Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
February 9, 2017 2:31 p.m.
Fernandina Beach Municipal Airport is a little more than a year away from seeing major change with the construction of an airport welcome center scheduled for completion and occupancy around April 2018. The projected cost for the welcome center is $2.4-2.6M; the entire airport upgrade project is estimated around $4M.
The facility will be financed with grants, money from the airport enterprise fund, and additional financial support from 8 Flags Aviation, the newest Fixed Base Operator (FBO). The city’s share of the project — $200K – will go toward basic interior finishing and fixtures. However, 8Flags Aviation has indicated a willingness to upgrade the interior finishing at its expense with city approval.
Sam Lane, chair of the city’s Airport Advisory Commission (AAC), updated the Fernandina Beach City Commission with a status report at the FBCC’s February 7, 2017 Regular Meeting. Lane reported that at this time the construction bid process is on track and the project is within budget. However, he advised the city to be prepared to prioritize some cuts to the project, should the bids come in higher than anticipated.
Bid documents were issued on February 1, and will be opened on March 8. Lane said that the award will be based on best value and hopefully approved by the FBCC at its March 21 Regular Meeting.
Lane presented the current elevation drawings prepared by Passero Associates design team. These drawings incorporate input from the AAC and city staff.
City Manager Dale Martin will provide project oversight. City Engineer Andre Desilet, who reported to his new position in the city on February 3, will provide sporadic engineering oversight. Passero Associates will serve as the City Manager’s representative, generally to ensure that contract requirements are being met. They will also serve as a daily presence to sniff out problems and risks, according to Lane.
Lane raised potential environmental risks associated with construction. He expressed concern that the Navy may have buried fuel tanks on the site before abandoning their island presence after World War II. While there is no evidence to support this action at the Fernandina Beach airport, it is known that they did bury fuel tanks on at least one other abandoned site in Brunswick, Georgia.
Lane warned that if digging for footers reveals contaminated or environmentally sensitive waste, the project start could be significantly delayed. He reminded commissioners that a former dumpsite was found after the sale of FPU property directly across Airport Road. He suggested that if such material can be found now, the city could deal with it before construction work begins.
Passero project representative Andrew Holesko weighed in, responding to Vice Mayor Len Kreger’s concerns about the potential for contaminated materials on the construction site. He said his firm has already performed borings on site to detect contamination and to determine soil stability. Passero also conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Audit, which did not produce a recommendation for additional test pits. Passero recommended some additional test pits at a cost around $10K, suggesting that the city could do some of this testing on its own. “It’s just one more item,” he said. “We wouldn’t want to open up the ground and find a problem. It’s one more thing to reduce risk.”
Commissioner Roy Smith argued that the problem with Passero’s recommended approach is that test pits are hit-or-miss propositions. They do not guarantee that several feet away from the pit a problem may exist. Passero agreed with Smith.
No decision was made during the meeting regarding additional test pits.
Commissioners accepted the report and asked the City Manager to work on a prioritized list of possible cuts to the projects that could be made if needed to keep the project on budget.
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.
Not discussed, and perhaps purposefully so, was the issue raised by Sam that due to McGill exercising their leaseholder rights and not providing the City an easement on their ramp area that the face of the building facing the runways cannot be completed until the McGill lease runs out in April 2018. It would be informative to know how much of the building can be completed. I believe Sam indicated that the “Quonset hut” building would be used until the main building can be completed but given that the hut is an additive item to the bid (#3) one wonders if that will survive the budget cuts that seemed to be likely. The new facility will be a great improvement.
It continues to be very difficult to understand how this project remains on the list of things “to do” for the city of FB. Why is this necessary? Is there an expansion of our airport coming that is not being disclosed? Would it not be more appropriate to channel this money into infrastructure improvements like drainage or repairs to the marina or other improvements to the marina? I do just not get this project at all. Who (or perhaps more correctly, what) are we welcoming to FB that cannot be handled with the current facilities?
Why should we taxpayers be required to contribute (listed as $200 K in this article) to this building project that benefits primarily those well-to-do people who fly in and out of this small airport?
With Mr. Lane’s, Warnings and Concerns both here and in the News Leader. of Potential cost overrides of this ( You can call it anything you want,) But it’s an “Airport Terminal” that welcomes people to Amelia Island. Cost overrides, may literally be the cause of “Clipping its Wings”, Which may not be a bad idea. I do have to say, from a Front on View, Looks OK. Just wondering what people will wind up calling it.????
Seems the original estimate for this fiasco was something like $1.25M with most of that coming from non city sources via grants or as the proponents said: free money we had to use or lose. Rule of thumb, whenever it is free, always wait till the final cost to determine exactly how much the free money will cost. Now through a complicated arrangement of loans, advances, rent rebates, and perhaps a lotto win, the current estimate is $4M, plus or minus 20%. By the way, the estimate reviewed by a consultant to determine its sufficiency suggested uncertainty of what went into the estimate. Wow.
The city is heading to expend perhaps as much as $4.8M yet has anyone asked what is the ROI besides obtaining a terminal at the airport which is eye catching? Has anyone considered why we need an almost $5M terminal in the first place?
If the desire to build this terminal is to increase airport traffic and revenue, what are those estimates based upon as the airport has no tower and its runways cannot sustain commercial traffic (thank God). Is the idea of this terminal to just look good from 10000 feet? Is it to house emergency offices? By the way, if the idea is to increase traffic, has any consideration been given to those who live in the flight paths? Actually no.
I think there are many questions that have not been resolved and perhaps have been pushed aside as the ultimatum to either use the grant or lose it became the prime motivator.
Meanwhile, the project is steaming along. 30 days to respond to a request for bids, seems a bit quick turnaround, almost as if the plan is to get awarded ahead of change orders.
My advice would be to give up on trying to turn this 1000 acre albatross into a gold egg laying hen. The alchemy of using “free money” to change its composition just does not pass a test of logic.