Score: +2
(3/10/1)
Tuolumne County Grand Jury
• 2022-2023
County of Tuolumne Grand Jury 12855 Justice Center Drive
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 21 findings
F1
Page 10
1 The airports have been poorly managed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 Customer service and responsiveness need to be improved and monitored by County Management. (F1.1)
F2
Page 19
1 At a cost of almost $4 million, Project 1906 excavated, rebuilt, and repaved the Airport’s ramp, apron, and taxilane areas. Little or no transition work was done, resulting in major operational and safety issues with many hangars.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 The transition strip between the new and old pavement should be corrected. (F2.1)
F3
Page 24
1 The airport is presently in good condition; although, the taxiway needs crack repair.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1 The taxiway should be repaired. (F3.1)
F4
Page 34
1 County oversight of airport budget and administration has been sub-optimal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
1 To increase airport revenue generation, it may help if the County Administration takes a more active role in budget oversight and in airport operations management. (F4.1, F4.2, F4.3)
F5
Page 39
1 The Board of Supervisors is not receiving valuable and sufficient input, that the AAC can provide, to be able to make decisions about the airports.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
1 The AAC should be re-established.
F1.1
The airports have been poorly managed.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
The airports' facilities need upgrading and added maintenance.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.3
Deer having access to the runways creates a serious safety issue.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1
At a cost of almost $4 million, Project 1906 excavated, rebuilt, and repaved the Airport’s ramp, apron, and taxilane areas. Little or no transition work was done, resulting in major operational and safety issues with many hangars.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.2
Tenant interviewees unanimously agreed that there are cosmetic, structural, and maintenance issues that need to be addressed.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.3
Availability of hangar space at Columbia Airport does not adequately meet present demand, which decreases the Airport’s ability to potentially increase revenue and serve the population.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.1
The airport is presently in good condition; although, the taxiway needs crack repair.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.2
The Pilot Controlled Lighting System is original to the Airport, over fifty years old, and has not been upgraded.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.1
County oversight of airport budget and administration has been sub-optimal.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.2
The log of airport employee work assignments is only used to capture some work orders.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.3
Because not all work orders are logged, it is not possible to verify whether assigning 20% of Columbia Airport’s labor to PMLA is an accurate representation of PMLA’s true operating cost.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.4
Public Works does not currently have a lease or pay rent for their Fleet Services property located on Columbia Airport property, whereas other departments do.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.5
Property taxes collected on planes are not assigned to either airport; the funds go to the County General Fund.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.6
PMLA would have been revenue neutral, or close to revenue neutral, from 2017 to 2022 had property tax revenue from planes been assigned to the Airports, or if the Airports had been combined into a singular enterprise fund. 34
No recommendations for this finding
F5.1
The Board of Supervisors is not receiving valuable and sufficient input, that the AAC can provide, to be able to make decisions about the airports.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.2
The rules governing the AAC were outdated, overly rigid and, thus, did not encourage participation.
No recommendations for this finding
Commendations 2
-
CM1 Page 10As we complete this report, it is our understanding that a contract for deer removal was signed with another agency and that the job has been completed. This being the case, we commend the staff for resolving a long-standing safety issue. 10 REQUESTED RESPONSES
-
CM2 Page 35C4.1 The Administrative Technician has been a very positive influence on airport operations, resolving some long-standing issues quickly under her tenure. C4.2 The Airport Technicians are dedicated and skilled employees who care about the County airports and improving them. C4.3 The Public Works Director has a positive vision for the airports and what can be improved. C4.4 The County Clerk/Auditor-Controller’s input and detailed knowledge of the airport history and expenses was incredibly valuable in completing our work and recommendations. 6 Please see the Appendix for financial scenarios that includes the fact that PMLA would lose $10,000 in State funding if this recommendation were followed. 35 REQUESTED RESPONSES
Agency Responses 2
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Tuolumne
Agency
Tuolumne County
County
Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office