Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 95

Thread: Lancaster Airport owners seek buyer

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    1,713

    Lancaster Airport owners seek buyer

    Lancaster airport  buffalo news

    Lancaster Airport owners seek buyer
    Site has been at center of controversy in townBy Stephen T. Watson

    NEWS STAFF REPORTER

    Published:
    March 31, 2012, 10:55 PM



    The owners of the Lancaster Airport say frustration over high taxes, strict regulations and determined opposition from their neighbors are driving them to seek a buyer.

    The airfield has been a point of contention since its designation in the 1990s as a "reliever" airport for the Buffalo Niagara International Airport brought extra federal aid -- and growth.

    A determined group of Lancaster residents has sought to stop further expansion as they complain about noise from low-flying planes using the facility.

    "We are going to be soon engaged in selling the airport. Taxes and regulations have made the operation so marginal," airport President Tom Geles told The Buffalo News.

    The airport has sought to build a longer runway in a bid to bring in larger aircraft, but objections from neighbors and, now, Supervisor Dino J. Fudoli, have thwarted this project.

    Fudoli said he doubts whether the airport's owners are serious about selling off the property, but he hopes any buyer would run the airfield in a way that is more respectful of the residents of nearby subdivisions.

    "I don't know what opportunity [a sale] brings," he said.

    News of a possible sale comes as the town and the airport wrap up a year's worth of negotiations to settle the airport's assessment challenge.

    The settlement was debated at length last week during a Lancaster School Board meeting, a session attended by critics of the airport's operations who doubt its value to the town.

    "The contention it's an economic engine is false," said Carmen Hangauer, a Nichter Road resident who, with her husband, Dave, founded the Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster.

    Partners Henry Geles and Don Griffiths, both now deceased, founded the airport in 1968, and five of their children now operate the facility.

    The rural airport, off Walden Avenue between Pavement and Ransom roads, has six buildings on its property. It is home to about 75 planes at any one time and hosts Bob Miller Flight Training, a flight school.

    The airfield's 3,200-foot runway serves smaller, slower propeller planes, and its owners make money by renting hangar space and selling aviation fuel.

    Its designation in the mid-1990s as a reliever airport was meant to keep those planes from crowding the airspace at the airport in Cheektowaga.

    This brought additional Federal Aviation Administration grant money -- $9.3 million over the years, according to the FAA -- but carried conditions.

    The airport's owners have for years wanted to extend the runway to 5,500 feet to allow the airstrip to bring in light corporate jets.

    "The airport needs to grow in order to survive economically," said Miller, the flight school owner.

    Neighbors complain Miller and Geles said the airfield also needs to build a taxiway, because planes now have to taxi on the airport's runway.

    Fudoli said he supports the construction of a taxiway, as a safety measure, but only if the airport's owners agree they won't seek to extend the runway.

    The airport sits along the Walden Avenue industrial corridor, in a largely rural part of eastern Lancaster where several subdivisions have sprouted up in the flight path in recent years.

    Neighboring homeowners complain of noise from low-flying planes piloted by "hobbyists," most of whom are from out of town, they contend.

    And they complain that previous airport expansions were approved without public input.

    Geles said these residents have the right to speak their minds at community meetings, but he believes they've used their influence to turn government officials and regulators against the airport.

    "Their voices are certainly heard," Geles said.

    Uncertainty over future expansion plans at the Lancaster Airport has driven Miller, the airport's biggest tenant, to move two of his flight school's four planes to the Genesee County Airport in the Town of Batavia.

    Miller said he doesn't understand why homeowners who moved near a functioning airport object to its use as an airport, and he believes the trains running on nearby railroad tracks make more noise.

    The Hangauers, however, say noise has increased since they bought their house 3 1/2 years ago after the flight school moved in and the flight path used by most planes changed.

    The long-running fight over the airfield moved to the School Board meeting, where members debated whether to sign off on a proposed reduction in the airport's assessment.

    The airport is made up of four parcels, totaling 141 acres.

    The town had raised the airport's assessment in 2010, during a revaluation of property in Lancaster, from $1.6 million to $3.43 million, according to town records.

    The challenge focused on the main parcel, which included a 16-acre piece of land the airport bought in 2005 from Ecology & Environment, said Jim Chisholm, a real property appraiser for the town.

    The airport used $940,000 in FAA funding for the land, which is set aside as a runway protection zone, Geles said.

