With a 4-1 vote at the top of Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners instructed staff to pull the plug on the controversial program, citing an overwhelming “Yes” vote on the ballot question to restrict paid parking
After all the research, furor, energy, debate, implementation, and finally a rejection at the ballot box disputing the program’s existence, paid parking is set to be no more.
Commissioners approved scrapping the controversial program Wednesday night with a 4-1 vote after about an hour of discussion.
During the 2026 Primary Election, voters overwhelmingly rejected paid parking by a margin of 74.9% (4,168 votes) to 25.1% (1,397 votes). The program was implemented in February, and enforcement began in March.
Toward the end of the meeting, City Manager Sarah Campbell addressed the termination clause with One Parking. Campbell said the contract requires a 90-day notice, putting the cancellation at mid-November.
The city would continue to pay the 90 days of the parking manager’s salary and 30 days of the enforcement officers’ salaries, not to exceed about $16,000. There will be related costs for the signage. The expenses would be paid out of the paid parking fund.
Throughout the meeting, the audience murmured, groaned and laughed.
Commissioner Genece Minshew addressed the packed room at City Hall first, stating that the response from voters and its well-funded opposition justified ending the program.
“So now, the campaign is over, the election is over and paid parking needs to be over,” she said. “Tonight, I’m formally asking the city manager to take whatever steps are necessary to terminate our contract with One Parking at the earliest legal date legally permitted.”
Minshew also said she wanted staff to bring back language similar to the ballot question in an ordinance that is clear and enforceable. She added that the city’s slate of projects must be funded, and she advocated for a downtown taxing district.
“Voting against paid parking does not make our bills disappear,” Minshew said. “It does not repair our downtown streets. It does not replace our infrastructure. It does not fund our waterfront and it does erase the approximately $1.5 million in parking revenue that we anticipated using … those needs are still there.”
Commissioners Tim Poynter and Joyce Tuten said paid parking worked due to the revenue it generated and how it didn’t place a burden on residents. Poynter said it required workers to park elsewhere, leading to more spaces for residents. The city is walking away from $100,000 a month in revenue the city needs, he said, largely from visitors.
“So as I understand this vote, the citizens say, ‘It’s all on us,’” Poynter said. “Who’s got to pay this bill? Bills don’t go away. It’s all on us.”
Tuten was the lone dissenting vote to pull out of the contract, stating she was “very concerned,” and didn’t want to vote on something as soon as Wednesday’s meeting, she said she needed more information from staff. She mentioned several of the commission’s 5-0 votes to approve projects.
Tuten referred to the city’s proposed tentative millage rate of 4.8530 approved last month. Though the rate can be lowered later, commissioners chose the highest of four rates recommended by staff to make up for a potential shortfall of $1.5 million of paid parking revenue set for the $12.5 million marina redevelopment project.
“Are we just going to take the easy route, go to that and stay at that higher millage?” Tuten said, addressing staff.
The whole process was a “mess” the commission created, Vice-Mayor Darron Ayscue said. The Seat 5 commissioner has long been opposed to the program and was usually on the end of 4-1 votes relating to it.
He noted the high petition numbers acquired in a short amount of time, and said he didn’t feel sorry for the commissioners because they didn’t listen to residents. He accused the commissioners of “playing games” with the issue and said it was obvious it would get “throttled” at the ballot box.
“It just got pushed through without any kind of regard for all the signs that were there,” Ayscue said. “And then we turn around and now we’re going to say, ‘Where are we going to get the money?’ We created this boondoggle. We did it. This commission did this. So, I don’t feel sorry for us at all. I don’t feel sorry in any way, shape or form.”
Ayscue joked the city could sell the signs on eBay.
“Put them on the auction the same way we did the Brett’s sign, and I promise you we’ll at least recoup some of the money,” he said.
He was met by a fierce response from commissioners, with Mayor James Antun saying Ayscue was “grandstanding” and calling Ayscue’s comments “nothing short of obnoxious.” Tuten and Ayscue would later spar over Sunshine Law and confusion over Ayscue’s voting record, though the argument would subside.
Anti-paid parking advocate Mac Morriss, during public comment, said the community needed healing. Morriss previously told the News-Leader the fight against paid parking had exhausted him. He said the program resulted in 18 months of division.
“I want to thank all of you (commissioners) for leading this community into reconciliation, healing and forgiveness,” he said. “You’re our leaders. We rely on you to lead this community.”
Resident Peter Stevenson said he didn’t like the blame game and he hadn’t heard solutions. He said the “war” needed to stop.
“We’re going round and round,” Stevenson said. “I want to start hearing some solutions.”
Updated Friday, Aug. 21
Commissioner Joyce Tuten at Wednesday's Fernandina Beach City Commission meeting. Photo by Nick Blank/News-Leader
Vice-Mayor Darron Ayscue at Wednesday's Fernandina Beach City Commission meeting. Photo by Nick Blank/News-Leader