FBCC ponders latest Amelia River waterfront park concept

Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
November 8, 2020

At the November 4, 2020 Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) Regular Meeting, waterfront park consultants Marquis Latimer + Halbeck presented their findings on the local community’s reaction to their proposed development concept.  Jeremy Marquis made the presentation remotely via zoom.

Jeremy Marquis

From September 15 – October 18, 2020, the plans were made available for public viewing and comment on an open, online community hub.  Invitations to comment had been posted on City social media sites as well as the City’s website.   Additionally, local online and print media, as well as unofficial social media sites, advised the public of this opportunity to comment on the draft concept that had been developed over the past year with input from the FBCC and the project Steering Committee.  The consultants also held two, advertised virtual hub meetings which allowed interested parties to participate in live, online discussions about the design.

Marquis reported that there had been 2,300 unique visitors to the site, with the largest number of visitors accessing the site via Facebook and on mobile devices.  Fernandina Beach accounted for 935 of the visitors and Yulee registered 128.

There were 74 – 143 responses to the specific areas of the concept on the survey.  Respondents rated various elements on a scale of 1 – 3 hearts, with three being most favorable.  All responses ranged in the 2-3 range.  Better than 75 percent of the comments focused on the design as opposed to cost.

Marquis reported that the survey had asked people to identify themselves on their responses.  Only those responses were included in the tabulation.

The report underscored that the survey showed positive feedback for the proposed bandshell, lawn and boardwalk.  Marquis also stated that the City has funding to proceed with that portion.  He summarized the general feedback as a call to incorporate more “authentic grit” of Fernandina into the plans.  Examples included: adding a historic working waterfront building, the anchor, existing signage, pavilions, etc.).  The designers are editing the master plan and solicited additional feedback from Commissioners to be incorporated into the next update slated for December.

“We are committed to making sure that this is an iconic, fully engaging, fully Fernandina experience which is about the views, the green space, and just creating a space for the community to come together,” Marquis concluded.

Commission Discussion

Commissioner Mike Lednovich, who had been monitoring public comments as they were received, took a different approach to monitoring the comments and declared that there were only 64 unique email addresses among the commenters.  Of those, he noted that there were 29 people who simply said, “Don’t build the park at all.” He also expressed concern at the small number of responses, given the number of city residents.  “I had hoped for a little better participation,” Lednovich said.  “It’s difficult for people such as myself to make design decisions based upon such a small response.”  He also suggested that if respondents had known costs, their responses may have been different.  His final comments noted public concerns over parking and a surprisingly negative reaction to plans for the Veterans Monument.

Marquis replied that his team was preparing a roadmap, upon which phasing and other decisions would be based.  He acknowledged that cost was definitely a major component and would affect how and at which point the vision would be implemented.

“You’re hitting at the very moment we are at in this process,” Marquis said, ‘so this was a wise comment.”

Vice Mayor Len Kreger also noted the “do nothing” vote and the relatively light response overall.  He expressed concerns about costs and questioned whether funding was currently available to proceed.  He said that the City has about a million dollars lined up, but that also includes the funding for shoreline stabilization.  “Funding is the big deal, and the City has to answer that,” he said.  Kreger said he supported moving forward on the planning.

Mayor John Miller thanked the consultants for their work adding that over his 7 years on the FBCC, he has seen 7 different waterfront concepts.  “This is the most cohesive one I’ve seen, and that’s why it is well done,” Miller said.  He acknowledged that funding would be a problem, but he reminded Commissioners that they had asked the consultant to develop the best concept they could by obtaining the most public input as they could in this era of Covid.  “I think you’ve done that,” Miller said.  But he took issue with the concerns over the low public response.  He recapped measures the City had taken to get the word out and the invitations to participate.  He also reminded Commissioners that even during prior public meetings on the topic, the same 10-15 people show up to speak.  

“It’s up to us as Commissioners to take all of the information and input and move forward on behalf of the community,” Miller said.

Marquis, in responding to concerns over low public participation, explained that there were over 120 unique survey responses, not all of whom also provided a comment.  He invited more Commissioner questions and input through the City Manager over the next two weeks for incorporation into the next iteration of the concept.

13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Tom Smith
Tom Smith(@tom-s)
3 years ago

Taxed enough already. Stop the spending.

