Fernandina Beach workshop pivots to Segment 1 as consultants revise seawall plans and seek project‑management scope

At a Feb. 4 workshop, the Fernandina Beach City Commission heard a detailed update on waterfront seawall plans from Kimley‑Horn and discussed prioritizing Segment 1 for near‑term construction while the team resolves permitting and design gaps for other stretches.

Corey Sall, project manager with Kimley‑Horn, told the commission the design team had advanced 90% plans for much of the project but ran into substantive permitting questions from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about the portion of the wall shown in Segment 5. "We did receive a request for additional information from the Corps, largely highlighted by the concerns about putting the wall in Segment 5 that far into the water," Sall said, describing meetings with Corps reviewers and subsequent adjustments to alignments to reduce wetland and Corps jurisdiction impacts.

Why it matters: storms and recurring king‑tide flooding motivated the multi‑year effort to protect downtown waterfront areas. The city previously built Segment 2 (Parking Lot C and D) in 2022 and has both a roughly $1 million design grant (recently granted a one‑year extension) and a separate $2 million construction grant with a June 2026 encumbrance window. Commissioners emphasized the need to move quickly so federal and state grant money is not lost.

Design status and options: Kimley‑Horn said Segments 2–4 largely remain viable pending permit comments, but Segment 1 and Segment 5 require additional field work. For Segment 1 the team proposed pulling the wall landward of wetland lines to avoid Corps jurisdiction, noting that doing so will affect a water main and a private fire hydrant and may require a separate utility connection permit (Nationwide 58) or relocation work. Sall said additional survey, geotechnical work and wetlands delineation are needed for Segments 1 and 5 before final construction plans can be completed.

For Segment 5 the consultants laid out three approaches: build waterward (barge work that would need property‑owner buy‑in and extensive Corps permitting), build on the west (roadside) and use temporary hydro planks over private drives during storms, or build on the east side of the road where railroad clearance, overhead utilities and drainage infrastructure present different constraints. "We don't know whether or not [the railroad] would approve this alignment," Sall said, noting the railroad indicated minimum clearances and would require a formal review.

Costs, contract work and grant timing: Staff recounted past spending and awards. The presentation said approximately $560,000 of the consultant contract (listed in the presentation as about $724,000 total) has been spent on the 90% design and subconsultant work (surveys, wetlands, geotechnical). The team also noted an earlier 2022 construction project in Parking Lots C and D cost about $2.4 million. Commissioners asked for clearer cost and schedule estimates: "So we're gonna spend almost $1,000,000 with you, and we still don't have products that we can go out to bid on," one commissioner said, pressing for a hard number for both design completion and construction cost estimates.

Project management and next steps: Multiple commissioners expressed concern that the city lacks dedicated program or project management capacity to shepherd complex, multi‑segment capital work. Commissioners asked Kimley‑Horn to provide a scoped proposal describing project‑management services and options—either as an expanded consultant role or as a recommendation for an external program manager—so responsibilities and timelines are clear. Staff and consultants said they would scope additional field work for Segments 1 and 5, coordinate required Army Corps and St. Johns River Water Management District permits (with Segment 1 likely needing only Water Management District permitting if landward of mean high water), and prepare bid packages when plans are final.

Public comments: Residents who spoke at the workshop largely supported prioritizing Segment 1 as the "low‑hanging fruit." Matt Morris said he favored the east‑side alignment on Front Street for long‑term resilience, while Mike Sharp urged caution, saying segmented construction without continuity could offer only limited protection and risk wasting money: "We're just wasting money," he said, asking at what storm level the segmented wall would be breached.

What the commission decided: The meeting produced an apparent consensus to ask consultants to draft a project‑management scope of work and to focus initial construction work on Segment 1 to preserve available construction funding and to allow progress while Corps lead times delay permitting for other segments. No formal vote was recorded at the workshop.

Next steps: Staff and consultants will return with scoped proposals for additional survey and geotechnical work, the requested project‑management scope, and refined cost estimates; the commission will weigh contracting options and monitor permit timelines to meet grant deadlines.