Goulburn Airport Sale

[soilmaster]

Goulburn Airport - NO SALE

 

It is outrageous that Goulburn Council have done what they have done. When the airport was first targeted for sale in 2001, it was stopped because of the codicil on the operations.

 

Reading the contract for sale, Goulburn Council are not taking into account the planning constraints of the codicil of operation when Council accepted the money to upgrade the airport and on which they entered a deed. A deed cannot be varied by a "letter" from a Federal bureaucrat - "a deed is deed is a deed" on which Council say they can sell the airport.

 

A look at the conditions say that the purchaser cannot meet these requirements anyway and there does not appear any way that Council wants to enforce that things do happen correctly.

 

Remember that the taxiways do not meet the airports standard for example.

 

 

 

[Guest Futura]

It seems plainly apparent that the decisions regarding the future of the airport and its intended usage/charges have been set in concrete. How else could someone say with confidence that $25 million is to be spent on its refurbishment? That's not a small amount in anyones book. My point is that if enough detail and costing has been prepared on infrastruture and facility consruction as there must have been to come up with the $25 million, then there is no doubt in my mind that figures regarding expected costs and estimated usage would also be readily available?

 

$25 million is a lot of money to be throwing into a "If you build it they will come" philosophy.

 

An open mind is one thing but it seems plainly obvious that the future of the facility has already been decided upon. The proponent has made clearly apparent that their is a plan to spend $25 million. What has not been made apparent is what this money will be spent on and how they plan to turn the investment into a profit making venture.

Clearly, the airport purchaser's business plans are a matter for himself. However, as I have pointed out previously, future growth income from the facility will eminate from increased usage, not increases to the existing scale of charges. The existing daily average activity at the facility is nine landings/takeoffs. It isn't feasible to increase the charges for those nine movements, but it does make sense to revitalise the facility so as to attract more activity.

 

 

[68volksy]

You've hit the nail on the head there Futura. A private owners plans for their privately held land are their own business and no-one elses.

 

You seem quite willing to state with authority however that there will be increased usage and that the increased cost of the facility will be borne by this increased usage. Surely this is pure speculation also?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well Futura I think you have turned the Red Alert lights on for all pilots around Australia along with their Aviation friends.

 

What's needed before this goes any further is a very detailed Inquiry into how the situation has got this far.

 

As I understand it there are no guarantees that the Airport will not have industrial subdivision on it. If it did and that were to cause unsafe mechanical turbulence then the Public Liability issues would be someone else's problem. If the perfectly reasonable question of how a City the size of Goulburn would return a profit on a $25 million investment as a country Airport cannot be answered.

 

Then there is the question regarding the legality of the Council sale and the Planning Status of the Use, which of course will now come under the microscope of many thousands of Australians.

 

Futura, you could allay some reservations by explaining how the investment will get a return, and also provide the many aviators whose interest has been aroused with examples of where this developer has enhanced similar facilities (as against residential or industrial subdivision).

 

 

[Guest Futura]

Well Futura I think you have turned the Red Alert lights on for all pilots around Australia along with their Aviation friends.What's needed before this goes any further is a very detailed Inquiry into how the situation has got this far.

 

As I understand it there are no guarantees that the Airport will not have industrial subdivision on it. If it did and that were to cause unsafe mechanical turbulence then the Public Liability issues would be someone else's problem. If the perfectly reasonable question of how a City the size of Goulburn would return a profit on a $25 million investment as a country Airport cannot be answered.

 

Then there is the question regarding the legality of the Council sale and the Planning Status of the Use, which of course will now come under the microscope of many thousands of Australians.

 

Futura, you could allay some reservations by explaining how the investment will get a return, and also provide the many aviators whose interest has been aroused with examples of where this developer has enhanced similar facilities (as against residential or industrial subdivision).

What I can say, Turbo, is that safety is THE single issue that is of concern to everyone, at all times - airport owners included.

 

The issues you raise are surely matters for Council and the new airport owner to comment on. Indeed, you may be able to raise the relevant operational questions at the New Year user meeting.

 

 

[Ultralights]

here is a quick 3 min vid of an airpark example we need in OZ, not just a house on the back of a hangar, but one like this, plenty of housing, plenty of sellable development for the owner to make a tidy profit on, and the airport still operates.....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NBG_cZlb64&feature=channel_page"

 

 

[turboplanner]

There's nothing much you CAN say Futura, you can't give us any guarantees that the airport will not be contaminated by subdivision and industrial development, you don't want to take responsibility for any subsequent reduction in safety, you can't explain the reasons for the $25 million investment and you can't provide any examples of development other than subdivisions.

