>
Why waste $185,000 on a Master Plan when we know the problems and have the answers
Commentary
This city is not suffering from a shortage of parks. It has Central Park, neighborhood parks scattered across the island, Ron Sapp Egans Creek Greenway, beachfront access points, the Atlantic Recreation Center, MLK Rec Center, the Peck Center, youth ballfields and, as of April 1, the long-awaited waterfront park along the Amelia River. That signature project — years in the making — is just now opening.
Fernandina Beach already has a 2015 blueprint, and it has gathered dust with ambitious goals that went unfunded.
In 2015, the city adopted its Parks and Recreation Master Plan that was thick with beautiful renderings and long on vision. It promised transformative projects:
-
A new civic center at Central Park.
-
An aquatics center with a lazy river, expanded gym space and pickleball courts at the Atlantic Recreation Center.
-
Conversion of Ybor Alvarez into the Fernandina Beach Sports Complex, complete with competition-level facilities for baseball, softball, soccer, football and lacrosse.
-
And, in perhaps its most grandiose flourish, the “Avenida de las Banderas” — a two-mile, trolley-served corridor lined with the eight national flags that once flew over Fernandina, shaded by trees, with broad sidewalks and bike lanes connecting the waterfront park to Central Park to the proposed Aquatics Center to Main Beach.
Not because the ideas were hidden. Not because consultants failed to gather enough public input. Not because residents didn’t understand the need for recreation.
And in Fernandina Beach, city commission seats turn over every two years. Priorities shift. Economic realities intrude. Budgets tighten. Grand visions become line items deferred “until funding becomes available.”
The city's needs are obvious and have been identified and discussed ad nauseam.
Parents do not need a $185,000 consultant report to tell them that local children are short on field space.
-
Purchase the FAA-controlled land at the existing Ybor Alvarez site and build there; or
-
Clear city-owned wooded property adjacent to the municipal golf course and develop a new field; or
-
Reduce the 27-hole city golf course to 18 holes to accommodate a soccer complex.
Those are policy decisions — not planning mysteries.
They will require funding discipline.
A new $185,000 master plan won't answer the most pivotal question: where will the money come from?
The city is considering a $30 million+ bond to finance a riverfront flood protection wall and renovation of historic downtown. To pay the bond, the city is committing revenue from its controversial downtown paid parking program.
So, where will the additional money come from for parks and recreation improvements?
Fernandina Beach is already juggling infrastructure demands, stormwater projects, waterfront investments, and operating pressures. The city has repeatedly faced tight budgeting cycles.
Spending $185,000 on another consultant-driven master plan risks repeating the cycle of 2015: a glossy document, a public presentation, applause — and then shelving it when funding proves elusive.
Master plan execution always depends on a City Commission willing to fund it. In a city where elections every two years can shift the political balance, long-range capital commitments become fragile.
It is fiscally imprudent to commission another visionary roadmap without first demonstrating the ability — and financial capacity — to carry out the last one.
And elaborate plans do not automatically equal progress.
Fernandina Beach does not suffer from a lack of imagination. It suffers from a mismatch between aspiration and resources.
Before authorizing another $185,000 study, commissioners should instead:
-
Prioritize land acquisition or site selection for soccer fields.
-
Develop a clear capital maintenance plan for existing recreation facilities.
-
Publish a realistic, phased funding strategy tied to actual revenue projections.
-
Evaluate why the 2015 recommendations were not implemented — and what has changed.
If the answer is “nothing,” then the folly is not in the lack of planning. It is in pretending that another plan will solve a funding problem.
What it needs now is not another glossy master vision — but disciplined execution of practical, achievable improvements.
Comments
10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
EWilson
Mike, thank you for a cogent argument against spending taxpayer dollars on yet another plan, when we already know what needs to be done. Business as usual in Fernandina.
Monday, March 2 Report this
KStadelman
Ouch. Reality rears its ugly head. Mike sounds like a practical parent commenting on his teenage son's big plans for redoing the back yard. As Nike used to say, "Just do it!"
Monday, March 2 Report this
FunnyGirl4615
Spot on, Mike!
Monday, March 2 Report this
bellmm
Well said. Prioritize and execute on a realistic plan. While they're at it, it is long overdue to take a look at all of the city 's assets that aren't of high conservation value and aren't productively on the tax rolls and sell them to the private sector.
Monday, March 2 Report this
40dlewis
A full evaluation of the 2015 plan is in order. What was done, what wasn’t done and why? IThat is the first step in a new plan and it should be done by staff. Constraints to the 2015 proposals should also be analyzed. Buying land from the FAA is not a simple negotiation and funding. There is a lengthy (could take years) process to get the land released by the FAA. And that process alone, could require a consultant. If there is a current need for additional fields, that might not be the best choice.
Also, demographic analysis is needed, what are the population and age projections for the next 20 years? What is the future of various athletic/recreation activities. Who knew that Pickleball would become so popular? Plans do not implement, people do.
You are correct that much of the problem is that the Commission changes every 2 years, and with that, priorities. There are other challenges. Various constituencies have differing priorities. And, there is pressure from county residents to meet the needs the county isn’t meeting.
The city has competent staff. A team should be assembled to carry this out.
Monday, March 2 Report this
TrailRunner
As someone new to the area who comes from a related industry, today’s article questioning the high price tag for the Parks & Recreation Master Plan caught my attention. Learning that a plan was already completed in 2015 makes the scale of this effort an important part of the conversation. A decade is a long time, so revisiting that plan with a fresh perspective makes sense.
However, for a town our size, a two-year timeline and this level of fee feel ambitious if much of the groundwork has already been done. The scope makes more sense in the context of hiring a large national firm like Kimley-Horn, which has a reputation for being one of the more expensive firms in the industry, if not the most expensive. While they may have a local office, is the team performing the work based here and familiar with the community?
The firm was selected from a continuing services list. Is that list public? Were other qualified firms, particularly local ones, considered?
Monday, March 2 Report this
Douglas69
You're exactly right. I'm a retired community planner from Alaska and have a bit of perspective when grandiose consultant plans sit on the shelf that go unfunded and unimplemented. It's not the consultants fault. It's lack of political will when faced with competing city needs. Parks and recreation staff I bet could do an excellent job of updating the existing 2015 plan for far less money and with a great more reality based perspective.
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
SandyKerry
At a time when property tax revenue will be reduced, the paid parking program on it’s way out pending recall results, now is the time for fiscal responsibility, not more spending of tax dollars. Your second point: “ Develop a clear capital maintenance plan for existing recreation facilities” is well taken. Didn’t Fernandina just hire a new capital improvements project manger - Glenn Akramoff? This then should come directly under his purview. Perhaps his additional appointment as deputy city mgr (now city mgr Campbell has 2 in her office) prohibits him from doing the main job he was hired for - capital projects mgr. Use the resources you already have - existing plans & staff - to distinguish needs from wants and prioritize the needed projects first.
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
Mingnmilo
Acting in good faith, the commission should refrain from buying another $185,000 plan. They are in enough hot water over the whole paid parking war. Dust off what you have, solicit public input, use that and build what benefits the community the most.
Tuesday, March 3 Report this
LucyP74
I tell you why…because there’s nothing like spending money that YOU didn’t work hard to earn. I personally don’t know what that feels like, but these POLITICIANS thrive on it. It’s a drug for them. I wholeheartedly agree with NOT wasting any more taxpayer funds on something that certainly has a functional plan already in place. If it isn’t broken, why try to fix it?
Wednesday, March 4 Report this