, you got penalized >> based on what the county needed you to do. >> I got a problem with that. >> Me, too. >> I think if I can tell you do. I can tell you do. >> Listen, Jar's just trying to get his
$9,000 back. He ain't getting $9,000. Keep done with that >> with interest if I could. >> No, I think you're okay there. But I think the point needs to be made that if it the county says we need you to do this and there and it cuts you out. There ought to be some exception for
that in my opinion. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> All right, back to the board. We have a suggestion from Commissioner Nubold. Um Mr. Nubal, do you want to go back to the data that was used which start begins at 10118 fiscal year 2019? Is that your
proposal? >> Well, I'd like to keep it the the smallest window time frame we can um you know around that fiveyear period. I mean, if that stretches it out to a sixth year, I'd like to move it to five years. >> Does that stretch it to six years?
>> I think the point was that it had to be defended. >> Well, So if if you're just saying five years, what's the what are you basing that on? >> Um >> five years, >> right? Yeah. >> We are like our go live date September,
isn't it? >> Yes, sir. September 8th. >> Five years prior to that. >> It's your motion, sir. >> I'm not sure exactly how to state it, but let's see. I might like to make our time certain. Um
should instead of September 1st, should it be um the end of August? What does it need to be? >> Well, it' be September 7th technically because a day prior um and that would be of 2020, right? >> Of 2020. Okay. I would I would craft the
motion that way with the date of September 7th, 2020 to make that our time certain for um I what do you call this? Demolish structures or >> it's for the uh application of the
replacement structures. >> Okay. For the application of replacement structures as as they pertain to the impact fee. >> All right. We have a motion on the floor. >> With some heartburn, I can second that. Okay. All right. Any further discussion?
>> I do have Madam Chair. I didn't hit my light. I >> fine. You're fine. >> I see your point in the packet. If we're using 19, does one more year make a difference? And is that defensible? And I think if we
I think Adam Putnham when he said you can't defend the undefensible but if we're using data back to 19 >> fiscal year >> fiscal year 19 I think that's a defensible position and
I think we should look at that 19 date and say we use the data for 19 then we should go back to that 19 date. That's what I'm going to say. Thank you. >> All right. We have a motion and a second
for um >> September 7th, 2020. >> A little more discussion. >> Yeah, you can even vote against it if you want. >> I don't want to, but we can fix it whenever you want. I if is Commissioner Harvey's uh motion or his ID
>> hasn't made he can't make a motion till I finish. >> I'm not making a motion. I'm asking a question. Is that defendable? >> I'll be able to tell you as soon as we get sued >> no matter >> but but again just because the information we provided them was at 2019
that doesn't mean that that was the data that was used for the methodology. In fact, under the statute, I don't think they can use it. That's like I called it window dressing. That's going back further just to give you a a snapshot in time to give you a picture of what the changes have been.
>> All right. >> Okay. I got another question. >> Oh, >> so let's go down to Commissioner Paliser's question again. I know everything we do is, you know, we're we're open to lawsuit. I I get
that. But what you're trying to say or what I'm hearing you say is that the new law basically says the look back period is here. And that's more of a defensible position.
See, that's I I think we we either go back to 19 or we completely get rid of 1920 20 and we go back to 2024 because what I'm hearing you say is that might be the actual methodology that was
used. That's what I'm hearing you say. >> I I'll recraft my motion to go back to that 19 date if that'll make it simpler. >> I think he went in the opposite direction. >> Well, I went in the opposite direction in the opposite direction. It doesn't matter what date. I I think we just need to >> We're going to be sued. No one way or
the other. I'm sure somebody's going to say, "I'm going to challenge >> that." That's right. You know, I want to give some grace to people that are going to fall into this little spot. >> But we can say we use the data back to 19. >> That's fine. >> At least if we say 20, well, where did you come up with that at? Well,
>> all right. You want to remove your motion? >> I'll just amend that motion to change it back to the the date of uh what is that? September 7 of 19. 2019. Is that what I'm hearing? >> Well, if we if we're saying the fiscal year of 2019, that puts it back to
10118. The question on the table earlier was how far did the data go back? And if you look in here, there's there's references se through that says fiscal year 2019. Fiscal year 2019 begins on 10118. So, it's a it's one of the this is a
tough decision, right? Because it's like you're going too far back, you're going not far back enough. How do you pick it? But it's got to be have some correlation. So, I don't I um whatever your pleasure is, Commissioner, if you're saying um
what are you saying? >> September is in fiscal year that year. So I think we're >> fiscal year's beginning October 1st. >> Correct. But I but September 7th of 19 is still in that fiscal year of 18.
>> I got you. >> If if you pick that that 19 day, I mean it's five years. I get it. You know, fiscal years, um, calendar years, all all that jazz that that it's a it's a fiveyear period. There's no perfect date. I don't
>> There's no perfect date. So, you just want to stick with your >> Yes. With with the >> All right, let's start all over. Erase everything. Start all over with the brand with Start all over with your motion. >> Remove their motion. >> Yeah, remove your motion or amend it back to where you want it to be. >> I'll withdraw the motion and restate it
that I'd like to set our time certain date for the is it September 7th, 2019? >> All right, we have a motion on the floor. >> I will second that with even less heartburn. Thank you. All right, we have a motion to second. Any further
discussion, >> comments from Mr. Commando. All right. All in favor say I. >> I. Motion carries. Thank you, Commissioner Newold. That was painful. >> I'm sorry that was so cumbersome.
>> Me, too. It is what it is. We have to work through these things. Um, a request to advertise for a public hearing to vacate Trade Winds Court. [Music] Good morning. This is just the first
meeting to request to advertise. Uh, Tradewinds Court is off of Mlan Boulevard, um, down in Crescent City where we're doing a dirt to pave. Tradewinds Court is an undeveloped rideway. Um, one of the residences actually has their driveway on this
rideway, but we don't have any use for it. We don't have any drainage behind there. There's no drainage easements behind that property. Um, so we don't have at this time a problem with it, but we, again, this is just requesting to advertise
setting a public hearing at a later date. Commissioner Harmy. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Is this a road? This road's in Crescent City proper, the town of Crescent City. >> No, I'm sorry. It's in the Crescent City area. >> It's county.
