St. Johns County directs legal review and cost estimate for challenge to SB 686

The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously Aug. 4 to direct county legal staff to consult outside counsel and return with an assessment of the legal viability and an estimate of costs for pursuing an injunction or other challenge to Florida Senate Bill 686, the new agricultural‑enclaves law. Chair (serving as presiding commissioner) made the motion and the board approved it after extended debate about standing, timing and fiscal risk.

“I would like to make a motion to direct our legal staff to confer with outside counsel for the viability,” the chair said during the discussion, asking attorneys to provide a cost estimate and a realistic assessment that the board could use to decide whether to proceed. Commissioners and staff noted the clock on statutory deadlines for enclave applications and weighed the county’s prior litigation exposure and potential bond or damages costs if a court required posting security.

Commissioner Jessup and others argued for consulting firms experienced with state preemption and constitutional claims; Commissioner Joseph said she had spoken with potential outside counsel and cited "erosion of home rule" as a likely legal theory. County Attorney Mr. Commando advised that outside counsel could be retained to evaluate standing and potential claims and warned the board that an injunction would not automatically halt the administrative process without a court order.

Public speakers urged the board to act quickly. "We call for the immediate suspension of both commissioners pending the resolution of these charges," said Sean Carpenter, speaking during public comment (a separate matter but cited by residents as reason to act forcefully on state law changes). Several speakers recommended specific law firms; one named firm that recently obtained an injunction on a different statewide measure. The board directed staff to return within two weeks (the chair said before the next meeting) with a cost estimate and a recommendation on whether litigation was a viable route.

The motion passed unanimously. The commission did not vote to file suit at this meeting — it voted to pursue an evaluation and cost estimate to inform a future decision.