Posted in Politics, St Johns County Schools, St. Johns County

Don’t Outsource Your Vote

Early voting begins August 8 in St. Johns County.

We are down to the final days of what has been a contentious year of campaigning. Several of our key local elected officials will be decided in the August primary—not in the November general election:

  • County Commission Districts 2 and 4
  • School Board District 1
  • City of St. Augustine Commission Seat 5

The City Commission race will appear only on the ballots of voters who live within the City of St. Augustine.

This is not the primary to sit out.


Know Which Races You Can Vote In

This year, our County Commission races are Universal Primary Contests. Because all the candidates in these races are members of the same political party, every registered voter in St. Johns County may vote in them, regardless of party affiliation.

Many voters are confused about districts and which candidates will appear on their ballots.

For School Board, you may vote only for the candidate representing the district in which you live.

County Commission works differently. Commissioners must live in the districts they represent, but they are elected countywide. That means every registered voter in St. Johns County may vote in the District 2 and District 4 County Commission races—not only voters who live in those districts.

There has also been considerable discussion about where County Commission candidates are required to live.

A candidate does not have to live in the district throughout the campaign. The residency requirement must be met before taking office.

That distinction matters in the District 2 race. One candidate lived in District 5 during most of the campaign and recently shared that he moved into District 2 on August 1. Some voters have questioned whether he lives in District 2; he has responded that he does.

Voters can decide for themselves whether the timing of that move matters to them. But the legal question of residency and a voter’s judgment about a candidate’s connection to the district are two different questions.


Don’t Let Someone Else Choose for You

Every election cycle, a LOT of organizations produce voter guides recommending their preferred candidates.

In 2022, I was at a polling location where representatives were distributing three different guides: a Trump Club voter guide, a Republican Executive Committee voter guide and a Republican Liberty Caucus voter guide.

One young man stood there holding all three, trying to decide which one he should follow. Meanwhile, the people distributing them were arguing and shouting at him:

“Use this one!”

“No, use this one!”

If you wait until you arrive at the polls to pick up a voter guide, you have missed your opportunity to cast a genuinely informed vote. You are leaving your choice to another group whose priorities you may or may not share.

Voter guides can provide useful information. But they should be part of your research—not a substitute for doing it.


Look Beyond the Campaign Message

Read the candidates’ answers to questionnaires. Watch the recorded forums. Compare what candidates say to different audiences.

Forums are especially helpful because they reveal more than prepared campaign positions. They can give you a glimpse of how a candidate thinks, communicates and responds when challenged.

Before casting your ballot, consider:

  • Does this person represent the values I want on the board?
  • Do they demonstrate the character and judgment the office requires?
  • Do they understand the responsibilities—and the legal limits—of the position they are seeking?
  • What do they stand for, beyond what they oppose?
  • What specifically do they want to accomplish to move our county forward?
  • Have they explained how their proposals would be implemented and funded?
  • Do they have the temperament to work with colleagues, staff and community stakeholders?
  • How do they respond when challenged or asked a question they did not anticipate?
  • Are their claims supported by facts?
  • Are they offering workable solutions, or primarily identifying people and institutions to blame?
  • Do they demonstrate a meaningful connection to the district they seek to represent, even though the entire county votes in County Commission races?
  • Who is supporting and funding their campaign, and what might those supporters expect from them?

No candidate will agree with you on everything. The question is whether that person has the values, competence, judgment and temperament to govern responsibly.

I have been sent some endorsements for candidates and been asked to share them. I am intentionally not including endorsements, just the forums and tools for you to do your own research.

I have included links below to recorded candidate forums and official election information. Take the time to watch and read them before you cast your ballot.

Then show up—during early voting or on Election Day—and make your own decision.

League of Women Voter’s Interview with Bev Slough, Candidate for School Board District 1
League of Women Voter’s Interview with Tammie McClafferty.Candidate for School Board District 4

There was an April Candidate Forum sponsored by the St. Johns County Republican Assembly. I was unable to find a link to the video of that event. If I locate it, I will add to the post.

