FBCC reaffirms support for 2012 waterfront park plan with possible modifications

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm

Reporter – News Analyst

City Clerk Caroline Best distributes materials to commissioners on waterfront park plans.
City Clerk Caroline Best distributes materials to commissioners on waterfront park plans.

At a special meeting called on March 25, 2014, the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) viewed presentations and listened to arguments for and against two different plans for a public park along the downtown Amelia Riverfront.  After 2.5 hours of input from plan spokesmen, members of the CRA Advisory Board, and the public, the FBCC by consensus decided to stay the course with the city-approved 2012 plan drawn up by the Waterfront Advisory Group (WAG).  City Manager Joe Gerrity will investigate the feasibility and costs of modifications to the plan put forward by Eric Bartelt, spokesman for the WAG plan. Commissioners thanked Randy Rice, architect of the competing plan submitted by Partnership for the Amelia River Park (PARP), for helping them refocus on the urgency of beginning work on the park both to improve the appearance of the waterfront and to spur downtown business activity and economic development in the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA).

Partnership for Amelia River Park (PARP) presentation and plan

Randy Rice presents PARP plan to Fernandina Beach City Commission.
Randy Rice presents PARP plan to Fernandina Beach City Commission.

After opening the meeting Mayor Ed Boner introduced Randy Rice, architect of the PARP plan.  During a 20-minute presentation, Rice recapped the history of efforts to design a waterfront park.  He noted that efforts to move forward on the WAG plan approved in 2012 appeared to come to a halt in 2013, when the FBCC returned money borrowed to begin park construction.  He suggested that that there are good models in the community for raising private funds to allow work to continue on a waterfront park, citing efforts of the Friends of the Library, the skate park and the Nassau Humane Society.  He said, “If we can raise a third to a half of the money privately, maybe [the park] can work with a simplified plan.”

PARP PLAN WITH SHADE STRUCTURE SHOWNThe PARP plan limited the scope of the park to what are now Parking Lots A and B, those public lots directly at the foot of Centre Street roughly bordered by the boat ramp on the south and the boundary of city marina property on the north.  Rice maintained that parking spaces lost during the construction of his plan could be relocated to what he termed Parking Lot E, the lot and small park located on the southwest corner of Ash and 2nd Streets where the former Police Department building once stood.  He also suggested that the city could lease space for additional parking from an adjacent property owner north of the city-owned marina property.

PARP Plan for current waterfront parking lot B
PARP Plan for current waterfront parking lot B

Rice allowed that both his plan and the WAG plan had a similar treatment of Parking Lot A, constructing it in such a way that it would be a multifaceted venue that could be used for special events.  His plan concentrated on the area occupied by Parking Lot B, which he said is the most significant area of the park.  Located at the foot of Centre Street, he said, “90% of visitors will want to be there.”  His plan called for creating shady areas with misting fountains around the perimeter to cool the area.  The area would gently slope to remove distracting views of the street.  He would build a covered deck onto the existing Welcome Center, allowing the building to be used as a small performance area.  A distinctive feature of the PARP plan would be the 8 Flags Plaza.  Eight tall flagpoles, each flying one of the island’s historical flags, would surround a circle in the park.  He said that the PARP plan could be built for a quarter of the cost of the full park as envisioned by the Waterfront Advisory Group.

Chris Hall speaks to fundraising ideas to support PARP plan.
Chris Hall speaks to fundraising ideas to support PARP plan.

Local resident Chris Hall joined Rice to explain more about potential PARP fundraising efforts.  He said that his group has identified seven grants for which this project would be eligible.  He indicated that there had been some corporate interest in sponsorship of bigger ticket items such as a fountain or the 8 flags, but that in order to be eligible, the project would need to apply under specific grant cycles, possibly a year away.  He said that PARP is also considering a “brick naming” project to raise funds.  He added that Shrimp Fest would be a perfect time to highlight the potential of the project.

 

 

 

Waterfront Advisory Group (WAG) presentation and plan

Eric Bartelt, WAG member, presented the plan approved by the FBCC in 2012, recapping public involvement back as far as 2002.  He noted that the existing plan, in addition to reflecting public input, has been approved by 5 city advisory boards.  Engineering work at a significant cost was done between 2009-2011, and the project has been permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District.  He reported that the architects of the WAG plan had looked to the Project for Public Spaces for guidance and used as a framework their work entitled “9 Steps to Creating a Great Waterfront.”

Eric Bartelt explains WAG plan and his suggested revisions.
Eric Bartelt explains WAG plan and his suggested revisions.

