BY KIMBERLY PIERCEALL
STAFF WRITER
kpierceall@pe.com

Published: 24 January 2012 09:02 PM

The last time a Los Angeles councilman proposed taking a serious look at what it would take to transfer control of Ontario International Airport back to the city of Ontario, the Inland city didn’t have a serious proposal.

Now it does.

With Ontario’s offer of $50 million on the table, a Los Angeles city councilman has, for the second time in less than two years, proposed that his city research what it would take to cede control and ownership of the airport to the Inland Southern California city and if it would be worth it.

On Tuesday, Councilman Dennis Zine, along with Councilman Bill Rosendahl, proposed a motion for city staff to determine the fair market value of the airport and how it could be transferred, as well as analysis of the city of Ontario’s current proposal to take control of the airport.

Ontario has proposed giving Los Angeles $50 million for its general fund and taking on $75 million in debt to get back the airport. It’s a proposal that was publicly rebuffed by the executive director of Los Angeles World Airports, the city agency that owns and operates the airport, LAX and Van Nuys Airport. The city of Los Angeles has managed the airport since 1967, taking ownership in 1985.

In a statement Tuesday, Ontario City Councilman Alan Wapner said the city was, “extremely pleased” about the motion introduced by Zine and Rosendahl.

An email from Zine’s press secretary indicated that the councilman was invited to tour the airport by a member of Ontario’s City Council who is a colleague on the Southern California Association of Governments council.

“We are confident that when all the facts are known and carefully considered that the LA city government will recognize that our offer is fair,” and better than what has been provided in other airport transfers, Wapner said.

The motion, simply a starting point for consideration, was sent to the city of Los Angeles’ Trade, Commerce & Tourism Committee. No action could be taken until the committee sends it back to the full City Council for a vote. Even then the committee could modify it or kill it before it gets a chance to go to the council for a full vote. Rosendahl and another councilman, Greig Smith, made a similar motion in May 2010 to look at the feasibility of transferring the airport.

“Resources are scarce and the need of LA residents is for the focus to stay at LAX to promote a maximum economic growth for Los Angeles City,” the most recent motion states.

To read entire story, click here.

LA/Ontario International Airport has has suffered a 32 percent decline in airline passengers since 2007. The airport had once been projected to server 30 million passengers by 2030. (Bulletin file photo)

Liset Márquez, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Created: 01/19/2012 09:15:13 AM PST

ONTARIO – The battle has begun in earnest.

Officials on both sides of the LA/Ontario International Airport dispute this week lashed out at each other for information they say is misleading and a misrepresentation.

Late Wednesday night, Ontario officials angrily responded to Los Angeles World Airport’s strong criticism of their attempt to take back control of the struggling facility.

“Not only did you misrepresent Ontario’s proposal,” City Manager Chris Hughes said about LAWA’s comments, but “you prematurely commented on terms of an airport transfer prior to allowing policy makers sufficient opportunity to explore negotiation terms and consider all options.”

Until now, Ontario had engaged in private talks with officials of Los Angeles and LAWA, which operates ONT as well as Los Angeles International Airport, in an effort to regain control of ONT.

Things changed earlier this week when Ontario launched a media campaign to sway Los Angeles voters in their quest to regain control of ONT.

The campaign includes a website – SetOntarioFree.com – as well as a Facebook page and Twitter account. On Thursday, city officials announced they had also launched a YouTube channel.

Included in the efforts was poll results that city officials say shows a majority of voters support the transfer of ONT to Ontario from Los Angeles.

The poll results prompted LAWA Executive Director Gina Marie Lindsey to fire back at Ontario, saying the agency does not intend to abandon its fiduciary responsibilities of ONT.

Lindsey said she rejected Ontario’s $50 million deal to buy back the airport, referring to the offer’s amount as a “foreclosure price.”

She also referred to Ontario’s poll as “misleading and an attempt to deflect the truth.”

“LAWA expects to continue to focus its work on building ONT to its potential, rather than be distracted by repeated attempts to engage in a process to sell an airport that is not for sale,” Lindsey said.

Ontario officials had refrained from disclosing their offer because they were in negotiations with LAWA.

Hughes publicly released a letter, addressed to Lindsey, outlining “numerous factual errors” she made in her statement.

Hughes said Ontario is not proposing to buy ONT, but is seeking a transfer of the operator from one public agency to another.

In its negotiations with LAWA, Ontario said they have offered Los Angeles officials a “comprehensive financial package,” which assumes all debts and financial obligations of the airport.

The package included a “generous and unprecedented payment” to Los Angeles to pay back any transaction costs associated in the transfer as well as the dissolution of the 1967 Joint Powers Agreement between the two agencies, Hughes said.

The airport’s history with LAWA dates back to 1967, when Los Angeles, at the request of Ontario, began managing and developing Ontario Airport, which at the time was serving less than a million passengers, Lindsey said.

Since then, more than $560 million in airport capital improvements have been made utilizing funds from a combination of LAX and ONT revenues, Federal Aviation Administration grants and bond proceeds secured by LAWA, she said.

“At the time, these investments and improvements were being made at ONT, LAX was deteriorating and not enough money was being re-invested for capital improvements,” she said.

Lindsey said Ontario’s offer does not come close to either the value of the airport today or address the value of the significant investment Los Angeles has dedicated to ONT.

To read entire story, click here.

A survey from the city of Ontario asked LA voters what they knew about Ontario International Airport’s control. Los Angeles officials accuse the city of wanting to buy the airport at a “foreclosure” price

BY KIMBERLY PIERCEALL
STAFF WRITER
kpierceall@pe.com

Published: 17 January 2012 09:27 PM

The Los Angeles agency that owns and operates Ontario International Airport fired back Tuesday evening at leaders of the city of Ontario for offering to buy the airport back, “at a foreclosure price,” according to a statement from Los Angeles World Airports.

The city of Ontario has been in a tug-of-war for control of the airport since elected officials and staff began accusing Los Angeles of neglecting the Inland airport in favor of LAX, also owned and operated by LAWA. Ontario’s passenger traffic has plunged by about a third since 2007.

In LAWA’s statement, the agency’s executive director Gina Marie Lindsey said Ontario had offered $50 million for the airport, “that doesn’t come close to either the value of the airport today … or the value of the significant investment the city of L.A. has dedicated to (Ontario airport).”

The city of Los Angeles has been managing Ontario airport since 1967.

The statement followed the release of results from a survey commissioned by the city of Ontario.

To read entire story, click here.

Customers are few at ticket counters inside Terminal 4 at Ontario International Airport.

BY KIMBERLY PIERCEALL
STAFF WRITER
kpierceall@pe.com

Published: 21 November 2011 09:44 PM

Two Inland congressmen, fed up with the increasingly empty terminals at Ontario International Airport, on Monday asked U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for help.

Reps. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, and Ken Calvert, R-Corona, sent a letter Monday to LaHood and a second one to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa asking for them to improve Ontario’s worsening condition. The city of Los Angeles has owned Ontario airport since 1967.

“Without action, we are precariously close to losing the airport, a vital component to the economic health of San Bernardino and Riverside counties,” the congressmen wrote to LaHood.

Passenger traffic has fallen by a third in the past four years to fewer than 5 million annual passengers, a level unseen since 1988. In 1998, twin terminals were built with the expectation they would hold 10 million passengers annually.

The city’s Los Angeles World Airports agency owns and operates LAX, Ontario and Van Nuys airports.

“It is now past time to begin consideration of whether LAWA should continue to manage three separate airports. The ability to effectively support, promote, and market multiple airports in a fair manner would be difficult even in the healthiest of economies,” the two wrote to Villaraigosa.

Lewis went further in a separate news release, saying it was time that the airport is placed under local control, either the city of Ontario or an Inland airport authority.

“We need aggressive management now that will work for the improvement of Ontario, and not have to worry if more flights in one location might result in fewer somewhere else,” Lewis said in the statement.

In an emailed statement attributed to Gina Marie Lindsey, LAWA’s executive director, the agency’s leader attributed Ontario’s decline to the economy.

“We empathize with the congressmen’s concerns,” Lindsey said. “LAWA does not regulate where planes fly, and when the economy falters, airlines restrict their flights and schedules to locations where they can make the most profit. Accordingly, secondary airports and communities are disproportionately impacted. At the request of Ontario city leaders, LAWA has made significant progress in reducing its operating costs while continuing to aggressively market the airport to attract more air carriers.”

A chorus of Inland officials have called for the city of Los Angeles to cede control of the Inland destination to a local authority, pointing to the severe drops in the number of passengers using the airport and the number of flights offered. Neither decline appears to be letting up. In September, passenger traffic was down 5 percent compared to a year ago while traffic was up 6 percent at LAX.

For two years, Ontario leaders have been seeking to regain control of the airport, which they say the city of Los Angeles has neglected in favor of LAX.

