Critics Fear Similar Taxpayer Expense As Earlier Terminal
Project
The groundbreaking of a new general aviation terminal at Myrtle
Beach International Airport may have taken place on Friday, June
13, but local critics are concerned officials are putting the cart
before the horse yet again in regards to improvements at the
airport.
As ANN reported last year,
the Federal Aviation Administration asked for $7 Million back from
the airport after passenger terminal plan went defunct. The FAA had
originally awarded $17.4 Million to the project for site clearing
and design, but all went sour after the new terminal was rejected
by the Myrtle Beach Community Appearance Board in April 2007. The
FAA demanded funds returned due to the condition of completion of
the project by the county, which never happened.
Though groundbreaking for the new GA terminal at MYR is the most
recent news, concerns over spending taxpayer money before any
crucial approvals to actually move forward with the project are the
underlying message, reports WPDE-15. At the groundbreaking Friday,
officials announced a $3 Million award by the state to help fund
the project -- two-thirds coming directly from the state budget and
the additional third coming from the state Division of
Aeronautics.
Concerned local pilot Doug Decker told WPDE the project has not
been approved yet by the Myrtle Beach Community Appearance Board --
the same body that nixed the original passenger terminal project --
nor has the project gone out to bid, or even have a building
permit. Decker also claimed the project is already 50 percent more
expensive than airports that have built similar projects.
"They're (County Council) needing to increase the funding by
about $500,000," said Decker Friday to SCNow.com. "This has not
been approved by the Horry County Council as of today," he
added.
According to Horry County Council Chair Liz Gilland, to keep the
project within budget, the council has made needed changes. She
doesn't believe there is a person on the CAB who would have a
problem with the revised plans.
"We have to go back to the CAB because they had to change the
look of it in order to cut the price down, but we changed it in
such a way if you look at a picture of what it was and what it is
now, to the naked eye you won't really notice the difference. We
have the money, we have the plans, we have the site, we're ready to
build," said Gilland.
Gilland also said the county council can easily afford the
half-million dollars needed for the terminal project and she added
they'll use enterprise funds that come out of the airport as
well.
Decker is in full support of the new terminal and agrees with
council members that the county needs one. But he thinks more
planning and consideration needed to be made before they had the
ground-breaking.
"Remember they've had a groundbreaking before here. They did
that for the $250 million terminal. They were going to build on the
west side where the General Aviation terminal's going to be built
and that failed," said Decker.
Despite the criticisms, airport officials are excited for the
new terminal and are hoping it will help draw business to the area.
If construction begins soon, officials anticipate completion
sometime in 2009.