Good morning, everyone.

It's 9 31.

I'll call to order the Jacksville Waterways Commission's meeting for June 10th, 2026.

Let's begin with introductions from my left.

Good morning, Jerry Pinto, Jacksonville University.

Shannon McGallis, Officer General Counsel.

Yep.

Dean Black, Florida House of Representatives, District 15.

Andrew Fraden, Waterways Commission.

Mark Hardesty Waterways Commission.

Rick Hartley Waterways Commission.

IGA District 2.

And Amara City Council District 1.

Matt Carlucci.

Alternate at large group 4.

Mike Barker, Waterways Commission.

Jay Hobson Waterways Commission.

Mark Devereaux Waterways Commissioner.

Matt Jones, Waterways Commission.

Adam Hoyle's Environmental Protection Board.

Thank you, gentlemen.

And ladies, let's rise for a pledge of allegiance.

Pledge allegiance.

Of the United States of America.

Thank you.

Our first action is approval of minutes.

Can I get a motion in a second, please?

Thank you.

Are there any notation corrections?

In the minutes that needed to uh to be done at this time.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Minutes approved.

Next item action is St.

John's River status report on water quality and manatees being delivered by Dr.

Pinto.

Dr.

Pinto.

Thank you.

So as most of you know, our rainfall has increased again, so our salinities are starting to drop, although they're still high.

If you look at the box in the middle there, Buck for the Buckman Bridge, which should be close to one or lower.

You can see the salinity is still fairly high there.

Our water temperature is running around 80 to 82 degrees.

So everything has warmed up quite a lot.

And incidentally, with the increased rainfall now and this high temperature, we might start to see more algae blooms.

And if I jump across to page three where we talk about algae blooms, we have a lot of mixed algae in the area.

It's sort of normal, but there are no toxins really to report, so things are looking good in terms of uh no harmful algae blooms yet.

Um we're still at a deficit for rainfall of about five inches, although we've had close to five to six inches uh in May.

Um what of an issue on the manatee mortality side of things.

You can see that we've had a little bit of a jump up in manatee mortalities.

We have five for uh additional mortality since the last meeting uh in May.

Three of those are watercraft mortalities that occurred out towards Mayport, uh Huguenot Park and Sisters Creek.

Again, what was suspected is that that they were a mating group that that got hit by some large vessel and and and uh uh rolled rather than cut by props.

Um so that's preliminary data right now, so we're still trying to find out more about those.

Uh in addition, we've had a couple of uh another death at uh the lock in uh Queen's Harbor, and so that comes to three so far this year, which is sort of unusual.

We haven't had that happen in a while.

So they've so since March, you know, it's been one a month, March, April, and May.

There these three deaths have occurred there.

So that is a situation that's worth uh watching and and looking at.

I think uh the management company over there is in discussion with uh the state and the federal agencies about that lock and what can be done to improve conditions there.

Uh you'll notice that there's a map there showing you the latest aerial sightings in the area.

Well, there's a couple of maps.

The first one is the official map for the site the aerial sightings uh that I fly.

We have about 71 manatees in the area, and then the last page shows you the public sightings map.

So this is a new app that we have uh implemented.

There's the QR code for accessing the form, and you can see that people in the community have been reporting sightings, uh, and so that's that's great.

That allows people to be more aware about manatees, which is something we want to achieve with the manatee protection plan.

And they can also feel involved in this process.

With that, I'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Pinto.

I'd like to recognize Commissioner Jones.

Good morning, everybody.

Through the chair.

I'm curious with the frequency of the lock issues.

Is there anything we as a commission can do?

Because it clearly sounds like there's something going on there.

I know you mentioned that they're talking with the state and fed federal agencies.

Have they narrowed it down to a sensor issue?

Or do we know have an answer for that yet?

Thank you.

So at this point, I haven't been involved as much as I'd like to be, partly because I think they're dealing with the state and the Fed agencies.

But if they're right on the bottom, sometimes you can't see them.

They could be behind a door when it opens or when it closes and get crushed that way.

And then, of course, once the doors are are moving and the water is rushing through them.

Sometimes there's there's a period of time there where you can't stop the door.

And if something gets in, you know, obstructs the door when that happens, it's it's difficult to do anything about.

But definitely three in a in the you know, a month in the last uh few months has been a problem.

Uh so they're looking at it, it may be a sensor issue.

It may be that they need to employ something like uh a hydrophone or something to listen for um uh you know vocalizations that these animals make sometimes so that they can then be aware that oh, we can't see it, but it's there, we need to just wait.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Just wanted to make sure that we're we're we if there was anything that we could do on our end to help us preventing that in it at any time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any any other?

Oh, go ahead.

You're not on the queue, that's why.

Oh, it's not working.

Dr.

Hay, two things.

One, you used a term rolled when you talked about the manatee, and I'm not familiar with that rather than cut.

Did I miss you that?

And then the second thing is would be around that lock.

Rather than listening, excuse me.

Is there a sound that could be broadcast under the water, maybe that would kind of spook, excuse me.

Again, that would spook the manatees away from the lock, something like that.

Uh great and interesting points.

We've we've looked at putting sound into the environment, which apparently is against the law for civilians, anyway.

So that that's not allowed by federal uh restrictions, unfortunately.

But the idea of having sort of like a deer whistle type thing that would light up an area uh to to let manatees know that there's a there's water craft in the area or there's something moving has been has been looked at in the past, uh, without great success.

I would I might add, because in shallow water environments, because of the way sound bounces off of these various things, and you get a lot of interference, and it's not the same as being out in deep water in the ocean uh and and you know, for example, the right whale uh issue there, it's it's a little bit different.

Um I forget what your first question was.

Uh oh, rolled uh or cut.

So some manatees we've noticed get prop cuts and die from those prop cuts, and you can tell from the size of the prop, okay, it was a commercial vessel or it was a recreational vessel or likely to be, you know, this size vessel.

Um, but sometimes there's blunt force trauma that's caused, and so uh it you you can get a manatee can get hit by a boat uh and not exhibit any of those signs of of cutting from the prop or the skeg on the on the on the motor or the engine unit, but the bones are broken, and invariably they have punctured uh various organs and kill the animal that way, and so typically like a tug or a broad barge that might run over something and not cut it up, that that's the type of uh uh thing I'm talking about being rolled, uh and and and with bones being broken and that kind of thing.

Thank you, uh Commissioner Barker.

Uh commission uh Hoyles, Mr.

Hoyle.

Yeah, uh through the chair, thank you.

Um it seems like the Garmin now makes forward-facing sonar that's steerable um for fishermen, and you could drop one of those into the lock and literally look around.

Something the size of a manatee would show up brightly on a sonar like that.

Um that's not expensive or exotic technology nowadays.

Uh it seems like that would be an easy solution.

You could just see if there's a manatee in the way.

And I would agree, and and hopefully that's being proposed by the state and the feds that they do some things, you know, quickly.

Because it's quite simple and cheap to do that.

Um, I mean, that sounds like a great research project, actually, for some of my students to get out there and do it.

Yeah, I mean, it's it's amazing.

You can literally see fish, you know, and and cast to them.

And you if you've ever, if anybody's ever watched a bass fishing tournament, you'll see the bass fishermen will do that.

They'll have a steerable forward-looking sonar, and they just look for the bass and cast right to them.

A manatee would be easy anyway.

I hope they're I hope they're looking at that, because that would be a simple commercially available.

You could you could buy them at West Marine and you know, Bass Pro shops.

I mean, you could get them on Amazon, you could have it delivered tomorrow.

It's you know, not hard.

That's an excellent idea.

Thank you.

Um just to follow up on that, uh, uh Dr.

Pinto, of who would incur the cost of that?

Queens Harbor or the cost of employing that that equipment would be incurred by the management company at Queens Harbor.

Which uh invariably would be passed on through association fees or whatever through to their to their uh constituents.

Just want to get that on the record.

So when you're pitching ideas, you know who's gonna pay for it.

Uh moving on.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Hobson.

Sure, Dr.

Pinto.

I was just curious.

When we have the manatee death, who collects the manatees?

Um I'm assuming it's not you guys.

Is it FWC?

Is it the zoo?

Who's collecting the manatees and then studying to see what maybe the cause?

Thank you.

So the the um the FWC has a marine mammal recovery team that deals with all the recoveries, assists, releases, that kind of thing.

Uh and the and the zoo takes part in some of those releases and rehab of animals that they collect.

Uh, but most of the time when they're dealing with these um carcasses, they will go out and do the necropsies either in the field or take them back to the pathobiology lab in St.

