The company's founder and CEO jumped ship in August
Over the past two weeks, Weber County Forum has devoted a fair amount of electronic ink to the travails of Adam Aircraft, the Ogden Airport's key manufacturing tenant, from the company's announced layoffs on January 17, to Wednesday's revelation that the company had warned stockholders that the company might be two short days from possible liquidation.
We now learn this morning from the Denver Post that Rick Adam, the company's founder and CEO, left the company in August, to to pursue "his next entrepreneurial venture." The article does not tell us whether Mr. Adam retains any financial interest in Adam Aircraft, or whether he instead disposed of such interests (sold his stock) prior to his departure, and before it had become publicly apparent that his company was in deep financial doo-doo.
Hmmmm....
It never ceases to amaze us what we stumble upon whilst googling.
Comments, anyone?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
25 comments:
The question is, why didn't we read about this in the S-E?
Could it be that they refuse to report anything that isn't from the mouths of Godfrey, Patterson or Harmer?
Monotreme
They probably didn't know about it until they read it here. The Standard and its ace reporter Schwepke aren't exactly known for their curiosity, question asking or investigative reporting. Most of what they do is press release journalism.
Looks like Mr. Adam got out while the getting out was good.
Congratulations to the Adam Aircraft Stockholders, aka "The Bagholders".
Something happening in re: a Mexican Market at 24th and Monroe?
Recently, most of the parking lot used by the Rite-Aid and the closed food store at 24th and Monroe has been fenced off. Only one entrance to the lot open, and only maybe 18 or so spaces in a narrow section still open for Rite-Aid customers. Parking and exiting parking spaces and lot have become... challenging. Someone at Rite-Aid was queried as to what's going on. Reply was owners next door are planning to open a Mexican market, and say they need all the fenced off space for construction.
Is something finally happening in re: Mexican market of some sort at 24th and Monroe? Somebody know?
Marv:
Adam Air story, seems to me, is business news, and probably should have been given to the SE's business reporter, who [presumably] has better sources and more experience in tracking down business news.
So what is the point Curmudgeon? The August departure of Mr. Adam still didn't appear in the Standard for 5 months regardless of which department is supposed to be reporting on it. The WCF broke the story here in Ogden, which if the Standard were able to be, should be embarrassed over. Are you once again defending the Standard, or are you pointing out that their business reporter is as incurious as their city beat guy?
I think there is a case that could be made that the Adam story has transcended the business beat and has become a big general story in Ogden. The Mayor has certainly made this story a major issue in town. It has been one of his major bragging points for the last year or so.
I think a pertinent question is - why hasn't Mayor Godfrey or Mr. Harmer informed the citizens of Ogden of this very significant event in the Adam story?
Another big question is: Did the RDA board/City Council know about this very pertinent departure of Mr. Adam, or has the mayor continued his pattern of keeping them in the dark?
Mr. Adam has been portrayed in the past as the heart and soul of the two aircraft and the company. His departure is very big news and would be very important in any RDA deliberations about public support for the company.
Who knew what and when did they know it?
This is rhetorical, but why didn't Godfrey inform Ogden of Mr. Adam's departure while he was running for re-election?
Oz:
Since you asked....
You wrote: So what is the point Curmudgeon?.... Are you once again defending the Standard, or are you pointing out that their business reporter is as incurious as their city beat guy?
Neither. I was merely noting that the Adams Air financing problems seemed more like business news to me than anything else. I'm not sure the SE has a business reporter. Does it? Some time ago they ran a story on the opening of the Larry Miller theaters at the Junction. It was a very good story, going into the theater business, some good backgrounding, etc. A cut way above press release journalism. So good, I thought, I emailed the reporter and said I'd look out for her byline on business stories in the future. She thanked me, but noted she was not a business reporter. Her beat was entertainment. Business news seems, often, to get parceled out to reporters whose primary responsibility seems not to be business reporting.
The purpose of having beat reporters is so that they become familiar with the territory they cover, so they can build clip files on long-running stories, so they can develop sources and acquire the knowledge, over time, over who to contact, fast, and how, to check out statements, track down rumors. And to develop a nose that twitches when something doesn't smell right. Merely noted in my post that the Adam Air story should have been, I thought, the business of the SE's business reporter [if it has one for Ogden matters], not its Ogden City government reporter. That's all. Don't read so much into it.
You wrote: I think there is a case that could be made that the Adam story has transcended the business beat and has become a big general story in Ogden.
Certainly arguable, though you lose a lot of information [institutional memory] sometimes when you move a story off the dest of the reporter who'se been following it to the desk of another, merely because it got bigger than editors thought it would. By way of inflated example, think what the Wash Post would have lost if it had taken the Watergate story away from the Metro staffers that uncovered it [Woodward and B] and gave it instead to the national desk people.
You wrote: I think a pertinent question is - why hasn't Mayor Godfrey or Mr. Harmer informed the citizens of Ogden of this very significant event in the Adam story?
