The hard construction cost for hatchery building may range $5.5M-$8.7M, not $18.8M

We’ve heard Mayor Hayward talk about how the state is investing $18.8 M at Bruce Beach,  The budget shows that only about half of the BP funds are actually for construction.

Category Total
Construction $9,391,136
Five Year Operational Cost $5,000,000
Post Release Fisheries Monitoring $2,250,000
Contingency $1,007,364
Planning, Engineering, Design $682,500
Administration $462,500
Total $18,793,500

 

Until the bids come in, we won’t know how much of the $9.39 million is for the actual building and site preparation.  Notice there is no budget for remediation. Other than removing debris on the site, there may not be any soil or water remediation needed.

The Bayview Park Community Center has been estimated to cost $335 sq. ft. – which means the 26,000 sq. ft. hatchery building could be $8.71 million. However, the Downtown YMCA  was $210 sq. ft.  – which would put the hatchery at $5.46 million.  I suspect the Bayview Center figures may have been inflated.

We found this Powerpoint – Project Overview Marine Fisheries Hatchery Presentation Tech Group Jun 2015

 

Share:

13 thoughts on “The hard construction cost for hatchery building may range $5.5M-$8.7M, not $18.8M

  1. Rick, there is no water quality assessment in that report, unless I completely missed it.. I will be glad to admit I missed it if its in the report if you point it out… I also like to note that those areas you gave as an example are frequently closed due to health alerts by the Department of Health… Also, that report was from 2013.

  2. Check the latest post. I’ve posted the biological assessment study – which I have used for my posts. The beach might not work for swimming but it could be used for paddleboards, sailing and kayaks. The water probably will be as “pristine” as Bayou Texar, Sanders Beach or the water at the Pensacola Yacht Club.

  3. Yes, thirty acres, 30 acres, of swamp extending out into the water from Bruce beach or half of it’s waterline. The other half is also partially taken up by the mitigation area next to BDI as you note, but also is used to slow and to treat stormwater runoff. I would also note that this is not exactly a pristine area to swim. I’m just not aware of many people which would swim in stormwater runoff next to a swamp… Note to people reading Rick’s numbers, the break down he gave was only for the addition to the then existing mitigation area, before the Maritime park was built… Just in case you notice the number do not add up, but his numbers are correct.

  4. Your percentage is only correct if you include the 30 acres out in the water. Much of the mitigation area is next to BDI building and the marsh area out in the water. The Community Maritime Park wetland mitigation plan included the creation of a salt marsh consisting of 0.86 acres of oyster reef habitat/breakwaters, 1.96 acres of planted salt marsh, and 1.72 acres of tidal creeks and pools which serve as a waterward extension of the existing Bruce Beach mitigation area. The marsh area has a conversation easement.

  5. Rick,

    You are correct the remediation for Bruce Beach was done during the CMP mitigation work that was done on the site. Actually, we had a stop work order during the mitigation construction due to environmental discoveries during construction and the site contamination was removed and work continued.

  6. Rick, I am not debating the soil at all. The fact still remains that nothing can be built or impact the current mitigation areas which take up 75% of Bruce beach and leave it with a giant swamp.

  7. Check out my latest post. The soil tests of Bruce Beach came back clean. The mitigation area in the water is also clean soil. Florida law makes it illegal to dump contaminated soil anywhere but approved landfills.

  8. If anyone was doubting my claim of the giant mitigation area that already exists on this site, take a look at sheet 5 of the Power point which is attached to this article “We found this Powerpoint – Project Overview Marine Fisheries Hatchery Presentation Tech Group Jun 2015” … The existing mitigation area which can not be moved by state law and the FDEP takes up almost 75% of this site. Also, take a gander at the neighboring industrial property which is extremely obvious in the powerpoints aerials or on any google earth image.

  9. Are there any council members addressing this or are they just hoping the issue goes away?

  10. Apparently the site assessments revealed that there is no contamination in need of remediation. At the Initial Design Public Meeting held at City Hall on July 28, 2016, the meeting minutes state:
    “Engineers Mitch Smith and Tom Williams presented studies that were done to develop shallow foundations. Phase I of the study has been concluded to be favorable for a shallow foundation. The Phase III study is now underway. There are no concerns regarding the possibility of contaminated soil. The Northwest Water Management District has conducted an investigation on deposited materials and has shown no issues.”

  11. On June 17, 2011 (a Friday), Mayor Ashton Hayward sent a letter to the City Council calling for an emergency special meeting to be held on Monday (June 20) at 2:30 pm. The meeting was squeezed in before the regular Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for 3:15 pm. To her credit, Councilwoman Megan Pratt objected to a hasty vote rightly pointing out that the public had insufficient notice of the meeting and there was little to no time allotted for public input. Others such as Councilman Ron Townsend expressed his concern that putting a fish hatchery at Bruce Beach was a really bad idea. In spite of reservations described during the meeting and later, the Council voted unanimously to authorize the Mayor to begin negotiating with FWC to put the fish hatchery on Bruce Beach. Perhaps because the staff process was so hurried, and also because at the time Hayward was asserting that he hired and fired the CRA Staff in spite of a state law that says otherwise, the issue of the CRA was ignored as were the details of the project that still seem to be dribbling out one at a time. Hayward’s big closing pitch was, “Time is money!” Apparently, as we are now learning, time was not of the essence and the money involved is small change, smaller if you factor in the negative impact this project would have on development of the west side of downtown that in some parts is slum & blighted, a situation made worse by a fish hatchery that proceeds fish poo to be dried outdoors and hauled away to the landfill. Enough is enough. The City Council needs to vote to direct the Council President to write a polite letter to FWC reminding them that the lease became void on May 12 when they failed to commence construction. As such, they should stay off of Bruce Beach and go away. The City Council might even formally rescind its 2011 authorization stripping the Mayor of all delegate authority to negotiate/conspire with the FWC. If FWC has any problems with the letter, they know where to find the courthouse to file a lawsuit claiming that the lease does not mean what it means. A better option is to find a new home for the fish hatchery. In 2011, Hayward expressed his grave concern that if the fish hatchery did not go inside city limits (and FWC seemed to want to put it at the Port of Pensacola but Hayward insisted it be at Bruce Beach) then it would be built in Walton County. For the record, in 2014 the City Council adopted a new city law that created a so-called “Pensacola Regional Area” extending from Mobile to Walton County. Put the fish hatchery in Walton County and we can advertise it as a valuable asset in the Pensacola Regional Area or what the chamber calls “Greater Pensacola.” I suspect that the fish could care less where they hatch. The 2012 Urban Redevelopment Advisory Committee devotes about three pages to Bruce Beach but makes no mention of a fish hatchery. Apparently, they thought it a bad idea too. A bad idea pursued to its bitter end is still a bad idea. It makes no sense to tie up the most important undeveloped track of waterfront property for such a lame project with so few jobs created. A better idea might be to see what happens with the old ECUA property and then the CRA can solicit proposals for a Bruce Beach project that makes a positive difference.

Comments are closed.