To read entire story, click here.

BY KIMBERLY PIERCEALL
STAFF WRITER
kpierceall@pe.com

Published: 25 October 2011 03:54 PM

Traffic at Ontario International Airport dropped 5.15 percent in September compared to a year ago, according to statistics from Los Angeles World Airports. The airport had a total of 360,307 passengers use the airport last month.

Cargo shipments at the airport were up nearly 30 percent to 38,855 tons.

To read entire brief, click here.

At the Los Angeles Convention Center on Tuesday, Gov. Jerry Brown announces a new law that will help speed AEG’s plan to build an NFL stadium downtown. (Katie Falkenberg / For the Los Angeles Times / September 27, 2011)

By Kate Linthicum and Sam Farmer, Los Angeles Times
September 28, 2011

Tim Leiweke, the chairman and chief executive of Anschutz Entertainment Group, stood in front of the West Hall of the Los Angeles Convention Center on Tuesday and told a roaring crowd: “Tear it down!”

The order was a bit premature, given that Leiweke will probably have to wait until June at the earliest to break ground on the 72,000-seat NFL stadium that AEG hopes to build at the site.

Still, the massive project inched closer to execution Tuesday when Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a controversial bill that limits lawsuits that could delay it. Speaking at a news conference with Leiweke, labor leaders, a gaggle of lawmakers and two high school football teams, Brown said California’s high unemployment demands “big ideas and big projects.”

Along with the stadium legislation, he also signed a similar but more far-reaching bill that grants certain large construction projects faster judicial reviews of environmental issues. Both bills are focused on “cutting red tape all over the state,” Brown said. “There are too many damn regulations.”

But not everyone cheered Brown’s move.

On Tuesday, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors said public and nonprofit projects should also be eligible for expedited judicial review. And the environmental community has found itself divided over the bills, even though both require projects to include green features.

The stadium bill was supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council but opposed by other environmental groups, including the Sierra Club.

Kathryn Phillips, the Sierra Club’s California director, said the governor and Legislature are “flailing” about in an attempt to find ways to create new jobs but have chosen the wrong method.

To read entire story, click here.

The city’s Fire and Police Pensions board has been advised that retiree healthcare benefits are guaranteed, prompting one employee group to ask that a cap on benefits be blocked from going into effect.

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times
September 28, 2011

The cornerstone of L.A. City Hall’s recent plan to fix its finances and rein in soaring retirement costs has been thrown into jeopardy.

Faced with a growing pension burden, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council moved this summer to freeze the amount of healthcare benefits given to thousands of police and firefighters once they retire. Those benefits would not increase in coming years, Villaraigosa said, unless employees contribute more toward retirement from their paychecks.

But in a reminder of the risks faced by local agencies when they tinker with public pension benefits, a law firm retained by the city’s Fire and Police Pensions board concluded this month that those benefits were already guaranteed — and that the city is legally obligated to cover the cost of rising healthcare premiums for its retirees.

One group of retirees has already begun calling on the pension board to block the cap on health benefits from going into effect. Meanwhile, civilian city workers have begun demanding their own legal opinion to determine whether they too should be spared from new limits on their retiree healthcare.

City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana, the city’s top budget official, said the decision to freeze the monthly medical payment for retirees was the single most significant step toward balancing this year’s budget. If that decision is reversed, the city will face a $100-million hole in its budget, Santana said.

Villaraigosa went further, describing the arguments in the legal opinion provided to the pension board as “absolutely ludicrous.” The pension board has nine members, five of them selected by the mayor.

“I believe we’re absolutely on strong legal ground,” he said.

Pension and retirement costs have been steadily rising in recent years, consuming $769 million of this year’s general fund budget, which pays for basic services such as parks and public safety.

Retired police officers and firefighters now receive a monthly healthcare stipend of $1,097 per month, enough to cover a monthly premium for two people enrolled in either Kaiser or a Blue Cross HMO, according to city officials.

To read entire story, click here.

L.A. NOW
Southern California — this just in
September 7, 2011 | 4:29 pm

The state Assembly on Wednesday approved legislation to smooth the way for construction of a $1.2-billion football stadium in downtown Los Angeles after Democratic leaders promised it would provide thousands of jobs for an economically distressed city and would set new standards for reducing traffic and air pollution.

Assembly Speaker John Pérez (D-Los Angeles), a coauthor of the special bill, said the project by Anschutz Entertainment Group would comply with the state’s tough environmental laws even as it provides court review of any lawsuits challenging the 72,000-seat stadium project in a “timely manner.”

“Farmers Field will be the most far-reaching and environmentally friendly stadium in the United States,” Pérez told his colleagues.

Pérez said other projects also will be able to benefit from the special, speedy review that AEG would receive. An additional bill is being mulled in the state Senate to expand the exemption to new projects with a price tag over $250 million that win special environmental certification as green buildings. It would be joined to Pérez’s bill in order for it to clear the upper house.

SB 292 was approved in the Assembly on a 59-13 vote. It would require any environmental lawsuit against the project to be filed directly in the court of appeal and for a decision to be made within 175 days. That would allow investors and the NFL some confidence that the project will not face years of costly delays, supporters say.

Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Silver Lake) said the project, which also includes modernizing part of the Los Angeles Convention Center, is critical to help the state out of its economic slump.

“Folks, we are in a crisis” Gatto said. “We have tremendous unemployment. ”

To read entire story, click here.

Liset Marquez, Staff Writer
Created: 09/06/2011 03:45:17 PM PDT

ONTARIO – City officials have once again discussed the possibility of suing Los Angeles World Airports over control of LA/Ontario International Airport.

City Council members discussed in closed session recently whether to pursue litigation in their effort to regain control of ONT from LAWA, which runs ONT and LAX. The council did not take any action.

“We’re going to continue to do everything and anything it takes to get that airport back to Ontario and that includes litigation,” said Councilman Alan Wapner.

Ontario officials had hoped by now to be managing the financially struggling airport. But despite missing their self-imposed July 1 deadline, Wapner has vowed not to give up.

Officials at LAWA did not want to comment on Ontario’s legal musing.

It is not the first time the city has discussed the topic of suing LAWA. In December the council first authorized the city manager to explore suing Los Angeles for alleged violation of its joint powers agreement over the airport.

Wapner said there was no reportable action from the closed session last week but said the city’s stance on the option to sue has not changed.

“Hopefully it doesn’t come to that point,” Wapner said. “I’m hoping we can come to some amicable resolution.”

Ontario may be running out of options. When negotiations hit a wall earlier this year, state Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga introduced a bill that would create an Inland Empire-based authority that would oversee the transfer of the airport from the city of Los Angeles.

Ontario officials have continued to meet with L.A. city officials and even offered to buy the airport about five months ago. Wapner said they are still waiting for a city’s response on their proposal.

Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has not changed his stance on selling the airport.

“Any future meaningful conversation about the disposition of the airport will be based on willingness to compete with the private sector,” said Michael Collins, director of communications for LAWA.

At the same time, Collins said LAWA has made a “huge” investment over the years and that such a sale would require the agency to adhere to fiscal and federal policies.

“It would require that we get fair market value,” Collins said.

Ontario officials contend they could more efficiently operate ONT, which has seen a 30 percent drop in air traffic in recent years.

To read entire story, click here.

California official says developer AEG probably overstated the financial boost. He speaks at a hearing on the fiscal effect and a possible bill to let AEG curtail legal challenges on environmental issues.

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times
August 27, 2011

The office that advises the California Legislature voiced doubts Friday about the level of economic benefit that would come from an NFL stadium in downtown Los Angeles, saying studies commissioned by the project’s developer “likely overstated” the financial boost it would deliver.

Speaking to a state Senate panel reviewing the plan by developer Anschutz Entertainment Group, policy analyst Mark Whitaker warned that football stadiums typically have a minimal effect on a region’s economic growth, largely because they become a magnet for household entertainment dollars that were already being spent elsewhere in the area.

In many cases, families that have bought tickets to events at the Home Depot Center in Carson, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and other local venues would probably shift those same dollars to the proposed Farmers Field in downtown Los Angeles, said Whitaker, who works in the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“This wouldn’t be the case with all events…. There’s no NFL team in L.A. right now, so that would be new economic activity,” he said.

Whitaker gave his testimony during a three-hour hearing of the Senate’s Select Committee on Sports and Entertainment, which was reviewing the economic benefits of the project and the potential for a bill that would allow AEG to curtail legal challenges to the project on environmental grounds. The written report received by the committee was even more blunt, with analysts saying the state and region would see “minimal” economic benefits from the project.

“The overall economic activity across the region would not necessarily increase but instead shift to Los Angeles … with little net benefit to the region or state,” it said.

