Fernandina Beach residents who believed their overwhelming rejection of paid downtown parking had settled the city’s revenue debate may want to attend City Hall Thursday evening.

The Fernandina Beach City Commission will hold a special meeting and public hearing September 3 at 5 p.m. as your final opportunity to speak before they increase the City of Fernandina Beach property taxes to offset money what they were aiming to collect with the parking fees. Specifically it's a proposed operating millage rate of 4.8530 mills for the 2026–27 budget year. Based on commissioners’ previous statements and their 4–1 vote establishing that rate in July, the proposal appears likely to advance unless intense public opposition persuades at least one member of the existing majority to reverse course.

Mayor James Antun and Commissioners Tim Poynter, Genece Minshew and Joyce Tuten previously supported the 4.8530 rate. Vice Mayor Darron Ayscue cast the only opposing vote and argued that the city should find savings rather than place a greater burden on property owners.

The proposed rate is officially 9.24% above Fernandina Beach’s rollback rate—the rate calculated to produce approximately the same property-tax revenue from existing property as the previous year. It is also approximately 3.6% higher than the city’s current millage rate of 4.6849.

This is not the Nassau County Commission. It is the five-member Fernandina Beach City Commission, whose jurisdiction and proposed tax apply only inside the city.

The timing is politically combustible. On August 18, almost 75% of participating Fernandina Beach voters supported a charter restriction on paid parking, with 3,884 votes in favor and 1,299 opposed. The next evening, commissioners voted to terminate the city’s contract with parking operator One Parking. The program will remain in effect through November 18 because of a contractual 90-day termination requirement. Jacksonville Today election results

Paid parking had been promoted as a way to collect money from visitors and finance waterfront improvements without increasing property taxes. After voters delivered a landslide verdict against the program, the city is now positioned to turn to the very alternative commissioners had repeatedly warned about: collecting more money from property owners.

The Tax Increase Was Prepared as the Parking Fallback

The higher rate was not invented in the days following the referendum. City Manager Sarah Campbell presented it to the commission on July 28 as one of four possible rates.

Campbell’s original administrative recommendation was approximately 4.5444 mills, described as a modified rollback rate. The options also included the full rollback rate of 4.4425, the existing rate of 4.6849 and the higher 4.8530 rate.

The final option was developed as a “what-if” scenario calculated to generate approximately $1.5 million more than Campbell’s original budget recommendation. That amount closely matched the anticipated paid-parking revenue the city had assigned to waterfront redevelopment.

Commissioner Poynter was the most direct advocate for choosing the higher ceiling.

“I think not knowing about the paid parking, and what that potentially could or could not do, I would recommend that we go to the 4.8530,” Poynter said during the July discussion.

Tuten argued that the additional revenue could support a stronger contingency fund, conservation purchases or debt reduction if it were not needed to replace parking proceeds. Minshew said she could support either the current rate or the higher rate until commissioners got beyond the August referendum and reached their final budget deliberations.

Ayscue argued for the rollback rate, warned about the effects on businesses and non-homesteaded property, and said the commission should respond to residents calling on the city to restrain spending.

“I think we can find it,” Ayscue said. “That’s where I’m going to be. I know I’ll get outvoted, but that’s where I am.”

He was correct. Antun, Poynter, Minshew and Tuten selected 4.8530 as the tentative maximum in a 4–1 vote. Nassau Community Press account of the July meeting

That vote did not finally impose the tax rate. It established the highest rate the commission could adopt later without restarting state notification procedures. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that they could lower it after the parking referendum—but could not easily raise it if they initially selected a lower ceiling.

Thursday is when that promise of reconsideration will be tested.

From One Unpopular Revenue Plan to Another

There is an obvious fiscal argument available to the city. Rejecting paid parking did not eliminate Fernandina Beach’s aging waterfront, marina, stormwater, public-safety and other infrastructure obligations. If one revenue stream disappears, commissioners must either find another, use reserves, delay projects, reduce spending or combine several of those alternatives.

But there is an equally obvious taxpayer response: voters rejected paid parking because they rejected the policy—not because they were volunteering to have the same money collected through their property-tax bills.

If the city’s response to losing an unpopular fee is to substitute a tax increase, residents may reasonably question whether their vote changed the underlying spending decision at all. The collection method changed. The city’s intended level of revenue did not.

That is why Thursday’s hearing could generate opposition every bit as intense as the parking dispute. The central question is no longer whether visitors or residents should pay to park. It is whether property owners should be required to replace the revenue that the city expected from a program voters overwhelmingly rejected.

The commission could adopt the full 4.8530 rate, retain the existing 4.6849 rate, move toward Campbell’s lower modified-rollback recommendation, adopt the complete rollback rate or select another rate below the July ceiling. Commissioners could also reduce expenditures, defer capital projects, use reserves or spread the adjustment across several budget years.

What they cannot credibly claim is that no choice exists. Raising property taxes is a policy decision, just as delaying a project or reducing spending would be.

