Interactive graphic: What does future hold for Fort Monroe?

By Kate Wiltrout
© May 29, 2008

The Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority met Wednesday, May 28, to discuss the reuse agreement it hopes to make final in August. As part of its monthly meeting, the board heard presentations from consultants on tourism and economic projections.

Project findings

Among the findings from consultants examining tourism, infrastructure and economic concerns after the Army leaves:

Tourism

An estimated 100,000 to 150,000 visitors could be expected annually at Fort Monroe’s cultural attractions, with an additional 115,000 to 125,000 visitors to Buckroe Beach along Chesapeake Bay.

Recreation

A museum or cultural/historical center would likely take seven to 10 years to develop, but recreational opportunities such as the beach, marina and RV park could be available as soon as the Army leaves.

Maintenance cost

Army officials have long said it will cost at least $14 million a year to maintain the buildings and fund basic operations. But BAE Systems consultants found the true cost to the next owner to be closer to $4 million annually.

Infrastructure

Fort Monroe will remain vulnerable to flooding, despite a $22 million Army Corps of Engineers project to rebuild the seawall and install valves on drainage outfalls. Building elevations range from 4 to 9 feet; and the 100-year-flood elevation is 9 feet. The next phase of flood prevention work will cost $11 million.

Public comments delivered Wednesday evening:

• The reuse plan does not mention the National Park Service, which is studying whether the post is suitable for federal management or a hybrid of federal/state/local management.
• There’s a need to address environmental sustainability in the planning process.
• Construction should not be allowed simply for its own sake; it should meet criteria for economic necessity.
• The city of Hampton’s economic concerns should not be the primary consideration when developing a reuse plan.
• Areas of the post that will be used as parks and green space need not be environmentally restored as thoroughly as property where new buildings will be constructed; such restoration would essentially bill American taxpayers for development that not all citizens would want.

Kate Wiltrout
(757) 446-2629 kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com