Print
E-mail
Rate
Airport talks intensify as vote nears
 |
| THE AIRPORT RELOCATION non-binding referendum will be on the July 15 ballot for voters across Camden County to offer their opinions to the St. Marys City Council. The referendum will give city council members an insight into the community's opinion regarding possibly relocating the airport to a site selected near Woodbine off of Billyville Road. The referendum will appear on both Democrat and Republican ballots. (Tribune & Georgian photo/Rob McDearmid) |
By Rob McDearmid
As the vote nears for a non-binding referendum on the relocation of the St. Marys airport, discussion about the vote continues to grow and some new information has been discovered.
After years of the not taking a side on the airport issue, Navy representatives now say the airport is a "safety and security concern" and they are in favor of relocating the St. Marys Airport. This brings several new questions to the table less than two weeks from the July 15 referendum. Some of those questions focus on the approximate $29 million cost to federal taxpayers for moving the airport, including funding, site location and authority over the possible relocation project.
According to Ed Buczek, public affairs spokesman for Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, the Navy believes the St. Marys Airport does pose "significant security and safety concerns" relating to the base's flight pattern and nuclear materials. These concerns, which were raised shortly after the base was opened in the early 1980s, were heightened by the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Although these concerns previously had been expressed by base officials "off the record," Navy representatives would not publicly say the airport needed to be relocated.
However, in an interview Monday, Buczek said two events from last year and the St. Marys City Council's lack of action to relocate the airport have "gotten the attention of the base."
"[There were] two aircraft that went down that were utilizing the St. Marys Airport," said Buczek. "One plane went down on Douglas Drive and another had to land on Spur 40 (Charlie Smith Sr. Highway). We have issues with where the airport is located because of the proximity of the base and the high possibility of accidents related to base flight patterns.
"Moving this airport would be a win-win situation for the community, we believe. That would benefit businesses, locally, and allow room for the airport to grow," he said.
This new public stance by the Navy raises new questions about funding for the airport. As stated on the referendum, the approximate cost to relocate the airport would be $29 million to federal taxpayers. However, this cost estimate could be changing every day because fuel costs and materials costs continue to increase daily.
Funding still an issue
St. Marys Mayor Rowland Eskridge said although the Navy is now saying the airport should be moved, the Navy had told the city earlier that it did not have funding available for the project.
Representatives from Sea Island Co., which has offered to donate 500 acres for the new airport site, said they have no plans to assist with funding the relocation project.
When the issue of relocation was first raised in December 1985, Capt. Dave Hall of the U.S. Navy told the airport authority that the Navy would not support relocation efforts of the airport (at the time) saying budget restrictions and cutbacks would prohibit the funding of the project. Hall also said the Navy did not consider the risks associated with the airport's proximity to the naval base "significant enough to warrant relocation of the airport."
Relocation talks resurfaced in the mid-90s when the federal government underwent the Base Realignment and Closure process and local base supporters reiterated those safety and security concerns.
As recently as April of this year, former Navy commander Mike McKinnon addressed the city council saying that the risks associated with the airport's proximity to the airport, along with safety and security issues, were not substantial enough to force the relocation of the airport. However, McKinnon did support relocation of the airport for other reasons.
U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston said in a phone interview that he is "very interested" in Buczek's statement on behalf of the Navy.
"We are going to want to explore this new information," said Kingston. "Camden and this airport have always been a concern because of the proximity of the airport to the base. I know it was a huge issue prior to [the base realignment and closure process], but after we got through that, it appeared to go away. This definitely is a new wrinkle in this issue.
"I think the general concern of the Navy is the private aircraft taking off and landing so close to the nuclear weapons," continued Kingston. "If the Navy comes out and says that they would like to see the airport moved then we would have to look at ways of funding that. We can help them get the money, they would just have to tell us what account to put it in."
A recurring discussion
A study conducted in January 1985 by the Department of the Navy revealed that the airport's close proximity to the naval base was "above the threshold" for the risks of accidents to occur. According to Buczek, this study, coupled with the events of Sept. 11 led to the closure of runway 4-22 at the airport. Buczek said that pilots now have to "bank sharply" on approaches and take offs to avoid the 2-nautical-mile radius of restricted airspace over and near the base. Buczek said that all these issues would favor relocating the airport.
