City wants $900k more from airport

By ETHAN HARTLEY
Posted 1/17/19

By ETHAN HARTLEY During their Jan. 9 meeting, the Warwick City Council passed two resolutions with the ultimate goal of getting more money and information from the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), which owns and operates T.F. Green Airport. The

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

City wants $900k more from airport

Posted

During their Jan. 9 meeting, the Warwick City Council passed two resolutions with the ultimate goal of getting more money and information from the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), which owns and operates T.F. Green Airport.

The first resolution requests the General Assembly to officially petition the airport for $900,000 in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to compensate for emergency services rendered to the airport.

Since Warwick is the host community for the airport, they – along with airport emergency services – are responsible for sending police, fire and rescue personnel to emergencies that happen on airport property. Such was the case during a small garage fire that was quickly handled a couple weeks ago where Warwick fire apparatus were among the first on the scene.

“The state of Rhode Island gets a great benefit from the airport, but the city of Warwick pays a great burden for that,” said Ward 7 Councilman and finance committee member Stephen McAllister during the meeting. “We are very good neighbors to the airport, and I think an increase in the amount in lieu of taxes that the city of Warwick receives, I think is something we should get.”

The city currently receives $500,000 annually from the airport as a means of offsetting costs associated with services rendered. The resolution would petition the General Assembly to enact legislation that would enable RIAC to increase that amount to $1.4 million a year.

McAllister expanded on the purpose behind the request on Wednesday, saying that the airport has expanded and taken many houses off the city’s property tax rolls, so there should be an update to the old figure reflecting the financial impact associated with these developments.

“That number seems really low these days,” he said. “We're always the first responders. That's our thing. The airport is here and it's an economic driver, but we need to make sure that the city is being taken care of for providing those services.”

According to RIAC spokesman Bill Fischer, however, the matter is not so simple.

“We understand Warwick is looking for payments in lieu of taxes [PILOT] and their justification that the airport has taken properties and lowered tax rolls for the city,” he said through a statement. “Although RIAC understands the justification, Congress has prohibited cities and states from collecting PILOT from airports.”

Fischer cites the FAA Authorization Act of 1994, which “specifically prohibited against airport payments for city services unrelated to the operation of the airport, imposed new reporting requirements on airports” and could result in civil penalties of up to $50,000 if violated.

“There can be serious consequences to both the city and the airport if we deviate from these federal mandates,” Fischer said. “We remain concerned that any efforts to seek increased payments to the city will trigger a review of the current agreement and that the FAA would look to ensure current payments are justified.”

Section 112 of the Act outlines that airports are prohibited from providing “payments in lieu of taxes or other assessments that exceed the value of services provided.”

The question then, as the law stands, is how much Warwick is spending for airport emergency services? If it exceeds $500,000 there would be a good case to increase the payments, but if it turns out to be less, that may result in the exact opposite of what the city council is hoping for. It was not clear by press time on Wednesday exactly how much money the city spends annually. Ward 3 Councilman and finance committee member Timothy Howe (who brought forward the resolution) said he has heard figures north of $2 million in terms of cost to the city on an annual basis.

Finance Committee chair Ed Ladouceur said that the costs to the city expand beyond simply emergency services rendered, citing the land that was seized and properties destroyed as part of the airport’s runway expansion. Ladouceur said that he has heard upwards of 3,000 homes were taken off the city’s tax rolls, but that even a more conservative estimate of 2,000 homes would have an approximate impact of $7-8 million in lost property taxes.

“We're talking big money,” Ladouceur said.

Regarding the citing of the federal statute by the airport, Ladouceur said he would have no trouble sitting down with the state’s federal delegation to look into the matter.

“They can hide behind a federal mandate that says this or that or the other,” he said. “I think our Washington delegation would be very receptive to revisiting that law to ensure that the city of Warwick is treated fairly by the Airport Corporation, or anyone else for that matter. Right now, I don't see us being treated fairly.”

A deal reserved for champions?

The second resolution regarding the Airport Corporation was a request for information regarding any financial payments, in-kind offers or incentives given to the New England Patriots by RIAC in order to be the host airport for the team’s two jumbo jets, which can be seen now when driving along Post Road.

Howe said that the plane contributes to fumes and noise going into surrounding neighborhoods, and that “We just want to make sure that the city is getting reimbursed a proper amount.”

Fischer responded to the request in his statement saying, “it is important to note that RIAC has not made any payments to the Patriots. RIAC and the Patriots executed a marketing agreement under which RIAC waives airport fees associated with Patriots activities in return for marketing and advertising – including being designated as ‘The Official Airport of the New England Patriots.’”

“The benefits from this advertising agreement far outweigh the waived fees,” Fischer’s statement continued. “We will be conveying the nature of this agreement to the city per their request.”

Fischer did not respond to a follow-up question regarding the value of the fees waived and the approximated value of the aforementioned marketing benefits received by the airport in return.

Ladouceur was critical of this reasoning from the airport.

“Show me one person who has flown into Warwick so they can get a view of the Patriots plane. Show me one person who has paid taxes in the city of Warwick because they get to take a look at the Patriots plane. The only people I see getting a benefit from the Patriots plane parking there is the New England Patriots,” he said. “I don't see any real value to the taxpayers of Warwick.”

Comments

7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • richardcorrente

    There is a guy who has been saying for years that when Warwick gave up the tax revenue of hundreds of homes to allow for the extension of the runway, all Warwick received in return was "Air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution and soil pollution". He was so committed to fixing that problem that he ran for Mayor promising to "renegotiate the Airport Agreement." His critics trashed him saying that it was a "done-deal" and it couldn't be renegotiated. When State Representative Camille Vella-Wilkinson introduced a bill to have RIAC pay more, she was also trashed by these same, near-sighted critics.

    They were wrong.

    We absolutely need to have the airport be better neighbors. Warwick needs them to complete the renovations to the houses they promised to renovate. (Half of the homeowners on Elberta Street received approx. $30,000 for each house in sound-reducing improvements. The other half got nothing because the RIAC "ran out of money".) I have met with the Airport people several times. The people there today are a huge improvement over the previous staff. Their desire to cooperate and "be better neighbors" impresses me as genuine, and I do believe that continuous negotiations with Councilman Steve McAllister and others are the best way for Warwick to receive a more appropriate amount of revenue.

    It's impossible to gage how many people left Warwick because of the airport but I have written hundreds of mortgage applications in the last twenty years and I have not heard ONE applicant say he/she was moving to Warwick BECAUSE of the airport. It's time for Warwick to get a fair share of this revenue.

    Happy Valentines everyone.

    Rick Corrente

    The Taxpayers Mayor

    Thursday, January 17, 2019 Report this

  • Justanidiot

    amen master mayer. dis is whys we erected you. gets rid of that nasty nasty airport, close all the big box stores, ban cars from the city limits and have people get around in horses and buggys. only den will we return to are grateness and the taxes money will flow in to save are cities from da forces of evil

    Thursday, January 17, 2019 Report this

  • PaulHuff

    In this article we have learned that the city council doesn't understand how PILOT works. Did anyoine do any homework or at least consult with a competent attorney before making this resolution? Mr. Ladoucer....following applicable laws isn't " hiding behind a federal mandate that says this or that or the other" You sound ignorant when you speak like that.

    And are we really that concerned about a deal that RIAC made with the Patriots to park their plane here?

    Thursday, January 17, 2019 Report this

  • Thecaptain

    Paul Huff,

    FYI - The ramp fee for the Pats 767 is 1 million dollars per year. That fee was washed away to the super rich and for what? Tourism? Yeah right. You should also know that the blowhard for pushing the pilot programming and making a spectacle out of it was former councilwoman and waste product Camille Vella Wilkinson. She also engineered and signed the deal for the ball fields to move next to the airport. When you get a chance, look at the language of that lease. Total incompetence.

    Thursday, January 17, 2019 Report this

  • FASTFREDWARD4

    D0 you know how many time,s we try when linc was in the corner office. Feds keep say we are max out. Now your going to state house. Glad im out of the game. Go say Hi to JOEY he put this together. Maybe he can find some money for us for free. But we do bill all ins company in res runs . If you hit the airport the big boys won,t come here. like the new hotel. Hey don,t worry keep blowing tax dollors like the state.

    Saturday, January 19, 2019 Report this

  • InTheW

    One can only wonder how much the fees that are being waived would come amount to on a pair of 767's like the Patriots two planes.

    Saturday, January 19, 2019 Report this

  • Cat2222

    I can't help but chuckle at the thought that tourism would result from the plane being parked at the airport. Anyone that sees it daily already lives here and anyone visiting the airport wouldn't decide to "tour" the area based on a parked plane. Who makes these types of silly decisions? Would you personally decide to go on a road trip to see a parked plane that has a logo on it? I certainly wouldn't.

    Thursday, January 24, 2019 Report this