$100k Parks Proposal: What Will This Study Tell Us That We Don't Already Know?

Commentary

By Mike Lednovich/Editor

On Tuesday, the Fernandina Beach City Commission will again consider hiring a consultant to evaluate the city's parks and recreation system.

This is the second time commissioners have seen this proposal.

The first time, they weren't convinced.

In March, the commission rejected an initial two-phase, $185,000 proposal and directed staff to reduce the scope.

Staff did exactly that.

The revised proposal now focuses on a single phase — a Needs and Priorities Assessment of the city's parks, athletic fields and beach access.

But before commissioners approve it, they should each answer one simple question.

Name three recreation deficiencies this study is likely to identify that the city doesn't already know about.

Not three projects.

Not three recommendations.

Three actual deficiencies.

Because if taxpayers are being asked to spend nearly $100,000 identifying recreation needs, there ought to be at least a few needs that have somehow escaped everyone's attention.

What might those be?

The city already knows youth soccer needs additional fields.

The years-long debate over Ybor Alvarez has demonstrated that repeatedly.

The city already knows there are concerns about softball and baseball facilities at the Martin Luther King Jr. Recreation Center.

The city already knows about the exploding growth of pickleball.

The city already knows residents have consistently asked for more athletic fields and recreational opportunities.

None of those discoveries require another $100,000 study.

To be fair, there are legitimate reasons to update the city's parks master plan.

A current assessment can strengthen grant applications, establish priorities and give future commissions an objective roadmap for capital improvements.

If that's the purpose of this proposal, commissioners should say so.

But that's different from suggesting the city doesn't yet know its recreation needs.

It does.

In fact, the staff report says Parks and Recreation has already "identified the need" for a comprehensive master plan to guide future development. The proposal itself is a condensed version of the larger study commissioners rejected in March. Rather than adding new facilities or designs, it inventories existing parks, athletic fields and beach access, evaluates them, gathers additional public input and produces a needs and priorities assessment.

That may be useful documentation.

It just isn't new information.

If commissioners believe this assessment is necessary to compete for grants or justify future investments, they should make that case.

But if they cannot identify three major recreation deficiencies the study is expected to uncover, then taxpayers are entitled to ask another question.

If we already know the problems, why aren't we spending more time — and more money like this $100,000 —solving them?