By Mike Lednovich
Fernandina Beach City Commissioners sat stoically Tuesday night as six speakers peppered them with questions and comments regarding RYAM’s proposal to build a bioethanol production plant just seven blocks from downtown.
It wasn’t until commissioner comments that two commissioners – James Antun and Darron Ayscue – decided to address the issue.
Corrine Garrett, representing No Ethanol Fernandina, asked the commission about their positions on the RYAM bioethanol project.
“I would like to know if Fenandina Beach City Commissioners are in line with the concept of the law?” Garrett asked.
After several seconds of silence, Mayor Bradley Bean told her, “This is not a question and answer time.”
“Do we agree the City Charter is the law?” she posed.
Bean again said, “This is not a comment period.”
Garrett, a retired commander with the Orange County Sheriff’s office, persisted and concluded with “who here supports the RYAM initiative to build an ethanol refinery in the heart of the city?”
Faced with blank stares from commissioners, she said, “Anyone?”
There was no response and Garrett closed by saying, “Let the record show then that there were no answers to any of the questions I posed here today.”
Christopher Bidwell, representing friends and neighbors, later asked commissioners directly their positions on the bioethanol plant.
He told them a couple of months ago a concerned citizen had asked the commission about the RYAM plan and that Commissioner Chip Ross commented that his position was that the proposal violated the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.
Bidwell said that since Ross had given his opinion about RYAM, that the other commissioners should state publicly their positions on the plans as well.
“Commissioner Ross is the one of you that has made a public statement concerning support of or opposition to the RYAM facility,” Bidwell said. “I formally request you make a clear and unambiguous public statement detailing your support or opposition to this RYAM refinery. Election season is upon us and for obvious reasons many are more than curious. Silence or no timely response to your constituents on their more than reasonable requests can only be interpreted as you are 100 percent supportive of the RYAM ethanol refinery.”
During Bidwell’s comments, Bean and Vice Mayor David Sturges could be seen frequently looking down, possibly reading their cellphones.
No commissioners responded.
About 15 minutes later, during commissioner comments, Antun said he shared the same concerns those made by the speakers.
“I don’t appreciate accusations that a lack of saying an opinion at this point means we are complicit with that agenda,” he said. “I think there’s a lot more to be found out. Beyond that I don’t love the idea of it either. I’m also not willing to jump the gun. We’ve had the city engineer tell us that RYAM not ready to share some of that information. On that note, I don’t love the idea, I have doubts how I could find a way of proving it, but that being said we haven’t heard everything yet.”
Ayscue said his position is simple. If outside attorneys advise that the bioethanol plant violates city laws, the commission will not allow the proposal to go forward. If the attorneys advise it’s allowable, then the city will issue permits for the plant.
“It’s really that simple,” Ayscue said.
He also said RYAM is welcome to address the city commission any time it seeks an audience.
Previous comments included four other speakers.
Joyce Tuten told commissioners the bioethanol proposal should be discussed as a city commission workshop or meeting agenda item.
“A large majority of the city believes it does not belong in the city limits and you all have some power to protect the citizens’ desires and our safety,” she said.
But efforts to have RYAM discuss the bioethanol plant at a city commission meeting have been stymied by a split city commission deadlocked at 2-2 on whether to invite RYAM. Previously, Commissioners Ross and James Antun supported having RYAM make a presentation and Vice Mayor Sturges and Commissioner Darron Ayscue opposed it. Mayor Bean, a RYAM employee, recused himself.
Interim City Manager Charlie George said since the commission had no consensus on RYAM, he had not extended an invitation to the company to make a presentation.
Jack Imber, a staunch opponent of RYAM’s plans, told city commissioners that by their silence on the issue “you’re basically for it (bioethanol). I would like to challenge any human being on the city commission to step up and do the right thing. We would never vote (to allow) this. I hope you guys step up to the plate and do the right thing.”
Sandy Kerry spoke about Mayor Bean’s responsibility to the Fernandina citizens.
“You took an oath of office as mayor to preserve and protect the citizens of Fernandina Beach. Your duties as mayor come before your job at RYAM,” she said. “This is a matter of life and death. When disaster and accidents occur and we have no preparedness and no way to react to it, it’s going to be too late.”
Did you not watch until the end of the meeting when this was addressed? Public comment is reserved for the public to make comment, not for there to be an open discussion between citizens and commissioners. How did you make it 4 years on the commission and still cannot understand the rules of order? No one could possibly be that ignorant.
Mike’s article was reporting what happened at the commission meeting in relation to the ethanol plant proposal. He wasn’t analyzing Robert’s Rules of Order. I suspect the speakers knew the rules well enough. It seems they managed to make you look bad by making their comments in the form of questions.
Commissioner Ayscue: please read the Rules of Procedure. There is no stated prohibition of commissioners making comments directly to public speakers if they choose to do so. There is also no prohibition for commissioners to answer questions posed by speakers during public comments. The rule barring commissioners from commenting simply doesn’t exist.
In fact, just minutes after Mayor Bean told a speaker “this is not a question and answer session,” the Mayor then fielded a question posed by a public speaker and then provided the answer.
