A.G. Gancarski
The highlight of Monday afternoon’s St. Johns River Ferry Commission meeting, without question, was the review of the proposed transfer agreement between the city of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Transportation Authority. There have been many twists and turns, yet it appears that the two parties are on track for a March 31 transfer.
Though it logistically could have been done earlier (the JTA proposal document set up a date range between mid January and early February, after haulout and certificate of inspection were completed), March 31 was proposed by Committee Chairman John Crescimbeni as being the cleanest date for accounting purposes.
To be sure, there are some caveats to the working framework. One such: the transfer agreement would have to be approved by City Council and the JTA board by September 30, according to the proposal. It would take extraordinary action to make that happen.
A second caveat: the JTA proposal that any overage above the $1.8M expected cost of the haulout would be paid by the COJ. Crescimbeni said that would be a “tough sell” for the emergency cycle legislation that would be necessary to get this legislation out of Council by the end of September.
A non-caveat: if there are cost savings below $1.8M, the monies would be allocated to fender and slipwall work, according to the working agreement.
JTA proposed that they pay the city 60 days after the receipt of the haulout completion notice; the counterproposal, which would include the city advancing funds and invoicing as remitted, seemed to be acceptable.
As advanced in previous meetings, JTA would make a monthly payment of $33,333 to the Mayport Ferry subfund each month from October until the March transfer.
The two parties will collaborate on Federal Transit Administration requirements, including the ferry fender system. The useful life of the ferry fender system would extend through 2036, which is also when the Interlocal Agreement is poised to terminate.
There were some points of disagreement. The proposed agreement referred to responsibility for capital costs being subject to non-binding mediation, to which Crescimbeni said that there would certainly be council discussion on that.
While there is language in the agreement that almost certainly will be tightened up, the mood in the room was convivial.