Nicholas Velvet
Nicholas Velvet (@guest_59457)
3 years ago

Gentlemen,

Just in case you continue to be “concerned”(confused?) by the low public comment on this “concept”, perhaps you will recall several pink elephants taxpayers asked you NOT to build over the past ten(10) years……….

XXX playgrounds all over Amelia Island that for the most part sit unused unless “the grandkids visit”. Most recently the boodoggle on Simmons Road for $600,000 plus. One comment was “it will be wonderful to be able so stop and use a restroom. Really? Golden thrones please.

Next up another great idea starting at 2.5 million finishing up at well over $6 million, the Airport Welcome Center. Seem anyone there lately? Again you were told don’t but we went from concept to steel without a hick up.

Next up firehouse up on Fletcher. Shot so City engineers claimed needs to be replaced to stay completive (?)……relocate it at the airport. Interesting, within spitting distance of Crane Island development…..again can’t fix what you have so taxpayers…..get ready, we “need” new.

Most recent insult, City hired engineering study of 30 plus beach walkovers~~~all unsafe 4 must be removed immediately”. Cost $600.00 per foot estimated at $250,000.00 per walkover! This one is so off the wall but us taxpayers will once again pay up or be removed(foreclosed) walk thru the sand or better yet, just eliminate the walkover as ” we need to keep you safe”. Covid on the waves in February~~~~ Ban those pesky seniors from walking the beach. That worked really well.

Gents…..I would suggest that you close our wallets, tighten your belts and stay within budget. NO increase in spending period. No hiring 50 plus new city employees in the past three years. Like many of us try living on a fixed budget or those with no job and no wallets. Like, oh, I also have a bridge for you to buy really cheap~~~a Bridge to Nowhere, government by stupidity. Ain’t going to happen. Public comment on this island has little or no value the past ten plus years clearly proves that. What don’t you get?

Perry Anthony
Perry Anthony (@guest_59462)
3 years ago

Well Nicolas, you sure hit the nail on the head, I couldn’t agree with you more on every point you’ve discussed here. USELESS PLAYGROUNDS and $600,000 + spent on RESTROOMS, airport welcome center, what a JOKE, hardly anyone wanted that WORTHLESS building, but you went ahead anyway, NEW firehouses, NEW city hall, TONS of new employees, NEW beach walk overs, who’s going to PAY FOR ALL OF THIS, the main base on the island are not MILLIONAIRES. ALL of this should have been put on the BACK BURNER while we are in the middle of a PANDEMIC that has taken over 225,000 lives so far, but NO, you’ve used this as a SMOKE SCREEN to MOVE AHEAD. FUNNY, I’ve been trying to get the city to REPLACE an old rotted out from corrosion culvert pipe on Calhoun Street by my home downtown for well-over 5 years now, but they say they don’t have the FUNDS to do it. AMAZING, but they feel they have the FUNDS TO BUILD A NEW OVERLY ELABORATE MARINA!!! Commissioner Mike Lednonvich is the only one that seesms to understand the residents concerns, as all the rest just all seem to go along with each other.

Linda Smith
Linda Smith (@guest_59459)
3 years ago

This is the first I’ve heard of asking for input from citizens. Does the city have its own announce Facebook presence or Website that citizens can be plugged into directly instead of using local newspaper to get out information directly to public?

DAVID LOTT
DAVID LOTT(@dave-l)
3 years ago

Linda Smith, the City has heavily promoted the request for public input on the Home page of the City website, on the City’s Facebook page, there have been numerous articles in the News-Leader and the Fernandina Observer as well as on the FB/AI Facebook page monitored by Mac Morris. If you hadn’t heard of this effort before, I can’t imagine what sources you are using to be aware of city/county issues.

Perry Anthony
Perry Anthony (@guest_59469)
3 years ago
Reply to  DAVID LOTT

Also Mr. LOTT, to rightfully defend most FB residents, the ENTIRE world is dealing with a pandemic right now and hundreds of thousands of LIVES have been lost, do you REALLY think they care about the marina at this place in time??? EVERYTHING in the city concerning spending large abouts of money should be temporarily put on HOLD, unless of course they have a crystal ball and know exactly what the future currently holds for us???