The proposed relocation site is approximately 12 miles north on property owned by the Sea Island Co. just off of Billyville Road in Woodbine. Sea Island Co. is offering to donate 500 acres of land for the construction of a new airport; the current airport occupies 263 acres, according to the airport authority. A representative of Sea Island Co. said the company owns approximately 17,500 acres in the northern portion of Camden County; most of the land owned is a joint venture with Mead Westvaco.
The proposed site for relocation would feature one 5,000-foot runway. The current airport features two runways, one that is 5,000 feet long and another that is 4,000 feet long.
When asked to disclose its reasons for having the airport relocated and its impact on its surrounding property, Sea Island Co. responded in a written statement, "Please understand that Sea Island Co. was approached by the City of St. Marys to consider making the [land] donation; we did not approach them. We have done no studies to determine the impact of an airport on property owned by the company and will not speculate as to what it could be."
Although the Sea Island Co. has not done any studies on relocating the airport, there have been numerous studies completed by the city and Navy. One of those studies, which was funded by taxpayers and initiated by the city, reveals several pieces of vital information regarding the airport relocation.
What's at stake
One of the main points brought forward by the 2005 Airport Feasibility and Site Selection Study, which was completed by consulting firm Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc., is that the airport generates approximately $1.3 million a year in revenues. The airport generates revenue through hangar rentals, fuel sales and other flight related revenues.
According to information provided by St. Marys Airport Authority chairman Dick Russell, there are several buildings currently located on airport property. Four hangars owned by Bird Aviation are located on land leased from the authority. The lease rate is minimal but the ownership of the buildings will transfer to the Airport Authority at the end of the lease period in 2028.
The hangar/fixed base operator terminal building is owned by St. Marys Aviation and is also on land leased from the authority. The lease rate is much higher because the authority already owns those buildings. The authority also owns a large hangar originally built by Gilman Paper. Like the Bird Aviation hangars, this was built on land originally leased at a minimum rate but, at the end of the lease period, it became authority property.
According to Russell, the total income realized by the airport authority from fuel flowage fees, rentals and leases and aircraft tie-down fees in 2007 was $23,312.05. Of this income, the authority spent $7774.61 for electricity, repairs and maintenance, herbicide spraying and vegetation control. The remainder of the airport's 2007 income was saved for future improvement projects.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates that airports are to be considered a public convenience and that all revenue earned by the airport should be reinvested for airport maintenance and improvement. It also requires that fees charged for airport uses and services should generally be no higher than necessary to pay the costs to the airport owner of operating, maintaining, and improving the airport; in other words, airport fees cannot be set arbitrarily high to make a profit.
According to information provided in the Airport Feasibility and Site Selection Study prepared by RS&H, "While the total economic benefit of the airport cannot be expressed in dollars, it is possible to quantify a portion of this benefit through a modeling process. When both the direct and secondary impacts are considered for on-airport aviation-related activity and air traveler visitors using general aviation, the airport supports more than an estimated 68 full-time employees, creates more than $5.9 million in expenditures locally, and provides more than $1.5 million in income to the local community.
"A general aviation airport such as St. Marys' is a significant benefit to the local community. Existence of an airport can help to sustain current employment and attract new jobs to the area. A growing and vibrant airport has the potential to accommodate additional business related activities and enhance the economic development of the community," said the study.
Unknown costs
The estimated cost of relocating the airport, according to the feasibility study, could range from $14 million to $20 million. However, it is not known whether this includes the cost of moving power lines. According to some sources with the city, it could cost up to $21 million to have the airport power lines moved and buried.
The study reveals that funding sources for the airport relocation could come from the FAA and state government. However, there would still be a 2.5-percent cost of the project that would have to come from local funding sources.
Other than funding issues for the relocation of the airport, another serious issue still remains. How is economic development for the City of St. Marys impacted if the airport is moved?
