Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
May 4, 2017 10:40 a.m.
A dozen speakers from a packed audience addressed the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) at their May 2, 2017 Regular Meeting with concerns over a proposed resolution to award a contract to the consulting firm Dix.Hite+Partners in the amount of $162,000 for development of an Amelia River waterfront park and improvements to what has been called Parking Lot E, across Ash Street from the Downtown Hampton Inn and Suites.
The scope of the project had been dramatically curtailed from its original intent of developing a Master Plan for downtown Fernandina Beach, mainly due to cost considerations, and to meet a timetable for a November citizen referendum supported by several commissioners.
After more than an hour of input and sometimes heated discussion, commissioners agreed o a 3-2 vote to go back to the drawing board to solicit additional citizen input and to discuss among themselves exactly what they desired to accomplish before executing a revised contract with the consulting firm.
Background
The City Commission established waterfront redevelopment as a primary goal during its annual planning session. City staff solicited qualifications from interested consultants to assist with the redevelopment, and received twelve submissions. An Evaluation Committee recommended three consultants for consideration, and on March 21, the City Commission authorized the City Manager and City Attorney to enter into negotiations with Dix.Hite & Partners. Additional discussions between Dix.Hite officials and City Commissioners took place at the April 4 City Commission meeting.
Due to the many facets of the goal—including parking and traffic flow needs—a decision was made to divide the project into several phases, with the first phase devoted to the waterfront park.
According to the revised project scope, spelled out in the proposed contract on the meeting agenda, Dix.Hite would be paid to:
“Address the desire of The City of Fernandina Beach, Florida (the “Client”) to create a Waterfront Park (the “Project”) that enhances the aesthetics, pedestrian, and public realm qualities of the Amelia River waterfront. Proposed improvements include removing two (2) existing parking lots and replacing them with an open lawn area, adding pedestrian circulation, and a vehicular/service area drop-off. The Project is located west of Front Street to the edge of the existing Amelia River boardwalk and from Ash Street to Alachua Street. The Project area is approximately 1.7 acres. The Scope of Services will also include improvements to Parking Lot ‘E’ located in the southwest corner of Ash Street and 2nd Street. The parking lot area is approximately 0.65 Acres and includes the existing corner park. This Scope of Services is for Phase I of a multi-phased Project. The Consultant understands the Client wants to “fast-track” the schedule for design, engineering, and permitting effort with the goal of having Construction Documents available for bidders by August of this year for the Waterfront Park Project. It is anticipated Parking Lot ‘E’ will be on a separate schedule due to permitting associated with the improvements to Parking Lot ‘E’.”
The $162,000 project cost included both design and engineering.
As word of the revised project scope made its way around social media, many citizens and business owners became alarmed that an existing, approved waterfront park design that had evolved over many public discussions over several years and city commissions, was about to be scrapped with no public input. Worse yet, it appeared that the city’s two waterfront parking lots would be eliminated.
Agenda item
In introducing the item City Manager Dale Martin said that waterfront redevelopment had been identified as a major goal by the FBCC during its 2017 planning session. Also a priority was the need to address damage from Hurricane Matthew, and to factor in the 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Quoting from the 2015 plan that was approved by both the Parks and Recreation Committee and the City Commission, Martin read:
The Amelia River waterfront will be redeveloped as a pedestrian oriented gathering and festival space along the river. Adequate space will be provided for strolling, bicycling, vendor carts, festival booths, café tables and chairs, a trolley stop and other visitor amenities. Parking will be removed from the waterfront and provided by additional on-street parking and a new structure at the edge of the Historic District. Waterfront communities around the United States have determined that parking is not the best use of waterfront land. It is impossible to meet the total demand, and parking lots detract from the highly valuable pedestrian experience.
Martin dispelled rumors that the vote on this item was a vote to eliminate downtown parking. “What’s before you tonight,” Martin told commissioners, “is a contract for Dix.Hite to conduct a visioning session with interested members of the public and to incorporate the findings of the Parks and Recreation Committee as well as the City Commission from the fall of 2015.”
Public comment
Speakers overwhelmingly rejected the notion of replacing heavily used parking lots with a park. Several speakers said that a working waterfront, to include the marina, required nearby parking. Others said that locals who shop downtown want to be able to park near shops and restaurants they patronize.