 

I'd quit while I was ahead.

 

That leaves the legality of the Council decision, based on Soilmasters information and information supplied to Councillors in the Officers report

 

 

[goulburn aero]

i find it strange futura that I heard the the new owner of Goulburn Airport has just sold it.

 

The council has just finished resurfacing the runway ( at their cost )and there STILL has NOT been a open forum meeting with the new owner.

 

As quoted from Pauline "Please explain"

 

 

[Guest Futura]

G'day G.A.,

 

That's the first I've heard of an on-sale, and I doubt the accuracy of the rumour as I'm still dealing with the same individual. I'm not privy to the company's current structure, but I believe an additional shareholder may now hold equity. That may be what you've heard?

 

As for the proposed user group meeting, you might keep in mind that the matter hasn't as yet settled, and doesn't happen until the end of June, so at this time Goulburn Mulwaree Council remains the incumbent owner.

 

Rest assured mate, once a meeting date is advised to me, I will post details here, in case anyone missed it. I, too, keenly await further info on the incoming owner's plans and will certainly divulge what info I can as and when I'm able.

 

 

[goulburn aero]

futura, do you own land at the airport or adjacent?

 

you seem to know a lot of what is happening with the sale- how?

 

it cannot be through any meetings because there havn't been any

 

any way, the meeting I was refering to was the one that the new owner stated before Christmas would be happening in Jan/Feb

 

 

[Guest Futura]

I haven't heard anything about a proposed meeting in Feb.

 

In relation to your other questions, I have interest in the future direction of the airport certainly, however, I don't have any insider info and I don't have the ear of the incoming owner, nor am I associated with the company or its owners/directors.

 

The future plans for the airport will impact on me, as they might others who use the facility. Let's hope those plans are ultimately good for us all! I currently have no reason to doubt they won't.

 

The airport offers a unique opportunity and can assist both RA and GA into the future, but development HAS to be done properly, with input from all users. It's not an opportunity for grabbing cash and inflating user charges. If I'm asked for input from the new owners, as I have been involved with other regional airports in other states, then that's what I would counsel. [Needless to say, I haven't been consulted as yet.]

 

 

[turboplanner]

Strange then, Futura, that you appear to be their unquestioning mouthpiece.

 

 

[Guest Futura]

. . . unquestioning mouthpiece? What a strange comment.

 

Indeed, after attending the airport yesterday, I am even more concerned about the incoming owner's yet to be publicly divulged development plans.

 

Happy to meet with you at the airport on my next visit to discuss my concerns and seek your comments.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

here is a quick 3 min vid of an airpark example we need in OZ, not just a house on the back of a hangar, but one like this, plenty of housing, plenty of sellable development for the owner to make a tidy profit on, and the airport still operates.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NBG_cZlb64&feature=channel_page"

That's just awesome!

 

 

[Guest Futura]

G'day Brett, thanks for the video link. I've watched that segment once before and think it is a great advance for aviation. The concept, in my opinion, suits the Australian landscape and I believe it won't take much to sell the idea to aircraft owners, particularly if the pricing is keen.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

G'day Brett, thanks for the video link. I've watched that segment once before and think it is a great advance for aviation. The concept, in my opinion, suits the Australian landscape and I believe it won't take much to sell the idea to aircraft owners, particularly if the pricing is keen.

You're not wrong there, what a great idea for an estate in an open area!!

 

I'd love to see more on it so I'll do some Googling while at work today.

 

 

[68volksy]

We finally seem to have some communication from the prospective purchaser of the Airport.

 

There will be a meeting in John Ferraras hanger (where Corporate Air are currently renting) at 11am on Wednesday the 27th. The meeting will be to discuss the location of the new tie-down facility and the future development planned at the Airport.

 

The invitation has come from Ken Wheeldon's desk (Councils Economic Development Unit) and has asked that a reply be made to his office. The Aero Club has not received an invitation however several of the business owners have.

 

Some members of the Aero Club plan to attend the meeting anyway. We feel that the airport has been and is supposed to remain as a community asset and as such the community should be allowed some input.

