When in doubt, fumble

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst

FumbleThe Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) was oh so close to moving ahead on a waterfront park on the Amelia riverfront.  At a previous meeting earlier this spring, the FBCC reaffirmed its support for the so-called WAG plan – a park plan devised by the commission-appointed Waterfront Advisory Group with public input over a number of years and formally approved by the then-FBCC in 2012.  The purpose of the special meeting called on May 13, 2013, was two-fold:  consider Phase 1 of the WAG plan, including modifications to add more parking spaces at the expense of green space; and discuss funding options.  Instead with indulgence of the Mayor and the FBCC, the meeting once again rehashed the benefits of the previously rejected PARP plan vs. the WAG plan, allowing Partnership for an Amelia River Park (PARP) proponent Randy Rice to make another presentation before an audience with several speakers supporting his plans.  The FBCC took no formal vote.  However, consensus seemed to be to direct City Manager Joe Gerrity to secure an estimate for additional engineering costs required by modifications to the original WAG plan.  Commissioner Johnny Miller expressed support for placing a vote to rescind the commission approval of the WAG plan at the next FBCC regular meeting on May 20, 2014.  Should the FBCC vote to rescind the WAG plan, questions of additional engineering and funding options are once again moot.

As the meeting began, City Manager Joe Gerrity reminded commissioners that at their last meeting on the topic of waterfront plans, they had opted to move forward with the modified WAG plan and had directed him to bring forward for their consideration estimates for landscaping, welcome center modifications and parking changes.  Gerrity drew their attention to estimates provided by local architect John Cotner, who also serves on the WAG committee.  Cotner estimated that the cost of proceeding with Phase 1 of the modified WAG plan, or WAG II, was $408K, based off numbers that were 2 years old.  Phase 1 is limited to that area of the Amelia Riverfront between Brett’s Waterway Café and the boat ramp.  Included in that total was $40K as a placeholder for a “water feature” that might be added at a later date and $25K for Welcome Center modifications that might be funded with a Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND) grant.

Lynn Williams’ assessment

Lynn Williams
Lynn Williams

Waterfront advocate and FIND member Lynn Williams further broke down Cotner’s figures.  It was not clear whether Williams, who is neither an architect nor an engineer, had been asked to provide such a breakdown by anyone in the city.  In response to a question from Commissioner Charlie Corbett, Williams explained that he had divided costs into two “chunks,” one of which included plan elements eligible for funding out of the city’s Parks and Recreation impact fees ($165K).  Work on those elements could begin immediately.  The other “chunk” included portions of the plan that could not be funded with impact fees and would need to be delayed until next budget year ($95K).  There is no grant lined up yet to cover costs.  Williams did not include engineering fees, and he eliminated $43K of items included in Cotner’s figures as “unnecessary in smaller park.”  Williams claimed that funding of the parking portion was not critical at this time because it would only enhance the appearance of the parking area, an action that could be taken at a later date.  Mayor Boner questioned how Williams had come up with his numbers.  He said he had consulted WAG member Eric Bartelt, Utilities Director John Mandrick, and “a train man.”

Availability of Parks and Recreation Impact Funds, engineering study

Commissioner Corbett asked City Manager Gerrity if impact fees were available for the project.  Gerrity said that the Parks and Recreation impact fee fund is currently about $600K, but that he did not agree with Williams that all items on his list could be funded with such fees.  City Attorney Tammi Bach reminded commissioners that impact fees can only be used to fund growth-related new construction, not improvements to existing facilities.

Mayor Boner questioned whether recent transfer in property ownership in the waterfront area north of the proposed park might affect plans for the park.  Corbett asked, “Isn’t that speculation?”  Boner said that there might be impacts with respect to road, water and sewer improvements.  Commissioner Pat Gass said, “I don’t think we can do nothing based upon what might be done [by a new property owner].”  Deputy City Manager Marshall McCrary added, “The people want to see something done.”  A brief discussion ensued over railroad concerns.

Mayor Boner said that he would like to hear from Zev Cohen, the firm that the city had paid to engineer the entire waterfront park.  Both Corbett and Vice Mayor Sarah Pelican expressed the need to firm up cost numbers.

Architect John Cotner
Architect John Cotner

Architect and WAG member John Cotner suggested to the commission that if their intent remained to proceed with the modified WAG plan for Phase 1 of the park, the city should convene a meeting of the full WAG committee and a Zev Cohen representative to discuss cost numbers in view of the modifications proposed for parking.  He recommended resuming the planning process, regrouping and confirming a budget as the next steps.