Some speakers expressed over confusion as to how a goal to create a downtown master plan had been scaled back to the current plan for only a park. Speakers reminded commissioners that if they just wanted a park, there was already an approved park plan and no need to pay for another one. Other speakers said that the critical waterfront need at this time is to get the city marina back in working order, not a park. Some suggested that calls for a waterfront park are already satisfied by the existing boardwalk, benches and gazebos.
Speakers reminded commissioners that the FBCC had initially objected to building the approved park on the grounds that it was a piecemeal approach to solving the bigger downtown challenges of increased traffic, visitors and potentially new residents following the density increase approved at the last FBCC meeting. Yet the contract being proposed seemed to be yet another piecemeal stab at solving larger problems.
One speaker even called for a return to earlier days with a smaller marina and a “Teepee” visitors’ center that dispensed orange juice.
Commission discussion
Commissioner Roy Smith led off discussion, saying he was surprised and disappointed to read that the consultants were going to take out Parking Lots A and B and replace them with grass. “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard,” he said. “We cannot lose that many parking spaces. When I was talking about a linear park, I was talking north of Parking Lot A. I wasn’t talking about in front of Brett’s [Waterway Café]. I was a road contractor myself. I could go out there and put in grass for less than $162,000. … I’m just like most of the people in this room. It’s crazy. How it morphed into this, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you one thing: I’m not voting for it.” The audience applauded his remarks.
Commissioner Tim Poynter agreed with speaker Julie Ferreira’s comments about the need for a larger plan. “When people ask, how did we get from there [master plan] to here [park plan], we got here because of dollars. There’re people in this community who think the planning should have happened in the ‘70’s, and because it didn’t, now it’s too late. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Julie is right when she says we need to plan for what’s going to happen in the next 10-20-30 years. That’s what we [the commission] are supposed to do. The proposal before us is woefully underserving this community, because I’ve always wanted to see more. What are we doing about parking? Parks? Traffic?”
Poynter said that people regularly come before the commission with complaints about downtown parking problems, but no one offers a solution. Calls for a parking garage in the downtown would involve tearing down blocks of buildings. “That would ruin the quaintness of downtown, so you would need to put a garage on the outskirts,” he said.
Parking possibility
Poynter went on to add that Roy Smith had identified city-owned property on 11th Street near the School Board Administration Building that could accommodate 300 cars today. That would require a shuttle service or people having to walk into downtown. But Poynter expressed frustration that every time a commission identifies a solution, the same people come forward with complaints about costs, timing and why the proposed solution won’t solve the problem. “This is what we are facing all the time,” he said. “I believe that the plan should be more, that we should start addressing the parking problems now, right along with the waterfront. You know what? There might not be any really good solutions. Or there might be a need for a little give and take here and there, which is what is going to have to happen. Because things are changing, more people are coming here. We really need to embrace that and try to figure out a way forward in a logical sense. So I am not in favor of this item, because I think it should be a lot more inclusive than what is being proposed.”
Smith credited the School Board for identifying property that the city did not even realize it owned. “That was nice of them, because that’s an excellent place to put a parking lot [east side of North 11th Street]. Or eventually a parking garage, if the need arises. It’s a perfect place. You can walk downtown along Centre or Alachua Streets.” Smith agreed that there is no place in the downtown area for a parking garage. Drawing on his experience as a contractor, he explained how either existing spaces are too small or would require costly pilings because of soil conditions.
“I want the School Board to see us looking at that land,” he said, “because they have a problem. They didn’t want to negotiate anything with us when we met a month ago. But we own that property, thanks to them telling us. Let’s use it.”
Vice Mayor Len Kreger said, “I thought we were going to talk about a park. Based upon what I’ve seen [in reviewing documents] and listened to tonight, I don’t think I’ll support this item. But I am concerned that another 20-year process has occurred where we’ve got nothing done. It reminds me of the stormwater plan, that we’ve finally begun and guess what? We’re doing it piecemeal because of money issues.”
Commissioner John Miller recalled how exciting it was to listen to the three top ranked consultants who had responded to the city’s RFQ for the waterfront redevelopment design. He said all three responded with a need for a park on the waterfront. He expressed concerns that there was no requirement in the proposed contract to discuss problems associated with sea level rise. “That’s a big part of what we are going to have to look at over the years ahead,” he said. “I am disappointed that this proposal goes straight toward tearing out the parking and putting in a park.”
Miller asked whether the commissioners were in agreement about taking the issue of waterfront development and park to the voters via referendum. Miller said that he could understand the perspectives of the variety of interested parties on use of the waterfront, from parking to park. “I am concerned when people talk about shutting down businesses unless there is adequate parking,” he said. “I don’t like this specific proposal, but I want to go back to the consultants to help us design something that is going to last the next 100, 200 years.”