>> All right. So, what you're asking us to do today is set it for the next next date. Okay. I'm good. Thank you. Right. >> Is there anybody here in favor or against this item? >> All right. What's the pleasure of the board? >> Madam Chair, I move that we take this
item to the next available meeting of the board of county commissioners. >> Second. >> I think it says on here se September 23rd specific. >> We need the 30 days for >> Yeah. >> September 23rd. >> Okay. So my motion is for September
23rd, 2025 90. >> Second. >> All right. Motion second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> All right. While you're there, you want to talk about road restriping fiscal year 2025. Is that you? >> Yes. Uh we came in, we we put out the
roads for restriping. Our budget is 139,000 and change. Uh it came in 70,000 something short uh from the proposed bid. And so I just need direction from the board to value engineer it down to the current budget or can we fund it to
the full price? >> Commissioner Palister, you're recognized. Uh this is a safety issue and I don't think that's a negotiable term. I think we find the money in reserve somewhere where we'll take care of this and and u take care of this because it's strictly a safety thing. Um
you know dark nights, rainy roads, that type thing. It's very much a hazard and I think we need to fund it by any means possible. >> Okay. >> I noticed in the data there were three different styles of striping. This is all we asked for three different styles
just to see what would be manageable. Of course, thermo is going to last longer. It's brighter, but this one is only paint. It's paint only. >> Okay. >> And some of these are some residentials that'll last a lot longer than what it would on, you know, I wouldn't recommend doing paint on County Road 308. >> Uh just because of the amount of traffic
that's on there, but these roads can handle the paint. >> Okay. And that would come from reserves. >> Uh transportation reserves most likely. >> Okay. >> All right. Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized. Have a motion on the floor. >> No, not yet. We don't. Do we?
>> I'll make it a motion. >> I thought you did. I'm sorry. >> Hang on, Dan. Will >> I agree with Commissioner Palis here. I think this is safety >> and I think it's time to move this short. We've kind of underfunded some of this for a while and it's really time that we bring this thing up and and go
ahead and make the if it's short 74,000 then let's find the difference and go forward with that. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Uh Mr. out. This is this lesser grade of paint is going to be used on more um residential areas, not high traffic as you said, 308,
>> not the major county roads. No, sir. >> So, you need a motion? >> Yes, please. >> I make a motion that we um retrieve this money from the reserves of the public works department to fund this and uh take care of this issue. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion second. Any
further discussion? All in favor say I. I I >> motion carries. All right. Now, um commissioners, we are at a point. Um it is 11:46. I need to understand we have four budget items moving forward. Do we want to push through or through
lunchtime or do you want to break and come back after lunch? >> I personally would like to push through, but I you know I I'll roll with the rest of you. >> Okay. >> I will go along with Commissioner Nubold. I know he has a busy uh grape afternoon and I want to help him get there.
>> All right. All right. With that being said, um staff, >> Miss Young, thank you. >> Sorry guys, >> thank you. >> Yeah, >> no problem. So, we're into budget development now. Um so, there are three different items and I think uh maybe
we'll take them independently so that we can keep conversations in one box, if you will. The first um conversation that needs to be had is does the board want or desire to fund the BOCC discretionary projects. Um of course these project the
funding comes from general fund reserves. In years past we've allocated $200,000 per district. The funds still have the stipens um that they have to be um otherwise lawful um a purpose of a taxpayer funded project. It must be
one-time or a capital expender pro expenditure project. Cannot create a reoccurring obligation. They must fully comply with the procurement ordinance. Um and that the fund balances are reported during the quarterly budget reports.
>> All right, Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized. >> Madam Chair, I think this is one of the best things we've done. It's a kind of a I look at it as a um it's not a slush fund. It's a strike force fund for me. I look at when staff has a has something they need done or we hear it in the
community, then we can move pretty quickly. So, I support this um 200,000 per commissioner um discretionary project fund. >> Is that a motion? >> It is a motion, Madam Chair. >> Is there a second? >> Yes, there is. >> Any further discussion?
>> Yeah, I'd like some discussion. Um I mean, these funds come from our reserves. I these monies are going to be spent on worthwhile projects within our districts. I'd like to see that that number increased a little bit.
Do you have a suggestion? >> I'd like to see it go up at least 50,000. I I would I would push for I'd push for 100,000. >> I would amend my motion to for every commissioner's district to be 250,000. >> I will amend my second. Further
discussion. All in favor say signify by saying I. I. Motion carries unanimously. FTE positions. >> Yes sir. Yes madam chair. So staff is recommending some additional positions in the following divisions to satisfy the increased demand and services on these divisions. We do recognize that
there are a lot of departments that are seeing the increased demand. Um but we're striving to do this um incrementally if you will provide some FTEES this year to those departments that are seeing the most critical service level demands and then to continue working towards in future years
augmenting staffing levels um to balance out the in the future. So based on conversations that we've had with each of the five of you um we know that veteran services is uh in desperate need of some additional staff based on the number of veterans that they serve in
our community. codes enforcement, parks and recreation, and the proposal is for eight fire rescue members, seven of them being um firefighter, medics, EMTs, and then one um departmental trainer, which will develop a job descriptions later. All of these positions have been
tentively placed in our very fluid budget at this point. Um but they are tentively there, but we do need board approval on the FTEES. >> That that was going to be one of my questions. Um do we have the fiscal impact? Do we know what that is? I do not have that off the top of my
head, but I can certainly get it to you. >> Well, if we're working it in our budget, I mean, I think that it's obviously you feel like we have it covered. >> Yes, I do have it covered. Again, tenatively, it's still very fluid. The state has still not released revenue projections. They have one job once a
year and we don't have them yet. But that's a side note, I guess. Um, >> really? >> Well, and it might roll in and and and >> yeah, y'all didn't feed me. What's happening? >> This is what happens at lunch time. Well, and it might roll into the conversation we're about to have
regarding whole bucks on this conversation, but okay. Um, Commissioner Harvey, you recognized. >> Thank you. And I didn't mean to laugh on on, but you know, you're right. They one job, right? Let's get it over with. Uh, I support these FTE positions. I I think
it's very important. I I spent a lot of time yesterday with staff and JR with the uh fire rescue. I think that's going to be a really good stepping stone to get where we need to get. Um so I support all this. U there's no doubt
there's no doubt people are using our parks and recreation more and more codes enforcement. We need to get that up and veteran services. We can't do enough for our veterans. So I support that. Madam Chair, >> do you want to um go into the next conversation or vote independently?