The WAG plan creates a festive entry to the park with a radiating design featuring the 8 flags in a semicircle around the existing Veterans Memorial.  The Lot B fountain would be a focal point and a key park destination.  Bartelt said that in a waterfront park, people should be able to interact with the water.  Quoting the Project for Public Spaces, he said, “If it is not possible to actually dip their hands in the water, people should have access to another type of water nearby, such as a fountain …”

2012 WAG Plan
2012 WAG Plan

Bartelt concurred that the two plans were virtually the same for Parking Lot A.  He said that the WAG plan had also called for the addition of a deck to the existing Welcome Center, but that the addition had mistakenly been omitted from the CAD drawing.

Bartelt also presented proposed revisions to the WAG plan, which had not been publicly vetted or approved by the WAG committee.  He suggested that the deck of the welcome center could double as a stage or be used for private gatherings.  Unlike the PARP plan, the WAG plan would require no construction modifications to the Welcome Center roof because fabric sails would shade the porch.  Another design revision involved the addition of high canopy shade trees in the seating area for the performance stage.  Bartelt suggested the addition of 40 fast growing high canopy pine trees to provide filtered shade.  Such planting would pay homage to the local pulp and paper industry.

WAG BPerhaps the most significant revision to the plan was a suggestion to reduce the depth of the lot B park by 8 feet in order to retain all 48 parking spaces currently in Lot B.  This would be accomplished by moving Front Street slightly west and adding straight-in parking on either side, with the east side parking backing up to a landscaped barrier separating the rail tracks from the parking area.  This is a significant difference from the PARP plan, which reduces the number of parking spaces in this area from 48 to 24.

In addressing PARP’s call for using Lot E to avoid net loss of parking, Bartelt said that Lot E is often full today, and that it is perceived to be too far away from the waterfront and Centre Street to be convenient to shoppers or boaters.

With respect to funding, Bartelt proposed using $250K from the city’s Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Fund that currently holds $700K.  He would augment this with $200K in grants.  He claimed that all of the Lot B portion of the park could be built for this money, excluding the fountain, which would be paid for with private funding.

In concluding his presentation, Bartelt expressed support for a public/private partnership but stressed that raising private money is easier if there is also city money involved, stating,  “Public money adds official support, credibility, stability and control.”  He also emphasized that under the WAG plan, “the city maintains ownership and control of all funds, design, specifications, bidding, project management and construction.”

Public Input

Alan Mills suggest park belongs at Main Beach.
Alan Mills suggest park belongs at Main Beach.

Following an hour of presentations Mayor Boner opened the meeting to public comment.  First to speak were two charter fishing boat operators.  Alan Mills commented, “It is a great park in the wrong location.”  He said that the park belongs at Main Beach, encouraging the FBCC to make Main Beach “kid-friendly.”  He suggested that other communities cited by both presenters have riverfront parks because they do not have beaches.  Terry Lacoss said that he liked the park, preferring the design of the original [WAG] plan.  He expressed concerns over potential loss of parking for marina boaters and charter fishing businesses.  He said, “That parking lot is the heart of our city activity.”

Terry Lacoss  cites importance of existing parking lot.
Terry Lacoss cites importance of existing parking lot.

Riverfront activist Lynn Williams spoke next, disagreeing with Rice on several elements of his plan, saying, “The devil is in the detail.”  He took issue with Rice’s calculations on the impact of removing parking spaces from Lot B.  He said that the WAG plan is the only plan the FBCC should consider.

Mayor Boner asked Williams, who serves as a director of the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), the chances of the city’s obtaining a FIND grant to help fund the project.  Williams replied, “I think you’ve got a pretty good in, but I am only one of 12 votes.”  He reported that the FIND grant cycle would require grant submission by the end of March for consideration this year.

Scott Moore, President of Historic Fernandina Merchants
Scott Moore, President of Historic Fernandina Merchants
Melba Whitaker, long time downtown business owner
Melba Whitaker, long time downtown business owner

Two members of the downtown business community also spoke.  Scott Moore, president of the Historic Fernandina Business Association, said that the most important point is that the city must get a park.  He reported that a poll of his association members reported overwhelming support for the PARP plan.  Melba Whitaker, a longtime downtown business owner, commended everyone for their work on park designs and said, “We are 250% behind ‘let’s do a park.’” She advocated a simple, naturally landscaped and easily maintained park.

John Cotner, local architect who has worked on multiple city committees dealing with waterfront concerns
John Cotner, local architect who has worked on multiple city committees dealing with waterfront concerns

John Cotner, a local architect who has served on many city project committees including the Waterfront Advisory Group, reminded commissioners that the WAG plan was the end product of years of discussion and input.  He said, “There has been lots of work done by lots of people to get nowhere.  We’re stuck in the mud constantly. All of the questions have been beaten over and over again.  Everyone got heard; everyone was listened to [in formulating the WAG plan].”  What the community says is important, he said, adding, “It’s all our park.”  He told commissioners that the plan contained some elements that he was not happy about, but that individual likes and dislikes were not important.  He reminded the FBCC that WAG had been formed as a watchdog to safeguard the wishes of the citizens.  “We are getting out into the woods again,” he said.  He advised the FBCC to revisit the 2012 plan and phase it in.

