SamPratt.com: 3 posts from September 22, 2013

« September 15, 2013 - September 21, 2013 | Main | September 29, 2013 - October 5, 2013 »

3 posts from September 22, 2013 - September 28, 2013

September 26, 2013

Supervisor quizzes Flood about the County airport expansion

Around noon today, Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin sent the following letter and attached list of questions to the County’s economic development czar Kenneth Flood. Flood has been flogging a plan to use eminent domain to seize acreage abutting the County-run airport from owner Carmen Nero.

Ken,

You have stated on numerous occasions over the past few years that if we do not expand the airport safety zone, the FAA will require us to shorten the runway, which could cause Richmor to cut back staff at the airport, and hamper future growth at the airport for the larger jets that require the longer runway.

The recent FAA letter responding to your question about what will happen if we do not expand the safety zone stated we might not qualify for future grant money, but did not say they would require us to shorten the runway.

Even after getting this letter, you maintain that if we do not expand the safety zone, the FAA will require us to shorten the runway, and that they may even require us to repay all or some of the grant money we have already been awarded. You cite "the regulations" to support your contentions.

There  here have been a lot of questions raised over the years about the need to expand the airport safety zone. There have been a variety of FOIL requests, and a series of questions from both Supervisors and county residents related to past, current and future levels of activity at the airport by type of aircraft. To date, the County's responses to these questions have not been clear or complete.

The general impression many people have of the airport is that it is, has been and will continue to be a small, low level of activity facility that supports small, mostly propeller driven aircraft. The few larger jets that are based at the airport appear to be anomalies.

Before the County spends any more time or money on the eminent domain process, we need unambiguous answers to the questions that have been asked multiple times, but never adequately answered.

If we find that, in fact, the FAA will require us to shorten the runway, we can evaluate the impact of that action and make a decision about whether to proceed with the safety zone eminent domain action or not, based on the possible impact to Richmor and the County of a shorter runway. It is not clear that even if the FAA does require that we shorten the runway that we can justify moving ahead with the eminent domain process or any material investments of public funds from County, State or Federal sources.

If, however, the FAA tells us we will not be required to shorten the runway if we do not expand the safety zone, there seems to be little reason to continue with the eminent domain process.

Here are the questions I think we need answers to before we decided if we need to expand the safety zone and move ahead on eminent domain. Until we get coherent answers to these questions, we should table the eminent domain discussion and stop spending any tome and money on it.

For the FAA:

If the County decides not to expand the safety zone, will they require us to shorten the runway?

If yes, by how much, and by when?

If yes, under what regulatory authority, exactly?

If this is a safety issue, why have we not been required to shorten the runway already?

For Richmor:

If the runway is shortened by FAA mandate because the safety zone is not expanded, how much revenue and how many jobs, if any, will you lose by year over the next 10 years?

If the safety zone is expanded, how much revenue and how many jobs will you be able to add by year over the next 10 years?

How much in additional facility and equipment investments will you have to make to the facilities at the airport to achieve the revenue and job growth related to expanding the safety zone?

How much annual revenue has Richmor generated, by type revenue outlined on page 5 of the lease agreement, since Richmor started leasing the airport from the county?

How many people have been employed by Richmor, by year, at the County Airport since Richmor started leasing the airport from the County?

How many total take offs and landings have there been at the airport, by year and by type of aircraft, since Richmor has been the base operator?

How many take offs and landing per year, over the next 10 years, does Richmor project if the safety zone is expanded, or if it is not expanded?

For the Economic Development Commissioner and County Financial Managers:

What has Richmor paid the County in rent, by year, since they started leasing the airport from the county?

Have we been auditing Richmor revenues annually to verify that the rent we have been paid, which is based on a percentage certain Richmor revenues outlined on page 5 of the lease agreement, is correct?

If we have been auditing Richmor revenues, how soon can you circulate these audits to members the BOS? If not, when will an audit of the Richmor lease payments since the beginning of the lease period be done and shared with the BOS?

A recent Register Star article mentioned that over $6 million of public money has been invested in the airport and in airport consulting efforts over the years...is this correct?

What was the actual total amount of specific investments made with public money from County, State and Federal sources since the inception of the airport, by project and date?

How much in additional investments using public money from County, State and Federal sources are planned for the airport if the safety zone is expanded, for what, and when?

How much in additional investments using public money from County, State and Federal sources are planned for the airport if the safety zone is not expanded?

For the County Attorney

If we proceed with the eminent domain process and secure the expanded safety zone, can we increase the annual Richmor rent to include the amortization of the additional public money (County, State and Federal) spent to achieve this safety zone expansion, or must we rely only on increased revenues from Richmor's business to raise the County's rental income?

Similarly, can the Richmor lease be modified to include the amortization of all past and/or future public monies spent on behalf improvements to the airport which benefit Richmor, or again, do we have to rely on increases in Richmor's future revenues to see higher rental payments?

For C & S Consultants about the 2011 Business Plan

How did C&S determine that the airport generated an annual economic impact of 95 jobs, $7.6 million in income and $20.4 million in total economic impact, as stated on the cover of the 2011 Airport Business Plan?

The 2011 Business Plan outlines $13 million of recommended capital improvements for the 2011 to 2015 period on page 18, while on pages 32 and 57 it recommends $8 million in capital improvements.   Why the $5 million difference in capital projects?