Commissioner Johnny Miller asked, “What about the Randy Rice [PARP] plan?”  Cotner said that his suggestion applied to only considering the WAG plan amendments to include perpendicular parking along the west side of the railroad and adding a covered porch for the welcome center.  He said that in effect adopting the modified plan would involve choosing more parking over less park green space.  He was not advocating one position over the other.

Eric Bartelt
Eric Bartelt

Corbett said, “We need to maximize parking.”  Boner agreed with Cotner’s recommendations.  However, Eric Bartelt, the WAG member who proposed the modifications to add more parking, told commissioners, “I don’t think Zev Cohen is the city’s friend.”  He suggested that the WAG committee ask member Asa Gillette to review engineering aspects of the plan.  Commissioner Gass echoed Bartelt’s comment about Zev Cohen.  Cotner, however, suggested that since Gillette is a member of the WAG committee, asking him to perform such a task might constitute a conflict of interest.  He also informed commissioners that another engineering firm would be reluctant to modify plans that they did not develop initially.

Funding options

Vice Mayor Pelican attempted to move the discussion on into funding questions.  Commissioner Miller wanted assurances that using Parks and Recreation impact funds would not jeopardize other projects already on the drawing board.  He asked about the city’s track record in holding special events at the waterfront as opposed to Main Beach.  Parks and Recreation Director Nan Voit said that size of the event, parking needs and noise levels were all factors in deciding where events should be held to maximize success.  Miller asked, “Can we do both [riverfront park and Main Beach master plan elements]?”  Gass replied, “Not without a referendum.”

Randy Rice resurfaces PARP Plan

At 4:35 p.m., Boner opened the meeting to public comment, reminding speakers of the 3-minute time limit for comments.  Randy Rice, the first speaker, asked for 6 minutes.  Miller supported his request, citing Boner’s decision not to impose a time limit at the previous city commission meeting.

Randy Rice discusses PARP plan.
Randy Rice discusses PARP plan.

Rice was granted 6 minutes and spoke for 11 minutes, recapping the major elements of the PARP plan and reminding the FBCC that his plan involved no tax dollars and created more parking than the WAG plan.  He claimed overwhelming support for his plan from downtown merchants.  While moving parking away from the waterfront, he planned to expand parking opportunities in what he termed Parking Lot E, at the southwest corner of 2nd and Ash Streets.  He also indicated that he had talked with Steve Simmons, property owner to the north of the city marina, and that Simmons was willing to allow his property to be used by charter fishing boat patrons.

Gerrity said that he had also recently spoken with Simmons who agreed to lease his property to the city for such purpose for $3,000-3,500 per month.

John Cotner reminded commissioners that whereas Rice emphasized the private funding aspect of his plan, the WAG committee had never been asked to develop a funding scheme.  Boner asked Rice if he would support fundraising efforts to proceed with the WAG plan as an alternate to his plan.  Rice replied, “If there is a legitimate reason for not doing the [PARP] plan, yes.”

More public comment

Steve Colwell
Steve Colwell

Other speakers also came forward.  Steve Colwell, owner of Fantastic Fudge, said, “I think we’re moving in the right direction.  Let’s not lose momentum.  We don’t want to get caught up in the issue of losing parking on the waterfront if more parking can be found [elsewhere].”

Boner seemed prepared to move to adjourn, but Gerrity stopped him, saying, “Whoa, whoa, whoa.  What is your direction to me?  How do you plan to pay for engineering?”

John Cotner addresses engineering study

Cotner attempted to help commissioners clarify the outstanding issues.  He said the city needed to determine how much of the Zev Cohen engineering can be salvaged and how much another engineering firm would require to re-engineer the park.  He told commissioners, “Either stick with Zev Cohen or go with another firm.  The value of dealing with Zev Cohen is that they have worked with the FBCC and WAG to develop a comprehensive picture of the entire park.  Will the modifications to the approved Phase 1 fit in with the other pieces of the park?  I would go back and negotiate with Zev Cohen if it were up to me.”