According to St. Marys City Manager Bill Shanahan, the only property directly adjacent to the airport that the city owns is the fire department and the water plant. Downtown Development Authority (DDA) director Alyce Thornhill there are approximately 52 industrially zoned acres near the airport (within the industrial park). That land could be further developed in the future for industrial prospects, she said. Thornhill said the airport is used by some industries in St. Marys and Camden County, although no specifics were provided. Thornhill said that state officials often utilize the airport to fly in for special events.
City leaders want to retain the property at the airport, if it is relocated, according to Shanahan. However, the airport authority said this is contrary to normal FAA policy.
According to Russell, FAA policy states that, if they (the FAA) fund the airport relocation, the land on which the present airport is situated must be sold, at fair market value, and all proceeds from that sale must be returned to the FAA to offset the costs of the new airport. If the City of St. Marys wishes to retain ownership of the land, it must pay the FAA a sum equal to the fair market value, Russell said.
At no cost to the city?
There are significant costs involved with hiring a specialized individual or firm to do an airport appraisal. Assistant city manager Max Tinsley estimated the cost at more than $10,000, but the city, as of this time, cannot pay for this assessment.
"We have to get someone to come in here and assess this property, but the referendum states specifically that the possible airport relocation cannot cost the taxpayers anything," said Tinsley. "So, someone or some entity has to come forward to pay for the assessment, which is the first step. If no one comes forward to pay for it, we will have to go back to city council to determine the next course of action."
Tinsley said the city cannot pay for the assessment because that would be a cost to the taxpayers. Tinsley said the next hurdle in relocating the airport would be negotiations with the FAA over the city's desire to retain ownership of the land.
"If we have to pay them the money related to that assessment and relocation, then this project cannot be done at no cost to taxpayers," said Tinsley. "So, we have a lot of things that have to be worked out in order to adhere to the referendum and resolution that the city has put forth. If the FAA makes us pay that money to them for the land, then we cannot relocate the airport at no cost to taxpayers; someone else would have to pay that money to the FAA."
An exact value of the airport and airport property was not available, according to Shanahan, because the city is currently working on having the airport appraised. According to the Camden County Tax Assessor's Office the total value of the airport is approximately $6,303,477. This value is generated from total value of land and buildings at the airport. This value reflects total value from an appraisal done in 1991 and represents 381.6 acres and includes all the acreage and building improvements that have been calculated as late as 2004. The land only is valued at $5,724,000.
Environmental impact
If the airport relocation is approved by the city council, the new site would require intensive land preparation. One of the main factors involved with developing the land would be the impact to the local ecosystem. There would be a substantial amount of wetlands mitigation that would have to be purchased to stay within Environmental Protection Agency guidelines; this could also drive up the cost of the project.
According to the Environmental Assessment study completed by the city and RS&H, "... Numerous runway airfield configurations were developed in an attempt to minimize and avoid unnecessary impacts to the wetlands system. Approximately 40 acres of high quality wetlands, 19 acres of medium quality wetlands and 14 acres of low quality wetlands will need to be filled for development.
"In addition, secondary impacts will occur as a result of disturbance to wetlands not being filled due to the topping and or removal of trees and other obstructions to meet FAA obstruction clearance requirements. Of the disturbed wetlands (not filled) wetlands, approximately 133 acres will be of high quality, approximately 15 acres will be medium quality, and approximately seven acres will be of low quality," the study continued.
All the wetlands that would be affected by the new site location for the airport are part of the Satilla River system.
Unanswered questions
When questioned about the short-term and long-term economic impact that the relocation project could have on the city, Shanahan said, "The answers to these questions are not known as of this time. Upon collecting the information to identify if it is feasible to move the airport, then would be the time to look at possible effects."
Effects that need to be studied for this possible relocation for this airport include the economic effects on St. Marys and Woodbine. Also, there should be traffic studies conducted for Woodbine to determine if there needs to be another interchange at Interstate 95 to handle possible traffic overflow in that area.
The referendum on the July 15 ballot reads, "Should the St. Marys Airport relocate 12 miles north to property owned by the Sea Island Co. at a cost of $29 million in federal tax money, provided such relocation can be accomplished without cost to the City of St. Marys?"
In essence, the referendum, although non-binding, will allow for public input for the city council, but will not determine the fate of the airport relocation proposal.