Petersburg, and and so the FWC handles all that.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Um moving on to the agenda uh public comment, Mrs.

Hobson.

Do we have any cards?

Uh Mr.

Carnell Oliver, um, yeah.

I can hear you, sir.

All right.

Mr.

Oliver name and address, you know, the routine.

Uh, what are ways is the economic engine for the city as a whole?

But for black Americans who live on the east side dealing with uh Jacksonville ports Authority.

There's a lot of economic engine that could focus on creating a community trust fund.

If we can deconsolidate this city back to its original city limits, because the opportunity zone 2.0.

It's a lot of investment that is coming down the pipeline in 2027.

And where there's a lot of land that caters to our interstate compact and our commerce, I want to maximize every opportunity.

There's undeveloped land, Jacksonville Port Authority has acquired.

A lot of land along that waterways is a lot of rich potential.

But I want my people, black Americans who are indigenous to America to get the reaps of the rewards.

And just like in what they do in Alaska, the people of Alaska gets royalties from the oil fields.

And dealing with our ports, I believe that we can create an automated port with black developers, black engineers, contractors.

We create our own trust.

We create our own economic empowerment, one that is not dependent on government subsidized funding, but we get the initial investment.

The dollars are already there.

What I know.

Being in this building, I see how that money flows.

And one of the things I want to do is create an economic engine for self-determination.

And that's one of the key talking points that really resonates with the culture of this city.

You let me do me, and I'll stay out your business.

And this is the opportunity that I'm trying to create.

And one of the things I want to know is dealing with our waterways.

How many state parks are associated with Jack's associated with black Americans?

How many local properties are associated with Jacksonville?

Because my ultimate goal is we keep the framework of consolidation, but we go back to the original city limits and we get a black American freedman zone.

Thank you, Mr.

Oliver, Mr.

John Nooney.

Hello, I am John J.

Noone, name and addresses on file.

All right.

I'm wearing my FWC hat, CIA hat, Culinary Institute of America.

And FWC, it's a playoff official wildlife commission.

And you know, FWC, fishing with Crady.

I hope you're gonna be talking about the June 22nd.

It is probably right before the day before the next city council meeting.

It is gonna be one of the biggest events you can imagine, you know, for uh Nassau Duval County.

FWC, so fishing with Crady, fishing with crabs.

These are some fiddler crabs, just got them from the backyard just now.

Fishing with credit, FWC fishing with cash, FWC fishing with the commissioners, fishing with council, fishing with Chris, fishing with Carlucci, fishing with Congress.

You know, uh what I'm just out of two minutes, but right now, what I want to share with you at last night in Jacksonville City Council meeting.

We're making a movie.

2026 0396.

Saw Todd Rubin right outside.

You know what?

I have my Todd Rubin shirt underneath this, and this is Brooks Rehabilitation.

They're gonna be one of the biggest beneficiaries of this potential park on Pottsburgh Creek, and I'm just down to a minute 20.

But also, what this Waterways Commission needs to understand is that we just created three trust funds.

2026 0004.

It's a parks trust Fund.

2025 0463.

It's a veterans trust fund.

2009, 442 is the Artificial Reef Trust Fund.

That goes back always.

And now we're gonna have 2026 0396, which is for movies, for marketing to the world.

It's real, it's not fake.

I'm down to 40 some seconds.

You know, I was at St.

John's, the Board of County Commissioners.

You know, right here, June 2nd.

Here is the Northeast Florida Regional Council, seven counties.

You know, you're gonna be talking about find.

You know, Captain Suber, you're in the movie.

You know, y'all are.

This is huge.

Pie Callaway is our fine commissioner.

I was on that trip.

You know, super props, Darrell Joseph, Jill Enns, Brian Burke.

You know, our waterways, it is tourism.

So anyway, I'm going up.

Here's the donation 2025 0463 for the veterans.

Thank you, Mr.

Nooney.

And here's the other three.

Thank you.

All right, any questions?

Mr.

Nooney, have a seat, please.

Uh Miss Latrice Bell.

Good morning.

Lee Tris Bell.

My address is on file.

Um we visit uh the George Crater Bridge, uh Soft Pit Bridge on Friday.

We stopped by uh different businesses to let everyone know that uh the mayor will be visiting the Salt Pit, George Crater Bridge on this month, the 22nd at 9 30.

We invite you all to come out and uh take a tour with us.

Come and tour with the mayor, and we want you to see what's going on down there.

Also, I don't know if you all knew our concern about what's really happening on Hexer Drive.

The someone, DEP, D F D O T, whoever, they're taking over the whole, whole hexer drive.

They're taking over everything down there, and I thought we duval, I thought part of the end was ours.

And to come and find out, people that are in charge of that end.

Well, I gotta say, honesty is the best policy to be honest and be fair and transparent because there's a lot going on down there.

They're developing a lot, they're taking a lot, and somebody knew about it.

Now that Salt Pit Bridge, the kayak man, he's taking over.

And that didn't just happen yesterday.

The community do not know anything about it.

When we know anything, sign seal and delivered.

Some sneaky business is going on, and that's not fair, y'all.

We should know something.

That boat ramp was built.

We didn't even know nobody was gonna build no boat ramp.

They closed that bridge, kicked us off, didn't care anything about us.

Everybody they made it convenient for the bikers, they rerouted the bike trail from the old bridge to the new one.

They took and kicked us off the bridge, and when I say us, red, yellow, black, white, green, purple.

We all guards children.

They kicked us off that bridge.

We need to be on that bridge.

We need to fish, we need to fish for food.

We need something on the north side for the children for all us to come out.

Everyone don't have a boat.

They don't have water in their backyard where we can get a cane pole and we can go out there and catch fish whenever we get ready.

We're not fortunate enough to have that.

You're taking everything away from downtown.

We can't go downtown and fish.

There's nowhere for us to go.

We need help.

Y'all know what's going on, and it's not fair that you don't let the community know.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Bell.

I would encourage you to remain persistent on this matter.

Moving down the agenda, we're gonna flip-flop uh some of the new business because of an update, technical update.

Um, so we'll move to the uh discussion of the uh find letter of support for a comprehensive watershed analysis of Hong King Creek.

Um Ms.

McGillis, would you put me in the proper posture there?

Is this a Brian Burkett thing?

And who I have not seen um the letter.

That was you, okay, Miss Barker.

It's it's on you.

The reason that I asked for that to go in is I've been serving as chairman of the fine subcommittee for the last number of years, and that'll be coming up again shortly.

And um the folks supporting Hog Pen had gotten in touch with Find while Find was here and got a letter of support from them, and so what I suggested via email to one of the supporters whose email we had received was that maybe we could put um some money and ask for some money in the in the next find budget, um, put it on the list for consideration when we go through that process, which is coming up fairly soon.

So, in other words, put it officially on the list of of uh projects to consider, so that there would be at least a start to it's a long process, but it will at least be a start to provide some kind of funding at some level for this.

If you're gonna get anything started any sooner, find is very slow, you're not gonna get any money for probably two, three years because these things are charted out pretty carefully and construction and design is already done and money's kind of committed, but at least this will give a start to uh something solid as far as addressing the problem.

So, but I just wanted to throw it in front of Mr.

Barker with kind of dollars are we talking about?

Well, they need to come up and make an ask, is typically what they do.

But what we typically do with waterways is we just have an idea, or excuse me, with the fine subcommittee is put an idea on the list of projects to be considered and what and and unless there's some sort of objection here or anybody thinks that's inappropriate.

I just thought it would be a good idea to put it on that list for consideration, and then what we can do is we can discourse back with them and find out what what they're asking for.

I don't even think we know what the cost of of the uh soils examination that they're asking for would be at this point, do we?

Is anybody know that?

No, yeah, I don't think so.

But at least I think we need to go ahead and put on the list.

Find is interested, so let's put it on our list, and at least it's it's it's out there, and it's something tangible that they can work on in addition to other things that might hit sooner.

Is there any conversation from any of the uh commission?

The Hartley, Mr.

Chair, should we ask Mr.

Burkett to discuss the application of this idea.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Hartley.

At first, I thought he was the proper voice, but uh Brian, go ahead.

Good morning, Brian Burkett.

Uh Parks Department.

Uh I was at that fine meeting when they were in town uh a couple weeks ago, and I did hear the gentleman speak to them, and they had a receptive voice.

Um, so I think that's what generated this letter that was in your packets.

I did reach out to the um executive director of fine because I wanted some clarity on what her letter said and what she's recommending and what would be fine uh uh grant eligible.