>> Vote independently, please. >> All right. >> Madam Chair, I move approval of the FT FTE positions as stated in our packet. >> Second. >> I have I have a motion and a second. >> Second by Commissioner Newold. Any further discussion? >> All in favor say I. >> I.
>> Any oppose? Like sign. All right. Motion carries unanimously. So again, Commissioner um or chair, as we have talked, we've had budget 101 ones with each of you guys, actually multiple times with some of you um and staff is doing everything we can at
exploring millage reductions up to and including hitting that roll back rate without any further adjustment to your constitutional offices. We know um we've heard from them that they don't have anything to give. They don't have anywhere that they can yield savings. And so um when we look at millage
reductions, it has to come solely from the board side. What we do every single year is we take 20% of net new revenue and we um restrict it for the board to direct how they want those funds to be spent. Now, important to note when with
these numbers as we talk about this, this would be um about 750 of that came from the economic incentive plan that we were on the books for with GP that's been satisfied. So, think of that as your obligation is
clear and that revenue that that their property is generating is now kind of released as free dollars. So, not all of that came from just value assessment, right? In fact, the majority of that um came from that GP dollars being released
or satisfied. So, what we need to know at this point or what I need to know as we finish out the budget cycle is what is the BC BOCC's direction for those those dollars? And if we're at our current millillage, then you've got about 950. Again, 750 of that is from
GP. If we're talking about millillage at the roll back, you've got about 800 grand that's sitting in your BOCC. Again, 750 of that is from GP. >> Commissioner Harvey. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think what's important right now, and this board has
strived over the years to get that mill is down and down and down, and we're close as we probably have ever been since I've been on this board to go to that roll back rate. Not because the Doge thing and not because that makes
the headlines and not I'm not worried about that. I think, you know, for years we had a commissioner that really wanted to go to roll back all the time. We just couldn't get there. We tried so hard. And this year, if and and again, let's
let's be honest, some constitutionals didn't get everything they wanted, but they got close and they got But this is the year that we could take that and almost get and I don't I want to be clear. I don't care what the number is.
If we can make it to the roll back, fine. If we can make it halfway to the roll back, I'm fine. But I think that's my goal with that money right there is to find that that place when you come to me and say I feel comfortable at this
number. Then we've done the best we can for the citizens money of Putnham County. That's where I stand at. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Okay. I think the question on the table is regarding the the percentage um the the roll back. I'm sorry regarding that. Um,
where am I going back? >> The 20 >> the holdback funds. I'm sorry I didn't have it right. What is it um you're putting that towards? Is that correct? >> Right. So, I think what Commissioner Harvey's advocating for is to chip away at the roll back as much as possible while maintaining the other initiatives that we've already discussed.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. Any further discussion? Right. Does you need a motion on that? >> Motion consensus something. And I I need to make sure we we know that this is where the board wants to go. >> Wave in support. >> Wave in support. Consensus. >> Yeah, I'm okay.
>> Consensus. All right, >> I can work with it. >> All right. Um, next agenda item um capital improvement plan. >> So, this is your um first round. There will be a final draft. There will be a few changes. What you will see um the majority of those changes be is a fun a
final count of your carry forward projects. Those numbers are changing every single day. We're working with contractors to see just how close they're going to be on September 30th so that we can make sure we come in to next year's with um the correct amount of money. What you see as um from your
departments as to what they need to sustain their operations for next year. That's in the fiscal year 26 column. Capital cost is that that would be new capital cost for next year. Not talking about carry forward projects but true
new. All of those funds will be funded through the reserve uh pots with the exception of there will be a transfer there's a proposed transfer to the east put utility fund in the amount of $10.3 million. The funding covers the estimate
of the budget needed for the phase three expansion and the p purchase of the adjacent property. Those funds are proposed to be established as a loan from the general fund to the East Putnham Utility and then will be due back as impact fee revenues generate the
adequate funding to make us whole again. >> I'll start the conversation. Uh, a couple things. Um, thank you for putting this together. I want a capital improvement plan on an annual basis and I want to make sure that we're when we have discussions up here. You know, we
talk about all these projects that we're working on, but at the end of the day, we got to put the numbers on the columns to see what money we have. Do we have the funding? And you included in this the projects that we talked about, Tangle Wild and um Dun Creek and um
>> and and what was the other one? Georgetown. they are included as to be funded through BPP which is the next item. We'll go through a detailed budget on those um items. >> Okay. I just have one other question. Um and during this in this capital plan, uh
Mr. Grimes, regarding St. John's Harbor, I know we talked about we were going to put a million dollars into that plant. We haven't done that yet. Um but what's the long term? Am I getting ahead, Mr. Lean? I could tell you're looking at me. >> You're not ahead, but the board did already put the million dollars there.
Um but we do not have the capital projects budgeted um for what how that million dollar spend is going to occur. >> So that was my question. It's not in this plan. >> I don't >> we I know we approved it but it's not in the plan is what I'm saying. >> Right. Those would have had to be individual items because I don't have to
lean on Mr. Nolles just a little bit because he's doing some last calculations on that uh retention area pond that's due. Um we've got some of the other small projects done. the the fences should be getting stood back up here pretty quick and refence that piece that borders uh
West River Road. Trying to stay on the right side river. West River Road. Um there's other things that they're doing inside there that might not necessarily make a capital project. I mean, they've done some tank repair, um different air compressors and things like that that have been done in there that not necessarily every one of them would hit
what you would consider to be your capital improvement plan, but there has been multiple initiatives that have been done inside the plan. you'll probably see coming before you guys soon the replacement of the high service pumps. Uh they're working through trying to find one that's actually going to flange and bolt up to that particular thing
without having to replplum the plant which is had been somewhat difficult to find a a plumbing design the same. So Miss Kayla Wy and her staff are working through that now trying to get all of that stuff back up to speed. >> Okay. And when I look at this um
when I Oh, I have one other question. a line item. It says new roof on FHP building $100,000. >> Someone that's the building that we own in East Palatka on 17. It used to be the high the Florida Highway Patrol
building. Um the county owns it and it needs a new roof. >> It is being utilized for >> it's currently being utilized uh by fire rescue and our partners. >> Yes, ma'am. It's it's our logistics storage area for fire rescue and other community partners. And it almost
reminds me of that. >> I know your buttons lit, but I'm back to where your conversation was about having so many buildings. >> Yes. >> Figuring them out. All right, Commissioner Harvey. >> Well, I had that one highlighted um truly and we talked about it yesterday.