Oh, come on Oz. The answer to that is obvious. It would have raised questions about their business judgment, since they'd touted bringing Adams in as a great boon to the city. And to be blunt, it was not their job to inform the citizens of Ogden of a change in the leadership of Adams Air. The resignation after all in no way altered the arrangement between Adam Air and the city. It did not void or alter any contracts or agreements.
If it was a big story for Ogden, it was primarily the job of the Standard Examiner to uncover and report it. That's what hometown papers are for. Hell, Oz, if I'd been Mayor expecting a contested re-election campaign, I wouldn't have put out a press release on it either [unless asked by the press, in which case I'd want to get my framing of it out first].
I'd also note that at this point, we don't know what happened, or rather why it happened. Some are assuming the founder got out while the gittin' was good, the implication being he knew the company was headed for the rocks. Certainly possible. But here's another possible scenario: the company's board forced him out, because, perhaps, they noticed that while he was a crackerjack plane designer, he didn't have the business sense god gave to an oyster. [Not uncommon to have brilliant designers and line people who have little business sense.] The present state of the company is consistent with that explanation too. So I wouldn't leap to conclusions quite yet about the "whys" of the departure. We just don't have enough information yet. Or I don't.
But the fact of the departure, since the Company was at that point prominent in Ogden business and city news, was [or should have been] news. And it was not the Mayor's obligation to report it. It was the SE's.
I note that supposedly neither the WalMart nor the downtown motel complex are being built with city "incentives."
If so, perhaps Godfrey has been listening.
Personally, I feel the coming of the WalMart is good news, as is the plan to have it be designed in keeping with downtown architecture.
WalMart is a popular economic powerhouse and should continue to be for years to come, unlike such things as Adam Aircraft, Chris Peterson, etc.
danny
the downtown hotel project is not without city funding. the mayor want the residents to bond for the projects parking. the mayor wants to give them 275 parking stalls in our mall parking lot for the hotel exclusive use. the hotel project will be over 38% parking it will be 33% condos it will be 10% retail and it will only be 18% hotel.
project is being promoted to the rda to financially support this project based on the justification that we need more hotel rooms for the convention center.
two questions come to mind, do we need more hotel rooms when ogden only has an occupancy rate of less than 65% in its existing hotels and one logical existing hotel that could expand cheaply is not because the business case is not there. do we need more parking at the mall though we may if we give away a third of our existing parking to the developer and should not the developers of any project be responsible for that parking instead of the residents. i don't see walmart asking us to build a parking lot for them.
this is another example of godfrey taking care of cronies. if this is a good project which it might be and if they want to build it then they should do it without any city help as they initially said they would. not with a new form of rda money called a special assesment area.
Disgusted,
The way I read it, the city would buy two floors of parking, paid for with bonds. These bonds would unconditionally not bear on the city's general fund. How they would be paid is less clear - a "special assessment" would be levied. I assume that means a tax increase on the property in question would be levied. Dorrene also seems to think there is no public cost.
I didn't see the part about giving away 275 stalls in the mall parking.
But the whole agreement seemed a little cryptic. I wouldn't mind a more specific review of it. Rudi posted the agreement previously, but I can't find it now, other than on my hard drive.
Danny, Harmer was quoted as saying that the city would commit $ 18 million for parking and sidewalks.
Add to that the value of the the other perks, interest free loans and not having to buy the land up front, and you're real close to what the jackass center cost. Picture that building? On those funds alone these guys could build a small hotel, with a gondola port.
danny
the 275 parking stalls are found in the development agreement 1.21.1.
the bonds will be issued by the city per the saa and as you say they are secured by the development but if the development doesn't get completed or if it fails where does the city get their money to pay the bond payments. Also the city is allowing itself to be subordinate its loans to all other lien holders relative to this project so if something goes wrong the city will be lucky to get 10 cents on the dollar and it might be years before we can do anything with that property. The warrants to cover the loan payments would fair even worst in a bankruptcy or reorganization. why would any lending institution lead the city money for the bonds unless the city promises to make good on the payment via taxes collected else where or through collateral. that will be a condition of the bond to the city. as long as the development is successful the city doesnt have liability but if not the city will be liable.
bigger questions do we need to be putting the city at risk for a private developer when we dont need more parking or when the current hotels are only marginally profitable. should the city be using public funds for private development. remember only 18% of the development is to benefit the city if you believe we really need more hotels. i think the city should encourage the developer to go forward if they choose but with his money and his risk not ours. these guys are cronies and large financial contributors to godfreys reelection. the property sale was made on 5 dec 07 does that tell you anything
Bill and Disgusted:
Good points.
The city gives up 275 stalls, then builds more parking. Net effect is the city gives the developer 275 free stalls, or otherwise builds free parking for them.
Also, the city first issues warrants for $18 million, then hopes to pay those off with SAA bonds. It's a big if. If it doesn't come to pass, the city is on the hook with the warrants, we would have to assume.
