The Little River Airport Advisory Committee (minutes, 11/20/98 meeting) A meeting of The Little River Airport Advisory Committee was held at the Woods Clubhouse on Friday, November 20, 1998, at 9:00 am. The agenda had been posted at the Little River Airport and at the Little River Post Office. Present at the meeting were committee members: Tim Scully, Dave Brewer, Willow Trent, Susan Winding, Lee Edmundson, Trey Loy and Joel Bornstein. Also participating in the meeting were: Dick Ahrens, Hershel Haaf, Grant Wheeler, Les Proctor and Dave Thorpe. Due to a number of committee members being unavailable, the October meeting was canceled. The minutes of the September meeting were accepted as written. Tim Scully read the highlights of the communications sent and received since the last meeting and handed out printed copies. Trey Loy suggested that we invite Supervisor-Elect David Colfax to our next meeting, as suggested by Supervisor Charles Peterson. Dave Brewer said he thinks we should make a presentation for David. Lee Edmundson said we should make a short presentation, perhaps 15 minutes, then invite David to observe the rest of the meeting. Lee said we can hand David a package of information. He can easily absorb what's been happening in the committee from that. Tim said we should invite him to speak, also. Tim asked Lee to invite David to the meeting of Dec 18. Lee agreed to do so. Regarding the ground cover, Trey Loy said he knows of a young person who runs a rototiller and could work on the soil preparation. He wants the young people to get involved in the development of the airport, perhaps, eventually planting a field for their recreational use. Tim reported that Greg Guisti said he would bring a rototiller for the test plantings. Trey said that he would like to see a grassy plot for kids to play on. The non-aviation uses subcommittee will look into where one could safely be located. Tim Scully asked if the subcommittee had a report on any recommendations for restrictions on flight training at the Little River Airport? Trey Loy, Willow Trent and Joel Bornstein are the members of that committee. Trey asked if Joel had made a report at the last meeting? Joel said he had, but made it clear that he was reporting only on Trey's feelings. A report was not ready. Trey asked for the consideration of the flight instructors operating at the Little River Airport. Willow said there was little point in creating rules to control training, as people will find loopholes and do as they wish. The feeling is that we should publish some guidelines. Some of the other members argued that we need restrictions; just asking consideration will not get results. They want to regulate the hours and the number of touch and goes. They want to prohibit non-students from making touch and goes. Joel argued that he is already restricted by the weather at Little River Airport. There really isn't a need for more restrictions. He feels that there would be a more positive response to a well written letter to all instructors who use the airport. Lee said that they won't be considerate; regulation is the only answer to the problem; we need a notice published in the FAA's Airports/Facilities Directory. Trey said the issue would go back to the subcommittee for further consideration. Les Proctor said that the Reach Medivac Service is working on a private helicopter approach to the Little River Airport. The approach would be used by their medical evacuation operation when required. There is a possible donation of an AWOS (Automatic Weather Observation System) unit to enable the helicopter to use the approach efficiently. Les will check into the costs to the county. (installation and maintenance, etc.) Tim asked if we want the issue to be agendized? We agreed that was desirable. Tim also said that the AWOS would be available to the public by radio and possibly by phone. It would extend the availability of the altimeter setting. We agreed to agendize this issue for the next meeting. Les also suggested that we might consider the Airport Master Plan. It is going to become due for update soon, as that is required every ten years. Dick Ahrens suggested that we might have a subcommittee look into writing the update. Tim said, perhaps we can do it piecemeal. Trey said that he would like an environmental report to be part of the work done on the master plan. Grant Wheeler asked about the cars that are parked at the airport? It seems that Les doesn't know who owns some of them. Les said he makes a monthly report to the county. Some of the fees are not paid. Lee asked if there is a daily fee? The answer is that there is only a monthly or a yearly fee. He said that there must be a daily fee. He asked Les to send him the fee schedule for his examination. Someone asked if we could have the apparently abandoned cars towed? Les said we cannot do that, but he's working on the problem with the county. Dave Brewer said there must be a law to deal with this. Trey said there are problems with indigents