So the letter is suggesting the first step would be a comprehensive watershed analysis study, which um would help identify the cause of the sedimentation within that um within that channel.

Um, what she does, what she did clarify to me that study would not be fine eligible.

Uh they would not provide any dollars for that study, but the recommendations that come from that study uh could be fined eligible if there's support from the from this body and the city council.

Um but since it is that since there is no public water access facility along that water body, um it would not be eligible at the 50% reimbursement.

Uh this would only be eligible for a 25% reimbursement, and it also stipulates their grant rules say that for this type of project the 50% or 50% of the match dollars would have to come through uh general taxes or assessment of the benefiting properties.

So it's different than this would be totally different.

It could still be a it the recommendations from the proper the recommendations that come from this study, which still would need to be funded by the city or elsewhere, but not fined apparently.

Um, that I assume that would take a whole year to to identify the recommendations, but whenever those recommendations are identified, we could add those projects to our fine list for consideration, but just know that the um uh the reimbursement level is significant is half of what we typically get, and the match dollars, half of those match dollars have to come from the benefiting properties.

So I don't know if that's already set up as a taxing district.

Um I know there was some discussion over that in the past, so that's a little light on this subject that makes it a little more unique than the typical project that we would recommend.

Another another option, if we did put a public facility there, a boat ramp.

But I mean, I looked there's really minimal opportunities.

If we did have a public access facility, then that would make it eligible for the 50 percent.

Thank you, Mr.

Burkett, Mr.

Carlucci, and Mr.

Barker after Mr.

Carnival.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

How much do those studies generally cost?

I mean is there a number you can put on that the size of that one right there?

I mean, I've I've looked at it, you know, from uh Google Earth, that area, uh, and I've met with some of the uh constituents out there, or I've talked to them over the phone, I should say, and um the city's not inclined to uh pay for that, and now with November looming and that um referendum on you know those kind of the the property tax cuts.

Um that makes it likely we're not we're gonna be further less inclined to spend money on that.

But do you have any idea what those costs or maybe uh commissioner Hoyle's over there that I uh didn't notice with uh better classes uh but would know?

But I'm just curious.

Anybody know what that costs?

A hundred thousand, three hundred thousand, fifty-five.

I'd be guessing if I was to take a shot, you know, we would yeah, you would have to hire an engineer or a consulting firm to do that study.

Mr.

Barker.

Grateful that you're here, Brian, because I didn't know you'd be able to be here.

Um, so I just asked for this to be put on a day or two ago.

Um my thought on this was that an analysis would be kind of a one to two year process, and then uh it would dredging be a better match if we got an analysis that said go ahead and dredge under these conditions.

So I know we can dredge in the in the main body, but would this be eligible for the regular match at a the dredging portion?

The a dredging project is certainly eligible um, but again, it would be only be at the 25% because there's no public access facility on this water body, it's just all privately benefit uh the benefiting property properties uh would need to contribute according to the grant rule.

But I think Find also wants to know it as obviously there there seems to be some kind of uh cause uh effect here.

So if we whenever we ask for a dredge uh funding, they want to know did we look at what's the cause of this sedimentation and is there any mitigating design factors that can be contributed to this project so we're not coming back and doing this on a regular frequency because they don't want to spend their dollars on a project that's going to fill in in short time because we didn't do our due diligence and figure out the cause and and mitigate you know the source of that.

I didn't think find was necessarily going to be able to solve their problem, but if it's even if it's a 25% match, we still have to find funding from other sources and find is going to be, I mean, the earliest that I could see having dealt with with you and find for a while.

I mean, the earliest that I could see a dredge hitting the water would be three to four years out because you'd need the analysis and then you need the approval, and then you need to get the permitting and all the rest of it.

And I think they want to move faster than that, but a 25% match actually might work because we'd be able to take a smaller amount of money and dedicated to that to that and at least give them some matching funds for something and at least help them get started.

Um it's not gonna be the panacea, but since they brought it up, I just thought I'd run down the road with it.

And I'm I'm I'm glad you were here.

Thank you, Mr.

Barker, Mrs.

Suber.

Well, Brian pretty well just said everything I was gonna say, but because dredging is a solution to cleanup, but it's not a solution for the solution.

This is sediment that's coming from all those neighborhoods and everything.

Where um does it have a stormwater basin that can catch those base those uh sediments before it goes into the natural water body, those are the kind of questions that need to be answered, I think.

Uh to Mr.

Burkett, uh when the community came to the commission, um the motive for a study was to identify uh culpability, who is responsible, uh, and then moving forward from responsibility to resolution, if I remember distinctly.

Um would that fall within the scope of find to determine who is in this analysis as to who uh would be responsible for this uh silk buildup that has made that waterway somewhat um unusable?

Um I don't think so.

Uh that so they're not uh you know in a regulatory or an enforcement body, they they're just saying that they're they're willing to contribute towards a solution.

If one, we did a study that identified the cause, and two, um, we have to apply for an application using their the standard protocols of the design phase and the construction phase, but it would only be at that 25% value and that stipulation that 50% of the match comes from the benefiting properties.

So we just have to play within their their rules, they're identifying an opportunity to use their money, but they are they wouldn't be um I think where they would where they would have a concern is if that sediment can continue to go all the way out of Hogpen Creek into the ICW.

If if that became an issue, then they would probably get very interested to know you know what's causing this because that's that is their that is their mission, right?

To keep the intercoastal waterway navigable, but I don't think I to mine understanding that's not been an issue at this point.

Okay, uh, we required uh to take action for for this to move forward.

Um I don't think there's any action.

This was just uh a letter that was shared to to show you know the uh what finds recommendation is and and again I guess it's up to the the body to you know whether they want to to uh support the idea of finding funding for um this uh comprehensive watershed analysis.

I I I've just read over the letter from uh Ms.

Zimmerman, so I uh see what what the re what the ask is.

Mr.

Chairman, the reason that I wanted to I'm sorry, I just say if if to the chair, I just wanted to put it in so that we discussed it so a we let the community know that we are looking at it hard, and they did take the time to go and and deal with find and that we're running down every avenue that we can with find to let them know that we're not casting a blind eye towards them, but we've got to come up with the right pathway.

Mr.

Burkett is extremely effective in helping us do that.

So that was the reason for doing this.

It's not necessarily that we have to take action right now, but they know what we're doing.

Thank you, Mr.

Barker.

Mr.

Hoyle, if you were on, are you off?

I am.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, to answer some of the questions about Hog Pen Creek.

Yeah, study like that.

I don't uh I agree with Brian's assessment of Fine's ability to fund that.

I think it would end up being a city obligation.

Uh, to answer um council member uh Carlucci's question about cost.

Um I work on a team that does those studies, but I've never tried to cost one.

So I I have no idea um the the level of magnitude, but um studies like that are done uh to solve issues just like this.

Um I have a heart when I look at aerial photography of that area and that creek, I have a hard time saying that it was this development or that development.

You have a lot of neighborhoods discharging stormwater into that canal that discharges into that creek.

Um, so I mean, there's a lot of collective responsibility in that.

Um, and I I would think there would be uh public interest in reopening that waterway and maybe coming up with a solution to modify that canal.

But the problem with modifying that canal is we've built right up to it.

And so, you know, if we're gonna do anything serious with that, we've either got to really re-engineer the canal itself or somebody's gonna lose a home.

Um so there's not a lot of space to come up with a solution.

So I mean, you know, even if we do study it, and even if we do figure out where the sediment came from, preventing that problem in the future is going to be an interesting challenge, because somebody's property is gonna need to get taken.

My opinion, you know, I don't know, I don't see where you'd put infrastructure is my point.

I'm not an engineer, but uh that just that infrastructure would have to go somewhere upon settling basin, filtration basin, something, um, and then of course somebody would have to maintain it.

Somebody would then, if we're not putting the sediment directly into the creek, the sediment would go into a basin, and then somebody of the city is going to dredge out that basin from time to time.

So solvable problem for sure.

So if that's helpful.

Thank you, Mr.

Hoyle.

Ms.

McGillis, you were on the queue.

Thank you.

Um, to the chair and through the chair, to the commission.

Um the Hog Penn Creek area is in District 13, and Councilmember Rory Diamond did state, and it's I'm reading from Jack's today uh of May 12th, 2026, at a meeting, he uh committed to securing funding for a watershed analysis.

And I do also recall that he stated that about two councils, council meetings ago.

So um to answer your earlier question procedurally, what does this body do?

You just you you've acknowledged the letter.

Um there's nothing for you to do at this moment, and I recommend not doing anything at this moment, um, and let the um council member uh move forward with uh securing funding for the study.

