Poynter Tries to Revive Downtown Paid Parking, but Minshew Kills It for Good

By Mike Lednovich/Editor

For about 40 minutes Tuesday, Fernandina Beach’s controversial paid parking program flickered back to life — only to be buried again by one of its most steadfast supporters.

In a stunning reversal, Commissioner Tim Poynter called his successful effort two weeks earlier to terminate paid parking a “knee-jerk reaction” and moved to have that decision reconsidered.

But Poynter’s effort failed on a 2-2 vote after Commissioner Genece Minshew, previously one of the program’s strongest defenders, joined Vice Mayor Darron Ayscue in opposing reconsideration.

Commissioner Joyce Tuten joined Poynter in voting yes. Mayor James Antun, another paid parking supporter, was absent because of illness.

Minshew said she was exhausted by the months of controversy and wanted the matter settled.

“I didn’t want to have to do that,” Minshew said of the possibility of more litigation. “I was tired of the debate.”

She then delivered the vote that effectively ended Poynter’s attempt to revive the program.

“I’m going to vote no on this motion to reconsider because I consider this done,” Minshew said. “For me, paid parking is a done issue because the community has spoken.”

The vote produced an extraordinary role reversal between the two commissioners most closely associated with bringing paid parking downtown.

Poynter and Minshew had championed the program as a way to collect money from visitors for downtown, waterfront and other infrastructure needs without placing the entire burden on city property owners. Their support made them the targets of an unsuccessful citizen recall effort earlier this year.

But following the Aug. 18 referendum in which about 75% of voters approved an ordinance requiring voter approval before the city implements paid parking in any designated area, Poynter changed direction.

At the commission’s Aug. 19 meeting, Poynter made the motion directing city staff to terminate paid parking as soon as possible. The motion passed 4-1, with Ayscue casting the lone dissenting vote.

Two weeks later, it was Poynter seeking to undo his decision and Minshew standing in his way.

“Tonight, regardless of what was said tonight, I am asking this commission to reconsider the paid parking motion that I have made,” Poynter said. “We think about it more, we move forward with this, we tweak it, but we don’t throw away the dollars that are not on the taxpayers.”

Poynter said the city could not continue placing the cost of infrastructure and services solely “on the backs of the taxpayers.”

His motion would not have immediately reinstated paid parking. Because reconsideration had not been listed on Tuesday’s agenda, a successful vote would have placed the termination decision on the next properly advertised City Commission agenda for a new discussion and vote.

Under the commission’s rules, a motion to reconsider must be made at the next meeting by a commissioner who voted with the prevailing side. Poynter qualified because he made and voted for the Aug. 19 termination motion.

Tuten seconded Poynter’s motion, saying the commission’s original termination vote had occurred without adequate advance notice to residents.

“This is a really big decision,” Tuten said. “We owe the residents notice on this decision. And I think we should all vote in the affirmative to reconsider this and bring it back in a properly noticed agenda item.”

Tuten also noted that Antun was ill and unable to participate.

“I don’t see the harm in allowing this to go to a proper discussion in two weeks,” she said. “It’s not necessarily going to change the vote.”

The city has already given One Parking notice that its contract will end Nov. 18.

During public comment, residents and business owners again divided over the program.

Mac Morriss argued that downtown businesses had suffered because of paid parking and questioned whether the city could reinstate it without another referendum now that the contract had been terminated.

Roger Martin said the city’s infrastructure needs did not automatically make paid parking the correct solution.

“The city has infrastructure needs, and the waterfront needs funding. We understand that,” Martin said. “But paid parking can still be the wrong answer.”

Martin also asked whether reinstating paid parking after its termination would amount to implementing a new program under the voter-approved ordinance, which would require approval through another referendum.

“If you believe paid parking should return, make your case,” Martin said. “Put it on the ballot and let the people decide.”

No definitive legal opinion on that question was given during the discussion.

Other speakers supported reconsideration. Downtown business owner Veronica Byrnes said she had not experienced a decline in business because of paid parking and feared losing the revenue would result in higher property taxes.

“My drop in business is a result of significant other expenses, like increases in taxes,” Byrnes said. “My concern as a result of limiting paid parking is that it’s going to increase taxes for businesses.”

Cameron Moss said the commission’s Aug. 19 termination vote was an emotional response made without enough consideration. He argued that the referendum language addressed future implementation or expansion and did not explicitly call for eliminating the existing downtown program.

“Let’s hold on a second. Let’s look at the facts,” Moss said in describing the purpose of Poynter’s motion.

Minshew acknowledged that ending paid parking would mean walking away from more than $1 million in projected annual revenue. She challenged residents calling for spending reductions to identify the services and projects they wanted the commission to cut.

She cited $457,000 for city youth programs, $135,000 for a new bus serving those programs and $355,000 set aside toward a possible purchase of the Ybor Alvarez Sports Complex property from the Federal Aviation Administration.

“Don’t tell me that I do not know what I’m doing, that I’ve not paid attention to the budget, and I do not understand the implications, because I do,” Minshew said.

Despite those concerns, she said the city needed to move forward with its budget and prepare for the possible financial effects of Amendment 3 on the November ballot.

Poynter, however, urged commissioners to take the opportunity provided by their reconsideration rules.

“There’s going to be times when people make the wrong decision,” he said. “And then they’re going to go back and they’re going to think about it a little bit.”

Poynter said he had spoken with residents who voted for the Aug. 18 ordinance because they believed the existing downtown program would remain in place while any future expansion would require voter approval.

“That’s what the vote actually says,” Poynter said.

He argued that paid parking had succeeded by increasing the availability and turnover of downtown spaces while collecting most of its revenue from visitors rather than city residents. He said abandoning that revenue would lead to higher taxes, spending cuts or further deferred maintenance.

“We cannot cut our way into prosperity here,” Poynter said.

Ayscue agreed that he wished the city could rewind the clock and handle the issue differently. He said paid parking should have been placed directly before voters and eventually incorporated into the city charter so future commissions could not impose it without a referendum.

But Ayscue said the controversy had “snowballed completely and totally out of control.”

“I just cannot support putting this back in front of this community again as we see the community get torn open over and over again,” he said.

Ayscue also acknowledged that the Aug. 18 referendum did not itself terminate the existing program.

“I understand what that vote meant,” he said. “I understand what’s said on the referendum — that it did not mean that paid parking would go away. But this commission was the one that put paid parking in, and this commission was the one that voted to take it out. It’s as simple as that.”

With Minshew and Ayscue voting no, the reconsideration motion failed. The City Commission’s Aug. 19 decision remains in place, and the One Parking contract is scheduled to end Nov. 18.