[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6264135,"mediaKeyId","3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639","parentId",3098870,"title","Votes at a glance: Putnam County Board of County Commissioners, April 22, 2025","audioSeconds",6613,"startMs",137000,"endMs",6750000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639&start=137&end=6750","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639/thumbnail_137000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6264135/Putnam-County/Florida/Votes-at-a-glance-Putnam-County-Board-of-County-Commissioners-April-22-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6264135-392b1bba48c3a73079c65c1ed4949073/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182392&Signature=cfn1ImsRU62vcWMWLW1NjFa5JCzcfwA-v6lY3PmNi5gmJyc9Oxr16MGSUt2JZnt6kQHsbl5zCfSK0ZERZ7IYrS~7T-p2wHZDLkfFZEjHa9lIrUkKyX3CBpTSwipqEHzlHaLZkMlFlQSsJw6yJ1qwMXxQJNbtdveWkHfW24JtRypJLbmhRDSm54SBLxevzUXz9ML6n9EoEzXvqU-1tANq9--LmHJlNswLsjZp5eGaqSt3DMpF-Ry4s15cBPVYWaWyUhJaTMZ7ywWxEJ3P~Bn3uivn-yBjdUd07WvFQV07xIGXisIc2mHp5PNIwSNB3iotC1yjSQToPGCV10jK-2~c~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Putnam County","date","2025-04-22T16:07:03Z","article","The Putnam County Board of County Commissioners recorded the following formal actions by voice vote or motion at its April 22, 2025 meeting.

- Approval of minutes (March 25, 2025): Motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded; chair called for 'Aye' and the motion passed by voice vote.

- Proclamation – Putnam County Proclamation No. 2025-026 (May 2025 as Mental Health Awareness Month): Motion to approve the proclamation was made, seconded and approved by voice vote.

- Proclamation – Putnam County Proclamation No. 2025-027 (April as Water Conservation Month): Motion to approve the proclamation was made, seconded and approved by voice vote.

- Consent agenda: The board approved consent-agenda items A–G by motion and voice vote.

- Workshop on impact fees: Motion by Commissioner Alexander (second not specified) to hold a stakeholder workshop to engage city leaders, builders and other partners on the draft impact-fee ordinance; motion passed by voice vote. Staff will prepare a draft ordinance and coordinate the workshop and subsequent public hearings.

- Planning & Zoning (rezoning request 2025-000001 for 205 St. Johns Drive): The applicant's rezoning request was continued to the board's May 13 meeting (first of two hearings) by motion and the motion carried.

Notes on vote records: most actions were approved by voice vote with the board responding \"Aye\"; the transcript does not contain a roll-call count. One commissioner was absent for part of the meeting; where voice votes were recorded the clerk counted them as passed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Putnam County BOCC Meeting April 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Key voice votes and motions recorded during the April 22 meeting included approval of minutes, two proclamations, adoption of the consent agenda, a motion to hold a stakeholder workshop on impact fees, and a continuance of a rezoning hearing to May 13.","taxTitle","Putnam County, Florida","taxId",53569,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6264139,"Horseman Club Road residents press county for permanent speeding solutions; staff to cost out radar feedback signs",772,8027000,8799000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639&start=8027&end=8799","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639/thumbnail_8027000.jpg","/articles/6264139/Putnam-County/Florida/Horseman-Club-Road-residents-press-county-for-permanent-speeding-solutions-staff-to-cost-out-radar-feedback-signs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6264139-553d4f961d5e909fffb862f802f1516f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182392&Signature=HmvQSEDprhE269U-nVJL9a-x7qIwDupyVb0eMvAHCXT788NSOeX4sBnxOQ7h-0xDZkZQTR3oGKkKMNeLgO9liJBm89pfDOma4WSimeYTqM6r4d6ODrGmt7wlBW3oiQpOySTcnA6CzPLtUEESHvS8ZjhvcfqT6w5-Y6qXcNXGylQqQHzh34K6c0ZdL1UuxmZTBkWCAMkzL32D1oAWnWnMR2QKx9~C24LjXjhUNbKA4ZetatylcWFCpb-G4lSd3c5Slv~ltIC0WQtm-FlS-q8~HloQpdMQvGB06KoBdvYrWz3F97Vab~WQMdH1y7M61cKOB5xpsv2sOIns802KwyjkEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tiffany Crozier, a Horseman Club Road resident, told the board on April 22 that reckless driving and high speeds have become a persistent safety problem on her neighborhood road. She said drivers use the street as a cut-through between Highway 19 and other arterials, and that the narrow roadway has deep drop-offs and no sidewalks. \"The speed limit is already inappropriate at 35 miles per hour,\" Crozier said, adding that local guidance suggested a 25 mph school-zone standard.