Thank you.

My exact sentiments, Mr.

Hardesty.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um this brings up a very interesting issue that Mr.

Burquette has been involved with, Captain Suber, uh Dr.

Pinto, uh all of us that have been on this uh this commission for uh any time at all.

Um we have a shoaling committee uh that that has attempted to deal with these persistent reoccurring issues that occur in all different places.

And the the one that comes to mind that we have absolutely slammed our heads against the wall and gotten quite frankly nowhere as been uh the shoaling uh right outside of Clapboard Creek, uh that runs along Raymond Drive.

And uh we have we have put in work.

We have put in every effort, we have gotten federal agencies involved, and I say all that to say this: is that these agencies that are involved in this are going to fight you to the death.

Number one.

Number two is is they hold most of the cards they have all the money and so it has become a very difficult thing but it's something this commission must address because we're seeing these issues pop up and continue and we haven't solved one yet uh as far as how much these studies go uh I can tell you that the testimony that we've had in these shoaling committee meetings and councilman gay has been right right side by side with me is they're in excess of a million dollars just to quote unquote study it and and y'all are right there are two two um steps to this whole thing one is discovering what the problem is what the origin of it is and creating a solution for that moving forward and the second is the remediation of what that damage has that has occurred is dredged or you know there is a break water wall or something like that install installed to prevent it from going on in the future so yes it's a two-step process um but but I will tell you that I am all for this commission getting completely behind this and with the political oomph that that we need in this thing because our one issue and it's going to be the same in this project as it is the shoaling is going to be money and funding because these agencies that are involved in our case we believe it's it's uh NOAA and the Corps of Engineers and some projects that they did they're to blame but we've gotten to the point where really finding the blame who cares at this point the point is is before someone gets killed in the shoaling situation specifically where this the in a navigable channel where uh you know it is it we finally got it marked so there's a safety issue that we've achieved but it's a dangerous thing it continues to be a dangerous thing um and I I really this has been a great thing to bring this to light because this isn't the only one that we're going to see we're gonna see more and more and more as the dredging continues as the developments continue as all of this there is a build up of sediment there is uh this is an ongoing thing and so um I'm glad we're not casting a blind eye to this and I'm glad that it's brought the shoaling issue at Clappard Creek back in the in the forefront and so I'm all here to to help but I need help.

I need help to to push this thing forward.

Thank you Mr.

Mr.

Gary and we'll move on.

Excuse me thank you Mr.

Chair um I concur with Mr.

Hardesy of the effort and and the all the work that's went in trying to deal with the the shoaling there in the St.

John's River um I guess really the making sure that this study that's done is that's where we as a uh council stopped because we could have had J U do a study and it was going to cost a million something dollars the uh we could have paid the federal government to do their study which it was going to be two to three million dollars for them to do theirs but we could not get a guarantee of that the the federal government state coast guard uh army corps all all your entities uh out there that would accept the JU study.

And so that's where it we we stopped uh moving forward with it and tried to go different avenues so that that's my only ask uh with potentially if if council member diamond is doing uh going to have this study done that we kind of look at all the entities if they're going to accept the analysis of it.

So with that, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Gay.

Moving to the next agenda item for discussion, something I'm more familiar with.

Commissioner Matt Jones.

This is the Fort George River Sandbar Bowling Hazard issue.

Commissioner sent out an email earlier identifying and looking for our voice to address this issue.

I know Mr.

Gay and anyone else who's been in that area know that what it's like on the weekend.

Mr.

Jones, go ahead.

Good morning, commissioners, and to the chair, through the chair to the commission.

I'd like to bring to the floor an issue that, at least in my opinion, should have been done years ago.

I've actually made a cheat sheet to read so I don't go rambling on because I know everybody's got other things to do.

But I'd like to get at least the discussion started about making the inlet a no-wake zone.

That resource, as thousands know, is one of our most amazing and very few left of places to enjoy while out on our inshore waters on our boats.

For decades, locals, myself included, have enjoyed many family weekends out on the multiple sandbars located within the inlet.

Over the last few years, with the influx of new residents and boat purchases, the Fort George Inlet has become a summer weekend destination.

And as more find out, the numbers are just going to continue to grow.

On any given weekend, the inlet can see anywhere from two to three hundred boaters, probably double that on Memorial Weekend, July 4th, Labor Day, etc.

Um everybody looking just to go out there and relax and enjoy the many outdoor pleasures that we as Floridians have at our disposal.

As the crowds grow, so does the chaos, unfortunately, with an ever-changing ecosystem.

Every year the locations that boaters are able to safely anchor changes.

Dr.

Pento can probably agree to that.

This occurs with the swift incoming and outgoing tides on the Atlantic Ocean side of the inlet.

That constant shifting of tides relocates the multiple sandbar locations almost on an annual basis.

And I've got some pictures.

If you scroll down, there's pictures of how the sandbars change over time.

I mean, you know, one year you go out there, you've got one location to anchor up at.

Next year it's completely different.

As outlined by Lieutenant Kilcoin with the JSO Marine Unit, the constant shift creates a navigational nightmare that even the most seasoned local boater, and even more so for the new residents coming in for the first few times.

The Alamacone kayak launch on the east end is also gaining in population during the weekends with kayaks in the inlet.

Mix that with the number of boats that are already anchored, added weight from incoming boats, huge gatherings of families, and it's just a recipe recipe for disaster.

I did also find a local sighting of a manatee in there.

I've lived here 54 years, did not know manatee, migrate up in there, but apparently they do.

Even more of a reason to slow everything down.

I feel it's not only our duty as waterways commissioners, but also in our moral interest to want to keep not only our resources safe, but first and foremost our residents.

But constituents are actually asking for it.

This can be done with very little funding.

I believe the only funding required would be for signage.

That's it, um, to the best of my knowledge.

But the return on investment for keeping children and boaters safe would be huge.

Signage would need to be posted at the Kingsley Plantation Dock on the west entrance from Sisters Creek and zoned up to the Alamacone kayak ramp on the east end at the Hexher Drive's end, known now known as the Jimmy Buffett Memorial Highway.

I'd like to propose a resolution to have this put up for public comment and hopefully a vote at our next meeting to move it forward to the next stop and graciously ask for the commission's support.

Thank you, Mr.

Jones, Mr.

Gay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

As we discussed in the last uh waterways meeting, I believe when we had the uh JSO doing the presentation, that this was one of the topics that I discussed about the necessity for increased patrol out there.

As far as the there's been discussions, I've I've uh met with uh different entities about the uh reducing the speed and reduce the minimum wake zones uh allowed in a lot of these areas, and it'll discuss it in the Shad Creek as well.

Um, but I I have met the state parks, Kingsley Plantation is uh interested in the minimum wake zone in that area.

So there's been a lot of a lot of discussion about this, trying to get a get a handle on it, but there's a whole procedure that we've got to go through with FWC to get them to allow uh signage to go to for minimum wake zones to go in there, and Captain Suber can elaborate a little bit on all that as what we're trying to do uh in other areas.

Uh so it has been discussed.

Uh it's the the need is there, uh boaters, jet skiers.

I mean it jet skiers is a lot, a lot of uh uh very active in this in this area out here as well.

Uh so it definitely needs to be moved to the priority for discussions and and what we can potentially get FWC to allow to be to be done in there, and thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mrs.

Suber.

Through the chair.

Um I I was contacted again.

I've been contacted every couple of years or maybe even every couple of times a year about this issue.

Those are great photos, those are good examples to support the need out there, by the way.

But uh that uh FWC lieutenant as well as JSO Marine units contacted me this past week about how they can help, and I told them they need to first of all send to me an email or have their lieutenants send an email of support for this because of the conditions out there, and at least that would give evidence and give uh support for what is actually needed because I don't think there's anybody other than a couple of jet skiers maybe that might get a little upset about the fact that that this is being done, but that's okay.

I mean it needs to be done.

It's a it's a serious um safety issue out there, and we've already since we've had this conversation, we've had uh some injuries and some foot and a fatality that wasn't because of fast boats, but uh uh drowning out there, don't know really how it happened, but but that's just more icing on the cake, if you will, as to evidence that something needs to be done out there uh and he's right.

This is this is an ever-ending evolution of sand that is changing all the time, and and the the Kingsley plantation all the way out to the St.

John's or to the uh ocean needs to be a no wake zone or slow speed minimum wake.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs.

Suber.

Uh let me ask Ms.

uh McGillis.

So we've had a conversation about this, and uh clearly anyone who's been up there on the weekends uh don't even need the pictures that know firsthand, uh what the conditions are.

