I looked up on the City Web on page 101 of the Annual Financial Report to see how much the ORH cost the City of Worcester. Although the current operating agreement had MassPort paying 100% of the operating deficit, it excluded debt service (note blog below).
The cost last year to Worcester (imagine it came from the General Fund) was $679,555. Debt service, which again it 100% ours, was $630,850. Maybe everyone else knew this already, but I was under the impression that it cost us nothing last year, while MassPort was covering 100% of the operating deficit, surely not $679,555.
FISCAL YEAR ENDING 6/30/5
REVENUES
638,978 fees
1,241,001 intergovernmental (Massport??)
249,648 misc
2,129,627 total revenues
EXPENSES
1,054,629 salaries
1,123,703 maintenance
630,850 debt service
2,809,182 total expenses
679,555 loss ( I believe this number represents the amount the City of Worcester owed)
Same Time Next Year
-
It’s been nearly a year since I wrote about the problems that come from
having 11 bosses who are not on the same page about anything, as well as
suggestion...
4 months ago
12 comments:
What is the money paying for? Salaries, equipment, what? I would assume that most aviation related equipment is paid through FAA or DOT. The expenditure for operations would be justified as you can not have an airport that size without snow removal, fire, security etc. But what else is the budget supporting?
Dave H.
Worcester
Dave H:
I will add the numbers to the blog..
Salaries-1,054,629???
Bill, Dave, whomever, this is what should be cause for numerous phone calls, e-mails, letters, whatever, to OUR elected officials. This would appear to be unacceptable fiscal management! CALL them and TELL them so! All that this ineptitude we are ranting about requires is for all of us to remain silent. We can get up and vocally demand change, or sit back and hope that (possibly) positive change is slowly coming.
The Airport Administration needs to be more vocal instead of keeping everything in the dark. There has been buzz around town and there has been recent dialogue on this board that the airport is in talks with other airlines and nearing a deal. Why is this being kept in the dark? Either confirm it or deny it, just give us something to go on. If there are plans for the airport, share them, that way there may not be as much tension over issues like these expenditure's. It is frustrating to see these numbers and not have anything to back them. I am a supporter of the success of the airport as a majority of the people on this board are. I want to see it succeed. I can appreciate the convenience of flying in and out of there. I believe that it could be the best thing to happen to our city, but it's frustrating when there are no answers coming out of there. They need to keep the citizen's informed. Some of that money, I can easily see justified, again, operations: maintenance (the airport has no appeal if everything is falling apart), security (after 9/11, you can't not have it. Worcester Airport is too big and there is too much there. Even if it's general aviation, they need security), fire (planes will land there, GA or commercial so there is always a potential for an emergency and a need for fire pretection) etc. But what is the rest of this money being spent on? Again, if there is soon to be a change at the airport, we should know. If it can be justified, then fine, I have alot more concerns with other things my tax dollars are going toward then the airport. But they can't just spend this money and shut us out.
By the way, Bill, do you have the board minutes for March yet?
Dave H.
Dave H:
This whole ideal of things having to be done in secret bothers me.. Can you imagine the CEO of EMC telling stockholders, for years and years and years and years, about on-going negotiations while neither producing results or any details of any of the negotiations???
I e-mailed Airport Liaison today if he could fax me the approved minutes from last month.. As soon as I get them, I will post.
Tom:
I hear what you are saying, but I don't know what else to do. Most of the people I know on this blog all have jobs, none of which are at the airport--how much time can any of devote to the airport.
The whole idea of having meetings with the airport does not work.... I personally have been to at least 8 or 9.. What was it, in November/December of last year where 8 of us met with the airport liaison to discuss our ideas?? Would you do that again?? I wouldn't..
I am open to suggestions, please offer them here and we can decide.
Bill
Bill,
It should mean enough to the administration that there are concerned citizen's that want to see the airport succeed and are offering suggestions on how to improve the airport. The airport has undergone alot of bad press over the years yet there is still a contingency of supporters who believe that it is great asset. Just showing this support to the administration should be enough. It's just bad policy on thier part.
I find it incredibly ironic that many of the people on this blog, are actually supporters of the airport... The participants on this blog (including Charley Farley) are concerned citizens (maybe abused tax-payers), who want to uunderstand the workings/finances of the airport.
If in the end, the numbers make no sense, I (think we) would be the first to say close or sell the airport!! The problem is --- good luck trying to figure out what is the current financial status of the airport.
Right now I have no idea what the numbers look like the first half of this fiscal year(although I asked in writing our airport liaison) or what the current status of any negotiations are (although we have paid some $40,000 to a consultant toprepare presentations).... I am guessing that that ORH has cost us (General Fund) $500,000 from 7/1/5 thru 12/31/5. I could be wrong but who knows???
In the end, how can anyone, including people who support the airport, make educated decisions when we have no idea how much we are losing, who we are negotiating with or what the airport commission is doing especially their board meeting minutes (our only communication from the Airport Commission) has dropped from 9 pages to 2 pages in one year??
Please consider me Anonymous Poster #2, as distinguished from Anonymous.
My understanding is that we have 10 or 11 employees currently "working" at ORH.
Using my Worcester public school acquired mathematics, it appears to me we are spending about 100K per employee (round numbers).
I can understand the airport director position paying 100K +. I have to ask though, what other employee classifications do we have? Mechanics? Custodians? Control Tower Personnel? Bookkeeper? Secretary? Charley Farley the Snowplow/Lawnmower Operator?
I cannot begin to fathom how it is costing us on average 100K per employee.
I would like to see a comprehensive breakdown by employee classification detailing salary (straight time), overtime (if any), health insurance, pension, life insurance, and any other direct employee costs.
Additionally, I want to know how many sick days per year are rung up by airport personnel. As per Worcester Municipal research bureau, the average city employee takes 10 or 11 sick days (so called) per year. Not to be sarcastic, but trying pulling that baloney in the private sector.
Is Mr Niddrie's salary picked up on ORH payroll or is it part of a general City Hall overhead account?
Custodians, secretaries, bookeepers, and mechanics pulling down 100K per year in wages and benefits? These folks must think they have died and gone to heaven?
Can we at least outsource the custodians or the mechanics? What is this, the Worcester Public Schools, where outsourcing custodial work would be unfair "to the family of Worcester school department employees" (to quote a WPS official).
Bill or Charley, maybe you can take on my request? Hopefully you will get an prompt response.
At this point, either way it seems like a lose - lose situation. It's already a known fact that closing the airport will hurt the city. FAA won't justify it, and in turn the city will be penalized millions of dollars. Look at Meigs Field in Chicago, they closed it overnight. After years of investigation, FAA fined them $33,000 dollars. Seems like no big deal, but now the city is facing millions of dollars in fines, which there is a high probability they will pay out for closing Meigs, plus legal fees...they lose. Worcester would be no different, we can't benefit from closing, however, we can't benefit from shoveling money into something and getting nothing in return. There has to be some good news at the airport, Allegiant has a proven success rate as of this date, so there has to be something else in the works. What is it? Worcester is a public airport, the citizens have a right to know about the current situation and the future. If they are in negotiations with other airlines, how would making it known to the public jeopardize it? I would think that news like that would draw even stronger support. Plus listening to supporters is not a bad idea as these are the customers who will utilize the airport. I fly on a regular basis. I will not fly out of Logan unless I have to, and driving to Green is a pain in the ass. I live 5 minutes from ORH. I want to utilize it, I want to fly out of there, I WILL GIVE MY BUSINESS TO THE WORCESTER AIRPORT , if they let me that is. All I can say is that I hope someone at airport administration is reading these posts and realize that we are allies here, but this can't be a one way street, we need feedback from them. I'm still not ready to give up on the airport.
RE: Last Post
From : Dave H.
Post a Comment