DAVID LOTT
DAVID LOTT(@dave-l)
3 years ago

There is an incredible need for this waterfront park to serve as a destination location for tourists and locals in continuing the vibrancy of the downtown area. As the consultants noted, it can be built in phases and the plan must be integrated into shoreline resiliency effort. As to the “low” participation, advocates for this park have been working for 30+ years to see something like this come to fruition with not a single spade of ground being turned over. The plan approved back in 2012 was the result of strong community consensus involving more that 100 residents and business owners. Everyone has their own particular likes and dislikes of various elements, but the plan was a solid one with features appealing to those wanting activities, history, passive relaxation, etc. The naysayers always come out but few offer any alternatives. There is not a park west of 8th Street in the entire city and this one will strengthen the downtown economy.

Perry Anthony
Perry Anthony (@guest_59466)
3 years ago
Reply to  DAVID LOTT

So what happens Mr. LOTT after spending approx. $10M in funds moving forward with all this and it doesn’t really pay off???

DAVID LOTT
DAVID LOTT(@dave-l)
3 years ago
Reply to  Perry Anthony

Perry, you are pulling financial number out of…well, thin air. The cost of the construction of the park has always been in the $5 – $7 million range and can be completed in phases. Now, the cost of the shoreline stabilization to control flooding of the downtown area is often lumped in, but that is a totally separate cost although the design of the park has incorporated those plans. Do you think that effort is worth it? I thought the airport welcome design was a novelty and unnecessary but the reality is that NO taxpayer dollars were spent on it so what is your complaint. I agree totally on the Simmons Road park and opposed it from day 1 due to its cost, location and loss of trees. Also agree with you on the addition of new employees and the study of a new city hall location. I have been calling for frugality since the pandemic; but the initial work on the riverfront park can be funded through the P&R impact fees and not taxpayer dollars. As to your culvert problem, if you haven’t already done so contact Rex Lester in the City’s Streets department and he will give you a fair and honest assessment..

Nicholas Velvet
Nicholas Velvet (@guest_59470)
3 years ago
Reply to  DAVID LOTT

In reply I must explain to many reading this Mr. Lott ~~~~~a very old fashioned concept but those paying the freight (i.e. the taxes) should direct the dance~~ not the other way around with employees setting the budget. Another very old fashioned concept I have lived by, live within one’s means. For many here a steady source of any income may be at risk due to Covid. Our ever wise City Commissioners and City Manager(keepers of the wallet) should be shelving spending money they do not yet have (i.e. increases in taxes be it increase in rates or “playing” with property values). I have been here now ten plus years and EVERY year has been deficit spending and every increasing payrolls of city as well as county employees. Doesn’t seem to get the grass on the sides of the road cut anytime sooner though.

DAVID LOTT
DAVID LOTT(@dave-l)
3 years ago

Nicholas, let me say up front that I completely share your concerns about the current fiscal plan and the failure of the city to adopt an austere budget. Talk to any of the commissioners and they can recount the emails I sent regarding the budget and unnecessary spending. The Commissioners do work at the pleasure of the citizens but the reality is that very few will get involved in studying the budget and attending the workshops to let their voices be heard. Shame on the commissioners who didn’t direct City Manager Martin in advance of their desires for a target millage rate – or maybe they did and the CM prepared an initial budget in compliance with that directive.

I understand the need for frugality at this point and I am not advocating full speed ahead on developing the riverfront park. There are many aspects that can be done from an infrastructure standpoint that lays the “foundation” for further development of the vertical features (i.e. amphitheater) in the future when funding becomes available. As Crane Island continues to get developed, the P&R impact fee account will balloon and that will be a strong source of funding without impacting property taxes-that is as long as the impact fee money doesn’t get spent on boondoggles like the the Simmons Road park.

Patti Clifford, former City Comptroller
Patti Clifford, former City Comptroller (@guest_59482)
3 years ago

I don’t know if anyone will read this but…

No taxpayer dollars were used to pay for the Airport building. The Airport is a self sufficient city enterprise fund – unlike the Marina and Golf course.

I can’t agree with your more as to what is called for at the City- fewer employees, belt tightening and stop building parks we don’t need.

MARK SCHLEGEL
MARK SCHLEGEL (@guest_60541)
3 years ago

The Reason why we’re not going to support this type of projects , What’s the point of turning into Jacksonville Beach,Have you been there lately,Just understand Bring a New location of the Jacksonville Landing in to town might Sound and Look great Just go to both places with your family members for the Day yes all day ,Not the people pushing it,Family’s that lives will be affected year’s later ,Please