Article online about Skydive Arizona's issue with the city of Eloy

[tdog 0]

Quote

Maybe a "spend not one red cent in town" campaign at the Christmas boogie is in order.

It is pretty hard to convince people to drive much farther - and it won't be noticed as firm transactions that will be lost.

Instead - spend money - lots of money - but with each purchase hand a flier to the cashier "I am a skydiver who may not be here next year because Skydive AZ may leave! Want my money, talk to the city to make sure the DZ stays - and I will come back next year too."

[Zing 2]

Nope, Al was the guy that was hired as airport manager for a very short time, then let go when the city decided they couldn't afford him.

Zing Lurks

[freeflir29 0]

If I owned SDA I would comission a company to investigate what deals other towns in the area would give me. I'm sure there are PLENTY of towns willing to be business friendly with an operation of that size. As far as moving the tunnel. At $72,000 a year that's going to stick profits in the spleen. You could probably come close to buying a NEW tunnel for $72,000 a year. Or the could do it the old fashioned way. Just have some unsavory characters pay the mayor a visit in the dark of night for an "attitude adjustment." Kidding..........only kidding...............

[davelepka 4]

Quote

with each purchase hand a flier to the cashier "I am a skydiver who may not be here next year because Skydive AZ may leave! Want my money, talk to the city to make sure the DZ stays - and I will come back next year too."

Just a thought, if Larry Hill can sell his land around the airport for far more than the cost of relocating SDA to a new, private field with all new facilities, why even bother with trying to stay in Eloy?

Build a new DZ, and pocket the millions left over. Hell, even include space for Rigging Innovations, and some T-hangers for airplane owners currently based out of Eloy. Use the revenue to cover the fixed expenses of owning your own airport. It sounds liek a win-win-win-win-win situation to me.

As far as the tunnel goes, the costs should be limited to moving the structure, and building a new foundations. I'm sure it won't be chaep, but it has to be a fraction of the initial build cost.

Fuck those townies, and build a mega DZ just how you want it (anyone ever been to Skydive Chicago?).

[StreetScooby 5]

Let's hope Larry has his team already looking for alternate sites and starting negotiations.

We are all engines of karma

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Have the jumpers put reciepts fro mall the local businesses in a jar. Take the jar to the next meeting and dump them out showing just how much money is going to be lost from just one event.

You don't understand politicians. A jar of receipts is viewed as a "missed shot at revenue" by kleptocrats.

"Shoot, all the lost opportunity at sales tax revenues. Um, when's the Holiday Boogie? Okay. Our present sales tax is 3%. Let's increase it to 6% 5 days before and 5 days after the event."

It'd be just another way to grab money, I'm afraid.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,406]

>"Shoot, all the lost opportunity at sales tax revenues. Um, when's
>the Holiday Boogie? Okay. Our present sales tax is 3%. Let's increase it to
>6% 5 days before and 5 days after the event."

Perhaps - but the corrollary to that is "hmm, now we lose twice as much money if those smelly lunatics move to Gila Bend." And politicians do like their money.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes, politicians do like their money. They also are not used to dealing with people who have the ability to not be weighed down by their decisions.

I don't trust politicians one bit - especially local ones. They are in the business of getting revenue, but operate outside of the normal business model. IT's easy to say, "He makes more money than anyone here. LEt's sock it to him."

Unlike anyone else they've ever dealth with, much of his business comes from elsewhere, meaning his business name is international. He can get away with building up a business in another place because the locals don't constitute the brunt of his business.

And when governments attempt to do to Mr. Hill what they do to local mom and pops, they usualy find out the hard way that it didn't work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Eule 0]

Quote

Instead - spend money - lots of money - but with each purchase hand a flier to the cashier "I am a skydiver who may not be here next year because Skydive AZ may leave! Want my money, talk to the city to make sure the DZ stays - and I will come back next year too."

Something the size of a business card would be even easier to carry and pass out. There isn't as much room on it but you could print something simple on it like "Skydiver money" - the local merchants will figure it out.

To get straight into a Federal crime, one could get a rubber stamp and stamp a parachute onto every single piece of currency that comes in, and offer the use of the stamp to jumpers who are going to spend money in town.

Eule

PLF does not stand for Please Land on Face.

[ltdiver 3]

Great Bryan Burke reply in a Bonfire thread.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2499836;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[bbarnhouse 0]

It was also posted in this thread

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

It was also posted in this thread

Oops. Been at Nat's ya know...

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[riddler 0]

Eloy isn't any different than any other American city, large or small. They mismanage money, so they want more money, they sniff around to see where they can get it, then they raise taxes, levy fines, or whatever else. They hope it's too much of a pain for the taxpayers to move from the city, so the residents pay through the nose.

