Below are the questions and the answers I gave them.

‍1. Why are you seeking election to the Fernandina Beach City Commission, and what qualifications, experience or perspective would you bring to the position?

I am running for City Commission because I care deeply about Fernandina Beach and want to help protect the quality of life that makes this city special. I’m not a career politician. I’m a Navy veteran, a Fernandina Beach resident of more than 24 years, a Nassau County resident of more than 35 years, and someone who has spent a lot of time volunteering and working with people in this community.

I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy, where I learned leadership, accountability, problem-solving, and how to make decisions under pressure. I have also served in volunteer leadership roles, including as chairman of the Isle of Eight Flags Shrimp Festival, where I worked with large budgets, logistics, city departments, volunteers, and the public.

I would bring a practical, common-sense perspective to the Commission. I believe city government should listen to residents, be honest about priorities, and stay focused on the basics: infrastructure, public safety, fiscal responsibility, and protecting our neighborhoods, environment, and historic character. I’m running because I believe Fernandina Beach needs steady leadership, more transparency, and commissioners who put residents first instead of politics, pressure, or special interests.

‍ ‍‍ ‍2. What are the three most important issues facing Fernandina Beach over the next four years, and why?

The three biggest issues facing Fernandina Beach are infrastructure and flood protection, managing growth responsibly, and rebuilding public trust in city government.

First, the city has to stay ahead of infrastructure, drainage, stormwater, flooding, roads, and long-term maintenance. Those are not glamorous issues, but they affect every resident and every business. If we keep kicking those problems down the road, they only get more expensive.

Second, Fernandina Beach has to manage growth in a way that protects neighborhoods, historic character, traffic flow, and quality of life. Growth pressure is real, and if we are not careful, we will wake up one day and realize we have spent years approving changes that chipped away at what makes this city special.

Third, city government has to do a better job of earning trust. Residents want transparency, better communication, and confidence that decisions are being made in the public interest. People don’t expect to agree with every decision, but they do expect honesty, accountability, and a fair process.

‍ ‍3. Paid parking is on the August ballot. Do you support retaining, modifying or eliminating the paid parking program? Please explain your position.

I do not support keeping paid parking unless the voters approve it. This is a major policy decision that affects residents, downtown businesses, visitors, and the character of Fernandina Beach, and I believe the public should have the final say.

I have consistently opposed imposing downtown paid parking without voter approval. If the voters choose to eliminate it, I support that decision. If they choose to keep it, then the city has a responsibility to make sure the program is fair, transparent, and clearly tied to public benefit.

If paid parking remains in place, the revenue should stay in Fernandina Beach and be dedicated to clearly identified needs such as infrastructure, maintenance, traffic management, public safety support, and downtown improvements. Residents should be able to see where that money is going and what it is paying for.

This issue is about more than parking meters. It is about trust, priorities, and whether residents believe city government is listening. My position is simple: let the voters decide, and then respect that decision.

‍ ‍4. If voters eliminate paid parking and the city loses approximately $1 million or more in projected annual revenue, what specific spending cuts, revenue increases or budget adjustments would you support to replace that funding?

If paid parking is eliminated, I would not support immediately replacing that revenue through a tax increase. The first step should be a public review of the budget to identify what can be delayed, reduced, phased, or handled more efficiently without hurting core city services.

That means looking first at lower-priority spending, nonessential expansions, discretionary projects, consultant costs where appropriate, and capital items that can be rescheduled instead of canceled. It also means reviewing operations to find efficiencies and taking a hard look at what is truly necessary versus what would simply be nice to have.

I would also support looking at grants, user fees tied to actual service use, and other reasonable revenue options where they make sense. Not every shortfall has to be solved the same way, and not every dollar has to be replaced all at once if the city is honest about priorities.

My approach would be to protect essential services, public safety, and critical infrastructure first. The city needs to live within its means and stop acting like taxpayers are always the first answer to every budget problem.

‍ ‍5. The city remains involved in litigation regarding the proposed RYAM bioethanol plant. What is your position on the project, and how should the city proceed?