Uh Ms.

McGill, it's um it seems like clearly an appropriate issue for the uh waterways commission, so how procedurally do we move forward from here?

To the chair and through the chair to the commission.

Yes, um, this issue is clearly within the scope of the purposes of the Waterways Commission under Chapter 95.

Um, as well, um Captain Suber is correct as usual about that this is uh far more complicated an issue as as with um Councilmember Gay, far more complicated an issue as let's buy some signs and stick them up.

This would be the equivalent of the city trying to put signs on a state road in the middle of a federal park.

Can't do it on our own, but um under section 32746 of the Florida statutes, there is a narrow window uh through which the municipality can regulate the speed of boats, but um the where we can regulate and to what distance we can regulate all depends on certain enumerated features of the waterway that's under question.

So any ordinance, and this would have to go as an ordinance through City Council, any ordinance passed by City Council cannot take effect until FWCC Florida uh Fresh Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, they have to opine, they have to review the the past ordinance, and they have to make a determination by substantial competent evidence that the ordinance is necessary to protect public safety, so any ordinance has to be built upon and founded a lot of whereas clauses with all of the competent substantial evidence necessary for FWCC to sign off on it and then it would become effectuated.

But we're also talking about the Fort George River is protected and managed by Florida DEP as Councilmember Gay uh pointed out, and the Fort Joy uh as part of the Fort George Island Cultural Site and the St.

John's River Marshes Aquatic Preserve and it is a Florida outstanding waterway, these all probably weigh in the favor of um regulating boat speed by the municipality, but you also have to understand that the whole thing is under the Temequin as a Timaquan ecological and historical historical preserve, so any ordinance has to by Florida statute.

Also, beyond Florida DEP has to go through the United States Coast Guard and the Army Corps.

But again, you're talking about what you're asking to do, is of the benefit to all of those to the preserve, to the marshes, it would help all of it, and so what if anything is translating through this message is it's gonna be a lot of where-as clauses, like a wheelbarrow full, and that's fine, but in order to get the facts for your whereas clauses, you need to gather these facts.

How can JWC gather these facts?

Please, how can we?

Fantastic question.

Um, I highly recommend because this is unlike some of the other issues that were discussed um at earlier meetings and even today, such as like dredging and and how are these silts coming in.

This is a known issue.

It's a matter of how the the sands come up through the inlet into the Fort George River because this is actually part of the Fort George River, not the inlet.

Um so this is a known issue.

It's the Atlantic Ocean, um, with a discrete solution.

So this is ripe for a task force, and this body can create a task force, and what I would recommend is um using a task force to to collect all of the information and present it to the commission as a body.

Um in that way you have the benefit of the this commission as a forum for bringing in the necessary entities, you know, FDEP, F WCC, the Army Corps, they're all by our code, Chapter 95, liaison members to this commission.

So we can bring every everybody to the proverbial table.

So I do highly suggest that yes, this is a proper and appropriate scope of JWC and can be done through a task force.

Thank you.

Before this meeting is over, I'd like to create that task force.

And I don't know the size of what it should be.

I don't know what the shoaling and the briefing and and those different uh the size of those task force.

Is it three members or four members?

I'd like also to have a time certain that this does not linger, that if once the task force gets going, that within a 90-day period, if possible, come back with a report to move this this forward.

Give me your guidance.

To the chair and through the chair, to the commission, under chapter 95, the creation of a task force of the Jacksonville Waterways Commission is a two-step process.

Number one, under 95104D is in DOG, the uh task force can be authorized by the commission.

That would be a vote that this commission takes to say that yes, we want a task force on this issue.

If this body says yes, we want a task force on this issue, then then under 104A, it is the chair that you make up the uh how many people are on it, you appoint who's on it, you give a uh a schedule of when the report should be due.

That would all be through what I'd highly recommend a charge memo.

So it is in public circulation, and everybody knows the scope, the members, all of it.

I do um caution that task force meetings and communications among task force members will be within the sunshine law.

Um so uh and because the results of that task force are expected to come to a vote to this body, and even more likely to come to a vote to the city council as a whole, communications among task force members and task force members to this body and this body and task force members to city council as a whole will be subject to sunshine laws.

Thank you.

Given that I'd like a motion to authorize a task force, and second, all in favor, any approval?

Okay, so that carries.

That's the first step.

Um I do believe um I don't believe in big government, so I do believe that the task force should be at minimum three members, maximum five.

Does that seem appropriate, Miss McGillis?

To the chair, yes, it does seem appropriate, and um I neglected to state that one of the benefits of a task force is that um you can appoint members to this task force that are not members to this particular body, so long as the chair of your task force is a member of this body.

And also note if we um if if you the chair, me, I added the we because I am offering to write your charge memo for your approval, um, if that charge memo goes out prior to when a new chair comes in on this body, the task force will continue up until at least then, and then the new chair, of course, can maintain that task force.

Thank you.

I I would then suggest that we have at minimum three members who are now on the Waterway Commission, and perhaps two from the public who may be um acquainted with the issues and would like to participate.

I would like you to uh begin the work on the charge memo.

I um clearly I don't want to draft anyone, but I think uh Commissioner Jones uh perhaps Commissioner Gay and and uh third party uh maybe Mr.

Hardesty since he's looking at me uh be the three members from if you don't I'm okay, Mark, if you you're not interested, be the three members from uh this body, and then they can collectively identify two other parties from outside the body, and that way you have uh two different perspectives.

Does that sound good?

Okay, I've got Mr.

Hardesty in the queue to be followed by Mrs.

Suber.

Through the chair.

Um I just wanted to understand the the shoaling committee that we have had.

Is that the is that interchangeable with the task force?

To the commissioner through the chair, I would recommend not because um and the number one thing that I see as a difference legally is the what and hows.

The shoaling committee is still focused on the what's happening, how is this happening, who's responsible, where this is a very discrete issue that probably can be solved through legislation that just needs a gathering of facts, and from all accounts thus far, those facts exist.

It's just a matter of gathering them.

And so I would highly recommend that keeping this issue as a separate, discrete, very short-term task force, and moving forward with legislation as a result of that task force as opposed to blending it with the existing committee.

I'm sorry, Mark.

So I guess I guess what I am struggling with is we have struggled with the particular clapboard creek shoal for years now.

And um maybe it's time to shift, maybe it's time to shift the approach on that.

And I'd like your counsel on that uh because we're dead in the water, pardon the pun, um, on on that shoal.

Um, and you know, we're looking for a resolution just like this is looking for a resolution.

I'm sorry, guys.

I got a 1045.

Go ahead, Mrs.

Suber.

I guess it's a question more than a statement, but to the chair, would it be appropriate that in this task force representation be the uh state park service because it's in the middle of their system, as well as FWC, which is the enforcement branch and JS JSO, uh whether whether it be advisory position or task force position, as well as the Timoquan Preserve.

I'm sorry, Jim.

I'm multitasking and got uh distracted.

What was the question?

I can address it if you would.

Thank you.

Um to answer the question as to whether or not representatives from the necessarily approving agencies should be members of this body, I would actually recommend not, because as soon as they have a titled seat on the body, they are under sunshine law.

So you probably would be better served to leave the representative members of the necessary agencies, acronyms and initialisms, all as uh liaisons uh that do not vote and are not members, so that they can their counsel can come and go among all the members, this body, as well as city council as a whole.

Thank you.

And in my thought, to be honest, as far as the uh the the three standing members here and the two from the public, I was not really thinking about another agency voice.

Uh just you know, it could be John Q Public, who is acquainted with the situation and has a vested interest.

If I may, um I would recommend, and this can be part of the charge memo, um part of the charge memo will also um appoint staff in order to handle the notices of the meetings and things, and what can happen is um just like when the notices and the agendas go out for this body, it goes to more than just this body, and so all of the necessary seats at the table.

Um the invitations beyond going to the general public as it has to for sunshine law, those notices can also specifically be go to representatives of the different um necessary agencies, so everybody knows on top.

And if I did not state this before, the other really good benefit to having the all of the data come up through and be presented to this body is for the general public to have ample notification to weigh in because you are going to have a lot of public participation on this issue.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gay, Councilman McGregor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I would recommend that this task force uh not be designated as just the uh Fort George River, but it just be a task force uh designated as a minimum weight zone task force, and that way it can deal with multiple issues over time that that would come up to where it would kind of cover all basically.

I I see what you're saying as far as for future use, but uh I don't know if that um uh weakens the effectiveness of of what we're trying to do.