Commissioners acknowledged the safety concerns and discussed potential remedies. Commissioner Alexander, who said he grew up on Horseman Club Road, recommended temporary radar-feedback signs that display a driver's speed. Commissioner Harvey supported more enforcement and suggested that a flashing-speed device can change driver behavior, at least short term. County staff (Mr. Suggs and others) said they would produce cost estimates for permanent radar speed-feedback signs and review whether a pilot or traffic study would be appropriate in the corridor.

The board discussed other measures, including targeted enforcement by the Sheriff's Office, community education and the possibility of engineering changes (roundabouts or physical calming). Commissioners noted roundabouts or geometric changes would require land acquisition and higher costs; staff said those would need separate board direction to proceed.

Action and next steps: staff agreed to return with a cost model for radar-feedback devices and to coordinate with the Sheriff's Office and the school district on enforcement and school-related speed concerns. No ordinance or immediate construction action was approved at the meeting.","Residents asked the commission to reduce speeds and improve safety on Horseman Club Road. The board discussed enforcement, radar-feedback signs, and the possibility of a traffic study or physical calming measures; staff was asked to provide cost estimates and coordinate with the Sheriff's Office.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6264145,"Commissioners press staff for timeline as new animal control facility nears completion",781,5490000,6271000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639&start=5490&end=6271","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639/thumbnail_5490000.jpg","/articles/6264145/Putnam-County/Florida/Commissioners-press-staff-for-timeline-as-new-animal-control-facility-nears-completion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6264145-c28a975fd994cf2d57648fa7beccdf04/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182392&Signature=lKNPvf4LsWiZU~k6rJsdV6lj4dmZSCTXGWlvKZWNNoAAvWiGkdfaZvZD33iru7gv9iX0np~OxL6HyudY60LUj~NBLInCQraXN5Yco4Bqftt333wQT2cvJmfhQPnYoLbDg5wsPTzQ5tdZhn1whwQuWmmgN1YJktPlSX9BPPf1IYdlJZaTjst8fE0R~BEAubqlINyY3eG1WOAtZ~ClZeq7rTeXbuzW3DX4ZfoU2yY23PXFGVaP6GyfwigZQIQ5Yg7G7Cqqg8u6Y0fZNoOmpPfQUInlPvaRLklbi1DC-BlBtGlXztAm7dTtW-9z0dH05GDOQWVxWTIaKlUw9Ww5HUuBzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Putnam County commissioners pressed staff for a clearer completion timetable for the county's new animal control facility during commissioner comments on April 22, citing repeated missed deadlines and public interest in the project.

Commissioner Newbold and Commissioner Wilkinson (remarks reported during the meeting) said constituents and social media were asking why the building was not finished after repeated target dates. County staff and project managers described procurement constraints, value engineering and a modest construction budget that required many direct purchases and contract deductions.

Julianne (county staff) told the board that the county and contractor had negotiated numerous scope reductions and direct purchases to keep the project within a constrained budget. \"We took that number and then we chopped it in,\" she said, describing a process of owner purchases for cabinetry, steel and other materials and multiple contract deductions.

Deputy Administrator Grimes (discussed by commissioners) and county staff said the project has operational items still pending outside the construction contract—fencing, paving and other site improvements—and that the county used legislative funds for site work and Better Place funds for the remainder of the project. Staff said the department has delivered many contract deductions and that some remaining items are being purchased directly to accelerate completion.

Commissioners' direction: the board asked staff to re-engage the contractor, seek a firm completion milestone and, if the building remains incomplete at the next commission meeting, to have the contractor appear before the board to explain the status. Several commissioners volunteered to help with nontechnical tasks (painting, minor site work) if that would speed opening; staff replied that some tasks are outside the contractor's contract and will be scheduled separately.