Tim Leiweke, AEG president and chief executive, also appeared and said his company “will not move forward” with its stadium plans unless a bill is passed. And he criticized “those who occasionally come out of classrooms and question whether or not sports facilities have an economic impact,” saying his company provides $100 million a year in tax revenue.

“Not only have we been an economic juggernaut for the state, the city and the county, but this organization has given back almost $80 million in charity and through our foundations, back to this community,” said Leiweke, whose company owns Staples Center and the L.A. Live entertainment complex across from the stadium site.

The committee’s chairman, Sen. Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles), arranged the order of the speakers so Leiweke would immediately follow Whittaker. Although he would not divulge his legislative plans, De Leon sympathized with AEG’s fears that the stadium would become a target for out-of-state litigants, such as a Texas businessman who is at odds with the company and cities upset over possibly losing their NFL team to L.A. “They could abuse this process,” he said.

Still, the proposal drew opposition from county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, who said state officials should rewrite environmental law in a way that benefits government construction projects, not just AEG. He sent letters to lawmakers Friday urging them to oppose AEG’s request.

The question of the statewide benefit from a stadium could influence questions about the rationale for altering the California Environmental Quality Act, long a target of business interests and chambers of commerce, exclusively for AEG.

To read entire story, click here.

The rating firm recently downgraded L.A.’s $7-billion investment portfolio to AA from AAA. ‘We have really lost faith in S&P’s judgment,’ Interim Treasurer Steve Ongele said.

By Kate Linthicum, Los Angeles Times
August 18, 2011

Los Angeles, which recently saw its $7-billion investment portfolio downgraded by Standard & Poor’s, has decided to no longer hire the rating company to rate the soundness of the city’s investments.

“We have really lost faith in S&P’s judgment,” Interim Treasurer Steve Ongele said.

After its downgrade of U.S. debt last week, S&P cut its rating of L.A.’s general investment pool to AA from AAA. It also downgraded dozens of other municipalities with large investments in U.S. Treasury notes.

One of them, Northern California’s San Mateo County, has decided not to renew its contract with S&P. Florida’s Manatee County has also dropped its contract with the company, according to news reports.

Speaking before the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee meeting Monday, Ongele said Los Angeles should be proud for cutting ties with S&P.

“The market crash that came with the real estate debacle, it happened because folks like S&P rated AAA corporations that were not worth much of anything, corporations that are no longer there today,” Ongele said. “The fact that we have the courage to do this, the fact that we are the first city, I think that’s a big bragging right.”

To read entire story, click here.

By Art Marroquin Staff Writer
Created: 06/30/2011 08:25:49 PM PDT

For decades, Los Angeles World Airports had managed a relatively happy family, leading four airports under a single banner.

But that relationship has fractured in recent years amid allegations that LA/Ontario International Airport and two smaller siblings are neglected while all the attention is lavished on the agency’s breadwinner, Los Angeles International Airport.

LAWA finds itself embroiled in a custody dispute with community leaders in Ontario, Palmdale and Van Nuys, who believe they can bring their respective airports back to prosperity.

While there isn’t an outright call to break up the agency, stakeholders living near LAWA’s outlying airports are seeking a semblance of local control, rather than allowing the shots to be called by executives based at LAX.

“We already feel like the stepchildren of LAWA because we’re the only general aviation airport in the family, so it doesn’t feel like our concerns are understood,” said Don Schultz, a longtime member of the Van Nuys Airport Citizens Advisory Council.

“It just makes good sense to have local control of the airports,” Schultz said. “Without local control, you’re at the mercy of an agency that focuses 99 percent of its time on the airport that makes the most money.”

Efforts to gain local oversight of LAWA’s smaller airports appear to be gaining momentum.

Ontario officials have for some time sought to take over ONT, saying they could operate it more efficiently than could LAWA.

After nearly three years of negotiations, Palmdale Regional Airport will likely be transferred this summer to the city of Palmdale.

Last week, an alliance of nearly two dozen San Fernando Valley neighborhood councils called for a study to examine whether an independent panel should oversee Van Nuys Airport, taking direct control away from the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners.

But the simple desire to operate an airport is vastly different from having the ability to operate one, said Michael Collins, communications director for LAWA.

“It’s not surprising that a local interest would want to have things get better, especially when the economy is rough,” Collins said. “Frankly, I can’t think of any local entity that has the level of skill, financial capacity or experience to operate these airports other than Los Angeles World Airports.”

Regional flights languish

Palmdale and Ontario airports were viewed as part of LAWA’s regional plan to shift flights from LAX to other Southern California airports.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had promised to make the idea of “regionalism” one of his priorities during his successful run for mayor in 2005, but critics say the idea has fallen by the wayside.

Efforts to launch regular commercial service at Palmdale never took off, while the national recession has caused air traffic to drop more than 30 percent over the past few years at Ontario airport.

“Those airports are important assets that the city wants to be successful, and LAWA works hard to ensure that success,” mayoral spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton said.

Despite that promise for success, Palmdale Mayor James Ledford has expressed years of frustration with LAWA’s failure to retain a major airline at Palmdale Regional Airport.

A total of eight carriers have attempted to launch service from Palmdale since 1971, but each pulled out after a brief run.

Palmdale facility dormant

The final straw for Ledford came in December 2008, when United Airlines canceled daily flights between Palmdale and San Francisco due to a lack of demand. The small Antelope Valley airport has remained dormant ever since.

The airport’s terminal, taxiways and parking lot sit on property owned by the Air Force, while the city of Los Angeles owns 17,500 acres of surrounding property.

While a management transfer is close to being finalized in Palmdale, a similar deal might not be so easy for ONT.

The city of Los Angeles assumed management of the Ontario airport in 1967, mostly to serve as an alternate landing site when it was too foggy for jetliners to land at LAX.

Over time, commercial service grew along with the Inland Empire’s population, prompting the city of Los Angeles to purchase ONT in 1985 to build a pair of new terminals for $270 million.

Unlike Palmdale, passenger service and demand grew at ONT, which saw a peak of 7 million travelers in 2007. But like many midsize airports across the country, Ontario airport has not recovered from a recession-fueled loss of flights and passengers.

“I can’t figure out anything L.A. gets out of Ontario airport other than to control the local competition and intentionally drive traffic back to LAX,” said Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner, who waged his city’s fight last year to gain control of the airport from LAWA.

Wapner’s effort was fueled in February, when state Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga introduced a bill that calls for creating an Inland Empire-based authority to negotiate a transfer plan for ONT. The state Senate has approved the measure, but it was delayed this week by Dutton while negotiations between LAWA and Ontario resume.

Earlier this month, the Los Angeles City Council opposed Dutton’s bill and vowed to protect its asset. Before a transfer back to the Inland Empire can take place, Los Angeles city officials want to know the fate of 300 ONT employees who work for LAWA.

L.A. wants Ontario to pay

Additionally, city leaders want assurances that a management transfer would “satisfactorily compensate” LAWA’s investments in the airport, including the new terminals.

“Any transfer that did not acknowledge the value of this as a city asset, absent of a sale, is not on the table,” said LAWA spokesman Collins.

Wapner said his city shouldn’t have to pay anything to regain control of Ontario airport. Previous improvements, including the new terminals, were funded by a mix of bonds paid by airlines that operated at ONT, along with passenger fees collected by airlines that served both LAX and ONT, he said.

Despite that, Wapner said his city approached Villaraigosa’s office three months ago with a “significant monetary offer” worth “tens of millions of dollars” for ONT. Wapner declined to disclose the exact amount because his city is attempting to restart negotiations with LAWA.

Villaraigosa’s office said the city of Ontario has not made an offer to buy the airport, but noted that LAWA is “engaging in ongoing conversations” for the facility.

“The only reason we made an offer was because we want to expedite this process,” Wapner said. “The local economy is going down day by day in Ontario, and this airport is our main economic engine.”

Along with a fight over its two commercial airports, LAWA is also facing a challenge to retain Van Nuys Airport, the agency’s sole general aviation facility.

Van Nuys seeks control

Van Nuys had once proudly held the title as the nation’s busiest general aviation airport, but was eclipsed in recent years by Deer Valley Airport in Phoenix.

To read entire story, click here.

By Liset Márquez and Art Marroquin, Staff Writers
Created: 06/30/2011 08:22:12 PM PDT

ONTARIO – City officials are not fretting that their self-imposed deadline to regain control of LA/Ontario International Airport has passed without success.

Ontario officials had hoped by now to be managing the financially struggling airport. But despite missing the July 1 deadline, a local city councilman is vowing not to give up.

For more than a year, Ontario officials have been pushing Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Los Angeles World Airports Ö which manages ONT Ö to either transfer control of ONT or amend the Joint Powers Agreement between the two cities.

“We will continue to work to transfer Ontario airport back to local control,” said Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner, who has led his city’s fight to gain control of the airport from LAWA, the agency that operates LAX and Ontario airports.