    "This land, once we acquire it, is useless. It cannot be built on. It cannot be sold," he said.

    The airport's owners sought a reduction in its overall assessment to $1 million, Geles said, a figure that better reflects the income generated by the facility.

    Former Lancaster Assessor David Marrano and lawyers for the town worked out a compromise.

    The airport would see its overall assessment fall to $2 million, and the facility would receive a refund from the town, school district and county on part of its property-tax bill for the past two years, town records show.

    The Lancaster School Board must authorize the proposed settlement because it affects school taxes, and some board members raised questions.

    Maura C. Seibold, a lawyer who represented the town in the assessment challenge, told board members last week that the decision to reach a settlement reflected several factors: the high cost of litigating the case, including producing an appraisal; the low financial return provided by a legal victory; and the possibility of a loss in court.

    After a lengthy discussion, the School Board voted to authorize the settlement, even as resident Kevin Lemaster warned the airport would be back later to seek another reduction.

    'It has not been fun' The airport eventually would pay about $62,000 per year in property taxes at the assessment called for in the settlement, which still must be approved by Marrano's successor.

    Even at the new assessed value, the airport's costs don't allow the owners to make much of a profit, Geles said.

    "As of late, it has not been fun," he said.

    Geles said he hasn't formally marketed the property to potential buyers, but if the owners receive a good offer, they will take it because running the airport is no longer enjoyable.

    Conditions attached to some FAA grants, however, require the property to be used as an airport "in perpetuity," according to the FAA.

    And the airport's owners only would be entitled to take away from the proceeds of the sale an amount equal to what they've invested in the facility, Geles and the FAA said.

    For her part, Hangauer said a sale won't make the situation for residents any better and could make it worse.

    "If he sells, that allows a new owner to apply for a new set of [FAA] funding," she said.

    swatson@buffnews.com

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    113
    Poor management by airport owners, not taxes and regulations is the problem. For example, hanger fees and fuel fees much lower than other air fields. Correct number of housed aircraft is 37 based on FAA publication dated April 2011. This airport loves to inflate number of aircraft to attract more funding. BNIA never met criteria for reliever status but currently has 4. Reliever airports: BQR Lancaster, Akron, Buffalo Airfield, West Seneca. Everyone forgets about Niagara Falls International which is under utilized after received 46 million plus in upgrades.

    Statement from FAA regarding "conditions" can be changed depending on whom you talk to. Condition of perpetuity is an incorrect statement. Land can be sold and transfered at any point in time with FAA approval. Ex: Lancaster Airport has set aside approximately 10 acres that it wants to sell to Advanced Thermal on the condition it can buy Advanced Thermal existing building (with FAA funding) on Enterprise Drive. This would allow the airport to continue expansion of parallel taxiway to 5500'. This ten (10) acre piece of FAA purchased property is the same piece of property the failed Carquest sale.

    If the taxiway extension is such a safety issue, why did the FAA allow them to open???? Once again, the airport is only looking for more federal funding.

    Mr. Geles states that the residents the right to speak their minds and believes we have turned regulators and government officials against them. I would like to remind him of a written statement from "Over the Airways" written by Bob Miller and I quote "In summary, our little airport will reign victorious over our detractors primarily because we have right and reason on our side (plus about 10 million in recent federal and state grants) we also won the hearts of our local and federal officials. In same article they hosted a special VIP Reception on the evening prior to the our Open House. We invited all of our federal, state and local elected officials and business leaders." Gee, who were they trying to influence???

    Mr. Miller states that "trains make more noise" than this airport. I would like to counter this statement. Planes are around constantly for enjoyment only while the trains actually (unlike airport) serve an economic purpose.

    Facts in article regarding E&E property are inaccurate.
    Last edited by KevinL; April 1st, 2012 at 11:00 AM.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    113
    Continuation to above.... (E&E property) Land sale was not 2005. Based on Erie County title, correct date was 9/16/09, book # 11169, page 6634. Property is not 16 acres. Based on 2006 Passero Map, 17.1 acres.

    Mr. Geles is quoted as saying that we have influenced regulators and governent officials against them. Please refer to "Over the Airways" written by Bob Miller where where he states: "In summary, our little airport will reign victorious over our detractors primarily because we have right and reason on our side (plus about 10 million in recent federal and state grants.") Also quoting Mr. Miller in same article, "we also won the hearts of our local elected officials". Another statement from Mr. Miller was that they hosted a special VIP reception on the evening prior to our open house. We (Lancaster Airport) invited all of our federal, state and local elected officials and are business leader. Who is trying to sway whom??