Um I think that's a building that we could easily um put out there to bid and get that thing sold. We would need another building. There's no doubt about that in the East Black area. But I think that's a prime location. It always has
been. And if we took that, I don't I don't know how much we'd get out of that building, but we could possibly put some more money and build a building that we really need, but I don't see us needing that building at at all the time. So, that was one I had highlighted. The
other one I want to bring up is the um bucket truck that we talked about. You said it really it was in here but it wasn't. The new numbers will show. >> Yes, the boom truck is in there as a repair currently. We did revise that and we didn't have the right we didn't have the final quote in. So when this comes
back to you for the adoption at the budget hearing. It will have that correct number. That adjustment will be made to the transportation fund capital. >> So I guess my let me go back to my first comment. I don't know how the board feels about that building in East Placa, but we did just recently ask staff to do
an appraisal on the two nursing homes that we have. Would that be something that this board would be interested in having that conversation today or at a future date at a workshop meeting? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> All right, Commissioner Pelis, you're
recognized. Um, rolling back to Commissioner Harvey's comments about the I'm going to call it the highway patrol building because what I've known as all my life, that is a very, very valuable piece of real estate in East Palac. And if somebody wanted to buy that from
us, I would say let's get a bid. Let's see what they've got for money because that that should bring top dollar that we could use uh to build what we really need in a location that really need it. And I think it would serve everybody more uh efficiently if that was done.
>> And if we're Well, I won't comment. Go ahead. Um are you done Commissioner Grimes? I mean, Commissioner Grimes. Mr. Grimes. This is what happens at lunchtime. >> It's okay. I just want to caution the East Plaque of FHP. There is got to be some kind of agreement. There is a tower
site there on that property that belongs to the state of Florida. And I'm sure there's some kind of agreement. We need to before we make a final decision on that, probably need to do a little research on what the caveat was giving that back to the county when FHP left it in many years ago. But to Commissioner
Harvey's point, there's a pretty vital asset to the fire rescue division that is housed inside of there. So whatever we take away from there, we're going to have to replace it somewhere. We do not have storage space for logistics. Would logistics be much better at DOC on Highway 19? 100%. it would be much
easier for the staff to go over there. However, it's going to cost money to build that building. >> I I agree with you. Um and that the tower issue could be worked out, I'm sure. And that may be something that we want to retain the the tower rights. I I don't know that. But I think that
highway frontage right there is just so valuable that we we need to research it if if somebody did approach us about, you know, having an interest in wanting that. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, so I think we could probably what? Wave in support
to see about an appraisal on that building. >> Yes, sir. >> Um, if if everybody's in that. >> Absolutely. >> So, Madam Chair, would you entertain a wave in support? >> Um, I think I would like to learn more about that building. And then have that discussion at another board meeting. >> And the other thing on the capital
improvement, we have Scagg mowers. I think we're going to change the name from SCAG to zero turn. So um doesn't matter what >> the capital plan is not to indicate that you know the color of the item being purchased just what we are purch where we are ready to execute that
purchase and we'll make the best decision. >> Thank you. Yes sir. >> Thank you Madam Chair. >> And u Mr. Grimes when I look at this uh carry forward from 2025 I see we have some ambulances on there. Um, I didn't know a mannequin in fiscal year 26 costs
$41,000. That's crazy. For a training mannequin, we have some uh other equipment costs in there, stretchers, life equipment, ambulances, another ambulance, and then um further down under capital projects, we have about another 1.5. So, it looks
like um one, two, three and a half million dollars roughly for fire, EMS, and equipment and and um capital cost. >> That sounds right. >> That sounds right. Okay. >> All right. With that, that was my comments. Um my only questions have been
answered. >> Can I get a motion to approve the capital plan? Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the capital plan um budget allocation to be incorporated in the 26 budget. >> Second. >> A motion, a second. Any further
discussion? >> All in favor say I. I. Motion carries. >> All right. Moving into um better place plan. >> Um better place plan. The this is funded from revenues received from the onecent discretionary SH tax imposed to finance
quality of life projects. Um, we began BPP in January 1 of 03 with a sales source tax and then it was renewed in 17 for another 15 years. So, our current expiration date is 2032. We do have a number of um debt payments that are
pledged, the revenues are pledged to cover the debts for both the jail as well as our East Palaca utility um water wastewater plants. Um in recent years or in past years we've allocated um after
the debt we've allocated 60 to 70% somewhere in there to dirt to pave resurfacing and what we are doing is amassing a great deal of carry forward dollars. So given the conversation from the board about some other initiatives that truly are taking precedence and importance um within the communities.
What we're proposing this year is to not allocate new dollars for one year to dirt to pave or resurfacing, but to use those carry forward balances to fund the same level of resurfacing and dirt to pave that we have in prior years and then to allocate those new revenue
dollars into the project lines that would cover Dun Creek, Georgetown, Tangle Wild, and some other ancillary um projects within each of the districts that we identified with um through our conversations with speak to the commissioners as being of importance.
So, the line item detail is on page 518. Um, I will take any questions. >> Thank you for clearing that up. I did misspeak earlier when I said those those projects. I knew they were in here. They just weren't in the previous >> You had it. Yeah, absolutely. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that's what you brought back, staff has brought back to us. um again put some of the landing gear down on some of the planes that we've been trying to do and clean up some of the projects. Um sidewalk to nowhere basically could be fixed there.
There's a lot of things here that you know could really enhance our county. I do want to say though I think it's important for us to know um as a board that the better place plan will run out in 2032.