Wapner said the city’s deadline was based on “good faith negotiations with LAWA” which never took place.

When negotiations hit a wall earlier this year, state Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga introduced a bill that would create an Inland Empire-based authority that would oversee the transfer of the airport from the city of Los Angeles.

Last month, the Los Angeles City Council announced its opposition to the bill. The city of Los Angeles assumed management of Ontario airport in 1967.

Despite that opposition, Wapner said language in the resolution indicated to Ontario officials that the L.A. council was willing to discuss negotiations.

As a gesture to L.A. officials, Wapner said he approached Dutton and asked him to delay the bill.

“From the start, the bill was introduced to spur negotiations. Sen. Dutton has received assurances from officials at the city of Ontario that it has,” said Larry Venus, Dutton’s press secretary.

To read entire story, click here.

The Dodgers announce they have filed for bankruptcy protection for the financial good of the team. If the court approves interim financing, owner Frank McCourt could meet Thursday’s payroll and remain in control of the Dodgers through bankruptcy proceedings.

By Bill Shaikin
June 27, 2011, 7:24 a.m.

The Dodgers filed for bankruptcy protection Monday in a move that owner Frank McCourt said would stabilize the financial future of the team. The move also could extend the battle for ownership of the Dodgers well beyond this season.

McCourt has obtained $150 million in interim financing, according to a statement issued on his behalf. If the bankruptcy court approves that financing on Tuesday, McCourt would meet Thursday’s payroll deadline and could remain in control of the club throughout the bankruptcy proceedings, with the intention of negotiating a television rights deal that would satisfy the court by paying off all creditors in full.

Under the Major League Baseball constitution, the act of filing for bankruptcy enables the commissioner to strip McCourt of ownership. However, bankruptcy court proceedings generally override MLB rules.

Manny Ramirez is the Dodgers’ largest creditor, according to the bankruptcy filing. The Dodgers owe Ramirez $21 million, followed by Andruw Jones ($11 million), Hiroki Kuroda ($4.5 million), Rafael Furcal ($3.7 million) and the Chicago White Sox ($3.5 million, for Juan Pierre).

The list of creditors includes much of the current Dodgers roster, Hall of Fame broadcaster Vin Scully ($152,778), the city of Los Angeles ($240,563 in tax debt) and two players yet to play for the Dodgers (prospects Zach Lee at $3.4 million and Alexander Santana at $499,500).

In a statement issued on McCourt’s behalf, the filing was said to have been done “in order to protect the franchise financially and provide a path that will enable the Club to consummate a media transaction and capitalize the team.”

To read entire story, click here.

L.A. NOW
Southern California — this just in
June 24, 2011 | 9:13 pm

Despite the city’s ongoing fiscal woes, Los Angeles police officers will receive a considerable pay raise in the coming years, according to a tentative contract agreement reached Friday.

The proposed three-year contract calls for the roughly 9,900 rank-and-file officers to forgo a pay increase in the fiscal year that begins July 1 and then receive several incremental pay hikes over the next two years, according to a summary obtained by The Times.

At the start of the second year, officers’ pay would rise 1% and then jump another 2% midway through the year. Over the course of the third year, officers would receive two 1% bumps in pay and then a 2% increase.

An officer with a base annual salary of $75,000 would be paid nearly $80,400 at the end of the proposed contract.
The tentative agreement also leaves in place the bonuses and incentives that officers can earn for reaching certain ranks or taking particular assignments.

In addition, an annual $1,025 uniform allowance for all officers remains. And the subsidy the city pays officers each month to offset healthcare costs would stay at $1,060 for the first year of the contract and rise as much as 5% in each of the following years.

The agreement also would relax the rules governing overtime work, making it easier for LAPD officials to run the department during tough fiscal times.

Because there is no money to pay officers cash for overtime work, the current contract forces officers to take time off when they accrue about 250 hours of overtime — a cap that has sent hundreds of officers home each month. The new contract would raise that cap to 600 hours.

Union and police officials refused to comment on the proposed deal. City officials confirmed the terms but declined to make any other comment.

To read entire story, click here.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a $5 million dispute over a planned cargo facility development at L.A./Ontario International Airport.

Los Angeles World Airports Board of Airport Commissioners agreed to a $1.66 million settlement with developer Aero Ontario, which was suing the board and the city of Los Angeles for their alleged lack of commitment on the project.

As part of the agreement, Aero Ontario has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice, meaning it gives up the right to file another suit on that claim.

In addition, the cargo developer will terminate the 40-year lease it had signed in 2008 with LAWA, which operates ONT.

The commissioners voted on the proposed settlement in closed session Monday.

More than a $1 million of that settlement is for the initial purchase of Hangar 20 from LAWA. Control of the property will go back to the agency.

“The parties have agreed to share a portion of the costs incurred because of the non-viability of the project and hope to find opportunities in the future to work together on development of air cargo projects in the Los Angeles region,” said Maria Tesoro-Fermin, spokeswoman for ONT.

A lawyer for Aero Ontario said it would not be releasing a statement at this time.

Aero Ontario, an affiliate of Aeroterm, a Maryland-based developer and property owner, was seeking up to $5 million in damages.

Aeroterm is known for building and managing international airport facilities throughout the nation.

The cargo developer had filed a lawsuit in October against the city of Los Angeles and the commissioners.

To read entire story, click here.

Local agencies vie for a piece of the MWD action
Mediha Fejzagic DiMartino, Staff Writer
Posted: 06/18/2011 10:12:16 PM PDT

When it rains, it pours.

Now that California’s drought is officially over, local cities are scrambling to find money to buy part of 225,000 acre-feet of water unexpectedly up for sale by the Metropolitan Water District.

And this excess water is being offered to local agencies at an 80 percent discount.

“Everyone was unaware that there is going to be that much water available as extra from what was allocated in the past, so no city, no agency had any money budgeted to pay for it,” said Bill Kruger, a Chino Hills councilman.

But no one will stay thirsty.

The Chino Basin Watermaster board – which oversees the massive underground water reservoir stretching from Pomona to Fontana and from the mountains to the Santa Ana River – is looking into ways to help its cash-strapped agencies buy 50,000 acre-feet of the water. An acre-foot – 325,851 gallons – is enough water to supply two typical households for a year.

Buying the excess water will save agencies from $852,500 to $4.47 million by 2013, according to the Watermaster’s staff report.

As one of the financing options, Watermaster has tapped Inland Empire Utilities Agency to foot the $21 million bill.

“(It’s) a significant amount,” said Thomas Love, IEUA’s general manager.

“Our board (of directors) is considering either dipping into its reserve funds or to issue a debt. Footing the bill is not exactly what will happen. We would pay for water as it’s delivered and then sell it back to municipalities over the next three years, to give them time to budget for it. We have already started taking the delivery as it takes several months to store it.”

Not only is the extra water available, but at $409 per acre-foot, it’s relatively cheap.

“It’s one of those opportunities that it would be almost criminal not to take advantage of it,” said Desi Alvarez, Watermaster’s chief executive officer. “$409 is very good. It’s the best price we’ll see for a long time. If you asked me two years ago, I’d say we’ll never see it.”

The MWD charges local agencies for its imported water on a multilevel price scale. Next year, for example, imported water will cost between $442 and $686 per acre-foot.

In fiscal year 2012-13, the Watermaster expects to purchase roughly 25,000 acre-

feet of replenishment water for its operations, at an estimated cost of $10.5 million.

“The availability of replenishment water provides Chino Basin with a singular opportunity to purchase water at a significant cost savings,” according to the Watermaster’s staff report about the purchase.

“The replenishment water has not been available by MWD for the last four years. As a result, when Watermaster has had to purchase replenishment water it was at a much higher rate.”

The influx of water on the market is caused by a combination of factors, MWD spokesman Bob Muir said.

The extremely wet seasons in Northern California and along the Colorado River have contributed to MWD maximizing its water supply levels.

To read entire story, click here.

By Art Marroquin Staff Writer
Posted: 06/17/2011 09:58:17 PM PDT

The Los Angeles City Council this week opposed state legislation that calls for establishing an Inland Empire-based authority to take control of LA/Ontario International Airport from the city of Los Angeles.

The move comes after the state Senate approved a measure that would allow a seven-member panel to negotiate a transfer plan for the Ontario airport.

Senate Bill 466, introduced earlier this year by state Senate Republican leader Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga, will be considered later this month by the Assembly’s Committee on Local Government.

“It’s unfortunate to have this consternation with a senator who’s trying to get headlines rather than do good policy,” Los Angeles City Councilman Tony Cardenas said.

“What we have to do as a city is defend one of our assets,” Cardenas said. “We should not allow anyone else to tell us how to run it.”

