Paid Parking Panel Debates Fairness, Fees, and Future of Downtown Access

Fernandina Beach’s Ad Hoc Paid Parking Committee held its first meeting Thursday, diving into the details of the controversial plan in the historic downtown — debating everything from enforcement hours and resident exemptions to signage clutter, business impacts, permit tiers, and how to generate enough revenue to fund major infrastructure projects without raising taxes.

Deputy City Manager, Jeremiah Glisson explained that the motivation behind paid parking is simple: fund three major capital projects — a downtown seawall ($20–25 million), dock reconnections, and widespread infrastructure improvements — without placing the burden solely on taxpayers.

“This isn’t about punishing locals,” Glisson said. “Parking is a user fee that shifts the cost of improvements from the taxpayer to the user.”

City Manager Sarah Campbell added, “A bond is a form of debt. To repay it, we need roughly $2 million in annual revenue. This parking program is designed to deliver that.”

When asked why property taxes or budget cuts weren’t the chosen path, Campbell responded, “Cutting $2 million from the budget would mean significant service reductions. Raising property taxes would hit some residents hard due to the way homestead exemptions work — one taxpayer might pay $900 more a year, while another only $50.”

Residents would register their license plate online to receive a digital pass. Tourists and visitors would pay by scanning a QR code, texting, or calling a number on posted signage.

“If you live here full-time, your license plate is added to a list that never gets ticketed,” said Campbell. “There’s nothing for you to do each time you park downtown. You’re covered.”

Committee member Victoria Robas asked for clarity on enforcement: “How does anybody know you’ve exceeded your grace period? And if you’re in a restaurant, can you just extend your time from your phone?”

“Yes,” Campbell replied. “You get a text reminder — your parking is expiring in 30 minutes — and you can extend it right from your phone.”

The committee reviewed a range of potential fees:

• Hourly Parking: $2, $3, or $4 per hour

• City Resident Permits: $0, $24, or $50 annually

• Non-Resident Permits: $100 or $200

• Citation Fee: Lowered from $75 to $30–$40 with escalating late penalties

• Enforcement Hours: Mon–Sat 10 a.m.–8 p.m.; Sun 12–8 p.m.

Committee member Mike Sharp said, “I’d rather charge a little more per hour and give city residents a zero-cost permit for their first two cars. They already fund all the infrastructure and emergency services.”

Susan Steger suggested Sunday enforcement begin later: “I would suggest you change the hours on Sunday to 12:30 or 1. There are churches with services and funerals that need some allowance.”

Glisson assured the committee, “We’ve discussed with the vendor the ability to turn off enforcement in zones temporarily — for church, weddings, funerals — if there’s advanced notice.”

More than 200 parking signs are expected to be installed, mostly by repurposing existing poles to reduce clutter.

“We want signage that’s pedestrian approachable,” Glisson said. “You don’t want people stepping into traffic to scan a QR code.”

James Pozzetta, a member of the city's Historic District Council, pushed for aesthetics: “I’d like to see strategies that reduce the total number of signs. We’ve got historic charm down here — let’s keep it that way.”

Glisson noted that using municipal workers for installation, instead of contractors, could cut the $70,000 signage cost significantly and allow for cleaner design integration.

Business owners raised concerns about staff and owner parking logistics — especially for those who don’t live within city limits.

From left Jose Mirada, Lulu Huppman, Susan Steger, Victoria Robas, Mike Sharp and James Pozzetta.

Lulu Huppman, a business owner and Main Street representative, said, “I’m downtown 13 to 15 hours a day. If residents inside the zone are getting free permits, business owners — who pay rent, taxes, and contribute to the local economy — should get a break too.”

Campbell acknowledged the complexity: “We haven’t finalized how to handle business owners who aren’t city residents. That’s something we want input on.”

Jose Miranda, local architect and board chair of Main Street, added, “If the goal is to move employees to remote lots, do we know if there are enough spaces in those lots? If we’re pushing all these staff out, business owners could face increased costs — or worse, reduced sales.”

Campbell replied, “There’s no way to perfectly measure behavior shifts. The program won’t create or eliminate parking — it shifts who parks where. Some employees may still choose to pay for convenience.”

Several committee members emphasized the importance of fairness and transparency, especially for full-time residents.

“City residents think they’ll park for free,” said Steger. “Even with a small permit fee, that perception could become a problem.”

Pozzetta agreed: “It feels like we need clearer tiers — residents, business owners, employees — with some structure on who pays what.”

There was also discussion of the possibility of permit misuse.

Glisson noted, “An annual permit that’s too cheap could lead to vehicles being parked downtown for days. We need rules that prevent people from using downtown as long-term storage.”

Some members questioned whether the plan was being rushed.

“Is this really just an eight-month experiment?” Miranda asked, referencing a citizen petition to block paid parking, which will go to the commission for consideration on October 21.

Glisson responded, “That’s why we’ve built an exit strategy into the contract. If the petition passes (in 2026), we can cancel the program without losing money — the only infrastructure is signage.”

The city will meet again with One Parking next Thursday. A public workshop is scheduled for October 7, where revenue models and final recommendations will be reviewed. A final vote on implementation and related ordinances is expected by October 21.

Despite lingering questions, City Manager Campbell stressed that the city is following commission direction:

“The decision to pursue paid parking has been made. Now our job is to figure out how to do it well — fairly, efficiently, and transparently.”