What It Could Cost Property Owners

At 4.8530 mills, Fernandina Beach would collect $485.30 in city property taxes for every $100,000 of taxable value. That does not include taxes imposed by Nassau County, the School Board or other taxing authorities.

Compared with the city’s current rate, the increase would equal $16.81 for every $100,000 of unchanged taxable value. Compared with the rollback rate, the difference would be $41.05 per $100,000.

Using Zillow’s current Nassau County average home value of approximately $485,655, a fully taxable property with no exemptions would produce an estimated city tax bill of $2,356.88 under the proposed rate—approximately $81.64 more than under the current millage.

Fernandina Beach properties are generally more expensive than the countywide average. Redfin reports a recent Fernandina Beach median sale price of approximately $695,000. If that entire amount were taxable, the proposed city tax would be approximately $3,372.84, an increase of about $116.83 over the current rate.

Those examples assume no change in assessed value. Non-homesteaded and commercial property owners could face substantially larger increases if their assessments also rise. A property previously assessed at $485,655 that receives a 10% assessment increase would pay approximately $317 more in Fernandina city taxes—not merely the $82 attributable to the millage change.

Longtime homesteaded owners may experience smaller increases because Save Our Homes limits annual assessment growth and homestead exemptions reduce taxable value. Recently purchased homes, second homes, rentals and commercial properties are more likely to feel the combined effect of higher assessments and the higher rate.

Amendment 3 Is Now Part of the Local Debate

The Fernandina controversy also arrives two months before Florida voters decide Amendment 3, the statewide property-tax proposal on the November ballot.

The amendment would expand the non-school homestead exemption to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, reduce the annual assessment-growth cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, restrict the uses of county and municipal property-tax revenue and make the rollback rate the default local millage ceiling.

A county or city could still exceed rollback, but a rate no greater than 110% of rollback would require approval from two-thirds of the entire governing body. A rate exceeding 110% would require unanimous approval. The amendment needs at least 60% statewide voter approval to pass. Florida Legislature’s enrolled Amendment 3 resolution

Fernandina’s proposed 4.8530 rate is 109.24% of rollback—just below the amendment’s 110% threshold. On a five-member commission, Amendment 3 would require four affirmative votes for this rate.

That is an important qualification. Amendment 3 would not automatically block Fernandina’s present proposal. The same 4–1 majority that approved the tentative rate in July would satisfy the amendment’s proposed supermajority requirement.

But a 3–2 vote would not.

That distinction explains why the Fernandina hearing could influence local sentiment about the amendment. Residents arguing online that constitutional restrictions are “the only way to get their attention” can point to the city’s actions as evidence for their position: voters overwhelmingly rejected one revenue mechanism, yet officials immediately retained the ability to collect substantially similar revenue through property taxes.

If public opposition persuades one member of the previous majority to defect, the rate could still pass 3–2 under existing rules. Under Amendment 3, it could not.

Opponents of the amendment can make the reverse argument. They can contend that local infrastructure obligations remain regardless of whether voters like a particular revenue source, and that restricting property taxes statewide could force service reductions, project delays or increases in other fees. Fernandina officials estimate that the expanded exemption could eventually remove approximately $741 million from the city’s taxable value and reduce annual revenue by roughly $3.6 million at the proposed millage rate.

Thursday’s outcome will help determine which argument appears stronger locally.

If commissioners respond to public opposition by lowering the rate and reassessing spending, they can argue that elections, referendums and public hearings already provide meaningful taxpayer control.

If they retain the higher rate despite another large showing of opposition, Amendment 3 supporters will have a current example for their contention that local officials respond to rejected taxes and fees by searching for another route to the same revenue.

A One-Hour Calendar Listing Does Not Necessarily Limit the Hearing

The special meeting is officially listed from 5 to 6 p.m. at Fernandina Beach City Hall, 204 Ash Street. That one-hour ending time appears to be a standard calendar placeholder rather than a binding limit.

The city similarly lists regular commission meetings as one-hour events even when they continue for several hours. Previous workshops have extended beyond their listed ending times, including to accommodate public comment.

Florida’s Truth in Millage law requires the commission to announce the proposed increase, explain why additional property-tax revenue is being sought and allow residents to speak and ask questions before a vote. The commission may impose reasonable limits on each speaker, but a heavily attended hearing could continue well beyond 6 p.m.

Thursday’s votes will not be the final action. The final budget and millage hearing is scheduled for September 15 at 5:05 p.m. The commission may reduce the rate before final adoption, but it cannot exceed the tentative maximum.

Still, Thursday is the most important opportunity for residents to demonstrate whether opposition to replacing paid-parking revenue with property taxes is as intense as their opposition to parking itself.

Fernandina voters have already shown that they can organize, collect signatures and deliver an unmistakable verdict at the ballot box. The question now is whether City Hall will treat that verdict as a demand to reconsider its spending and project schedule—or merely as an instruction to find another way to collect the money.