HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08152000 - C186 1046
Contra ,
TO:° BOARD OF SUPERVISORSCo to
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, County Administrator County
DATE: August 15, 2000
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0008
ENTITLED "NEGLECT OF THE BYRON AIRPORT"
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT the attached report prepared by the Public Works and Community Development
Directors, as the Board of Supervisors' response to Report No. 0008 of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury
entitled, "Neglect of the Byron Airport".
BACKGROUND:
The 1999-2000 Grand Jury filed the above report, which was reviewed by the Board of
Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator and Public Works Department.
After reviewing the report, the Public Works and Community Development Directors prepared the
attached response that clearly specifies:
A. Whether the finding and recommendation is accepted or adopted;
B. If the finding and recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible
for implementation and a definite target date;
C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted by cannot be
implemented within a calendar year; and
D. The reason for not adopting a finding and/or recommendation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:YES SIGNATURE'
COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEN ION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
,APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOA August - 15 , 2000 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
XX_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT #4 ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED August 15 . 2000
CONTACT:JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Cr. GRAND JURY FOREWOMAN
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
AIRPORT MANAGER 41)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY DEPUTY
Response
To
Grand Jury's Report No.0008
"Neglect of the Byron Airport„
FINDINGS:
1. The Byron Airport is a County-owned facility located in the East County near Byron. It
became a part of the County airport system in 1988. Construction occurred in the early
1990's with a combination of Federal, State, and County funds and it has been
operational since 1994.
Response:
The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The Byron Airport is intended to be a reliever facility for the extensively used Buchanan
Field Airport, also a County-owned facility, located in Concord.
Response:
The respondent agrees with the finding.
3. The long-term use of the Byron Airport is ill defined and its development has received
very limited attention or priority from many levels of the County government, including
several Commissions and Boards.
Response:
The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The long-term use of the Byron
Airport and its development is defined in the "East Contra Costa County Airport Master
Plan Report Summary",dated May 1986. Because of the Airports Enterprise Fund deficit
since 1990, application for Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)funding for Master Plan
updates did not occur.
During the past three-years, the Airport Management has significantly reduced the
Airports Enterprise Fund deficit. Master Plan updates for both Byron and Buchanan
Airfield Airports has been identified for consideration under the Federal Aviation
Administrations (FAA) Airport Improvement Capital Program (AICD). FAA funding is
targeted for federal fiscal year 2041/2002. The Public Works Department, Airports
Division will be responsible for implementation.
Subsequently, "...priority from many levels of the County government, including several
Commissions and Boards" has been prudent and commensurate considering the fiscal
state of the Airports Enterprise Fund since 1988.
4. The Byron Airport is taxpayer-financed by a combination of Federal funds (approximately
$20 million), State funds (approximately $41,000) and Local funds (approximately $2.6
million). Currently, the facility is part of a County Enterprise Fund, which also includes
the Buchanan Field Airport.
(An Enterprise Fund receives revenue from rentals, fees, and non-operating
sources. Such a Fund is intended to be self-sufficient as opposed to deriving its
income from the General Fund of other taxes.)
Response:
The respondent agrees with the finding only with the following correction: 1) the Byron
Airport, as well as Buchanan Field Airport, is not technically "taxpayer-financed". All
Federal and State funding are accomplished through a combination of aviation user fees.
Furthermore, the Airports Enterprise Fund is also not"taxpayer-financed" but derives its
income from aviation and non-aviation user fees from both Airports.
5. The Airport Enterprise Fund (Fund)was originally established in 1970 for the Buchanan
Field Airport. Operation of Byron Airport was added to the Fund in Fiscal Year 1990/91.
Over the period of June 1991 through June 1999, the Airports reported their financial
status separately. During this period, Buchanan Field Airport generated a profit while
Byron Airport reported a loss. This loss is currently being offset by profits from Buchanan
Field Airport.
Response:
The respondent agrees with the finding only with the following correction: 1)the operation
of the Byron Airport was added to the Enterprise Fund in fiscal year 1988/89, not fiscal
year 1990191 as identified in the Grand Jury Report.
6. As of June 1999, the Fund owed the County Treasurer approximately$813,000 for cash
advances to cover disbursements. The cash overdraft is due to an accumulation of
annual operating losses at Byron Airport. Because of profit generated by Buchanan Field
Airport, this loss to the Enterprise Fund is projected to be eliminated by Fiscal Year
2007/08, although the Byron Airport component will continue its annual loss.
