Wakulla County’s April 21, 2025 Agenda: Are Taxpayers Getting Answers, or More Secrets?

Wakulla County’s Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is set to meet on April 21, 2025, and their agenda is packed with decisions that raise serious questions. Consent Items 4, 5, 10, 11, 22, and 23, along with General Business Items 15, 16, 17, and 18, touch our wallets, our environment, and our trust in government. With 34,000 residents and a ~$70 million budget, Wakulla can’t afford secrecy when roads are congested, sewer systems are strained, and public needs like the animal shelter go underfunded.

• Are we safeguarding data when disposing of county computers during a locally high-profile felony case?

• Why is a credit note costing $8,000? Is a single-bid medical director contract a fair deal?

• How are we selecting members for the Tourist Development Council?

• Are sewer projects protecting Wakulla Springs, or favoring developers?

• Is an “economic development” project a taxpayer win, or a debt trap?

• Are new sidewalks truly for accessibility, or developer gain?

Let’s dive into these items, ask the tough questions, and see if the BOCC will even blink an eye.

Why Scrutinize the Agenda?

Consent Items 4, 5, 10, 22, and 23 are bundled for quick approval, while General Business Items 15, 16, 17, and 18 are up for discussion, but all raise concerns. Could Item 4’s computer disposal potentially miss critical data amid an open felony case? Is Item 5’s $8,000 fee justified, or are we overpaying? Why does Item 10’s medical director contract lack competition and cost details? Are Items 22 and 23’s sewer grants competing with a developer-driven sewer plan in Item 16? Are Items 16, 17, and 18 transparent about their costs and benefits? And does Item 15’s sidewalk plan genuinely advance accessibility, or primarily serve developers?

These questions matter because Wakulla’s resources are stretched thin. Are these items serving residents, or hiding questionable priorities?

Consent Item 4: Are We Protecting Data During a Open Local High-Profile Felony Case?

What’s Proposed: Item 4 seeks to dispose of a Dell Desktop Computer (Asset WC6895) from the Assistant State Attorney’s (ASA) office, per county rules (AR 3.05, F.S. Chapter 274). It seems like standard cleanup, but with an open felony case against former commissioner (word on the street is an off ramp to complete dismissal is in the works), data preservation is a critical concern.

Questions to Ask: Are we ensuring all data on this ASA office computer is preserved, especially with a locally high-profile felony case ongoing? Could disposal potentially overlook important files, or is the county confident in its backup and forensic imaging processes? Who’s responsible for saving data—the county or the ASA? Why doesn’t the agenda outline preservation steps? Shouldn’t we have clear protocols to avoid any risk of missing records, particularly when public trust is shaky? How do we ensure this disposal doesn’t raise doubts about transparency?

What the BOCC could do: Pull Item 4 for discussion. Ask the County Administrator to detail data preservation measures, such as forensic imaging, before disposal. Question whether AR 3.05 needs updates to mandate protocols for assets from offices handling legal matters. Let’s confirm we’re prioritizing transparency.

What they'll likely say: "We have nothing to do with that, the data preservation is the ASA's job." Fine, did you confirm that it has been preserved, in writing? The board has to sign off on it so, the ball is in your court.

Consent Item 5: Why Is a Credit Note Costing $8,000?

What’s Proposed: Item 5 extends a $2,000,000 revolving credit note with Ameris Bank to May 6, 2027, for disaster cash flow, available for access since 2013. The cost (just to keep an open, unused line of credit) is $8,000, including $2,500 for the County Attorney and up to $5,000 for lender’s counsel. $8,000 for a line of credit we hope we never have to use?

Questions to Ask: Why does a simple extension cost $8,000? Is the $2,500 County Attorney fee fair for routine paperwork, she’s certainly done it before? Why is the lender’s counsel fee so vague—up to $5,000 with no clear cap? Are taxpayers getting a good deal, or are legal fees inflating costs? With needs like the animal shelter underfunded, shouldn’t we question every expense? How does this cost stack up against similar extensions in other counties?

What the BOCC could do: Pull Item 5 and request a detailed cost breakdown. Ask why the County Attorney’s fee can’t be reduced and if the lender’s counsel fee is negotiable. Demand clarity to ensure we’re not overpaying for an unused credit line.

Consent Item 10: Is a Single-Bid Medical Director Contract the Best We Can Do?

What’s Proposed: Item 10 approves Dr. Colby Redfield as the sole respondent to RFQ #2025-06 for EMS Medical Director Services, authorizing contract negotiations. The role oversees EMS protocols and quality, essential for public safety. Only one proposal was received (March 13–April 2, 2025), and the cost is “unknown.”

Questions to Ask: Why did we get just one bid for this critical role? Was the 20-day RFQ window and local advertising (Tallahassee Democrat, Wakulla Sun) enough to attract candidates in a rural county with a limited physician pool (per 2023 HRSA report)? Could outreach to groups like the Florida Medical Association or National Association of EMS Physicians have increased competition? What’s the expected cost—$60,000–$120,000 a year for part-time work, per industry standards (Salary.com, ZipRecruiter)? Why is the cost “unknown” in the agenda? Are we ensuring a fair price without competing bids, or potentially overpaying? Could sharing a director with a neighboring County save money? I thought we liked to think outside the box?

What the BOCC could do: Pull Item 10 and ask for a new RFQ with a 30-day window and national outreach to boost competition. Request a preliminary salary range ($60,000–$120,000) before negotiations. Question whether cost-saving options, like a shared director, were explored. We need to know taxpayers are getting value.

Consent Items 22 & 23: Are Sewer Projects Prioritizing Our Springs?

What’s Proposed: Items 22 and 23 extend Dewberry’s contracts ($523,070 for PFA-1, $599,620 for PFA-2, DEP-funded) to April 2026, connecting ~294 homes in Goldengate/Edgewood (PFA-1) and Ameliawood/Ridgeland (PFA-2) to the Otter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. These projects aim to reduce nitrate pollution in Wakulla Springs, per DEP’s Springs Protection Fund.

Questions to Ask: Why are these projects delayed, and what’s causing the holdup? Are DEP’s standards for sewer projects clear enough to ensure effective fund use, or is vague oversight (per community sources) creating gaps? Could these $1.12 million grants be competing with a new east side sewer project tied to Item 16, potentially diverting resources from Wakulla Springs’ protection? Are we prioritizing residential connections to fight nitrate pollution, or are industrial projects taking precedence? With past sewer capacity constraints (per county records), how are we balancing these needs?

What the BOCC could do: Pull Items 22 and 23 to question delays, costs, and overlap with the east side sewer project. Ask for a prioritization plan ensuring DEP grants protect Wakulla Springs, not industrial interests. Demand transparency on how sewer funds are allocated.

General Business Item 15: Are New Sidewalks Truly for Accessibility, or Developer Gain?

What’s Proposed: Item 15 approves the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan for Accessibility of Pedestrian Facilities within the Public Right-of-Way, per 28 CFR § 35.150(d) (2025). It lists sidewalks and multi-use paths in Wakulla County, primarily in new developments like Chadwick Estates, Palmetto Phase, Fox Meadows, and others, noting “no deficiencies” in curb ramps or obstacles.

Questions to Ask: Are these sidewalks genuinely addressing accessibility needs across Wakulla County, or are they primarily benefiting new developments? Why are most of the listed sidewalks—like those in Chadwick Estates, Palmetto Phase, and Fox Meadows—along the right-of-way of recent subdivisions, often built by developers as part of their projects? Is the county using ADA compliance as a way to advertise developer-driven infrastructure, rather than tackling accessibility in older, underserved areas? Are we ensuring equitable access for all residents with disabilities, or focusing on new developments where sidewalks were already planned? How does this plan prioritize broader community needs over developer interests? Shouldn’t we assess accessibility gaps in existing neighborhoods first?

What the BOCC could do: Pull Item 15 for discussion and ask for a county-wide accessibility assessment to identify gaps in older areas, not just new developments. Question how this plan balances developer projects with broader ADA needs. Demand transparency on how accessibility priorities are set.

General Business Items 16, 17, & 18: Is Project Safety a Community Win or a Taxpayer Burden?

What’s Proposed: Item 16 approves a Term Sheet for Project Safety, a partnership with Point Blank Enterprises (see below comments on SRT Supply and Commissioner Nichols) to build a 118,000 sq ft manufacturing facility (100,000 sq ft manufacturing, 18,000 sq ft office/showroom) on 20 acres in Opportunity Park, owned by N.G. Wade Inc. The County buys the land, builds the facility, and leases it to Point Blank for 10 years, with 300 jobs promised. Item 17 approves a Triumph Gulf Coast Term Sheet supporting Project Safety, and Item 18 approves a Florida Department of Commerce Rural Infrastructure Fund Grant Agreement D0312 for $4,504,369 to support the project, plus a resolution and budget amendment. Funding includes $13.5 million from Triumph Gulf Coast and Florida Commerce grants (TBD), with the County financing any gap, claiming “net-zero” cost via lease payments.

Questions to Ask: Exactly how much debt will the County take on? If Point Blank misses job targets or defaults on lease payments, will taxpayers cover the debt and potential grant clawbacks? Why doesn’t the agenda disclose or even estimate these costs? What about the east side sewer project for Opportunity Park—estimated at $1–$3 million (per Leon County’s 2022 rates)—is it using DEP grants meant for Wakulla Springs, or adding County debt? Are we prioritizing sewer for N.G. Wade’s land over other areas still operating on septic?

