Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
May 21, 2014 12:42 p.m.
Theoretically, the City of Fernandina Beach is one step closer to an Amelia Riverfront Park following a unanimous vote at their May 20, 2014 Regular Meeting to reaffirm support for the so-called WAG plan with two modifications that increase parking at the foot of Centre Street and add a deck to the Marina Welcome Center. But without a clear path toward funding the improvements, there is no timetable in place for breaking ground. Under Commissioner Comments toward the end of the meeting, Vice Mayor Sarah Pelican asked City Attorney Tammi Bach to begin work on “an ordinance for financing the project” that would allow the people to decide via referendum this fall whether they are willing to pay for this project with a General Obligation Bond (GOB). Commissioner Pat Gass concurred, adding that any request for bond approval should also include financing a parking garage. She said, “If we are going to borrow money, let’s do it all at once.”
Background
For several months the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) has been weighing the merits of moving forward with a plan for a waterfront park approved by a city commission in 2012, modifying that plan, or moving in a slightly different direction with a new plan affecting only one portion of the original park proposal. A city-appointed Waterfront Advisory Group developed the first plan following considerable public input. This plan became known as the WAG plan and extended over an area along the Amelia River bounded roughly by the Cook property on the south and the northern end of the city parking lot. The Zev Cohen Company completed engineering for this project and infrastructure along Front Street. A portion of the $1.9M borrowed in 2011 as part of the so-called Forward Fernandina Strategic Plan was intended to be used to build the infrastructure needed for the park, but not vertical elements of the park itself. The plan at the time was to improve infrastructure for the park area and Front Street to accelerate private development in the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), which would bring in increased revenues to the city for use in park completion. However, a change in composition of the city commission resulted in a vote to return the unspent portion of the loan, effectively stopping work on the waterfront park project.
Architect Randy Rice, representing a group called Partnership for an Amelia Riverfront Park (PARP), within the past year brought forth a variation in one phase of the approved park plan in an effort to jump-start the stalled park effort. His plan called for concentrating park elements in the area bordered by the existing boat ramp on the south and the north end of the city marina. He did not address other elements of the WAG Plan outside this area. He suggested that this plan could be built with little or no public money, relying on private funds and in-kind contributions, along with grants. He relocated parking away from but near to the waterfront to use the space in question as parkland.
Eric Bartelt, a member of the WAG committee, revisited the WAG plan to try to address concerns raised by some commissioners regarding parking needs. He eliminated some of the green space in the original WAG design, in the same area that Rice addressed, to provide additional parking on the west side of the railroad tracks. He also added a deck to the Marina Welcome Center. This plan became known as WAG2, or the modified WAG plan. Bartelt and waterfront advocate Lynn Williams have suggested that Parks and Recreation Impact Funds can pay for much of the WAG2 park, supplemented by grants and private contributions.
Multiple meetings with the FBCC and the CRA Advisory Board were held over the past months as proponents of both plans advanced their arguments.
Gerrity introduces resolution
In introducing Resolution 2014-66 that affirmed approval of the conceptual waterfront park plan approved on March 22, 2012, City Manager Joe Gerrity explained that the only changes included in the resolution were the improvements to the Parking Lot B area to add more parking and to provide for a multi-purpose deck addition to the existing Marina Welcome Center. The proposed resolution also directed Gerrity to obtain cost estimates for changing the original plan engineering to accommodate the changes. Vice Mayor Pelican questioned whether Gerrity felt strongly about revisiting the engineering that had already been completed in light of the changes. Gerrity said, “I think you would want to have engineering completed before you begin work [to insure that the changes are compatible with the remainder of the plan]. Otherwise, it seems a bit piecemeal. To me, it should all flow together.” Commissioner Charlie Corbett said, “Once we get approval [on the resolution], I’d like to get a cost estimate for the entire project and go from there.” Both Pelican and Commissioner Gass seemed interested in pursuing an “engineering/build” approach to park construction.
