Monday, February 04, 2008

More Adam Aircraft Troubles

Plane Manufacturer Owes City For Lack Of Jobs

From yesterday's article on

PUEBLO, Colo. (AP) — The city is seeking to reclaim $2.37 million in incentives to Adam Aircraft, which fell short of promises to provide 448 local jobs for seven years.

Layoffs wiped out most of its local work force.

The privately owned aircraft developer said last month that it laid off 170 employees in Centennial, 80 in Pueblo and 50 in Ogden, Utah. Its plant in Pueblo was manufacturing tail sections for planes.

The company was given three years to create the jobs in Pueblo before facing potential fees for missing the target. The ramp-up period ended Feb. 6, 2006. Adam Aircraft could get credit for employing between 80 and 90 people, though, City Manager David Galli said.

The city was waiting for an official head count from the company before deciding how much to seek in repayment.

"Our goal now is to make sure we protect the city's investment and we're prepared to do whatever we need to do to get the taxpayers' money back," Galli said.

The city had made $3 million available to the company from collections of a half-cent sales tax for economic development, based on Adam's promise that it would provide 448 employees for seven years or pay for the shortfall every quarter, Galli said.

Of the $3 million, about $2.37 million was spent on a building and equipment to lure the company to town. Galli said the city owns the building and has placed liens on equipment Adam purchased with the money.
Query: How much, exactly, is Ogden City out of pocket to lure Adam Aircraft to town?

And can we see by a show of hands just how many of our gentle readers believe that Adam Aircraft will be re-hiring its laid-off Ogden employees in the spring?

So many questions; so few answers.


Will S. said...

When troubles come, they come not in single spies, but in battalions.

milk man said...

Two words: Teats up

disgusted said...

makes you wonder why we went after a company like this in the first place a company that had an unfulfilled obligation to another city. in other words our city administration was going after a company that showed no integrity to pueblo.
how could we ever think they would be any different to ogden.
this company promised jobs to pueblo and didnt perform so they thought they would just skip town and fight the legal battles in court.
i guess godfrey only goes after the best.

Bill C. said...

What a novel idea, a city making a deal with a performance clause that must be met by those that come to drink at the public trough.
A real life two way deal with teeth.

Oh wow man. said...

I guess that this is the those great jobs godfrey got for us. wooooooie

disgusted said...

do you think godfrey will now reduce the number of jobs he keeps publicly stating that he has brought to ogden.

Tec Jonson said...

Is there any source of public accountability for the jobs that AmerSports is supposed to create and what is their progress towards that goal. I can't remember the deal but I believe it was something along the lines of 100 high paying(50k+) jobs. Anyone know the score here.

Bill C. said...

Tec, lying little matty and potato nose were saying 300 high paying jobs and potato nose was saying $ 25 million annual salaries. So far that Can building is mostly empty and from 20 st looks no different than it did 6 years ago.

Bill C. said...

Back to Adams, Schwebke had an article in the business section this morning. It appears that the incentives the state offered have expired. I get an impression that Adams was just scrambling to find money anywhere they could, and telling any government anywhere what ever they thought they wanted to hear.
But lying little matty is the only one that has delivered thru out this mess, he got his buddy, Kemp, millions of our dollars, no strings attached.

Itinerant Poster said...

Given the "freshness" of the Adam Aircraft info in the WC Forum and the "day old" taste of the SE story....

I propose that the SE be given a new "handle". ADLADM (A Day Late And a Dollar More)

Bill C. said...

If this "High Adventure" branding of Ogden has been so successfull, why are we still paying, thru the granting of public monies, for businesses to locate here? If it's such a success and property still a bargain by national standards, why aren't these guys just clammouring all over the chance to get in on their own nickel?
When will we reach the point of not having to pay them to come?

Tec Jonson said...

I'm pretty sure most businesses, in today's climate, are not looking to relocate. Godfrey is so far behind the economic curve. The smart money, what's left of it, is downsizing and reorganizing. Even AmatureSpurtz relocation to Ogden was part of a restructure seeking efficiency. They are under pressure currently to downsize even more, closing plants in Europe. I'll predict that they, too, will have trouble fulfilling their commitment to the state.

Tec Jonson said...

In the same breath I'll add:

The climate in Ogden is ripe to attract downsizing companies willing to undergo the costs of relocation and should be marketed that way. No incentives need be on the table. Everything here already makes it a no-brainer. The executives just cannot add up the fundamentals. Lower housing prices; freeway, rail and airport access; recreational assets; electricity rates, regional locale.

Unfortunately, once you use such liberal incentives to attract one company, the rest will feel unappreciated without the same treatment. That is why governments should always stay out of this kind of business. It is always best to allow natural growth based on the reality of the local resources. If that natural growth is in fact negative, then deal with it. A city should be happy to get smaller and to downsize. There a lot of potential benefits from a shrinking economy. Nothing in our economy is designed to be sustainable at a given level. it is always mortgaging against future growth. A recipe for disaster in the face of occasional deflation.

zabo the magician said...

An interesting article in our Davis Clipper this morning about Owens, who was raked over the coals on the WCF a few days ago.

Old Rock Mill

Bill C. said...

It never fails, when Harmer opens his mouth my head spins for days.
It's like in the RDA work session about the Windsor Hotel, he was asked if Scott Brown was a partner in the venture, his reply," Scott is not an equity partner". In other words Scott is a partner, just not an equity sharing partner.
So, $ 18 million for parking and sidewalks, really has had me thinking. We spent $4.5 million on the rarely if ever used parking structure at the Can building. That thing holds alot more than 300 cars. A sky walk over Washington might sound expensive, but that that big a bite out of $18 million. Then I remembered back to the gondola wars, gondola stops would cost between 1 and 3 million bucks a pop. In a disengenuous way one could construe a gondola stop to be a glorified sidewalk. This made further sense when I pictured it as part of the second floor of a City built parking structure investment in a hotel.
I hope the Council can see fit to add verbage to any agreement that specifcally states, ground level sidewalks. It would even be wiser for the City not to co-invest in a building of that nature. If additional parking is required and the City feels compelled to provide it, it should a stand alone, unattached structure.

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved