1. Jessica Waters
Jessica.WatersEdge@gmail.com
Portfolio: News clips and photos
• Harassment allegations and settlement lead to review
• School board’s mental health contract faces scrutiny
• Iconic island estate to become subdivision
• RV park or campground?
• News photos

2. Harassment allegations and settlement lead to review
A three-year old sexual harassment complaint against Tax Collector John Drew and a settlement agreement
with the woman who made it has prompted County Attorney Mike Mullin to review current policies and
procedures.
On April 14, 2013, Teri Murray – a customer service representative working in the Nassau County Tax
Collector’s office since June 2012 – tendered her resignation.
During an exit interview with two office supervisors, Murray reported she had been subjected to repeated acts
of verbal sexual harassment. According to case documents from the resulting investigation, Murray told
department manager Tracy Bazar and then Finance Director Michael Love, who also handled human resources,
that she was resigning because of the harassment, but at first refused to identify who had harassed her. At a
follow-up meeting with Bazar and Love, Murray alleged Drew made the comments.
No record of Drew being formally interviewed by investigators for his side of the story was included in county
records or the insurance claim case file. Per the stipulations of a 2013 settlement agreement, the Tax Collector’s
office paid Murray $20,000 and covered $1,652 in attorney’s fees for a mediation session. The settlement bears
no evidence of approval or personal input from Drew, the County Attorney or the Board of Commissioners. The
county’s liability insurance company approved the settlement.
The total amount was below the county’s $25,000 insurance deductible and was paid directly by the Tax
Collector’s office.
“The Tax Collector vigorously denies the allegations asserted by Murray,” states the settlement agreement
obtained by the News-Leader, “but desires to resolve the matter to limit and further expenses and/or litigation.”
The settlement agreement also provided for a favorable letter of recommendation for Murray and an
agreement by the Tax Collector to conduct additional training for its supervisors, all staff and management.
When questioned about Murray’s claims, Drew advised the News-Leader that, on the advice of his attorney,
he could not discuss the matter due to restrictions instituted by the settlement agreement.
Several attempts by the News-Leader to contact Murray by phone and in person were unsuccessful.
According to an investigation report, Murray told Bazar and Love that “the harassment had been going on for
some time and was so bad that she had to go to counseling and was on medications.”
The report, filed in May 2013 by Meg Zabijaka, an attorney and partner with the employment law firm
Constangy Brooks & Smith, LLP, was obtained pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request filed last month
by the News-Leader.
“Murray stated that all occurrences of harassment occurred after February of 2013. Before that time, she
stated that Drew was always professional,” Zabijaka wrote in her report. “Murray stated that there was no
physical touching by Drew – the harassment was limited to comments in the workplace.”
Bazar and Love offered to reassign Murray to another office building at no loss of pay or benefits, but Murray
refused, saying she was afraid that Drew could still appear at another office.
“She also explained during the interview that it was too far for her to drive (to another office) because every
other Friday, she has to leave work early to take her daughter to the daughter’s father,” the investigation report
stated.
Policy and procedure
After resigning her position, Murray reported her allegations of harassment to the county’s human resources
office and to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, complying with established policy as
recommended by Love and Bazar. Chili Pope, who was the county’s human resources director at the time,
referred the complaint to the county’s liability insurance carrier, Florida Association of Counties Trust, which then

3. assigned the claim to its insurance underwriter, Florida Municipal Insurance Trust. FMIT is an arm of the Florida
League of Cities that provides underwriting services for public entities.
Depending on the specifics of an employment liability case, FMIT will determine whether to investigate the
claim in-house, or refer the claim to “defense council,” said FMIT claims manager Jessica Sheets. Sheets told the
News-Leader claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine who will be in charge of the
investigation.
Employment attorney Mike Grogan with Allen, Norton and Blue was retained by FMIT to represent Drew and
the insurance company. Grogan is retired and no longer with the law firm. No contact with Grogan was possible
and Allen, Norton and Blue representative Marc Sugerman declined to discuss the case with the News-Leader.
“Our office was retained to investigate the allegations of harassment raised by Ms. Terri Murray against Mr.
John Drew, Nassau County Tax Collector,” states a May 31, 2013 memo from Zabijaka to Alonzo Hatchette,
litigation specialist at the Florida League of Cities. “We were initially notified of the complaint on May 1, 2013 by
Ms. Chili Pope, Human Resources Director (of) Nassau County.”
Allegations
During Murray’s interview with Zabijaka, Murray claimed Drew made offensive, vulgar and obscene comments
on 10 occasions. Murray also alleged that Drew told her he could get away with it.
Murray also told Zabijaka she had confided in others about the incidents, including her husband, four
coworkers, and a deputy sheriff, who Murray said was aware of other incidents and wanted to help her. Murray
recommended that one of those coworkers be interviewed about the allegations, and also stated she “had not
come forward before because she was afraid that management would find a way to get rid of her.”
“Throughout the interview, Murray was tearful and appeared to make a very sympathetic witness. Murray
stated that she would like to consider mediation, and her preference was to have this matter mediated before it
became public,” Zabijaka’s report concluded. “I explained to Murray that I would look into the possibility of
mediation and whether my investigation could be halted to allow the mediation process to work. As you know,
the mediation was scheduled and held on Wednesday, May 29, 2013 and the parties reached a settlement of
this matter. As a result, we understand that this matter is closed.”
According to Murray’s statement to Zabijaka, there were no witnesses to any of the events, although she
stated that other people in the office were aware of Drew’s behavior in general.
“According to Murray, after she named Drew as the one who was harassing her, Finance Director Mike Love
told her, “We know he (Drew) has made comments to others.”
Love told the News-Leader in late January that he had never witnessed Drew behaving in an inappropriate
manner to any employee, and said he had not told Murray that he was aware of any comments made by Drew.
Bazar, who is still an employee at the Tax Collector’s office, also told the News-Leader that she has never
witnessed Drew speak in a harassing or sexual manner to anyone, nor had she heard complaints regarding
inappropriate conduct by Drew other than Murray’s claim.
When asked if she agreed with Murray’s statement that Drew was well known in the office for inappropriate
behavior and comments, Bazar said that she did not.
No information in the case file or investigation report indicates Zabijaka interviewed Drew or any Tax
Collector’s office employee. Nor was any mention made in the report of the contents of Murray’s personnel file,
which was provided to Zabijaka prior to interviewing her, according to the report. The personnel file includes 10
disciplinary write-ups and an extension of Murray’s probationary period. The first disciplinary form was issued on
July 12, 2012 and the final write up was issued on March 19, 2013. Bazar or supervisor Erica Dupree signed the
disciplinary forms. Drew’s signature did not appear on any of them.
When contacted by the News-Leader, Zabijaka declined to comment on the case. She stated the only
information she would provide was included in the report the News-Leader received from FMIT. Transcripts,
records or information regarding the mediation session were confidential and would not be disclosed, she said.

4. Agreement to settle
According to Zabijaka’s investigation report, Murray requested compensation for her loss of employment and
her emotional suffering. She also requested that Drew be “forced to step down” from his elected position and
that he should be “required to receive counseling.”
Drew advised the News-Leader that he was told he was not allowed to be present at the mediation, although
Grogan, representing both Drew and the insurance company, was present.
Bazar, who signed the settlement agreement as the representative of the Tax Collector’s office, said she was
present the day of the mediation, but was not involved in any discussions with Murray.
“I was in a separate room; they just came in and told me it was settled and told me to sign (the settlement
document),” she said.
According to the settlement agreement finalized on May 29, 2013, “Neither this agreement nor anything
contained herein is to be construed as an admission by either party of any liability, wrongdoing or unlawful
conduct whatsoever.”
Murray’s EEOC complaint against Drew was withdrawn as a condition of the agreement.
According to the agreement, “Both parties agree to refrain from expressing or causing others to express to
any third party any derogatory or negative opinions, comments (or) statement concerning the parties.”
The settlement was paid directly by the Tax Collector’s office, with no expenditure by FMIT, the county’s
liability insurance carrier.
Need for a new procedure
According to County Attorney Mike Mullin, his goal now is to ensure a thorough investigation of allegations
prior to entering into a settlement agreement for any similar cases.
Although Mullin was not the county attorney at the time of the mediation and settlement, he has looked into
the matter, and told the News-Leader there are several procedural policies and actions that he will be discussing
with FMIT.
Mullin says the handling of the Murray/Drew case strayed from common practices on a number of points,
including the fact that Murray was not required to provide a sworn statement regarding her allegations, instead
giving verbal recollections of events.
Mullin is also concerned that other tax collector’s office employees were not interviewed as part of the
investigation.
“The fact that John (Drew) was not interviewed, that other office employees were not interviewed, that is
bizarre,” he told the News-Leader.
That no apparent attention was given to Murray’s personnel file also strayed from what Mullin said he has
experienced as standard procedure in harassment cases or pre-suit mediation settlements.
Per the terms of the county’s contract with FMIT, if the insurance company recommends settling a liability
claim, and that recommendation is ignored, FMIT will not pay any judgment or costs associated with the claim.
That risk can discourage county officials from opposing the settlement, Mullin said.
Insurance companies can be nervous about sexual harassment cases and will often settle out of court in order
to avoid the risk of litigation, regardless of whether the accusations have been proven, he said.
“I don’t want to use the word sloppy, but as I said (to FMIT), sexual harassment claims should be taken
seriously and should be thoroughly investigated,” Mullin said. “When you investigate just one side and you put
that in a file, and that is a public record; when you release that, then for someone in public office, that is very
damning because you don't have the other side.”
“This is a weird settlement, and now he (Drew) can’t even talk about it,” Mullin added.
A background search conducted by the News-Leader into Drew’s legal and employment history revealed no
prior civil or criminal cases involving Drew, outside tax assessment-related appeals. County records contain no
allegations of harassment or workplace complaints against Drew other than Murray’s.

5. A similar background search conducted on Murray revealed court cases in Nassau and Orange counties,
including two petitions for domestic violence injunctions filed by Murray.
A petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence filed by Murray - under the name Teri
Jeanette Davis – against Gary Davis in May 2011 in Nassau County, was denied by the court.
“The petitioner failed to allege facts sufficient to support the entry of an injunction for protection,” court
documents state, adding that the acts alleged by Murray were not recent.
