The Paid Parking Referendum Loophole: Downtown Program Would Survive a ‘Yes’ Vote

By Mike Lednovich/Editor

FERNANDINA BEACH — Passage of the Aug. 18 paid parking referendum would not automatically terminate the city’s existing downtown parking program, according to City Manager Sarah Campbell and previous comments by City Attorney Teresa Prince.

Instead, the city interprets the referendum as applying only to future attempts to introduce paid parking in other areas of Fernandina Beach.

That means the downtown program would remain in place regardless of the referendum’s outcome unless the City Commission separately votes to repeal or substantially change the ordinance that established it.

The clarification came after The Fernandina Observer asked Campbell and Prince for a definitive answer in advance of Wednesday’s Observer City Commission Candidates Forum. Prince previously told the Observer she would consult with Campbell before responding.

“Does the referendum language mean that if approved the city would terminate the current paid parking program in place?” the Observer asked.

The city’s written response was: “We don’t know what action the commission might take. We do not believe the ballot initiative is retroactive.”

The Observer then asked whether the referendum would only affect the city’s ability to expand paid parking into other areas.

“Yes, we believe this to be true,” the response stated.

The answers were returned by Campbell Monday afternoon.

The wording — “we believe” — stops short of providing a formal written legal opinion or stating the issue has been conclusively resolved by a court. Nevertheless, it provides the administration’s clearest answer to a question that has confused candidates and voters for months.

A “yes” vote would not, by itself, shut down the paid parking system operating in the historic downtown district.

The administration’s answer is consistent with comments Prince made when the City Commission considered the citizen-initiated ordinance on Oct. 21, 2025.

At that meeting, Prince confirmed that if voters approved the measure in 2026, it would not apply retroactively.

Her comments came as commissioners were deciding whether to adopt the citizen-proposed ordinance themselves or send it to voters. The city was already moving forward with plans to establish downtown paid parking before the referendum could be held.

Prince’s October statement is significant because it shows the city’s legal interpretation was established before the parking program began — not developed after the system was operating and generating revenue.

Prince made the statement in her capacity as city attorney and chief legal adviser to the City Commission. However, the city has not provided the Observer with a formal written legal opinion analyzing the referendum’s effect, and no court has ruled on the question.

The referendum originated with a citizen-initiative petition circulated in 2025 as opposition mounted to the City Commission’s plans for downtown paid parking.

The proposed ordinance included in the petition stated:

“The City of Fernandina Beach shall not implement paid parking in any designated area, defined as all areas within the City, without majority approval (50% plus one) vote from a public referendum of registered City voters.”

More than 1,700 petition signatures were certified, exceeding the number required under the City Charter.

Once the petitions were certified, the City Commission had the option of adopting the citizen-proposed ordinance or placing it before voters. Commissioners declined to enact it at their Oct. 21 meeting, sending the question to the Aug. 18 ballot.

The critical word in the referendum is “implement.”

When the petition was drafted and circulated, the downtown paid parking program had not yet been implemented. But the commission continued moving ahead while the referendum awaited the election.

The commission subsequently adopted Ordinance 2025-13, establishing the downtown program in an area extending from Ash Street north through Alachua Street and from Front Street east to Eighth Street.

Paid parking began Feb. 16, with enforcement starting March 16. By the time voters decide the referendum, the downtown system will have been operating for six months.

The ballot measure does not expressly order the city to terminate an existing parking program. It contains no language making it retroactive, directing the commission to repeal Ordinance 2025-13 or requiring the city to cancel its agreement with parking operator One Parking.

That timing created the ambiguity the city has now addressed.

What “yes” and “no” would mean

Under the city’s interpretation, a “yes” vote would establish a requirement going forward: Before the city could implement paid parking in another designated area, it would first need approval from a majority of registered city voters participating in a referendum.

That could apply to future efforts to extend paid parking beyond the existing downtown district, including to city beaches or other city-owned parking areas.

A “no” vote would reject the citizen-proposed restriction and preserve the City Commission’s authority to establish or expand paid parking without first seeking voter approval.

Neither result would automatically end the current downtown system, according to Campbell and Prince.

That interpretation produces an outcome some voters may not expect: Residents can vote to restrict future paid parking, but the referendum does not give them a direct vote on whether the existing downtown program should continue.

Because the referendum would not apply retroactively, it would not repeal Ordinance 2025-13, according to the city.

The downtown program’s future would remain in the hands of the five-member City Commission. Even if voters overwhelmingly approve the referendum, commissioners would have to take separate legislative action to repeal or substantially amend the existing ordinance if they wanted the program discontinued.

Commissioners also could change parking rates, enforcement hours, district boundaries, permit rules and other provisions through the city’s regular legislative process.

Ending the program would additionally require the city to address its contract with One Parking.

The agreement allows the city to terminate without cause with 120 days’ notice. It also contains a provision allowing immediate termination if a citizen-initiated referendum overturns the parking program.

Under the city’s interpretation, however, the Aug. 18 referendum would not overturn the existing program. That means the immediate termination provision apparently would not be triggered by a “yes” vote, leaving commissioners to use other provisions of the contract if they decide to end the program.

The City Commission had an opportunity in April to place a second paid parking question on the ballot that would have directly addressed the existing downtown program.

Commissioners rejected the proposed companion question, leaving only the language drafted by the citizen petition committee before voters.

The result is a referendum born from an effort to stop downtown paid parking but reaching voters after the city put the program into operation.

The city’s position is not necessarily the final word. If the referendum passes, the anti-paid parking petitioners could ask a Nassau County circuit judge to determine whether continuing to charge and enforce parking fees violates the voter-approved ordinance.

Their most likely option would be a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment interpreting the words “shall not implement paid parking,” along with an injunction stopping the downtown program while the case is decided.

Petitioners could argue that paid parking is not implemented only once. In their view, the city continues implementing the program every day it collects fees and issues citations. Stopping those activities after the referendum takes effect, they could contend, would be a prospective application of the ordinance — not a retroactive one.

The city would counter that the downtown program was implemented before the election and that the referendum contains no language requiring an existing program to be terminated or the underlying ordinance repealed.

A lawsuit filed after a “yes” vote — and after the city refused a formal demand to stop the program—would likely present a clearer legal controversy.

The city’s interpretation therefore would control its actions unless commissioners change course or a court rules otherwise. Campbell’s response and Prince’s previous comments represent the city’s position, but they are not a binding judicial determination of what the referendum means.

The distinction also raises the stakes in this year’s City Commission election. Candidates may take positions on whether they would continue, modify or repeal the current downtown system, but those decisions are separate from the legal effect the city says the referendum would have.