Cut the Fat? - An opinion

By Chip Ross

March 13, 2020

Recently I have received a spate of requests to cut government spending, and sell off City assets in Fernandina. One email stated, “since moving here in 2001 it has amazed me that a small town of 11,000 owns an airport, 2 golf courses, a marina, a defunct industrial park and thousands of acres of vacant land and yet there is no management plan in place. . .” And a local columnist recently wrote “let’s cut the fat and make Fernandina Beach the best it can be – lean, clean and pristine”. From these and other similar comments, I began to think that perhaps it was time to know exactly what the City did own, and how those properties were being managed to produce all the alleged fat.

Since there was no inventory of City-owned properties other than what could be found on the Property Appraiser’s website, I dug into the office’s extensive data base and compiled a comprehensive list of City-owned properties. What I found was enlightening on many fronts.

Citizens are correct in believing that the City does own a great deal of acreage. It owns 202 separate parcels ranging in size from 514 acres (airport land) to .01 acres (a lift station). Combined however, the 202 parcels equal approximately 1,594.7 acres or 2.49 square miles. City roads and right of ways occupy an additional .7 square miles of land. Since the total land mass within the city limits equals approximately 11.4 square miles, the City owns or maintains approximately 28% of the land within the city limits. This does not include the dry and wet sands of the City beaches and City beach accesses.

What was more interesting was how the City utilizes the 202 parcels. The land that most people consider necessary to “run the City” such as police, fire, utilities, City Hall, and the Peck Center offices, with their respective parking lots, is less than 2% of City-owned lands. Another 23% of City-owned lands consists of roads. So 25%, or a quarter of the 3.19 square miles owned or maintained by the City is utilized for what I call “essential services”.

The big surprise was that approximately 42% of City-owned or maintained land is held in the airport complex. With 847 acres, it not only houses airport related amenities, but part of this FAA controlled property is leased to the Amelia Island Golf Course, the Humane Society, and the soccer/baseball complex. It holds the marina’s dredge spoils when dredging is needed, and utility pumping stations. It is also offering to be the site for a new fire station with partial FAA funding for the facility. Though the City holds title to this land, due to FAA grant monies accepted and agreements signed, the complex is held in what I consider “joint custody” with the FAA. A divorce from the FAA would definitely be a legal nightmare of financial epic proportions.

The remaining 33% of City-owned land is comprised of what I call the “quality of life” sector. The City golf course, the Greenway, recreation buildings, the parks and other open spaces including the historic Bosque Bello Cemetery, the marina, the library, the Front Street river front properties and the historic light house property which all contribute to our sense of place which creates a special place to live. Additionally, the City has 42 beach accesses with associated beach walkovers and almost 6 miles of beach to maintain which also needs to be added to the “quality of life” sector.

Whether any columnist or pundit wants to admit it or not, the “quality of life” properties seem to be the most important to our City and County residents alike. If you don’t believe that premise, just ask islanders if they like living here. There is no doubt they all answer with the same resounding “Yes”. And when I have asked what they don’t like about living here, I often get an extremely puzzled look. The “quality of life” sector seems to make people want to live here.

If one takes the approach of selling City assets, obviously the largest asset, the airport, cannot be sold without FAA consent and a very costly, messy “divorce”. The City would likely spend more money repaying FAA grant money than gain from any sale. At the moment the airport is financially self-supporting and will likely remain so in the foreseeable future.

The next asset, and largest “quality of life” asset in the City, is the City Golf Course. I will leave all pundits with these facts to contemplate when considering the golf course sale. The golf course land cannot be sold without 3 Commissioners willing to put the sale on a voter ballot and then have 51% of the voters agree to sell it. 20% of the property is in the airport runway protection zone which cannot be developed. Of the 421 golf memberships, 286 are City residents. Community non-golf course events occur at the facility an average of four days a week. It would appear that far more City residents use the City golf course than the marina.

Any buyer of the golf course property would likely build homes. I doubt the City voters would approve the sale of the golf course land to allow the building of more than a thousand new homes on the island.

One columnist recommended, “sell the City Hall building because of its valuable and desirable location and relocate it to the Peck Center”. But how valuable is it really? The Property Appraiser’s Office values the land at $770,000. Since it is an historic property constructed in 1904, it is questionable as to whether it could be torn down. The town modernized it in 1956 to achieve a “mid-century modern design”. But 60 years later the exterior is delaminating, the windows are failing, the roof needs repaired and many of the mechanical systems need updating. Since the building resides in the 100-year flood plain, flood regulations would only allow 8 townhomes on the site. Instead of creating 8 more million-dollar townhomes the City is investigating renovating the building and adding additional offices if needed on the adjacent City owned land. Additionally, moving City Hall to the Peck Center creates its own set of interesting conflicts. The Peck Center office space is already full and the building is in urgent need of repairs. The $770,000 would not even be enough to pay for the badly needed repointing and repair of the Peck Center’s brick exterior. Parking at this site would be limited and traffic disruptions to the surrounding neighborhoods would be great.

I could go on for pages about how each City asset has its deterrents, or how they may or may not serve the best interests of the City of Fernandina Beach residents.

One final fact. The City last year the City budgeted 26% of the budget for police protection,19% for Fire and EMS services and 17% for Park and Recreation facilities and programs. Not one citizen came forward challenging that distribution.

The pundits and developers alike seem to be missing an understanding of the City and island residents. To island residents, the quality of life assets are not fat, they offer a way of life. To most residents nature is pristine, beaches are clean, trees are assets that clean the air, act as storm water management devices, wind protection, and sun shades. They want to see the sunrise and the sunset on each side of the island without high rise development obstructing the view. After talking with many island residents, it is clear that most believe more houses and people bring more traffic, noise, pollution, environmental despoliation and crime. Perhaps that is why Fernandina Beach has invested 25% of its land assets in the “quality of life” sector. Does it make sense when you add up the dollars and cents? Maybe not. But just ask a “quality of lifer” or island resident which City lands they want to sell on the list. You will likely get that extremely puzzled look in response. Convincing islanders that they need to sell their quality of life for more houses generally makes no cents/sense to them. They live here because they love it, and they can’t understand why you want to sell it or change it.

I appreciate your comments. I can be reached at cross@fbfl.org