St. Johns County Supervisor of Elections


If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.

Posted in Ag Enclaves, BOCC, Comprehensive Plan

N. Palm Valley Road — Assessment Based on Currently Available Record

NOTE: This appears to be one of the most controversial of the Ag Enclave applications. There have been some interesting allegations about how many homes would be built with this enclave. Based upon the submitted materials, the applicant is currently requesting a density of one dwelling unit per acre, potentially allowing approximately 4,462 units across the gross acreage. The County identifies six units per acre as the statutory maximum, but the applicant has not requested six units per acre, and no development plan approving either 18,740 units (as has been published on social media) or any other specific unit count has been submitted.

Executive Summary

N. Palm Valley Road is a proposed agricultural enclave of approximately 4,462 acres in St. Johns County. The application remains under active County review and is scheduled for a public hearing on August 19, 2026. As of August 3, the County website lists one outstanding Environmental Division comment.

The County website does not list other outstanding comments. The public record does not establish whether all other reviewing divisions completed their reviews without comment or whether some reviews had not yet been posted. The absence of listed comments should not be treated as affirmative approval by every reviewing division.

Based on the application materials currently available, N. Palm Valley appears to satisfy several threshold requirements, including the county-population limit, the maximum acreage limit by a narrow margin, five years of agricultural classification, and likely single ownership or control. The application is unusually comprehensive and professionally assembled. Even so, several material statutory questions remain unresolved:

  • Existing-development calculation: The applicant calculates that 51% of the enclave perimeter adjoins areas identified as developed. The statute appears to require proof that at least 50% of the qualifying surrounding parcel or parcels is existing development. Measuring the enclave perimeter is not necessarily the same test.
  • Eastern boundary across the Intracoastal Waterway: SB 686 permits the County to look across a body of water, but the applicant still must establish that the actual parcels across the ICW satisfy each applicable future-land-use, zoning, development, and buildout-density requirement.
  • Large-development density averages: The applicant uses the average authorized density of the entire Nocatee and Estuary PUDs and the maximum Residential-A density along the east. The County should determine whether those are the legally appropriate comparators for every claimed boundary segment.
  • Acreage and title: The proposed 4,462.09-acre enclave is only 17.91 acres below the 4,480-acre ceiling and appears carved from larger tax parcels totaling approximately 4,568.95 acres. The exact enclave legal description, survey closure, ownership, and encumbrances require independent verification.
  • Proposed density: The applicant requests 1 dwelling unit per gross acre. Certification should not allow that representation to be used to satisfy the adjacent-density test and then be discarded in a later development application.

Overall assessment: N. Palm Valley is the strongest and most strategically constructed application reviewed to date, but the record does not yet conclusively demonstrate every element required for certification. I would classify it as not yet demonstrated—formal clarification, parcel-specific evidence, and County legal interpretation are required before an unconditional certification finding.

This is an independent review of the application materials and County information publicly available as of August 2, 2026. It is not a County staff report or a legal determination. Where this assessment says a requirement has not been demonstrated, that means I did not find sufficient support in the publicly available materials reviewed; it does not necessarily mean the evidence does not exist or cannot be provided as the County’s review continues. I welcome corrections supported by publicly available documentation.


About this review: I am not an attorney, and this is not a legal opinion. I am a former Chief Audit Executive with decades of experience evaluating evidence against federal, state, local and international requirements. This assessment applies that evidentiary lens to the publicly available application materials; it is not a recommendation that the County approve or deny the application.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice. This assessment is my independent review of the application materials and County information publicly available as of July 24, 2026. The N. Palm Valley application remains under active County review, and additional information may be submitted before the scheduled public hearing.


Location Map from Application Materials

This executive summary is based on a more detailed review of the publicly available application materials against the requirements of SB 686. Because the County’s review remains underway and the public record may continue to change, I am not publishing the full working analysis at this stage. I will update this assessment as additional County findings and application materials become available. The supporting analysis is available upon request for those seeking to understand the methodology or documentation supporting a particular observation.