Also, there's the $1.2 million interest free loan.
Given this, it's hard to see how Section 4.3.5, no obligation from general fund, would hold true.
We need to write letters to the city council. If it took me this long to get it, I suspect they never will understand this unless someone shows them as you have shown me.
It looks like some of the city bureaucrats and Godfrey are just as corrupt as ever, but have learned to be even more sneaky. It also appears I am ever naive.
On Parking:
Without in any way meaning to comment on the particulars of the 274 stall arrangement [which I don't pretend to follow at this point], I'd just like to note that public parking in downtown areas is (a) something common to many cities and (b) can benefit all downtown businesses and by increasing ease of access to those businesses. I recall some months ago complaints from downtown merchants that the public lot north of 25th Street had been filling up of late, and their customers were having trouble finding parking spaces. Increase public parking could be a good thing for all of them. And using a special assessment area is a way to have all the merchants, restaurants, lawyers offices and such like benefiting foot the bill over time.
If there is some special arrangement going on to lock up 274 spaces [at city expense] for the projected hotel's use alone, that's another matter. Once again, the devil is in the details....
Curm, location, the newly refurbished old parking structures left over from the mall, are 5 times the size required for the jackass center and larry miller, in other words, basically unused.
The problem is that they are too far to really benefit 25th st or a hotel. Hotel patrons want to park on site.
I wonder if lying little matty is requiring Stu reid and the others to provide their own parking? They should be.
curm
i suggest that once the hotel/condo project is completed by the city the developer will forgo the citys obligation to reserve the 275 spaces in the mall in exchange for the like quantity that the city just built below their development.
since 38% of what they are building are condo and only 18% will be hotel i think the developer should be developing its our parking if this is how it plays out. which seems rather obvious relative to bills comments above about the condo owners and hotel guests hauling their groceries and travel bags from the mall parking to the condo/hotel project.
i suggest the mall project doesnt need the extra parking unless the development goes in and that the parking for that developemnt should be developed as part of the project with the developers money.
what could possibly and i say possibly happen is that the city would start charging to park at the mall to collect the saa. that would last only until the rec center started to suffer and then the parking fee would be removed to save the rec center. the city would then have to consider writing off the warrants if the warrants were transfered to the mall parking when the 275 stalls were transfered back to the city from of the condo/hotel and the city would then have to pay off the bonds with out a revenue stream to service the bond debt. if the warrants stayed with the condo/hotel project the city would only collect the saa if the project succeeded otherwise if it doesnt succeed the city loses the saa fee which are the debt payments to the bonds. the city should not be taking on this kind of risk.
should the city be building parking for privately developed condos.
Disgusted:
Lots of interesting possibilities you've raised. I wonder if this development agreement has to come before the Council at any point. Or has it already? I think, if I have the time free, that I'd like to sit in on the Council work session that dealt with the development agreement, if there is going to be one.
curm
as usual i dont think youll get a chance to learn anything about it because it will go through the rda and we know how public those meetings are.
Two things, I recall the 20 year commitment with the large bellied twosome, neilson and miller, states the City will provide that parking, free to their patrons.
POTATO NOSE has convinced the whole of the false vision worshipping fools that the hotel would need no parking. If I recall correctly, they'll take the commuter rail from the SLC airport then board a gondola. If said gondola goes right thru the hotel, they won't need a vehicle.
I believe that story played for 2 yrs running on the all lying little matty all geiger, all the time TV station. It's was also widely distributed on promotional video produced by rupert to the high adventure homosexual pedophile network. Tom Moo... I mean Cavendish, vouches for the world wide distribution and audience.
Disgusted:
RDA Council work sessions are open to the public as well. If they hold a work session on it there, I'd like to be looking on, I think. From my experience, a hell of a lot more questions get asked at the work sessions than at formal Council meetings. And the work sessions are where, sometimes, maverick Council members ask questions the Administration's spokesmen would rather had not been asked, questions they struggle to answer or flat cannot answer to the Council's satisfaction. Not all the time, but often enough to make sitting in on the RDA work session on this particular development agreement worth sitting in on, if one is held.
curm
i think they have already had their work session and are now being pressed by the administration to vote on the project in the 5 feb meeting of the rda.
voting on a project that they are not fully informed on nor that they have been given the proper time to acquire the required and proper information to make an informed decision. should be a slam dunk for the rda board to say NO until they get the full story but ive seen them say yes with like amounts of info on other projects.
Disgusted:
OK. I'll ask some of the Council members if they've had a work session on this development agreement yet. The ones I ask usually reply. I want to ask them about the status of development agreements in general anyway... do they come before council for approval? Are they binding on the city if they've not had either prior or subsequent council ratification. That sort of thing.
curm
i encourage you to do what youre suggesting. ask them too about the clause in the development agreement that obligates the city to build an urban gondola.
Post a Comment