Boner asked if the Forward Fernandina loan were still open, to which Gerrity responded no.  Miller asked, “Are we talking about another loan?”  The other commissioners opposed such a move.  Gass asked, “Is it time to put the matter on the ballot?”  Pelican suggested the commission consider spending the uncommitted Parks and Recreation Impact Fund where possible.  Gerrity said that where impact fees could not be used, there was no money available for reprogramming in the current year budget.  Additional engineering fees would need to be paid from reserves.  Lynn Williams suggested to commissioners that the modified Phase 1 plan required no engineering work, that Utilities Director John Mandrick had assured him that the drains to the river were in good shape, and that it would take (Williams’ estimate) $3,000-5,000 to validate numbers he had provided.  “That engineering,” he said, “is easy.”

More support for Rice plan

George Morris
George Morris

Another audience member rose to speak.  George Morris asked what happened to the Randy Rice plan, saying that Rice’s plan would be done with private money and required no public funding.  “We’d get to see it in my lifetime,” he said, “not 20 years down the road.”

Scott Moore, representing the Historic Downtown Merchants, agreed.  “The most important part is getting a park,” he said.  “I have a hard time understanding the arguments against the Rice Plan if tax dollars are not needed.”

Scott Moore
Scott Moore

Commissioner Miller seemed to agree, saying, “I think we should take another look at Randy’s plan.”

Commissioner Corbett told Miller that he could move to modify the WAG plan or rescind it, but that for now the WAG plan was the plan under consideration.  Attorney Bach said that a move to rescind the WAG plan would have to be publicly noticed and could not proceed during the current meeting.  Miller asked that the item be placed on the next FBCC agenda.

Gass said that she was comfortable discussing the matter as long as “we are moving forward.”  She suggested, “Let Joe [Gerrity] get the money [for the engineering study].”  Pelican cautioned commissioners that if the city was prepared to move forward with the Rice Plan as an independent element of the entire park plan, that portion might need to be ripped up when other elements of the plan are ready for construction.  Boner said, “The City Manager will come back with the cost to re-engineer the project.”

John Cotner said, “What I have heard is that there is no hard financing in place for the Rice plan.  It is just a plan.”  Randy Rice clarified that his plan did call for the city covering the cost of permitting fees, but that would be the only public cost.

Corbett summarizes

Commissioner Corbett said, “We are trying to move, and all we do is go in circles.  Let’s get a bottom line and get started on [park improvements to] Parking Lot B using impact fees.”  Boner added that every version of the waterfront plan could involve elements of private funding.

By the time the meeting concluded after more than an hour of discussion, City Hall Chambers had filled with close to 30 city staffers and members of the public.  Upon exiting the meeting many people expressed unhappiness over the commission’s reluctance to settle on a plan and move forward.

13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

tony cawford
tony cawford (@guest_19294)
9 years ago

I would really like to comment on this, but honestly what can be said?

brandon
brandon (@guest_19298)
9 years ago

The Commission needs to make up their minds. This constant two steps forward, three steps back is not the way to run a city. Put the matter to a vote, for goodness sakes. How long has this been discussed, analyzed, budgeted, estimated? Incredibly poor leadership by the Commission on this.

Len Kreger
Len Kreger (@guest_19299)
9 years ago

Whether there is action or not there is always significant discussion about downtown issues and 8th Street, but a lack of discussion or any real action on our storm water problems. We have over $16 million in recommended upgrades, at our present rate of collecting and applying the storm water fees the city should finish upgrades in about 70 years.

Dave Lott
Dave Lott(@dave-l)
9 years ago
Reply to  Len Kreger

Len,
At the time of adoption of the stormwater fee assessment, the commission elected to go with the minimum amount of assessment understanding that the monies raised would be minimal and not be able to take on the major problems. But it was a start and the imposition of the assessment makes it possible for the issuance of bonds using the assessments as the primary repayment source to fund the projects, so you don’t necessarily have to have the money in hand before the work can be started. But as you stated, it is all a matter of priorities.

Randy Rice
Randy Rice (@guest_19333)
9 years ago
Reply to  Len Kreger

The PARP plan wants to work with Saint John’s River Water Management District to generate a grant sourse for the park. While this grant has the prospect of increasing up front costs, I have been told by Paul Haydt with SJRWD, that there are major benifits to the City.
1. the match is prospectively a multiplyer (for each 1 they give 2 dollars or more)
2. a successful grant application can be used as a “phase one” of several phases of work which could include improving N Fletcher stormwater drainage as well as Egans Creek area drain field removal.
3. the park could be used in the short term to clear up some of the urban silting that goes into the river from Centre Street. This would be part of what I would hope the city would try to do regardless of plan.