Response-
The respondent agrees with the finding only with the following corrections: 1) according
to the "Audited Financial Statements of the Airport Enterprise Fund, Contra Costa
County, For the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1999 and 1998 And June 30, 1998 and
1997" the Enterprise Fund had a Retained Deficit, End of Year -- June 30, 1999 of
$675,166; and 2)the loss to the Enterprise Fund is projected to be eliminated by fiscal
year 2006/07.
7. Three organizations provide oversight for the County on activities and developments of
public use Airports. Specifically:
♦ County Board of Supervisors Airport Subcommittee was created to investigate and
evaluate the economic impact of both airports.
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is a County organization authorized by the
State to assure that land use surrounding a public airport is compatible with airport
operations and public safety.
♦ Aviation Advisory Committee(AAC)is a County organization responsible for advising
on operations within the boundaries of the Byron and Buchanan Field Airports,
Response:
The respondent agrees with the finding only with following clarification: 1) The Airport
Land Use Commission (ALUC) is a County organization authorized by State law to
2
formulate land use policies to guide local agencies in limiting development to uses that
are compatible in terms of public safety and noise sensitivity to planned airport
operations.
8. An interim Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan to control land utilization surrounding
the Airport was issued in 1991 by the ALUC. The ALUC is responsible for identifying
limitations to the use of land surrounding airports and recognized at that time an updated
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be needed to allow for additional
development consistent with the protection of Airport operations. This updated plan will
also provide local communities and property owners with information for developing their
own interests consistent with Airport operations. The need for the updated plan was also
recognized by the Board of Supervisors in a report by the Finance Committee in 1995
titled "BYRON AIRPORT ACTION PLAN" (Consent Item 99 November 11, 1995, Board
Agenda)which, among other things, provided a tentative schedule for its accomplishment
by May 1997,subject to funding.
Response:
The respondent agrees with the finding.
9. The need for an updated Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan was recognized in 1991,
but action to obtain it was delayed until March 1998,when a contract was finally awarded
to a consultant to do the work. The initial delay may have been due to funding problems,
but differing priorities within the Community Development Department played a significant
role. Continuing delays have occurred during the course of this contract, principally due
to priority problems with the Community Development Department. This has resulted in
the need to extend the time for contract performance from a completion date of
December 31, 1999,to December 81,2000.
Res on :
The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The delay in the completion of a plan
proposal was not principally due to Community Development Department priority
problems. While staffing shortages did result in reducing the priority of the land use plan,
the delay was caused primarily by problems with the consultant whom the County hired
to assist staff in the preparation of the plan. Also contributing to the delay were public
workshops that were conducted to allow the public to review proposed plans and
concepts for the Byron Airport area.
10. The development of an updated Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which began as
a known need in 1991, and scheduled by the Board of Supervisors for accomplishment
by May 1997, will not be satisfied until late 2000 or later. Presently there are conflicts in
proposed residential uses in certain areas around the Airport between those proposed by
the community of Byron and the future County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Response•
The respondent partially disagrees with the finding.
A. The Board of Supervisors did tentatively schedule the adoption of the Airport Land
Use Commission plan by May 1997, but subject to funding availability. No funds
became available to the County to undertake the plan review until 1998. As
recognized by the Board of Supervisors, no plan study could commence until funding
had been secured.
3
B. The residential uses around the airport proposed by the Byron Municipal Advisory
Council have no legal standing; it is merely a proposal by a public body. Before
these proposed residential uses might become a conflict with the airport, the County
General Plan would have to be amended to allow such use.
The applicable land use policies around the Byron Airport are contained in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. With the exception of the existing developed area
of the town of Byron,that plan provides for exclusive open space(agricultural lands)
uses around the airport. The uses in the County General Plan do not conflict with the
planned airport operations.
11. Overall planning for the optimal use of Byron Airport is limited to a Master Plan prepared
by a consultant(Hodges and Schutt, Aviation Planning Services) in 1986, as part of the
initial planning processes. This Master Plan provides the design concepts for airport
construction and identi ed potential facilities to support an expanded airport operation 20
years in the future, a period which expires in 2006.
Response:
The respondent agrees with the finding.
12. The current infrastructure at Byron Airport (roads, bridges, water, power, sewer, etc.),
while suitable for today's limited operations, is inadequate for any long-range use. No
effort is being made at this time to develop a long-range plan.
Response:
The respondent agrees with the finding. A long-range plan for infrastructure support will
have to be consistent with and part of an updated Byron Master Plan. Identification for
Master Plan updates for both Byron and Buchanan Airfield Airports has been identified
for consideration under the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAA)Airport Improvement
Capital Program(AICD). FAA funding is targeted for federal fiscal year 2001/2002. The
Public Works Department,Airports Division will be responsible for implementation.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Byron Airport appears to the Grand Jury to be the neglected segment of the County's
airport system. Buchanan Field Airport, admittedly a much more complex and
controversial facility, receives the vast majority of attention relating to airport operational
concerns. The result is a lack of attention to significant matters, which affect the Byron
Airport and the surrounding area.