 

If anyone would like to let Ken know they're going they can call 02 4823 4444. If his reply is that you cannot attend it would be good to know his reasons.

 

 

[shafs64]

At first glance i see bankstown and camden.

 

I did some flying out of camden and was good priceing but now thats all over because of greed.

 

 

[68volksy]

Quick update.

 

The letter states that it is an informal meeting with ALL airport land owners and users. So it would appear that all and sundry may be welcome.

 

The contact for the meeting is Kosta Tomaras (the new owner). I have an email and phone number however I don't know if I should be posting these on the public forum so PM me if you'd like his details. If I can post them on the forum can someone say and I will.

 

 

[Lindsay]

68volksy,

 

Local Goulburn radio was reporting a few days ago that settlement concerning the sale of the airport has not occurred. Do you know what has happened here?

 

Lindsay

 

 

[goulburn aero]

According to the local paper, the sale may not go ahead.

 

The prospective new owners have not complied with the terms of the contract and have been given 14 days to complete ( 14th July ) or risk doing their doe.

 

This is interesting after the meeting that was held and Kosta's inferance that there was no problems with the impending sale. Unfortunatly when at the meeting the amount of information that was released was minimal from him.

 

 

[68volksy]

Domain Corp have yet to plant 100 trees, install the tie downs, engage a weeds contractor and find $2.5million. They've had 6 months to commence any of these activities but as yet nothing has occurred. All annual landing fees expired last Tuesday also and there is no word from anyone about what the new fees might be or indeed who will be collecting them.

 

When Domain Corp (Goulburn Airport) was originally established it had 4 shareholders who I would assume each put in about $30,000 to cover the bond on the sale. Either that or they used a deposit bond and will have the issuer of that bond on their heels very soon also.

 

Unfortunately with the level of Councils ineptitude currently I wouldn't be surprised if they gave them an extension of time. The outlook is not very good if this happens - the new owners couldn't plant 100 saplings in 6 months, heaven only knows how competent they'll be at running a registered airport...

 

 

[goulburn aero]

The weed spraying was carried out before the end of June - but unless that is part of the landscaping, it is not part of the contract.

 

Domain Corp have only paid a 5% deposit, the other 5% was due and payable on the 30th of June, from what I have heard that has not happened.

 

If on the 14th of July the sale hasn't been completed, the council can either tear up the contract and keep the $125k or, take Domain Corperation (goulburn airport) to court to force a completion, but if there is no money they cannot complete and no court will enforce this, on the other hand George Tzovaras has given a personal guarantee that the contract will finalise, but again how - his financial problems are well known........

 

 

[68volksy]

My understanding is the contract states that they have to engage a weeds contractor - a licenced person is required to keep the weeds at bay. So they have to present an agreement with a contractor to Councils solicitors to satisfy this condition.

 

It was settlement in full that was meant to occur on the 30th. The contract was altered prior to being exchanged to allow for only a 5% deposit. From the latest news Domain has provided a deposit bond through a third party lender. If the sale does not settle then this third party lender will be asking for their money.

 

 

[flying dog]

Hang on!!!!

 

Well the saga continues.The current Developer who is looking to buy the airport is making a presentation to Council tonight. It's a public meeting so we're encouraging as many people as possible to attend. We feel it's a good chance to show the new Council that the community actually cares about what happens out there.

 

We have had several run-ins with the Current proponent including one of our pilots being forced to move out of the way of his Landcruiser as it hurtled towards him along the grass runway. When our CFI approached the vehicle a little later to tell them to get off the runways/taxiways he drove toward her until she had to move and carried on with the windows rolled up.

 

This is not the kind of person we want in charge!

 

If anyone is free and would like to attend the meeting is at 5:30pm in Council chambers. It is a public meeting. The presentations should be over by 6pm I would imagine so it shouldn't take up much time. Some of us are taking small protest signs so if you would like to join us in doing this please feel free. I think it's time we started making a little noise. Tony Lamarra will be talking to Council also to implore them to retain the airport on behalf of all users.

 

Hope to see some of you there. Sorry about the late notice.

Errr, but that is illegal.

 

I hope the rego was taken and the police notified. Yeah, ok probably nothing will happen.

 

But you shouldn't let them get away with it all the same.

 

If you don't report them, it is telling them that you don't "care".

 

Present it with an analogy that if someone was on their property and making a mess, drove at them in a car.

 

Good luck.