    What benefit does the Lancaster Airport bring to the Town of Lancaster, residents and surrounding area? NONE....
    Last edited by KevinL; April 1st, 2012 at 11:23 AM.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    1,713
    There is also a house that was purchased on Pavement Road by the FAA for intentions of being torn down for airport use. House is still there and last I checked, someone is living there. Who is collecting rent money if any?
    Last edited by ichingtheory; April 1st, 2012 at 12:15 PM.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,873
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,918

    Psst, you want to but an airport

    Let’s see if I have this right.

    On the one side are those who take the position:

    • The Lancaster Airport was there first and that anyone who moved in after the 1960’s should have known better. I wonder how many of those comments in today’s Buffalo News report coming from residents living outside Lancaster are from pilots using the Lancaster Airport. In fact, very few Lancaster residents use the airport.

    • Noise is the big issue, but there is a train rail nearby that makes even more noise. Get over it whiners!

    • If the airport owner is not allowed to expand by putting in a parallel taxi runway and expanding the 3200 ft runway to 5,500 ft he will be forced to sell because he is not making any money. The people complaining about further expansion are being unreasonable.

    • The airport owner claims he is not making money and may have to sell the airport. This is why he wants his property assessment to be based on income, not true property value.

    • If the airport is shut down, the land will lay fallow and be overrun with animals and no property taxes will be paid.

    Those who want to see no further expansion take the position:

    • The airport was not there first. There was already Village and Town development there that preceded the airport. Later development occurred during a time when the airport was near defunct – less than 10 planes in operation. No one was bothered with 10 aircraft rarely in use.

    • Noise may be part of the issue, it is not the mainstay. Safety, the violation of the 1986 Special Use Permit condition whereby the airport could expand by no more than 25%, and the millions of dollars in federal and state taxpayer money that went into this project without the public never having any input in the matter. There was not one public hearing ever held, yet the FAA was told there were at both at Town and Planning Board meetings.

    • Everything is about money or politics. Lancaster Airport Inc. has received near $10 million in federal and state taxpayer funded grant money. The airport received three LIDA grants on buildings paid for by government agencies. Three IDAS and where it was openly stated on the application that no job creation would take place but that the IDAS would help the airport sell gas and hangar fee cheaper than the competition. And, under the past administration the town supported this expansion in every way (as was publicly stated by airport owner Tom Geles at the very first meeting he attended) even to the point of handing out permits that should not have been and knowing that the airport in size at that time and with future expansion had the caveat that the airport was to remain an airport in perpetuity.

    • The town has estimated the property value at over $4 million in value. The Assessor’s office initially assessed the property at $3.4 million, lowered it to $2.5 million when challenged (because of assemblage), was taken to court by the airport owner and because of continuing legal fees that would have made the offset in taxes not worth spending further legal costs, settled for $2 million. So, property valued at over $4 million is being assessed at $2 million. Instead of paying at least $100,000 in property taxes on 141 acres of property with improvements and buildings on it, the owner will pay only $60,000.

    • Lancaster Airport does not house 70 aircraft but wants to continue expanding with taxpayer money and bring in larger aircraft and corporate jets. The residents who are ‘opposing’ the airport are simply opposing further expansion. They are not demanding any of the expansion made so far be removed. They want the expansion discontinued.

    • As for the need of the parallel taxi runway for safety reason, why is the airport now in operation if it is so needed on this uncontrolled, tower-less airport. It is needed simply for further expansion to accommodate larger aircraft.

    The residents opposing further expansion are not responsible for Mr. Geles’ income woes. They have had no impact on the business he now has in operation. He claims to have 70 aircraft, is selling gas and hangar fee less than the competition. He has two flight schools in place, although Miller has pulled out two planes. Is it simply mismanagement?

    In combination with the Walden Avenue police/courts building, these two operations have wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer monies; and with both receiving town approval.

