Fernandina Observer logo>

Fernandina Commission votes 4-1 to terminate paid parking after referendum landslide

Posted
By Mike Lednovich

The Fernandina Beach City Commission voted 4-1 Wednesday to terminate the city’s controversial paid parking contract as soon as possible, responding to a referendum in which 75% of voters approved restrictions on the program.

Commissioner Tim Poynter’s motion directed the city to rescind its contract with parking operator One Parking at the earliest possible date. Commissioner Joyce Tuten cast the only dissenting vote after saying she wanted more information about the financial and contractual consequences before taking action.
 
“The motion basically is to rescind the contract as soon as possible,” Poynter said before the roll-call vote. “That’s it. Pretty simple.”
 

The citizen-initiated ordinance received 4,168 “yes” votes among 5,565 ballots cast. Overall city voter turnout was 48.63%, an unusually high level of participation for a midterm election.

Although the referendum ordinance was not retroactive and did not automatically repeal the existing downtown program, four commissioners interpreted the decisive result as a public mandate to terminate it.
 

Commissioner Genece Minshew opened the discussion by congratulating opponents and acknowledging the voters’ decision.

“The voters have spoken, and the results are clear, and I accept it,” Minshew said. “So now the campaign is over, the election is over, and paid parking needs to be over.”
 

Minshew asked City Manager Sarah Campbell to take whatever steps are necessary to terminate the One Parking contract “at the earliest legal date legally permitted.” She also asked City Attorney Teresa Prince to review the citizen ordinance and bring back replacement language that faithfully reflects the voters’ decision while being clear, legally sound and enforceable.

“The voters have established the policy direction,” Minshew said. “It is our job to implement it.”
 
Minshew warned, however, that eliminating the program would not eliminate the expenses the parking revenue was intended to cover.
 

“Voting against paid parking does not make our bills disappear,” she said. “It does not repair our downtown streets. It does not replace our infrastructure. It does not fund our waterfront, and it does not erase the approximately $1.5 million in parking revenue that we anticipated using in the waterfront park.”

“Those needs are still here,” Minshew continued. “Those costs are still here, and somebody still has to pay for them.”
 

The city had projected approximately $1.5 million in paid parking revenue for the waterfront project and other needs. Minshew said she would support an increased property tax rate for the 2026-27 budget and asked the city to examine creation of a special taxing district for the downtown business area.

“There is no magic revenue source,” she said. “There is no free infrastructure.”
 

Minshew said the city must determine what follows the repeal.

“Paid parking is finished, in my opinion,” she said. “The infrastructure needs are not. The waterfront project is not. Our financial responsibilities are not finished.”
 
Poynter said paid parking had accomplished its goal of generating revenue primarily from people who live outside the city.
 

“When you’re generating $100,000-plus net every month, that’s working,” Poynter said. “Ninety percent of those dollars were generated from outside of the 32034.”

“We are walking away from $100,000 a month, revenues that we need to fix our town,” he said. “So as I understand this vote, the citizens are saying, ‘It’s all on us.’ Someone’s got to pay for it.”
 

Poynter said visitors from Jacksonville, Georgia, St. Augustine and elsewhere were paying for parking rather than city residents.

“The bills don’t go away,” he said. “It’s all on us.”
 

Vice Mayor Darron Ayscue, a longtime opponent of the program, said the referendum result should not have surprised the commission. He noted that opponents collected nearly 700 petition signatures during one weekend and raised approximately $80,000 in mostly small contributions.

“That is an absolute sign that this thing was going to get throttled at the ballot box,” Ayscue said.
 

Ayscue blamed the commission for moving forward without first seeking voter approval.

“All the people wanted was to vote on it before it got implemented,” he said. “This is a boondoggle of this commission’s own making.”
 

“We created this mess,” Ayscue said. “I think it’s on the five of us to figure it out.”

Ayscue said paid parking protections should ultimately be placed in the city charter, which would prevent future commissions from reestablishing the program without voter approval. The next charter review is scheduled for 2027, with any proposed amendments potentially going before voters in 2028.
 

“They want full control of this,” Ayscue said. “They want it taken out of the commission’s hands.”

“I’m 100% on board on how do we get out of this thing as fast as we possibly can,” he said. “Then it needs to go in the charter.”
 

Ayscue also called for ending the bitter community fight.

“Let’s just get rid of it,” he said. “Let’s start the healing process and bring the community back together so we can quit fighting over this issue and actually accomplish some real goals.”
 

