Can this public/private partnership be saved?

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
September 18, 2018 2:10 p.m.

Our distrust is very expensive. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Nassau County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a Special Meeting with the Nassau County Legislative Delegation on September 17, 2018 to discuss the current status of the public /private partnership with the Board of Supervisors of the East Nassau Stewardship District.  The Nassau Legislative Delegation, consisting of State Senator Aaron Bean and State Representative Cord Byrd, listened patiently as County Attorney/Acting County Manager Mike Mullin and Rayonier legal representative Gary Hunter laid out the background to the creation of the Stewardship District and highlighted the current obstacles to continuing the relationship.

The question facing the parties is this:  can this public/private partnership be saved or has trust between the parties eroded to such a degree that the partnership should be formally dissolved?

While the question was not answered during close to two hours of discussion, both Byrd and Bean expressed hope that the partnership can be repaired to the benefit of the county’s citizens and the corporate interests in the Stewardship District.

What is the Stewardship District?

The East Nassau Stewardship District (“District”) is an independent, special purpose entity established by House Bill 1075, passed by the Florida Legislature and approved by the Governor of Florida on June 6, 2017. The District is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors and is responsible for operating and maintaining certain improvements, infrastructure and facilities within the District’s footprint.

The District encompasses 24,000 acres of land located in Nassau County, FL, including the projected Conservation Habitat Network of 12,000 acres. In addition to the Conservation Habitat Network, the District also includes Wildlight, the 2,900-acre new town already under development. Overtime, the remaining acres within the District could be development into additional neighborhoods, parks and recreational areas.

According to a statement found on their website, Board of Supervisors Chair Mike Hahaj is quoted as having said, “Our driving factor for pursuing a stewardship district was to provide a streamlined and consolidated entity to oversee the long-term maintenance and conservation of such a large- scale property. One of a stewardship district’s key benefits is its ability to help fund, construct and manage public infrastructure improvements, utilities and certain recreational amenities within a development area which support economic growth.”

There are many successful stewardship districts around the state of Florida.  The advantage for the county is that it deals with one point of contact in handling multiple developments that can be included in a large area.  The Stewardship District Board (SDB) can insure planned development within the 24,000 acres, as opposed to having developments spring up helter skelter over time.

How the Stewardship District evolved

Over almost ten years, officials of the land development department of Rayonier — what was once known as Terra Pointe, now Raydient – met with county officials to flush out details of the District:  definitions, scope and relationships.  Over this period, changes in state rules and bureaucracy mandated certain changes. Nassau County amended its Comprehensive Plan to account for the East Nassau County Planning Area.

The parties finally came together on language that was introduced to the Legislature as HB 1075.  The bill passed and in 2017 the District elected a Board of five Supervisors from landowners within the District to move forward with implementation.

The District requires a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County in order to secure bonding.  To date that has not been executed due to serious misunderstandings that have developed between the parties.

What happened?

There had been a running disagreement between the parties over the general public’s ability to access indoor and outdoor recreational facilities planned for inclusion in the District.  The District planned to impose special assessments on their residents to pay for certain recreation amenities limited to its residents.  The County appeared to interpret the bill’s language to read that such amenities should be publicly available.  The District maintained that unless the county treated all developers the same, it could not impose such requirements solely on them. The District also maintained that since the County would be collecting taxes and impact fees from developers within the District, the County also had an obligation to fund public projects within the District.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch …

It came to the County’s attention last year that the SDB had commissioned both an engineering study and a bond study without County involvement. Although the County objected to the reports and the manner in which they were developed, their requests to meet with the consultants were not honored.

Further adding insult to injury from the County’s perspective was what they viewed as a backroom lobbying attempt to undermine the County’s position on providing recreation facilities via HB 697, which was introduced in the 2018 Legislative Session and appeared to undermine the joint agreement on HB 1075.

Gary Hunter, Rayonier’s attorney who attended the Special Meeting on September 17, 2018 and who also worked on drafting both HB 1075 and HB 697,  claimed that HB 697, which did not pass, was not an attempt to undermine agreements reached in HB 1075.  Hunter claimed that trying to link the two bills was “mixing apples and oranges,” and that HB 697 was never intended to reverse the Stewardship District’s obligations.

However, Mike Mullin in presenting the County’s position, indicated that the County had not been informed in advance of plans to introduce HB 697 and only discovered at the eleventh hour the existence of the bill, which they believed to be an end run to the Legislature to solve the dispute between Nassau County and the Stewardship District.  Mullin expressed the County’s position that the matter in dispute – provision of public recreation facilities – should never have been taken to the Legislature, but resolved locally between the parties.