Commissioner Pat Gass asked Cotner, “Why not start at the south end?”  He replied that as a result of public comment, work should probably start where the people are and work south.  He reminded commissioners that the Forward Fernandina plan never intended to do the entire park all at once.  He also reminded commissioners that the city had paid “a fair amount of money” to get the engineering done for the 2012 plan.  Commissioner Johnny Miller asked if engineering work had been done for both plans.  Cotner replied that the Zev Cohen firm had done the work on the WAG plan, including obtaining the permit from the St. Johns Water Management District.  Both Cotner and Mayor Boner reported that Nick Gillette, Zev Cohen project engineer, backed the WAG plan.  There was no report on engineering in connection with the PARP plan.

Cotner expressed support for previous speaker Alan Mills in the need for Main Beach park improvements, another longstanding effort producing little result.  Cotner said that improving both the riverfront and Main Beach would result in better experiences for charter boats and visitors.  He concluded, “Even as a resident, I’m embarrassed to take guests to Main Beach or the riverfront.”

CRAAB members Deb Stephenson and Andy Curtin address Vice Mayor Pelican's question.
CRAAB members Deb Stephenson and Andy Curtin address Vice Mayor Pelican’s question.
CRAAB member Lou Goldman underscores parking concerns.
CRAAB member Lou Goldman underscores parking concerns.

CRAAB Member Lou Goldman said that the city already has a parking problem and that the city should be thinking about the impact of the full Yulee build-out on downtown parking and congestion.  He suggested that the city consider building parking facilities at the Atlantic Avenue Recreation Center, Main Beach and Central Park, which could be connected, to Centre Street with a trolley system.  He added that it will take a couple of years to build either plan, but that work on the park will attract development to the CRA.

CRAAB Chair Mike Zaffaroni  to commisioners:  Please approve a plan.
CRAAB Chair Mike Zaffaroni to commisioners: Please approve a plan.

 

When asked for his input, Mike Zaffaroni, CRAAB chair said,  “My opinion:  please approve a plan.  I say this as a resident, a business owner and a consumer.”  Zaffaroni drew a laugh from the audience when he said, “I was 4 years old when John Cotner started working on a waterfront park plan.”

Comments and rebuttals

Commissioner Johnny Miller
Commissioner Johnny Miller

Commissioner Miller began discussion saying that while he felt that Rice had improved upon the WAG plan, he had to support the vetted plan.  “The public input to that plan and the engineering work are big factors in my decision,” he said.

Randy Rice asked to be recognized to respond to issues raised during Bartelt’s presentation and public input.  Boner allowed him to proceed.  Rice said that when his team began working on the PARP plan, there was a vacuum, and nothing was going on with the approved WAG plan.  He said, “I’ve been at more meetings than anyone in this room.”  He reminded commissioners and the audience that he had been hired as a consultant for the city when Zev Cohen was moving forward on engineering for Front Street.  He took issue with the many concerns raised about losing waterfront parking spaces with the PARP plan.  “If we didn’t have parking, would people still come downtown?  Absolutely.  Cars can go anywhere, but the waterfront is for people.”  He said that he had communicated with Eric Bartelt for a month to see if the two plans could be melded into one, and both men concluded they could not.  He cited his 30 years’ experience in parks all over the country and said that he believed the PARP plan best fits the needs of the city today.  He said, “The question is if all you commissioners are willing to turn the page and make it right for the people.”  He reminded commissioners that Bartelt’s revisions to the WAG plan had not been publicly vetted and pleaded with commissioners to “exorcise ourselves” from the parking issue.  He said, “Don’t think that just because something has been worked on for a long time is justification for going forward.  Things change.”

Lynn Williams challenges Randy Rice.
Lynn Williams challenges Randy Rice.

Lynn Williams rose to challenge Rice on his earlier claim that city marina manager Joe Springer supported his plan.  Williams said that Springer, a WESTREC employee, would not endorse any plan but had said that reducing parking would hurt marina operations.  Rice challenged Williams’ statement, arguing that it was hearsay because Springer was not in attendance to speak for himself.  Commissioners and City Manager Joe Gerrity informed Rice that the FBCC meeting was not a legal proceeding, and tried to calm both Rice and Williams.