Comments:
The respondent does not concur that Byron is the neglected segment of the County's
Airport System. Byron Airport is a general aviation airport with approximately 61,000
aircraft operations annually. It has no control tower and, besides its function as the
general aviation access point for eastern Contra Costa County, its flying activities are
generally limited to skydiving and sailplane flights mostly occurring on the weekends.
With regards to Byron Airport and the surrounding area, a draft Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan, dated May 2000, has been published and tentatively schedule for
review and discussion at the August 9, 2000, Airport Land Use Commission meeting.
4
Funding for the Master Plan update is applied for and is expected to start in federal fiscal
year 200112002.
2. Mufti-agency involvement in the planning efforts for Byron Airport needs to be better
coordinated. While each agency has specific responsibilities, minimal communication
exists between the various agencies involved.
Comments:
The respondent does not concur with this conclusion. Please see response to
"Recommendations', items number 1,2, and 3.
3. A remarkable lack of scheduling for the ongoing effort to develop a Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, particularly by the County agencies, has created a laisse faire attitude
concerning Byron Airport. The overlapping responsibilities between the Community
Development Department and the Airport Director create a sense of indifference by both
agencies. Repeated delays in producing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan have also
resulted in a continued uncertainty by local communities and property owners regarding
developmental opportunities which jeopardizes the Byron Airport operations through
potential land-use encroachments.
Comments:
The respondent does not concur that there are overlapping responsibilities between the
Director of Airports and Community Development Department (CDD). The roles and
responsibilities of both agencies are well defined relative to the Airports. The Director of
Airports oversees the management and operations of the Airports. In providing staff
services to the ALUC pursuant to State enabling legislation, CDD assists the ALUC in
protecting the airport from new development around the airport that might be
incompatible with planned airport operations.
In terms of repeated delays, a draft ALUC plan has been published and distributed to the
Airport Land Use Commission. Al its June 14, 2000 meeting, the Commission indicated
that it wished to review the pian prior to scheduling a public hearing on it. A study
session on the draft plan is tentatively scheduled for the Commission's August 9, 2000
meeting. Development opportunities are also limited to agricultural uses pursuant to the
County General Plan, as noted in Response°B"to"Findings number 7.
4. There is little effective coordination between agencies concerned with airport
development. Because of delays in producing a meaningful Comprehensive Land Use
Plan for properties surrounding the Airport, development in adjacent communities is also
being held up. These delays create a potential land encroachment problem, impacting
future airport operations.
Comments:
The respondent partially disagrees with the conclusions. While a delay in the production
of the plan update for the Byron Airport has occurred, we do not believe there is any
evidence to show that the delay was caused by a lack of coordination between agencies
concerned with airport development.
First, the roles and responsibilities of the Community Development Department (CDD)
with regard to staffing the Airport Land Use Commission and the Director of Airports are
well defined. CDD is responsible for assisting the ALUC in its function of protecting the
airport from incompatible development; and the Director of Airports is responsible for
5
overseeing the Airports' management and operations. Regular communications occur
between the two agencies relative to pertinent business. Whenever CDD or their
consultant has sought information from the Director of Airports concerning the update to
the plan, it has been provided. Furthermore, potential for encroachment is limited for the
reasons discussed previously.
& The long-range financial viability of Byron Airport is questionable. Current available
financial projections show a continuing operating loss through 2007. Based on
management actions to date, the financial drain to the County will continue far beyond
2007.
Comments:
As part of the Master Plans update-funding request, Airport staff has asked the FAA for
supplemental funding to develop first-ever Business Plans for Byron and Buchanan
Airports.
6. Today, a strategic pian, or vision, for the ultimate development and use of the Byron
Airport has not been accomplished by key personnel charged with overseeing Byron's
day-to-day operations. In addition, representatives from both the AAC and the ALUC
visualize an expanded, but unwritten, future role for the Airport in supporting the
transportation needs and economy of Contra Costa County.
Comments:
The respondent does not concur with the conclusions. A strategic plan for Byron Airport
exists in the form of its May 1986 Master Plan and its subsequent update. Please see
our response to"Findings"; item number 3 regarding this issue.
7. The length of time since the 1986 Master Plan was prepared, along with changes that
have occurred since that time, warrants preparation of a new Master Plan to reflect both
as-constructed conditions and new thinking on ultimate airport development.
