Case 26-02: El Dorado County Owned Airports(PDF, 731kb)

The County does not follow the guidelines outlined in its Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, which was updated on July 29, 2025, as evidenced by Board approved changes to the ground lease standards resulting in discrepancies between adopted policy and current lease practices.

The County’s Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, does not define the duties and responsibilities of the Airports Director. The newly approved Airports Operations Officer role has both specific and general duties, which overlap with the Airports Director’s responsibilities and creates confusion.

The County’s Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, includes statements that lack specificity and fails to offer clear guidance for staff responsible for its implementation, such as clear criteria for lease extension or termination and new application requirements for existing versus prospective new users. The Policy's subjective language poses challenges for both staff and stakeholders in planning subsequent actions.

El Dorado County failed to sufficiently inform the public about major Airport Ground Lease changes. The Grand Jury found that subsequent outreach prompted by complaints led to ground lease revisions that could have been avoided with earlier engagement.

El Dorado County failed to meaningfully engage with the airport community in the same way it provides engagement for other special interest groups such as the Parks and Recreation Commission, Economic Development Advisory Commission, and Agriculture Commission.

The County’s Airports website does not offer a subscription option to request updates for new postings or changes.

Without support from leaseholders, private pilots, and aviation businesses, County Airports would require additional general fund subsidies. These Airports benefit law enforcement, emergency services, and the broader local economy. Airport users should be respected as valuable contributors and need representation.

The County is concerned that turning airports over to private management might lead to expensive FAA penalties. Airports play a vital role in the community, but rising subsidies from the County General Fund may not be sustainable long term and need to be examined.

