Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
October 1, 2015 5:15 p.m.
At a Special Meeting of the Fernandina Beach City Commission (FBCC) on September 29, 2015, commissioners and the public viewed the final product of a 10 month-long, publicly noticed planning process to update the Airport Master Plan, last updated in 1990. Passero Associates prepared this lengthy, detailed study under grants provided by FAA and FDOT and with broad community input from the 28-member Airport Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee (AMPTAC). The AMPTAC was established solely for this effort and consisted of members with both aeronautical and non-aeronautical backgrounds with a variety of ties to the Fernandina Beach/Amelia Island community.
After a lengthy presentation and little discussion—other than thanking the consultants and committee members–the FBCC approved the plan on a 5-0 vote. The plan will now go to the FAA and FDOT for their review and approval.
City Manager Joe Gerrity began the meeting with some comments. “This is not the city manager’s vision for the airport,” he said. “This is not Passero’s vision for the airport, nor is it the city airport manager’s vision. This is a vision that has been developed by the community.” Gerrity explained the outreach efforts made to include airport neighbors, hospitality representatives and others.
Andrew Holesko (Passero Associates Program Manager) and Theresa Prince (AMPTAC Chair) jointly introduced the plan to the FBCC. Holesko stressed that during every meeting there was a clear focus on the airport as a community asset. He said that the advisory committee comments were supportive of the technical discussion, and that committee members asked tough questions. Holesko pointed to Prince and said that on occasion, “Theresa got mad at me, made us change some things in the interests of the community.” He concluded by saying, “I think we’ve got a very good master plan that still keeps that essence of a community airport, and that the plan fits what the airport and the community would like.”
Theresa Prince explained the efforts the AMPTAC made to publicize its meetings, focus, deliberations and work product. She explained that the group took pains to avoid misleading words like “expansion.” She said that she was disappointed that it was not always well attended, although some meetings were very well attended. She spoke about the wide range of background of the people who attended meetings, ranging from airport neighbors with no real knowledge of airport operations to highly knowledgeable airport operations professionals. “Everyone was listened to,” she said. “Every time we tried to get a consensus before we moved on. We attempted to get as much input as possible before bringing this item to you.”
Zach Nelson, Senior Aviation Planner for Passero Associates provided an overview of the highlights of the lengthy master plan document. Nelson explained the nature of a master plan and that it is a federal and state requirement for every airport to insure that proper planning and funding strategies are in place.
Although master plan updates are required every 5-10 years, the age of the Fernandina Airport Plan (25 years) meant that in effect the “update” was a new plan. The new plan takes the airport vision out to 2035.
Master plan development consists of three phases: investigation, recommendation and implementation. Also included are environmental review, the development of an airport layout plan and the capital improvement plan.
Nelson showed commissioners areas within the current airport property footprint that could be used for future commercial development in future years, as well as some proposed changes in taxiway configurations and runway lengths. Also identified was a need for a road on the west side of the airport in order to access upland airport property there. The critical aircraft for the airport is and will remain the Gulfstream G-IV. This is a corporate jet, the largest aircraft making regular use of the airport. There are no plans to increase the size of the aircraft that might be accommodated at the airport.
Capital improvement plans call for an investment of $9M to make improvements over the next 5 years. However, Nelson stressed that the noise level will remain the same, with the highest volume contained within the airport property.
Richard Gray, who chairs the city’s Airport Advisory Commission (AAC), informed the FBCC that AAC representatives had attended all meetings, and that the meeting format was open. “They did not do it in the dark,” he said. He thanked Passero Associates and the AMPTAC for their work. He advised commissioners that in considering matters relating to the airport in the future, they should ask themselves two questions first: Did the matter first go to the AAC for consideration? And is the matter part of the airport master plan?”
No one from the public spoke against adopting the plan as presented.
To view the entire presentation, visit http://www.fbfl.us/index.aspx?nid=815″>click here, click on blue “Recorded City Commission Meetings,” click on “Special Meeting, Sept 29”
Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.
This is a model of community involvement – and transparent, smart planning. Excellent work by all parties.
Bob, I will agree with you about it being a “model” but my conclusion to that would be of getting a long wanted result through proper packaging.
IMO, the prime goals of this exercise were to get a master plan which would ensure development of longer runways and provide a pathway to obtain grant money to enlarge the overall facility ($9 Million?). This all piles upon the ridicules idea of building a $1.2Million terminal, er welcome center.
It seems to me those constantly driving the city authorities into the mania for development are pushing island residents who are not in the hospitality industry into a blind canyon i.e. we will have to put up with these open ended development projects with no ability to turn them them off. Know this, once the feds put grant money into a project, it cannot be reversed without paying back the grant. Here is my prediction, when this “expansion” fails, someone will propose upgrading the runways for commercial aircraft and the addition of control towers because “we know” the traffic is there, we just have to get it here.
I could wax on further about my dismay over this plan but it would just be a rehash of what I have been saying over the past 20 or so years.
Probably, Vince. But, to me – at least, it’s a better, rational alternative than doing nothing.
Vince, perhaps after your 20+ years of dire predictions that have failed to materialize you would admit you are wrong. Only one runway can be extended and commercial flights when there is a major full service airport less than 20 miles away, com’on man!
Dave, wrong about what Dave? I have been proven correct which is there is an irrational expectation of the benefits in airport development. The only thing I have omitted is an estimation of the dollar costs which will be borne by the local taxpayers
while noting the diminition in our quality of life here.
I think those of us who live here would find annoying just upgrading this facility to accommodate traffic something equal to Craig Field which now has runways of less length than does our airport now.
My overriding concern is we seem driven by the notion of development for development sake as the highest priority. The fact this facility was requested to be classified a “reliever” airport underscores my belief unbridled development is the driving force here because the point of that exercise was to gain a higher priority in obtaining grants for further development.
Lastly your basing a critique of my opinion upon an obvious hyperbole on my part about commercial airports does not reduce the importance of my observations.
Vince, you certainly are entitled to your observations and opinions (as is everyone) but I do question some of your statements. What taxpayer dollars since the airport is an enterprise fund and except for occasional debt support that is repaid, funds are not taken from the general fund? If you are referring to the FAA and FDOT grants, those are from aviation revenues solely and not general taxpayer funds.
What is the development you are so concerned about that will change the airport area? A more attractive FBO facility, enhanced plane hangars for corporate aircraft?
Dave, I have stated my primary concern is a reduced quality of life as a busier air facility will be an annoyance. You want to now dwell upon an adjunct concern of costs. I agree, capital projects are paid mostly by grant money. However, operational costs are borne by local taxpayers i.e. were there a need to increase fire services or security, the city will pay for the fire or security personnel IMO. Again, costs are not the basis of my argument primarily because I believe the projections for the need for increased runway lengths are absurd i.e. the current runways with avionic upgrades will suffice. Same for the terminal, er, welcome center.
For the purposes of comparison, a sister Island, Hilton Head, has an air facility with a runway of 4300 feet. That Island is roughly the same size with a full time population at least double ours which swells to more than five times ours in the summer season. Why do they get by on such a smaller facility given their main regional airport is 20 miles from the island? Do we wish to turn this into the same, I hope not.
Please don’t assume I wish to see the airport closed. Frankly for 50 years after world war two, the airport was a relatively quiet asset to the community. Turning it into a housing development would be more detrimental to quality of life here than the airport will ever be. Also, the financial hit the city would take on paying back the grants would be devastating.
Unfortunately around 1997 someone came up with the notion federal and state money was free so why not upgrade the airport under the premise if we make it better they will come. The city responded to a request for longer runways in 1999 with a decision to not go forward with that idea but rather to upgrade the standing facility. Apparently that did not achieve the projected traffic increases so now we have a new plan which includes a runway expansion couched in terms it is only one runway solely on airport property. Airport development for the sake of development without consideration to quality of life impacts, especially if the development is based upon the misguided notion the capital costs are mostly borne by other state or federal organization, is misguided.
This is my position and I am sticking to it.