Comments:
As previously noted, respondent supports this conclusion.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1999-2000 Contra Costa County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors:
1. Clearly delineate lines of authority and responsibility between the Board of Supervisors,
the Aviation Advisory Committee, and the Airport Land Use Commission.
Response:
The recommendation is not accepted. The lines of authority and responsibilities among
the Board of Supervisors, the Aviation Advisory Committee and the Airport Land Use
Commission are clearly delineated through State law and the applicable Board Order
citations.
fi
2. Develop policy and actions with greater public involvement and input.
Response:
The recommendation is not accepted. As a demonstration of the public outreach that has
been practiced to date, the effort to update the ALUC Plan has resulted in two public
workshops in the Byron area in December 1998 and again in October 1999. Those
workshops allowed the public to become acquainted with the function of airport land use
planning and to review concepts that were being specifically advanced for the Byron
Airport area. Additional opportunity for public input will be available when the
Commission schedules the proposed ALUC Plan for public hearing.
3. The ALUC, AAC, and Board members should share information with each other on
issues involving the Byron Airport. In tum, the Board should take prompt actiion on
recommendations from advisory committees.
Response
The recommendation is not accepted. The Board of Supervisors continues to take
prompt action on issues as brought forth by the Airport Land Use Commission {ALUC}
and the Aviation Advisory Committee(AAC). Furthermore, the ALUC and AAC regularly
communicate with one another concerning activities that each body is undertaking with
respect to the Byron Airport. One of the members of the ALUC is appointed by the Board
of Supervisors at the recommendation of the Commission to serve as its representative
on the AAC. That member also serves as direct liaison between the two bodies. At each
meeting of the ALUC, that individual is regularly provided the opportunity to discuss any
relevant matters that the AAC is considering relative to Byron Airport. In the same
manner, that person also regularly communicates to the AAC on pertinent activities that
the ALUC Is conducting at each AAC meeting.
4. Evaluate the feasibility of modifying the consultant contract for the development of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan to separate Byron Airport from Buchanan Field Airport,
with the view of concentrating on and expediting the Byron Airport development.
Response
The recommendation is accepted. However, there is no need to modify the existing
consultant oontract. The existing contract, as amended, allows the County to detach the
Buchanan Field Airport plan component from the updated plan project to allow expedited
review and adoption of an updated Byron Airport plan, if deemed appropriate.
The Community Development Director will determine whether or not to detach the
Buchanan Field Airport plan by Monday, October 16, 2000. On July 7, 2000, the ALUC
was mailed the draft update of the plan for both airports. They are tentatively scheduled
to conduct a study session on the draft plan at the Commission's August and possibly
extended to September, 2000 meetings. As a result of those study sessions, the
Commission may suggest changes to the draft plan before a hearing is scheduled.
If the Community Development Director determines that any changes which the
Commission might suggest to the Buchanan Field Airport component of the draft plan
would significantly impede the Commission's ability to review and adopt an updated
Byron Airport plan, then the Director will take action to defer further review of the
Buchanan Field Airport portion of the plan in order that the Byron Airport component of
the plan be allowed to proceed. That would involve informing the Commission, and
directing the consultant to limit their scope of work to the Byron Airport component as
provided under the existing contract.
7
There are no constraints that would prevent the implementation of the above action within
Calendar Year 2000.
5. Suggest that the Community Development Department and the Airport Director report
jointly and frequently to the Board of Supervisors on progress being made on the
development and implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Byron Airport.
Response:
The recommendation is accepted. The Community Development Director and the
Director of Airports will report quarterly to the Transportation, Water and infrastructure
Committee until the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Byron Airport is adopted. There
are no constraints that would prevent the implementation of the above action within
Calendar Year 2000.
6. Separate the Enterprise Fund for the Byron and Buchanan Field Airports, thereby
providing County citizens with realistic financial accountability.
Response:
The recommendation is not accepted. The accounting method for separating the
Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport presently exists. Although the Airport
Enterprise Fund is presently represented by one fund code (Fund 1401), their own
respective organizational numbers separates the two Airports by Operation and
Maintenance(O&M), Capital Improvement(Non—FAA funded)and Capital Improvement
(FAA funded).
7. Require that the Airport Director prepare a long-range Master Plan for the Byron Airport
covering infrastructure needs, identifying future possible users, creating comprehensive
marketing plans, and defining capital improvements.
Response:
The recommendation is accepted. The Public Works Department, Airports Division has
filed application with the FAA for Master Pian updates for both Byron and Buchanan Field
Airports. FAA funds for these projects will not be eligible until the federal government's
fiscal year 200112002 if FAA approved.
C:Admin\Grand Jury Deport-Byron Airport.doc
8