Tuten praised residents for organizing the initiative, raising money and successfully taking the issue to voters.

“I think it’s great,” she said. “I think it’s democracy in action.”
 

But Tuten said she did not want the commission to terminate the contract without first receiving detailed information from city staff.

“I do not want to vote on anything tonight,” she said. “I need a lot of information.”
 

Tuten asked staff to calculate the cost of terminating the One Parking contract, the effect of losing $1.5 million and the alternatives available to the city.

“What program are we cutting?” she asked. “What beach access are we closing? What are we not doing? What maintenance are we deferring? What capital improvement projects are we not doing?”
 

“Money doesn’t grow on trees,” Tuten said. “I want to understand the money.”

Tuten also emphasized that the referendum ordinance applied to future paid parking decisions and did not itself eliminate the existing downtown program. She said she knew people who supported paid parking but voted for the initiative because they wanted voter approval before the program could be expanded to other areas, including the beaches.
 

Speakers urged commissioners to treat the vote as a mandate and begin repairing divisions within the city.

Mac Morriss said the 75% result showed that residents wanted greater control over paid parking decisions and expected the commission to end the existing program.
 

“Rescinding, canceling the paid parking contract is what this community has said we wanted,” Morriss said. “We need you to lead us all the way there to bring us back together and to help this community come back together and heal.”

The commission’s debate at times became heated as commissioners argued over who was responsible for the controversy and how waterfront projects and other city obligations would be funded.
 

Mayor Antun rebuked Ayscue after the vice mayor said he did not feel sorry for the commission because it had created the problem.

“There’s no one here asking for sympathy,” Antun said. “So I’d like you to stop grandstanding a little bit because you got what you want.”
 

Ayscue responded that the outcome belonged to the voters.

“I didn’t get what I wanted,” he said. “The citizens got what they wanted. They were the ones that voted on it.”
 

Despite their disagreements over responsibility and funding, four commissioners agreed the size of the referendum victory required the city to terminate the program.

Poynter said he might have viewed a narrow 51%-49% result differently, but the decisive margin removed any doubt about the public’s position.
 

“We put it out there, and the community said no,” he said. “Now I know. Now I’m on the record.”

City staff must now determine the earliest date the One Parking contract can legally be terminated, whether the city will owe the company any termination payment and how the estimated $1.5 million revenue loss will be addressed in the upcoming budget.
 

The commission must also decide whether to retain its tentative millage rate of 4.8530, reduce spending, delay projects or establish another revenue source. The final property tax rate will be adopted during September budget hearings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • CarolC33

    Halleluliah! The people have spoken and commissioners (mostly) have accepted the clear mandate. Can't wait till the final date in November is established so I can book my first trip across the state since mid-February to visit one of my favorite cities. Thank you, Fernandina residents--I've missed you, and I have a lot of unspent dollars to bring with me!

    Thursday, August 20 Report this

  • Mark Tomes

    It's too bad some vocal locals got the paid parking program shut down. City and county residents got a great deal on downtown parking, shifting the financial burden to tourists (where it should be), and the program never hurt local businesses. Everybody would've gotten used to paid parking in a short amount of time. And the funds generated by the program! It will be a real loss to the budget.

    Thursday, August 20 Report this

  • KoachKay

    I feel the description of the voting results is very exaggerated! This is neither a landslide nor mandated. A huge percent of the residents did not vote at all! Shame on them!

    Thank you Joyce Tuten, you asked the right questions! There are too many unknown answers to make sweeping decisions on contract cancellations and development plan revisions.

    Did anyone collect data on actual loss revenue because of paid parking? Was the loss due to the present inflationary issues in the country? What was the drop in tourism during this period?

    We have not found a one town on the Florida coast that does not ask visitors to pay for parking in their business district! Please, tell me where I would find one!

    The few thousand voters who decided that paid parking is a terrible idea will now know the consequences and costs of not asking tourist to help with our infrastructure.

    Saturday, August 22 Report this

  • AcurtNA63

    If they had waited for public input instead of jumping the gun, we would have been pared this unnecessary

    expense. Way to go, City C0mmission!

    Saturday, August 22 Report this

Other items that may interest you

Buccaneer Trail paving scheduled next week

17 restaurants passed the inspection at the first …

City waterfront board advances harbor plan as costs of …

What could Fernandina’s waterfront look like? New …

© Copyright 2026 Fernandina Observer
Contributions or gifts to the Fernandina Observer are tax-deductible.
Our federal EIN is 88-2158428.
Powered by Creative Circle Media Solutions