Who benefits from the 300 jobs at $52,000 salaries, barely above the lower end of Wakulla’s $50,000–$55,000 average (per BLS 2023 – yes, 2023)? With Leon County nearby, will commuters take these jobs, not Wakulla residents, especially after CSG Systems’ closure cost 100 jobs (per WTXL)? With our low unemployment rate (2023, Florida Commerce), why subsidize private businesses? The County’s $150,000 to the Economic Development Council ($50,000/year for three years)—who are the EDC’s private funders, and do they have ties to N.G. Wade or other developers? Is Project Safety a true economic boost, or a debt-fueled benefit for private interests?

What the BOCC could do: Pull Items 16, 17, and 18 for discussion and ask for:

• Total cost and funding gap estimates ($5–$10 million).

• Sewer project details, including costs ($1–$3 million) and funding (DEP vs. County).

• EDC private funder disclosure and conflict checks for N.G. Wade.

• A job benefit analysis, factoring in Leon County commuters and CSG’s job loss.

· A Note on Commissioner Nichols: Is There More to the Project Safety Story?

What’s Happening: Commissioner Fred Nichols has historically recused himself from voting on Project Safety, as noted in past BOCC meetings. Why? His employer is SRT Supply, a company likely serving as a distributor for Point Blank Enterprises, the entity behind Project Safety (Items 16, 17, and 18). While the agenda lists “Point Blank Enterprises” rather than SRT Supply, the connection seems clear—SRT Supply, where Nichols works as a sales representative, may be tied to Point Blank’s operations, given Point Blank’s prominence in law enforcement supply chains. Nichols’ recusal aligns with ethical standards, and we give kudos for that step. But here’s where it gets murky: we’ve received direct messages from concerned citizens claiming Nichols has been vocal about Project Safety’s benefits outside commission chambers, advocating for the expenditure despite his recusal.

Questions to Ask: What’s the exact relationship between SRT Supply and Point Blank Enterprises—does SRT act as a distributor, and if so, how deep are their ties? Why does the agenda list Point Blank Enterprises instead of acknowledging any SRT Supply connection, especially given Nichols’ employment? Even with his recusal, is it appropriate for Nichols to promote Project Safety outside official meetings, potentially influencing public or commissioner sentiment? Could his advocacy—despite not voting—create a conflict of interest, especially when taxpayer dollars are at stake? Are we fully transparent about how personal or business connections might shape decisions on a project that could cost $20–$30 million? Shouldn’t there be stricter guidelines on what recused commissioners can say publicly about projects they’re tied to? With public trust already shaky, how do we ensure personal interests aren’t swaying such a massive expenditure?

What the BOCC could do: Demand a full disclosure of the relationship between SRT Supply and Point Blank Enterprises, including any financial or contractual ties. Ask for clarity on Nichols’ role at SRT Supply and how it intersects with Project Safety. Request the BOCC establish clear policies on recused commissioners’ public statements to prevent undue influence. Transparency is non-negotiable—let’s ensure Project Safety serves Wakulla residents, not personal or business agendas.

The East Side Sewer Project: Are Residents or Developers Coming First?

The east side sewer project, linked to Items 16, 17, and 18, prompts critical questions. Opportunity Park’s current sewer likely can’t support a 118,000 sq ft facility with 300 employees, requiring upgrades estimated at $1–$3 million. Are these costs drawing from DEP grants, diverting funds from residential projects like Items 22–23 that protect Wakulla Springs? Or is the County adding debt, with interest potentially doubling the cost over time? Why prioritize sewer for N.G. Wade’s land when areas like Wakulla Gardens rely on septic, contributing to nitrate pollution (per Florida Springs Institute)? With past sewer capacity constraints (per county records), can we stretch resources for industrial projects? Shouldn’t we focus on residents’ environmental needs first?

Tying It Together: Are We Getting the Full Picture?

These agenda items share a common issue: a lack of clarity that leaves taxpayers guessing. Could Item 4’s disposal process potentially overlook critical data, or is it secure? Is Item 5’s $8,000 fee a fair cost, or an inflated expense? Why does Item 10’s contract lack competition and cost details? Are Items 22 and 23’s sewer grants being stretched to compete with Item 16’s developer-focused sewer project? Are Items 16, 17, and 18’s “net-zero” claims hiding a debt burden that benefits N.G. Wade over residents? And does Item 15’s sidewalk plan genuinely advance accessibility, or primarily serve developers? The BOCC’s approach—bundling most of these for quick consent approval—raises a core question: are we getting the full picture, or is the county sidestepping scrutiny to push through decisions that may not serve us?

Wakulla’s springs, families, and our collective future deserve a government that answers our questions openly. Have we hired a BOCC that puts the residents first or, their friends and personal interests first? Stay sharp, Wakulla!