Because this matter is still in litigation, I do not think it is responsible for a candidate to pretend they can settle it with a campaign answer. My position is that the city should continue to defend its legal position, insist on compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, and keep the interests of Fernandina Beach residents front and center.

Projects of this scale should be judged carefully for their impact on surrounding neighborhoods, traffic, quality of life, environmental concerns, public safety, and long-term compatibility with the community. Residents deserve confidence that any major industrial proposal is being reviewed thoroughly and fairly.

The city should proceed in a disciplined and transparent way: follow the law, protect the city’s legal standing, communicate clearly with residents, and avoid making political decisions that undermine either due process or the public trust. My priority would be making sure Fernandina Beach has commissioners who ask hard questions, insist on accountability, and make decisions based on facts, legal standards, and the long-term interests of the city.

‍ ‍6. Fernandina Beach faces significant future capital needs. If funding is limited, what are your top three priorities and why?

If funding is limited, my top three priorities would be flood protection and stormwater infrastructure, core public infrastructure and maintenance, and public safety support.

First, flood protection and stormwater improvements have to be near the top of the list because they affect homes, businesses, downtown, and the city’s long-term financial exposure. Waiting only makes the problem more expensive.

Second, the city has to maintain and upgrade its core infrastructure: roads, drainage, utilities, sidewalks, and aging systems downtown and in our neighborhoods. Local government should not be chasing shiny new projects while basic infrastructure falls behind.

Third, I would prioritize capital needs that directly support public safety and emergency response. Residents expect dependable police, fire, and emergency services, and that requires the right equipment, facilities, and planning.

My overall approach is simple: fund the projects that protect people, property, and the long-term function of the city first. Nice-to-have projects can wait. Infrastructure, resiliency, and public safety should not.

‍ ‍ 7. Approximately $14 million may still be needed to complete the flood protection project. How should the city fund that work?

The city should use a layered funding approach rather than leaning too heavily on one source, especially property taxpayers. My first priority would be aggressively pursuing state and federal grants, resiliency funding, and any other outside infrastructure funding that may be available.

After that, the city should look at phasing the work in a way that matches available revenue and limits financial strain. If additional local funding is needed, it should be considered as part of the city’s larger capital plan so residents can see how the project fits with other obligations and priorities.

I support completing needed flood protection work, but I also believe residents deserve a clear explanation of total project costs, expected benefits, long-term maintenance obligations, and how the city intends to pay for it before major new commitments are made.

Flood protection is not a one-time discussion. It is part of a broader resilience strategy involving drainage, stormwater, seawall planning, and protection of public assets. We need to fund it responsibly, explain it honestly, and make sure we are solving real long-term problems instead of creating new financial ones.

‍ ‍ 8. Historic downtown requires substantial infrastructure investment. What should be the priorities and how should they be funded?

The priority in historic downtown should be the infrastructure people depend on every day: drainage, stormwater, roads, sidewalks, utilities, and flood resilience. If downtown is the economic and cultural heart of Fernandina Beach, then maintaining the systems that keep it functioning has to come before lower-priority or cosmetic projects.

I would also include pedestrian safety, accessibility, and long-term maintenance of public spaces, but the foundation has to be core infrastructure that protects businesses, residents, and the long-term health of downtown.

As for funding, I support a phased capital plan that identifies the most urgent needs first and ties them to realistic funding sources. The city should aggressively pursue grants and outside funding where possible, use local capital dollars carefully, and be transparent about project sequencing and cost.

Downtown matters to the whole city, but investment needs to be disciplined. We should focus first on infrastructure that protects property, improves safety, supports business activity, and preserves the long-term viability of historic downtown—not just projects that look good in a presentation.

‍ ‍ 9. What is your position on proposals to relax development regulations, including Section 1.03.05 of the Land Development Code?

I do not support broad efforts to relax development regulations in ways that weaken neighborhood protections, historic character, or the city’s ability to manage growth responsibly. The Land Development Code exists for a reason: to provide consistency, protect the public interest, and make sure development fits the character and capacity of Fernandina Beach.