This assessment is based on the application materials reviewed and the County status reported as of August 3, 2026. It distinguishes between requirements that appear satisfied, requirements that remain unsupported, and issues that may turn on legal interpretation or additional County verification.

County review status as of August 3, 2026

Public hearing: Scheduled for August 19, 2026.

Applicant’s requested density: 1 unit per acre.

Statutory maximum density: 6 units per acre.

Outstanding County review comments: One Environmental Division comment is listed as outstanding. No other comments are shown, but the website does not establish whether all other divisions completed review without comment or whether additional reviews had not yet been posted.

Project description: Application for Agricultural Enclave Certification pursuant to Sections 163.3162 and 163.3164, Chapter 2026-34, Laws of Florida. The request is identified as ENCERT 2026-01 Agricultural Enclave Certification (N Palm Valley Rd), includes approximately 4,462 acres, and is located north of Nocatee Parkway, west of the Intracoastal Waterway, and east of the Duval County line.


If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.

Posted in Ag Enclaves, BOCC, Comprehensive Plan

Star IV Investments — Assessment Based on Currently Available Record

This is an independent review of the application materials and County information publicly available as of August 2, 2026. It is not a County staff report or a legal determination. Where this assessment says a requirement has not been demonstrated, that means I did not find sufficient support in the publicly available materials reviewed; it does not necessarily mean the evidence does not exist or cannot be provided as the County’s review continues. I welcome corrections supported by publicly available documentation.


Executive Summary

Star IV Investments is a proposed agricultural enclave of approximately 176 acres in St. Johns County. The application remains under active County review and is scheduled for a public hearing on August 19, 2026. As of August 1, three County review comments remained open: two Environmental Review comments and one Recreation Review comment.

Based on the application materials currently available, Star IV Investments appears to satisfy the basic acreage and county-population limits, and ownership appears reasonably supportable. However, the application has not established eligibility for certification under SB 686.

Several significant requirements remain unmet or incompletely documented:

Perimeter qualification: The applicant’s own exhibit shows only 46% of the property boundary adjoining Residential-B or Residential-C land, below the 50% required by §163.3164(4)(c)2. No alternative statutory route has been adequately demonstrated.

Proposed density: The applicant did not state a requested density. The County lists a statutory maximum of 6 units per acre, but the separate same-or-higher-density comparison cannot be completed without the density actually proposed.

Agricultural use and qualifying date: The timberland history makes agricultural use plausible, but the filing does not fully document continuous bona fide agricultural use or establish that all qualifying conditions existed as of January 1, 2025.

Public services and protections: Service availability, proportionate-share obligations, conservation easements, and other applicable constraints remain incompletely documented. Environmental and Recreation comments remain open.

Overall assessment: Star IV Investments does not presently qualify for certification on the submitted record. Unlike gaps that may be cured by supplying missing records, the applicant’s 46% perimeter calculation appears substantive unless qualifying segments were omitted or a different statutory route can be established. The applicant may provide additional documentation or clarification before the August 19 hearing.


About this review: I am not an attorney, and this is not a legal opinion. I am a former Chief Audit Executive with decades of experience evaluating evidence against federal, state, local and international requirements. This assessment applies that evidentiary lens to the publicly available application materials; it is not a recommendation that the County approve or deny the application.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice. This assessment is my independent review of the application materials and County information publicly available as of July 24, 2026. Star IV Investments application remains under active County review, and additional information may be submitted before the scheduled public hearing.


Map from Star IV Application

This executive summary is based on a more detailed review of the publicly available application materials against the requirements of SB 686. Because the County’s review remains underway and the public record may continue to change, I am not publishing the full working analysis at this stage. I will update this assessment as additional County findings and application materials become available. The supporting analysis is available upon request for those seeking to understand the methodology or documentation supporting a particular observation.


County review status as of August 1, 2026

Public hearing: Scheduled for August 19, 2026.