And so you're looking at $60 million roughly, 59 to 60 million still coming in. You do have a water plant of 16.2 million and a jail of 25 million and those go out to 2024
and 206. So, keep in mind that we don't want to obligate future boards, but we need to be mindful of if this better place plan does not pass again, which I hope it does, and I'll say that quite clearly, and I I think it's one of the best
things Putinham County has ever done um to to bring all these projects in because we couldn't afford to do it without it. Um and I want it to pass again that we do have some debt sitting out there, but I applaud this plan. It's going to move us forward. It's going to
bring planes in for a landing and it's going to fund some of the promises that we made. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Commissioner Palis, you're recognized. >> Um, I was served on that board and campaigned very hard to get the better place uh passed at that time. And I'm like you, Commissioner Harvey. That is
essential. Um, I like to always think of it like uh because we have so many people um that pass through here and a lot of people say, "Oh, nobody stops. Nobody stops." Well, they stop and they buy gas and they buy a hamburger and they buy this and they buy they're helping us and they're not drawing on
our resources. So, I wish my neighbor would come over and help me pay part of my bills. U So, that's the way I always look at it and and I I've heard a number, but I don't know that it's ever been proven, but it's in the uh teens of percent of money that is P is from
people that don't live in Putham County. I heard 18 19%. I don't think it's that high, but it it's it's got to be a good number of of people passing through here and buying goods and services that uh help us with build our county. So, I heavily support that and I I appreciate
what you brought forward, Miss uh Young, and I think u all of your recommendations are are very good. Thank you. >> Right. Any other further discussion? I need a motion. Madame Chair, I move approval of the better place plan projects and funding allocations to be
incorporated in the fiscal year 26 budget. >> Second. >> Have a motion second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. Motion carries. >> Um we are on budget development fee schedule. >> Thank you, chair. In accordance with
board policy, we recommend that the board of county commissioners update the county's user fees and charges annually. The cover sheet I've highlighted um the main changes. So code enforcement division adding a fee related to required lean search works. U appendex A
is updated the building valuation data to reflect current information from the international code council building valuation data table. Exhibit E is our department of health Florida office. Um they've updated policies and standards based on both their state and local
practices. Exhibit F, the library systems have uh recommended some miscellaneous updates to remove some fees which are um not necessary and add or enhance the others. Um animal services fees. Staff is proposing some enhanced fee schedules for the
redemption of animals that are not spayed and neutered um and owner surreners and the charges related to caring for animals that are in mandatory quarantine. Um the recommendations are proposed as an effort to help us to recover some of those costs for some of those animal circumstances um which
could be avoidable um or take a lot of resources from our other operations. U water and wastewater will reflecting the BOCC directed annual escalation of 3% as well as incorporating some changes needed as we adopt the countywide impact
fee schedule. Um, exhibit K is solid waste, which you guys have done through your solid waste adjustment boards. And then exhibit L, parks and recreation, reflecting some staff proposed changes to more accurately cover the cost of athletic field usage, but reduce the
cost for non-athletic events and add some proposed um rates for seasonal pool rates. This was a request by the citizens, so we're truly just trying to to uh respond to that. >> All right, commissioners. Uh, Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair, and sorry I'm hogging the conversation. I really like these new rates here. Um, met with staff yesterday, and one of my concerns has always been, um, are we charging enough for building department permits, um, you
know, when someone pulls a building permit, that's really their their position to pay that. And I think these new fees are going to get us closer and closer to that. And um I support this wholeheartedly, Madam Chair. Thank you. >> Okay. Um so what do you want to do? Do
you want to go through is anybody have any specific concerns on these on these fee schedule? >> Okay. Well, I do. So um water wastewater facilities fee schedule for St. John's Harbor. Um we had to put this in at 8150 last year.
>> What page are you on? >> I am on page 539. At 8150 for 2,000 gallons. And I can tell you the people in that community are not happy. Um, it's no fault of
ours. We inherited a system. Um, however, we I feel like we got the cart before the horse on this one because we haven't expended a million dollars yet, but we started collecting at twice the amount that what we charge other communities
for water. And so I would either like to see number one I don't want us to go up on them. Um I would rather us go down um because they're again they're paying twice as much as everybody else. I argued this two years ago or a year ago I think and I want to continue to argue
it. And then and 2,000 gallons I mean that 2,000 gallons is nothing. So can we go up on their gallons on for their consumption use or go down on their rate? So those are my questions. So just a point of clarity um they are not paying for that million dollars. We this
is what we when we did the math we did an operational cost only. Now we are trying to pay back that million dollar to the general fund that was board direction. Um but when we calculate their over time but when we calculate
the fees as to what it costs to run that plant and then we divide it by the number of people on the getting the service that is how the dollars were derived. >> So out of this 80 8150 that we originally had from last year none of that is going to pay back the million
dollars. >> Correct. >> Wow. Okay. Well um we wrote out there yesterday um Mr. Suggs and I did and and just did a quick tour of the area and um I believe and what I'd like to see JR is
how many houses are out there like a map or whatever that shows how many houses are out there what's our capacity to grow it because obviously the more users you can bring on that then we can start lowering that fee and I think there's plenty of room for expansion out there
and I'd like for us to have a plan in place as to how we can get these fees down or how can we bring in new customers? How many are out there that are ripe for the picking, so to speak? Um, and that kind of thing. Because again, this I've had people call me from
St. John's Harbor and say, "I don't flush my toilet, but once or twice a day because I have to worry about this bill." >> And when people tell me that, it bothers me. I can't stand it. So, it is the fact that we've got to do business. I get that. Um, and we can't have somebody in
another part of the county paying for somebody else's water. I get that, too. So, it's a struggle that I have as a commissioner and representing that area. Um, but I would like to see us come up with some kind of how do we bring in more users? How do we how can we get this down in the future?