The city council, for now, appears to have the authority to relocate the airport. However, the airport authority has filed a request in Camden County Superior Court to get a declaratory judgment on which entity has the legal authority to determine the airport's fate. That hearing has not yet been scheduled.
After years of the not taking a side on the airport issue, Navy representatives now say the airport is a "safety and security concern" and they are in favor of relocating the St. Marys Airport. This brings several new questions to the table less than two weeks from the July 15 referendum. Some of those questions focus on the approximate $29 million cost to federal taxpayers for moving the airport, including funding, site location and authority over the possible relocation project.
According to Ed Buczek, public affairs spokesman for Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, the Navy believes the St. Marys Airport does pose "significant security and safety concerns" relating to the base's flight pattern and nuclear materials. These concerns, which were raised shortly after the base was opened in the early 1980s, were heightened by the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Although these concerns previously had been expressed by base officials "off the record," Navy representatives would not publicly say the airport needed to be relocated.
However, in an interview Monday, Buczek said two events from last year and the St. Marys City Council's lack of action to relocate the airport have "gotten the attention of the base."
"[There were] two aircraft that went down that were utilizing the St. Marys Airport," said Buczek. "One plane went down on Douglas Drive and another had to land on Spur 40 (Charlie Smith Sr. Highway). We have issues with where the airport is located because of the proximity of the base and the high possibility of accidents related to base flight patterns.
"Moving this airport would be a win-win situation for the community, we believe. That would benefit businesses, locally, and allow room for the airport to grow," he said.
This new public stance by the Navy raises new questions about funding for the airport. As stated on the referendum, the approximate cost to relocate the airport would be $29 million to federal taxpayers. However, this cost estimate could be changing every day because fuel costs and materials costs continue to increase daily.
Funding still an issue
St. Marys Mayor Rowland Eskridge said although the Navy is now saying the airport should be moved, the Navy had told the city earlier that it did not have funding available for the project.
Representatives from Sea Island Co., which has offered to donate 500 acres for the new airport site, said they have no plans to assist with funding the relocation project.
When the issue of relocation was first raised in December 1985, Capt. Dave Hall of the U.S. Navy told the airport authority that the Navy would not support relocation efforts of the airport (at the time) saying budget restrictions and cutbacks would prohibit the funding of the project. Hall also said the Navy did not consider the risks associated with the airport's proximity to the naval base "significant enough to warrant relocation of the airport."
Relocation talks resurfaced in the mid-90s when the federal government underwent the Base Realignment and Closure process and local base supporters reiterated those safety and security concerns.
As recently as April of this year, former Navy commander Mike McKinnon addressed the city council saying that the risks associated with the airport's proximity to the airport, along with safety and security issues, were not substantial enough to force the relocation of the airport. However, McKinnon did support relocation of the airport for other reasons.
U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston said in a phone interview that he is "very interested" in Buczek's statement on behalf of the Navy.
"We are going to want to explore this new information," said Kingston. "Camden and this airport have always been a concern because of the proximity of the airport to the base. I know it was a huge issue prior to [the base realignment and closure process], but after we got through that, it appeared to go away. This definitely is a new wrinkle in this issue.
"I think the general concern of the Navy is the private aircraft taking off and landing so close to the nuclear weapons," continued Kingston. "If the Navy comes out and says that they would like to see the airport moved then we would have to look at ways of funding that. We can help them get the money, they would just have to tell us what account to put it in."
A recurring discussion
A study conducted in January 1985 by the Department of the Navy revealed that the airport's close proximity to the naval base was "above the threshold" for the risks of accidents to occur. According to Buczek, this study, coupled with the events of Sept. 11 led to the closure of runway 4-22 at the airport. Buczek said that pilots now have to "bank sharply" on approaches and take offs to avoid the 2-nautical-mile radius of restricted airspace over and near the base. Buczek said that all these issues would favor relocating the airport.
The proposed relocation site is approximately 12 miles north on property owned by the Sea Island Co. just off of Billyville Road in Woodbine. Sea Island Co. is offering to donate 500 acres of land for the construction of a new airport; the current airport occupies 263 acres, according to the airport authority. A representative of Sea Island Co. said the company owns approximately 17,500 acres in the northern portion of Camden County; most of the land owned is a joint venture with Mead Westvaco.
The proposed site for relocation would feature one 5,000-foot runway. The current airport features two runways, one that is 5,000 feet long and another that is 4,000 feet long.
When asked to disclose its reasons for having the airport relocated and its impact on its surrounding property, Sea Island Co. responded in a written statement, "Please understand that Sea Island Co. was approached by the City of St. Marys to consider making the [land] donation; we did not approach them. We have done no studies to determine the impact of an airport on property owned by the company and will not speculate as to what it could be."
Although the Sea Island Co. has not done any studies on relocating the airport, there have been numerous studies completed by the city and Navy. One of those studies, which was funded by taxpayers and initiated by the city, reveals several pieces of vital information regarding the airport relocation.
What's at stake
One of the main points brought forward by the 2005 Airport Feasibility and Site Selection Study, which was completed by consulting firm Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc., is that the airport generates approximately $1.3 million a year in revenues. The airport generates revenue through hangar rentals, fuel sales and other flight related revenues.
According to information provided by St. Marys Airport Authority chairman Dick Russell, there are several buildings currently located on airport property. Four hangars owned by Bird Aviation are located on land leased from the authority. The lease rate is minimal but the ownership of the buildings will transfer to the Airport Authority at the end of the lease period in 2028.
The hangar/fixed base operator terminal building is owned by St. Marys Aviation and is also on land leased from the authority. The lease rate is much higher because the authority already owns those buildings. The authority also owns a large hangar originally built by Gilman Paper. Like the Bird Aviation hangars, this was built on land originally leased at a minimum rate but, at the end of the lease period, it became authority property.
According to Russell, the total income realized by the airport authority from fuel flowage fees, rentals and leases and aircraft tie-down fees in 2007 was $23,312.05. Of this income, the authority spent $7774.61 for electricity, repairs and maintenance, herbicide spraying and vegetation control. The remainder of the airport's 2007 income was saved for future improvement projects.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates that airports are to be considered a public convenience and that all revenue earned by the airport should be reinvested for airport maintenance and improvement. It also requires that fees charged for airport uses and services should generally be no higher than necessary to pay the costs to the airport owner of operating, maintaining, and improving the airport; in other words, airport fees cannot be set arbitrarily high to make a profit.
According to information provided in the Airport Feasibility and Site Selection Study prepared by RS&H, "While the total economic benefit of the airport cannot be expressed in dollars, it is possible to quantify a portion of this benefit through a modeling process. When both the direct and secondary impacts are considered for on-airport aviation-related activity and air traveler visitors using general aviation, the airport supports more than an estimated 68 full-time employees, creates more than $5.9 million in expenditures locally, and provides more than $1.5 million in income to the local community.
"A general aviation airport such as St. Marys' is a significant benefit to the local community. Existence of an airport can help to sustain current employment and attract new jobs to the area. A growing and vibrant airport has the potential to accommodate additional business related activities and enhance the economic development of the community," said the study.
Unknown costs
The estimated cost of relocating the airport, according to the feasibility study, could range from $14 million to $20 million. However, it is not known whether this includes the cost of moving power lines. According to some sources with the city, it could cost up to $21 million to have the airport power lines moved and buried.
The study reveals that funding sources for the airport relocation could come from the FAA and state government. However, there would still be a 2.5-percent cost of the project that would have to come from local funding sources.
Other than funding issues for the relocation of the airport, another serious issue still remains. How is economic development for the City of St. Marys impacted if the airport is moved?
According to St. Marys City Manager Bill Shanahan, the only property directly adjacent to the airport that the city owns is the fire department and the water plant. Downtown Development Authority (DDA) director Alyce Thornhill there are approximately 52 industrially zoned acres near the airport (within the industrial park). That land could be further developed in the future for industrial prospects, she said. Thornhill said the airport is used by some industries in St. Marys and Camden County, although no specifics were provided. Thornhill said that state officials often utilize the airport to fly in for special events.
City leaders want to retain the property at the airport, if it is relocated, according to Shanahan. However, the airport authority said this is contrary to normal FAA policy.
According to Russell, FAA policy states that, if they (the FAA) fund the airport relocation, the land on which the present airport is situated must be sold, at fair market value, and all proceeds from that sale must be returned to the FAA to offset the costs of the new airport. If the City of St. Marys wishes to retain ownership of the land, it must pay the FAA a sum equal to the fair market value, Russell said.
At no cost to the city?
There are significant costs involved with hiring a specialized individual or firm to do an airport appraisal. Assistant city manager Max Tinsley estimated the cost at more than $10,000, but the city, as of this time, cannot pay for this assessment.
"We have to get someone to come in here and assess this property, but the referendum states specifically that the possible airport relocation cannot cost the taxpayers anything," said Tinsley. "So, someone or some entity has to come forward to pay for the assessment, which is the first step. If no one comes forward to pay for it, we will have to go back to city council to determine the next course of action."
Tinsley said the city cannot pay for the assessment because that would be a cost to the taxpayers. Tinsley said the next hurdle in relocating the airport would be negotiations with the FAA over the city's desire to retain ownership of the land.
"If we have to pay them the money related to that assessment and relocation, then this project cannot be done at no cost to taxpayers," said Tinsley. "So, we have a lot of things that have to be worked out in order to adhere to the referendum and resolution that the city has put forth. If the FAA makes us pay that money to them for the land, then we cannot relocate the airport at no cost to taxpayers; someone else would have to pay that money to the FAA."
An exact value of the airport and airport property was not available, according to Shanahan, because the city is currently working on having the airport appraised. According to the Camden County Tax Assessor's Office the total value of the airport is approximately $6,303,477. This value is generated from total value of land and buildings at the airport. This value reflects total value from an appraisal done in 1991 and represents 381.6 acres and includes all the acreage and building improvements that have been calculated as late as 2004. The land only is valued at $5,724,000.
Environmental impact
If the airport relocation is approved by the city council, the new site would require intensive land preparation. One of the main factors involved with developing the land would be the impact to the local ecosystem. There would be a substantial amount of wetlands mitigation that would have to be purchased to stay within Environmental Protection Agency guidelines; this could also drive up the cost of the project.
According to the Environmental Assessment study completed by the city and RS&H, "... Numerous runway airfield configurations were developed in an attempt to minimize and avoid unnecessary impacts to the wetlands system. Approximately 40 acres of high quality wetlands, 19 acres of medium quality wetlands and 14 acres of low quality wetlands will need to be filled for development.
"In addition, secondary impacts will occur as a result of disturbance to wetlands not being filled due to the topping and or removal of trees and other obstructions to meet FAA obstruction clearance requirements. Of the disturbed wetlands (not filled) wetlands, approximately 133 acres will be of high quality, approximately 15 acres will be medium quality, and approximately seven acres will be of low quality," the study continued.
All the wetlands that would be affected by the new site location for the airport are part of the Satilla River system.
Unanswered questions
When questioned about the short-term and long-term economic impact that the relocation project could have on the city, Shanahan said, "The answers to these questions are not known as of this time. Upon collecting the information to identify if it is feasible to move the airport, then would be the time to look at possible effects."
Effects that need to be studied for this possible relocation for this airport include the economic effects on St. Marys and Woodbine. Also, there should be traffic studies conducted for Woodbine to determine if there needs to be another interchange at Interstate 95 to handle possible traffic overflow in that area.
The referendum on the July 15 ballot reads, "Should the St. Marys Airport relocate 12 miles north to property owned by the Sea Island Co. at a cost of $29 million in federal tax money, provided such relocation can be accomplished without cost to the City of St. Marys?"
In essence, the referendum, although non-binding, will allow for public input for the city council, but will not determine the fate of the airport relocation proposal.
The city council, for now, appears to have the authority to relocate the airport. However, the airport authority has filed a request in Camden County Superior Court to get a declaratory judgment on which entity has the legal authority to determine the airport's fate. That hearing has not yet been scheduled.
 |
||
| Firefighters battle 1,600-acres blaze |