Poynter felt the need to further articulate his position. “You can’t just take parking away without adding it somewhere else,” he said. “This is what happens when you try to do just Parking Lot A or Parking Lot B, because no one is seeing the whole plan. No one can say, ‘Oh, I get it now, it makes sense.’ That is why I am in favor of spending the correct amount of money to have a comprehensive plan that addresses every one of those issues. Then we can move forward so that everyone understands. It will cost the community money to accomplish this.”
Smith explained that he had some concerns with the approved plan for Parking Lot B. He acknowledged that the city does need parking near the waterfront. But while acknowledging the need for an overall plan, Smith said he could move on the one piece before the commission.
Broadening the scope
Kreger expressed concern that the city get very specific over exactly what they needed from a master plan. He reminded commissioners that initially they included the marina, then dropped it because of ATM’s involvement with that aspect. “We’ve got to have an RFP that is very specific to be fair to the people out there. We have an excellent staff, and if we can we should use them to help reduce the cost, which is going to be big. When that dollar value is determined, that’s where the referendum fits in,” Kreger said.
Mayor Robin Lentz also expressed her dissatisfaction with the contract proposed. She expressed the need for both parks and parking, echoing Kreger’s call for a very specific RFP.
Kreger said that the FBCC had not discussed a critical aspect: North Front Street. He cited limitations on what the city can do because of private property ownership and greater sea level rise problems in that area. “It’s really a blighted area,” he said, “and that area has to be addressed.”
Smith agreed with Kreger. He said that the city needs to find out the worth of the private properties north of the city property on Front Street. “At least we’d know what we’re talking about. Right now we have no idea,” he said. “$4 million? I don’t know. That’s the place for a linear park.”
City Manager Martin suggested setting up a workshop for the commissioners and the consultants. “Spell it all out so the consultants can be clear that all five of you are speaking with one voice,” he said. That would give the consultants a better basis for determining a cost for the larger plan.
While most of the commissioners seemed comfortable with that approach, Smith demurred. “If we’re going to do a big, comprehensive plan, throw these [RFQ] submissions for a park out and issue an RFP for whatever we want. Let’s just get rid of all of this.”
Martin said that the commission has issued the original RFQ for the larger plan for waterfront development, but Smith disagreed. He said that he never thought it was for anything larger than the waterfront park. The other commissioners disagreed with Smith. Kreger said, “The original was for a waterfront, but it was all inclusive.”
Smith became more animated and said, “We never said tear out parking lots. I’m very disappointed in what they did. I don’t know what the [consultants] are doing.”
Mayor Lentz said, “We got it. At this point we need to make a decision on what to do.”
Poynter said that he felt it was unnecessary to issue an RFP because what the commission wanted from Dix.Hite was covered in the initial RFQ. “I think we selected a good [firm] which is absolutely capable, as demonstrated in their presentation to the commission prior to selection, along with the other two firms. I think they are very capable of putting together a more comprehensive package.”
At the prompting of Mayor Lentz, Poynter included in his motion to expand the scope of the consultants’ study the city manager’s suggestion of a workshop between the consultants and the commission. Miller seconded the motion, which passed on a 3-2 vote (Smith and Kreger in opposition).
Mayor Lentz recognized audience member Julie Ferreira who asked the FBCC to hold a workshop with the public prior to their meeting with consultants to enable concerned community members to provide input to the process and to better understand the commissioners’ desired outcomes.
Kreger agreed, citing the handicap for commissioners of only being able to discuss concerns collectively in a formal setting. Kreger said his only concern was that he wanted to see more than just marina supporters at such a meeting. Lentz said that she also supported a workshop with the public, but that she wanted it to be facilitated and more engaging than the usual workshops.
Referendum discussion
Lentz recognized Commissioner Smith, who said, “I would just like to say, everybody keeps saying we want to get things done. Then we keep saying, ‘Let’s have this and this and this before we do that and that and that.’ If people are still thinking there is going to be a referendum on that, it’s never going to make it [to the fall election]. I don’t know why we are rushing it anyway. Why are we rushing it?”
Lentz replied, “Maybe that’s what we do. If I’ve learned one thing, it’s that we can’t rush things. I want to get things done. But maybe that’s where we are, Commissioner Smith.”
