Click here for story. Looks like this grant will get approved this Tuesday, but it is good to see that some of the City Councilors are starting to ask questions and demand results regarding the sale or long-term lease to MassPort. Only a year or so ago, I remember when Councilor Rosen was chastised for inquiring to the status of the negotiations.
The one thing I find interesting was the line from Tom Zidelis.
Over the past 20 years, the city has received nearly $27 million in capital improvement grants for Worcester Regional Airport from the federal government, according to Thomas F. Zidelis, the city’s chief financial officer. Using a 20-year straight line amortization, he said, the unamortized balance of those grants is slightly more than $9 million.
That is the lowest number that I have ever heard. In fact in Mr Nemeth's column today, he refers to "a consultant pegged that figure at close to $30 million." Although I do not see closure of ORH as being an option, we should have an idea of what that number is?
A good question by a City Councilor Tuesday may be, if we accept these monies would there be any problems if we end up downgrading to a General Aviation airport?
WRRB/Telegram District City Council Forum 10/18
-
This forum is for all district council candidates; all candidates are here
today. Format: 14 total questions, 4 questions across districts (for all
candida...
6 months ago
16 comments:
I watched the city council meeting two weeks ago ,and I think the councilors were trying to ask that same question about who would be responsible if downgraded . You're right Bill, it should be asked again and verified with a simple yes or no.
Also, I didn't think the councilors were chastising or questioning Massports help at that meeting (my view from Mr Nemeth's article this morning). My take was they simply want to know yes or no from MassPort if they will take title. If no then they can explore other options as in downgrading the airport or ven selling to another entity.
my two cents (after inflation)
Wow, 2 airport segments in the Sunday Telegram?It must be a slow newsday...
Harry Tembenis
Worcester,MA
My Two Cents:
I agreed with Mr Nemeth, in that sense we need to take the grant monies. If he was chastising them, I do not agree with him. Actually I thought for once (finally) some real good questions were asked by the Councilors.
Bill
Help me here.......what does Mr Zidelis mean by 20 yr straight line amortization?
I always thought mortages were amortized...arent these monies grants?
Jahn:
there is a line in Nick K story.
City Solicitor David M. Moore said every grant from the FAA contains a provision that requires the city to keep the airport open for the useful life of the facility or the equipment acquired with each federal grant, up to a maximum of 20 years.
I think Mr Zidelis went from this, but is this true???
Sorry folks but more federal money up there = more drinking of the Federal Kool Aid.
Before we imbibe any more Fed'l Kool Aid, we should have an agreement with Massport for the 20 year amortization period(s).
W/o a Massport agreement (or another suitor) we just have a larger & longer deficit at the airport.
How can anyone justify add'l fed'l grants that are basically more 20 years mortgages at the airport....given the ADDITIONAL potential contingent obligations, should ORH's status ever change in the next 20 years?
If I own a 3 decker, I dont take a free roofing job, that I might have to pay back in the next 20 years if I or some other future owner decide to convert the use of the 3 decker to office space or raze the place to make a parking lot or convert it to a lodging house?
Makes no long term sense, unless i have a rich Uncle Massport that can help me pay back the roofing job if i decide to change the use of the property.
Please lets be insistent that Massport is on board for 20 years before we take another dime from Uncle Jimmy McGovern.
From Bloomberg News...
U.S. Private-Jet Fuel Taxes Rise 65% in Senate Accord (Update2)
By John Hughes
April 25 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. business-jet owners would pay 65 percent more in fuel taxes to finance federal air-traffic control upgrades, under an agreement among Senate leaders.
The levy would increase to 36 cents a gallon from 21.8 cents now, under the accord announced in a statement today in Washington by Senator Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat. Airline passenger fees and taxes wouldn't rise, he said.
The agreement between Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate aviation subcommittee, and Montana Democrat Max Baucus, who runs the Senate Finance Committee, ends a seven-month standoff that stalled an aviation-funding bill. Today's deal clears the way for an April 28 vote to bring the bill to the full Senate.
Rockefeller wanted to double fuel taxes for corporate aircraft while cutting fees for airlines, which he said paid disproportionately for aviation services. Instead, he settled for the smaller boost, so that small-jet owners will pay 5 percent of federal aviation costs, up from 3 percent.
``This agreement is a good down payment toward ending the growing inequities that exist between airline passengers and corporate jet users,'' Rockefeller said in the statement.
The House approved its version of the funding legislation, which would finance the Federal Aviation Administration through 2011, on Sept. 20.
The House bill, which would boost business jet-fuel taxes to 35.9 cents a gallon, and the final Senate proposal would need to be reconciled in a conference committee before being sent to President George W. Bush for his signature.
Bush Veto Threat
The Bush administration threatened in June to veto the House legislation, saying it doesn't meet needs such as creating user fees to pass on even higher charges to business-jet operators. U.S. airlines backed the Bush position on user fees.
Today's Senate agreement means that the user fees, which business-jet owners viewed as more burdensome than higher fuel taxes, are in neither version of the legislation.
The National Business Aviation Association, a Washington- based trade group for business-jet operators, said its members support funding the FAA and improving air-traffic control technology ``with a reasonable fuel tax.''
``We applaud the continuing work Congress has done on this very important issue,'' Ed Bolen, the association's chief executive officer, said in a statement.
Airlines' View
An airline trade group called the tax increase for business-jet users ``a step in the right direction.''
``It still falls short of the costs they impose on the system,'' James May, president of the Washington-based Air Transport Association, said in an e-mailed statement. ``We will remain engaged with these committees as the remainder of the package is developed.''
While losing the battle for user fees, airlines gained other benefits in the Senate legislation, which doesn't increase their costs. The House version raises airline passenger ticket charges for airport improvements to as much as $7 from $4.50, which would generate $1.1 billion a year.
The Senate bill also creates a new $400 million FAA account dedicated to upgrading the air-traffic control system. Raising the excise tax on fuel used by private jet owners will bring in an additional $240 million a year.
To contact the reporter on this story: John Hughes in Washington at jhughes5@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: April 25, 2008 20:09 EDT
Bill, I'll take that bet......but are you saying CB&T will be bought out by another bank before year end.....or are you saying they'll be an offer on the table for it before year end........How many pesos are we talking?
GGGGGGGrrrrrrrrr....................dammit....I'll be mailing my Worc property taxes today...........WTH is that property tax cut or Credit that Coupe Deval promised during his election campaign??..........thanks again to Gov. Deval "Drapes" Patrick and the pimp who sold us Deval, Havana Jim MGovern.
Time to put these gents out to pasture
Jahn:
Sold by the ened of the year. How much--no idea??? But I do not you will be handing me a $20 bill.
bill
sorry......What i meant was how many pesos were we betting........not how much it would be sold for.
Let's make it a Grant, instead of a Jackson.............and just to be clear, it will be sold.........not a pending sale or a signed P&S....but actually bought and paid for by year end......and If I lose.......i might even frame it for you
would you like a cyber handshake??
you know this a bit sad.........but I have not even bothered to read Sundays paper yet.......except for the obits.......the last year or so .....I dont even read the sunday paper until monday or tuesday night......whereas in days gone by.................i had it read before sunday morning was over
The Sunday paper has been horrible. I read Nick K, Diane Williamson, Nemeth then flip through the home/sports section. In total 10 maybe 15 minutes.
Actually I take that back there was another Williamson (related to Diane) that had a real good story on Gardner Country Club. The Sunday paper needs more investigative stories like that.
Womag is also lacking in their investigative reporting compared to what they were a few years ago. I used to always look forward to some good dirt from Womag once a month.........even if it was just in Worcesteria.
I guess when you're in the market for a canal you best be sure you step on as few toes as possible.
Mike Cohen was very good
sO can we close CLOSE THE AIRPORT Completely ............and rather than continuing to operate at a $1.5M to $2.0M annual deficit.......we could instead apply the deficit money to pay off the $9M in 5 or 6 years and then run the place as we see fit???
But we wont do that, instead they'll vote tonight to take even more fed'l money and put the place further in the hole........with no game plan in place as we go forward........cant we at least figure out the future up there before we take more money........doesnt it make more sense???
Why do we need to re-pave runways that see no commercial jet service............cant we just wait until we see what the future holds
Or......
Fire the 25 employees, hire an airport MANAGER (the only position reqauired by the FAA) who can drive a plow and a tractor with a mower deck on it.
If there's a crash, he can call the fire department. If there's a problem, he can call the police. Just like ANY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE CITY.
Gee, if the airport did that, they would be collecting more in rent than they would be spending (if they have any tenants left)
NAH!!! Makes too much sense.
Post a Comment