Murray was also the petitioner in a domestic violence injunction case filed on Jan. 1, 1985 in Orange County
against Joseph Meyers. On Feb. 2, 1985, an order of abatement was issued on the temporary injunction. On
Jan. 1, 2007, the case was reassigned to a different judge and the court took no action. There is no further
information available on that case.
Rush to resolve
In Florida, 68-69 percent of all civil cases filed are resolved in mediation and are not heard in court, Mullin
said.
“Either the parties determine that this is going to be expensive if we continue our claim, or it is an insurance
company saying ‘we will pay ‘x’ amount on your behalf and we think that is best because it saves us litigation
costs that could end up more than the settlement, plus the risk of losing the case,’” he explained. “I have to say,
in this case, it’s almost like as soon as (the insurance company) was told it was a sexual harassment case, they
said ‘we have to get this settled.’”
A rush to settle a case without proper investigation is something Mullin hopes to avoid in the future.
“I want to ultimately look at and address the fact going forward about how we are going to deal with this type
of claim,” he said. “Surely not in this fashion. We have to say to the insurance (provider), ‘what is your procedure,
and if you don't have a procedure, let’s develop one for everyone’s protection.’”
Readers can click here to view the entire 2013 report on the interview with Teri Murray. Warning: the report
does contain offensive, vulgar and obscene language.

6. School board’s mental health contract faces scrutiny
A change last year in the mental health service provider for the Nassau County School District’s Exceptional
Student Education program continues to draw concerned comments from residents and political candidates, as
well as the leadership of the former service provider.
Last April, the Nassau County School Board approved a contract between the ESE program and Florida
Psychological Associates LLC to perform services for approximately 30 students in the ESE program. Funding for
the mental heath services is provided wholly by IDEA grant. They are not funded through the school system’s
general fund.
The grant — part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — allocates funds to each state. They pass
the money down to schools to fund required services and programs.
Per Cheryl Etters, deputy director of communications for the Florida Department of Education, IDEA funds pay
for the cost of educating students with disabilities that is in excess of the state and local funds for such services
and programs. Most local education agencies receive two separate grants, for Pre-K and K-12. For 2014-15
Nassau County received $55,570 in Pre-K funds and $2,276,226 in K-12 funds.
Starting Point’s executive director Laureen Pagel and board member Tom McKenna, as well as Carlos Slay,
Republican candidate for Nassau County tax collector, and Libertarian school superintendent candidate Cheryl
Reynolds James have all questioned several aspects of the change in service providers.
Sole provider vs. competition
Starting Point has been the sole provider of mental health services in Nassau County with the resources to
fulfill the ESE program requirements, and has held an annually renewed contract with the school system for more
than 18 years. According to both Starting Point and school system officials, the school system advised Starting
Point the contract would not be renewed when the annual contract expired in May.
“What ethical responsibility did the school board have to Starting Point Behavioral Health Care to discuss its
apparent dissatisfaction with the services which SPBH had been providing for more than 18 years before
severing its relationship?” McKenna stated in a letter addressed to the News-Leader.
An April letter from Nassau County schools’ ESE Director Pauline Gregory to Pagel stated the school system
was “anticipating new grant funding” and the contract would not be renewed, but offered no further
explanation.
Starting Point met or exceeded the requirements of the contract and the expected levels of service every year,
and were never requested to provide additional or expanded services, said Pagel, who acknowledged they had
not approached the school board to offer, unrequested, any expansion of services or changes in programs.
“Don’t they have a responsibility, if they are going to discontinue something after 18 years, to give some
warning or something saying what (they) don’t like or reviews saying we weren’t up to par?” Pagel questioned.
“We were meeting or exceeding the specific goals of the contract, and no one came to us and said ‘We’re not
getting what we need.’”
Both Pagel and McKenna acknowledged there was no legal obligation on the part of the school district to
renew their annual contract or give them the opportunity to compete for the next contract.
“Absolutely, there is no guarantee (that the contract will be renewed); it’s about professional courtesy,” Pagel
said.
“This is a small community and everyone knows everyone, and you have to be even more open and honest
about what’s happening,” McKenna said.
Both Pagel and McKenna told the News-Leader they would have had an issue with the decision to change the
ESE mental health service provider, even if Catherine or John Drew had not been involved.
“It is how (the school system) went about it, and the lack of transparency that there is a problem with,” Pagel
said.

7. Measuring results
Copies of several years of Starting Point’s “Outcome Measures Results” provided to the News-Leader by the
school system show that, in all but one case, Starting Point did meet or exceed the benchmarks of service
identified in the report. Outcomes reviewed included goals such as “improve overall functioning as measured by
change in students’ Global Assessment of Functioning Scale from beginning of school year to the end,” and “25
percent of students completing the program will improve their FCAT scores.” Outcomes measured also included
achieving a 90 percent satisfaction rating from parents, students and teachers, as indicated in surveys completed
by all three groups. Although Starting Point maintained a 90 percent or higher satisfaction rating in the years for
which data was provided to the News-Leader, there was a sharp drop in the number of surveys returned by
parents: from 20 out of 31 parents returning them in 2006-07, and 22 out of 35 in 2008-09, to six parents out of
31 in 2009-10 and 7 parents out of 34 in 2010-11. There was not a significant corresponding drop in the number
of student surveys completed.
“The Nassau County School District has not received the STARRS ‘Outcome Measure Results’ for the 2014-15
school year contract period with Starting Point. This, in part, is a result of the level of dissatisfaction expressed by
a significant number of the parents of our elementary students with the services provided,” Gregory stated in a
December 2015 email to Ruis. “Thus, the parents refused to complete the surveys.”
Conflict of interest?
Multiple relationships exist between the individuals involved in the school board’s contract with Florida
Psychological Associates LLC.
Catherine Drew, who is the owner of Florida Psychological Associates LLC, is also an employee of the Nassau
County School System and a former employee of Starting Point. Her husband, Nassau County Tax Collector
John Drew, is listed as an authorized member of the corporation and refers to himself as the business manager
of Florida Psychological Associates LLC. Catherine Drew’s mother Kathleen Hardee is also a Nassau County
School System employee, working as the ESE program coordinator under Gregory.
John Drew’s official duties as tax collector include distributing tax revenue to the school board. The amount
and timing of those distributions is ordered by the state and is mandatory, not discretionary.
None of those circumstances represented a legal conflict of interest, according to the school attorney, said
Superintendent John Ruis.
According to Ruis, Catherine Drew’s duties as an employee of the school system are limited to administering
the federal School Climate Transformation grant, which is a separate source of funding than the federal IDEA
grant. Catherine Drew had no input or authority as a school employee into the selection of her company to
provide services under the IDEA grant, Ruis and Gregory both told the News-Leader.
Kathleen Hardee also had no responsibility for selecting the IDEA mental health provider, Gregory said. The
recommendation to change service providers was her decision, she added, explaining that she alone made the
recommendation to Ruis.
“Maybe Catherine Drew’s mother recused herself from any discussion (about the provider change), so
technically, they’re correct, but when I heard this, as a board member for Starting Point, it just struck me as
(odd),” McKenna said, reiterating that he was not accusing the school system of acting in an illegal manner.
“They just didn’t do it like they should have,” he said. “We all know that what is legal is not necessarily ethical,
and that hopefully our elected officials are held to the higher standard.”
Motivation for change
“I felt like we have to look at the needs of the students, and that was what drove the decision to look at other
services,” Gregory said, adding that Starting Point had been the only local provider during the past two
decades, and she felt that the addition of another service provider in the area gave the school the chance to
explore new opportunities for the students. The pending retirement of a central member of the counseling staff

8. also contributed to her feeling that this was a good time for exploring the options offered by the new company,
Gregory added.
“I would say that, in our length of contract (with Starting Point), things have always come up and we’ve always
attempted to problem solve through those, but certain things like (medicine) management — there wasn’t a
problem-solving process to go through,” Gregory said.
“Also, having a clinical psychologist as the clinical supervisor (with Florida Psychological Associates LLC); (Keri
Eng) was going to be able to offer what’s called differential diagnoses and that’s really critical for our students.
We noticed that with (Starting Point), a lot of students had the same diagnosis and that would lead to the same
treatment plan, and in ESE, they have to be individualized. Those were issues that had been very fully expressed
and communicated so that is nothing new,” Gregory said, adding that communication had also become difficult
toward the end of the school’s relationship with Starting Point.
The school system still refers students to Starting Point for additional services and community-based
programs, Gregory said.
Comparative costs
The contract between Florida Psychological Associates LLC and the school system specifies a compensation
rate of “$6,319.44 in monthly installments, bringing the (annual) total to $75,833.33.” Those funds are a portion
of what is provided to Nassau County schools by the federal IDEA grant.
In an earlier interview with the News-Leader, Ruis said Starting Point’s latest annual contract was for $70,000
— a figure Pagel contested.
“How our contract worked was, it was based on direct services provided. We would invoice the school system
for specific, identified services for specific students,” Pagel said. “It wasn’t a blanket amount.”
If a student had an outside source of payment, such as private insurance or Medicaid, Starting Point would bill
them, and then bill the school system for students and/or services that were not covered by another source, she
explained. “The amount available was $70,000, but that was not the amount we invoiced them,” she added.
Invoices provided by Pagel showed $49,346 in charges to the school system in the past fiscal year.
“The point here that is important is that, because we are an established organization that has a history of
getting reimbursement from (Medicaid), which (Catherine Drew’s) organization wasn’t, we are able to use those
other services to make better use of the dollars we get from the school and (Florida Psychological Associates)
aren’t able to do that,” claimed McKenna.
“Florida Psychological Associates is a certified provider with AHCA (Florida Agency for Health Care
Administration) to provide Medicaid services. We have been billing Medicaid; we have found that the collection
process through the managed care companies — not Medicaid but the newly formed managed care companies
— is difficult,” John Drew said. “We have submitted many claims on those children that have come back with
either a dramatically reduced amount of funds provided or denied outright. In previous years, organizations were
eligible to bill Medicaid directly for student services; that is no longer the case.”
Nonprofits vs. for-profit
No requirements are listed in IDEA grant regulations specifying that service providers must be nonprofit
organizations.
“It doesn’t matter if it is a nonprofit or not, as long as they provide the services that are required by the
grant,” Gregory said, adding that both state requirements and the specific federal grant regulations regarding
the IDEA grant exempt mental health service providers from any competitive bid requirements.
Staffing
Disagreement on whether service levels have increased or decreased since the change in service providers has
also proven to be a point of contention.

9. Although Ruis told the News-Leader that Florida Psychological Associates LLC provided onsite services, while
stating that Starting Point did not provide onsite services, Pagel pointed out that Starting Point had provided
counseling and case management personnel onsite at Nassau County Schools for the past 20 years.
“We did have onsite services from Starting Point. What we had is mental health counseling and case
management, so yes, they did provide onsite services,” Gregory said. “I think what Dr. Ruis was talking about
was the med management service only.”
Gregory added that the addition of a medical doctor who could handle medication management and
monitoring onsite was a significant motivating factor for the change in service providers.
“What prompted me to consider changing providers — the main concern that parents would voice to us — is
(medicine) management and getting to those appointments,” Gregory said. “That seemed to be an overriding
concern with parents, and that is the main difference between the contracts — that now we have a medical
doctor coming on site, scheduling with us and the parents and the children so there is not a gap in their
medication management.”
“That (med management) is not something they ever asked us to provide,” Pagel said, acknowledging that it
is not a service that Starting Point ever offered to provide. “It was never requested that our psychiatrists go there
to provide medication management. Part of the issue with providing onsite medication management is that,
when a child is seen for medication management services, the parent must participate in that session. … Having
a confidential site for the psychiatrist and the nurse to see them and assuring that the parent is there to
participate is something that is difficult to coordinate.”
The ability to provide those med management services through a certified medical doctor is the reason that,
at this time, Florida Psychological Associates, LLC does not have an on-staff psychiatrist, according to John
Drew.
“We have a clinical psychologist with the State of Florida doing and supervising the mental health treatment
and we have a licensed medical doctor through the State of Florida doing the prescription medication for the
patients as needed,” he said.
An on-staff psychiatrist was one of the services provided by Starting Point, Pagel pointed out, adding that she
believed counseling and case management staffing had been reduced since the change in service providers.
Starting Point provided nine staff members to provide program services, Gregory said, adding that there are
now 16 staff members providing mental health services within the school district. Three full time and two part
time counselors and case managers are provided through the contract with Florida Psychological Associates LLC,
three are provided through a new partnership with Nassau Alcohol Crime and Drug Abatement Coalition and six
more through the new School Climate Transformation Grant. “Our parents are happy, our students are well
served, and we are meeting the requirements of IDEA,” Gregory said, adding that her sole motivation in
changing service providers was to provide the best services for the students.
Another company
John Drew’s creation of a second company, Florida Psychological & Associated Healthcare Inc., has caused
some confusion among those interested in the provider change, as well as raising questions about the
relationships of its corporate officers.
Unlike Florida Psychological Associates LLC, which is a for-profit company owned by Catherine Drew and
business-managed by John Drew, Florida Psychological & Associated Healthcare is a certified nonprofit
corporation created by John Drew. Officers of the organization include John Martin, who is the husband of
Nassau County School Board Chair Donna Martin; and David Hardee, who is the husband of ESE program
coordinator Kathleen Hardee; as well as Daniel Sturgis and Timothy Qualls.
Although there is no overlap between the two companies when it comes to the contract with the ESE, and the
nonprofit corporation has no supervision authority over the ESE Day Treatment Program, Florida Psychological &
Associated Healthcare Inc. has, in the past months, signed a memorandum of understanding with the school
board to provide no-cost mental health services to the school district. These services are not connected to the

10. ESE day treatment program, said John Drew, who said funding for the services provided by his nonprofit come
from the Florida Department of Children and Families.
“Florida Psychological & Associated Healthcare was formed to be an additional non-profit in Nassau County
to fill the existing need of the mental health community,” said John Drew.
The local health department, in their latest community assessment, identified mental health services as Nassau
County’s greatest healthcare need, John Drew said.
The non-profit is completely separate from the for-profit company under contract with the Nassau County
School District’s ESE Department, and has no involvement in those specific services or in the revenues or
expenses of the company, John Drew stated. Instead, its mission is to provide community services similar to
those provided by Starting Point Behavioral Health.
The reason behind creating the separate nonprofit organization, instead of providing all services under the for-
profit corporation, explained Drew, is that DCF requires any organization receiving funding through their
department to be a certified nonprofit.
In order to receive certification as a nonprofit corporation in time to receive DCF funding within the timeline
needed to provide planned services, John Drew said he completed the certification process in a very short time,
and the board members listed on the organization’s founding papers may or may not remain the same.
“They were the ones that agreed to be on the board in short order,” he said. “Some of those may change,”
he added, stressing that the organization’s work with the school district is both at no charge to the county, and
completely separate from the IDEA grant-funded services provided by the for-profit Florida Psychological
Services LLC.
“We (Florida Psychological & Associated Healthcare Inc.) have the ability to provide the same services (as
Starting Point). Our goal is to have a complete system of care in Nassau County where different organizations
concentrate on their forte,” he said, adding that different organizations already focus on sub-sections of mental
health such as substance abuse and anger management.
John Drew said some staff members, including counselors and case managers, might work for both the
nonprofit organization and the for-profit company. Some of the employees, he said, were employees of Starting
Point prior to Florida Psychological Associates LLC being granted the contract with the ESE department.
