Farmington wants to build aircraft canopy

The city wants to spend $250,000 in state funding on a shaded outdoor shelter for airplanes before the state of New Mexico takes away the money to balance its budget.

[mailman]

The Farmington airport is a farce so why even bother with wasting the money here? Let the state have the money back and use it for some worthwhile projects.

[ShameOnMayes]

Does Rob Mayes have no shame. The State of New Mexico needs the money and here he wants to SPEND it to shade 14 private planes at a cost of $18,000 per plane so the State cannot use the money to help pay our existing debts. Rob Mayes needs to resign immediately over this one.

[Cheeky]

ShameOnMayes wrote:

Does Rob Mayes have no shame. The State of New Mexico needs the money and here he wants to SPEND it to shade 14 private planes at a cost of $18,000 per plane so the State cannot use the money to help pay our existing debts. Rob Mayes needs to resign immediately over this one.

I agree with you, some things are just more important!

[Kewl]

Good Grief, do you people not get it?? The budget shortfalls can be covered (no pun) if big Bill will just quit jetting around and sell the State jet airplane. I guess that would be poetic justice. The airport is a commercial flop, but lots of locals keep their planes there and pay a parking fee to the city. What is wrong with letting them have something back for the cash they spend? We dont get the same courtesy from our friends in Santa Fe

[C Lee Nickel]

Yet another example of government in action: Let's hurry up and build something so we don't have to use the money to pay off debt.

Furthermore, the city would spend nearly a quarter million dollars so it can make $8,000 per year? Sounds like a pretty poor investment to me. If the city had to borrow this money, using every dime of income from the project, it would take nearly 30 years to pay it back, with NO interest.

If the City of Farmington insists upon wasting even more taxpayer money on a proven boondoggle like the airport, perhaps the need to "Call the General."

http://www.gensteel.com/

[Namvets Wife]

Cheeky wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you, some things are just more important!

Yea, like a new BLM office.

[good one]

ShameOnMayes wrote:

Does Rob Mayes have no shame. The State of New Mexico needs the money and here he wants to SPEND it to shade 14 private planes at a cost of $18,000 per plane so the State cannot use the money to help pay our existing debts. Rob Mayes needs to resign immediately over this one.

Again, putting everything on Mr. Mayes. The council makes spending decisions.

[Simper Fi]

Follow the money.

[but but]

I thought planes were waterproof and didn't need shelter from the rain.

[fish in denmark]

C Lee Nickel wrote:

Yet another example of government in action: Let's hurry up and build something so we don't have to use the money to pay off debt.
Furthermore, the city would spend nearly a quarter million dollars so it can make $8,000 per year? Sounds like a pretty poor investment to me. If the city had to borrow this money, using every dime of income from the project, it would take nearly 30 years to pay it back, with NO interest.
If the City of Farmington insists upon wasting even more taxpayer money on a proven boondoggle like the airport, perhaps the need to "Call the General."
http://www.gensteel.com/

Actually, it is 26.6 years to pay it off at $8,000 "profit" per year. That means that IF all 18 spaces were rented out to private aircraft, each plane owner would be paying $444.45 PER YEAR to park a craft that costs more than the average luxury suv. That equals $37.04 per month rental fee. I am aware that this would be in addition to the "normal" parking fee at the airport, but come on...you pay nearly $6.00 per day for covered car parking at Albuquerque.

I agree, let the state have the money back, perhaps the schools will see less of a budget cut. IF we sold the Rail Runner and the State owned Gov. aircrafr, we could give the schools a raise.

[A Liberal]

This is a perfect example of Republican and conservatives. Yep our city counsel is conservative body. So, the city will spend the money on something that benifits who? oh yes, those who can afford a private airplane. Thats not you Mr Nickel. Now if they bought a big enough tarp and attached the whole airport to it, maybe a big wind would blow the airport away and save our city lots of money!!

[BigFoot]

Typical government at "work". This world wide mentality is certainly part of the economic problems we all face. I've seen this same money grab used by our illustrious County Commission. At practically every meeting of the Commission, some staff member makes a presentation for yet another State/Federal grant. Makes no difference if the project is justified or not. When taken to task as to whether the project is needed and why we don't just let the "free" money stay with the issueing entity, they have the same ol' pat answer "If we don't take it someone else will". Mygod people, wake up! If it's not needed, don't take it.

[mr t]

Kewl wrote:

Good Grief, do you people not get it?? The budget shortfalls can be covered (no pun) if big Bill will just quit jetting around and sell the State jet airplane. I guess that would be poetic justice. The airport is a commercial flop, but lots of locals keep their planes there and pay a parking fee to the city. What is wrong with letting them have something back for the cash they spend? We dont get the same courtesy from our friends in Santa Fe

So tell us.......what do all the other citizens get from the city for the cash 'we' spend. Send the money back for better uses. The airport doesn't deserve any of it.

[SJC Liberal]

shhhhsssshh!!! Don't tell anybody, but I agree with C Lee.....

Hope he doesn't find out.....

[Bent Wing]

With your numbers (not counting cost overruns) will cost slightly more than $15,000 per aircraft. With contractors begging for work today for the same amount of money you could build totally enclosed hangars that would rent for higher monthly fees. What would your airport do with the higher payback money?

[Bent Wing]

I am an owner of a small private airplane located in the southeast. Our rental rates for tie down (parked outside in the open) are among the cheapest in the USA at $69.00 per month, enclosed hanger space also a bargain at $160.00 per month. General Aviation pays its way with increased commercial and business activity. Good airports and service at the same is ALWAYS a good investment for the local community.

[FlawedLogic]

Bent Wing wrote:

With your numbers (not counting cost overruns) will cost slightly more than $15,000 per aircraft. With contractors begging for work today for the same amount of money you could build totally enclosed hangars that would rent for higher monthly fees. What would your airport do with the higher payback money?

The average cost of cheap, nested T-hangars is approximately $40,000 each in New Mexico.

[wurx-fur-me]

If the private plane owners want a nice place to dock their aircraft they should be the ones paying for it, not the city. Give the money back to the state. Hey! If the governor of NM was a Republican would you "conservatives" have a problem with him flying to important events in a state owned aircraft?

[C Lee Nickel]

wurx-fur-me wrote:

If the private plane owners want a nice place to dock their aircraft they should be the ones paying for it, not the city. Give the money back to the state. Hey! If the governor of NM was a Republican would you "conservatives" have a problem with him flying to important events in a state owned aircraft?

Considering how much I drive around New Mexico..trips to Albuquerque 2-3 times per month, and trips to our place in the El Malpais once a month or so, among others..and how much I've driven in wide open spaces of the west, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, etc. I don't have a problem with the state owning a couple of airplanes. Driving, it just takes a long time to get from point A to point B in the west.
Time is one thing we're paying our governor to use wisely, and as much as I like listening to the radio while driving, it really can't be considered my most productive time.
However, just like automobiles, there are airplanes that could be considered "limousines", and there are airplanes that could be considered "economy cars".
For government officials, I lean towards the idea that "economy cars" should work just fine.

[wurx-fur-me]

C Lee Nickel wrote:

<
However, just like automobiles, there are airplanes that could be considered "limousines", and there are airplanes that could be considered "economy cars".
For government officials, I lean towards the idea that "economy cars" should work just fine.

Good point, however the plane is now in service and it would be stupid to replace it with something else. As long as it is properly maintained, future governors (regardless of political affiliation) will be able to use it for many years. After all, the plane is the property of the state, not the governor.