Nevada County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

Nevada County Airport Management Reason for Investigation The Nevada County Civil Grand Jury has the responsibility to*

Published: November 01, 2001 56 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2

Findings 13 findings

F1
The Nevada County Air Park, built in the 1930s, was given to the county in 1957 by Charles Litton's Loma Rica Industrial Park Corporation, subject to certain conditions. The conditions were stated in a signed agreement that specified, among other things, that: "Said property will be maintained in such condition that airplanes and aircraft may use the same with safety on a year round basis." "County agrees to appoint an airport commission to manage and control the operation of the property.. " Studies have found that continued operation of the airport has significant economic and 2 safety value to the county
F3
The airport has operated under temporary operating permits since 1995 because of unsafe conditions. CalTrans, acting for the FAA, issued a letter of closure of the airport for night operations in 1996 because the county did not solve an obstruction problem. A second letter of closure was issued in 2000 because the county still had not solved the problem. Night landings were restricted in 1996 and then eliminated for a period in 2000, and the airport is still operating under a temporary permit. In 1997 the county was offered free used light poles to support obstruction warning lights as 4 required by the FAA. Two years later, the poles were sold to another buyer after the county failed to act The county now expects the lighting project to cost $245,000, plus the cost of tree trimming 5 and removal Boards of Supervisors did not enforce an existing Public Utility Code and a Nevada County
F4
as required by the FAA. Two years later, the poles were sold to another buyer after the county failed to act. Disagree. The poles referenced by the Grand Jury, one hundred-foot stadium lights, were not free and would not have met FAA requirements for lighting standards at the airport. The poles were offered for sale to the County for $20,000 and a letter acknowledging a $30,000 gift from the seller. If this type of pole were to be used, over twenty additional lights would have to have been purchased by the County to meet FAA requirements. The County presently has a construction project underway to install two one hundred foot poles and two one hundred thirty five foot poles with lighting specifications needed to meet required lighting standards. The project is expected to be completed by August 30, 2001.
F5
The county now expects the lighting project to cost $245,000, plus the cost of tree trimming and removal. Disagree. The actual cost of the light poles and lights will be closer to $235,000. The total project cost, including lights and poles, installation, and obstruction removal is estimated to be approximately $485,000. Board of Supervisors did not enforce an existing Public Utility Code and a Nevada
F6
County Ordinance requiring residents to keep their trees from obstructing the runway. Consequently, the county paid for the Purchase and installation of lights in 1997 instead of requiring trees to be trimmed. In 2000, the county required trees on private property to be trimmed or removed but paid the $79,000 cost out of taxpayer funds. Partially disagree. The Federal Aviation Administration AIP project grant in 1994-95 funded 90% of the cost of an FAA approved seven-pole obstruction lighting system along the north end of the airport runway. CalTrans contributed another 4.5% of the cost and the County paid 5.5%. The obstruction lights were approved as one part of the permanent solution to the runway obstruction issue. A permanent solution required the removal and trimming of numerous trees in the runway approach and clearance zones at each end of the runway. Trees that were identified for trimming and removal in airport inspections in the early 1990s were removed in
F7
specify that it is an advisory body only, contrary to the Litton agreement. It has no authority over the airport, and no budgetary input. Disagree with the first sentence. The County established the Airport Commission by Resolution in 1957 (attached). Nevada County Ordinance No. 635, adopted June 5, 1973, also provides for an Airport Commission consisting of 5 members and outlines their duties and responsibilities in language similar to the Commission's present by-laws. The most current authority for establishment of the Commission is Ordinance No. 1609, adopted on December 12, 1989. Partially disagree with the second and third sentences. The current Airport Commission by-laws indicate the Commission is to advise and make
F8
Within Nevada County government structure, the airport is an "Enterprise Fund" An enterprise fund is to create its own operating revenue.
F9
The airport's sources of operating revenue are fuel sales, hanger fees, aircraft tie-down fees. paid by the California Department of Forestry, as well as some tax revenue. The airport manager and the Airport Commission have no decision-making authority about airport revenues. The county has not clearly defined the decision-making authority for airport revenues.
F10
The airport has typically operated at a deficit. Nevada County "loans" funds to the airport to cover expenses incurred to comply with FAA and CAlTrans regulations. Debt presently owed to the County is nearly $1 million. The Grand Jury has not been able to track airport financial actions from BOS authorizations through to airport spending, despite questioning the Auditor-Controller, reviewing BOS records, interviewing the CAO, examining county financial statements, and examining airport financial records.
F11
authorizations through to airport spending, despite questioning the Auditor-Controller, reviewing BOS records, interviewing the CAO, examining county financial statement, and examining airport financial records. Neither agree nor disagree. The Board has no knowledge of why the Grand Jury was unable to track airport financial transactions. Past financial accounting practices regarding Board spending authorizations and airport expenditures have been confusing and difficult to completely reconcile. However, annual audits of Airport Enterprise Fund financial records in past years have not found any significant accounting errors. Since the arrival of the new Airport Manager, financial and budgeting documents have been detailed and well documented. Ward/other/gj0001-IR9-Airport Management The airport's sources of funds for capital improvements are FAA grants, Caltrans grants,
F12
The airport's sources of funds for capital improvements are FAA grants, CAlTrans grants, and local funds. When the airport underwent a $5,900,000 improvement project in 1995. funding for the project was 90% FAA grant, 4.5% state grant, and 5.5% county funds (by way of a CalTrans-provided loan). The county loaned the funds to the airport, supposedly to be repaid through operating revenue. The county employs an airport manager. The airport manager has reported to various county staff members, always ultimately reporting to the BOS by way of the CAO. A new manager, with extensive airport management experience, was hired effective February 5, 2001. The BOS has adopted an Airport Master Plan and an Airport Business Development Plan There is no operating plan. CONCLUSIONS Since 1957 Boards of Supervisors have disregarded the three basic requirements of the Litton 1 agreement to keep the airport open, operate it in a safe manner, and to establish an airport commission to manage and control the airport.
F13
county staff members, always ultimately reporting to the BOS by way of the CAO. A new manager, with extensive airport management experience, was hired effective February 5,
F14
The BOS has adopted an Airport Master Plan and an Airport Business Development Plan. There is no operating plan. Partially disagree. Although there is no formal document called an "Operating Plan," the Airport does have operating procedures in place to ensure Airport operations are carried out safely and efficiently. There are also procedures in place for Airport operations during emergency operations.

Recommendations 14

Conclusions 1

* 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.