At a recent City Hall meeting held in the John Nets Community Wing, multiple residents and city officials came together to discuss important city matters, focusing on local issues and the upcoming audit service contracts. The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence, setting a respectful tone for the evening.
Several residents voiced their concerns regarding city management and community impacts. Heather Davis, a homeowner and taxpayer from Perotti Lane, expressed frustration over unresolved drainage problems affecting her family’s property for over two years. She highlighted how the city, after overburdening the drainage system near her home, sent her a letter assigning responsibility to her family to fix a collapsed culvert. Davis urged the city council to take responsibility, stating, “You can’t create the conditions for failure, ignore the consequences, and shift the blame back on residents.” She emphasized the need for transparency, accountability, and integrity in city governance.
Other residents echoed concerns about property and infrastructure management. A community member raised objections about cell phone towers being installed without adequate public discussion, noting that their height exceeded standard zoning limitations. Issues related to outdated impact fees on parks and transportation were also raised, reflecting worries about their accuracy given current economic conditions. Dennis Sakola highlighted the disruptive impacts of Vacation Rental Properties in residential neighborhoods, sharing personal experiences with noise complaints and law enforcement involvement, expanding on the tension between property owners, tenants, and the community. “The only winners in this are the property owners, the large corporations that fund them, and their investors,” he stated, questioning the fairness and enforcement of city codes.
Questions about city expenses and governance were also brought forth. Carol Stoton from the B-Section scrutinized city staff salaries and questioned financial decisions such as hiring new personnel without clear approval from the county budget. She also expressed concern over added fees on water bills, suggesting the city explore more cost-saving measures. Additionally, a new resident, Gary Bunton, provided observations on city council decisions, especially critiquing the process of appointing a city manager and emphasizing the need for clear, unified procedures in city leadership. Bunton referenced military experience to illustrate the benefits of cohesive teamwork and suggested improvements in communication and voting protocols.
The meeting also featured presentations by two auditing firms bidding for the city’s external auditing contract. Representatives from James Moore & Co. and Malden Jenkins outlined their qualifications and approaches. James Moore & Co. emphasized their extensive government auditing experience, thorough risk-based audit procedures, and commitment to communication and collaboration with city staff. Web Sheper, lead partner, noted, “We are a top 200 accounting firm with a government segment largest in the firm, proud to have had 16 consecutive triennial peer reviews with zero recommendations.” They stressed the importance of no surprises in audits and tailoring their process to the city’s unique needs.
Malden Jenkins, with over a century of experience and more than 700 governmental clients, presented a client-focused, personalized approach to auditing, highlighting their high staff retention and proactive communication. Wade Sansbury, a partner, explained their transition process for new clients, promising a smooth handoff and ongoing availability. He added, “We want to serve the council in providing an independent audit and offer recommendations for process improvements.” The team also discussed their familiarity with government financial reporting, bond market requirements, and technology-enabled auditing methods.
Public comments during the meeting, including one from Leslie Johnson, a medical field auditor, emphasized community interest in understanding the audit scope and aims. Johnson inquired about how broad and deep the upcoming audits would investigate, seeking clarity on the council’s objectives and oversight goals.
Throughout the session, city officials acknowledged the concerns and provided clarifications. On the topic of the cell phone tower cited by residents, a city representative confirmed that the tower met all setback and height requirements as per the land development code, located with appropriate distances from residential properties. The city also updated the council on efforts to address noise complaints related to Vacation Rental Properties, mentioning follow-ups with involved residents and enforcement steps underway.
The meeting continued with council members preparing to evaluate the audit firms and determine a path forward for the city’s financial oversight. The diverse public input showed the community’s desire for accountable, transparent governance and improved communication between city officials and residents. The council expressed appreciation for the feedback and indicated that these conversations would impact future policy decisions and contractual engagements.
Officials presented an in-depth analysis of anticipated improvement costs and impact fees associated with residential development. The discussion centered around how these costs translate into fees for different land users, particularly focusing on single-family homes of varying sizes.
According to the presentation, the total improvement cost initially stood at $124 million, but after accounting for $50 million in anticipated funding, the assignable cost dropped to $74 million. Later adjustments added $101 million in improvements and subtracted $12.5 million, raising the assignable cost to $89 million, which influenced the fees charged. For homes measured by square footage, fees ranged from about $4,692 per thousand square feet for a 1,000 square foot house, up to $9,384 for a 2,000 square foot home.
The analysis also explored alternative funding options. One scenario increased funding by $12.5 million, lowering the assignable cost to $76 million and reducing the vehicle miles of capacity rate. This change decreased fees to approximately $6,400 for a 1,600 square foot home and $8,000 for a 2,000 square foot home. Another alternative increased funding to $35 million, further reducing fees to $5,600 and $7,000 for those same home sizes respectively. These fees were calculated on a per square foot basis, ensuring that smaller homes pay less than larger ones, reflecting the logical connection between home size, number of bedrooms, and vehicle use.