Boner afforded Bartelt an opportunity to respond to comments or questions raised by Rice and the public.  Bartelt said that Rice’s charge that WAG wasn’t doing anything to move its plan forward was not WAG’s fault.  Their group had done what it was charged to do:  develop a plan.  Once the FBCC accepted it, they had no further role to play.  He said that for fundraising purposes it was critical that everyone be “rowing in the same direction.”  If the community becomes polarized over plans, they may not support a project that does not reflect their personal choice of design.  He concluded by saying that all the issues have been thoroughly examined over the past decade.

Commission discussion/decision

Commissioner Charlie Corbett and Vice Mayor Sarah Pelican
Commissioner Charlie Corbett and Vice Mayor Sarah Pelican

Vice Mayor Sarah Pelican turned to the commission and asked, “Does anyone want to move to rescind the 2012 WAG plan approval?”  After a prolonged pause Commissioner Charlie Corbett asked, “Why would we do that?”  Mayor Boner said, “That’s what we’re talking about.”  He added, “The biggest objection to the WAG plan appears to be cost, not design, raising the question of how can we get something done quicker and cheaper.”  Commissioner Miller weighed in saying that since the park is going to last a long time, he wanted to have it done the way the people wanted, even though it might cost more.

Corbett compared and contrasted both plans, concluding that the two plans are not that far apart.  He had questions regarding fundraising and where private funds would come from.  He also wanted clarity on the final count of parking spaces.

Commissioner Pat Gass
Commissioner Pat Gass

Commissioner Gass said, “The big elephant in the room is that three of us voted to send the money back [borrowed under the Forward Fernandina plan to begin work on the park].  Now we need to discuss how to pay for it.”  She added that many people supported the park, but they did not support borrowing money to do so.  She said, “The people wanted to be asked [via referendum].”  She thanked Randy Rice for helping the FBCC refocus on the issue.  “We can’t just send the money back and not decide to do the park.”

Mayor Ed Boner
Mayor Ed Boner

 

 

 

The Mayor reported on his recent conversation with Deputy City Manager Marshall McCrary on background and options, saying that it is sometimes a problem for commissioners when they don’t consult city staff.  He expressed concern over the opportunity cost of using Lot E for parking when down the road it might be more valuable to the city as potential development land.  Pelican agreed.  Boner disagreed with Gass about the need for a voter referendum to begin work on the park, saying that it was too small for such a move.  He supported a public/private partnership on the park and thanked Randy Rice for bringing up the concept of alternative funding.

Pelican asked Bartelt what needs to be done to begin work.  He said that the design is complete, but that he could not speak about engineering.  He reported that John Mandrick, city Utilities Department Director, had previously reported that infrastructure under lots A and B is in good shape and not that old.

Corbett once again said he needed more answers.

DSCN1945City Manager Gerrity said that it appeared that the consensus of the commission was not to rescind the WAG plan.  He said that he was working with Lynn Williams to try to obtain FIND grant funding to cover the cost of improving the welcome center so that it could be used for other purposes.  He added that the city needed to determine how much it would cost to adopt Bartelt’s revision to the WAG plan that called for moving Front Street slightly west to accommodate more parking.  Corbett advised that the FBCC wait for Gerrity’s response before taking action to amend the WAG Plan incorporating Bartelt’s proposed revisions.  He said, “We can negotiate over the trees and placement of the 8 flags.”

Gerrity agreed to bring back estimates as soon as possible as well as alternative funding that would not involve a loan.

Suanne ThammEditor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.

March 26, 3:02 p.m.

3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bob Warner
Bob Warner (@guest_18728)
10 years ago

Pat, let’s just get on with the future.

Dave Lott
Dave Lott(@dave-l)
10 years ago

Great to see this apparently moving forward. Will continue to keep fingers crossed. i know Randy Rice and his team put a lot of effort into his concept and he has always been a strong advocate for the waterfront, but the approved plan came after hundreds of hours of meetings with the public. As John Cotner noted, there are several individual aspects of the plan that each person might not care for or think is a priority, but one has to think of the overall community consensus and this was it. There never was any intent to do the entire park development at once, so the phased approach is the right way to go.
Thank you Eric Bartelt, John Cotner, Jose Miranda and Nick Gillette for all your work as the WAG committee!

John P. Megna
John P. Megna (@guest_18749)
10 years ago

what I said before, the original Waterfront and Parks and Recreation Joint Committee put the plan for the entire park, ample parking for all concerned, John Cotner and others thought out very carefully, considered the public long hours of input, the then commissioners approved, the plan as stated never was allowed to go forward because some of the now commissioners gave back the funds and interest that was to support the park’s development. Doing it in phases, was always a consideration by the Committees – but the entire project should be approved including lots C & D