living in vehicles at the airport. Also, there are the people who use the airport lands to gather mushrooms. Trey said that gathering is illegal. He tries to get a notice in the Mendocino Beacon every year to warn people of the situation. Les said he has no trouble from the mushroom pickers. We moved on to the non-aviation use subcommittee report. Lee Edmundson presented a survey form that is proposed. It is planned to distribute it to all the residences in the Little River, Albion, Mendocino areas. Respectively, there are 476, 635 and 2354 to be mailed. There will be the form and a return envelope sent at a total cost estimated to exceed $1000. The county will be asked to pay for the survey. Lee feels that the survey is essential and that it will save the county a lot of money. Dave said we should mention that the development proposed is to make the airport more self-sufficient. Lee said that the county is pushing the development. Dick asked why the envelope? Why Albion and Mendocino? Lee replied that there might be more response if the people get a self addressed envelope with the survey. This is a regional issue, he said. Joel said that the development will likely not do anything toward balancing the Little River Airport budget. Probably, the income will go directly into the general fund. Dave suggested that we might inform the people that the county wants to make money. Lee insisted that we must ask questions on a survey; not tell anything. Tim said it's ok if the survey is "biased" by providing contextual information, as long as it isn't inappropriate. Susan said we should inform that the purpose of the development is to balance the airport budget, but with a caveat: We don't know where the money will go. Lee said that is not appropriate. Trey said the subcommittee can work out it's differences. Some members have voiced concern. Grant asked about the spaces for softball, playground and Fire Dept Park? Trey reiterated that mushroom picking is illegal. Tim reported that Michael Scannel, the County Administrator, is pushing for the $40,000 economic development study to be done. He suggests that we should make the neighborhood survey first. Lee suggests an article in the newspaper before mailing forms. Several suggestions of changes were offered. Dave agreed to receive the returned surveys . Dave Brewer distributed the latest profit and loss statement. The results are showing that the trends seen earlier are continuing. Expenses are remaining relatively constant, but income is still going down. Joel asked that we write a letter to the county to ascertain that the fuel tank has been ordered and get an expected date for the completion of the installation. Les announced that he's been working on the problem; he has requested the loan of a truck to dispense fuel from the time that the underground tank is emptied until the new above ground tank is installed. Joel asked about Richard Gallagher's request to join the hangar subcommittee? The statement from Ukiah is that it is ok for a non-committee member to serve on a subcommittee. Willow and Joel agreed that Richard is on the committee. Trey asked to be on the committee. His request was granted. Willow asked about the disposition of the four options mentioned in the minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee. Tim answered that the primary concern at that time was the threat that the county was going to take over the privately owned hangars. The discussion of the additional hangars was deferred when the county rescinded the letter announcing the assumption of the hangars. Our next meeting was confirmed for the third Friday in December, the 18th. It will be at 9am at The Woods. Someone suggested that we move our regular meeting date to the third Friday of each month, since so many holidays conflict with the fourth. All agreed. The January meeting was set for the 15th, at 9 am at The Woods. As we had reached the end of the time allotted for the meeting, we adjourned at 11 am. Respectfully submitted, Joel Bornstein, Secretary Members of the Little River Airport Advisory Committee ------------------------------------------------------ Joel Bornstein pilot, flight instructor lives near airport Dave Brewer pilot, lives near airport Lee Edmundson non-pilot Trey Loy non-pilot, lives near airport Tim Scully pilot, computer programmer, lives near airport commutes by air to Oakland weekly Willow Trent airport neighbor, non-pilot Susan Winding airport neighbor, non-pilot, business owner --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix: correspondence and communications --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/28/98 letter to HWP&T --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully 9/28/98 Patti Campbell, 4th District Supervisor Charles Peterson, 5th District Supervisor 501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482 FAX (707) 463-4245 Dear Mr. Peterson and Ms. Campbell: The Little River Airport Advisory Committee requested me to write to you to