 |
| Exterior Elevations of the soon to be constructed Beulah Fire Station from the latest design drawings |
Meanwhile, I have requested and have now received the most recent drawings for this project that illustrate how the facility is being envisioned by the architect who is designing it.
Interestingly--this same design will be utilized at both of the new firehouses that are to be constructed in Escambia County over the next two years (one in Beulah, one in Pleasant Grove). The rationale for using one common design and then "site-adapting" that same design to the location for construction is that it saves time, effort, and resources. For the end user, it creates a uniform space with which to work. Bottom Line: It saves taxpayer money on design--and is a very smart way to go because we're building two stations and it creates an economy of scale.
Building highlights:
 |
| The currently envisioned floorplan of the soon to be constructed Beulah Fire house |
The highlights of the new facility include a size of 14,502 SF, four truck bays, with a high-bay size capable of accommodating the largest apparatus in ECFR. Additional facility components include office spaces, 8 bunk rooms, four large bathrooms with showers, a day room, a large training room, and two EMS ready rooms. In addition to this, the facility will have a large modern kitchen as well as large laundry and gear storage rooms. The design of this new "prototypical" station was made with input from a committee that included planning, facilities and ECFR (paid and volunteer) personnel--with the aim of capturing all the necessary requirements for the crews that will man this station.
 |
| Due to the irregular lot size in Beulah (a "flag-lot"--with a narrow strip on the southern boundary on 9-Mile Road and a wider width further in toward the northern boundary)-the initial plan is to build the facility set-back from the front, utilizing the narrow southern portion along with an ingress/egress easement for accessing 9-Mile Road. |
The existing lot size and dimensions for the Beulah station will present a challenge. But to overcome the conditions planners are designing access that conforms to the lot's dimensions, as illustrated above. Additionally, I am told that when we get our 95% drawings in early April, The retention pond may have to be more linear and nearer to the front of the lot-due to the fact that a wet pond may be required instead of the dry pond that had initially been envisioned for the site. We will see what that looks like after the soils engineers do the calculations.
I'm excited to see the final plans, and I am very happy that the men and women volunteer firefighters in Beulah, along with the potential day-shift paid crew we are working to fund, will finally be getting a modern station with everything they need to continue to provide fire protection for our community!
Much more to come in the next several months!
Commissioner Bergosh
ReplyDeleteRegarding beach renourishment on Pensacola Beach:
At the BCC regular meeting, you justified your bewildering action to improperly move a $3.35 million dollar FEMA grant provided for beach renourishment into LOST funds.
Your justification was that under the absurdly convoluted lease system (that you fought to maintain), Escambia County contributes $4 million annually.
Sir, you might be interested to learn that Pensacola Beach leaseholders pay $8 million annually to Escambia County (and $8 million annually to the school district). And annual lease fees.
So, could you explain, please, your inscrutable rationale for diverting the FEMA grant away from the renourishment projects for which it was provided?
Personally, I pay FULL ad valorem tax on my property, full tax on my improvements, and a lease fee. Are you claiming that that’s not enough?
It was not a FEMA grant. It was reimbursement for expenses incurred due to Hurricane Isaac in 2012.
ReplyDeleteYes. One can take the time and take about 3_seconds to research the reimbursement. First it was denied but Scott reapplied. Hurricanes affect more than just the beach. In fact the old NE article 2012 comments are interesting. Lets people know what some think of the folly of using millions of dollars to put sand on barrier islands that should never have been built on to begin with.
ReplyDeleteCommissioners Disagree About $3.35 million FEMA reimbursement
ReplyDeleteCommissioner Bender told his Board that there were 1000 pages sent to FEMA documenting funds spent for Beach renourishment as the result of storms in 2011. FEMA paid up, but the money was used elsewhere. The funds were received in September of 2019 and were applied to paying down the loan that the County took out to cover expenses from the Flood of 2014. Bender said the decision to apply the monies to the 2014 flood loan never came before the County Commissioners.
Commissioner Bender wants the $3.35 million used for what it was intended.
“Escambia County Commission divides on FEMA funds meant for Pensacola Beach renourishment”
ReplyDelete(Jim Little, Pensacola News Journal 25 March 2021)
“ A dispute over $3.3 million that Escambia County received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency led to a rare 3-2 split on the Escambia County Commission Thursday and raised the question of how the county plans to pay for future beach renourishment projects.
The issue was raised as the County Commission was set to vote on a six-page budget amendment during its regular meeting Thursday.
The $3.3 million in question was being recognized as being received from FEMA for payment from damage to Pensacola Beach during Hurricane Isaac in 2012.“
So now posting a PNJ article like it's gospel HAHAHA.^^^
ReplyDelete