“Yes, we did hire away some of (Starting Point’s) staff, and every employee that we hired has taken a pay cut
to come work for us — every single employee,” John Drew said. “If there is only one location in a county that
provides a service, and another one opens up, it would only be expected that some people would want to leave
and go to the new establishment.”
“We are positive that there is more than enough work in Nassau County to fulfill even more mental health
services,” John Drew said, “meaning there is more than enough room for even other providers to come into
Nassau.”

11. Iconic island estate to become subdivision
The shady, tree-lined peacefulness of Buccaneer Trail was shattered this past weekend as heavy machinery
brought down sweet gum, hickory, magnolia and oak trees on a section of land just south of Canopy Drive in
advance of a new subdivision.
A well-known and iconic island estate, the property being developed was once the home of former state
senator Alexander “Sandy” McArthur and his wife Mabel, and was often admired for its bucolic landscape, with a
stream running through the wooded property.
Several homes were tucked within the natural landscape, where peacocks roamed free.
The property, four separate parcels now consolidated under the ownership of McArthur Nassau LLC, is the
future site of McArthur Estates.
The site engineering plan for the 10.42-acre development was approved by the Nassau County Development
Review Committee and will feature 15 single-family lots, according to a June 2 letter to McArthur Nassau LLC
representatives Dunn & Associates. Developers must still obtain a “site work or building permit for the
improvements identified in the site engineering plan,” stated the letter.
Clearing of specified trees within the property boundaries is a legal prerogative of property owners and
developers as long as any tree removal adheres to the development’s approved tree retention and removal plan,
said Nassau County Planning Director Peter King.
Included in the approved site plan is the development’s tree retention and removal plan. A required
component of the development process, the McArthur Estate’s tree plan is in compliance with Nassau County’s
tree ordinance, King said. King, who conducted a site visit to the McArthur Estates development Monday
morning following telephone calls from citizens who were upset about the tree removal, said the work
conducted on site is compliant with the approved tree plan.
“I was pleasantly surprised; they were following the tree preservation plan,” King said following the visit. “I
couldn’t find anywhere where trees not approved for removal had been accidentally removed or damaged. They
are saving some really nice trees. I think when the project is done, people will be happy.”
“I was impressed with the health and size of the trees they are saving — oak, pine, even cedar and very nice
magnolia,” King said, acknowledging that several of the trees already removed were more than 50 inches in
diameter. “That’s the problem when a site is covered in huge trees like that site is; you have no choice but to
remove some of them,” he added.
While the purpose of the county’s tree protection ordinance is to preserve an important natural resource,
property owner rights must also be considered and protected, King said, adding that Nassau County’s
regulations regarding the preservation of canopy trees are more stringent than those in many neighboring and
regional communities.
King said the developers at McArthur Estates are meeting or exceeding county requirements regarding tree
preservation, and said that developers voluntarily extended the development’s buffer from the required 25 feet
to 50 feet.
Although working during the weekend to clear trees approved for removal in the development’s tree plan is
not against regulations, King said it might have given the appearance of subterfuge to neighbors and concerned
citizens. Those concerns prompted King’s Monday visit, and King says he understands the concern and
disappointment in the neighborhood regarding the removal of trees. However, the development is acting in
accordance with county regulations, he said, emphasizing that property owners have to be allowed to utilize
their property.
“The only way to preserve that property the way it was would have been for the county to purchase the
property,” he said. “When the development is done and the property is cleaned up and the roads are in and the
landscaping is done to complement the trees that were preserved, I think people will like what they see.”
Requirements of the tree protection ordinance are applicable to all development projects on unincorporated
portions of Amelia Island except for residential construction that is not within a subdivision. Property owners

12. seeking to build on property not included in a subdivision are not bound by the tree protection ordinance
requirements, according to King.
Trees that are “within approved utility rights of way or easements that are necessary to supply gas, water,
sewer, telephone, cable television, electrical service or other needed utilities” are excluded from the protections
of the ordinance.
All development projects must submit a tree inventory and retention/landscape plan to the development review
committee, and a development’s site plan must show that they will preserve a minimum of 45 percent of the
“caliper inches” of existing “protected native canopy trees.”
“A protected native canopy tree is defined as a healthy tree as determined by an ISA certified arborist … and
is at least 6” dbh in size,” according to the ordinance. Tree diameter is usually measured at 4.5 feet above
ground level. Measurement at this height is referred to as diameter at breast height or DBH.
“As an incentive for property owners to retain larger trees, the preservation of any tree that is 80th percentile
or larger in inches DBH (of all qualifying/protected native canopy trees on the proposed development site) will
generate a bonus credit value of 125 percent of the diameter of the preserved tree,” states the code. This
portion of the code offers developers an incentive to preserve the older, larger trees that exist on the property,
King said.
A required silt fence and tree protection barriers had not been erected Monday and a stop-work order was
issued while workers erected the necessary fencing and barriers. The stop-work order was lifted later the same
day, according to Building Department official Michael Griffin.
BOX:
Nassau’s tree protection ordinance
Native canopy trees, recognized as an asset to the environmental, health and aesthetic appeal of Nassau
County, were given specific legal protection with the 2013 adoption of Ordinance 2013-06 — also known as the
county’s tree protection ordinance.
“The board of county commissioners finds that it is in the best public interest to enact and enforce the
regulations described herein for the purpose of controlling the removal of native canopy trees, clear cutting and
strip clearing of land in the unincorporated areas of Amelia Island,” states the ordinance.
Under the specifications of the ordinance, which is applicable to all Class II, III and IV developments and
government agencies located within the unincorporated areas of Amelia Island, it is “unlawful for any person,
firm or corporation, either individually or through an agent, to cut down, destroy, clear cut, remove, or cause to
be destroyed through damaging any native canopy tree without first obtaining site plan approval of the
development review committee and the Planning and Zoning Board…”

13. RV park or campground?
Nassau County residents will soon have an opportunity to participate in a public hearing before the Nassau
County Planning and Zoning Board regarding the county’s zoning ordinance and the operation of a facility for
recreational vehicles.
The public hearing, scheduled at 7 p.m. Tuesday, June 2, at the county commission chambers, 96135 Nassau
Place, Yulee, is the latest in a round of exchanges between Nassau resident and developer Bob Allison and the
county’s growth management department.
Allison, who has completed multiple development projects in the county — including the Fernandina marina
and the High Point, Palm Bluff, Riverside and Northshore subdivisions — is currently considering developing a
parcel of property on the east side of CR 107 (Old Nassauville Road), north of Woodbridge Parkway.
The property, which Allison purchased from Bailey Road Church of God on May 7 according to county
records, is currently designated in the Open Rural zoning district.
Allison’s proposed development of the property would create a facility where Class A motor homes could stay
on a temporary basis, according to Allison.
“My project will be a campground for vacationing tourists traveling in Class “A” motor homes. Travel trailers
will not be welcomed or allowed in the campground,” Allison said.
Allison has also stated that tents will not be allowed in his proposed campground facility.
Peter King, county planning director, addressed county commissioners at an April meeting, saying that a
request to amend the zoning code to include “RV resorts” as a permitted or conditional use in the OR zone had
been submitted by Allison.
“It was a pleasure meeting you on Monday to discuss Mr. Allison’s proposed RV Resort. Following the
meeting, we decided that the best course of action is to amend (County Zoning Code) Article 22-Open Rural to
include an RV resort as a permitted use,” states a March 18 letter to King from Allison’s legal representative,
Pam Miller.
The letter, obtained by the News-Leader through a public records request, proposed specific changes to the
Open Rural zoning classification. “Pursuant to your recommendation to expedite the process, we have drafted
the attached proposed changes to Article 22-Open Rural, which include requirements,” stated Miller.
Allison, who is currently seeking to have his proposed recreational facility project classified as a permitted use
under the Open Rural district as a campground, told the News-Leader during an interview last week that he
never requested a change to the zoning ordinance, and says his project has always been proposed as a
“campground” and thus a permitted use on the property in question. The proposed additions to the code
referenced in the March 18 letter and subsequent conversations were a list of regulations and requirements that
the county could adopt to assure the quality of any future recreational vehicle facilities, but were not intended to
be changes to the existing allowed uses in the OR district, Allison said.
“Mr. Allison has made no such request to change the zoning code to permit “resort” RV parks in the OR
district. Mr. Allison has made no request to change the zoning code in any respect. Further, I think it should be
clarified Mr. Allison has no interest in proposing or building any RV resort or any RV park. In multiple
conversations and meetings with county staff, Mr. Allison has simply sought to determine whether or not he has
the right to build a “campground” as a permitted use under the Open Rural zoning classification. In regards to
King’s statement, in his letter to the zoning board, that ‘Mr. Allison wishes to amend the LDC to allow RV parks in
the OR zoning rather than file an application for a zoning change’…. This statement is also incorrect. Again, Mr.
Allison has no interest in building an RV park,” states correspondence included in a packet of information given
to the News-Leader by Allison.
In correspondence between the his office and Allison, King acknowledges the project would be potentially
beneficial for the county, but stresses the importance of addressing the zoning issue, since any decision
regarding this particular project would also be applicable to future projects on any property zoned Open Rural,

14. which constitutes a limited number of properties on Amelia Island and a significant portion of land in the
unincorporated portion of Nassau County.
“It’s (the Land Development Code) sentences, clauses and words must be interpreted as literally as possible.
This is the only way the rights of Nassau County property owners can be assured and protected. This is the only
way for the independent and neutral integrity of the Land Development Code is to be maintained,” Allison
stated.
“The integrity of Nassau County’s Land Development Code is under assault by county staff persons
determined to bend the meaning of the code’s ordinances to their own personal opinion,” Allison added. “If the
zoning board is unwilling or incapable for standing up for what the code says and what it means, no one else in
Nassau County can or will and the rights of Nassau County property owners will be decided not by written
ordinance but instead by the personal opinions of the ever-changing members of the county’s administrative
staff.”
In the informational packet supplied by Allison to the News -Leader, Allison’s project is defined as a
campground, stating, “The project Mr. Allison proposes to build is not an RV ‘park.’ It is also not an RV ‘resort.’ It
is a high-end RV ‘campground’ for motor homes.”
The packet states that, in comparison to the adjoining property in the Woodbridge subdivision, his project
would provide a lower-density neighborhood with more open space and be more beneficial to the county on
several levels.
“One thing that must be considered is the positive economic impact,” Allison stated, comparing the impact of
his proposed facility and the Woodbridge subdivision. “Which use brings to Nassau County the most new sales
taxes, the most new commerce supporting tourism and the most permanent new jobs creation?
Obviously, this goes to the campground,” he said, adding that, “the average assessed value of a home in the
Woodbridge Subdivision is $135,000. The average value of a motor home parked at Mr. Allison’s campground
will be $400,000.”
On April 24, Mollie Garrett, legal representative for Allison, requested an official declaration from King on
whether Allison’s proposed facility would be allowed under the “campground” permitted use in the OR district.
“The proposed facility would provide campsites at a “density” of less than 10 per acre; each campsite would
have extensive landscaping and natural buffers to provide the private, rural setting that are common to
campgrounds across the nation. Travel trailers of all types and tent camping would be strictly prohibited.”
“It is my understanding that you do not believe such a use is allowed as a permitted use in Open Rural. Also, I
understand your opinion to be that the proposed use constitutes an RV Park and therefore could only be allowed
with a FLUM amendment, rezoning to CG, CHT, or ROS, with a conditional use if rezoned to the latter. Your
comments at the meeting Tuesday, lead me to believe that you rely on other language in the code, specifically
section 28.06, as prohibiting the proposed use. My client disagrees; it is his position that the proposed use
constitutes “camping grounds” which is a permitted use in OR zoning as provided under 22.01(e)
“The approach you (King) has suggested (FLUM amendment, rezoning, possible conditional use) is
unacceptable given the language which allows ‘camping grounds’ in OR as a permitted use and ‘camping areas’
in OR as a conditional use,” Garrett states. “Thus, on behalf of Mr. Allison, I am requesting your decision in
writing so that my client may appeal this matter to the Planning and Zoning Board.”
Under the specifications of the Nassau County zoning code, “the use provisions in the various zoning districts
are exclusive and any use not included under the permitted or permissible uses shall be prohibited in such
districts,” King said, adding that, if a specific use is addressed in one or more zones as a permitted or conditional
use, then that use is exclusive to those particular zones, and is not allowed, under the zoning rules, in any other
zoning districts
King’s response, also dated April 24, states that “Travel trailer parks are permitted in the CG, CHT and ROS
zoning categories, travel trailer parks are not permitted in the Open Rural zoning district either as a permitted or
as a condition use as the yard already permitted in the CG (Commercial General), CHT Commercial Highway and
Tourist) and ROS (Recreation and Open Space) zoning categories.” King identifies Allison’s proposed project as
a “travel trailer park” in regards to its zoning classification, saying “A travel trailer park contains recreational

15. vehicles and the county code clearly defines what a recreational vehicle is …” According to the county code, the
term ‘recreational vehicle’ includes “travel trailers, camping trailers, pick-up camper, converted buses, motor
homes, tent trailers, op-up trailers, boats and boat trailers and similar devises.”
King also states that the county code “clearly defines the circumstances in which an RV can be used,”
referencing section 28.06 of the code, which states “No major recreational equipment shall be used for living,
sleeping, or housekeeping purposes when parked or stored in a residentially zoned lot or in any other location
not approved for such use.”
Allison, on May 8, filed an appeal to King’s determination. The appeal will be conducted before the Planning
and Zoning board, and includes the June 2 public hearing.
Allison, if not content with decisions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at the appeal, can appeal the
matter to the county board of commissioners, and past that, through the court system.
Allison, referencing several dictionary entries for the term “campground,” including the Cambridge Dictionary,
Webster Dictionary and Wikipedia, as well as the American National Standards Institute, which specifically
include the terms “camper,” RVs” and “recreational vehicles” within the definition of campground,” asserts that
King has employed personal opinion instead of county regulations to determine the standing of his proposed
project.
Mr. Peter King has delayed my campground project for nearly four months because of his personal definition
of the words ‘camping grounds.’ This delay has hurt me financially and has help up an important project for
Nassau County supporting tourism,” Allison stated. “By making false and misleading public comments that keep
everyone including the zoning board members in complete confusion, Mr. King is able to stay firmly in control of
all county decision making regarding land use.” In correspondence with a resident of the Woodbridge
Subdivision, forwarded by the recipient to King and provided to the News-Leader pursuant to a public records
request, Allison stated the failure of his project to proceed could result in less advantageous use of the property.
“If I am not allowed by the county to use this property for a high-end low-density campground for motor
homes then the property will be put back on the market. Its next owner may be from out of town and they may
not give one damn about our neighborhood. As always, it will simply be all about money and little else,” Allison
stated.
“After reading the Open Rural zoning ordinance, you may decide you do not want this. You may decide after
looking at my other development work that you want me and no one else to be your neighbor owning this
property. When you think about the future of this property really carefully you may decide that you want to
support my project rather than oppose it.”
Other uses currently listed as permitted uses under the OR district in the Nassau County zoning code include
dude ranches, game preserves, single family dwellings and mobile homes, day nurseries, berry farms and
governmental uses. Other uses identified as conditional uses in the OR zone include race tracks for vehicles or
animals, marinas, animal hospitals, kennels, sawmills, livestock auction and slaughtering and gas stations.