So accordingly, in this example, if the mayor liked the question asked, it got answered. If the mayor didn’t like the question, the speaker was admonished. Those powers are also not included in the Rules of Procedure.
It is interesting that at least 2 people opposed to a new manufacturing facility (Tuten and Garret) have had careers in government. Presumably they had decent pay and have nice pensions. They may not have a real feel for how badly many many Americans need decent jobs. http://www.BootTheBankers.com
These won’t be decent jobs — very dangerous!
Not as dangerous as pulling guns on folks huh?
Don’t know Ms. Garret’s background but I do know Ms.Tuten. She is a retired teacher so she very definitely has an understanding of what it means to have a “good job”. Teacher pay is why we here had a 1 mil raise last voting cycle. Ms. Tuten was a science teacher. Specifically, she taught Chemistry in her last post. She absolutely “gets it” with regard to the numerous hazards of chemical manufacture and handling of ethanol. Finally, she is a wife and a mom who, like all the rest of us here, wants what is best for her family. Chemical manufacturing on a barrier island is not it. I suspect it is precisely why it is prohibited by the city Comp Plan.
RYAM’s desire to locate the facility here could have have something to do with the economics of transporting raw material and product. The ease of access by rail and sea is likely important.
It is understandable that everyone wants their own pristine habitat. Nobody wants another Love Canal New York. But how much danger is their truly to the wetlands around Fernandina from this proposed facility? This should be a key consideration. If a truck turns over and spills it’s entire contents, what will happen? If we are talking about ethanol it will evaporate readily into the atmosphere. Does that sound bad? Consider how the contaminant plume from a leaking underground petroleum storage tank is remediated. It is often done by “air sparging.” This is where you basically take the contaminants out of groundwater and evaporate them into the air.
And let’s not forget if you really wanted to you could drink bio-ethanol (yet additives are used to make it unpalatable, thus avoiding the taxes and restrictions applied to alcoholic drinks).
The production process does involve some noxious substances. But with the right safeguards the risks are minimized. And those risks are well worth it if it helps Americans, especially those local to Fernandina, find manufacturing related employment.
What Bill Hicks said…..
The topic NEEDS to be discussed. This is a really big deal for our quiet enjoyment of our community. If the plant is going to be a problem, then let’s discuss it. If it isn’t going to be a problem, let’s talk about that, too. When is comes to planning, ignorance is NOT bliss……
I watched the comments on video and Ayscue is correct. That period is for citizens to make their opinions known……it is not for a 60 minutes type grilling and Q&A of the commissioners. What the “record showed” to me was that Corrine Garrett asked a question……the Mayor gently told her this was not a Q&A session. It is for her to comment. She asked another question……the Mayor had to remind her again (courteously) that this was not a Q&A session. She asked a third question, whereupon I lost it at home, “Come on! He’s told you the rules. Follow them or sit down”. I thought it was embarrassing and the Mayor handled himself very well.
That being said…..I am against the BioEthanol proposal by RYAM and silence as November (or August) approaches is not an option. More than that…..If actionable positive steps are not taken to stop the project, then my vote will record that. It looks like everyone is doing the “dilly dally” waiting until the elections are over. That will be an unsat from this voter.
Doug, Garrett was making a point which she did very well.
RYAM (Rayonier Advanced Materials) wants to KILL our quality of life!
If nothing else should could cause a pause for concern the recent water main break on Gum that has caused hassles for those in the downtown. The trucks are now utilizing Beech Street and many near collisions have occurred as they try to turn south onto 8th street. What if that now included bioethanol trucks and related supplies. This is not a project well suited to the area for which it is proposed!
Garrett’s questions were rhetorical to make a point which she did quite well. The key issue here is legal and we’re waiting for Tammi Bach to drop the hammer. This will be a major issue in the election. We need to keep this issue on the front page.
The ethanol plant proposal has been around long enough for each commissioner, and the candidates running in the upcoming election, to have made their mind up about it. With an election coming up, it seems some commissioners are hoping that a legal opinion will save them from having to take a position publicly that might be unpopular with voters. We have a right to know their positions before we vote.
Public opinion is clear–no plant–the question is whether
it is prohibited by the city plan: if no, up goes the new facility;
if yes–Commissioners must decided whether they will change
the plan—-now that is when the real decision gets made.
Will pleasing RYAM be more important–they do contribute
over a million/year in taxes and helped save the city during
the depression–they deserve a fair hearing.
Folks, we have two huge industrial plants already in addition to the Port and log trucks that are much more dangerous to the City population than a new plant by RYAM will ever be. Remember, Rayonier doesn’t want any bad press or accidents either. They have been one of the biggest drivers of the economy in these parts since before a lot of us were here. Commissioner Ayscue has it exactly right…..if it’s allowed then it’s going in. The role of a politician is to be stewards of government and tax payer dollars, not to be an activist and in the business of telling others what they can or can’t do on their property unless otherwise prohibited by law. As far as catering to the “overwhelming majority”….sure you ask anybody on the street if they would like Rayonier to build another plant they are going to say no, right? Law are laws so vote for people who think like you do to change them but there is no evidence that says allowing this plant will lead to disaster on Amelia Island.