>> Okay. Well, today we're running at about a 25% capacity of that plant. >> So, you have 75% of growth built into it. However, infrastructure is expensive >> and we're already talking that we're having heartburn over $81 a month. Who
pays for the expansion, right? How do we get it out further? Every every foot of that, I'm going to tell you, it's roughly about $45 to $50 a foot to run water out of that plant. If there's not a funding mechanism there, we don't get an appropriation or
something. There's really no way for us to expand unless people put homes in St. John's Harbor. Um, if we move the allocation from 2,000 to 3,000, that affects not only there, but as the board direction that they wanted the East Palaca fund balanced, that's how we got
there. So, we'd have to move it equitably across the board. Um, because the residents East Paka have the same 2,000galon restriction as the ones in the harbor. So, if we want to change direction and not have our utility sustainable, then we need to make that decision. But that
was the decision that was given to the staff by the board was to make both of these utilities sustainable where the rest of the taxpayer doesn't have to pay for them. And that's where the numbers are. I mean, we're still not there 100% in the East Putinham Regional System, but we put that escalator in there to
get us there over a very short amount of time. Um, I think there's two more growth steps in there before we ever get to the original because it's they're paying I think it's 61 or $62 as a base rate in East Palaka and the 2,000 gallons of usage. I think I don't have the paper in front of me so I could be
mistaken on that. But it it's the decision is you guys, right? If you'd want us to lower it, fine. But where's where are we going to fund it from? Because if you don't fund it at the level that it is today, it can't move. Um, and that's and that's the sad part is is we don't we didn't this we didn't want St. John's Harbor. St. John's
Harbor wanted to give it to us. So, when we inherited the problem, we've got to continue the service or get rid of it. I mean, you can sell it. I mean, you can put on the private market out there and see what the the the private market would sell it at, but I think you're it's not going to do us justice to your
citizen there either because somebody's going to buy it and they're going to turn that plant to profitable real quick. Um, and that's just the sad part about it is it was sustained so long at not an operational state because they had volunteer people that would run the plant. We have to pay people, you know. So that's that that's the difference
truly is where this plant is. It's just 168 users is really difficult across the board of a magnitude of owning a water plant. I mean, most little subdivisions like that would have a well and septic tank, but here they put such small lots in to get their densities up. They put a water plant in years ago as the original
developer. So, it it's it's kind of a bad situation for them to be in and I totally understand it, but it's just it's what it takes to operate the facility. >> Well, and I think that there's there's some people out there that aren't on the system and so um I know they have a choice. Um we can't make them. I don't I don't disagree with that, but I do think
that um there's opportunity out there and and maybe that's the discussion we have as a board is how can we fund this? Maybe through an appropriation or something because there's room for expansion in that area. when we wrote out there there was three houses being built right in that area right just
right down the road three brand new houses. So, um I would like to see us maybe consider that as a board for um or an appropriation project or some kind of funding um state or federal or whatever would qualify that we bring it up to
compliance and then we're able to expand upon it and offer those services to the community and then hopefully be able to bring the rates down because it is it is a challenge and I I understand what we we got I called it the sticky baby. We got the we got the ugly baby. We got the ugly baby and uh that's what we
inherited was an ugly baby and now we have to raise it. So um I appreciate you listening. Commissioner Harvey, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I agree. Let me just say that. I think when these corporations or water plants
put that back on the county, it's atrocious to us. It's terrible. It's bad for the citizens because truly they didn't charge enough. They didn't maintain what they were supposed to maintain. But I'm with Commissioner Wilkinson if we can if there would be a
glide path or something we could do. But I don't want to incentivize more to give it to the county. So I'm a little nervous about that. >> Yeah. >> But I do think that maybe our voice needs to be at the state level saying this is what's really taking place to small rural counties. And you talk about
being very unfair to the taxpayers of Putnham County that this is very unfair. So if we inherit something, there should be some state dollars to come help us out on this. And I think that's the conversation we need to have going into the future because these people truly
did not pay what they should have been paying. They did not take care of it. And now they're hit with this big charge and they're going, "Why do I want to do that? I can put a well in my own well." And and can they or can't they? I don't know that I they can't if there's portable water there.
>> They cannot. So they got to hook in and and then we got to expand for them to hook in and it's just a dog chasing his tail in these situations and it's awful that these companies get to walk away, wipe their hands of it and say it's on you now, not on us. And that's just not
fair. That's not fair. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> All right, Commissioner. >> Is there anything inherently different about this particular system or is it simply a matter of numbers with not enough users? Well, your your true problem is is back when they did this the same as they did in East Putnham
Regional is the the RORO thing was what you had to have, right? RORO was the greatest thing in the world. Well, they put RO plants in there. Well, the reject water off of RORO is considered a wrong way. Um, hazardous waste. So, it has to go to a
pond and it gets treated and we send it into the into the river. So, the reject water off that is what becomes the problem, right? We have to have that pond. It's D's rule that's what's costing us all this money. It's not the county. It's not there. It's to bring it back in the D compliance of that plant.
So, yes, we there there are things we can do, right? But that pond is what's out of compliance, right? And we could absolutely I can get Mr. Nolles in to work on it. You can scrap the whole idea of an RO plant, right? If you scrap the whole idea of the RO plant, you don't have to have the pond, right? But how
much does it cost to build a new water plant? Don't know the answer to that. Not that magnitude. Do you build one that big? I don't think so because right now it's kind of locked in. Um I just I agree with Commissioner Harvey. We need to be real cognizant as our county develops these little pop-up plants
happening. Um if there's a way to make them bond it or whatever they have to do, that way when we get it, there's at least a funding mechanism there for us to have it. Um but that's the sad part about St. John's Harbor. It was just a design. Uh much like ours, we built too big of a plant and we're and we're sitting there running at 25% capacity
and you can't make money at 25% capacity. You can't sustain at 25% capacity. You got to be on that 40 to 50 and then the 50 to the 100 is the home run. But you start looking at how far you're going to have to reach outside of the harbor in order to gain that magnitude of capacity from 25%. I mean,
you're talking about going up to 100,000 gallon a day plant. Right now it's running 25,000. 100,000 sounds like a lot, but you put one subdivision out there and now we've overm maxed that plant and now we're in the business of making sure that we can do it and we're back what we're in in East Palaca right now in the wastewater plant. Now we have to expand it, right?
And then how far do we expand it because we're locked in. It's there's just no good scenario in that whole entire situation out there of how we got where we are. It's just not a pretty one. Um I think Commissioner Wilkinson or Chair Wilkinson explained it very well. It's just we got to raise this baby now. I mean I don't know other way to tell you.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Back to the board. We have um budget development fee schedule resolution 202572. >> Madam Chair, I move that we approve the fee schedule as presented in our packet. And let me read the resolution for that.
What number >> page 519 >> 519 I apologize. I'm trying to work off my computer instead of printing 600 pages today. So I'm trying to be So I adopt the resolution establishing f
fiscal year 2025 2026 countywide fee schedule authorizing the chair to sign the virgin incorporating the recommended changes on resolution 2025-072. >> There's a motion on the floor. >> Second.
>> Second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. Any oppose? like sign. All right, moving into public comment on miscellaneous items. If you have any cards, please bring them forward. This portion of the agenda is designed to allow citizens an opportunity to bring matters to the attention of the board.