We're trying to stay focused, uh, but I understand what you're saying.

Uh Mr.

Jones, to the chair.

I just wanted to say if offered position accepted.

Set me where I am, uh, Miss McGillis.

I I know last uh remarks were establishing the task force uh three members from the Waterways Commission, two from outside.

Um you're gonna write the charge.

Um I personally would like to see a 90-day um uh return for a report, but just tell me where we are, and I'm gonna have to excuse myself, gentlemen.

Um Mr.

Gay is gonna continue the meeting.

I've got uh 1045 that I have.

I must attend.

Okay, to the vice chair to the commission.

Um I can have your charge memo prepared and to you by close of business on Friday, and um it would just be issued by um publishing on uh to the public as well as to this commission.

And I I will come um discuss with you so you can get to your meeting.

Um if I may through the vice chair um address the your question actually about um whether or not to combine this and have it be a more of a long standing task force, besides just the semantics of task force versus committee, um, we're also right on the cusp of uh a new um, as you're very well aware, a new uh city council leadership cycle.

And so the membership of this body may change um, including the chair.

So what I would recommend is that you you address this very discrete and what should be a very short-term task force on this issue to go forward, and then under the new chair, um if there is a different chair of this body, consider creating a committee, which would be more long standing, a committee about uh boat speed regulation.

All right, give me in the right posture.

We've got a motion and a second on the yes.

Um, I was just confirming um with legislative services.

There was a motion, a second, and a successful vote.

So all so we've passed phase one.

Phase two is simply um to create the charge issue a charge memo pursuant to the chair's um uh wishes.

Right.

So there's nothing else, no other action that we need to take upon this.

Uh the chair will get the members in place and then get the charge presented.

So that'll take us to our next item.

Let's go ahead to our new business.

Item number 2026 0475, Mr.

Kachovic.

Good morning, everyone.

Uh, it's good to see you all again.

Uh, can you all see the PowerPoint uh presentation?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh I'm Ed Lukakovic for the record, uh, representing the planning department uh with me this morning.

I have the applicant Brian Small for the application.

Any questions that you folks may have, hopefully the both of us can answer them for you.

Uh why isn't it a work in?

I'll try again.

Okay.

Um this morning we're looking at a small scale land use amendment.

Uh the land use amendment number is L6120-26C.

It's an adoption ordinance, being that it's a small scale uh land use amendment.

It's ordinance number is 2026 475 is scheduled for uh public hearings.

The planning commission will look at this application on Thursday, July 23rd, 2026.

The first city council public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 28th, 2026.

And the land use and zoning committee of City Council will look at this application on Tuesday, August 4th, 2026.

And the final city council public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, August 11, 2026.

Now, here's some specifics of this particular application site.

It's located at zero granite place, it's at the eastern side of the intersection of granite place and New Berlin Road.

The size of the application is 1.91 acres, and there are approximately 1.42 acres of wetlands on the application site.

The current land use category, it's an industrial category, water dependent, water-related, and it's proposed to go to another uh industrial land use category.

We call light industrial.

It is located in the Nichols Creek subdrainage basin and the St.

John's River Basin.

Under the current development potential of the application site, uh, if the site was totally buildable, uh, you can have up to 20,799.9 square feet of industrial space with a floor area ratio of 0.25.

Under the light industrial land use category, it's a little more intense.

You can have up to 33,279.8 square feet of industrial space with a floor area ratio of 0.4.

Now, those two uh figures is kind of impossible because of the environmental constraints on the parcel, which we will look at.

Uh, under the potential uses for the current land use category of uh uh water dependent, water-related, uh things like ports, harbors, industrial docks, maintenance of repair of water vessels, ship supply, uh storage of goods, and distribution.

Under light industrial, you can have light assembly, manufacture and processing of goods, warehousing and distribution and open storage.

Warehouse and open storage are uses that you could you could have under the water dependent, water-related land use category, but it's usually associated with port activity.

This particular site is really not suitable since it really doesn't really have any water access for the site.

If you look north of the application site and north of the highway, you have high industrial, and then to the east is community general commercial, and then south and west, it's water dependent water related.

But if you look at it, it is in the industrial sanctuary zone, which is basically a zone where we encourage industrial land use categories such as heavy industrial, light industrial, water dependent, water-related, and business part.

So it's a good use for this particular zone.

Looking at some of the surrounding uses, north of Zoo Parkway, you have uh the pilot convenience store and uh gas station.

You have a fast food supply, you have a hotel, salt marsh.

You just have different kind of uses, even though it's separated by a super uh by a highway.

Uh to the northeast, you have some vacant land, uh, you got a couple of single-family homes, you have a warehouse, and then to the east, you have the I-295 corridor with the on and off ramps, and then further east, you have some vacant land in salt marsh.

There is a gate gas station and uh uh convenience store, and then to the south you have some open storage, you got some uh retention basins, which we're going to discuss a little bit.

You got a single family home, and then to the west, you have a lot of vacant land, you have some open storage.

Uh, some of the vacant land, a lot of it is owned by the Jacksonville Port Authority.

Here's an aerial view of the application site.

You could see that the site is vacant.

Uh, the closest development is a Circle Kas station and uh convenience store to the east and north northwest a little bit.

Uh it's kind of surrounded by some type of road system.

Uh you can see uh if we look at a closer view, you can see that three-quarters of the site is salt marsh.

Uh, the northern northern one quarter of the site is uplands, but it used to be an upland wetland.

Um the adjacent construction of roadways and development and the excavation of stormwater retention basins, lower the uh high water table of the northern portion of this application site, making it no longer wetlands.

So that area is not a wetland area.

If you look, here's a northerly view of the amendment site from New Berlin Road.

You can see the salt marsh of the application site.

Uh here's an easterly view of the application site from New Berlin Road and Granite Place intersection, and then another easterly view of the application site from Granite Place.

Um, and then here's a westerly view of the application site of the I-295 on-ramp, and you can see the salt marsh in the center of the photograph.

Now, here's a um 3D northerly view of the application site.

You can see uh most of the site is salt marsh.

Some of that salt marsh spills out over into the I-295 corridor on the side slope, and then that uh salt marsh disappears underneath the highway, which we're going to look at as well.

And then here's a 3D view of Nichols Creek and a 10-foot wide cross drain.

This cross drain crosses underneath the I-295 highway and on and off ramps.

It's about a 400-foot trek till it gets to the application site of the salt marsh on the application site.

Now, at one time, the salt marsh you're looking at here in the foreground of the photo was a portion of that salt marsh on the application site.

But when they put in the highway and on and off ramps, it kind of cut that area into two.

However, the cross drain functions where the high and low tide functions through that cross drain and to the application site, and therefore the salt marsh on that site acts appropriately as a salt marsh.

Here's a wetlands map of the application site.

The wetlands being a salt marsh is a category one wetland.

It's 1.42 acres, about three quarters of the site is that salt marsh.

Then just north of that salt marsh within the same property is an area that was once wetlands, but it is no longer wetlands because of the lowered high water table of the site.

This is a soils map describing the type of soils of the site, the 68 to Zonia Mucky P is the only type of soil associated with saltwater marsh.

And then you have the 35 Linhaven Fine Sand, which is also a wetland soil.

It's an upland wetland, but because the lower water table, it is no longer wetlands.

Here's some elevations of the site.

The lowest elevation is two feet above sea level.

That's in the salt marsh.

The higher area of four feet above sea level on the northern end of the application site.

This is the area that is no longer wetlands.

Then there is some elevations according to the city's GIS map of 9 and 10 feet.

I'm not quite sure that the property line actually goes up close to New Berlin Road on the side slopes.

Now we're looking at a coastal high hazard area map, and you notice that almost all of the site under the city's GIS system is all within that particular zone.

The coastal high hazard area is an area that floods from a category one hurricane zone.

And so the site is pretty low.

And then here's a flood zone map of the application site, and that is similar to the coastal high hazard area.

Almost the entire site is within the AE-100 year flood zone.

And then this slide shows the adaptation action area, a hundred percent of the property is within that area.

The adaptation action area is a combination of a 500 year flood and the flood surge elevation of a category three hurricane.

And I think it's the hurricane that's gonna cause uh most of the problems here on this particular site.

Now, this slide basically shows that the uh land use amendment site is within the Nichols Creek subbasin, and then the final slide shows that the application site does have a direct impact on the city's waterways, where the flows runs from the application site and the salt marsh through a 400-foot long, 10-foot wide cross culvert into Nichols Creek, and then generally easterly flows into the St.

John's River, and that's the last slide.

