Reynolds Park's future use draws discussion
Clay Today  |  March 17, 2010  |   4 Comments
 

By Bob Henderson

Correspondent

GREEN COVE SPRINGS – Seated around a conference table Monday, March 15, Green Cove Springs City Council members and staff met once again with Reynolds Park representatives.

Again they tackled the issues involved in clearing the way for a massive development envisioned for the Reynolds Park and Clay Port properties. Two of the three items on the special workshop agenda concerned a pending Land Use Plan amendment and consumed more than 80 percent of the three-hour session.

Roughly two years ago Reynolds representatives approached City staff with an ambitious plan for redevelopment of the former naval air station and port along both sides of SR 16 East. Encompassing more than 1700 acres, the proposal includes residential areas, commercial and office development, industrial development and, of course, recreational, conservation and government-related uses. The project, when complete, will be large enough and diversified enough as to constitute a "city-within-the-city."

The scope of the proposal is far beyond anything the City has encountered before and is not addressed in the City’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM). To even begin consideration of the plan necessitated invention of a brand new land use category. Densities, uses, locations of uses in relation to one another and provision of basic services all had to be considered. It took hours of negotiations, returns to the drawing board and more negotiations between the City and Reynolds before they had finally hammered out a document that could be submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for its approval and/or comment.

The FLUM amendment was returned by DCA generally approved but with a few recommendations. Unfortunately, in the meantime other questions had arisen and the parties to the proposal found themselves facing each other again across the conference table.

Because the development is so large and so new to the City, it was necessary to retain planning, electricity, water and wastewater consultants and expert legal counsel to guide staff through the thorny path of creating something entirely new. Costs of all these consultants and counsel far exceeded the fees usually charged by the City for FLUM amendments and City Manager Don Bowles asked the applicant to pay the overage.

Monday evening, Reynolds Counsel Rob Bradley delivered a check for $24,845.50 to the Council and committed to another $5,000 for planning and legal services. The applicant also offered additional funds for future electric and wastewater fees but tied them to provision for credits for these fees.

City Attorney Jim Arnold advised the Council to accept the offer with one exception; change the $5,000 to $10,000 because the money had already been spent. "We’re not recommending credits, of course," he said. Council agreed.

Bradley explained that Reynolds was willing to pay for planning and legal consultants but not electricity and wastewater because those infrastructures, "…are not related to growth management."

Bowles disagreed. He said the City would not be facing provision of expensive electric infrastructure if the proposed development had not arisen.

"We can debate the electric issue," Councilperson Bob Page said, "but the wastewater issue is part of growth management and has merit to discuss as to how to share the costs."

Electricity continued to be the sticking point.

Bradley repeated, "Electric infrastructure is not a growth management issue but the City cannot supply electricity at present."

He continued, "We are this close to having a use people have been talking about for 30 years. It would be a shame if the FLUM goes down on the electric issue."

Electric Consultant Ed Wisser suggested the Council might want to consider a "Contribution in aid of construction," as provided for in State legislation.

Vice-Mayor Ron Snow objected that the current customer would not want to foot the bill and Wisser replied that phased construction would considerably reduce the impact.

Councilperson Mike Kelter said he would like to, "…ask the attorneys, planners and the family to help."

Following a decision to table the item to a public hearing scheduled for 5 p.m. Tuesday, March 30, Councilperson John Buchanan cautioned council members to consider not only the upfront costs of Reynolds redevelopment but the millions of dollars a year in taxes that the City would receive.

In a final action, the Council tabled discussion of an employment contract with the City Manager to 5:30 p.m. April 7

At a regular meeting the next evening, March 16, the Council:

• Agreed to a request from Marilyn Haddock to name SR 16 East "Leonard C. Taylor Parkway" in honor of the founder of Taylor Concrete;

• Approved, on first reading, ordinances modifying water and wastewater rates and;

• Approved schematic design plans for a new police station and payment of $30,612 for them.

 
 

Rate Reynolds Park's future use draws discussion

2.5 stars Ave. rating: 2.5 from 2 votes.
  

Visitor Comments »

ClayCat
March 17th 2010 - 1:18PM
'the proposal includes residential areas, commercial and office development, industrial development and, of course, recreational, conservation' Sure build more houses, as many developments in Clay sit half vacant and/or full of foreclosed properties flooding the housing market. Also who wants to live within eyesight of a bunch of run down WW2 buildings and industrial equipment anyway? Just sounds like a way to shovel money into a sinking economy at the expense of the taxpayers!
 
concerned cit
March 17th 2010 - 8:57PM
John Buchanan's enthusiam for this project is frightening. Where are all the buyers for these condos, etc.? If we build it will they come and pay the costs? Our small city is not in a position to pay for an electric infastructure of this magnitude. We can't bet the farm on dreams and speculation in an economy as slow and volitle as the one we are experiencing. What guarantees do we have that this project will be built immedialtely and that condos and time shares will sell? It seems foolish at a time when so many people are in the process of foreclosing on beach front condos. If I heard our city engineers correctly, our electric rates could go through the roof. We need to sell off this portion of our electric company rather than put our citizens at risk of having enormous rate increases in their electric bills. We need to rely on the wisdom of more experienced, rational councilmen such as Bob Page who seems to think things through.
 
Do It
March 17th 2010 - 10:31PM
The city needs to take advantage of this great opportunity. Something of this magnitude may not present its self again for another 50 years. This is an opportunity to grow the local economy of Green Cove Springs and any council member who doesn’t make this happen A.S.A.P. does not have the best interests of the city in mind
 
gcsnative
March 18th 2010 - 4:26PM
does anyone else remember how reynolds lied to the city to get annexed? the 3 industries with over 100 jobs apiece that wanted to come in, but how they didn't have the electrical and wastewater capacity for them? How they were "willing" to be annexed if the city would do a total upgrade of their electrical system and hook them into the city's wastewater treatment? Of course none of those industries ever materialized, and the city in 25 years has not recouped their money. Maybe the city should start listening to that woman that keeps showing up at meetings with all the figures and information on the base. why do they let the reynolds family representatives talk all they want and keep shutting her down? She'd even figured all the taxes the reynold's family had paid and what the upgrades and changes they wanted would cost the citizens. Maybe there is a hidden agenda with wanting to get this all taken care of before the city election
 
 
Submit a comment:
name:
(15 chars max)
comment:

 
Resources
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
 
ADVERTISEMENT
 
ADVERTISEMENT