St Petersburg leaders will have a hefty price to pay if they want to develop over Albert Whitted Municipal Airport.
A study commissioned by the city estimates the price of removing Albert Whitted Water Reclamation Facility (AWWRF), a sewage plant adjacent to the waterfront airport that must be removed to make way for development, at $54.9-million. That would be in addition to $66.3-million worth of capital improvements needed for the city's three other sewage plants.
"It's too much money," said Ruth Varn, chair of the Albert Whitted Airport Advisory Committee, a voluntary, nongovernmental lobbying organization for tiny Albert Whitted Airport. For the past two years, Varn has defended the airport as city officials and the St. Petersburg Times lobbied to make the 156-acre parcel of waterfront land — a sweet piece of real estate — available for public and private development.
The study examined nine possible scenarios, but only two are within debate's reach: keep AWWRF or replace it with a pumping station that would route wastewater to the city's three other plants, all of which run under capacity.
Keeping AWWRF, the city's oldest and lowest-capacity sewage plant, and making its necessary capital improvements would cost $12.8-million in addition to the $66.3-million in capital improvements needed at the other plants, the study showed.
The price to replace the sewage plant with a pumping station does not cover expenses to make the Whitted land ready for development. That could cost millions more.
Beneath Whitted's runways are a series of honeycomb pipes leading next door to the sewage plant. Those pipes would need to be removed before any development could begin, said Kevin Dunn, the city's planning director. Additionally, several City Council members have raised concerns about possible contamination of the Whitted land, which could require a costly cleanup.
Rick Mussett, the city's development administrator, had not reviewed the study when questioned by Weekly Planet. "You have to consider the operating costs," Mussett said when he heard about the $55-million price tag. He added that savings on operating costs over time could offset the hefty one-time charge.
However, according to the study, total annual operating costs would in fact increase slightly without AWWRF. Annual operating costs for the city's four plants, including Whitted, would be $85,800 less than if AWWRF were replaced with a pumping station.
"For whatever reason, the city fathers decided that was a real great place to put a treatment facility," council member Bill Foster said of the waterfront location. "At this point, it's cost prohibitive to change it."
Fellow council member James Bennett agrees. "My thoughts are as they've always been," said Bennett. "The cheapest thing for the citizens of St. Petersburg is to keep (AWWRF) and upgrade the facility."
Debate on the issue started when Mayor Rick Baker won City Council approval to study land-use alternatives for Albert Whitted Municipal Airport. Ron Barton, the city's director of economic development and property management, proposed an 82-acre mixed-use urban neighborhood surrounded on three sides by a 40-acre waterfront park that would rival Northshore Park in size.
Potential for the land is great. According to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Barton's proposed development would increase the land value from $152,000 to $1.8-million per acre, generating $20.1-million in annual tax revenue when the 82 acres are fully developed.
Complicating the issue is the Federal Aviation Administration, which expects St. Petersburg to keep the airport open for another 20 years since the city accepted a $516,000 federal grant last year to upgrade the runway lights.
Among those waving in the bulldozers is the Times, whose editorial writers have been relentless in their support for development of the land. Before Barton's proposal, the Times favored handing the land over to the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg. After Barton's proposal, the newspaper supported the mixed-use neighborhood. "Albert Whitted is a luxury for a fortunate few," the Times wrote last October.
Members of the Albert Whitted Airport Advisory Committee, who believe the Times has waged a war against the airport for nearly a generation, hope the $55-million figure will finally put an end to the debate over Albert Whitted Municipal Airport's future.
"It gave us two years' worth of delays and cost us grant money," Jack W. Tunstill, vice chairman of the Albert Whitted Airport Advisory Committee, said of the debate.
The high price may give Mayor Baker, who has not taken a stance on the issue, a safe political exit should he choose to take it. By citing a cost-prohibitive estimate, Baker could end the debate without injuring his cozy relationship with the Times — the influential newspaper whose support he'll need for reelection.
Foster and Bennett, both outspoken critics of development on the Whitted land, believe the study will strengthen their case and help to squelch the debate at City Hall. "I was ready to end the studies months ago," said Foster. "We're throwing good money after bad."
The city has also commissioned a study to estimate the cost of making the Whitted Airport land ready for development. Results should be available later this summer.
Varn, meanwhile, isn't so sure this most recent study will end the debate. "I hope this puts the matter to rest once and for all," she said. "But I'm a realist, so I doubt it."
For more information on the Albert Whitted Municipal Airport debate, read the Planet's May 22 cover story, "Airport Insecurity," available online at http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2002-05-22/cover.html.
Contact Staff Writer Trevor Aaronson at 813-248-8888, ext. 134, or trevor.aaronson@weeklyplanet.com.
This article appears in Jul 17-23, 2002.