That does not mean every section of the code can never be reviewed. There may be cases where a narrowly tailored change makes sense, but any proposed change should be justified publicly and measured against one basic question: does it serve the long-term interests of the city and its residents, or does it mainly benefit a short-term development objective?

When code changes affect compatibility, density, intensity, setbacks, height, neighborhood character, or infrastructure impacts, the burden should be on the applicant or sponsor to prove why the change is necessary and why it will not create unintended consequences.

My position is simple: no back-door weakening of standards. If changes are proposed, they should be transparent, limited, and clearly shown to protect Fernandina Beach rather than undermine it.

‍ ‍10. How should the city balance private property rights with neighborhood preservation, historic character and growth management?

Private property rights matter and should be respected, but they are not the only value the city has a responsibility to protect. Fernandina Beach also has an obligation to preserve neighborhood character, protect historic assets, manage growth responsibly, and make sure one property owner’s choices do not create unreasonable impacts for everyone around them.

The balance comes from clear rules, consistent enforcement, and good planning. Property owners deserve predictability and fairness, but residents also deserve confidence that development standards will not be changed casually or applied unevenly.

If a project is compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the city’s adopted standards, and does not create disproportionate impacts on traffic, drainage, infrastructure, or neighborhood character, it should receive fair consideration. If it does not, the city should not be afraid to say no.

The goal is not to stop progress. The goal is to make sure progress fits Fernandina Beach rather than slowly changing it into something residents no longer recognize.

‍ ‍11. What types of waterfront development would you support or oppose?

I support waterfront improvements that protect public access, improve resiliency, strengthen the marina and working waterfront, and give residents and visitors better access to one of Fernandina Beach’s greatest assets. That includes flood protection, marina improvements, public spaces, pedestrian access, and infrastructure upgrades that serve the city as a whole.

What I do not support is overdevelopment of the waterfront in a way that privatizes public access, overwhelms the area with inappropriate scale or intensity, or damages the character that makes Fernandina Beach unique. The waterfront should not become a place where residents feel pushed aside or where short-term commercial interests outweigh long-term community value.

Any waterfront proposal should be judged by a few basic questions: Does it improve public access? Does it fit the character of Fernandina Beach? Does it respect environmental and resiliency concerns? Does it strengthen the long-term health of the marina and downtown?

The waterfront is one of the city’s most important public assets. I support thoughtful, responsible improvements—not development for development’s sake.

‍ ‍12. Looking ahead 10 years, what would you like Fernandina Beach to look like?

Ten years from now, I want Fernandina Beach to still feel like Fernandina Beach. I want it to remain a city with strong neighborhoods, a vibrant historic downtown, a working waterfront, and a quality of life that residents are proud to protect.

I want us to be in a stronger position on infrastructure, stormwater, flood resiliency, and traffic management so we are not constantly playing catch-up. I want the city to have made smart investments in roads, drainage, public spaces, parks, and essential facilities instead of passing deferred maintenance to the next generation.

I also want Fernandina Beach to remain a place where growth is managed responsibly, not simply accepted without regard for consequences. That means protecting neighborhood character, tree canopy, environmental resources, and public access to the waterfront while still supporting a healthy local economy.

Most of all, I want residents to feel that city government is transparent, accountable, and focused on the public interest. If 10 years from now Fernandina Beach is still recognizable, financially stable, better protected from flooding, and still a place where residents come first, I would consider that success.

‍ ‍13. What should the city do about the Ybor Alvarez soccer field issue, and how should the solution be funded?

The city needs to approach the Ybor Alvarez soccer field issue with a clear understanding of both community need and taxpayer responsibility. If the current site can be preserved or extended on reasonable terms, that option should be fully evaluated. But if it is no longer realistically available, the city should stop pretending uncertainty is a plan and move forward with identifying the best alternative site.

Fernandina Beach taxpayers should not be expected to shoulder the full cost of a long-term recreation solution if a large share of the users do not live in the city and do not pay city property taxes. That does not mean the need is not real, but it does mean the funding discussion needs to be honest. The city should evaluate actual usage, who benefits, long-term maintenance costs, and whether county, regional, or user-supported funding should be part of the solution.

