Thrive
Officials debate self-funding Albert Whitted Airport
The city may reject federal funds to finance needed projects at the Albert Whitted Airport and instead self-fund it, to avoid further locking into a commitment of maintaining the airport.
As the future of the 100-acre waterfront airport site is yet to be determined, certain safety-related projects may be addressed without Federal Aviation Authority and Florida Department of Transportation grants.
“It’s really starving the airport of the necessary improvements that are needed,” committee member Gina Driscoll said during the city’s budget, finance and taxation committee meeting last week. “It goes against the master plan and mandates the deterioration of this asset that we have.
“When we have opportunities to get grant money, assistance from our good partners like the FAA and FDOT, and we say, ‘no, we will pay for it ourselves because that commits us for one extra year?'” Driscoll stated she is strongly against the plan.
Airport Director Rich Lesniak said two safety-related projects are poised for potential self-funding.
One project is rehabbing the airport vault. The project has been postponed and includes upgrading or replacing the older infrastructure and then adding a backup generator. Lesniak explained when the city has a power outage where the airport is located, the airfield is unable to power the runway lights. The second project entails replacing the existing tower equipment that the federal government decertified. The airport was planning to finance the projects by acquiring funds through the newly passed bipartisan bill and Airport Improvement Program.
The two projects total $356,000.
The airport’s CIP budget for fiscal years 2022 through 2027. City of St. Petersburg documents.
“It’s not a loan, and you can’t pay back federal grants,” he said. However, state grants have actual “pay back language,” which are absent from FAA grants.
Projects such as hangar replacements and additions are typically funded by state dollars, while FAA grants are used for infrastructure.
“The cornerstone of aviation is safety. If you don’t have safety, you have a problem,” committee member Ed Montanari said.
Montanari explained the discussion initially surfaced at a previous Capital Improvement Projects budget workshop, which evaluated projects to be funded over the next five years with grants, and the airport items were “zeroed out.” The committee passed a motion to request administration to restore the funds; however, in a memo sent by St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch, it stated funds for the airport were added back into the budget, but the city would not accept any federal grants. The memo also stated the mayor doesn’t anticipate any safety issues as a result of not accepting federal dollars, and instructed staff that emerging safety items could be addressed with non-FAA resources.
“We believe these projects are needed due to safety, but the mayor doesn’t want to take federal funds and instead put it on the taxpayers. We think that’s foolish to pass up federal funds simply for the city to avoid committed obligations to the airport,” Albert Whitted Airport Advisory Committee member Jack Tunstill said in a statement to the St. Pete Catalyst.
Meanwhile, the airport master plan study tied to a federal grant is 80-85% complete. The grant was set to expire this month, but the government organization has extended it by one year.
By no longer accepting federal grants, Lesniak explained it could cause a domino effect, deferring the timeline for other projects.
“At this point, the [2003] referendum stands, and we have the obligation as a city to maintain things and we have the option to take that money from a pot and pay for it. I think it’s fiscally irresponsible not to do that and you’re only adding a year,” said committee member Lisset Hanewicz.
Driscoll said by taking the self-funding route, it may “damage the reputation and the quality that we as a city have worked very hard to establish.”
The discussion also follows the decision to cancel the request for qualifications from two firms to conduct different studies related to the future of the airport.
Raymond Baker
September 7, 2022at3:10 pm
I well remember the “Pier Park” scam led by a few crooked City Hall types and their developer friends. “A park,” yeah, “for the children…” that’s it, and in small letters, “… and a couple thousand condos” so we’ll all make lots of money. Same scam now, but the virtue signal to fool the usual voting block is “affordable housing.” No thanks. Not a pilot, but love this airport. Take my grandson to AW Park or the Pier and we love to watch the planes and helos land. We also enjoy the Hangar and the annual Indy Race. It is perhaps the most historic piece of our city’s story and will play an even bigger role when UAVs and electric aircraft develop in the coming decades. Replacing AW with condos won’t make my life one bit better. Won’t put a penny in my pocket. We have gagillions of dollars of new high $$ apartments and condos going up all over the city. Have my taxes gone down? NO! Are my city services better? NO! Where’s all that money going?
Hugh J. Hazeltine
September 5, 2022at5:20 pm
Aviation Gasoline and Jet Fuel sold at Albert Whitted has a federal tax, 19.4 and 24.4 cents per gallon. These funds go into the FAA Airport Improvement program. It was Mayor Welch that instructed city staff not to accept any more FAA grant money to avoid the grant assurance requirements. So now fuel tax money generated at Albert Whitted will not find its way back to our hometown airport but rather go to other airports that will accept these grants.