Poynter said, “I have no interest at this moment of going to referendum. There is no way you could ever put this on a referendum until you have absolute cost figures. There are so many moving parts to this, you would have to have specific numbers for specific projects, and you could not change your mind. Once a voter says ‘Spend this money exactly this amount on this project,’ that’s it. You don’t get to mix and match. So there’s no way I think we should be rushing to get this on the ballot.”
Smith turned to Poynter and said, “You were the one who originally mentioned a referendum, and that’s why I wondered if you were still pushing for it.”
Poynter replied, “Actually, I am not in favor of a referendum. I’m in favor of getting all the information to the citizens so they understand what we are talking about.”
Smith continued to accuse Poynter of pushing for a referendum. Lentz attempted to lower the temperature of the exchange. Poynter said, “Okay, if I said that, I was mistaken. I am not in favor of putting this on a referendum because you cannot get the information to the citizenry on any level of understanding. As we have seen, before we even have a chance to discuss the issue, through social media the questions are asked, answered weeks before we even have a meeting. So it is very difficult with the 75-word limit [on a ballot question], to put an entire plan on a referendum. So it’s our responsibility to go out to the citizens and explain that to them, but I am not in favor of putting it on a referendum …”
“Any more,” Smith finished. As the audience chuckled, Smith protested, “No, no, no. That’s why we had these dates so that we could go to referendum.”
Lentz tried to end what appeared to be escalating into a heated argument between Smith and Poynter, but Smith would not let the matter rest. Poynter finally said, “I don’t know what else I can say to you, Roy.”
Workshop
City Manager Dale Martin asked the commissioners to consider holding the public workshop at the Golf Course banquet center, where acoustics are better and there is more space available, on May 15.
Editor’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.
Where does one start? The RFP did ask for a comprehensive plan for the downtown area including parking, traffic flow, etc. but everyone choked on the cost. My objection to the original Dix.Hite proposal was that it appeared to be starting the process from the start rather than updating/revising which could be done at a much lower cost due to fewer meetings. The approved conceptual and design plans for Lots A & B addressed the need for parking in the immediate area, but created a park/gathering point buffer between that parking and the riverfront. Charter fishing, river excursions, dining and shopping operators (as well as marina customers) do need to have parking availability at some level and in close proximity. The original plan incorporated their requirements as they participated in the design process. I am sure they would have preferred more parking and closer parking, but it was all a compromise.
I was excited by Dix.Hite’s presentation but I am sure they are growing a bit weary of the see-saw directions. Their latest concept misses the mark so much I have to wonder if this is what got communicated to them by the CM as the desire of the commission or this is what their “vision” is for the waterfront. Lynn Williams was exactly right in his comments that a marina operation does require some level of parking but can be located on the perimeter for the park.
My suggestion to the commissioners is hold the meeting with the community at a date/time that gets as much attendance as possible, but recognize that the bias of any particular stakeholder group may dominate – especially if that group can “pack the house”. I truly believe that the vision/elements that came out of the 2005 process were truly representative. There will always be certain elements of a plan that one person/group doesn’t like but it has to be considered as a whole and there must be the ability to compromise for the greater good. The commission should lay out absolute restrictions/requirements based on community input current and in the past. The previous plan was developed under these requirements: no net loss of parking in immediate area, veteran’s memorial not to be moved, boat ramp to remain, etc. Then let Dix.Hite review the existing plan and make recommendations to improve that plan rather than start from scratch.
The linear walkway along the riverfront to the north of the marina is a pipedream. I estimate cost of acquiring those properties to be $4 – $5 million. For what? to have a view that already exists from lots C & D. There may be other reasons to acquire those properties, but the walkway should not be a priority.
My $.02.
Don’t have Dix.Hite start from
Well put, Dave.
The parking lots on the waterfront were designed to service the marina. We have a choice keep the marina and the parking lot or close the marina and build a park!
Kevin,
I think there is a place for both. The Lot A & B plans approved several years ago accomplished both and I know you, Terry, Alan and others were a part of the effort to come up with that design. It retained 80% of the parking spaces but created a green/park buffer between the parking and the river. As Lynn Williams said, the marina businesses need parking but it doesn’t have to be right up to the edge of the water. I don’t think I am that unusual but when I go to a riverside town, I walk down to the marina to see the boats and daily catches, but I also enjoy having a place for the grandkids to play or just sit and relax. If you look at the examples in the Dix.Hite proposal or go to places like Beaufort SC you will see parking in very close proximity to the marina but there is a separation of the parking from the riverwalk, pavillions and play areas. Yes, a more comprehensive study is needed about traffic flow and parking, but that can be accomplished independently of going ahead with the approved plan and engineering of Lot B.
It is really kind of hysterical to see a town like Fernandina which is blessed with the gift of the waterway right at the foot of the town and have it remain a shamble of decrepit buildings, non working marina and a parking lot. Wow. I was surprised to read about everyone who wants parking at the waterfront. I do understand the need for parking but why in the world would we put a parking lot in that area if it is going to be a pedestrian park? There must be another place to park cars. A parking garage sounds like it might be a good idea, maybe we should put it where the town offices are. Maybe the town could by Freds old spot at the top of center street. There has to be someplace for one. What about where all the old warehouses are on 2nd? How about just making the publick lot behind the library 3 stories? We must have room somewhere and it should be done before more people and business arrive or we may never get one close to town.
Chris, some of your locational suggestions are just not practical. Fred’s has already been sold and there are approved plans for develop for retail and residential use. Not sure of the old warehouses you are referring to on 2nd. If you are talking about North 2nd, those warehouses are owned and used by the Port. If you are talking about the building on South 2nd, there are some businesses operating there. I think parking up at 10th and Atlantic will service the historic district in general, but the marina needs some parking for its business customers. Where have you ever visited a marina that didn’t have parking adjacent to the marina docks? I have never seen one. There needs to be a separation of the discussion of parking for the historic district overall from the marina/park.
You all appear to well informed here so I have a question you might be able to answer. I requested information from the City on previous marina dredging costs. They provided a cost sheet for the dredging managed by Passero showing a one time dredging operation for the marina costing $2.2 million. Is it reasonable to assume it costs approximately $500,000 per year to keep the marina basin dredged?
Bob, the various dredging operations over the years have varied widely in scope regarding cubic yards of material removed and proximity of spoil disposal site. My recollection is that an average annual expense (of course it isn’t done annually due to high staging costs) would be closer to $350,000 but that is just a WAG on my part. Lynn Williams could give you a much more informed opinion.
I have a question. Who owns the property directly north of the marina on Front? I’m talking about the empty land and severely damaged buildings across from the Salty Pelican? I would think this land, which is currently empty and/or an eyesore, would be an ideal place for a park/festival space and expanded marina. Just my own opinion (which, with $2.95 will get you a cuppa) but, while I understand that it seems like a waste of valuable waterfront property to have parking lots there, unless space can be found that provides parking that is equally convenient to the shops and restaurants downtown, the very fact that the lots in question are typically full by 10am demonstrates just how needed the parking is. At the same time, there are areas to the north and south of Centre that could be made into parking. For example, the lot where the empty building that most recently housed “Pickers.” As much as I hate to see parking garages, single-surface parking lots are an inefficient use of space. One or two 3-level lots on either side of Centre (a block or two off Centre) would be out of sight, convenient and allow for the development of one of the lots on Front into green space.
To be honest though, I just don’t see a demand for more green space on Front. Who is going to use it and for what? How would it benefit the city? People who live downtown might benefit but anyone else USING that green space still would need a place to park. And, come on…people coming to the island (tourists) aren’t coming to have a picnic on the river front. They are coming to go out on a boat or to shop and eat downtown or they are coming to enjoy our beaches. I just don’t see another greenspace as being necessary or highly utilized.
I forgot one other point: at the meeting where the council was discussing closing Centre from Front to 2nd it was mentioned that there is a concern over the “danger” and liability of the rr tracks; that it was an “accident waiting to happen.” Frankly, I think they are not looking at this logically because, regardless of which street(s) cross the tracks, you can’t eliminate the “risk.” And I say “risk” in quotes because, to be honest, I don’t see the risk. The tracks have been there for HOW long? How many incidents have there been? It’s not like the trains are traveling at a speed to create a danger to either cars or pedestrians. But, logically, if THAT is a concern, I’m thinking the addition of greenspace, to attract more people to an area that is a concern, is strange. People driving or walking to and from a parking lot, are going to be more cognizant of the risks of the trains than people there running, playing, etc. So how does the council reconcile what I see as diametrically opposed ideas? (or maybe I’m way off base….would not be the first time).
I just think that this entire community plan needs to be looked at as a WHOLE….not the pieces-parts I’m seeing because, when you start looking at different aspects in isolation, and not the big picture, you get this dissonance that I am seeing here.