Applicant’s requested density: Applicant did not state a requested density.

Statutory maximum density: 6 units per acre.

Outstanding County review comments: Two Environmental Review comments and one Recreation Review comment remain open. Without the text and disposition of those comments, their precise effect on certification cannot yet be assessed.

Updated project description: On July 22, the County description was revised to identify the request as ENCERT 2026-04 Agricultural Enclave Certification (Star IV Investments), covering approximately 176 acres west of State Road 16, south of Grand Oaks, and north of Windward Ranch.


If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.

Posted in Ag Enclaves, BOCC, Comprehensive Plan

Osceola Lakes — Assessment Based on Currently Available Record

This is an independent review of the application materials and County information publicly available as of July 28, 2026. It is not a County staff report or a legal determination. Where this assessment says a requirement has not been demonstrated, that means I did not find sufficient support in the publicly available materials reviewed; it does not necessarily mean the evidence does not exist or cannot be provided as the County’s review continues. I welcome corrections supported by publicly available documentation.

Executive Summary

Osceola Lakes is a proposed agricultural enclave of approximately 143.29 acres in St. Johns County. The application remains under active County review and is scheduled for a public hearing on August 19, 2026. As of July 28, six County review comments remained open: one Environmental Planning comment, four Planning and Zoning comments, and one Recreation comment.

Based on the application materials currently available, Osceola Lakes appears to satisfy several core requirements of SB 686. The property is below the statutory acreage limits, St. Johns County is below the applicable population limit, the record presents substantial evidence of agricultural use, and the applicant’s perimeter analysis reports that 79.9% of the property adjoins land designated Residential-B or Residential-C.

However, several potentially significant requirements remain unclear or incompletely documented:

  • Proposed density: The application materials do not appear to state the density of the proposed development. Because §163.3162(4)(a) requires at least one adjacent parcel or development to permit the same or a higher density than the proposed development, the statutory comparison cannot yet be completed.
  • Perimeter qualification: The applicant’s figures support the first perimeter threshold, but the record should more clearly demonstrate how the separate existing-development or urban-service-area component of the statutory definition is satisfied.
  • Agricultural use: Three parcels have longstanding agricultural classifications. One parcel reportedly received agricultural classification beginning in 2023, so the applicant relies on aerials, forestry activity, harvesting history, and a management plan to establish earlier continuous bona fide agricultural use.
  • Public services and infrastructure: The applicant states that County water and wastewater are available and offers to enter a binding proportionate-share agreement. The referenced May 16, 2026 utility-availability letter was not found in the materials reviewed, and no executed infrastructure agreement is included.

Overall assessment: Osceola Lakes appears to present a credible agricultural-enclave case and a plausible path to certification. The missing proposed density is nevertheless a material threshold gap, not merely an application detail. The application remains under County review, and the applicant may provide additional documentation or clarification before the August 19 hearing.er County review, and the applicant may provide additional documentation or clarification before the August 19 hearing.

About this review: I am not an attorney, and this is not a legal opinion. I am a former Chief Audit Executive with decades of experience evaluating evidence against federal, state, local and international requirements. This assessment applies that evidentiary lens to the publicly available application materials; it is not a recommendation that the County approve or deny the application.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice. This assessment is my independent review of the application materials and County information publicly available as of July 24, 2026. Osceola Lakes remains under active County review, and additional information may be submitted before the scheduled public hearing.


Aerial of Osceola Lakes location

This executive summary is based on a more detailed review of the publicly available application materials against the requirements of SB 686. Because the County’s review remains underway and the public record may continue to change, I am not publishing the full working analysis at this stage. I will update this assessment as additional County findings and application materials become available. The supporting analysis is available upon request for those seeking to understand the methodology or documentation supporting a particular observation.


County review status as of July 28, 2026

Public hearing: Scheduled for August 19, 2026.

Applicant’s requested density: Does not appear to be stated in the application materials.

Statutory maximum density: 6 units per acre, based on the base density allowance of the adjacent RES-C FLUM designation (Comprehensive Plan Policy A.1.13.1.m(1)).