    PS

    Unable to correct the 'but' to buy' in the title. Sorry!
    Last edited by Lee Chowaniec; April 1st, 2012 at 06:27 PM.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    It is time of reckoning, what we now see as a community is repetitive behavior of a business that provides no real value to the Town of Lancaster-- bite the hand that feeds it.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    234
    Lee is correct, this Lancaster airport situation is not only a large waste of taxpayer money, but also a huge disservice to the citizens of Lancaster enabled by the former Supervisor Giza. Mr. Giza was duped by the airport with free airplane rides (he openly stated he loves planes before citizen-airport confrontational public meetings---clearly showing his bias), VIP meals, hype. spin, outright lies, and ego buffing. This now goes into the record book as one of the top "Giza Gaffe's" for us to try to do damage control on.
    The airport continues to try to suck in taxpayer dollars and whine about how their business is not profitable enough, in spite of existing on Corporate Welfare and serious mismanagement. And all of this for hobby pilots that don't live in Lancaster!
    Now the airport owner has "had it" and wants to dump the airport. Once in a while the citizens do get proper justice, and perhaps this is one of those times.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    1,713
    They may "want" to sell the airport but in the real world, who would want it? I also have to believe he has no intention of selling, just looking for a little sympathy is my guess. Time will tell.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    689
    Quote Originally Posted by ichingtheory View Post
    They may "want" to sell the airport but in the real world, who would want it? I also have to believe he has no intention of selling, just looking for a little sympathy is my guess. Time will tell.
    Just a question ? Who buys a airport ? is it a business in the Town and gets that added expense? Is it the Town and spent more taxpayers monies. Just remember the Coldcraft Building? is it the people that just won the mega Millions ? Tjis airport is just another reason to get this Town Board out??????? The puppits have no leader so get ride of them in two years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Don't pounch on me hawk, but I have come to figure out that the other 4 town council members really aren't interested in the airport. It was ALL Giza who pushed this through. I think the current board is not in support of the project at all.

    The airport is crying poor right now because they want sympathy, it has worked in the past. Guess what the track stop has come to a major halt!

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9

    Buffalo News airport article

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinL View Post
    Continuation to above.... (E&E property) Land sale was not 2005. Based on Erie County title, correct date was 9/16/09, book # 11169, page 6634. Property is not 16 acres. Based on 2006 Passero Map, 17.1 acres.

    Mr. Geles is quoted as saying that we have influenced regulators and governent officials against them. Please refer to "Over the Airways" written by Bob Miller where where he states: "In summary, our little airport will reign victorious over our detractors primarily because we have right and reason on our side (plus about 10 million in recent federal and state grants.") Also quoting Mr. Miller in same article, "we also won the hearts of our local elected officials". Another statement from Mr. Miller was that they hosted a special VIP reception on the evening prior to our open house. We (Lancaster Airport) invited all of our federal, state and local elected officials and are business leader. Who is trying to sway whom??

    What benefit does the Lancaster Airport bring to the Town of Lancaster, residents and surrounding area? NONE....
    Kevin,

    Thanks for posting a reaction to the article. You're right that the sale was in July 2009, not 2005. I double-checked that with the Assessor's Office. I will submit a correction for the newspaper and fix the online version of the article. However, the Assessor's Office said the parcel is 16.16 acres, so that piece of information in the article was correct.

    Best,
    Steve

  13. #13
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    From an old Business First article-
    The Lancaster-based environmental engineering firm (NASDAQ: EEI) noted it sold 16.5 acres of land at its Walden Avenue facility for $959,000 plus closing costs. The sale resulted in a gain of approximately $809,000 ($453,000 after tax), which lifted earnings by 11 cents per share.
    http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/s...4/daily21.html

    The sales price seems to be incorrect. County records and another Business First article have it as $940,000

    http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/b...05175492998291
    Last edited by gorja; April 5th, 2012 at 06:03 PM. Reason: ADd a line

    Georgia L Schlager

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    1,713
    Hi Steve...

    Number of aircraft is incorrect. Based on FAA documention, correct number is 37.

  15. #15
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Quote Originally Posted by ichingtheory View Post
    Hi Steve...

    Number of aircraft is incorrect. Based on FAA documention, correct number is 37.
    Why would they spend 10 mil for 37 airplanes?

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Safe Aviation Coalition of Lancaster responds to Buffalo-Lancaster Airport flight pat
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 6th, 2011, 08:33 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 6th, 2011, 03:20 PM
  3. Resident questions Lancaster Town Board on Lancaster Airport SEQR; Part I
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 21st, 2009, 01:11 PM
  4. Buffalo-Lancaster Airport meeting, Part II: Airport, FFA, presentations continued
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 10th, 2009, 09:30 AM
  5. Buffalo-Lancaster Airport meeting, Part I: Airport, FFA, presentations
    By speakup in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 7th, 2009, 11:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •