Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter – News Analyst
January 9, 2017 10:00 a.m.
Andrew Holesko of Passero Associates, LLC, the city’s airport consultants, updated Fernandina Beach City Commissioners (FBCC) and audience members during the FBCC’s January 3, 2017 Regular Meeting on the status of the proposed municipal airport welcome center. Holesko presented a brief slide presentation showing that the project has evolved from the general concept approved last year. Holesko reported that site design is about 60 percent complete and building design is about 30 percent complete.
While the schedule for the design/bid award has slipped by a month, the occupancy date remains as originally planned: March 2018.
The overall concept for the building is the F4U-Corsair, which once flew out of the airport as part of World War II training. However, construction drawings show that the concept has morphed into a more conventional building seen from the ground, while the view from overhead more resembles a plane.
The children’s educational area, once presented as a concept, is not currently included in the plan.
Cost estimating is currently underway. Holesko reported that interior design is currently limited to very basic finishes. He said that the Fixed Base Operator is interested in some upgraded finishes and options and may be willing to pay for such options or participate in cost sharing.
“We want to make sure that we bring the city some flexible bids so we can put those various pieces together to make the budget work,” Holesko said. Sources of funding are listed below:
Vice Mayor Len Kreger, FBCC liaison to the Airport Advisory Commission (AAC), expressed confusion over discrepancies in the current plan from the last plan presented to and approved by the AAC. He was concerned that dates in the plan appear to have begun slipping. Holesko explained that while the new Fixed Base Operator had been involved in developing the plan, the new airport manager had just gotten involved this fall. He said that with her experience she added value to the plans, thereby justifying the month of slippage in time before going to bid. “It would be very difficult for us [Passero Associates] as your airport consultants not to allow your airport manager to have input into these plans,” Holesko said. “That’s what happened in the October-November period. We did make sure that we were not pushing the occupation time out further.”
Kreger asked that during the next update in March, the FBCC also hear from the AAC chair and the airport manager.
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.
Perhaps you should have just gone with McGill??!!!
I was under the impression the FDOT grant was to build a CAT IV or V operations center. Does anyone know if the design incorporates those requirements and if not will the FDOT funds still be available?
And why is the city spending additional funds to build a Disney like structure? I am sure a professional looking business oriented building would be more appropriate and cost less to build.
Hear, hear!
Although cute I’m pretty sure this design will not age well. Are we going to have our own “Warbirds” hangering in Fernandina? I expect we would prefer to attract professional people whose taste probably doesn’t run to the “roadside attraction” type of building.
Very interesting . . .
Mr. Holesko has said many times that construction of the new FBO would in no way impact the ability of McGill Aviation to conduct business. However, the city has recently requested a 60′ x 250′ easement across a section of McGill Aviation’s ramp (eliminating 12 aircraft parking spaces). How can that not impact McGill Aviation’s business?
Furthermore, Mr. Holesko has recently stated that without the easement, which has not/will not be granted, the new FBO project would have to be postponed until AFTER the expiration of the McGill lease in March of 2018. How can he then state that the project—already one month behind—is “on schedule?”
On the subject of the welcome center, some government grant money was supposed to be awarded to go towards a building that could be used as a “command center” in case of natural disaster. Yet under the purposes of the building in Mr. Holesko’s presentation, there was no mention at all of a command center function (though the new FBO featured prominently), nor does it appear that the current building design can function in that capacity. Is that money going to be returned?
To add even more confusion to the issue, the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 11 January, that was to decide who is awarded the contract for the airport consulting business for the next five years has suddenly been canceled, one day after the airport manager was terminated.
With all the questionable inconsistencies I wonder if Passero Associates is the best frim for the city’s airport consultant. I also wonder if Mr. Martin could provide a logical explanation for these interesting events.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
I emailed Mr. Martin and his quick reply was the 11 January meeting was canceled to allow for discussion at the Airport Advisory Committee meeting on 12 January. Thank you, Mr. Martin.
I would encourage anyone with an interest in the airport to attend the AAC meeting at city hall, 6:00 pm.
In regards to the aforementioned “easement” that Mr. Gray speaks of, I have spoken with the now former airport manager beginning in September about the City’s need for some of McGill Aviation’s leasehold for this new project. I politely expressed my displeasure of the idea and told her we were not inclined to do so.
The City Manager then sent me a letter in December asking me the same. I am attaching my response to him since this issue has now become part of the public discourse.
January 4, 2017
Dear Mr. City Manager:
We have received your letter which seems to describe an “offer”. We respectfully reject it. I have verbally informed the City’s Airport Manager of this rejection several times.
Your proposal reduces our leasehold (aircraft parking ramp) in exchange for our right to use other airport pavement. The current FBO-ULA, grants us both: (1) an exclusive leasehold (Art. IV) and quiet enjoyment (Art. XIV); and also, (2) the non-exclusive right to use other portions of the airport (Art. III, “APFAL”). For almost 19 years, our course of dealing with the City has involved the use of such APFAL. In sum, you are proposing that we trade one of our contract rights for the other. This would be a unilateral sacrifice by us for the remainder of our FBO-ULA, that is intended only to accommodate the City and benefit third parties at our expense. Thus, we do not consider your proposal to be an “offer” at all. We do, however, thank you for your letter which stands as the City’s first written recognition of our leasehold rights.
You may be aware that before your administration, the City unilaterraly took about 35% of our leasehold for at least three separate projects. The City followed Airport Consultant Andrew Holseko’s advice that it had the right to take our leasehold as it saw fit under FBO-ULA, Art. II. Following that advice ultimately resulted in an injunction, an arbitration award, and several court orders against the City. In the end, the City was ordered to pay damages (over $700,000) and both the City’s and our attorney fees (over $3,000,000), The City spent more than $3.7 million that might have been spent on positive airport development but instead squandered the public funds defending Andrew Holesko’s position that the Arbitration found to be “preposterous” (Award p. 141-142).
Before your arrival, Andrew Holesko, spoke on behalf of the City in multiple forums, giving assurances and repeated further assurances that the new terminal project would in no way impact the current FBO operations. At the same time, I need to add that we are not surprised. This seems to be just one more example of the way in which Andrew Holesko and his firm conduct themselves which was recognized by the Arbitrator when he found that their services for City included work that was neither properly designed, sequenced, managed, nor constructed (Award p. 169-170).
In conclusion, we find your proposal, in fact, offers us nothing that we do not already possess. Accordingly, our answer is: no. Indeed, your proposal raises the prospect of the City once again interfering with our business operations and breaching our agreement; and perhaps acting in contempt of previous court orders, and current federal airport law. We do not understand why the City cannot find a “work around” to the problem it appears to have created for itself. This could easily be done by competent construction planning and management. Finally, we do not regard the involvement of Andrew Holesko in yet another airport boondoggle as a coincidence.
The designer should go back to the drawing board. I was unaware that the design rendered above was approved by the City Council in June. As Mr Adams points out, a professional looking building that is hurricane resistant would be less expensive to build and still satisfy the needs of most users: Fuel, food, flight planning and restrooms.