I would support a practical plan that serves local families, is financially realistic, and does not come at the expense of higher-priority infrastructure needs. Funding should be built through recreation dollars, partnerships, grants, and fair cost-sharing—not by simply sending the full bill to Fernandina Beach residents.

‍ ‍14. If Ybor Alvarez is no longer available, which alternative would you support first and why?

If Ybor Alvarez is no longer available, I would support first pursuing the alternative that provides the best long-term value for Fernandina Beach residents, not simply the quickest political answer. That means evaluating options based on location, accessibility, cost, long-term maintenance, environmental impact, and whether the facility can serve multiple community needs rather than just solve one short-term problem.

I would want the city to compare alternatives in a public, side-by-side way so residents can see the tradeoffs clearly. The right answer may not be the cheapest parcel or the fastest deal if it creates ongoing maintenance costs, poor access, or future conflicts with surrounding uses.

I also believe the city needs to be honest about who the facility is intended to serve and who should help pay for it. If the majority of users are not city taxpayers, that should be part of the funding and partnership discussion.

My first choice would be the option that is practical, sustainable, and fair to city residents—one that meets recreational needs without creating a long-term financial burden the city will regret later.

‍ ‍15. What should Fernandina Beach’s long-term parks and recreation strategy be?

Fernandina Beach’s long-term parks and recreation strategy should focus on maintaining and improving what we already have, making smart additions where there is a clear need, and making sure limited city dollars are used in a way that benefits residents across the community.

That means first taking care of existing parks, fields, playgrounds, and recreational facilities so they remain safe, usable, and attractive. It makes no sense to chase new projects while existing facilities fall behind.

Second, the city should make decisions based on actual community need rather than whichever project has the loudest moment. We should look at youth sports, passive recreation, waterfront access, neighborhood parks, trails, and opportunities for all ages—not just one issue at a time.

Third, the city should aggressively pursue grants, sponsorships, partnerships, and county or regional cooperation where appropriate. Not every recreation improvement has to fall entirely on city taxpayers.

A good parks strategy is not about saying yes to everything. It is about setting priorities, maintaining what we own, and investing in projects that improve quality of life for Fernandina Beach residents over the long term.

‍ ‍16. What actions should the city take regarding the airport master plan, and airport noise from flight school operations?

The city should take the airport master plan seriously, but it also needs to take seriously the concerns of residents who are affected by airport noise, especially from repeated flight school operations. Supporting the airport and respecting nearby neighborhoods are not mutually exclusive. The city has a responsibility to do both.

The master plan should be reviewed carefully to make sure it reflects realistic needs, protects the airport’s long-term function, and considers compatibility with surrounding residential areas. Noise impacts, traffic patterns, hours of operation, training activity, and communication with the public all need to be part of that discussion.

I support taking a closer look at flight school activity and whether additional operational standards, coordination, or noise-mitigation measures are appropriate. Residents should not feel ignored if repeated operations are affecting their quality of life.

The airport is an important asset, but it is not exempt from accountability. The city should work toward a balanced approach that protects the airport’s value while also addressing legitimate neighborhood concerns.

‍ ‍17. Do you believe the current bed tax distribution controlled by the county is fair? If not, what changes would you advocate?

No, I do not believe Fernandina Beach should quietly accept a bed tax distribution system if it does not fairly reflect the burden this city carries. Fernandina Beach is one of the main tourism engines in Nassau County, and our residents and taxpayers help support the downtown, waterfront, public spaces, roads, sanitation, and public safety services that visitors use every day. If the city is carrying that load, then the city deserves a fairer return.

I would support pushing for a stronger distribution formula that better reflects where tourism actually happens and where the costs actually fall. That means looking at event impacts, traffic, infrastructure wear, downtown maintenance, waterfront use, and public safety support.

Fernandina Beach should not be expected to subsidize a countywide tourism economy while having limited control over the revenue that tourism generates. My position is simple: if our city is doing the work and carrying the impact, our residents should see a fair share of the benefit.

‍ ‍18. Do you believe city government is appropriately sized for the community it serves? Why or why not?