Dutton’s bill does not call for directly seizing control of the Ontario airport from the city of Los Angeles.

Instead, the measure would allow for structured negotiations between Los Angeles officials and a new airport panel composed of appointees from the city of Ontario and San Bernardino County, said Dutton’s spokesman, Larry Venus.

Dutton “is generally in favor of local control, and that means an airport located in the Inland Empire should be controlled by an entity in the Inland Empire,” Venus said. “It wouldn’t make sense for the Inland Empire to direct operations for Los Angeles International Airport, so why should Los Angeles control Ontario Airport?”

Los Angeles World Airports assumed management of Ontario Airport in 1967 and then purchased the facility in 1985.

Ontario has long been considered a critical element in LAWA’s regional plan to shift flights from the bustling terminals at LAX to smaller airports across Southern California.

Before a transfer back to the Inland Empire can take place, Los Angeles city officials want to know the fate of 300 airport employees who technically work for LAWA.

Additionally, city leaders want assurances that a management transfer would “satisfactorily compensate” LAWA’s previous investments in the facility, including a $270million overhaul that led to the construction of two terminals.

To read entire story, click here.

By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2011

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday decided to oppose state legislation that would shift control of L.A./Ontario International Airport from the city of L.A. to an authority made up of Inland Empire officials.

Council members voted 11 to 0 against a pending bill by Sen. Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga), that would transfer management responsibilities from Los Angeles World Airports to an authority made up of four directors from Ontario and three from San Bernardino County. As the proposal is written, Los Angeles would not have a representative on the authority’s board, though the city would still own the airport.

Last month, the Senate approved Dutton’s bill, 33 to 1. It is now headed to the Assembly.

“It is unfortunate we have this [confrontation] with this senator. He is trying to get headlines, not make good policy,” said Councilman Tony Cardenas. “We have to defend what is right and continue to operate our asset, not have someone else tell us how to operate our asset.”

To read entire story, click here.

Dutton

Liset Marquez, Staff Writer
Created: 05/31/2011 06:27:29 PM PDT

ONTARIO – A bill by Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga that would create a regional airport authority to oversee operations of LA/Ontario International Airport has been sent to the Assembly.

The Senate on Tuesday moved Senate Bill 446 to a local government committee. The committee is expected to meet June 29 and may decide to move the bill to the Assembly floor for a vote.

The bill would create an Ontario International Airport Authority that would be comprised of four directors from the city of Ontario and three directors from the County of San Bernardino.

If the bill is amended by the committee it will have to go back to the Senate for approval on any changes, said Jann Traber, a spokeswoman
Dutton
for Dutton.

There was one dissenting vote for the bill, Traber said.

“This shows there’s support for the bill moving forward,” she said.

The bill authorizes and encourages the authority to enter into an agreement with Los Angeles to facilitate the transfer of management and operational control of ONT from Los Angeles to the authority.

In May, the state Senate Transportation and Housing Committee unanimously agreed to move the bill forward.

To read entire story, click here.

Despite efforts by Los Angeles World Airports officials to squash discussions over the transfer of L.A./Ontario International Airport, Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner refuses to back down.

“This does not change anything. We are still pushing for local control,” Wapner said.

Wapner was reacting to LAWA Executive Director Gina Marie Lindsey, who has said her agency would focus on improving management and operations at the struggling airport rather than negotiating with Ontario over transferring its control to the city.

Speaking to the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners on Monday, Lindsey continued to distance herself from Ontario’s desire to take control of ONT.

“We did not talk about transferring control at all. We were focused on what can be done to increase traffic,” Lindsey said regarding a May 5 meeting with Ontario officials.

Lindsey’s statement to the board follows a memo she sent to ONT employees last Wednesday in which she emphasized that there were no immediate plans to change management.

In the letter, Lindsey said, “neither the mayor nor the Board of Airport Commissioners is pursuing a transfer of ONT to any organization, including the city of Ontario.”

LAWA – which operates ONT – and the city of Ontario have been in discussions for more than a year about transferring control of the airport.

Ontario officials have emphasized in the talks a self-imposed July 1 deadline for getting control.

To read entire story, click here.

Agency says city has to pay
Liset Marquez, Staff Writer
Created: 04/10/2011 08:08:51 PM PDT

ONTARIO – Control of L.A./Ontario International Airport could be the city’s for the right price, according to the head of the organization that runs it now.

A letter from Gina Marie Lindsey, the executive director of Los Angeles World Airports, stated that a “smooth and cooperative transfer” could be reached if the right financial deal materializes.

Unfortunately, that deal doesn’t exist, at least not in the city’s latest proposal, according to the letter. Lindsey wrote that the proposal, which was publicly released by LAWA last week, doesn’t note the need to “appropriately compensate” her organization.

“The disposition of issues such as joint purchasing, transfer and collection of revenues, and debt management would have to be negotiated as part of a comprehensive financial deal,” Lindsey wrote.

In her letter, LAWA’s executive director also expressed doubts about coming to any agreement and transfer in time for Ontario’s self-imposed deadline of July 1.

However, Lindsey did present an opportunity for the two entities to collaborate by assigning all marketing and traffic-building responsibilities to Ontario officials. LAWA would provide funding that Ontario would oversee.

“This will ensure that marketing efforts for ONT would be led by an entity whose sole focus is to promote a single airport,” Lindsey wrote in her letter.

For more than a year, Ontario officials have been in negotiations with LAWA to transfer control of the local airport.

“Why is ONT so important for Los Angeles to own? They don’t receive any benefits out of owning L.A./Ontario. To control their own competition – there’s no other reason,” Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner said.

In November, Ontario officials submitted a three-page report detailing their concerns over LAWA’s management of ONT. The report suggests creating an airport authority to operate ONT if control were transferred to Ontario.

It also offers a discussion of financial terms. Ontario offers to set aside a portion of passenger fees collected at ONT for Los Angeles International Airport. No more than one-third of this annual revenue would go to LAX. The funds would also be suspended any time it costs an airline more than $5 a person to do business at ONT.

However, Ontario’s proposal fails to address the issues at ONT in detail, Lindsey wrote in her response.

One issue is Los Angeles’ role if Ontario operated the airport.

In her letter to the city, Lindsey questioned Ontario’s ability to manage an airport because it does not have any experience.

Wapner said the city’s proposal was never meant to be considered an operational plan.

“The proposal was really to open up the discussions about the issues. It was informal. It was a starting point, communications, for negotiations,” Wapner said.

At the time the letter was sent to LAWA, discussions had been at a standstill, he said.

But Wapner said he has no doubts that the city is capable of running the medium-sized airport.

“The city of Ontario doesn’t know how to operate an arena. We don’t know how to run a convention center. We hire qualified professionals,” Wapner said. “We will hire a professional airport manager that would report to the authority.”

If Los Angeles was serious about ONT’s success, it would eliminate the 15 percent administrative fee at ONT, which amounts to $9 million a year, Wapner said.

To read entire story, click here.

10:40 PM PDT on Tuesday, April 5, 2011

By KIMBERLY PIERCEALL
The Press-Enterprise

The city of Ontario offered no details on how it would solve two of Ontario International Airport’s biggest problems — rising costs to carriers and plummeting passenger traffic — according to its proposal to control the airport, obtained this week by The Press-Enterprise through the California Public Records Act.

The city says it wants control of the airport by July 1 and would form an airport authority made up of Ontario representatives, the county of San Bernardino and, perhaps, a representative from the city of Los Angeles.

The three-page draft proposal given to the airport’s owner, the city of Los Angeles , in November and later Los Angeles World Airports, bears no signatures and outlines a 15-point strategy for transferring control of the airport to Ontario, not a strategy for managing the airport. In it, the city indicates it would give LAWA revenue to use at LAX if the cost for carriers to do business at the airport is lowered to $5 or less per passenger (now it’s $14.50), that it didn’t want to own the airport, that the city would get proper certification to run an airport and that LAWA employees at the airport would remain LAWA employees even after the transfer.

The city of Ontario had denied requests to release the proposal.

Ontario airport has lost more than a third of its passenger traffic since 2007, a decline that has concerned city officials and inspired their pursuit to take control of the airport.

LAWA’s executive director responded in writing and questioned what advantages, if any, there were to transfer the airport to Ontario, calling the July 1 deadline unlikely and suggested the city of Ontario handle marketing for the airport.

LAWA has owned and managed Ontario airport since 1967 when it was largely used as an overflow airport for LAX. It also owns and operates Los Angeles International Airport as well as Van Nuys Airport and Palmdale Airport. The agency built two terminals for Ontario airport in the late 1990s. The severe drop in passengers prompted Ontario city officials to question the agency’s management of the airport, calling it a conflict of interest because LAWA is also concerned with bolstering traffic at LAX.

Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner, who is among those leading the city’s effort, said the proposal lacks detail because its management strategy isn’t relevant to why Los Angeles should transfer control to Ontario. Instead, he said Los Angeles should be asking itself why it wants to manage an airport 40 miles outside its city limits.

“It really has no nexus to Los Angeles except giving them the ability to control their competition,” Wapner said. He described the brief proposal as “starting points for negotiations and discussions,” with LAWA, not a final proposal.

The number of passengers using Ontario airport has dropped from 7.2 million in 2007 to 4.8 million in 2009 and 2010, the lowest level of traffic since 1988, a full decade before twin terminals were built with the anticipation of filling them up with 10 million passengers annually.

The city gives no indication that it would pay LAWA to take over the airport and instead concludes the proposal by saying that each side, the city of Ontario and city of Los Angeles, would pay their own expenses associated with the airport’s transfer.

Ontario officials also ask that all revenue accounts for the airport, accounts receivable, passenger facility charge fees and other revenue for the airport be handed over to the Inland city upon transfer.

Ontario officials also proposed taking control of LAWA’s efforts to seek a third-party airport manager. The proposal asked that LAWA handle that process “promptly” and involve Ontario officials every step of the way.

In a letter to Ontario’s city manager dated March 1, LAWA Executive Director Gina Marie Lindsey offers to let the city take over marketing the airport, but nothing more.

To read entire story, click here.

L.A. NOW
Southern California — this just in
April 1, 2011 | 2:33 pm

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has agreed to pay nearly $42,000 in fines to resolve state and city investigations into his practice of accepting tickets to sports events, concerts and pricey entertainment activities without reporting them as gifts, officials said Friday.

In a pact drafted by officials with the state Fair Political Practices Commission and the city Ethics Commission, Villaraigosa admitted that he failed to report free tickets to 34 events during his first five years in office, including Los Angeles Lakers games and concerts at such venues as Gibson Amphitheater.

Villaraigosa faced a maximum fine of more than $167,000 but was offered a smaller amount because investigators concluded that his violations were unintentional and that he made a “good faith” attempt to comply with the law, according to the agreement.

Villaraigosa highlighted those comments but insisted that he was “fully accountable” for his actions. “It is my responsibility to make sure I act in strict compliance with the applicable rules,” he said in a one-page statement.

Last year, Villaraigosa estimated that he went to at least 85 events at such venues as Staples Center, Dodger Stadium, L.A. Live and elsewhere during his first five years in office without paying for a ticket. He repeatedly asserted that his acceptance of those tickets did not violate state law because he was performing official or ceremonial city duties at the time.

To read entire story, click here.

Liset Marquez, Staff Writer
Created: 03/22/2011 04:05:51 PM PDT

LOS ANGELES – Despite her doubts about a timely transfer of LA/Ontario International Airport, Gina Marie Lindsey is optimistic about its future growth in passengers.

Speaking to the Board of Airport Commissioners on Monday, Lindsey, LAWA’s executive director, predicted a better year for the struggling airport, which hasn’t seen traffic levels so low since the 1980s.

Traffic has stabilized at ONT, with the medium size hub losing only 1percent in traffic for 2010, which Lindsey said can be attributed to Aeromexico pulling out of the airport. The airline has since restored flights at ONT.

Yearly air traffic figures for 2010 show ONT lost 1.19 percent of traffic from 2009. Last year, 4.8million travelers passed through ONT, a slight decrease from the 4.86million travelers in 2009.

“We still need to find as many ways as possible to make that airport more viable,” Lindsey said.

On Monday, Lindsey stunned Ontario city officials when she told the commissioners that a transfer of control, because of its complexities, could take years.

For more than a year, Ontario officials have been pushing Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and LAWA – which manages ONT – to either transfer control of ONT or amend the Joint Powers Agreement between the two cities.

Ontario officials see the cause of the passenger decline differently.

For months, Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner has been critical of LAWA’s management of the airport.

Among the concerns he has raised is the pressing need to transfer management before the lack of traffic forces ONT’s closure.

“There must be a sense of urgency at LAWA just as there has been and is at Ontario,” he said.

It’s a scenario that Lindsey does not agree with. At Monday’s meeting she told the board that ONT has at least 13,000 passengers a day, which is more traffic than Long Beach International Airport and Burbank.

“(ONT) still a very viable, operating airport serving a lot of people,” Lindsey said.

But passenger traffic at LA/Ontario International Airport has declined by 33percent since 2007, when it had 7.2million passengers.

ONT’s situation is not unique, Lindsey said. Of the 36 medium-size airports in the nation, 29 have shown passenger decline, she said. The decline of passengers at the airports ranges between 12percent and 35percent, Lindsey said.

In the state, San Jose International Airport has seen a 22.6percent drop and Oakland has experienced a 30percent decline.

Commissioner Fernando Torres-Gil commended LAWA and ONT staff for making cost reductions.

“The bottom line is it is not about costs, it’s just economical recession,” he said. “It’s the economical recession that has been the culprit, not the management.”

Commissioners requested that LAWA staff provide them with a report comparing ONT traffic in the last year to other airports in the Southern California region.

To read entire story, click here.

LAWA leader: Switching airport could take years
Liset Marquez, Staff Writer
Created: 03/21/2011 06:37:47 PM PDT

LOS ANGELES – Los Angeles World Airports Executive Director Gina Marie Lindsey expressed doubt Monday that there could be a timely transfer of control of LA/Ontario International airport.

For more than a year the city of Ontario has been pushing Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and LAWA – which manages ONT – to either transfer control of ONT or amend the Joint Powers Agreement between the two agencies.

Ontario officials had a self-imposed deadline of July 1 for the transfer and had asked LAWA’s Board of Airport Commissioners to make its recommendation on the proposal by April.

“We are not optimistic that this would take months, this would take years,” Lindsey said. “We are happy to work with the city of Ontario on ideas they may have.”

Monday’s statement caught Councilman Alan Wapner by surprise, given recent discussions with Villaraigosa.

“We are perplexed that LAWA is pushing back on negotiating with Ontario for the transfer of Ontario International Airport,” he said.

Up until now, LAWA officials had not indicated such doubts about the time a transfer might take, Wapner said.

“For her to publicly make statements that are contrary and contradictory to the mayor’s office – we don’t know who we are dealing with,” he said.

But Wapner said Ontario officials will continue in their efforts to regain control of the airport.

“We disagree that it needs to be a lengthy process for the two government agencies to come to an agreement for the transfer of the airport,” he said.

Wapner said it is his understanding that the transition could be made in a matter of weeks or months, not years.

Wapner added local control would help redistribute air traffic throughout the region, and also would ensure costs to fly out of the airport are competitive.

“Local control eliminates the conflict of interest inherent in L.A. controlling what can be viewed as a competing airport in another jurisdiction at a time when LAX is trying to rebuild its own passenger traffic,” Wapner said.

Ontario officials already have given their city manager the approval to pursue litigation against LAWA if necessary. Wapner said he wants to continue discussions before any legal action is taken.

Late last month, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, introduced a bill that would create a regional airport authority and transfer control of ONT from the city of Los Angeles to that body.

Dutton has agreed not to move the bill forward unless Ontario officials request that he does. Wapner said he has not yet thought about approaching Dutton.

But Ontario officials have been meeting with members of Congress to discuss the airport’s plight. Wapner said many have expressed their support of a transfer.

Determining the financial costs of the transfer and whether a transfer would go against Los Angeles’ charter were the main concerns Lindsey cited for her doubts.

Lindsay explained that either of these paths would not only be very complicated in terms of finances, but also politically.

Commissioner Valerie Velasco echoed Lindsey’s sentiment.

“If we considered transfer, that has a lot of issues for us if we have no say what’s going on in Ontario,” Velasco said.

Velasco asked that the Los Angeles city attorney look into how a transfer might violate the city charter and whether the airport commissioners would be liable for any decisions made at ONT.

During Monday’s meeting, Lindsey did not use the PowerPoint presentation that was supposed to be used to illustrate the discussion. The presentation had been made available to the media prior to the March 7 meeting but the item was pulled off the agenda.

To read entire story, click here.

Liset Márquez, Staff Writer
Created: 03/09/2011 08:44:46 PM PST

A presentation recently released by Los Angeles World Airports is critical of the city of Ontario’s proposal to run LA/Ontario International Airport.

A PowerPoint presentation was released to the media for a Board of Airport Commissioners meeting on Monday, although discussion on the issue was postponed until March 21, LAWA officials said.

In the presentation, LAWA casts “doubts about transferring control of ONT to a jurisdiction that has no experience in managing a major commercial airport.”

Ontario officials have been pushing for more than a year to regain control of the ailing airport.

The decline in air service at ONT from 2007 to 2009 has led to a $400 million blow to the Inland Empire’s economy and the loss of more than 8,000 jobs, according to a report released by Ontario in September.