Uh hopefully uh we can answer any questions that you may have, all right.

Thank you, sir.

Let's go to our first speaker in the queue, Mr.

Hardesy.

The chair, thank you uh for your presentation.

I um I live out in that area, and um I'm kind of struggling with what is a good reason to do this.

Uh that I don't can't basically uh and we'll have to ask the applicant, which is here with us as well, but uh there's no water frontage.

You know, if you want to call the uh saltwater marsh water frontage, I guess you could, but it's not something that we think of of a port activity.

Uh it's just not it just somehow got put in the wrong category, I think.

But changing it from water dependent water related to an industrial light industrial use, it's basically it's an industrial land use category.

Um we can ask the applicant, uh Brian.

Well uh Brian Small, he can answer maybe what he's proposing out there.

What I'm what while the applicant is coming up, what I'm what I'm struggling with is is some of the some of the things that were mentioned was well, this would have been it would have been um you know, wetlands and was in the past, but have been liver blitter obliterated by other development, and then we have close to 80 percent of the entire site is salt marsh wetlands, according to the numbers that were presented.

And I know from living out there for over 20 years, the flooding that occurs not only in a category one hurricane, but um in king tides, and um and I have a bait shop that floods 10 15, 20 times a year, um, and and has been ongoing since 1943, and so I understand the whole concept pretty well, and what I'm struggling with is we're going to have to bring in tremendous fill just to function, uh, and and we're not going to have any mitigation of the runoff, et cetera, because it's gonna push it elsewhere in the surrounding areas.

I'm I'm just really struggling to see the benefit that is there for quite frankly anybody, including you as the applicant.

Mr.

Smaller.

Yeah, good morning, Brian Small address on file through the chair to Mr.

Mark Hardesty.

I think we're going down the wrong rabbit hole here.

I know that's a whole environmental presentation, water dependent, water related.

You can do trucking.

Um I have a buyer for this property.

He wants to park five box trucks for his moving company here, and he's able to do it in water dependent, water related.

He does not want to purchase it unless he has it as light industrial, which will allow him to do the same thing, but it won't have to be port related.

So it's a technicality.

As far as the wetlands.

They're not touching that.

They're not filling the site.

What they are doing is clearing the site because right now it's a homeless camp, a trash, a dumpster.

I mean, it's a landfill.

I pay more money there than I even bought the property for.

So we're getting it cleaned up, and that's the whole purpose of this application.

Okay, you're good.

Alright, so we'll go to the next uh Commissioner in the queue.

Commissioner Jones.

Through the chair, thank you.

Um, you zone guys speak a language I've never been under able to understand, so excuse me if I this question and you already covered it.

The only concern I see, well, it's it's a two-part question.

The 400 foot long drain that runs under 295, is that an active, is that currently in place, or would that be part of this new project?

No, it was put in when the highway was constructed.

Okay, so it's it's it's already there.

Yeah, um, second part to the question is there some sort of mechanism built in with the fuel station on that property on the north side of that property right now that would prevent any kind of fuel spillage into the St.

Jones River, should that occur?

Um I'm gonna take this one just because um through the chair again to Mr.

Jones.

I think we're getting off track.

This is uh this is gonna be for land use and zoning.

That um fuel station referencing is actually in water dependent, water related, noncompliant, and then they had to come before and get uh a um a variance or a waiver to be able to operate.

So as far as the pollution, um I'm not sure if we want to address all that, but this is more just geared towards land use and zoning, and I don't know what their rules are.

I know all their trucks parked on granite place, you know, sit there idling all day and throwing whatever trash they have out.

So I think clearing it, letting an owner be there full time, um, should improve it.

Having someone there versus it just being a parking lot.

All right, let me uh go to Ms.

McGillis.

Just point of procedure.

Is there through the vice chair to the um to Mr.

Luke?

Is there a companion zoning bill?

Uh there is, um, but because it's a uh judicial I can't really discuss it.

And that's what I'm advising.

Yeah, it's quite a action on a land use amendment, which is what is in front of this body is a legislative act.

Acts on a companion zoning bill and any information and questions that uh questions that generate information about the zoning bill tips into a quasi-judicial um act, and um that would trigger um declarations of um ex parte at future meetings for any council members that are sitting on this board.

So I highly highly caution um answering any questions that would trigger information from the companion zoning bill, right?

Um, Mr.

Jones, were you Commissioner Jones?

Were you through okay?

You're through.

All right, let's go to uh Commissioner Barker.

So by going L I um to first of all, you're talking about zoning and no, we're concerned about the environment here.

I mean, parking trucks in the middle of a of a retention area.

We've had problems on this commission with that in the past, uh, exactly the same situation.

Um so you're right now talking about parking trucks, but going LI, what does that open the door to anything else?

I mean, this is a tiny parcel.

So right now you're gonna park trucks, but if somebody was gonna try to maybe build something on this half acre, um would they be able to use retention for what they build as the salt marsh here?

Would they what would the parking situation look like?

What what are we opening the door to here, Mr.

Lukakovic?

You're the you're you're much more expertise at that.

Well, the pro the problem with the site is being that it's in a flood zone, for one thing.

You have what we would call flood water displacement problems, which also has to be mitigated.

There's really no room on the site for a floodwater mitigation unless they do it off site somehow.

And uh the only thing you could do is park a vehicle and move it if it gets flooded.

You can't just leave anything there.

It's it's it's a very difficult site, I have to admit.

But the problem is they have an inherited right to use it for something for some type of industrial use, where they're going from one industrial use to another really makes no difference to us in the planning department because they're entitled to something there.

Um, but to build on it, uh I just don't know how it can be done.

It it would have to require some really heavy engineering, and whether the displacement can be calculated in the uh non-wetland portion of the application site, I I don't I think it's difficult, I really do.

Parking trucks, parking vehicles that can be moved, that's one thing.

But to build something permanent, that'd have to be some heavy engineering that I'm not familiar with.

And that heavy through the chair, that heavy through the vice chair.

That heavy engineering would have to occur regardless of whether it was LI or it's current.

That's correct.

Anything to be built.

I mean, if you build something on peers, maybe, but I just don't but would there be a okay.

So again, to the vice chair, would there be anything in there?

Uh I mean, I'm I'm getting confused.

Would you be able to park more trucks under LI versus the current zoning standing?

No, it it either when you can park you can park vehicles either.

One maybe it's port related, the other one the newer, it isn't.

Uh so I really don't see the difference in a case like this when it comes to vehicles.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Let's go to uh Commissioner Freight.

Thank you.

Through the new chair.

Um you said it's going to be cleared.

Uh would that mean clearing 100% of it?

20% of it.

The northern district.

I mean uh some of the southern boundary on the GIS map showing that it it encroaches on New Berlin Road on the side slopes.

I don't think it's reality.

Uh it's just all flooded area.

Uh there's not much you can do with it.

Okay, uh correct.

You said basically 100% of it is in the flood zone for uh hurricane uh class one.

Uh I know, like other commissioners said we have voted this down for like the north side for uh storage for trucks.

Uh May port and there was a spot on May port that was a hundred percent flood zone that we voted no for.

Um and then just even on what you're saying you're gonna build or not build but put there and I mean putting something else there is what really irritates me sometimes.

Uh the fire station on uh Atlantic Boulevard, there was supposed to be a sandwich shop next to it, and now it's uh warehouse instead that we voted for a sandwich shop.

Uh it just doesn't seem very clear.

I I I understand that, but you have to understand they have an inherited right to be able to use that property for something because they're paying taxes on it for something, and the fact that it's not in conservation or anything like that, they have the right.

Now, if they decide not to change the land use amendment or the, I can't mention zoning, but if they they have the right to use it, all I have to do is submit to the uh building department for permits to do something, and they have that right, and there's not a whole lot, you know, the planning department can do to prevent anything like that.

I 100% agree that everybody should have the rights.

I've I'm not against business, it's just that uh the waterways commission is here for the waterways.

That's correct.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh uh Commissioner Hardesy.

It follow-up to to that, uh, if they have a right to do what they're proposing to do now why are we making a change?

Explain that to me because I through the chair to Mr.

Stand.

They're making a change because the buyer that I have wants to be 100% certain that he will be able to park his trucks there because they're not port related.

So we got a letter from Aaron Abney Andy Hetzel that are at the planning department and said why don't you just put this isn't in writing why why don't you just put ABC waterways moving and he said I'm not doing that I want to make sure when I buy this property from you I can park my trucks there.

So he he could do it he could go put a magnet on his trucks right now and clear it and put the trucks there.

