A special meeting was called on Tuesday for the Virgin Islands Port Authority to vote on whether or not to allow design changes for the development of the Henry E. Rohlsen Airport on St. Croix. The board approved the changes in a 6-1 vote, with pushback coming from not having addressed changes in the project’s cost.
Port Authority board chairman Willard John said that the “special meeting” was “called for the purpose of recommending the design that has been presented by VIports Partners for the construction of a new terminal at Henry Rohlsen Airport on St. Croix.” The design, which he said was discussed in more detail during the last board meeting, was left tabled for the board to think about and vote on during this meeting.
The presentation of the proposed concepts was made during the VIPA Board Committee of the Whole meeting on June 27. Public presentations of the airport designs for St. Thomas and St. Croix will occur during community meetings that will be held on all three islands during the upcoming months, according to the Port Authority.
On Tuesday, board member and Tourism Commissioner Joseph Boschulte expressed his concern about the matter, saying that the board should not vote to approve the design without defining its financial cost.
“We were expecting to receive some information about the increase in pricing for what was put on the table and they were going to give some options of how the authority is expected to absorb the cost and I haven’t received anything,” said Boschulte.
According to Larry Belinsky, managing director of Frasca & Associates (P3 and financial advisor to the Port Authority), “We’re still finalizing plans with respect to financing and the revenue options for the project. Obviously, as we talked about, VIports is in discussions with the airlines with respect to the designs of both St. Thomas and St. Croix. So there are a portion of that terminal design and construction work [that] could be offset by airline contribution. We’re also in discussion with the FAA to offset some of the airfield kind of apron work and repurposing AIP money for that purpose.”
Port Authority Director Carlton Dowe, also added that in addition to the possibility of FAA and airline contributions, funding will also come from the Port Authority.
“While we don’t have an exact number, the mechanisms we will utilize [for funding], to me, was explained,” said Dowe. “There are three mechanisms, but it’s clear that we can’t know that final number until all these pieces are in.”
Boschulte responded that during the last meeting, it was addressed that funding options will be discussed for the project during the next meeting.
“I have a concern. I don’t know how we’re being asked to vote on something, at least for me, and we don’t know how it’s going to be paid for,” responded Boschulte. “If it was simply moving A to B, no increase in cost, no problem. But that’s not the case. And it’s a significant sum of money. My question is, why are we being asked to make a move on this and you haven’t told us?”
“Just for clarity, once the original RFP went out and two entities responded, one entity VIPorts was selected, yes,” asked board member Celestino White. “After being selected, was VI Port or VIports or the V.I. Port Authority initiated an action or change order, so to speak, to change from the original concept to now what is before us,”
Preston Breyer, director of engineering at the Port Authority, told White, “It was a request that was made by the Virgin Islands Port Authority. We didn’t issue a change order so much as we requested that VIports Partners, as our partner, assess an alternative approach to the terminal development in St. Croix than what was initially proposed.”
According to Breyer, there are different areas where money is contributed to the Port Authority.
“Guaranteed funds are called entitlements. Our entitlements across the two airports are five and a half million dollars a year in federal funding, which represent 90 percent of total project costs. And then on top of that we’ve been averaging around $8 million for planning purposes in discretionary funding that’s made available,” said Breyer. According to him, the discretionary funding is made available through the capital improvement planning process with the FAA which is viewed on a regional level under the southern region and the Atlanta district’s office.
According to Belinsky, for the airport improvement project, it was agreed that VIPorts will complete the project for $153 million. With the proposed changes by the Port Authority, it will now be a $182 million dollar project.
In addressing the near $30 million dollar increase, “You compare terminal to terminal, it’s a $12 million dollar difference,” said Belinsky. “But there’s additional work that’s needed on the apron and on the land side to bring the entrance of the airport to the new terminal door.”
Member Derek Gabriel added, “I think it’s really difficult for us as board members to make a decision like this, a yes or no vote, without having all the information present.”
“There is a responsibility from the staff and the consultants to support how you going have a package. How do you build a house, because you want the house and you need the house, but you don’t know how you going pay for it,” questioned Boschulte. “Bring the plan to say this is how we going support the money.” He added, “There was a plan there to do it that was funded, that the board didn’t have to think about, but the board chose against, which is okay. So now we’re here a few months later, and the question is ‘Oh I think we want to have the new terminal,’ which is fine, no problem. All I’m simply asking for is, show me how you pay the incremental amount.”’
Board members Joseph Bosculte, Derek Gabriel, Willard John, Gordon Rhea, Kevin Rodriguez, Smith, and Celestino White were present. Boschulte was the sole dissenting vote.
“You can’t come in expecting for my vote and you don’t know how you’re going to fund it,” said Boschulte.
In other news, board members White and Boschulte expressed concern over matters of executive session and asked the chair to address their bylaw concerns during the next board meeting. They both want the opportunity for board members to be present remotely for executive sessions, with White adding the session be “limited where there’s a visual of all the board members present,” for security reasons.
