Passive Aggressive

If terminal project collapses, fault will belong to MB

Have Myrtle Beach city officials backed away from their 2001 agreement to allow Horry County to build a new passenger terminal on the west side of Myrtle Beach International Airport? Do they want to negate that deal without taking responsibility for wasting tens of millions of public dollars and six years of county planning time?

Given the passive-aggressive torment through which the city's Community Appearance Board is now putting the county officials trying to get the terminal project nailed down, it sure looks that way. Meanwhile, Myrtle Beach City Council members show little concern that the 2001 airport agreement seems headed for collapse, while some enjoy the county's misery a little too much.

Sure, county leaders messed up last month in treating the CAB as an insignificant stepping stone on the path to final County Council approval of the project at a surprisingly reasonable guaranteed maximum price. They arrived at the what was supposed to be the final CAB hearing on the project unprepared to provide details on the project's design and landscaping. The county arguably deserved the "no" that the CAB accorded the project that day.

But rather than helping the county mend its ways to rescue a project vital to our communities' economic future, the CAB now is acting like a little boy poking with a stick at a wounded bug. At the CAB's impromptu meeting with county officials Thursday, Chairman Larry Bragg said it's not his problem that the county's guaranteed maximum price with terminal construction management firm Skanska USA expires Jan. 17. He set an appeal hearing for the county for Jan. 25. Fortunately, Skanska agreed Friday to extend the guaranteed maximum price until that date.

The CAB wants the county to consider building a new road to the terminal and creating a safety area for bomb disposal farther away from housing at the former Myrtle Beach Air Force Base. Fair enough. But requiring the county to present completed building and landscaping designs at the Jan. 25 meeting, and to amend the design to include an "iconic" landmark that inspires the concept of flight (whatever that means) is unfair.

Hello! This is a public project. County officials have been trying conscientiously for years to bring the terminal project in at a reasonable cost, downscaling plans, including some design amenities, to accomplish that. And they couldn't generate an advanced design until they knew what the guaranteed maximum price would be.

To drive up the terminal cost for aesthetic considerations would jeopardize the economics of the airport. The lion's share of the terminal's cost would be paid from bonds secured by airline landing fees. There's a limit to how high those fees can go. Airlines need to be able to afford to fly here. To cover the added costs by subtracting gates, as Bragg suggested, also would limit the terminal's usefulness.

If their behavior results in the project's failure, the CAB and City Council will be responsible for the consequences. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., for instance, secured $43 million for the project that can't be used anywhere else. Gov. Mark Sanford last month proposed another $15 million for the project. If the city drives that money away, what motivation is there for powerful federal and state elective leaders to pry loose future appropriations to help our communities' economic development? None.

The county is making a good faith effort to comply with the CAB's wishes. CAB members need now to become partners in getting the terminal approved - quickly. If they don't, the blowback for the city promises to be fierce.