Outstanding County review comments: One Environmental Planning comment, four Planning and Zoning comments, and one Recreation comment remain open. Without the text and disposition of those comments, their precise effect on certification cannot yet be assessed.


If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.

Posted in Ag Enclaves, BOCC, Comprehensive Plan

Adler Creek — Assessment Based on Currently Available Record

This is an independent review of the application materials and County information publicly available as of July 24, 2026. It is not a County staff report or a legal determination. Where this assessment says a requirement has not been demonstrated, that means I did not find sufficient support in the publicly available materials reviewed; it does not necessarily mean the evidence does not exist or cannot be provided as the County’s review continues. I welcome corrections supported by publicly available documentation.

Executive Summary

Adler Creek is a proposed agricultural enclave of approximately 594 to 610 acres in St. Johns County. The application remains under active County review and is scheduled for a public hearing on August 19, 2026. As of July 24, six County review comments remained open: one Environmental Review comment, four Planning and Zoning comments, and one Recreation Review comment.

Based on the application materials currently available, Adler Creek appears to satisfy several basic requirements of SB 686. The property is below the statutory acreage limit, St. Johns County is below the applicable population limit, and the submitted perimeter analysis appears to show that more than 50% of the property adjoins land designated for residential development.

However, several potentially significant requirements are not yet adequately documented:

  • Ownership or control: The records identify multiple property owners, while the application does not include documentation establishing that a single person or entity controlled all parcels as of January 1, 2025.
  • Agricultural use: The application asserts that the property has been continuously used as timberland, but the submitted materials do not include the referenced Forest Management Plan or other records demonstrating five years of continuous bona fide agricultural use.
  • Perimeter qualification: The application appears to satisfy the first 50% perimeter test, but it does not provide the mapping and calculations needed to substantiate the separate urban-service-area test applicable to the surrounding parcels.
  • Proposed density: The County has identified a statutory maximum density of six units per acre based on the adjacent RES-C designation. The applicant’s requested density and proposed development program, however, do not appear to be stated in the application materials.
  • Public services and infrastructure: The application references utility availability and a willingness to enter into a proportionate-share agreement, but several supporting documents and specific infrastructure commitments are not included in the presently available record.

Overall assessment: Adler Creek appears to have a plausible path to certification, but the currently available record does not yet sufficiently substantiate all mandatory requirements. This does not mean the property is ineligible. The application remains under County review, and the applicant may provide additional documentation or clarification before the August 19 hearing.

About this review: I am not an attorney, and this is not a legal opinion. I am a former Chief Audit Executive with decades of experience evaluating evidence against federal, state, local and international requirements. This assessment applies that evidentiary lens to the publicly available application materials; it is not a recommendation that the County approve or deny the application.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice. This assessment is my independent review of the application materials and County information publicly available as of July 24, 2026. Adler Creek remains under active County review, and additional information may be submitted before the scheduled public hearing.


Location Map from Submitted Application

This executive summary is based on a more detailed review of the publicly available application materials against the requirements of SB 686. Because the County’s review remains underway and the public record may continue to change, I am not publishing the full working analysis at this stage. I will update this assessment as additional County findings and application materials become available. The supporting analysis is available upon request for those seeking to understand the methodology or documentation supporting a particular observation.


County review status as of July 24, 2026

Public hearing: Scheduled for August 19, 2026.

Applicant’s requested density: Does not appear to be stated in the application materials.

Statutory maximum density: 6 units per acre, based on the base density allowance of the adjacent RES-C FLUM designation (Comprehensive Plan Policy A.1.13.1.m(1)).

Outstanding County review comments: One Environmental Review comment, four Planning & Zoning comments, and one Recreation Review comment remain open. Without the text and disposition of those comments, their precise effect on certification cannot yet be assessed.


If you are finding value in these updates, please subscribe to my blog so you get notifications when I publish an update. Feel free to share with others who may find value in the content.