Mary L TURGEON
September 3, 2022at4:26 pm
Take the grant money. Mr Mayor wit hiding behind your not so hidden agenda to abolish the airport. We don’t need any more downtown condo towers.
HAL FREEDMAN
September 2, 2022at10:26 pm
To use taxpayer funds, when FAA grants are available is a Rick Scott style act…Scott turned down billions in high-speed train grants. Now Welch turns down hundreds of thousands in easily obtainable, already available grants and puts the burden for these needed expenditures on our tax-paying backs. Someone is whispering in the Mayor’s ear and reaching into our pockets!
Something very underhanded is going on here.
Janan Talafer
September 2, 2022at8:30 pm
I don’t ever want to see housing developments on city owned waterfront land. I thought we already voted against this idea during Rick Baker’s term. How many times do we need to say leave the waterfront alone.
Velva Lee Heraty
September 1, 2022at9:25 pm
This is tunnel vision. First Mayo Clinic and now this patently political and biased approach to an historical landmark without thorough research and community input. To describe it as a place for “just a bunch of pilots” shows the lack of depth and bias in this manipulation of funds to avoid accountability and gain control over the land.
Two facts not even mentioned. Fact 1: The land is only 8 feet above the current water level, so climate change will determine its future. and 2: Over the years thousands of mercy flights for All Childrens Hospital and Bayfront have served the ill, wounded and dying children of St. Pete. Don’t they count?
ANdy
September 1, 2022at9:05 pm
was I not reading the other day how Tampa Airport is embracing the future of aviation with electric air taxi service that specifically said it saw a future link between tampa and St Pete (Albert Whithead)…..this is all political nonsense by a mayor who is driving his own lop sided agenda. Land grab for sure, and don’t think the FAA does not know what Mayor Welsh is up to.
Todd Myers
September 1, 2022at6:24 pm
It’s a historic landmark and unique to St. Pete. It should STAY as is just like the Vinoy.
Patricia Wagner
September 1, 2022at4:52 pm
We should continue the Albert Whitted airport. This gives us a lifeline for life flights, any emergency situations and is a historical part of St. Petersburg. We do NOT need a bunch of new condos there. Leave it alone and keep the federal dollars.
Jonathan A Ginsberg
September 1, 2022at4:45 pm
To the contrary – I was on the pier the other day – and looked back, at 100 plus acres that are used by so few…..I think of the economic development and potientially housing opprtunities that could be unleashed there……..The site is bigger than the Gas Plant / Trop! What a workd of opprtunity could be unleashed – at least on a portion of the site.
JANET DEVITO
September 1, 2022at4:25 pm
I totally agree Tom! We moved to this city for ALL it had to offer, and even thought we don’t USE the airport, or have a plane, it Is part of the wonderful charm of this city. UNIQUENESS! Thousands of people never go to the pier, or sit in a park….will those be next to go?! WHO is behind the obvious attempt to get rid of the airport? Is it Ken Welch? St Pete is one of a kind, and the airport is part of that! Take the federal grant!
Atle
September 1, 2022at4:01 pm
Is the mayor trying to slowly, but surely killing off the airport? Looks like that when reading what he is proposing. The mayor owes the voters to come out and tell us where he is heading with his ideas. Not impressed!
Tom Barry
September 1, 2022at3:54 pm
NOT FOOLING US!!! Political movements to give (back door) our airport to the developers. The people 18 years ago, studied the need for the airport and forced to a referendum was voted by over 70% to keep our municipal airport. That is a rock solid mandate… How about this, you write us an article about who in city hall is behind this obvious, blatant, arrogant circumvention of the wishes of the people.
Donna Kostreva
September 1, 2022at3:43 pm
I would like to hear Ms Driscoll’s view on Albert Whitted funding, as well as Mr. Tunstill’s.
Albert Whitted is an integral part of our community. It is an irreplaceable asset to our community. It hosts Bay Flight. It provides educational opportunities for those wishing to learn the fundamentals and nuances of flight. AW provides employment, and who doesn’t enjoy a fine supper at the Hanger watching the planes.
Money hungry carpetbagger developers have
longed to build on the site for decades. In a time of devastation, AW will provide that landing opportunity for life saving medications, food water and other basic supplies!
I have been a stone’s throw away from AW for 45 years and I am ready for another fight!
Pat O'Brien
September 1, 2022at3:41 pm
This is crazy to not accept $356,000 in grants that would add one year 2041 to 2042 to the timeline to keep the airport open. Couldn’t the City better use these funds for more urgent projects. This action is especially troubling since the study proposals were rejected and now must be redone. The two projects mentioned have already been delayed by a year. So there will be other safety projects the City will have to fund for the next 20 years. All this so the mayor can close the airport. It’s one poor decision after another. Let’s enhance the airport not close it to put up more high rise condos.