Napa County Grand Jury
• 2021-2022
Under the Radar: The Saga to Bring Napa's Airport Into the 21st Century
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 16 findings
F1
The existing Airport terminal and fixed base operations need renovation and updating to be more efficient, generate more revenue, attract more aviation, and present a better visual representation of the County.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Airport operates as a County enterprise fund; its non-property tax revenues can only be used for the benefit of the Airport according to FAA grant assurances.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Airport has a yearly operational deficit that can be addressed or reduced through increased lease revenue and fees and fuel taxes, which are unlikely to occur without terminal and fixed base operation renovation and updating.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
In order to renovate and update the Airport terminal and fixed base operations, the County needs to (a) acquire a second FBO long-term leasehold and/or (b) negotiate a new consolidated lease with the existing FBO.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
It is unknown whether the Airport can sustain two FBOs.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The County is obligated to adhere to its FAA grant assurances in its dealing with any FBO, including ensuring any leasehold does not violate provisions governing economic non- discrimination, exclusive rights and land banking.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Outside of the 2007 Airport Master Plan (which assumptions have been proven by time to be significantly inaccurate), there is not a current vision for the Airport that is endorsed by the Board, which addresses issues like the use of facilities, attraction of commercial entities, relationship to broader transportation planning or public engagement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By January 1, 2023 the Board should articulate and publish a clear written vision for the Airport which provides for the modernization of the Airport, accommodates Napa County’s residents, tourism, and business needs, integrates with other transportation planning, and articulates a meaningful role for the Commission, while also remaining true to the character and values of Napa County.
F8
The Board and Senior County Officials have often disagreed as to how best to renovate and upgrade the terminal and fixed based operations, including when to renegotiate with the Incumbent FBO, whether to acquire a second FBO, and the interpretation of its obligations under FAA grant assurances.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The County failed to keep Airport PMCDs current; failure to update them for approximately four decades caused delays in releasing the RFP.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
After the County decided to use an RFP process to acquire a second FBO, it did not adequately think through the timeline and elements required (e.g., update PMCDs, complete an environmental assessment, etc.), leading to unrealistic timelines and expectations.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Failure to coalesce behind a two FBO strategy by all Board members and Senior County officials once the RFP strategy was adopted, led to FBOs (prospective and the Incumbent FBO) aggressively pursuing a sole FBO strategy in their proposals and discussions with the County, elongating and muddling the process.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
While the County provided updates regarding the RFP process to the Commission, its members felt the County was not transparent (i.e., overusing confidentiality for real estate negotiations concerns as an excuse) and did not adequately consult them; as a result many of its members questioned the purpose of the Commission.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
In order to ensure the County is more transparent in the future, the Board and County Executive should complete a review by January 1, 2023, of the process to acquire a second FBO to determine how it could have been more transparent and managed expectations better and present its findings and recommendations during a public Board meeting.
F13
The County should have managed expectations better and been more transparent by having a communications plan which included more formal stakeholder check-ins, data sharing, 22 repeated reminders of strategic goals, robust process status updates, and proactive public out- reach.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
In order to ensure the County is more transparent in the future, the Board and County Executive should complete a review by January 1, 2023, of the process to acquire a second FBO to determine how it could have been more transparent and managed expectations better and present its findings and recommendations during a public Board meeting.
F14
Allegations from multiple interviewees with first-hand knowledge that closed Board sessions were misused/overused are credible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By October 1, 2022, the Board should undertake a review of its use of, and the procedures associated with, closed sessions, to ensure that they are in accord with statutory requirements and further the interests of open government; its findings and recommendations should be presented in a public Board meeting.
F15
Allegations from multiple interviewees with first-hand knowledge that confidential information was leaked by non-County staff from closed Board sessions to entities and individuals who were not authorized to receive that information, including FBO entities involved in negotiations with the County, are credible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By October 1, 2022, the Board should undertake a review of its procedures to ensure that information that should remain confidential during closed sessions is not inappropriately communicated to non-authorized entities and individuals; its findings and recommendations should be presented in a public Board meeting.
F16
Overuse of closed sessions, leaks and a failure of the Board and senior County officials to act in a unified manner, complicated and undercut the RFP process, undermined staff, complicated negotiations, and elongated the process.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3
By October 1, 2022, the Board should undertake a review of its use of, and the procedures associated with, closed sessions, to ensure that they are in accord with statutory requirements and further the interests of open government; its findings and recommendations should be presented in a public Board meeting.
R4
By October 1, 2022, the Board should undertake a review of its procedures to ensure that information that should remain confidential during closed sessions is not inappropriately communicated to non-authorized entities and individuals; its findings and recommendations should be presented in a public Board meeting.
R5
For fiscal year 2023, the Napa County Auditor-Controller should consider internal reviews/audits of (a) the Airport FBO RFP process, (b) the controls and processes governing the use of closed Board sessions, and (c) the controls and processes used to safeguard the confidentiality of information associated with County RFP processes and contractual negotiations. 23
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Napa
Agency
Napa County Auditor-Controller
Elected County Office
Napa County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office