If the Plan had been implemented as recommended, projected activity at the airport was forecast to improve between 2011 and 2015 from 27 aircraft to 38 aircraft, and operations (takeoffs and landings) to increase from 19,200 to 21,900 (page 40). Based on 2013 data and conditions, are these projections still valid looking ahead five years, or should they be modified?

Why and how is a 10% increase from 19,200 to 21,900 operations significant enough to justify an investment of between $8 million and $13 million in public funds?

Operating income was projected to increase from a loss of $30,000 in 2011 to a profit of $85,000 in 2015 (page 57).  Is $85,000 in operating income the best we can expect to do for an investment of between $8 million and $13 million in public funds?

in Economic Development, Planning & Land Use, Politics | Columbia County, Towns | Ghent | Permalink | Comments (1)

September 25, 2013

Claverack’s Kangaroo Court

One kept expecting the Monty Python crew to break into last night’s hearing in Philmont, held to consider removal of Planning Board member and Churchtown volunteer firefighter Nathan Chess.

The proceeding, instigated by a tendentious complaint from Claverack Supervisor Robin Andrews, appeared to serve little purpose except to give certain residents and officials a chance to vent their spleen against Chess. Having badly lost her attempt to become a State Senator last year to a Tea Party candidate—despite pandering to the far right on guns and the minimum wage—Andrews’ complaint looks an awful lot like another clumsy attempt to curry favor with Republican insiders.

In over 15 years of watchdogging local meetings, this observer has never seen such a proceeding initiated, let alone actually held; and nothing that Chess is accused of seems that unusual by local standards. The airing of several hampers worth of dirty laundry—consisting mainly of petty personality disputes—reflected poorly on the entire Town and Planning Board, several of whose members appeared mortified to have to testify on one side or the other.

If the Board really felt the need to take some action against Chess, it would have been better served by passing a toothlessly symbolic reprimand, rather than dragging their constituents, Town employees, and volunteer agency members along this five-hour slog through the Philmont mud. This audience member began to suspect that the attorney’s fees devoted by Andrews and her colleagues would be better spent on group therapy, rather than litigation.

Even the Town’s handpicked special counsel, Dionne Wheatley, seemed to grow embarrassed by the thinness of the case handed to her by Andrews and her colleagues on the Town Board, with Wheatley’s once-confident tone becoming less and less audible as she sank lower and lower in her chair.

Commanded by the Town Board—which serves in this case as both accuser and jury—to appear in this Star Chamber, Chess hewed closely to self-researched legal arguments and lawyerly cross-examination. He managed, in Perry Mason style, to get Planning Board chair Steven Hook to admit he had incorrectly testified about the words used during their parking lot argument. Chess also pointed out that the Town had filed the complaint under an outdated portion of its code, and had failed to identify an adequate cause for removal, which needs to be factual, not subjective. Likewise, he poked legal holes in his accusers’ argument that he improperly raised safety concerns reviews by citing the Planning Board mission to ensure public safety.

Later, Chess provided a detailed illustration of the type of expert input he brings to the task of reviewing applications, explaining the importance for First Responders to have a turnaround on any long driveway to ensure that emergency vehicles can pass each other.

Several members of the Planning Board testified, with obvious reluctance, that while they might not always approve of Chess’s attitude, his continued presence had not altered the workings or effectiveness of the Board. (One took this to mean that it had been dysfunctional before, and remains dysfunctional after.)

Meanwhile attorney Wheatley refused to allow Chess to question his accuser, Supervisor Andrews—and Ms. Andrews did not insist on standing behind her accusations. Instead, the Supervisor attempted to paper over the ugly nature of the process that she’d put in motion. During the second break at hour three, Andews put on grinning Den Mother act, serving by-now cold pizza to the 30-plus attendees.

Meanwhile Wheatley wisely denied Big Up concert host Sam Wright’s request to be put on the witness stand, likely calculating that the belligerent and intensely personal nature of Wright’s various outbursts from the audience were not aiding the Town’s attempt to paint Chess as rude and intimidating. (Later, during the public comment portion of the meeting, a member of the audience who is friends with both men accused Wright of attempting to pick a boozy fight with Chess at a local pub.)

As the meeting’s fifth hour came to a close, Chess’s real offense came into focus: his steadfast refusal to just Go Along to Get Along. Two fellow members of the Planning Board complained that meeting were “no fun any more” and “not enjoyable,” to which Chess countered that reviewing an application is “not supposed to be fun. It’s work.”

Whether elected or appointed, local agencies are infamous for favoring the appearance of harmony over the more challenging process of weighing facts and regulations. When a lone Board member insists on a proper debate and review, this means his or her colleagues may have to actually read the materials, think for themselves, defend their reasoning and (worst of all) remain at the meeting long enough to miss the first hour of Prime Time TV.

The only bright spot of the evening was the impartial and good-humored moderation by Ancram Supervisor Art Bassin, who managed to dial down several potentially-explosive moments.

NOTE: In an amusing irony, one of the charges against Chess was that he had used expletives during a “man-to-man” discussion with Hook in the aftermath of a contentious meeting. An article in The Register-Star the morning just before the hearing, Bassin himself was reported to have used the word “bull----” in response to evasions by County Development czar Kenneth Flood—during the meeting, not “man to man.” This prompted this attendee to wonder out loud whether Ms. Andrews planned to file a similar complaint against her colleague. Don’t hold your breath; the obvious point here was not integrity or consistency, but the selective politicization of the Planning Board.

September 24, 2013

Quotable Paine

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

— THOMAS PAINE, IN THE AGE OF REASON

in Quotable, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0)

SamPratt.com