Submitted by Tammi Bach
Attorney for the City of Fernandina Beach
October 22, 2015 10:33 a.m.
Sean P. McGill
McGill Aviation Corporation
650 Airport Road
Fernandina Beach, FL 32034
RE: Invitation for FBO Ground Lease Proposal
Dear Sean:
As you know, Eight Flags Aviation, LLC (“Eight Flags”) was awarded RFP 2015-101.2, and the City plans to construct a new Welcome Center by 2018. The City Commission approved a ground lease agreement with Eight Flags Aviation on October 20, 2015 which in 201 8 will include some of the area that McGill Aviation now leases from the City. The City Commission has directed me to send McGill Aviation this letter formally inviting McGill Aviation to submit a proposal to the City for a new ground lease agreement and provision of FBO services at an available location at the Fernandina Beach Municipal Airport in the north and/or east areas.
The City understands that McGill Aviation has a current, valid ground lease agreement that will expire in March 2018. The purpose of this letter is to invite McGill Aviation to begin negotiations for a new ground lease agreement that could become effective upon expiration of your current ground lease or sooner.
The City is able and willing to negotiate a new ground lease rental rate with McGill Aviation including possible rent credits that account for capital improvements investments and site preparation under a new ground lease agreement. We look forward to continuing our relationship with McGill Aviation as an FBO on the airfield. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Tammi E. Bach City Attorney
October 21, 2015
Just because the City continues to publically state facts that are materially incorrect, does not make it the truth. I find it amusing that the City is now using the Fernandina Observer to help create a record that they want McGill Aviation to continue at the airport, despite just voting to give 100% of McGill Aviation’s investment at the airport to a competitor who has stated that it is his plan to bulldoze it. That has nothing to do with being selected as the winner of an RFP and everything to do with getting rid of McGill.
It is also interesting to note that this was sent to the Fernandina Observer before it has even been received by me. If the City wants to negotiate in public, fine with me. McGill Aviation will respond further to this letter at time and manner of our choosing.
The letter to McGill Aviation was dated 10/21/2015. On 10/22/15 at 9:22 a.m., I received an email from City Attorney Tammi Bach. The email was also sent to local media outlets.
McGill Aviation received the certified letter this Friday, October 23 at 4:05PM. The City could easily have emailed it to its intended recipient at the same time of sending it to the press.
Sean, you are correct about “establishing a record”. Why else send a letter certified? It could have easily been delivered in person over a distance of about 5 miles. No, certified is nothing but an attorney’s tactics.
I have tried to understand this dispute. Really. I have. I kept thinking it must be too complicated for me to follow. Having read the two articles in the paper this morning, I now think I get it. McGill Aviation is angry because they lost.
The end.
Trudie,
You could be correct or perhaps it could be as some contend McGill lost the bid as a result for winning a suit some years ago. So, it could be a coincidence or they straight up lost the bid. It seems to me McGill has made some interesting observations which should not be dismissed as a matter of sour grapes. If it gets beyond the administrative award stages and into court, perhaps we will all have the answer.
I have been following this issue a bit closer than you apparently. For example, I have been concerned specifically about the need for an elaborate terminal facility. An interesting facet to this award, and one which has garnered little interest, was the recasting a building from that of a terminal to that of a “Welcome Center”. Was this done to obtain public support or to obfuscate something else?
IMO, those next up for a coincidence or obfuscation will be those who successfully fought the airport runway expansion. A longer runway(s) will be the next up project to be foisted upon the island. Prior administrations were receptive to residents’ concerns but today unbridled economic development compounded with nebulous safety “upgrade” issues I predict will win the day.
Vince, in reference to your “longer runway(s)” comment, the length of the runways at the Fernandina Beach Municipal Airport does not determine the size of aircraft that can land there. The determining factor is the load bearing capabilities of the runways. There already exists a runway (4/22) which is long enough to handle a Boeing 737. However, the load bearing capability of that, and every other runway is not sufficient to handle one. The longest runway at the airport would have to be completely torn up, re-bedded and paved with concrete strong enough to handle the increased weight. I don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future.
Mike,
I did not allude to nor state anything about size of aircraft. I know the load factors are not sufficient to accommodate 737s etc. Longer runways allow planes currently accommodated to land and take off with maximum load. Perhaps the idea is to accommodate some smaller turbo props which would be able to operate here i.e. the Embraer EMB 120? If Hilton Head is able to get by on a 4300 ft runway, I don’t see why we need expand ours beyond the approximate 5000 feet we have now.
Well-stated, Vince. Whenever you extend a runway to help the marginal aircraft become primary (target) aircraft, there will always be additional sub-marginal aircraft ready to move up into the marginal category. The primary result (as proponents have repeatedly stated) is increased air traffic.