What was not decided: no new funding was approved at the meeting and the board did not change the contract. Commissioners and staff agreed to seek a realistic, short-term completion date and to report back at a subsequent meeting.","Commissioners expressed frustration over delays and funding constraints on a new county animal control facility. Staff described value-engineering and procurement steps, said many change orders were deductive and that site work and some finish items remain; commissioners asked staff to seek a firm completion date.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6264150,"Residents, Save Rodman Reservoir advocates urge county to oppose state-funded dam removal",916,1336000,2252000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639&start=1336&end=2252","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639/thumbnail_1336000.jpg","/articles/6264150/Putnam-County/Florida/Residents-Save-Rodman-Reservoir-advocates-urge-county-to-oppose-state-funded-dam-removal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6264150-320cafd78337f369031d01be33f66bf3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182392&Signature=No8EGVYuMeXyLBB9tvwNotatEU5ddBPpJ6dsdZtekMyqSpcL3m18M0bsnvEWMB0OH6ddXPc-uxqQQ5w1UTRFczzIKJHUpM~PNptILFhiKkHYaLsT-wzxwrmgU82~8cwO47Hgz4I8DiMW3u0NEO1IIi2nke8BiTZ0Q0IsroeGtQDFQqr7zk3bLdHFM8ElbyJC39ZIZ41sKFZLRgEUNUtMzY8JAa3TR2beYv89tIsp5RDddYGjiGVOmj0VA9e~vb6fvf-H0a45rqift0-oOsbmrv5vaqzL2A61V8Bg40t3v7if4-4LdnMwGp8FYagbdLGCWzO-JEvkPnpQjo3BCHSu3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the April 22 Putnam County commission meeting, multiple public commenters urged the board to oppose recent state-level proposals to remove or partially 'restore' the Rodman (Lake Ocklawaha) dam and asked the county to contact state legislators and the governor.

Steve Miller, identified as president of Save Rodman Reservoir, told commissioners that the Florida legislature has proposed an appropriation of \"6 and a quarter million dollars\" for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to develop a plan for partial restoration with construction between 2026 and 2035. Miller warned that removing the dam would eliminate what he called the basin's only proven nutrient-filtering reservoir and could increase nutrient loads into the St. Johns River. He asked the commission to contact state lawmakers and the governor to oppose the funding. \"The only way everybody found out about it was when it hit the news in Jacksonville,\" Miller said, arguing local residents were not consulted.

Commissioner Harvey disclosed a potential conflict and said, \"In all fairness and disclosure, I am the executive director of Save Robin. Cannot be a board member due to the ethics commission,\" then continued to describe local water-level and watershed effects and urged local coordination and messaging to Tallahassee. Commissioner Alexander said he shares concerns about nutrient discharge and recommended a biological study to assess impacts on eelgrass in his area of the river.

Why it matters: speakers raised water-quality, freshwater supply and regional ecosystem consequences of a dam removal or partial drawdown. Commenters also noted prior state investment in repairs and questioned whether additional state funds should be directed toward removal planning instead of maintaining the existing infrastructure.

Board response and follow-up: commissioners and public speakers discussed outreach to state representatives and the governor's office. Commissioner Harvey and other speakers said they had already sent letters to representatives and the governor, and urged collective county action. No formal motion was recorded at the meeting asking the commission to send an official board letter, but multiple commissioners expressed support for coordinated communication with state officials and suggested outreach to Marion County and other neighboring jurisdictions.

Background cited by speakers: presenters referenced past structural repairs paid for by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (cited as roughly $1.8 million in a prior year), studies on nutrient loads, and concerns that baseline nutrient assumptions used in some proposals may understate the current nutrient load coming from areas such as Silver Springs. Speakers urged the commission to demand more local consultation before the state advances a plan.

What was not decided: the commission did not take a formal vote or adopt a resolution during this meeting. Speakers asked staff and elected officials to relay local concerns to state lawmakers and to continue coordinating on outreach in coming weeks.","Public commenters and some commissioners pressed Putnam County to oppose state appropriation that would fund a plan to partially restore (remove) the Rodman/ Ocklawaha dam, citing water-quality, nutrient-load and local-outreach concerns.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6264154,"Putnam County hears proposed impact fees totaling roughly $7,700 (non-utility); commissioners schedule workshop",2586,2271000,4857000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639&start=2271&end=4857","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3098870-dbc8dcf8ebfa433812b894a96426d639/thumbnail_2271000.jpg","/articles/6264154/Putnam-County/Florida/Putnam-County-hears-proposed-impact-fees-totaling-roughly-7700-non-utility-commissioners-schedule-workshop","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6264154-2f7971c6b3f724cbfd171643f6348ffd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771182392&Signature=iuJPle40qO4E6U8m4duZM8yfiZWzYcDgAojK-zNTGPhP-0ryW17da6abM4x2r~wblPd6pUCMHNvWXqjRCBwRTmA3S8DseG7IQk8LiOxslgUOghchBBmcEaJ4VKYRslqJtwhbOWvDFmzzi6i68b1f77~j5UkITbbcCi5CHJUEyZORgGn7z3mUwGeoFMwmChnTvnjxo6V8jGYMAICn--HfY0Txpo6l7qHjhFrAwEA4NeSDanOMBlY~PZFI0Rzjc~tee4uN5yTyZdx2gWhCodpj5PCH259aC2JQQK~v~BNT02DsrIcrF0i7ibJCuetk~cGd5nBEQh3Sl5kWk0E7JjNe2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Consultants presented a new impact-fee study to the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners on April 22, proposing non-utility capital fees that total about $7,700 per single-family home and roughly $16,000 per home when water and wastewater fees are included.

