 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Back
|
City turns to other costs at airport
By BRYAN GILMER, Times Staff Writer ST. PETERSBURG -- After learning that removing the sewage plant at Albert Whitted Airport would cost up to $65-million, City Council members said Tuesday that the city needs a good estimate of the other costs of redeveloping the airport land. The plant is on the edge of the 110-acre Albert Whitted Airport property downtown. Whether the city can afford to close the plant has been central to the debate over whether to redevelop the tract, which a city official estimates could sell for $150-million. Council members received the draft study of the costs this week. But the sewer plant is just one of several costs the city would have to pay to redevelop the land. It would have to negotiate with the Federal Aviation Administration for permission to close the airport. That could take years and require a multimillion-dollar contribution to another area airport. And tearing out the runways and demolishing airport buildings likely would cost millions. Would everything cost more than the land is worth? Economic Development Director Ron Barton said he has not estimated that. He is studying whether the city's roads and fire and police departments could handle several thousand more people if a new neighborhood were built there. Many council members worry that environmental problems may lurk on the Whitted tract. "I think they will uncover some environmental concerns," said council member Bill Foster, who opposes both demolishing the sewer plant and closing the airport. Council member Jay Lasita, who has urged his colleagues to consider redeveloping the land, agreed. "There could be something underneath there," he said. "Maybe we can do a little sample testing to see how bad it might or might not be." Barton said: "They are all good questions, and we've got to answer them. We haven't commissioned anybody going out there to do (environmental) testing." The plant has stood just south of downtown on Tampa Bay for decades, where it is a smelly neighbor to the University of South Florida. People on both sides of the issue said Tuesday that removing the plant may be a good idea, even if the city leaves the airport alone. "Environmentally, it makes sense," said council member and airport advocate John Bryan. He said that replacing the Whitted plant with a pumping station and pipelines would connect the three remaining plants. The city could then route sewage away from any plant having problems. The city's four plants now serve separate zones of the city, and raw sewage sometimes must be injected into the ground when equipment fails. All the city's plants besides Whitted could handle nearly twice as much wastewater. Barton, who has pushed for redevelopment, said the Whitted plant needs $13-million in upgrades, and that money might be better put toward the pumping station and pipeline projects. Council members James Bennett and Rene Flowers said the city should simply upgrade the plant, not spend four times as much to close it. The new pipelines the pumping station would need also could be politically sensitive. Burying them would bring major construction projects to several city neighborhoods. For instance, the consultant recommends routing one beneath First Street N, a major north-south street.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
Headlines From the Times local news desks Howard Troxler |