contains requires a new application and application fees for any sale of the conflicting hangar that could result in a reassigned or new lease. However, language Section II, D requires “any individual or business desiring to enter regarding into a hangar or ground lease for personal or business use, or application any commercial operator intending to conduct business at the fees. airport, to complete and submit a County-prescribed application form and pay the application fee.” This provision does not differentiate between existing tenants and prospective users. Policy F-10 does not provide clear, non-conflicting language to specify how and when application fees are applied. Hold Harmless/Indemnification The ground lease agreement's Hold Harmless and Indemnification section presented to users as of July 2025 requires ground-lease holder to "protect, defend, and hold harmless" the County and its representatives regardless of the degree of fault or negligence by the County. The County, as the Airports operator, has the responsibility to regulate all activities including maintenance and upkeep of the Airports, types and movement of vehicles used on the Airport, business and commercial activities, the provision of flight information, and the enforcement of federal, state, and county rules and regulations as stated in Policy F-10. The Grand Jury urges the County to keep an open dialogue with users to specify separate and mutual responsibility for safety. Interviews conducted by the Grand Jury revealed that modifications to this lease section may be considered by the Board for approval based on user feedback. Repairs and Upgrades at User Expense Policy F-10, Section II, B.4 states “the County shall require a Lessee who requests to enter into a ground lease for privately owned hangars that are in existence as of the last update of this Policy that are sold or have no current lease and require a new ground lease, to maintain, repair, or improve the hangar to current standards at the Lessee’s expense.” Additionally, Section II, B states “All applicants for Leases at the Airports shall commit to minimum financial investments both at the commencement and during the term of the Lease to ensure that the Airport is developed to its maximum potential.” The proposed ground lease as of July 2025 requires the hangar owner hire a contractor to inspect the condition of the hangar and report "recommended retrofit alternatives for adherence to current development standards and the building and fire codes.” This new requirement would result in personal cost of hiring inspectors and retrofitting to meet current code. Multiple users viewed this as the County’s attempt to seize assets after a lease expires or defaults, known as a reversionary policy. According to County staff, that is not the case. As explained by staff, a reversionary policy allows assets such as hangars to revert from private ownership to County property at the conclusion of a lease, either by expiration or default. The County owned Airports, unlike comparable airports statewide, do not include a reversionary clause in ground lease agreements for current users. Policy F-10, Section II, B.3.c states “All ground leases for the construction of new hangar or hangar assets shall be for a term of 30 years or an amount negotiated to allow lessee to recoup the investment, pursuant to FAA guidelines. New hangar leases shall contain a clause that at both termination or expiration of the term of that lease the ownership of all site and building improvements shall revert to the Airport except as follows: The Airports Director determines that the Lessee may remain past the expiration of the ground lease under a new lease with a term that is less than five years." It is not clear in policy if a lessee may extend the lease term. The Policy also lacks clarification on the criteria the Airports Director must follow to allow the lease to extend or terminate. The ambiguous language in the F-10 Policy makes it difficult for both staff and lessees to determine how to manage the assets. As for new construction, there is no suitable space available for such development. County staff agree with user concerns that the inspection criteria are ambiguous and have recommended removing or revising language in the next proposed ground lease update, subject to Board approval. The Grand Jury found that the lack of initial communication with users contributed to misunderstanding and a climate of mistrust resulting in additional County resources necessary to make revisions. Early communication about the new lease terms could have prevented confusion between airport staff and users. Rate Insecurity The proposed ground lease includes the initial lease rate but thereafter references the rate schedule in effect at time of annual payment after the first year. A Resolution of the Board establishes the rate schedule. Since rent costs are unknown after the first lease year, both the County and lessees cannot accurately plan budgets. Other rental contracts entered by the County include a cost factor for rent increases based upon an annual percentage increase or standard inflation index. There is no provision for budgetary planning in the ground lease. Including a cost factor would comply with County policy and help generate additional funds annually for planning. County staff informed the Grand Jury that they are willing to give the Board options regarding annual rent increase rates in the lease. Early communication about the new lease terms would have prevented confusion between airport staff and users. Vehicle Insurance Confusion Board Policy F-10, approved in December 2024, (Legistar file 24-1891) included requirements for unjustified higher coverage on vehicle insurance for lease holders that interviews with airport users described as unrealistic. At that time, Board Policy F-10 required Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance of not less than $250,000 bodily injury limits per person, $500,000 bodily injury limits per occurrence, and $500,000 for damage to the property of other people. After multiple user complaints to airport staff, the Board revised the Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance requirements in July 2025 to require at least $100,000 per person for bodily injury, $300,000 per occurrence, and $50,000 for property damage. These requirements, according to users, align with commercial insurance carrier’s available coverage options. Early communication about the new lease terms could have prevented confusion between airport staff and users. Agreements Conflict with Policy Board Policy F-10 includes Lease Provisions in Section II, B. County staff recently recommended changes to the lease templates in response to user complaints. The Board approved the revised lease templates on February 10, 2026 (Legistar File 26- 0259). The approved lease templates conflict with Policy F-10. Good governance requires that policy guide implementation. Revisions to Policy F-10 should have preceded implementation of revised lease language or have occurred simultaneously. POSITIVE IMPACT Community Value Local airports play a significant role in the safety, efficiency, and sustainability of communities. They serve as critical staging areas for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) during regional forest fires, supporting command, control, and coordination of aerial firefighting operations, including spotter aircraft operations. According to the El Dorado County Transportation Commission, airports are a critical element of the regional transportation network and should be maintained as development pressures grow, and communities expand. Airports provide year-round support for essential emergency services in addition to wildfire response, including air ambulance and medical evacuation flights, law enforcement aviation operations conducted by the Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol, and Search and Rescue missions. Airports support private aviation and, based on County–sponsored economic development studies, contribute indirect economic benefits by supporting tourism and related local business activity. Worth The Cost? The County’s airport-related costs cover management, planning, development, marketing, and maintenance not funded by federal or state grants. To offset these expenses, the County collects rents, fees, and other charges, to make each airport as financially self-sufficient as possible in accordance with FAA policy. The Grand Jury Report issued in 2020 identified concern over County funding and provided recommendations to improve County Airports revenue. The Board responded that many of the recommendations in the report would be implemented in the coming year. Board Response link. The reality is that potential revenue was lost due to delays in implementing program management and operational improvements. The County owned airports are operating at significant cost to the taxpayer. Staff estimated that the County General Fund contribution for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-2025 would be $800,000. County funds make up the deficit between Airport revenues and expenses with General Fund contributions. The General Fund represents taxpayer dollars. According