Commissioners debate Fort White sewer interlocal; authorize procurement piggyback while scheduling follow-up review

Columbia County commissioners spent more than an hour debating whether to formalize a contract to help the Town of Fort White administer a roughly $9.8 million grant (potentially rising to about $12 million) for a sewer plant and related infrastructure, then approved a narrower step to allow Fort White to “piggyback” on county right‑of‑way acquisition contracts and to use county procurement contacts immediately.

The board opened discussion after the town’s request to add the interlocal agreement to the evening agenda. County staff described the proposed agreement as limited administrative support: assembling grant documentation, assisting with procurement so the town’s procurements meet grant rules, and managing right‑of‑way acquisition agents on the town’s behalf. County counsel said the draft emphasized that the county would not perform construction work or operate the sewer plant; the town would retain final vendor selection and remain responsible for project costs.

The debate focused on what could happen if Fort White were unable to operate or maintain the plant after it is built. Several commissioners said they were concerned that an underperforming or abandoned utility could ultimately draw county financial or operational responsibility through state enforcement or receivership. Others argued the county’s administrative help is limited in scope and that the state and other regional utilities offer alternatives if the town cannot operate the system.

After extended discussion and a roll‑call vote on the interlocal itself, commissioners did not finalize full, long‑term commitments that night. Instead the board voted to authorize immediate, limited steps: county staff will provide Fort White with contacts and allow the town to piggyback on the county’s existing right‑of‑way acquisition contracts so the town can begin property‑acquisition work without delay. The board also directed staff to schedule a follow‑up workshop to review longer‑term financial and operational risks and options (for example, utility authority arrangements, Lake City operation, or other regional solutions).

George Thomas, mayor of Fort White, said the town’s grant work and engineering have been underway for more than a year and that prompt administrative support would help keep the project on schedule. Michael Pope, the town’s attorney, told commissioners the town expects most acquisition and procurement costs to be reimbursable under the grant but acknowledged some ambiguity and said the town would confirm reimbursement eligibility with the grant manager.

County attorney Joel (last name not specified) and county planning staff Louie (last name not specified) explained the narrow wording staff used to limit county obligations in the draft agreement. Several commissioners said they wanted more detail on how operating deficits would be handled and whether other utilities had committed to step in if the town could not sustain the system. The board agreed those issues should be examined in the workshop.

The narrower motions approved at the meeting do not obligate the county to operate or maintain a town sewer system. The board’s action allows Fort White to use county acquisition contracts and procurement support immediately; any further county obligations or formal interlocal approval would require later hearings and a clear plan addressing operating and contingency arrangements.

The board also asked county staff to work with the town and return to the commission with recommended next steps and any paperwork needed to document the procurement and acquisition services and to schedule the workshop requested by several commissioners.