What a despicable way to negotiate. Awarding a contract to new tenant in order to build a new facility on exactly the same spot that is currently leased is unbelievable. Maybe no one at City Hall looked at the aerial and saw that the airport is 85% vacant. This confirms the shocking conversation I had when negotiating for another airport tenant in 2012. Michael Cymbor and Tammi Bach and I were discussing another tenants problems and when the McGill lawsuit was mentioned Mr. Cymbor blurted out “They will never get renewed when their lease expires”. Ms. Bach smiled and nodded. It was quite obvious then and even more obvious today that the City officials were not accepting responsibility for their mishandling of the lease with McGill and the verdict and that they intended to ultimately get revenge. This is not the way a government should ever conduct itself. Ms. Bach is a disgrace to the legal profession. It is time for the new commissioners to wake up, smell the coffee and begin a new era of open and honest government.
Let me see if I’ve got this right. It seems like the City is leasing to 8 Flags most of what is presently leased to McGill but 8 Flags can’t use the property until McGill’s lease is up which is sometime in 2018. 8 Flags will build a new FBO and another Welcome Center that is not needed similar to the unused Welcome Center that was built at the Marina. If I remember correctly the City’s own Aviation Advisory Committee suggested two private FBOs, each with their own welcome center, and the city building a separate Cat 5 Administrative building. Now, the City is welcoming McGill to lease the east part of the ramp, next to McGill’s existing leasehold, the part of the ramp that 8 Flags wanted to lease over two years ago. It seems like this entire issue is because the part time Airport Manager, at that time, was dragging his heels until the FAA politely (and firmly) reminded him that an FBO cannot have a monopoly at our airport and the City has to deal with any entity that wants to open a second FBO on the field. It’s my feeling that all of this issue would have been resolved years ago if the City had listened to the many voices that suggested a professionally trained, full time Airport Manager with a degree in Aviation Management. This is all strange and bizarre! It also appears to me that the City has cooked up a new batch of Goverment Kool Aid.
Some time ago when McGill won its lawsuit against the City I remember thinking “how will the City get even?”. Because that’s how Ms. Bach and her client, the City of Fernandina Beach operate. To recap Bach’s approach to the law; first, when a citizen brings the law to the attention of the City ignore the law. Then, when someone sues hire a private law firm and make sure the City litigates vigorously, expensively and ineffectually. When the City loses, hire another law firm and appeal. In the process make lots of motions and spend a ton of citizens’ money the only purpose of which is to financially exhaust the opposition. When the City loses on all those actions hire a third law firm to explore “innovative” tactics. Why not, it’s only citizens’ money! Finally, in an effort “to save taxpayer funds” agree to discuss a settlement for which another law firm is required. Then, the City finally settles having spent enormous amounts of citizens’ money. Finally, of course, Attorney Bach and City management have the coup de grace; Get even! And Phil Griffin’s comments corroborate my suspicion that Bach and the City always intended to Get Even with McGill.
The same thing happened on the impact fee law suit. We told the City they were violating the law which Bach, the City Manager and the City commissioners ignored. We litigated, they tried to change venue, filed senseless motions, hired lots of law firms and appealed their inevitable losses. After three years plus we settled and by that time our citizens were out about $4 million. In the quiet before Christmas 2014 before the ink was dry on the settlement the City sole sourced for $24,500 (state law requires competition for a contract over $25,000) to a new consultant and reinstated the illegal impact fees. This time they called them “capacity fees”. They Got Even! Anyone see a pattern here? Oh, I almost forgot, your City commission then voted Ms. Bach a raise for her outstanding work.
There is zero commitment to public service among City managers. It is all about control and when that control is challenged they will Get Even! That’s what passes for public service in Fernandina. Ms. Bach is not so much the City’s counsel as she is its consigliere.
I see nothing wrong with a second FBO at the airport if they have the financial resources to assume the risks and build their own (separate) facility. If the potential business is there, then the competition between FBOs will promote better service and (potentially) lower costs for the aviation community. Adding a second FBO doesn’t necessarily mean more aviation revenue for the City, it just means that the existing business gets divided between two parties. Maybe 8 Flags bid $1.2 m based on the assumption that they would end up with the whole pie.
That said, I do wonder why McGill was bidding to be the “second” FBO if the City intended that there would always be two FBOs at the airport. It seems obvious that the City’s true intention was to end up with a single FBO leasing (essentially) the same property. And – why would the winning bidder get the benefit of the new Welcome Center rather than both FBOs sharing the space? Just asking.
Welcome Center? I guess if you want to get the Federal funding, you can’t call it a City office building even though the blueprint seems to indicate that 30% -40% is FBO offices, 30% is solely City offices and much of the rest of the facilities are designed to be shared between the City and the FBO. I’m not sure why the FBO needs a 14-person conference room in addition to their generous office space. Maybe this (or some of the FBO space) will be converted to a City Emergency Communications Center after the Feds have paid for it.
I’ve rented cars at the current (McGill) building 15-20 times in the past few years. It’s nicely kept up but NOT a hub of activity. Only once have I observed a couple of corporate pilots waiting for a ride downtown. The rest of the time, the public area seems to serve as a break area for staff during less busy times. Who determined the need for a new facility when the current one seems to be under-utilized much of the time? Then again, the Welcome Center might be a good deal since it’s being paid for with someone else’s money. Who could resist?