to the staff report to the Board on December 10, 2025, (Legistar file 24-1891) the total existing gap between airport expenditures and operating revenue over the previous years was $630,000 each year. The recent changes to fees are projected to raise revenue by about $33,000 annually. The collected fees only partially cover operating costs, regulatory compliance, and future Airport improvements. The Airports have five main sources of revenue: lease income from land leased to owners who install portable hangars, rent from County owned hangars, rent from aircraft tie down spaces, fuels sales, and property tax on personal property (aircraft and hangars). Although fuel sales have generated significant income, revenue has declined in recent years due to equipment breakdowns and increased maintenance expenses. Airport capital improvements are funded by FAA grants, county general funds, and limited state support from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). FAA grants come with strict objectives and operational requirements which mandate the County to keep the airports open for public use. Airport expansion to increase revenue is not feasible without significant cost for capital improvements. According to the 2020 Grand Jury Report, the east end of Placerville airport has semi-developed open space with existing concrete taxiways. Developed in 2006, the east end project incorporated FAA safety upgrades. FAA funded 90 percent of the project, and the County funded the remaining 10 percent. To become fully operational, the site requires the availability of utilities like water and electricity that do not currently exist. Utility installation improvements do not qualify for FAA funding. The Georgetown airport, the smaller of the two County airports, is rural and remote with unique challenges to expansion that would generate additional revenue for self- sustainability. According to the 2025-26 Recommended Budget document for Airports, the total General Fund contribution for FY 2025-26 for Placerville Airport is $550,129, reflecting a decrease of $50,274 (8.4 percent) when compared to the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget. In addition, Georgetown Airport has a General Fund contribution of $116,468, reflecting a decrease of $71,695 (38.1 percent) when compared to the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget. The total General Fund contribution for both airports is $666,597. Staff attribute the decrease specifically to staff cuts. Although County subsidies for the Airports appear to be stabilizing, operating and administrative costs continue to rise. Currently, there is no established long-term cost recovery plan for the Airports. An Economic Development study was scheduled for completion in July 2024; however, the initial report recommendations were deemed infeasible by staff, and the report was not completed. Future budget constraints and limited potential for additional revenue may make General Fund contributions to the Airports unsustainable unless there is change. Could the County privatize the airports? Staff interviews indicate that the County believes selling or privatizing the Airports could result in costly FAA penalties. The Grand Jury found that the FAA Airport Investment Partnership Program (AIPP) allows airports to consider privatization for access to private capital for improvements and development. Under the AIPP program, the FAA may waive repayment of earlier grants or restrictions on sale proceeds if conditions are met, such as keeping the airport open to the public. LOOKING AHEAD The County’s Airports provide important community benefits. These valuable assets require diligent management and operations. Although the County’s efforts to address outdated policy and sustainability are noteworthy, there is room for significant improvement. The Grand Jury urges the Board of Supervisors and the community to support County staff initiatives to bring clarity to Airports policy and procedures while actively and openly including the community of airport users and county residents. FINDINGS F1. The County does not follow the guidelines outlined in its Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, which was updated on July 29, 2025, as evidenced by Board approved changes to the ground lease standards resulting in discrepancies between adopted policy and current lease practices. F2. The County’s Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, does not define the duties and responsibilities of the Airports Director. The newly approved Airports Operations Officer role has both specific and general duties, which overlap with the Airports Director’s responsibilities and creates confusion. F3. The County’s Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10, includes statements that lack specificity and fails to offer clear guidance for staff responsible for its implementation, such as clear criteria for lease extension or termination and new application requirements for existing versus prospective new users. The Policy's subjective language poses challenges for both staff and stakeholders in planning subsequent actions. F4. El Dorado County failed to sufficiently inform the public about major Airport Ground Lease changes. The Grand Jury found that subsequent outreach prompted by complaints led to ground lease revisions that could have been avoided with earlier engagement. F5 El Dorado County failed to meaningfully engage with the airport community in the same way it provides engagement for other special interest groups such as the Parks and Recreation Commission, Economic Development Advisory Commission, and Agriculture Commission. F6. The County’s Airports website does not offer a subscription option to request updates for new postings or changes. F7. Without support from leaseholders, private pilots, and aviation businesses, County Airports would require additional general fund subsidies. These Airports benefit law enforcement, emergency services, and the broader local economy. Airport users should be respected as valuable contributors and need representation. F8. The County is concerned that turning airports over to private management might lead to expensive FAA penalties. Airports play a vital role in the community, but rising subsidies from the County General Fund may not be sustainable long term and need to be examined. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors update Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10 in accordance with Board approved revisions to lease requirements by December 31, 2026. R2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors update Airport Policy Document, Policy F-10 defining the duties, responsibilities, and authority over the County Airport program (aka Airports Director and/or Airports Operations Officer) and ensure language is clear and based on specific criteria by December 31, 2026. R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to add a subscription function to the County’s Airports web page by September 1, 2026, that will notify subscribers when a change or update is posted. R4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors establish an aviation advisory group to meet at least biannually with Airport administrators and provide feedback to the Board, when necessary, by December 31, 2026. R5. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff by December 31, 2026, to develop a plan to increase Airport revenue, ensuring public access to events, business expansion, or other recommendations from airport advisors that could reduce the County General Fund contribution to Airport operations. R6. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to work with the FAA and its Airport Investment Partnership Program to evaluate airport privatization. REQUIRED RESPONSES A Civil Grand Jury report details a single investigation. Each report lists FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS. The organization responsible is notified and is required to respond to the report. The California Penal Code Section 933(c) specifies response times. • PUBLIC AGENCIES. The governing body of any public agency (also referring to a department) must respond within 90 days from the release of the report to the public. • ELECTED OFFICERS OR AGENCY HEADS. All elected officers or heads of agencies/departments must respond within 60 days of the report's release to the public. • FAILURE TO RESPOND. Failure to respond to a Grand Jury report violates California Penal Code Section 933.05 and is subject to further action that may include additional investigation into the subject matter of the report by the Jury. The following responses are required pursuant to Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05: From the following governing boards within 90 days: • El Dorado County Board of Supervisors  All Findings  All Recommendations For more information refer to How to Respond to an El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury Report available on the El Dorado County Grand Jury webpage at https://www.eldoradocounty.ca.gov/Public-Safety-Justice/Safety-Justice/Grand-Jury. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury do not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury.