📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Nevada County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Nevada County Airport Reason for Investigation This report is a follow-up on responses to last year's Grand Jury report*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 8 findings
F1
A permanent, full-time airport manager was hired in February 2001.
F2
On June 26, 2001, the Board of Supervisors passed and adopted the Nevada County Airport Policy 03-01 No. 1, in compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 Regulations, detailing standards for property owners whose trees intrude on airspace (Appendix A).
F3
After County Government took approximately six years and spent in excess of $453,000 out of the general fund to remedy unsafe conditions, The Nevada County Air Park received a permanent operating permit from the FAA on November 16, 2001.
F4
Existing Public Utilities Code, paragraph 21659 (a), mandates the County to require property owners to comply with FAA Part 77 Regulations.
F5
Property owners have the responsibility to trim trees intruding on the airport's airspace at their own expense.
F6
There is no evidence that the County has legally notified the property owners of the requirements stated in Finding 5.
F7
The airport is considered an Enterprise Fund. Enterprise Funds are financed and operated in a manner similar to private enterprises where revenues should cover the cost of operation
F8
On January 8, 2002, the Board approved a 13 percent increase in fees for tie-downs and hangar rentals. This went into effect February 1, 2002. CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations 8
-
R1The current Public Utilities Code, FAA, and County regulations should be strictly enforced.
-
R2from the issuance of this report, County Counsel should investigate legal alternatives to enforce compliance of Public Utilities Code, FAA, and County regulations.
-
R3To limit the use of County general funds for airport operation, the Airport Commission and the airport manager are encouraged to develop additional sources of revenue.
-
R4Page 6Existing Public Utilities Code, paragraph 21659 (a), mandates the County to require property owners to comply with FAA Part 77 Regulations. Agree Public Utilities Code, Section 21659(a) [PUC § 21659(a)] begins: "...No person shall construc6t or alter any structure or permit any natural growth to grow at a height which exceeds the obstruction standards ...", citing FAA regulation at 14 CFR 77,m Subpart C. (Underlining added.) This code section imposes no affirmative duty upon the County. However, this code section does impose an affirmative burden upon each person to comply with its structures. This duty is not limited to property owners, but applies to all persons. As with sponsoring entity for the airport, the County is responsible for compliance with 14 CFR 77, Subpart C. However, the County can choose to enforce the provisions of PUC § 21659(a) directly against the property owners using nuisance abatement proceedings, or it may elect to perform the maintenance itself as it did in 2000-2001.
-
R5Page 6Property owners have the responsibility to trim trees intruding on the airport's airspace at their own expenses. Ward/other/gj0102-IR11-NC Airport 09/10/02 Agree This requirement is included in (PUC § 21659(a), Govt. Code §§ 50485 et seq. & LUDC § L-III 3.5). There is no evidence that the County has legally notified the property owners of the
-
R6Page 7requirements stated in Finding 5. Partially disagree There are no notice requirements set forth in PUC § 21659(a). The Nevada County airport zoning ordinance (LUDC § L-III 3.5) sets forth the FAA control surfaces (height restrictions) which effect the nearby properties. While it is true that zoning restrictions are rarely if ever set forth in a standard home owners Title Report, virtually every responsible real estate agent will check the zoning of any property listed by them for sale. Given the recent publicity accompanying tree removal by the County from the surrounding properties at the airport, it is highly unlikely that any real estate agent would be unaware of the implication of airport zoning. In the circumstance surrounding the recent removal of trees at the airport, the County of Nevada Department of Transportation did notify, and attempted to give actual notice to, every property owner effected by the need to remove those trees which had penetrated the FAA control surfaces. Additionally, on June 26, 2001, when the Board of Supervisors passed and adopted the Nevada County Airport Policy 03-01, all affected property owners in the vicinity of the Airport were notified of the Board Meeting, and the topic of discussion. Additionally, the results of the Board's decisions were published in local newspapers and in official meeting records.
-
R7Page 7The airport is considered an Enterprise Fund. Enterprise Funds are financed and operated in a manner similar to private enterprises where revenues should cover the cost of operation. Agree
-
R8Page 7On January 8, 2002, the Board approved a 13 percent increase in fees for tie-downs and hangar rentals. This went into effect February 1, 2002. Agree (*See Resolution 02-15) The 13% increased resulted in the following amounts being paid for the use of the airport property. Ward/other/gj0102-IR11-NC Airport 09/10/02 Rental New Amount Increase $37.00/month Right of Entry $4.00 per month $50.00/month Hangar Ground Rent (month to month) $6.00 per month $37.00/month Tie-Downs $4.00 per month 5% discount 6-months advance payment 10% discount 12-months advance payment Recommendations:
Conclusions 4
-
CL1 Page 2The Grand Jury commends the Board of Supervisors for hiring a permanent, full-time airport manager.
-
CL2 Page 2The airport manager has developed a comprehensive Nevada County Airport Business and Development Plan, approved by the Airport Commission. This plan is presently under consideration by the Board.
-
CL3 Page 2At the time of this report, the Grand Jury was unable to find documented legal notification to the current owners of their responsibility to maintain compliance with FAA Part 77 Regulations. This would also affect future property owners.
-
CL4 Page 2The Grand Jury commends the Board of Supervisors for hiring a permanent, full-time airport manager. Response: Agreed. The airport manager has developed a comprehensive Nevada County Airport Business and Development Plan, approved by the Airport Commission. This plan is presently under consideration by the Board. Response: Agreed. At the time of this report, the Grand Jury was unable to find documented legal notification to the current owners of their responsibility to maintain compliance with FAA Part 77 Regulations. This would also affect future property owners. Response: Partially Disagree. On June 26, 2001, when the Board of Supervisors passed and adopted the Nevada County Airport Policy 03-01 all affected property owners in the vicinity of the Airport were notified of the Board Meeting, and the topic of discussion. Additionally the results of the Boards decisions were published in local newspapers. It is unlikely that this would be construed as legal notification, however the meeting notices mailed to local property owners were distributed according to Brown Act Requirements
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.