He's trying to do it by following the rules so I guess through the chair um I'm I'm I'm struggling with this still because if he has a right to park the trucks as is and we got somebody in the planning department that says ah might be a little bit better if you did this what is the real answer there has to be a real answer real clear cut answer is does he have the right now to do it or does he not have the right now to do it because it's not he doesn't have a uh clear and I don't know visual nexus to the port that's not his industry.

He does not have the right technically to do it because his moving trucks are not 100% port or that category he's saying I'm not moving stuff for the port or anything on and off the port I'm parking my trucks there because I move stuff around town right so I I'm 100% with you.

I I told him to just get a magnet for his trucks.

Well through the chair it's it seems to me that that's a that's a question that needs to be nailed down before we go through this gyration of rezoning this property um if if he by right can park the trucks that's what I I think I heard you say then he has the right to park the trucks he does not have the right to park the trucks because they're not directly related to port activity.

Right so I'd like to interject here real quick then that's the and I'll go to Miss McGillis on this if the user the owner is not doing something that's port related and is doing other types of trucking that's not port related then that's where they would be in noncompliance so I'll let Ms McGillis opine on this to the vice chair and through the vice chair to the commission um I would direct your attention to um slide 31 of the slide deck as um it was part of Mrkovic um his presentation and it side by side sets out the current um land use and the potential land use and I'm going to defer the um the legality of the word port in the current um land use and whether or not that's within or without to the expert standing at the podium but the difference is very clearly um uh articulated in slide 31 of the slide deck in front of you all right so let me go to uh commissioner barker i'm not exactly sure who to ask this uh but we're talking about this mysterious companion zoning activity that now we can't talk about and that we aren't going to be told about that to my mind would have at least to me an an in an impact.

If I'm not being told the whole story, then I'm not interested.

I I don't I don't understand this.

Ms.

McGillis.

Um through the vice chair to Commissioner Barker.

What's in front of you is the land use amendment.

Zoning is not in front of you, and the zoning aspect is a quasi judicial matter.

The matter in front of you is the land use amendment, which is a legislative act.

It's the creation of new law.

And this commission, this commission can consider a myriad of information to aid in that legislative decision, including to extent material related to the companion zoning bill, but to take facts from questions on the related zoning bill is where you get into hot water.

You cannot do it.

No, you can, but what it will cause, it'll cause um city council member Mike Gay to have to declare a quasi, I mean sorry, an ex parte about this meeting.

Is that okay?

Yeah, that's okay.

I'm just highly suggesting that you try to stay as far away from answers on the zoning bill.

All right.

You good, Mr.

Barker?

All right.

Let's go to uh Representative Black.

Thank you, Chair.

So the way I understand this, we're here because we want to protect the waterways, and this particular piece of real estate could already be used to park vehicles upon, but there would have to be mechanations in order to do so.

They'd have to put magnets on their truck.

So if we go with the landowner's desires here, we don't harm anything, because the status quo already allows this.

And I think I'll just leave that there.

Thank you, Chair.

So I don't have any other speakers in the queue.

And so just a few more words here, and then we'll we'll just vote on it.

Um by right that they can uh park their trucks, use it as the parking facility that that they want to do as long as it's uh water related, and we recently had a zoning change up Hexer Drive because of this situation.

What I'm understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr.

Small, that the new buyer wants this uh basically in writing saying it's light industrial and they're not potentially having any restrictions.

Um with this clearing of the of the property, uh Mr.

Kovic.

Um I would assume that they will have to have a site plan, landscaping and and all that they'll be doing.

So uh they'll have to still follow the development process that the uh planning department is going to require.

Uh so with that is basically changing the uh the use of it is what we're looking at, and we're not impacting this change in the salt marsh.

We're not uh affecting any of the wetlands.

You're not expand, correct me if I'm wrong, you're not expanding the footprint of the ability to truck parts there, truck uh park trucks there as it's already identified.

So that's uh all that we're dealing with right here.

So we'll go ahead and take it to a vote.

Well, let me back up.

Can I get a a motion to approve?

I've got a mo I've got a motion.

I can get a second.

I've got a motion and a second to approve.

So let me go ahead and do this.

Uh raise your hand if you're in support uh of approving this all right raise your hand if you're not in support of approving this can we um sorry um can you have the four approval hands go back up all right raise your hands if you are in favor of approving this so I see a four to approve five to decline or to disapprove I'm sorry yeah so it's a deny okay by your action you have denied 2026 zero four seven five thank y'all for being here today the next item on the agenda uh is old business uh shad creek uh resolution update uh mr captain super do you have any uh new information on the uh uh I guess the measurements and uh where we could potentially expand the the minimum weight zone to the chair um Ryan Briquette has a map that he's uh published or sent out to there by yesterday that gives options we're just not sure which option we want to take or you guys want to take so I think we need more direction as to what you want us to actually do.

So I I guess I can look at me with you Mr.

Burkett and we can try to get that dialed in Miss McGillis did you want to subsequent to that map was an exchange um on email that indicates to me that there are not the adequate features in that particular waterway to trigger municipality this trigger the city to put um any regulation on boat speed there I could be wrong and I'm happy to discuss it further with Mr.

Burkett and and um other interested parties but that is what I saw which means that that the map that you're talking about the one with the different options is really only an option for um the state level to do by rule.

Mr.

Burkett Brian Burke it parks again um right so there's certain things that we're allowed to do um that have been delegated to this the city um like we did at the bridge 300 foot zone there's also an option for a 500 foot zone if there's a public vote ramp.

The investigation we've determined the the ramp that's on private property is not going to be open to the public use that opportunity.

But I think they kind of opened the door when they when they identified that when the bridge was replaced that the study was not done for navigation so they I think they kind of opened the door said you may have some justification for us to look at this and consider a speed stones.

I think that's what it kind of hang our hat on as well as you know studying the potential blind curves in that area but the other uh features that are identified in the statute um makes it pretty clear that we don't have any citations in that area at least that last check and distance the width of the creek has limitations with as well.

But yes, it's still an opportunity, but I think what um this might say uh Ms.

McGillis is pointing out is that the the uh what the statute authorizes delegates to the the local municipality those options really aren't available as far as we understand right and and I'm totally in agreement with the uh the process and that wasn't fully followed by DOT when they done the bridge uh that that that's a uh the potential for us to get it get it revisited uh to where you know how that changed the navigation through there from what it was before the bridge was uh modified so I I'll be glad to have some some meetings with you and see what we can get get pulled together to get um something to be able to be presented to uh FDEP FWC state and everybody on this um so yeah I'll I'll I'll get with you on what what our possibilities are I believe part of the application process is still a resolution from the local government body is that true Ms.

McGillis Ms.

McGillis um through the vice chair and uh to um Mr.

Parkett and to the commission um the point of uh the information about the lack of features in this waterway to trigger municipality action under Florida Statute 72746 is that city council can't pass an ordinance on this because you don't have the grant of authority because there are no water features triggering that grant of authority so um I do uh uh point out that this is exactly what the resolution this body passed says or reads it reads specifically that this that this municipality has already acted to the extent that they can act and FWC is now the actor left to do um any of this boat speed regulation by rule all right very well we'll uh go go to our plan B and so I'll I'll be getting with you to get get that legislation or that information pulled together.

Thank you.

The next item is the uh George Crady State Park fish and pier um I have in the last few weeks met with FDEP and discussed with them the the need uh to come up with a plan um and explain to them that the unknowns worse than the known uh the people need answers out there um I they seem to have a uh open mind to uh come up with a plan uh so I I don't want to say it's gonna go this direction or that direction until we get something kind of concrete from them but just uh having that communication and that uh interest uh in helping get the the the state park back open on the saw pit side it will be uh tremendous and so it that's still a work in progress and so that takes us to the end of our agenda uh do we have any additional comments about any particular items before we adjourn I see no speakers in the queue thank you everyone oh before I do adjourn I want to say this is uh will be the last meeting of the uh council year as the leadership is in place so I want to thank every commissioner on here representative black everybody uh Mr.

Holes everybody uh for all their work miss McGillis Dr.

Pinto Captain Suber um uh I want to thank uh councilman amarrow for his leadership on this.

Um, to help get our waterways in a better place and uh uh I commend you all on your volunteerism to step forward for the city and and everything that that you do.

I'm not sure who will be from the council back on on the commission, and uh, if I am, I'll I'm glad to be here, if not, keep up the good work and but you'll probably still see me here at some point.

So, thank you all, and we are adjourned.

I'm not sure.

I'm not sure.

Humanity, and also, and also, and I'm not.

Everything starts from scratch.