It is not reasonable to expect the board will engage in debate or deliberation about matters on which the board has received no prior information as part of the agenda. Please limit your time to three minutes. Public comment cards are conveniently placed at the meeting room entrance and should be submitted prior to the meeting to the deputy clerk who is sit to the right of the podium. Thank
you all for your um patience. Um first we'll hear from uh I can't pronounce your name. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. It listen. >> It's messy. >> It's messy. >> Messy. I can't write.
>> It's all right. >> All right. Come on forward, please. All right. State your name and address real quick for the record. >> My name is Francis Gas and I live at 169 Bonita Drive. uh here today because I'm of course part of St. John's Harbor Unit 3 MSBU.
Our road on Bonita was paved earlier this year. The same with Redfish. Uh I've had quite a few people come to me and ask me, we've got our pre-tax bill. We have $190 per lot fee attached
to our pre-tax. And they're asking me, okay, how come do we do do we have this when we're no longer part of MSBU? We were part of public works. They've increased increased the property values on our place because of the road, but now we're paying double. We're paying
MSBU and we're paying this taxes. What we're looking for right now is we're looking for an answer to our question. How long are we going to be stuck on this MSBU? And is it right that we still are >> you have other roads in that area that
are not paved. Correct. >> Excuse me. >> You have other roads in your MSBU unit that are not paved. Correct. >> Correct. >> Right. >> So those roads still have to be maintained and you get ditch work and you get tree work occasionally. >> We don't get anything from SBU at this
point. I'm Bonita. Bonita was shut was shut off at the first before we got into um we knew the road was going to be paved. So it was like okay leave it alone. Don't put anything on it. Yeah, we got
paved once with paved which we we paid last year for it. But now this is again this year. Now we're paved. >> And from our >> Is your MSBU bigger than Bonita? >> Excuse me. >> Is your MSBU unit bigger than Bonita? Does it include other roads?
>> It's larger than Bonita. >> Okay. >> Bonita is six is 6 miles >> and we have 4.3 mile total in the MSBU. >> No, I'll be glad to sit down with you individually and have a conversation with you about about that and how we can
move forward. >> Glad to do that as your commissioner. >> Excuse me. >> As your commissioner, I'll be glad to sit down and discuss that with you one. >> Okay. All right. So, uh, I guess I'll give you a I'll text you and find out when. >> Sure, that'll be fine. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Miss Weaver. Monica Weaver. >> My name is Monica Weaver and you can use PO Box 1918 in Palaca. >> Thank you for being here. >> All right. Thank you for having me. Um, so I have the honor of representing my brothers and sisters as the president of
Punham County Fire Rescue Professionals Local 3529. Every day our firefighters answer calls that demand everything. Running into burning buildings, rescuing families from wreck cars, and fighting to save lives when seconds matter most. But today, I need to tell you that our department is falling behind and people
are leaving. Since 2020, we've had 116 firefighters leave Putham County. Um, of those, nearly 40% went to St. John's and Jacksonville, not because they wanted to leave the community, but because those counties offered better pay, better schedules, and clear vision for the
future. Here, our pay starts at just over $46,000 a year for firefighter EMT. Surrounding counties pay 50 to 51,000 or more. That gap adds to up to thousands of dollars lost every year for doing the same dangerous job. And while pay is part of the problem, schedules are just
as critical. Across Florida, counties are moving towards the 42-hour work week recommended by House Bill 929. Elatcha's adopted Kelly Days. Marian provides them to their single paramedics. St. John's is currently fighting for 2472s. And departments across Florida from Levy
County to Lake Pasco, Gainesville, and Delray have already added 2472s or or are making the move. But Putnham, we're still stuck on 2448s, forcing our firefighters to work hundreds of extra hours every year for less money. The consequences are real. We are losing
experience faster than we can replace it. Slower decisions in emergencies, higher injury risks for firefighters and citizens, loss mentorship, and longer response times while Ricky learns on the job are are some of the consequences of that. The challenges go deeper than
that. Our firefighters, we want ALS engines on the road. Engines that are ready to deliver advanced life support at the scene while waiting on an ambulance to arrive. We also want the simple assurance that our vacation time will be guaranteed and not cancelled due to lack of coverage. These are not perks. They are basic standards of
respect and professionalism. This career already carries deadly risks. Um, as firefighters, we are 14% more likely to die in the line of duty. We face higher cancer and heart disease rates. We're one and a half times more likely to die by suicide. One in three struggles with
PTSD, alcoholism, depression, or anxiety. We may not see decapitated heads every day, but it only takes one call to risk our mental health. And these brave men and women take the risk and show up every day to keep us safe.
Long, exhausting schedules like 2448s make these risks worse, while modern schedules like Kelly days and 2472s protect health, careers, and families. This is not about perks. It's about public safety. Well-rested firefighters make better decisions. Fair pay keeps
talent here where we need it. and department with clear vision, ALS ready engines, and respect for time off provides better protection for every family and business here in Putham County. You have an opportunity to stop our bleed by modernizing schedules, achieving pay parody, adding ALS
capability, and setting a vision for the future. You'll protect not just firefighters, but every family and business here in Penum County. If we expect our firefighters to risk everything for this community, then we need to give them pay, schedules, and the respect that they deserve to protect their own.
>> Thank you for coming forward. >> Thank you. >> All right. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak for public comment? Anybody else who wishes to speak for public comment? All right. Going into appointments. Are there any appointments? Starting with Commissioner Newold.
>> I have one. Um, there's a open appointment for the as air condition air conditioning contractor on the contractor review board. I'd like to put forward Dustin Kase. >> Dustin. >> Dustin Kase. >> I'm sorry.
>> I thought he was on there before. >> Dustin Kase. >> Um, no. So, if I recall, I believe he was on there, but Commissioner Alexander removed him to put him on the fair board. >> Um, no, >> but I believe he's off the fair board
now. >> I think there's I think he was on the fair board and he was removed from the fair board, >> right? So, you're saying he's available. He's not on another board. I think y'all were saying the same thing. >> I think he is available. >> Okay. All right. Sounds good. Um,
is that an at large? So, I guess we need to vote on that. All right. Is >> that >> Yeah, it's that large. >> Thank you. >> All right, we have a motion. >> A second. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. Thank you for finding someone for that board.