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

The alternative plan (Rice plan) proponents claim that no taxpayer monies will be required but I have not seen any detailed information on the sources and timing of that funding. Have financial committments from private citizens/companies been secured? If so, state the amount without divulging the identity. It seems that we just keep re-inventing the wheel and the car will never be built.

Peggy Bulger
Peggy Bulger(@peggy-bulger1949gmail-com)
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave Lott

WELL SAID!

Randy Rice
Randy Rice (@guest_19334)
9 years ago
Reply to  Dave Lott

The math problems keep getting harder with each comment, so I will stop with this one. 🙂

PARP determined not to fundraise for money until we were given direction by the City.

1. When we started this process back in October, the Friends of the Library was fundraising. We felt like it would be inappropriate to start another fundraising program that might hurt their efforts as they were near completion.

2. Like the Pirate’s Playground, we wanted City support for the project in concept before wasting peoples’ time on something might not happen. The track record is long of failure so I think it was resonable to see what the Commission was to committed to do. Most of us have “day jobs” and can’t be expected to endlessly spend time on something that may never happen.

3. In terms of what we do have are in-kind donations that add up to over $100,000. This includes architectural services, construction services, landscape installation, among other services. These and other services will lower our final costs or allow for a better park, built with more sustainable features, such as a cistern for irrigation, marine grade wind turbines for renewable energy and improved storm water quality into the Amelia River.

Dave Lott
Dave Lott(@dave-l)
9 years ago
Reply to  Randy Rice

Randy,
Thanks for adding this information. I know this is one of those discussions where a lot may be lost in translation between what is said in a meeting and how it is summarized in articles. As a reader from afar, I got the impression that the private funding was already secured and things were ready to start rolling as soon as approval was given. It took Aaron Morgan and his team 6 years from announcement to their recent grand opening for the Pirate’s Playground using private and in-kind donations so I can appreciate the effort and dedication that is required for such an undertaking.

Betsie
Betsie(@betsie-huben)
9 years ago

I wonder if both plans should be presented to the voters. Given the WAG plan which has no plan for funding versus the PARP plan which does have a specific approach for financing the project that is not via tax or loan, which would the citizens of Fernandina choose?

Eric Bartelt
Eric Bartelt(@ericbarteltgmail-com)
9 years ago
Reply to  Betsie

The modified WAG plan does have a funding plan. The park portion of the plan (approx. $165K) would be paid for using existing Parks & Rec. impact fees. These fees are collected by the City when new homes are built, so they are not a loan or a tax. They are collected in order to pay for new parks and recreational facilities that are needed to serve the community whose population grows when new homes are built. These fees are required to be spent within a certain time period.

The parking and street portion of the plan (approx. $95K) would be paid for using grants. There are numerous grants available and the City has a grants writer who is very knowledgable about grant sources and regularly applies for them. If grants are not available for this part of the plan, then the street and parking could be included in the City’s regular street re-paving program.

None of the proposed funding for the modified WAG plan would come from taxes or a loan.

Randy Rice
Randy Rice (@guest_19332)
9 years ago
Reply to  Betsie

I think it would be safe to say that the folks that support the PARP plan would be willing to fundraise for whichever plan the voters would chose.

Eric Bartelt
Eric Bartelt(@ericbarteltgmail-com)
9 years ago

There a couple of things in Ms. Thamm’s article that should be clarified. My suggestion that the City consider engaging Nick Gillette for engineering services was thought by Mr. Cotner to be a conflict of interest, because Mr. Gillette is a member of the Waterfront Advisory Group. Mr. Gillette resigned from the WAG committee about a month ago, which apparently Mr. Cotner and Ms. were unaware of at the time. With Mr. Gillette not a member of the WAG committee, a conflict would not exist.

Ms. Thamm implies that the cost estimate numbers that Mr. Williams presented were his. They were not. They were estimated costs developed by Zev Cohen and Associates two years ago and then interpolated by Mr. Cotner. What Mr. Williams, and I, did was divide those numbers into two categories – one for elements of the plan that could be funded with parks & rec. impact fees and the other through grants and other sources.

Ms. Thamm sites two park elements that were deleted in the cost estimate as “not needed in smaller park.” Mr. Williams did not make that determination – I did. As the person who developed the modified WAG plan, I stand by that, based on how the park design changed due to the modifications.

Despite the above, I appreciate Ms. Thamm’s efforts to bring a complicated story to FO’s readers. I know how difficult it is, and I commend her for doing the hard work and for her dedication to objective reporting.