Case #0299: Stockton Metro Airport Reason for Investigation a written complaint was received alleging the following

The Grand Jury finds that real estate experience is not vital to successfully completing the job of Airport Manager.

The Stockton Metro Airport and its services have remained at a status quo since the time of deregulation. This status quo requires funding from the General Fund to maintain services. The possibility of privatization of the Stockton Metro Airport, in the hopes of turning it into a profitable entity deserves evaluation. The topic of privatization has been brought up to the CAAC, but pursuit of the possibility of privatization has never been promoted by this group to the Board of Supervisors. The Grand Jury finds that privatization is an alternative that should be evaluated and recommends such to the Board of Supervisors.

We feel that the promotion and formation of a carrier is vital in establishing the Stockton Metro Airport as an airport the citizens of the County can use on a routine basis. Businesses and people in this area should be allowed to begin air travel close to home, rather than commuting great distances to the Sacramento or Bay Areas. In order to bring in a carrier, promotion of the airport and its surrounding area is essential. We feel that promotion would need to come in the form of positive advertising and marketing. The Grand Jury finds that the need for an airport carrier at the Stockton Metro Airport is vital to the financial success of the airport and that more effort at securing a potential carrier to the area should be employed.

The Grand Jury finds and supports that the Airport Manager is within his duties when soliciting private funds to attract possible carriers to the Stockton Airport without the specific direction from the Board of Supervisors.

The Grand Jury finds that the runway extension that could be utilized by Farmington Fresh could also be utilized by other carriers, not exclusively Farmington Fresh, and was justified.

The Grand Jury finds that there was no evidence of a violation of the Brown Act by CAAC, relative to its consideration of privatization of the Stockton Metro Airport operations. Upon review of the CAAC meeting minutes, it was discovered that the issue in question was agendized and given a public airing in two meetings. A staff report was issued and a vote was taken based upon the discussion and the report. No evidence of impropriety or Brown Act rights violation was found.

Seldom does an issue like the Arch-Sperry connection, with such regional importance arise. While growth issues divide and confound local politics, the opportunity for real economic expansion seldom presents itself as obviously as the development of the airport area. The successful development in the Airport Master Plan Area, the ability to entice airlines and continued growth of the outlying industrial area are hampered by the lack of access from the west. As a transportation hub and job creation center, the airport area is unique in its universal benefit to the entire County. The Arch- Sperry connection has been delayed because the cost of the project is beyond any individual agency=s budget. Federal and/or State funds are necessary for initiation of this project. Local government in this County has never had a cohesive voice in Washington and Sacramento. The Grand Jury finds that a coordinated effort needs to be used to obtain possible financing for this vital project.

While the CAAC exemption for filing a Statement of Economic Interest is technically legal, it weighs against the spirit of the applicable disclosure statutes. Advisory boards and commissions are inherently political by nature. While the actions taken by this Commission are to be advisory only, they carry much weight with the authorities making financial, regulatory and governmental decisions. The CAAC operates in a capacity of public trust, and that trust is violated when possible pecuniary interests of the commissioners are clouded in secrecy. The one reason given for the exemption was the savings of $400 in administrative filing fees. The Grand Jury does not believe this is a realistic figure for delivery and filing of eight documents, but even if it were, the public interest in an open commission is worth the filing fee required. The Grand Jury finds that it would be beneficial to require CAAC members to file statements of economic interest.