Under Ontario’s proposal given to LAWA on Jan. 12, a regional airport authority would be created to operate ONT. Ontario’s plan also suggests that the management of the authority go to a third party operator.

The PowerPoint presentation said LAWA officials feel there is no “compelling argument” for the Board of Airport Commissioners to cede control of selecting a third party manager to Ontario. It also opposes the notion of reconstituting the Joint Powers Authority, a 40-year-old agreement between the two agencies.

Ontario City Manager Chris Hughes called the information and comment in the LAWA presentation as “unproductive” for ongoing negotiations. Hughes said it was “inappropriate to release confidential information” about Ontario’s proposal, which has not previously been made public.

On Wednesday, LAWA official Mike Molina said the PowerPoint slides were meant to accompany a formal presentation.

“The slides are merely supplementary to the presentation and, on their own, do not portray an complete picture,” said Molina, executive director of external affairs. “This presentation was placed on the agenda following a request by the city of Ontario that we brief our Board on Ontario’s proposal to manage the airport.”

In the presentation to the board, LAWA officials opposed Ontario’s claim that the cost to do business at the airport is the factor in the facility’s drop in traffic.

To read entire story, click here.

Los Angeles leads off Tuesday with a modest ballot measure aimed at curbing pension costs, which are threatening to take a big bite out of the budgets of California’s three major coastal cities.

City officials in San Diego are talking about putting dueling initiatives on the ballot to switch new hires to 401(k)-style individual investment plans, one including police and firefighters in the cost-cutting change and the other leaving them out.

The sponsor of a pension initiative rejected by San Francisco voters last November, as voters approved measures cutting pension costs in seven other retirement systems around the state, is talking about trying a new version of Measure B.

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi calls his new measure “Son of B.” He may propose, among other things, that employer contributions be capped, going no higher than employee contributions.

A similar cap on employer contributions is part of a statewide initiative being developed by California Pension Reform, a new group led by Dan Pellisier. Voters in Pacific Grove approved an employer contribution cap in November, 10 percent of pay.

At the Capitol, where Gov. Brown is seeking a handful of Republican votes needed to put a budget-balancing tax extension on the ballot, there is speculation that he may cut a deal that puts a cost-cutting pension reform measure before voters.

A bipartisan watchdog, the Little Hoover Commission, last month called for a dramatic overhaul of “unsustainable” public pensions, similar to a recommendation two weeks earlier by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The prime examples of “pension costs (that) will crush government” in the Hoover report are the three big cities. Soaring pension costs have more impact on local governments than the state because personnel is a much greater part of local budgets.

Pensions and retiree health care are projected to eat up a third of the general fund in Los Angeles by 2015, crowding out funding for other programs. In deeply troubled San Diego, a grand jury said pensions could require half the general fund by 2025.

By comparison, if all three of the big state pension funds were fully funded (far from the case now), the cost excluding retiree health care arguably would be roughly 10 percent of the general fund.

Pension costs in the governor’s proposed budget are about 4.4 percent of the general fund. But the pension percentage would increase if the $11 billion tax extension is not approved, forcing deep cuts in the total proposed general fund, $84.6 billion.

The governor’s proposed budget expects the rate set by the California Public Employees Retirement System to be $4.1 billion, $2.4 billion from the deficit-ridden general fund and the rest from transportation and other special funds.

CalPERS is nearly 70 percent funded using the market value of assets. Big losses in the recession and stock market crash, when assets plunged from $260 billion to $160 billion before rebounding to $230 billion, are being phased in over three years.

Full funding of CalPERS would require a greater increase from the current state rate, $3.8 billion, than the $4.1 billion expected in the governor’s budget, probably about an additional $1 billion.

The California State Teachers Retirement System, which unlike CalPERS cannot set the rate paid by employers, is expected to receive $1.35 billion next year, all from the general fund.

As of June 2009, CalSTRS was 64 percent funded using the market value of assets and 78 percent funded using the actuarial value, which spreads gains and losses over several years to reduce the volatility of contribution rates.

CalSTRS needed a contribution increase of $3.8 billion to be fully funded. But funding levels presumably have improved since 2009, given strong investment earnings in a rebounding market. A new valuation is expected soon.

The CalSTRS contributions are teachers 8 percent of pay, school districts 8.25 percent and the state, 4.5 percent. A CalSTRS legal analysis contends that the teacher contribution cannot be raised without providing another benefit of equal value.

School districts get more than half their funding from the state general fund. So under that scenario, a plan to phase in higher CalSTRS contributions probably would expect most of the money to come from the state general fund.

The UC Retirement Plan, after going a remarkable two decades without contributions, restarted employer and employee contributions last year. The state has not resumed contributions to UC Retirement, but a $400 million target has been mentioned.

The Los Angeles ballot measure is an example of the power of an important pension player, the public employee unions, who usually set employee contributions and pension benefits through collective bargaining.

Measure G lowers the pensions for new police and firefighters if they retire early after 20 years. The new hires also would contribute 2 percent of their pay toward retiree health care, up from zero for current police and firefighters.

The change is expected to save the city $152 million over a decade. The police and firefighter unions support the plan, which did not draw an opposition argument in the ballot pamphlet.

Former Mayor Richard Riordan helped persuade voters to approve a pension increase in 2001 that allows police and firefighters to retire with up to 90 percent of their final pay after 33 years of service.

More generous pensions were said to be needed to remain competitive and attract and retain the safety workers. The Highway Patrol had negotiated a trendsetting pension, approved for local agencies in a CalPERS-sponsored bill, SB 400 in 1999.

Last year the Highway Patrol union agreed to a contract that gives new hires a lower pension after 30 years. The Measure G reduction is only for early retirement and will still allow new hires in Los Angeles to retire with 90 percent of pay after 33 years.

“Within five years, pension expenses are expected to increase from less than one-sixth of the general fund budget to more than a third,“ a Los Angeles Times editorial said on Feb. 15.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal last May, Riordan warned that pensions could bankrupt the city.

The San Diego proposals to switch new hires to 401(k)-style plans would be initiatives placed on the ballot by gathering voter signatures, rather than bargaining with unions and getting the city council to put a measure on the ballot.

To read entire column, click here.

10 firms express interest in airport
Liset Marquez, Staff Writer
Created: 03/05/2011 02:52:00 PM PST

LOS ANGELES – Los Angeles World Airports officials will explore the idea of selling LA/Ontario International Airport.

Up until now, LAWA officials, who operate ONT, have not considered selling the struggling airport after Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa opposed the idea when discussions over transfer of control of the airport first began with the city of Ontario.

Nearly 18 months since negotiations began, Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn has urged airport officials to look into putting the city asset up for sale.

“The more I look at Ontario, we’re not making money; we’re not losing money; we’re being criticized for it; we have everybody in the world thinking that they can do a better job of running it,” Hahn said. “We have no other option. It might be time to sell the airport.”

Hahn, who is chairwoman of Los Angeles City Council’s Trade, Commerce & Tourism committee, made the suggestion during its meeting last week.

Hahn said she would only be in favor of selling the facility if the city would be allowed to redirect revenues from the sale of ONT to the city of Los Angeles’ general fund.

Current Federal Aviation Administration rules would require that sales from an airport go back into other LAWA facilities such as Los Angeles International Airport and Van Nuys Airport.

Ontario officials have been pushing for more than a year to regain control of the ailing airport the city once owned. They contend local control of ONT would better address its litany of problems.

The decline in air service at ONT from 2007 to 2009 led to a $400 million blow to the Inland Empire’s economy and the loss of more than 8,000 jobs, according to a report released by Ontario in September.

For the past two years, passenger traffic at ONT has fallen more than 47 percent. LAWA reported that the airport served 4.88 million travelers in 2009, down from a peak of 7.2 million.

Ontario officials could not be reached for comment.

The value of an airport

As officials delve into the possibility of selling off the airport, the first question that needs to be answered is determining the airport’s value.

Hahn asked LAWA officials to look into getting ONT appraised.

Steve Martin, LAWA’s chief operating officer, said ONT could be worth anywhere between $250 million to $500 million.

In order for the sale to work, LAWA city officials need Congress to give them an exemption, said Hahn, who is among a handful of Democrats looking to replace long-time Rep. Jane Harman, D-El Segundo.

Then, selling ONT might be the solution to the city of L.A.’s budget woes, she said.

“I use to be harder about not selling our assets. But this one, why in the world wouldn’t we sell this to the city of Ontario?” Hahn said.

“It seems like a great idea, we ought to look at that.”

Initially, Thursday’s meeting was an opportunity for LAWA officials to provide updates on the 10 inquiries it had received to possibly manage ONT, as well as to give an update on the negotiations between LAWA and city of Ontario.

But discussions turned to selling the airport after a series of questions from Hahn regarding ONT’s current situation.