>> All right. Um, Commissioner Pelier, >> I have none. >> Commissioner Harvey, >> I have none. >> And I have none. Uh, clerk of courts, do you have any comments? >> No, ma'am. Uh, thank you for giving me a chance. I don't have any updates. Thank you'all. >> All right. County Attorney.
>> Nothing today, Madam Chair. Thank you. >> County Administrator. >> Just real quick, uh, Madam Chair, just a reminder, uh, thank you all who who forwarded me your information for legislative requests. I'll have that list together and we will bring that back, Madam Chair, at the next board for
your formal discussion and then we'll move forward from there. I want to do take a moment if I could uh, to have a conversation about what you've done here today with your budgets. I think it's a very appropriate and I do appreciate all
the positive comments that came from the board today about what what you received here today is a work in progress based on the desires and needs of the request of this board and what our citizens and quality of life should look like. And so I'm very proud of what's came out of
this office this year. very proud of the fact that we were able to, as Commissioner Harvey said, move some projects forward because Commissioner Harvey, you remember, eight years ago, uh it was very difficult and uh so uh we were coming out of very difficult uh financial time. Uh Mr. Reynolds and I
created the first couple three budgets. Mr. Reynolds uh has a little bit more, you know, gray hair up front now than than what he did then. And and the thing is the the point of the it's not here >> that's where it came from actually. So yeah right here
>> but the point is you know I remember that first budget cycle and I remember the response that we got that at the end of that budget. Uh you fast forward from there to where we are today under the direction of Miss Young and and Mr. Grimes and myself working together on this budget. I can tell you it is light
years ahead of where we were eight years ago. And uh you know, a lot of that has to do with the fact that our economy has come back, but it also has to do with the fact that we've put in policies in place and created efficiencies where we could and save dollars where we could. One of the items on the agenda today was
uh uh redoing a contract uh just so we could go back and look about recouping $20,000 from a $150,000 contract. We're doing everything we can on this side of the ledger to make sure that those tax dollars are are are handled properly. Uh
going back to the uh procurement uh update today, thank you guys for for what you did there. I think it's going to hopefully pay some dividends and uh again, staff is going to continue doing the things that we've always done to make sure that we move things forward and we do it in the most efficient uh
way possible and cost effective way possible. So again, thank you and hopefully our budget will continue to uh shine as it did today moving forward through September when Miss Young can finally get some numbers from uh uh the state and uh and we'll just continue
moving forward in that direction. But the comments today, I just wanted to say thank you guys because our staff does do a a wonderful job in representing U5 as well as the citizens of Putham County. So thank you. All right, >> Madam Chair, I had a question.
>> Yeah, go ahead. >> U, thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Suggs, today we had a conversation and it came up about appropriations when water plants get given back to us. Is that Are you going to add that to one of our topics that we can discuss?
>> Yes, sir. That was uh matter of fact, it was the one we just got through discussing. I think we need to look and see what we can do and see how we did inherit that situation. And that situation came with a non-compliant letter as well from DP. Let's not forget that. >> I don't think our legislators or I don't
I mean, how would anybody know that we inherit these things and they come underfunded and I mean, >> how do you take care of that? So, I think we need to have that talk with our legislator. >> We do because that was that was a a fiscal impact that you had no idea was
coming. And so we absolutely need to talk to that uh our legislators up in Tallahassee about those situations. And I think it would be appropriate for us to move a legislative appropriation forward on that as well. >> You know, and even if even if we were flushed with money that we're not it's
it sends the wrong message to other ones that go if I don't like what I'm doing, I just give it back to the county. And that's just the wrong message to send. >> Yeah. I mean, we we deal with unfunded mandates all the time, but those are some of those that we we absolutely need to have some conversation in
Tallahassee. Thank you, Madam Chair, for that. >> Commissioner Peliser, Commissioner comments. >> Oh. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, y'all know how I am. I like to give out those atta boys and attil Eastplaca fruit market yesterday and was
talking to the owner there and I asked I said how was your building experience? Outstanding. Said just great. Everybody was bend over backwards. Nice. Helpful. Helped her complete her project uh as fast as they possibly could on time. Um,
I love to tell those stories and um, I'm always asking so and I like to tell them. So, I like to get those kind of information and pass it along and give give our staff what they deserve when they when they're really doing a good job. I like to give them that pat on the back. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I thought you had two. Did you have
another one? >> No, no, no. I'm sorry. >> All right, Commissioner Newbold. >> I don't really have anything. Thank you for powering through lunch. I appreciate it. I'm gonna Other than that, I've said enough. >> Well, we're glad you're here today. Uh, Commissioner Harvey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do want to say to staff, um,
budget is never ending. I fully get that. Um, the minute we pass this budget, you'll be working on next year's budget and you're constantly every day looking at that and I and I realize that and I appreciate it. I think we did take a lot of steps forward today and um and
and only when you heard the lady just speak about fire, we're working towards that solution, too. There's a lot of solutions we're working towards and taking the steps needed to do to protect our people and um and I'm just excited
to be on this board with this group of people that are moving this county forward. So, I want to say thank you for that and thank you to our staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. Um you're right, we are moving forward and like I said in our budget and I noticed it, you know, we
have $ three and a half million dollars slated for fire rescue. We have eight new positions. I think that is moving us forward, not backwards. Um, but I won't get into any other details on that. I would say that I think that we have to
as a county holistically look at how we're going to handle our water and wastewater going forward. I think it's a a big discussion that we're going to have to have in the future. um we see um you know potentially new new development coming in and I know we're going to have impact fees but I
think we got to step back for a little bit and and as we're talking with the state as we're talking with the federal um grants or whatever appropriations we can get and and I know we're already working on that with the port and with East Palakin we're making some headway
but we got to continue down that road of of how are we going to handle the future of Putnham the and particularly it comes into place with water and wastewater. Um those are big discussions we have to have, but we're hitting a lot of the marks. You know, we're doing something
out at the landfill. We're expanding in East Palaca. Um we're looking at what we can do in St. John's Harbor. Um all good things, but then holistically, you know, where are we at? So, I think as we go forward, just keep that in mind. I'm not asking for any staff to do anything at
this particular juncture, but I think that it's something that us as a board has to figure out what is it we want going forward on those kind of on those kind of things. So, today was a long meeting. I appreciate everybody uh pushing through um and it was just a
long day, but I appreciate it and uh we thank you for staff and everything y'all did today. With that, this meeting is adjourned.