I think the better question is whether city government is focused on the right priorities, operating efficiently, and delivering value to residents. Fernandina Beach has real responsibilities for public safety, infrastructure, planning, parks, downtown operations, and quality-of-life issues, so the city needs enough capacity to do those jobs well.

That said, I do not believe government should automatically grow just because it can. Every department, position, and program should be looked at based on need, performance, and whether it supports the city’s core mission. Residents should have confidence that staffing and spending decisions are tied to actual service demands, not simply added because that is what government tends to do.

My view is that city government should be strong where it needs to be—especially in infrastructure, public safety, planning, and financial oversight—but disciplined about expansion elsewhere. Fernandina Beach needs a city government that is responsive and capable, but also accountable and willing to justify how taxpayer dollars are being used.

‍ ‍ 19. Are there departments, programs or expenditures that should be expanded, reduced, audited or reviewed?

I believe the city should regularly review major expenditures, capital planning, consultant spending, and operational efficiency across departments instead of waiting until there is a budget shortfall or a crisis. That is just good management.

If elected, I would support a close review of capital project prioritization, outside consulting costs, and any programs or expenditures that continue year after year without a clear measurement of value to residents. I also think the city needs to make sure departments responsible for infrastructure, stormwater, planning, and financial management have the tools and staffing they need to do the job well, because underinvesting in those areas usually creates bigger costs later.

This is not about taking a chainsaw to city government. It is about accountability. Some areas may need more support, especially where they directly affect public safety, resilience, and maintenance of public assets. Other areas may need to be scaled back, reorganized, or reviewed more carefully if they are not delivering clear public benefit.

My approach would be to ask hard questions and make budget decisions based on priorities and performance rather than habit.

‍ ‍20. Should the City Commission seek to lower the property tax rate when property values rise, or use additional revenues to expand services and projects?

I do not believe the city should automatically treat rising property values as permission to spend more money. When values rise and revenue increases, the Commission should take a hard look at whether the tax rate can be held down or reduced, especially when residents are already dealing with higher housing, insurance, and everyday living costs.

At the same time, Fernandina Beach has legitimate infrastructure, flood protection, maintenance, and public safety needs that cannot simply be ignored. That is why I believe the right approach is discipline rather than autopilot.

If additional revenue is available, the city should first be transparent about its true obligations, long-term maintenance costs, and unfunded capital needs. Then it should decide whether those dollars should be used to reduce pressure on taxpayers, address critical infrastructure, or do some combination of both.

My position is that taxpayers deserve restraint, honesty, and clear priorities. The city should not spend additional revenue without being able to clearly explain why it is necessary and in the public interest.

‍ ‍21. How should the city balance new projects with long-term maintenance costs?

The city should stop treating new projects and long-term maintenance as separate conversations. Every new project comes with future operating, repair, staffing, and replacement costs, and those costs need to be part of the decision from the beginning—not discovered later when the ribbon-cutting is over and the bill shows up.

Before approving a new project, the city should identify the full life-cycle cost, how it will be maintained, what staff or equipment it will require, and whether that cost will crowd out other priorities in future budgets. If we cannot answer those questions honestly, then we are not ready to move forward.

I also believe Fernandina Beach needs to be more disciplined about taking care of the assets it already owns. Deferred maintenance is one of the most expensive habits in local government because it turns manageable repairs into major capital problems.

New projects can be worthwhile, but they should not come at the expense of roads, drainage, stormwater systems, parks, public facilities, and other core infrastructure residents already rely on.

‍ ‍22. Do you support construction of a new City Hall facility? If so, how should it be funded?

At this point, I do not view a new City Hall as one of Fernandina Beach’s top priorities. The city is facing major infrastructure, flood protection, maintenance, and resiliency needs, and I believe those issues should come first.

That does not mean City Hall should never be discussed. If there is a demonstrated operational need that cannot be addressed through renovation, reconfiguration, or other more cost-effective alternatives, then the city should evaluate it honestly and transparently. But I would not support moving forward with a new City Hall simply because it is desirable or because the idea has been around for a long time.