The study, presented by Nighyun Kemp (consultant) and Brian Mance of GovRates, examined five non-utility service areas and utility capacity for water and wastewater. It recommended a network-wide transportation fee, countywide charges for government buildings, fire-rescue, law enforcement vehicle replacement, parks and recreation, and separately calculated water and wastewater fees by meter size or flow. \"Impact fees are a one-time capital charge to new development,\" Kemp said, noting the county has not charged most of these fees since a moratorium in 2006.

Why it matters: the proposed fees shift some capital costs from the existing tax base to new development, a policy framed in Florida law as \"growth paying for growth.\" The county's consultants said the new fees are driven by recent permit activity, local capital inventories and projected growth; state law changes also require counties and cities to coordinate on transportation fees if both collect fees in overlapping areas.

Key details from the study: Kemp described the methodology used to calculate non-utility fees (inventory → level of service → cost → credits → demand). The draft schedule summarized by the consultants included:
- Non-utility fees (all service areas combined): about $7,700 per typical single-family unit; the largest components were transportation and government buildings.
- Transportation (network-wide, collectors and above, including state roads when improvements produce capacity): roughly $4,900 per single-family home. Kemp said that figure assumes a blended lane-mile cost and subtracts credits for other funding sources.
- Government buildings, law enforcement (vehicle-based), fire-rescue, parks: fee estimates were presented for single-family and nonresidential categories during the presentation.
- Utilities: Brian Mance said the proposed water fee is $2,605 per equivalent residential connection and the wastewater fee $5,455 per equivalent residential connection using a gallons-per-day level of service. The consultants used a 75% assumed grant/other funding allowance in the wastewater calculation and described these fees as comparable to larger utilities when adjusted for local conditions.

Revenue and legal constraints: consultants projected the county could collect roughly $1.7 million to $6.0 million annually depending on permitting levels and fee choices. They cautioned the board about statutory limits and timing: technical studies must be based on recent local data, changing the fees after adoption has statutory limits (a cap on increases and, where applicable, coordinated interlocal requirements). The consultants highlighted a statutory requirement to complete and adopt studies within 12 months of contract engagement and that interlocal agreements are required by Oct. 1, 2025, if both a county and a municipality charge transportation impact fees in the same geographic area.

Public comments and policy options: resident Michael Woodward urged the board to consider tiered residential fees tied to house size or bedroom count so small homes pay less than very large homes. Woodward said, \"It hardly seems fair that the impact fee for a 2-bedroom 1,000-square-foot bungalow would be just as large as the impact fee for a 5-bedroom, 3,500-square-foot house.\" The consultants acknowledged the board may adopt lower fees than the study supports but warned that starting low can make future increases difficult under statutory constraints.

Board direction and next steps: Commissioners agreed to continue stakeholder engagement. Commissioner Alexander moved to hold a county workshop with city and industry partners and the board approved the motion by voice vote; staff will schedule a stakeholder workshop and prepare a draft ordinance and public hearing schedule. The consultants and county attorney will draft ordinance language; staff said water and wastewater fees carry an additional customer-notification requirement and that non-utility fees have statutory notice and adoption timing implications (e.g., 90-day notice in some cases). Kemp told the board that fees become effective in line with statutory timing (consultants noted 9 days after adoption for some ordinances and consumer notice requirements for utility fees).

What happens next: staff will collect board questions, return written responses from the consultants, prepare a draft ordinance and coordinate a stakeholder workshop that county leaders said should include municipal leaders, builders and the Chamber. The board asked for a stakeholder forum and a draft ordinance to review before a public hearing. Staff also will provide a cost/benefit and schedule analysis for coordinating fees with the City of Palatka to meet the Oct. 1, 2025 interlocal deadline.","Consultants presented a technical impact-fee study proposing roughly $7,700 in non-utility capital fees (about $16,000 including water and wastewater). Commissioners asked staff to draft an ordinance and set a workshop with stakeholders to review timing, interlocal coordination and public input requirements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Putnam County Board of County Commissioners, April 22, 2025

Horseman Club Road residents press county for permanent speeding solutions; staff to cost out radar feedback signs

Commissioners press staff for timeline as new animal control facility nears completion

Residents, Save Rodman Reservoir advocates urge county to oppose state-funded dam removal

Putnam County hears proposed impact fees totaling roughly $7,700 (non-utility); commissioners schedule workshop