Another view on situation at Tracy airport
by Sam Matthews
Jan 24, 2014 | 1749 views | 3 3 comments | 71 71 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Richard Ortenheim operates SkyView Aviation, which is the largest tenant at city-owned Tracy Municipal Airport. His firm has been in business here since 2007.  Sam Matthews/Tracy Press
Richard Ortenheim operates SkyView Aviation, which is the largest tenant at city-owned Tracy Municipal Airport. His firm has been in business here since 2007. Sam Matthews/Tracy Press
slideshow
Richard Ortenheim looked out the window of SkyView Aviation’s reception area in the main hangar at Tracy Municipal Airport, shook his head and said: “What we see out there is costing me money.”

What he saw were the aviation-fuel pumps standing alone on the airport’s tarmac. There were no private aircraft being filled with fuel, and there hadn’t been any for most of the day.

“This is the way it is nearly all of the time; very few planes buy fuel here any more,” said the native of Sweden who is president of SkyView, the city of Tracy’s main tenant at the airport.

The reason, Ortenheim said, echoing comments by local pilots, is that aviation fuel at Tracy’s airport costs far more than at most airports in the region.

The diminished sales of fuel at the airport in the past two years is costing him in two ways, explained Ortenheim, who has been in business here since 2007.

“Firstly, I had a number of aircraft owners from the Bay Area who would fly here to have maintenance performed on their planes. And while they were here, they would fill up with fuel, which was cheaper than in the Bay Area,” he said. “Most of the customers no longer come here because of the high price for fuel has eliminated one of the incentives.”

And secondly, Ortenheim continued, the fuel situation is stopping him from making any long-range plans to expand his operation here and instead is forcing him to consider moving his company elsewhere.

“When I say this, I’m not trying to make any threats or play games, but this is just the way the situation is,” he said.

SkyView Aviation, which at one time had manufactured aerobatic planes here, now concentrates on selling and delivering aircraft to destinations around the world. The firm has contracts for deliveries with Beechcraft and Cirrus. Providing maintenance for private planes and operating a flight school for pilots are other phases of the business, which has 11 employees, including two inspectors.

“I’m probably the best customer at the fuel pumps, since local refueling planes used in our flight school is the only feasible option,” the SkyView president said. “But believe me, I don’t like paying a high price for fuel. Again, it’s costing me money.”

Ortenheim, who has 25 years of experience in aviation, said he was asked by the city to bid on a contract to provide fueling service at the airport, but he didn’t consider the city’s requirement to pay a $50,000 minimum annual upfront payment to the city to be reasonable — something he believes is not included in any standard agreement for a fixed-base operator that he knows.

The fact that Steve Stuhmer, owner of Turlock Air Center, which operates the fuel service at the airport, paid his 2013 fee with a $50,000 check from Surland Cos., which is developing a residential subdivision northwest of the airport, confirmed his decision not to make a bid, Otenheimer pointed out.

Stuhmer, who reported last week that the higher fuel costs at the airport reflect wholesale prices he must pay for fuel, is facing an April 1 deadline to pay this year’s fee under the terms of a revised contract that was approved by the City Council last June.

The revised contract is a long-term one, to say the least. It continues for 25 years, from Jan. 1, 2012, to Jan. 1, 2037, and has three 10-year renewal options, bringing the possible duration to 55 years — until 2066.

Why the city would want to enter into a contract of that duration is one of the puzzlements that I and other people have about the airport situation. Ortenheim just shakes his head, and I bet any number of people reading this would have the same reaction.

• Sam Matthews, Tracy Press publisher emeritus, can be reached at 830-4234 or by email at shm@tracypress.com.

 
Comments
(3)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
DunkMan
|
January 25, 2014
My interest in the airport’s fuel operator was heightened by the three recent articles in the Tracy Press. I’ve lived in Tracy for just under two years, but I’ve been an airport hangar tenant for ten years. There are numerous things are really unique about the arrangement the City has with Stuhmer. I’ll touch on just a few of the many oddities below.

Council was OK with having him be the fuel operator even though his ability to do business in California was suspended almost a year ago by the California Secretary of State.

Council was OK with amending and removing the lease requirement that his company provide fuel trucks to refuel aircraft-- even though that requirement was the main benefit the airport and the pilots received when the City turned over their profitable fuel operation to him.

More to follow:

Steve
DunkMan
|
January 25, 2014
continued:

Council was OK with his failure to pay the City for over $40,000 of city-owned fuel that was in the tanks when he took over the fuel operation. He was required to pay for that fuel in January 2012, but 18 months later, after pocketing the money from the sale of that fuel, he still had not paid the City. If you or I sold someone else’s property and kept the proceeds, you would be in big trouble. Council’s response was basically OK -- no problem, just pay us sometime (perhaps years) in the future.

Council was OK with Stuhmer’s failure to pay the City $50,000 for his 2013 payment which was due in December 2012 as required by the lease. Council simply amended Stuhmer’s lease so that he could pay in June, without penalty, the $50,000 that was six months past due. (This is the $50,000 payment that Surland paid in July on Stuhmer’s behalf) Unbelievably, at the same time, Council also agreed to amend the lease so that all future annual payments were due in April which is four months into each lease period. How many of you can lease anything from anybody and have your lease payments start four months after you take delivery of the item you leased.

Stephen
williamalbert
|
January 24, 2014
Interesting, the same Surland Co that is trying to build around the airport and because of the airport is having to scale back their plans. If the airport was to be shut down they would really benefit. This just really makes you wonder? I would like to hear why Surland of all companies is the one paying Turlock Air center's fees. $50,000 is a sizable amount.


We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at tpnews@tracypress.com.