Deputy City Manager Marshall McCrary tried to clarify the action before the commission, at the request of City Manager Gerrity. McCrary said that the FBCC was being asked via this resolution to reaffirm the original plan with a reorientation of parking and the welcome center deck. He said that should the FBCC do so, they would then allow the city manager to move forward to talk with engineers.
Gerrity asked the commissioners, “I assume you want me to go back to Zev Cohen [for engineering cost estimates]?” While Mayor Ed Boner agreed, other commissioners continued to express interest in proceeding with a design/build approach.
McCrary suggested that the question to Zev Cohen, the firm that did the initial engineering, would be whether the city can move forward with the changes with minor adjustments to engineering plans or whether the entire park plan would need to be re-engineered because of the changes. He emphasized that the city will only be seeking cost estimates at this time.
Public Input
Waterfront park advocate Lynn Williams suggested that the FBCC let the city manager go forward with seeking estimates on additional engineering or an engineering/build approach, which he considered a more streamlined path. He said that Parks and Recreation Impact Funds do not pay for engineering, but that he did not believe that additional engineering would be a significant task. City Manager Gerrity said, “I don’t want to mislead the commission into thinking that impact fees can pay for everything. Once we get estimates, bids will be required.”
Local resident George Morris addressed the FBCC and said, “I still don’t know why we can’t consider the Rice Plan, where no public money would be involved.” He expressed frustration over what he saw as “paralysis by analysis.” He said, “To my eyes [the park construction] is not going anywhere. When can we expect something done?”
Vice Mayor Sarah Pelican recapped the project history in response to Morris’ concerns. She said that the original park plan was estimated to cost $5-6M, and that former Commissioner Jeffrey Bunch even thought it might approach $10M. Plans for funding included money from the CRA-TIF fund, which is currently almost empty, grants and a city loan. While the Rice Plan called for private contributions, Pelican said that she was not sure how much money Rice had raised. The modified WAG plan, as presented by Eric Bartelt, would use impact fees, private money and grants. She said that neither the WAG plan nor the Rice Plan “can make something happen tomorrow.”
Gerrity said that the resolution under consideration does not address funding. Pelican suggested that the city might also ask voters to approve a bond via a referendum.
Randy Rice, architect of the so-called Rice Plan or PARP plan, rose to thank the FBCC for all the time they had devoted to studying the plan options. He said, “What needs to be clear is [the modified WAG plan] has not been fully vetted by the Waterfront Advisory Group. The PARP plan is in a similar situation.” He advised that the commissioners place both plans on the November ballot and ask voters to select which plan they preferred. He added, “I personally would be interested in helping with financial efforts [to create a park].”
Local resident Joann Bean also spoke, stressing the need for downtown waterfront parking. “Lots A and B are always full,” she said. “Where am I going to park?” Both Mayor Boner and City Manager Gerrity reassured Bean that the modified WAG plan under consideration would not take away parking spaces.
Action taken
After close to a half-hour of input and discussion, Commissioner Charlie Corbett moved approval of the resolution, and Commissioner Pat Gass seconded his motion, which was approved in a unanimous vote. City Manager Gerrity will move forward on engineering cost estimates, and City Attorney Bach will begin working on ballot language for a referendum that will ask voters to approve a general obligation bond to pay for the waterfront improvements. Bach indicated she would provide a progress report in June.
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.
I remember the same story from almost 10 years ago. My Mom remembers the same story from when she was on Fernandina’s Planning Board in the 80’s. Front Street looks the same as it did decades ago. Pick a plan, quit spending money on more studies, and build something.
Neither plan has money in the bank at this time. Why would Mr. Rice begin to raise money for a project that is not getting any traction with the City Council in the form of conditional approval like the WAG plan. If there is to be a referendum at some point, it seems logical that both plans would be presented to the voters – not just the WAG plan. In that way, the residents who will pay for it get to see all the choices.
The WAG plan was developed with substantial citizen input and approved by two different commissions. There is the option as noted in the article that P&R impact fees be used to pay for as much as half of the Lot A&B plan. There has always been significant citizen support for the riverfront park and the approved plan is the product of that effort. There will be always be some aspects of the plan that some love and some don’t care for. Time to move forward.