The speakers explained the technical reasoning behind this model, noting that larger homes generally have more bedrooms, which correlates with a higher number of vehicles and greater vehicle miles traveled. They cited 2022 survey data showing this trend applies across single-family detached homes, condominiums, and multifamily residences in the City of Palm Coast. The more bedrooms a home has, the more vehicles it usually supports, thus justifying the fee structure based on size rather than a flat rate per dwelling.
Council members were encouraged to weigh these funding alternatives, with the staff emphasizing that a decision would help finalize the ordinance, technical reports, and any extraordinary circumstances studies needed. The presentation highlighted that at $12.5 million in funding, fees per single-family home could rise by about 165%, while a $25 million funding option suggested a 125% increase over current rates.
One council member expressed appreciation for the detailed analysis and sought clarification on the newer figures presented, underscoring the importance of transparency and understanding in the decision-making process. The officials affirmed their availability to provide further explanations as needed, aiming for a clear and informed outcome from the council’s deliberations.
In a subsequent discussion for a proposed increase in funding, city officials addressed the details surrounding a 126% increase tied to a $25 million boost from the current budget. The conversation focused heavily on differentiating the buildings within the city to better understand the financial impacts. One speaker emphasized the perspective that even with the new justification for the increase, the impact fees being considered are not excessively high compared to similar measures. They noted, “You can see that even with the new justification, it’s not really on the high end of the impact fees.”
The dialogue also highlighted the thorough efforts by city staff to analyze the proposal, with one participant mentioning that employees have reviewed the recommendation “ad nauseium,” implying a deep and repetitive examination of the details. The sentiment expressed showed confidence in the diligence and expertise involved in the assessment. Overall, the conversation aimed to clarify the rationale behind the proposed funding increase and emphasized a balanced viewpoint, avoiding any bias or overstatement. The officials encouraged residents to consider the facts presented and reassured that the proposed fees are reasonable within the context of the city’s needs.
The next speaker presented the proposal to allocate $25 million for fueling stations, estimating the cost to be about $35,000 per station. The speaker emphasized the significance of traffic generated by gas stations, which was a key factor in the decision-making process. Based on these considerations, the recommendation was to follow the staff’s suggestion to use a square footage calculation method for the funding distribution. The proposal also mentioned a potential compromise figure of $30 million, which falls between previously suggested amounts and was seen as a balanced middle ground.
The speaker noted that adjustments had already been made by removing certain projects from a park, which helped reduce the total budget. This move avoided borrowing an additional $3 million from the general fund, reflecting what staff called careful financial planning. The presented plan was met with some applause, indicating support from attendees. The final emphasis was on prioritizing the projects and the benefits that the funding would bring in terms of infrastructure development and community needs.
Shepherds Fire Department recently gave an update on its fire impact fee report, explaining ongoing efforts to balance staffing, equipment readiness, and service demands. During the session, a community member raised concerns about the high levels of overtime being paid and whether hiring additional personnel might be more cost-effective. Fire officials responded that despite overtime being necessary at times, they expect to remain within their personnel services budget. They emphasized the department’s strong team commitment, noting that firefighters often volunteer for extra shifts out of a sense of duty to both their colleagues and the community.
The department discussed its current staffing levels, reporting 75 full-time firefighters with plans to increase by one position soon, but stated no additional firefighting staff would be requested for the newly planned Station 26. This station will serve the Seminal Woods area, south of Sesame, which currently has over 700 homes. Officials highlighted that being within five miles of a fire station in Shepherds significantly lowers homeowners’ insurance costs, estimating an annual savings of more than $40 million in residential insurance premiums for the community.
Partnerships with local firefighter paramedics were mentioned as a key benefit, allowing the city and county departments to train and work closely together despite differing challenges. Call volumes have risen sharply in recent years, now exceeding 17,000 calls annually, which has increased pressure on staff and contributed to overtime needs. The department also touched on the difficulty of managing additional duties beyond responding to emergencies, reinforcing that overtime and staffing are actively reviewed to maintain service quality.
Details were shared about the department’s apparatus and fleet. Recent improvements have increased equipment readiness, even though some face repair challenges due to maintenance needing to be done outdoors. There are currently six frontline engine companies, three backup engines, various aerial units, and ladders, with the flexibility to use backup vehicles as needed. However, replacement vehicles can take up to 40 months to arrive due to supply chain delays, and the department anticipates continued stabilization over the next four to five years.
One significant concern is maintaining the oldest truck in the fleet, as it is the only vehicle that can fit in its station. Plans are underway to find a replacement that meets space and operational needs before the next Insurance Services Office (ISO) evaluation, which affects the community’s fire protection rating.
In summary, Shepherds Fire Department is managing increased demand through careful staffing, equipment maintenance, and community partnerships, balancing budget constraints with the goal of providing timely and effective fire protection to its expanding population. As one official noted, “If it’s red, it takes priority, and we move heaven and earth to keep the fire apparatus ready.”
