Residents press county on origins of the amendment, developer fees and bond interactions

A series of audience questions followed the presentation, covering the amendment’s provenance and local policy consequences. When asked who proposed Amendment 3, Joy Andrews said county staff did not have a definitive answer and described the drafting and evolution of the language through the legislative and judicial processes: “We don't really have a good answer for that…It's actually a very political process.”

On developer contributions, Andrews noted St. Johns County maintains an impact fee ordinance and recently adopted a study that sets the maximum state‑allowed schedule for developer mitigation (roads, schools, parks, law enforcement); she also cautioned that fee waivers or phased contributions can have unintended cost timing consequences.

A resident raised an interaction between Amendment 3 and a separate county ballot measure to borrow $100,000,000 for conservation land. Schroeder explained the bond measure has an associated 0.15‑mil millage with a modest cushion but that if taxable values decline substantially the bond would not be able to raise the full $100,000,000 and operating costs of acquired land would also be considered before purchases proceed.

Residents also asked whether an approved constitutional amendment could be repealed later; staff said repeal would itself require a constitutional referendum and that the legal details fall outside the county’s authority.