Almost exactly a year ago, Airport Director Roy Sieger appeared before the Flagler County Commission to talk about a $6.5 million terminal building that’s been in the works for several years, and was due for construction in 2021. Sieger asked for a year’s delay so the airport could build 42 additional T-hangars, which are in demand and would make the airport extra money.
“I’m not coming here asking you for money. I’m bringing you a solution,” Sieger told county commissioners. “As much as it kills me, and as you all know how long I’ve been waiting to build this brand new GA terminal facility,” he said, “I want to delay it one year, because what I want to do is build three more rows of T hangers. T hangers are moneymakers, okay? T hangars are big moneymakers. Right now we have 56 T hangars at the airport. This design is to build 42 more T hangers.”
He said the additional T-hangars would bring in an extra $212,000 a year in rent. The transportation Department would write a $117,000 design grant, which would take three months. “Once we get that, we go out to bid, we’ll get T hangars built in nine to 10 months.” He said it would be an “80-20” deal, with the airport paying 20 percent of the cost, or $560,000, and the Department of Transportation picking up 80 percent. That would make the DOT’s share $2.8 million, for a total cost of $3.36 million.
He said taxpayers would not have to foot any part of the bill, since even the local share would be paid through airport funds. The airport is run as an “enterprise fund” within government. It is intended and expected to generate its own revenue and pay its own way without intruding on the taxpayer supported general fund. But the notion that taxpayers don’t foot any part of the bill is inaccurate: the Florida Department of Transportation’s grant is entirely made up of taxpayer dollars, just not “local” ones.
“My focus is to get this done in a year,” Sieger said at the time. “That’s going to be my focus, that way next July, which is the funding year for FDOT, we’re going back and asking for the additional money for the general aviation terminal, which they said they will do.”
That was a year ago.
Today, the County Commission, with scant discussion, approved the latest step in making the T-hangars a reality. The total cost of T-Hangar construction, plus such things as “Construction Administration and Observation Services,” is now $6.5 million. (The T-hangar construction contracted to S.E. Cline Construction by itself is $6.2 million.)
Instead of an 80-20 deal, the transportation department may pick up 90 percent of the cost. “They are actually leaning towards doing this project at 90-10, which means airport only has to pay $650,000, which is huge,” Sieger told the commission at a January meeting, when he was updating them about the spiraling costs. He did not mention that it was almost $100,000 more than the airport’s original, only that he would get a loan to cover the cost.
The transportation did come through on the 90-10 split, but with a caveat: it could only fund $4.6 million of the project right now, and would strive to fund the $1.3 million balance. But the county could be on the hook for that balance if the state doesn’t come through: “If the additional funding is not received from FDOT, the County will be responsible for covering the difference,” a memo to the commission on today’s action states. Meanwhile, the county is on the hook for it, since the commission approved loaning the money out of the county’s general fund, along with the $654,000 local share–a total of $1.92 million. So for now, the general fund is assuming 29 percent of the cost, not 10 percent, with fingers crossed to recover the lion share of that from the state.
The numbers raised a concern from Commissioner Dave Sullivan this evening, and not just regarding the money for the hangars: the commission also approved a design contract for a new south-side library, with big questions remaining about the source of the eventual money to build the library. “There still is some question about how much of our own funds as opposed to grants that will be used to carry them out,” Sullivan said. “So I just wanted to make a case that for instance on this one,” meaning the hangars, ” that we do a good follow up, we don’t want to spend any more money out of our reserves or out of our budget than we have to. So some of these we’re still involved getting some additional grant money, and we want to make sure that happens.”
Pushing for the T-hangars, Sieger a year ago said there were 90 people on a waiting list for hangar space. By last January, he said the list had grown to 122, with a waiting time of two to two and a half years.
Meanwhile, the terminal building will be pushed off to next year. That project’s costs has also risen sharply. “The terminal building all in, when you have the building, the parking lot, the roundabout, you’re talking about a $10 million project. The building by itself is $7 million,” Sieger said in January. “Unfortunately, we have to put off our grand terminal building, but what I’m thinking is it’s only going to be put out another year.” (That was about nine months after saying that it was to be put off a year.)
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Chris Goodfellow says
So we are going to build 42 T hangars at an incredibly inflated cost of $6.5 million to bring in rent of $212,000 and the airport manager thinks they are moneymakers? For who? A deluxe t hangar should cost no more than $35-$40 a SQ. Foot. Ones like in the picture maybe $25. $212,000 divided by 42 is $3,700 per year or An average of $300/month rent not nearly enough. Don’t the Commissioners know math or are the taxpayers now subsidizing private aircraft owners? Sounds like more Republican socialism to me. Rent should be $750/month and even then I’m not sure with maintenance etc over the years it will be a money maker on a $6.5 million investment.
Roll a Hard 8 says: says
Why, really?
Here we go getting closer to becoming a regional commercial airport.
This needs to be stopped or reduced in size to force the speed of it’s growth.
Mark says
$6.5 Million is pretty pricey for a bunch of what are basically large sheds. Make no mistake the taxpayers are paying for this one way or another. Why not build slow and pay for them through existing user rents? There might be a waiting list but this only benefits airplane owners.
Denali says
Enterprise funds are supposed to pay their own way. No ‘borrowing’ from the parent entity. If the airport cannot assemble all the required financing for their desired projects, too bad. Scale back the project or delay it. Live within your means just as the taxpayers do. And please do not hand us that malarkey about FDOT has promised to “strive to fund” the additional funds.for the construction costs. If they do not have it today, they sure as heck are not going to have it next week, next month or next year. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that from a government agency . . . then again, I hope they prove me wrong. But most likely, the BOCC just put the Flagler taxpayers on the hook for $1.3 million. Thanks guys ! ! !
As for the delays on the terminal, Lordy. When Sieger used the term GA I assumed he meant General Aviation. Then in his closing statement he talks about delaying our GRAND Terminal, hmm. What have we gotten into now?
Isn’t it nice how casually he throws around the dollar amounts and cost increases like he is playing with Monopoly Money? Not even an attempt to justify the increases or offer to scale anything back. Another of Flagler Counties finest doing what they do best.
Wait a minute here... says
Sounds like someone is counting chickens before the eggs hatch. Why not secure definitive financing first, then break ground rather than “hoping” we get funding to reimburse us at a later date? Also, Noticeably absent from these discussions are the increased Nuisance noise from all day long Touch and go landing takeoffs, we got small personal aircraft with questionable maintenance landing on I-95 all the time (or worse)… I don’t think very many Palm Coasters are as enthusiastic about reaching into their pockets to help fund growing Mr. Sieger’s airport, which caters to only a very small percentage of Flagler county citizens who happen to be private pilots/ aircraft owners.
Celia Pugliese says
I could not agree more with all the comments before mine. They overburden us the taxpayers in this county with perks for the selected rich! Do not break ground until the full FDOT grant is in the bank…because they will have us all in this county pay for it by raising county taxes mileage in our ad valoren (homes yearly tax). On top further contaminating with horrible noise and fumes over head including accidents in the ground of so many small aircraft flying around us. Ask those people that bought adjacent to the airport before the honchos at the FCBOCC running over their quality of life versus greed, decided to invite the Phoenix, Embry and other pilots (mostly foreign) schools to seat at the Flagler County Airport and allowing them to bully us residents on the ground by totally ignoring the airport laughable “Fly Friendly” policy.
Red Baron says
Are these going to be HURRICANE PROOF ? I bet NOT !!!!!
Deborah Coffey says
Twenty-two years ago when we moved to Palm Coast, its government was in the hands of Democrats. There certainly wasn’t any of this nonsense! It’s time to put the Democrats in charge again.
palmcoaster says
I couldn’t agree more with Deborah Coffey above. Seems to me that someone may have a sweet deal with contractor installing overpriced infrastructure in our pockets!
Casandra says
The FDOT funds come from a twenty seven cent per gallon tax, paid for by airplane users.
So airplane owners generated the $6.5 million in funds that will be used for building the hangars.
Airplanes buying gas paid for this project, not you!
The airport will pay $560,000 out of pocket for $212,000 a year in rents. That’s a good return on investment and a three year break even projection. There are annual limits on the FDOT fund, what the writer did not make clear is – some of the funding for the total project will be reimbursed next year.