Hunter expressed frustration at the parties’ inability to sit down and work things out.  Mullin, who pointed to many ignored County requests for meetings with the SDB, also expressed frustration that no one from that Board was even in attendance at the current meeting.

Both Mullin and the BOCC thanked Hunter for appearing on behalf of Rayonier, the first time that any representative of the company had publicly engaged with the County during the current dispute.

BOCC Chair Pat Edwards said that he had sent three letters to the SDB requesting a joint meeting.  However, the Board appeared unwilling to budge from its position that any meeting between the parties must take place at a neutral site in the presence of a neutral facilitator.  Edwards questioned whether this demand wasn’t just a ploy, as opposed to a path for resolution of differences.  Other BOCC members agreed.

Edwards went so far as to suggest that the only reason Hunter was in attendance was that the Nassau Delegation was present.  “The [Board of the Stewardship District] ignores us,” Edwards said.  “We are asking for a fair deal or we will kill the bill.”

Hunter replied that Rayonier agreed the parties must meet to iron out their differences and execute a MOU.  He concurred that the meeting must take place in a public setting, but that insistence on a facilitator was not a ploy or intended as a lack of trust. He expressed confidence that a disinterested third party would be in a better position to allow both sides to air their differences and find a path toward resolving differences between the parties.  “Every one of the state’s stewardship districts is thriving; this one will be no exception,” Hunter said.

Edwards expressed the BOCC’s position that the meeting should take place in BOCC Chambers, where all previous meetings that led to the creation of the Stewardship District took place, to give the public maximum access to discussions.  He saw no need for a facilitator, suggesting that Mullin could fulfill that need.

What’s next?

While the underlying issue is how to fund public parks and recreation facilities within the Stewardship District, the immediate problem is getting the parties to meet to discuss their differences.  Edwards was very clear in expressing the BOCC’s distrust of motives and methods of the Stewardship District, following the HB 697 fiasco.  He refuses to allow the District to dictate meeting terms, and the other commissioners back him up.

Since the SDB did not attend the meeting with the Nassau Legislative Delegation, the assumption is that Gary Hunter as Rayonier’s representative will discuss positions and options with his client.  Hunter said, “Let’s put 2018 behind us and move forward.”

Can this public/private partnership be saved?

Throughout the meeting, differences on the issue of funding and access to recreation facilities took a back seat to damage done to what had been mutual trust and respect between the partners.

Commissioner Steve Kelley said that regardless of the BOCC’s 3-2 vote on approving the creation of the Stewardship District, once the action had been approved, the BOCC had been united in support.  “But,” he added, “We have lost faith in our partner.  Is this partnership now irretrievably broken?  I have no problem in starting over at square one.”

Commissioner George Spicer agreed with Kelley and expressed a desire to rescind the previous approval and start over.

Commissioner Justin Taylor said, “It’s ironic that you [Gary Hunter] had to travel here from Tallahassee to speak to us, when Rayonier and Raydient are just down the road from us.”

Edwards, Mullin and Commissioner Danny Leeper all expressed confusion and sadness over what they thought was a productive relationship until what they viewed as a backdoor attempt to undermine a publicly reached agreement through maneuverings during the last legislative session.

Mullin called for a workshop or a special meeting to amend HB 1075.

The Legislative Delegation weighs in.

Senator Bean asked Mullin what a repeal of HB 1075 would look like.  Mullin said that was problematic, since the District has sold no bonds yet, absent an MOU with the county.  He expressed his belief that HB 1075 has positives, but not in the current environment, if a facilitator is required to accomplish anything.  He said that there should be an elected representative on the District’s Board of Supervisors.  “But if you can’t get your partner to talk to you …” Mullin left his sentence incomplete.

Representative Byrd cited the 25 public meetings that had been held over ten years to establish the Stewardship District.  He said that the underlying premise was that its creation reflected what’s best for Nassau County.  He expressed the hope that the public/private partnership was not completely broken.

Both elected officials expressed their willingness to work with the parties to resolve their issues.  And both expressed optimism that a workable, mutually beneficial solution could be arrived at.

Chair Edwards concludes meeting

Edwards thanked the Nassau Delegation and the audience, including the five individuals who spoke to express their dissatisfaction with the current situation. He thanked Gary Hunter for his willingness to engage with the BOCC on behalf of Rayonier.  But he concluded the discussion on a somber note.  “We held out our hand, and we got hit with a stick,” he said.  “We have had to deal with threats and intimidation attempts.  We must have a mutually agreed upon agenda for a public meeting in this room.”

Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.