BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2016) — Out of the western skies came Sky King. We got that. THE PLANET, though, doesn’t get what’s going on at and with the Pittsfield Municipal Airport (PMA). We haven’t since they canceled commuter airlines there and then began all that fiction about economic engines — you know, the improvements that would keep old businesses here and new ones flocking in.

With that, we pass along this report from one of our airport sources. This information is exclusive to THE PLANET, presented in our never-ending quest for Truth, Justice, and The American Way.

——– 000 ——–

Third Airport Study Commission meeting

BY BROCTON WEST

SPECIAL TO THE PLANET

(because the Boring Broadsheet is busy promoting the city council as the savior of the world)

March 9, 2016 (7 to 9 PM)

Members attending — Chair Sakshaug, councilors Connell and Rivers, PMAC Chair Pedersen, ex-councilor Lothrop, Jeffrey Cook, Ashley Sulock. (Members councilor Mazzeo and Mike Lyon of Lyon Aviation absent).

Also attending— Two PERC/Comm. Dev. reps; Kerwood, city finance director;  city PMA employees Snuck and Spencer.

 1. Review of Westwood leases.

Leases were signed in 1986. Seven leases, two for $1 a year. One $1 leasee subleases his property. Connell said he was not happy with that.

Total revenue for leases is $20,312 a year.

85% goes to PERC (NOT THE CITY).

15% goes to PMA.

All lease revenues are supposed to go PMA per FAA rules.

Problem was that you had two fed agencies involved: FAA and HUD.

Lothrop pointed out that HUD put in $450,000. They invested, so they should get their share. Thus the 85% ($17,000) a year goes to PERC for its programs, such as low-income folks, etc. Connell wondered if HUD had gotten its money back by now and can we drop them. Others asked if we can rebalance the split.

Airport Manager Snuck says he can’t find where FAA approved the $1 leases. Snuck added that this could end up in court. “FAA would never approve the $1 leases,” said Snuck.

Sulock brought up the issue of noncompliance, which may affect future [FAA] funding. Yes, compliance a real issue, added PMA Commission Chair Peterson et al.

Chair Sakshaug said the ASC’s charge is to only recommend to mayor, not fix anything. And so the recommendation is that the proper people try to fix this.

 Tax receipts to city on the Westwood properties equal $109,000/yr.

2. Lothrop did a spot of work and crunched the numbers.

Long story short: Cost to the city for the airport is $84K a year.

Therefore:

 3. Search for more revenue

Fuel flowage fee of 2/3 cents a gallon is only about $5,000 a year for city. Raise the fee, and you might get $10,000, said Lothrop.

PMA does not monitor fuel dispensed by FBO Lyon.

Solar farm seemed to interest the entire ASC, and it seems like it can be done. It was stated that Rob Van Der Kar, city conservation commission, was at the airport recently said there’d be no apparent environmental problem in many spots at PMA.

There followed a discussion about possible increase of “user” fees. Apparently, people can fly in and out in the wee hours of the morning and not pay a fee, because no one is there to collect it. Can’t implement and collect some fees in general because no one available to monitor, record, and collect it.

PMA cannot know who is flying in and out, as has been stated at every meeting so far. You’d have to have a control tower, Snuck said. Or you’d need a camera set up to take pictures of aircraft tail numbers and track them that way, but that would cost money to do and may not be worth the cost.

 4. Economic benefit for the city/area of the PMA

This issue was discussed. The phrase “may be” was heard five times, twice from Spencer and three times from Pedersen. As in, “The people flying in MAY BE eating at a restaurant in Pittsfield. They MAY BE staying at a hotel in Pittsfield. They MAY BE shopping in Pittsfield.”

Speculation was proffered in general, as in the previous meeting.

A plane was spotted at PMA with a “Caesar’s Place” emblem on the tail. “They MAY BE . . .”

5. FBO purpose and role

Lyon Aviation seems to be an entity unto itself — a lot of mystery surrounds the operation, such as exactly how many employees they have, how much fuel they dispense, revenues, etc.  “We suffer from a lack of knowledge,” someone said. “They’re a private company.” But city is locked into a lease/agreement, so not much can be done.

 6. DOT’s Economic Impact Study was mentioned briefly.

[Not stated in the meeting: Numbers touted for PMA are 226 jobs, $10+ mil. in salaries, and $35+ mil. in total economic impact. However, footnote 2 for these numbers reads: “Total impacts include all on-airport business, construction, visitor, and multiplier impacts.” How much of the 226, 10 mil, 35 mil. comes just from the expansion project itself? The numbers need to be examined in more detail to even attempt to determine what economic benefit the city and area derive from the airport.]

END OF REPORT

——– 000 ——–

One thing is apparent: The city has an appalling lack of knowledge of airport operations. For example, how can a municipal airport not know of planes that fly in or out? How can a company such as Lyon Aviation set up at a city facility and remain a mystery? What exactly is it that the specially appointed airport review board is trying to get to the bottom of? Will they know it should they get there? And if they do, will they share it with We The People, or will it be hidden or obfuscated, like so many other forms of “official” information, data, and knowledge in the great land of Benigno Numine? And what of the rumors that have long swirled about the airport operations, that all is not all that it seems?

For the answers to these questions, boys and girls, you won’t want to miss the next thrill-pact adventures of “Sky Queen.”

——————————————————————————-

“In the land of the blind, the Cylcops is king.” — Anon.

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The views expressed in the comment section or opinions published within the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not those of PLANET VALENTI or endorsed in any way by PLANET VALENTI; this website reserves the right to remove any comment which violates its Rules of Conduct, and it is not liable for the consequences of any posted comment as provided in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and PLANET VALENTI’s terms of service.