Martin warned Hahn that selling an airport would need approval from Federal Aviation Administration among other things.

“Selling of an airport is very complicated and time consuming. The city of Chicago has been trying to unleash Midway Airport for about four years,” Martin said. “They have yet to close the deal.”

Hahn said there is several factors that could help increase ONT’s value.

One key asset to ONT is its ability to support future growth, said Mike Molina, LAWA’s deputy executive director of External Affairs.

Other airports in the region: LAX, Burbank, and Long Beach are all going to reach capacity, he said.

Ontario is the only airport in the Los Angeles basin that doesn’t have any known constraints, Molina said.

Traditionally, fees at LAX have been cheaper than ONT because the facility had not been renovated since 1984, said Los Angeles Councilman Bill Rosendahl, vice chairman of the Trade, Commerce & Tourism committee.

With modernization efforts under way at LAX things could soon change, he said. By 2014, LAWA officials predict airline executives will begin to see it is cheaper to fly out of ONT rather than LAX. The gap will continue to grow and in time could end up 30 percent higher than ONT’s costs to do business, Martin said.

“It’s not reversible. It will overtake Ontario, in terms of costs per passenger,” he said. “How airlines make decisions, we’ll see when we get there.”

By then, ONT will be considered an “incentive” airport to major air carriers, further adding value to the airport, Rosendahl said.

Rosendahl said another answer to ONT’s decline might be in the air service currently offered.

If nonstop, direct, discounted and frequent flights were added, then passenger traffic would return to the facility. Right now, a majority of flights are connections, he said.

“That’s the bottom line. It has nothing to do with our management,” he said. “The airlines look at their bottom line. They care about the bottom line, a good deal.”

In the past, Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner has argued that they city can’t wait until then because he fears the airport would be shut down.

The negotiations

Last year, at the invitation of Villaraigosa, representatives from LAWA participated in a series of meetings with the city of Ontario regarding the transfer of control of the airport.

LAWA has participated in three of those meetings. The most recent meeting occurred Jan. 12, Molina said, who described them as “productive.”

“We’ve talked honestly about the issues related to the airport. Agreed and disagreed about certain areas to the management of the airport,” he said.

At the Jan. 12 meeting, Ontario officials provided LAWA with a proposal on how they would operate ONT different. On Thursday, LAWA officials sent their response to the proposal, Molina said.

“We feel that there are still several details that need to be discussed and worked out before we take it to the next level,” he said. “On the surface, we’re in disagreement or in opposition to the proposal, as is.”

Molina said LAWA officials have outlined a number of areas where the two agencies can continue to negotiate.

“That’s what we really want to do, continue the discussions,” he said.

Under Ontario’s proposal, a regional airport authority would be created, and ONT would be placed under the direction of the authority, Molina said.

Ontario’s proposal also suggests that the management of the authority go to a third party operator, he said.

This proposal is consistent with legislation that was recently proposed by an Inland Empire politician, Molina said.

Late last month, Senate GOP leader Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga introduced a bill that would create a regional airport authority as well as transfer control of ONT from the city of Los Angeles to a regional airport authority.

The authority would reduce ONT’s $67 million annual operating budget by streamlining operations and eliminating an $8.7 million administrative fee, said.

“A move that the city attorney believes is not legal,” Molina said.

The creation of the authority can happen through legislation but it’s the transfer of a city airport to an authority that has Molina questioning the legality of the bill.

“It’s not a legal option for the state of California to do – to take our asset and transfer it into an authority, outside of eminent domain,” he said.

For Hahn, selling the airport could be of more value to the city and LAWA. The proposal from Ontario, or the bill from Dutton does not provide their agencies any financial gains.

Molina said when the legislation was introduced, LAWA officials were not aware of it.

Since then, Molina said airport officials are having an “effective dialogue” with Dutton’s office.

As a courtesy, Rosendahl said Wapner called him the day before the legislation was introduced.

“The reality is that Ontario feels that the airport is underutilized and has been, over the last 18 months, shown a dramatic drop in take offs and landings,” he said.

ONT’s operating structure

When the two terminals at ONT were built in the late 1990s, there was a lease agreement created with the airlines that would end in 2024, Martin said.

Costs at the airport are fixed, if traffic goes down then the average costs to the airlines goes up, he said.

In the industry, the agreement is referred to as a residual deal, which is when airlines lease the terminals and pay the bills, Martin said.

“The airlines had a chance to walk away from that deal about a year and half ago, after the decline, and they did not do that,” Martin said.

The consensus from the airlines, Martin said, has been that they prefer the arrangement of the long-term deal even though their costs are high in the short-term.

But ONT is not alone, medium-hub airports have seen traffic decline, most notable situations similar to ONT are at Oakland International Airport and San Jose International Airport.

To read entire story, click here.

LOS ANGELES – Several national and international firms have expressed interest in managing L.A./Ontario International Airport.

Officials at Los Angeles World Airports, which operates ONT, received 10 inquiries since the submission process opened Jan. 4 for “expressions of interest.”

The city of Ontario did not participate.

Ontario officials have asked LAWA to turn over management of the sluggish airport to the city.

“The information received from the EOI respondents is valuable to us as we discern ONT’s future operations,” said Mike Molina, LAWA deputy executive director for external affairs. “While the city of Ontario did not submit an EOI, we continue to work with city officials in the possible transfer of airport management.”

Gathering submissions does not guarantee that LAWA’s management will begin the process of selecting ONT’s future manager, LAWA spokeswoman Nancy Castles said.

The purpose of the EOI was to inform LAWA on how best to proceed with ONT, Molina said.

“All options will be reviewed thoroughly before we bring a recommendation to our Board of Airport Commissioners,” he said.

The expressions of interest packets asked parties how they might:

# Return ONT to pre-2008 passenger traffic trends and increase the airport’s share of air traffic in the Los Angeles region.

# Effectively market ONT to airlines, passengers and air-cargo companies.

# Operate ONT more efficiently.

Despite being affected by the economic slowdown, ONT is important to LAWA, said Gina Marie Lindsay, LAWA’s executive director.

Lindsey called the EOI responses encouraging and served as an indication that “ONT is a key asset for the city of Los Angeles.”

A recommendation to the Board of Airport Commissioners is expected in the upcoming weeks, Castles said.

Ontario officials contend they do not need to get involved in the process, citing their involvement in the 40-year Joint Powers Agreement between Ontario and Los Angeles.

In a letter submitted Friday to LAWA officials, Ontario City Manager Chris Hughes said he expects city officials to continue to conduct separate negotiations with LAWA for the transfer of local control “rather than participate in the EOI process.”

Ontario City Councilman Alan Wapner, the city’s liaison with the airport, criticized LAWA’s announcement.

“What’s disconcerting is LAWA releasing the press release to the public before they informed us,” Wapner said.

The councilman said he had no idea there were 10 inquiries until Tuesday, when LAWA officials made the news public.

As part of the EOI process, prospective operators were expected to contact the city of Ontario, but city officials only heard from four interested parties, Wapner said.

The operators that did not contact the city should be considered non-responsive, he said.

In his letter to LAWA, Hughes requested transparency in the process.

“We request that LAWA staff present the results of the EOI process along with an agreement to immediately return Ontario Airport to local control to the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners for prompt consideration and action,” Hughes wrote in the letter. “Any further exploration of potential benefits from the private sector can be conducted by the city of Ontario.”

Wapner said he also believes the “expressions of interests” process is not necessary.

“According to the JPA, it doesn’t allow for a third party operator,” he said.

Wapner said he doesn’t view the move as a cost-savings venture for ONT. If a third party operator is involved, it is likely that the entity would be compensated for managing the airport, he said.

For more than a year, Ontario officials have said local control would better address the downward trend in air traffic at ONT.

More recently, Ontario officials have been in negotiations with the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s office as well as LAWA.

Last November, Ontario officials submitted a proposal for the city to regain control of the airport.

The city had not heard a response to its proposal from LAWA until Tuesday, Wapner said.

The city is still reviewing the response. Wapner declined to provide any details on Tuesday.

“The fact that it took three months to respond is concerning to me,” he said.

Wapner said he would prefer that all three entities as well as Ontario officials meet to discuss all their concerns and issues.

Local control is necessary, given the airport’s struggles in recent years, Wapner said.

For the past two years, passenger traffic at ONT has fallen more than 47 percent.

LAWA reported the airport served 4.88 million travelers in 2009, down from a peak of 7.2 million passengers in 2007.

A Fitch Ratings released in February found weekly departures at the airport dropped to 487 in January from a peak of 918 in June 2007.

LAWA officials have said part of the airport’s decline was tied to economic woes.

But Wapner said the airport continues to lose air traffic while other airports – such as Los Angeles International Airport – have seen some gains.

To read entire story, click here.