On “numbers games” and the “costs of maintaining” an aerodrome
I have an interest in a property with a hangar and aircraft at YCTM. The local council has – to its credit – established an ‘Aerodrome Advisory Committee’ as a forum to listen to users’ perspectives and to run ideas up the flagpole or foreshadow proposals. The Committee was formed in the wake of a meeting that the Council called when it was proposing to implement fees based on the Avdata system. I am on the Committee. As a consequence of these meetings, we got to see Council’s annual expenses and income for the aerodrome.
The first issue to become stark is that the single largest expense – around 25% - is ‘general rates’. That is, rates Council charges of itself and pays to itself. Whilst this may be standard accounting practice, it does not represent an actual out-of-pocket cost to Council.
Then I discovered that some of the original aerodrome land handed to Council has been fenced off for agricultural use. The agricultural users pay a fee to Council for that use. I asked whether the fees those people pay to Council for use of that aerodrome land get accounted for as income from the aerodrome? No.
Then I asked whether the proceeds of the sale of subdivided blocks of land, which were originally part of the aerodrome handed to the Council then sold freehold by the Council, were accounted for as income from the aerodrome or set aside for the maintenance of the aerodrome? No.
Do any of the rates paid by the people who bought those blocks and put hangars on them appear as income from the aerodrome? No. (And as the Council casts about trying charge someone – anyone – fees, the latest proposal is to charge those ‘locals’ and not itinerants for aerodrome use. *sigh*)
For a while the ‘main’ windsock – the ubiquitous PAL illuminated jobbie from the Jurassic Period with the circle below for dumbbells/crosses – was jamming. The defect could easily have been repaired by the engineering firm less than 50 metres away. (I saw the defect ‘up close and personal’ – as I occasionally climbed a ladder to free the sock.) The Council instead decided to replace the whole pole/sock/lighting assembly at a cost of $10k plus (exact amount to be seen in the next set of figures made available to the AAC). I’m not criticising the people who made the decision to replace the whole thing. But if the Council’s really concerned about the costs of the aerodrome, why not repair at a 10th of the cost of the replacement? (And before someone pipes up with speculative reasons, please don’t…)
Then appeared some brand new ‘industrial strength’ mower tractor attachments. They do a fantastic job! Word on the grapevine is that they were purchased “for” the aerodrome and will be accounted as a cost to the aerodrome. But are they used to mow only the aerodrome? No. (But I stress here that I need to do some digging to find the facts, first hand.)
Then someone who’s been around here for a very long time, including when the aerodrome was given to Council by the Commonwealth, asked: “What happened to the million dollars given to Council at that time by the Commonwealth to fund the maintenance of the aerodrome?” Shrugs all ‘round. “Probably went into general revenue.” Oh.
The Council has plans to subdivide more blocks of original aerodrome land and sell them freehold in an ‘air park’ arrangement. That’s a good idea. But….. I asked where the proceeds of those new sales would go – now that Council understands that aerodromes cost money to maintain and those blocks of land, like the earlier ones sold, were given to Council as part of the aerodrome. Lots of humming and frowning. “Maybe we’ll use it to fund the development of land at […a location that has nothing to do with aviation..].” Oh.
The biggest surprise was how small the delta between measured annual expenses and measured income is: A number of thousands that can be counted on the fingers of one’s hands. The local community is getting an absolute bargain. It may not be appreciated by many in the community, but that’s the fact. (Nobody complained when the firefighting aircraft were positioned on standby and the area was under extreme threat of fire. When the wet set in, nobody was complaining about the aerial agricultural operations that could only be carried out from a sealed runway. Plenty of noise complaints which, fortunately, the Council dealt with on a common sense basis.)
I have said publicly, and will continue to say publicly, that the Council’s suggestion that YCTM aerodrome isn’t paying its own way is not true in fact. And that’s just on tawdry dollars in and out. I’m not suggesting corruption; I’m just stating that when expenditure and income are accounted for in the way Council accounts for YCTM, it is always going to look like it’s making a ‘loss’.
I don’t think YCTM is on its lonesome. I recently attended a fly in at an aerodrome where the local council was proposing to impose landing fees. I spoke to the local aeroclub president and went through the kinds of issues we’re dealing with at YCTM. And at one point he paused and said: “Hang on a sec’. Part of this aerodrome has been fenced off for agricultural use!” Best to start digging, old mate!
Some people in Council continue to be hell bent on trying to make up the on-paper shortfall in fees somehow but, as I keep telling them, the fees will cost more to collect than will be collected. That lesson has already been learned the really hard way at many other places. I'm resigned to watching Council learn the same lesson, despite being forewarned.
I’m going to conduct a simple test. I’m going to offer to relieve Council of the financial burden that YCTM has apparently become for it. I’m going offer to take the aerodrome land off Council’s hands, at the price Council paid for it, and take over responsibility for operating it and all associated costs. And so generous am I, that I won’t ask for $1million to fund maintenance. Does anyone believe my offer will be accepted?
In any event, Cootamundra is a great town in walking distance from the aerodrome. Please drop in and stay for a while. The good news is that Council is currently pursuing a proposal to impose aerodrome usage fees on us ratepaying locals, but not on visitors. So you’re welcome!