I don't see why the tunnel needs to move - sure, it's convenient to have it near the DZ, but it's not entirely necessary. OTOH, if they don't move it, Eloy will probably just keep raising the cost of electricity, or impose an indoor-arial-sports tax, or something to that effect. But any other city will eventually do the same.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[sundevil777 93]

Sniffing around to see where they can get it...

Sounds like the basic philosophy of the progressive income tax to me.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Remster 24]

Quote

don't see why the tunnel needs to move - sure, it's convenient to have it near the DZ, but it's not entirely necessary. OTOH, if they don't move it, Eloy will probably just keep raising the cost of electricity,

Its actually outside of the city limits.

Remster

[JoeG 0]

annexation/imminent domain?


Many states require a vote of the general assemby; I don't know the rules of that state, but its definitely a possibility.

_________________________________________
"Knowledge is Power!"

[azdiver 0]

anymore news on the progress of this sh!t storm

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[Luminous 0]

Larry should get a big pile of $2 bills and ask ALL skydivers to buy and use $2 bills for their spending needs while in Eloy.

I once heard a story of a small DZ owner being harrassed by his local city officials doing this and then at the next town meeting asking if the influx had been noticed. It had and apparently they decided his business was good for the town.

Cheers

'In an insane society a sane person seems insane.' Mr. Spock

[cpoxon 0]

Quote

anymore news on the progress of this sh!t storm

Funny you should ask, the Mayor has had a say. From http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17475947&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222077&rfi=6

Quote

Mayor: Law on city's side on airport fees

By MAYOR BYRON JACKSON, Guest Opinion, Eloy Enterprise November 16, 2006

"I will not stand by and be held hostage at my own airport by one operator who seems to think things of yesterday will always remain the same."

(Editor's Note: - Because of extended column and letter space allowed opponents of raising the through the fence rates at the Eloy Municipal Airport, we are offering "equal time" to the city's representative, Eloy Mayor Byron Jackson)
After several letters, e-mails and newspaper writing in regards to the city's position on Fixed Based Operators and "Through the fence" operations there are roughly over 11,000 people here in Eloy that we can account for.

I would imagine out of this number there are several children under the age of 18 and, of course, prisoners. The rest I would have to say are homeowners, renters and consumers one way or the other. When the folks of Eloy look up and see a dozen or so human beings falling from the sky, chances are these individuals are jumping at the hands of Skydive Arizona for a nominal fee.

Skydive Arizona is an FBO (Fixed Based Operator) off the perimeter boundaries of the Eloy Airport. Presently, Skydive Arizona (a privately owned business) has the great pleasure of using the (taxpayer-owned) municipal airport courtesy of the City of Eloy to take-off and land its planes free of charge while engaging in its for-profit business. Not a bad deal for any business!

I've heard through these various e-mails, and letters that if the city imposes such an ordinance to this one operator whom accounts for at least 90 percent of the take off and landing there (and that's being conservative); that the economic impact to the city of Eloy would be devastating to the airport and businesses that rely on this FBO.

Yes... I do agree that there would be a few businesses that would probably suffer in and around the airport but as it stands the airport itself is a not a money maker. It doesn't even support itself. The General Fund of the City of Eloy subsidizes the operation, maintenance and repair or replacement of the airport infrastructure. The operation itself is little or none! The maintenance is minimal because the city can barely afford to maintain, let alone afford to replace or add, new hangers.

But as it stands there is no budget for this airport. Very little revenue is generated from hangar rentals and tie downs and some sales tax is collected. A generous amount of grant funding is giving to municipally owned airports that struggle but are compliant to the mandates of FAA regulations and requirements.

I don't want to see any business here in Eloy shut its doors. But I will not stand by and be held hostage at my own airport by one operator who seems to think things of yesterday will always remain the same. Apartment rents never stay the same!

Water rates never stay the same!

Interest rates never stay the same and you better believe Hangar rentals will not stay the same and off-site operators will be made to pay to access airport facilities if that is what cities are required to implement.

The city council has implemented a fee (not to exceed) $6,000 for off-site operators (per month). The city council has asked the city manager to negotiate a fair and equitable amount for Skydive's use of our taxi-ways and run-ways. That meeting (one in which I hope to be part of) is still yet to happen.

I would hope we could come to terms with this FBO to make sure it stays and remain a viable, money making operation at our airport. There will be an amount accessed; that I can guarantee. What it will be will have to be agreed on by Skydive ownership.

If the attitude is to pay nothing and ignore city ordinances than so be it; we will have to take a position of ownership just like any other business. Skydive AZ doesn't allow folks to jump for free and we will no longer allow off-site FBOs to make money using (our) airport for free! What was given 15 years ago (like it or not) has faded with all the other bad dealings and hand-shake agreements these present councils have had to rectify. We are going to do what's right!

As Mayor and I think I can speak for the rest of the council 'We would not have it any other way'! It might not seem right to those airport users and skydive enthusiasts but to the 10,999 citizens that don't use & never will use what they pay for; I know we are making the right decision!

In a statement from a FAA regulatory specialist, he states that the amount (paid) should attribute to the amount of use and impact that that FBO has on the municipally owned airport. Remember, I earlier mentioned conservatively 90 percent. I would like you the public, business owners and airport/ skydive enthusiasts to read what this well known representative of this aviation region, Tony Garcia had to say after I inquired of his expert knowledge of airport operations.


E-mail from Anthony Garcia, printed with permission:


"Byron Jackson,

The disclosure below represents an explanation of the grant assurances and United States Code. Therefore, the words I used are not verbatim from the law but explain the intent of the law and how airport sponsors can implement the regulatory and legal requirements of the law.

For example, the law states that the airport will be "self-sustaining." What that means in ordinary terms is that the airport will have a set of fees and charges that are applied to categories of airport users. The imposition of fees and charges will help the airport recover its costs of operations. The result will be that the airport will be self-sustaining. In the event the airport is not self-sustaining and is operating at a loss, the airport will be as self-sustaining as possible in spite of not being profitable.

The guidance below is not an exact copy of the law but an explanation to help you carry out the law. It is our hope that the guidance will make it easier for you to explain to your constituents why the airport is supposed to charge airport users for specific kinds of uses of the airport such as "through the fence."


Subject: RE: FAA Through-the-Fence Guidance

The following information is provided in response to your e-mail inquiry:

Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure implements the requirements of USC 47107(a)(13) and stipulates that the airport owner will maintain a schedule of charges that will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible. This means charging fees to airport users to recover the costs of operating, maintaining, and improving the airport.

USC 47107(l)(3) states the airport owners, when entering into new or revised agreements establishing rates and charges, shall use the opportunity to make the airport as self-sustaining as possible by imposing fees or adjusting rates that will help recover the costs of operating, maintaining, and improving the airport.

In accordance with the assurance, there is an affirmative duty to charge fees so the airport can become self-sustaining and not remain a tax burden on the local governing body and citizens.

Through-the-fence (TTF) operators do not have any special privileges that allow them to escape paying airport fees. [emphasis added] They are subject to fees and charges for their use of the airport. TTF operators can use the airport, but unlike most airport users, have exclusive access to the airport from their own property. Therefore, they should pay for the private TTF access to the airport as well as for their use of the airport. If a TTF operator's use of the airport is significant, the fee should be in proportion to their use of the airport. [emphasis added]

The FAA does not support TTF access because it can encumber the airport owners rights and powers.

The FAA policy states:

"There are instances when the owner of a public airport proposes to enter into an agreement that permits access to the public landing area by aircraft based on land adjacent to, but not part of, the airport property. This type of an arrangement is commonly called a through-the-fence operation, whether the perimeter fence is imaginary or real. It is Federal Aviation Administration policy to discourage through-the-fence agreements, and even oppose them if they are clearly detrimental to an airport's interests or prevent the airport owner from complying with federal obligations."

The obligation to make an airport available for the use and benefit of the public does not impose any requirement to permit access by aircraft from adjacent property. On the contrary, the existence of such an arrangement has been recognized as an encumbrance upon the airport property itself.

Airport obligations arising from federal grant agreements and conveyance instruments apply to dedicated airport land and facilities and not to private property adjacent to the airport, even when the property owner is granted a through-the-fence privilege. To protect the airport owner's rights and powers and to fulfill grant assurance obligations, the airport sponsor should retain a legal right to require the off-site property owner and/or occupants to conform in all respects to the requirements of the grant agreements.

The owner of a public airport is entitled to seek recovery of the initial and continuing costs of providing a public use landing area. The owners of airports receiving federal funds have been required to establish a fee and rental structure designed to make the airports as self-sustaining as possible. Most public airports seek to recover a substantial part of airfield operating costs indirectly through various arrangements affecting commercial activities on the airport. The development of aeronautical businesses on land uncontrolled by the airport owner may give them a competitive advantage that will be detrimental to the on-airport operators on whom the airport owner relies for revenue and service to the public. To avoid a potential imbalance, the airport owner may refuse to authorize a through-the-fence operation. If one already exists, and to equalize an imbalance, the airport owner should obtain a fair return from off-airport operators in exchange for continuing access to the airport and use of the landing area.

Although airports do not need and should avoid through-the-fence arrangements, circumstances may arise which compel an airport owner to contemplate a through-the-fence operation. In this situation, the airport owner must plan ahead to formulate a prudent through-the-fence agreement and obtain just compensation for granting access to the airport because the airport is enfranchising a special class of airport users who will be permitted to exercise an exclusive through-the-fence privilege.

In making airport facilities available for public use, the airport owner must make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the particular circumstances at the airport. The FAA has interpreted the self-sustaining assurance to require airport owners to charge fair market value (FMV) commercial rates for non-aeronautical uses of the airport. In conformity with the self-sustaining principle, it would be appropriate to charge FMV rates to off-airport users for the exclusive privilege of having private access to the airport.

A through-the-fence agreement should include provisions making the access agreement and operations under the agreement subject to the same federal requirements and obligations as tenants on airport property. In formulating a through-the-fence agreement, the airport owner should endeavor to establish terms that are beneficial to the airport.

Negotiations should be conducted from the perspective that the airport does not need through the fence. [emphasis added] It is the private property owner that covets the privilege and who must compensate the airport for the privilege. For example, the adjacent developer or landowner should be made to finance the necessary improvements and maintenance of the facilities and infrastructure connecting the adjacent land to the airport's landing area. Rates and charges may be based on use rather than on flat rates and should contain a provision for rate increases. Access agreements can take the form of short-term revocable permits or licenses. They should not be transferable, issued in perpetuity or in fee simple with a deed. Agreements should contain provisions allowing the airport to terminate the through-the-fence access privilege for cause.

In addition, the airport owner must restrict the uses that may be made of the adjacent land as a condition for granting a through-the-fence privilege. Private property owners must be asked to enter into agreements that prohibit public aeronautical commercial operations. Simply stated, they should not be allowed to operate as fixed based operators (FBO) offering aeronautical services to the public. Such FBO operations, if allowed, would give private property operators an advantage over on-airport operators. Allowing private property owners to gain a competitive advantage will jeopardize the economic vitality of the airport and impede its ability to remain self-sustaining. Additionally, any economic advantage gained by adjacent property owners will diminish the economic viability of the airport's own aeronautical commercial operators.

Arrangements that permit aircraft to gain access to a public landing area from off-site property introduce safety considerations along with additional hazards that complicate the control of vehicular and aircraft traffic. Airport improvements designed to accommodate access to the airport and landing areas from an off-site location for the sole benefit and convenience of an off-airport neighbor present a substantial and continuing burden to the airport owner. In addition, the airport must contend with legal, insurance, and management implications represented by increased costs, liability, and administrative and operational controls.

For the airport owner, it may become an unexpected challenge to balance airport needs with the increasing demands on the airport by off-airport users.

It is FAA policy to strongly discourage any agreement that grants access to public landing areas by aircraft normally stored on adjacent property. Airport owners must guard against any through-the-fence operation that can become detrimental to the airport and threaten its economic viability. Any agreement for a through-the-fence operation must include provisions making such operations subject to the same federal obligations as tenants on airport property. Furthermore, the airport owner must ensure that the through-the-fence operators contribute a fair share toward the cost of the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the airport and that they do not gain an unfair economic advantage over on-airport operators [emphasis added].

Any airport contemplating a through-the-fence permit is strongly encouraged to submit the proposal to the FAA for review and comment prior to executing any agreement.

Compliance Requirements:

Assurance 5, Rights and Powers

An airport sponsor must maintain sufficient proprietary power to ensure it can control airport access and enforce through-the-fence requirements.

To reduce airport liability, an airport sponsor should obtain an aviation easement from the through-the-fence operator in order to protect the airport.

Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance

An airport sponsor must maintain the airport in a safe and serviceable condition at all time. Therefore, the airport sponsor must be able to ensure that operators entering the airport through-the-fence comply with all airport rules and regulations in order to maintain airport safety, security, and efficiency.

Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure

An airport sponsor must establish rates and fees that will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible [emphasis added]. The rate setting methodology should establish reasonable rates for aeronautical activities. Non-aeronautical activities must be made to pay fair market value for the use of airport land. The non-aeronautical rate also applies to through-the-fence operators, even if they conduct some kind of aviation-related activity on their property. Through-the-fence is a special privilege that represents an encumbrance on the airport owners rights [emphasis added]. Through-the-fence operators do not have any grant assurance protections. Therefore, they must pay fair market value for the privilege of acquiring a private, exclusive privilege.

Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan

An Airport sponsor must update the ALP to show where the through-the-fence access has been created on airport property.

The information above should provide guidance regarding your management of TTF rates and charges at Eloy Airport.

Tony Garcia, FAA Airports, Hawthorne CA

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[bbarnhouse 0]

Funny that there is no mention that the City asked Larry Hill to come to Eloy as a TTF in exchange for economic development, which it has done. No mention of the contract nor lease with Skydive Arizona which has been breached by the City of Eloy.
Interesting that Larry Hill offered to donate 10 acres of land to the city for expansion of the airport and the City manager refused. This dontation would have covered the cost of the grant.
No mention that the contract and lease were in place prior to the grant.
The things that make you go...hummmm.

The grant assurances regarding TTFs are to keep TTFs from competing and hurting the city.There isn't another skydiving operation in Eloy. Skydive Arizona only uses the taxi and runway...nothing else.

The Mayor states that if Skydive leaves, it would only effect a small portion of the business surrounding the airport. Am I missing something here?

What will happen to the local economy when Skydive Arizona leaves?
As to the Mayor and HIS airport...excuse me? The airport belongs to the tax payers...doesn't it?

If one looks at the budget for the airport it doesn't jive.
$60,000 spent on maintenance? WHERE AND WHEN?
I've seen the "weed pullers" maybe 3 times in the last year.
If that's what they are getting for salary then I want that job!
Additionally 60k? We use to do it for the city for $150 a month!

Well folks, its an ongoing battle and as they say...it ain't over til the fat lady sings...I just ain't that fat
Keep your eyes peeled in the letter to the editor section, and I wouldn't be surprised if the mayor whistles a new tune before long Fat lady indeed.

[davelepka 4]

Whats interesting about the mayors statement is that he seems to not address what the real issues are.

Like it or not, SDA could be expected to pay a usage fee for the airport. Things change, and maybe this is one of them. However, the amount of that fee needs to inline with both the size of airport and facilities, and adjustments should be made for the benefits provided to the city by SDA.

If I'm not mistaken, $6000/mo is what they came up with after buying a report from a consulting firm who used busier, larger airports as a reference for seetting the fee scedule. As such, what they're asking for is way out of line.

Maybe if it was a more reasonable fee, there would be no story.

Also, I may be wrong about this, but my impression of federal monies for pubilc ariports is that the amount of money is based on the number operations(take offs and landings) at that airport. I can only imagine that few airport users would conduct as many operations as a busy, multi turbine DZ.

How many loads do you fly per day, on average? 20? 30?

How will the absense of SDA effect the federal funding to Eloy Muni? How far out of whack will their consultants report be then?

It really seems like some very short sighted people are runnig things over in Eloy. Why would they expect the airport to be source of significant revenue? Why the hell would anyone want go to Eloy if not for the skydiving? I'm sure there people who travel there for other reasons, but surely not enough to energize the airport to the point of being a revenue stream.

I really hope you guys move out of there to dedicated, private airstrip with an all new DZ.

[stratostar 5]

It would nice to be so stinking rich that one wouldn't have to think twice to tell the city to stick it and pull up the whole DZ and move it "across the street" so to speak, just far enough to keep the money out of the city,but close enough so they can still see it on the way to work every day like a big eye sore of what of what they dove off, and then sit back watch the airport lose all the FED money, the city thinks their missing out on the cash cow, wonder what they would think after losing all the cash flowing into the town.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Remster 24]

Quote

It would nice to be so stinking rich that one wouldn't have to think twice to tell the city to stick it and pull up the whole DZ and move it "across the street" so to speak,

Yeah... wouldnt it....

Remster

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

Whats interesting about the mayors statement is that he seems to not address what the real issues are.

The Mayors statement is further proof that he and his council are unaware of contractual agreements already in place on paper, not a "handshake deal" as he put it and of the applicable laws that govern Federally funded airports. My prediction is that you will see a recanting of that statement and previously stated findings by the mayor and the City of Eloy when all is said and done. Actually, they will probably say nothing and push the matter under the rug and move on. This is all a reflection of poor city management by the city manager and the city council not fully knowing what they are talking about.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[Zing 2]

Unless, of course, the City Elders of Elroy and the political/business/military (take your pick according to your own paranoia) machine sees a potentially more-profitable alternative to Larry's business staying at that airport.
I'd bet this dispute is merely the proverbial "tip of the iceberg" in the structure of some entity's long-range master-plan for Elroy and it's airport.
Even at the local level of lower economy towns and counties such as Elroy and Pinal, the political structure is complexly convoluted. This will get even more "interesting" before the dust settles.

Zing Lurks