Before considering a new facility, I would want to see a clear public case for why it is needed, what alternatives were evaluated, what the total project and long-term operating costs would be, and what higher-priority projects would be delayed as a result.

My view is simple: flood protection, infrastructure, maintenance, and public safety come first.

‍ ‍23. Describe a situation where you changed your position after reviewing new information.

A good example was during my time as chairman of the Isle of Eight Flags Shrimp Festival. We were originally planning to do a fireworks show, and a burn ban had been modified in a way that would have allowed us to move forward. On paper, that sounded like the issue was solved. But after getting more information and looking at the broader safety picture, including weather conditions, crowd concerns, and other potential hazards, I changed my position.

Instead of forcing the original plan just because we had already invested time in it, I started looking at alternatives and ultimately decided a drone show was the safer and smarter option. I contacted a drone company and was able to negotiate the price down from roughly $60,000 to about $20,000. That was still more than our original fireworks budget, but it allowed us to put on a safe and memorable show for the public.

To me, that is what leadership looks like. You gather more information, adjust when the facts change, and make the best decision you can for the people you are responsible for.

‍ ‍24. What is one decision made by the current City Commission that you agree with and one decision you disagree with?

One decision I agree with is the city’s continued focus on flood protection and resiliency planning. Fernandina Beach cannot afford to ignore flooding, stormwater, and the vulnerability of key public infrastructure. Those are long-term issues that need attention even when the price tag is difficult.

One decision I disagree with is the way paid parking was advanced without broader public buy-in. Regardless of where someone stands on the policy itself, a program of that size and impact should have been handled in a way that built more public confidence, not less. Too many residents felt like the decision was being pushed forward without enough trust, transparency, or consensus.

For me, that gets to a larger issue in city government: it is not enough to be technically right on a policy if the process leaves residents feeling ignored or boxed in. Good government requires both sound decisions and public confidence in how those decisions are made.

‍ ‍25. How should commissioners engage with residents who strongly disagree with them?

Commissioners should engage with residents who disagree with them the same way they should engage with everyone else: respectfully, directly, and without acting like disagreement is a nuisance. In local government, people are often passionate because the decisions are personal. They affect neighborhoods, taxes, traffic, flooding, businesses, and quality of life. Residents have every right to be heard, even when the conversation is uncomfortable.

That does not mean a commissioner has to agree with everyone or change positions every time someone is upset. But it does mean listening carefully, asking questions, explaining your reasoning honestly, and being willing to admit when someone raises a point worth reconsidering.

I also think commissioners have a responsibility not to hide behind jargon, process, or canned talking points. If a resident takes the time to show up, call, write, or speak at a meeting, they deserve a straight answer.

People can handle disagreement better than they can handle being dismissed.

‍ ‍26. What is the city’s biggest financial challenge?

Fernandina Beach’s biggest financial challenge is balancing major long-term infrastructure, flood protection, and maintenance needs against limited revenue without shifting too much of the burden onto taxpayers. The city has to be honest about priorities, disciplined about spending, and careful not to defer today’s obligations into tomorrow’s bigger problems.

‍ ‍27. What is the city’s biggest opportunity?

The city’s biggest opportunity is to protect what makes Fernandina Beach special while planning more responsibly for the future. If we invest wisely in infrastructure, resiliency, and quality-of-life priorities now, we can strengthen the city without losing its character, identity, or sense of community.

‍ ‍28. What is one thing city government does well?

One thing city government does well is the work most people never think about until something goes wrong. Police, fire, sanitation, utilities, and the people who keep the city running every day do important work that often goes unnoticed when everything is functioning the way it should.

That may not be flashy, but it matters. A city earns trust by doing the basics well—keeping services running, responding when people need help, and making sure the day-to-day functions of local government are dependable. Fernandina Beach has a lot of dedicated employees who do exactly that, and they deserve credit for it.

‍ ‍29. What is one thing city government needs to improve?

City government needs to improve public trust through better communication, transparency, and clearer priorities. Residents should not feel like they are hearing about major decisions after the train has already left the station. The city needs to explain its choices more clearly and involve the public earlier in the process.