remind you that several committee appointments will expire at the end of December. Also, I have a technical question. Are we correct in believing that we can include members of the public (i.e., non-committee members) in a sub-committee, as long as we also have committee members? Thank you for your help. Respectfully Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D., Chairman, Airport Advisory Committee ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/6/98 phone message from Charles Peterson in response to 9/28 letter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) new appointments will be made next year. Until they are made, the existing members will continue to sit. He suggests inviting the winning candidate from the November election to a meeting so he can get up to speed. The committee can make recommendations for members to be appointed next year - existing members may ask to remain. 2) ok to appoint non-members to subcommittees ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/16/98 telephone conversation with Bob Rodriguez. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- He was following up on his letter to the committee. I explained that copies went to all of the committee members and that a non-aviation uses sub-committee has been appointed. This subcommittee is researching both business and recreational uses of the airport. Bob has submitted his final report to the Rec District. He indicated to the Board that there is interest in investigating recreational uses of Little River Airport, and there also are concerns. Bob said that the Board meets on 11/21 and that we can wait to hear from them. He said that we can contact Charlie Boyd of the Rec District if we have further input. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/23/98 Erosion control report: 1) still no response from Greg Giusti 2) computed the area likely to be planted. The "infield", between the taxiway and the runway is about 27 acres. If we plant a 60 foot wide strip around the perimeter of the runway/taxiway complex, this would add about additional 17 acres, for a total of 44 acres to be planted. Figuring between 5 and 20 pounds of seed per acre, this implies from 220 to 880 pounds of seed. I haven't gotten a price for seed yet. 3) The three proposed test planting areas consist of two 60x60 foot squares and one 100x100 foot square, totaling 17,200 sq ft, or 0.62 acre. It will take around 6 pounds of seed for the test plantings, assuming an average seed density of 10 pounds per acre. 4) Les has talked to the road crews and learned that they don't have suitable equipment for preparing the ground for planting. My next proposed step is to ask the Grange for advice on ground preparation and on how we can borrow appropriate tools (e.g., a tractor and appropriate attachments). 5) The proposed time for test planting is now - in the October-November time frame, to allow for natural watering by the winter rains. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/10/98 phone conversation with Greg Giusti -------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim spoke with Greg Giusti, Forest Advisor, UC Coop Extension, 463-4495, FAX 463-4477. Greg said that he worked with Glen McGordy, plant science advisor, who suggested Kovar Sheep Fescue. He suggested trying different seed densities 1, 3 and 5 lbs per acre, and he also suggested possibly trying different seeds. He said that no free seed was available last year. I asked him about ground preparation. He said "scratch the surface", scatter seed, then get cyclone fencing and drag over the top to lightly cover the seed. The goal is about 1" deep cultivation. We could possibly test plant now, evaluate in June, plant the large area next Fall. What about ground preparation over a large area? A harrow would be ideal. Greg has a machine which could do the small scale plots. 60x60 may be bigger than needed - he suggests 3 10x10 plots in each test area. Greg is going to try to get a few dollars from his budget and try to "just do it" in the next couple of weeks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11/12/98 email from Greg Giusti to Tim Scully ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Greg Giusti [mailto:gagiusti] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 9:47 AM To: tim.scully Subject: airport project Tim, I have secured some grass seed and am in the process of trying to secure some native seed for trial at the airport. If I can, I am going to try and put the plots in next Monday, 11/16. So I will contact Les Proctor and ask him to pick the spots where he feels the soil types are different enough to be evaluated. I sometimes find I can do more as a committee of one to get the project going so I will proceed forward unless I hear differently. Greg Giusti Forest Advisor University of California Cooperative Extension Ag. Center/Courthouse Ukiah, CA.,95482 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/15/98 email from Tim to Greg Giusti --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From tim Sun Nov 15 10:41:01 1998 To: gagiusti Subject: airport project Cc: tim I don't know if you got in touch with Les Proctor last week. I failed to remember that he has Monday and Tuesday off, so he will not be at the airport tomorrow. If you need someone to show you where the test plantings go, Dick Ahrens, who lives very close to the airport, is available to show you. His phone number is xxx If you need to reach me, I'm at xxx until Thursday afternoon, and I'm on email. I told Les what you are planning and he was happy. Thank you again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11/16/98 email from Greg Giusti ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Greg Giusti [gagiusti] Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 10:23 PM To: tim Subject: Re: airport project >I don't know if you got in touch with Les Proctor last week. I failed >to remember that he has Monday and Tuesday off, so he will not be at >the airport tomorrow. > >If you need someone to show you where the test plantings go, Dick Ahrens, >who lives very close to the airport, is availble to show you. His phone >number is xxx > Thank you again. tim, I tried to contact Mr. Ahrens on Mon. pm to no avail. I am having to deal with some family medical situations for the next couple of days but will not let this project fall through the cracks. Greg Giusti Forest Advisor UC Cooperative Extension-Mendocino/Lake Counties Ag. Ctr./ Courthouse Ukiah, Ca., 95482 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11/17/98 email to Greg Giusti ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Tim Scully Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 4:51 AM To: 'Greg Giusti'; Tim Scully Subject: RE: airport project Thank you. I'm sorry that Dick was not available. I hope the medical problems work out - I'm having similar adventures with my mother and know it can be difficult. > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Giusti [mailto:gagiusti] > Sent: Monday, November 16, 1998 10:23 PM > To: tim > Subject: Re: airport project > > > >I don't know if you got in touch with Les Proctor last week. I failed > >to remember that he has Monday and Tuesday off, so he will not be at > >the airport tomorrow. > > > >If you need someone to show you where the test plantings go, > Dick Ahrens, > >who lives very close to the airport, is availble to show > you. His phone > >number is xxx > > > > tim, > > I tried to contact Mr. Ahrens on Mon. pm to no avail. I am > having to deal with some family medical situations for the > next couple of days but will not let this project fall > through the cracks. > > > > Greg Giusti > Forest Advisor > UC Cooperative Extension-Mendocino/Lake Counties > Ag. Ctr./ Courthouse > Ukiah, Ca., 95482 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11/12/98 email from Keith Paulson ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Paulson Excavating Inc. [paulex] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 3:33 PM To: Tim Cc: dmb001; joel; lee; whistle; willowt Subject: Mini storage @ Little River Airport Tim, This is just a note to let you know that I am still interested in partnering with the County to construct storage units at the Little River Airport. You might remember that I first discussed this matter with the County about ten years ago prior to the Master Plan Report. Budge Cambell postponed any discussion until the Master Plan was finished. My proposal was eventually presented to the Board of Supes and assigned to the transportation committee which Marilyn Butcher chaired. Elections came along and the issue was never acted upon. I revisited the proposal with Michael Scannell about the time the ad hoc Airport Advisory Committee was being formed. When Charles Peterson was elected, I briefed him on the history of the proposal and the matter was refered to the ad hoc committee. I believe the committee received the original proposal along with comments from Budge Cambell, Scannell and Peterson. In an attempt to get discussion going again, I would like the committee to consider how a project like this might fit into plans for the non aviation use land at the airport. Of all the suggested uses I've heard, I think this one has the most merit with respect to generating income for the County while minimizing any negative impacts to the environment, neighbors, traffic loads, aviation, etc.. Please keep me informed. Thanks, Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/13/98 email from Tim Scully to Keith Paulson re his 11/12 email ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Scully Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 4:13 AM To: 'Paulson Excavating Inc.'; Tim Scully Cc: dmb001; joel; lee; whistle; willowt Subject: RE: Mini storage @ Little River Airport Thank you! There is an active subcommittee looking into non-aviation uses now. I'll give the members copies of the correspondence from 1996, when the Ad Hoc Committee last worked with you on this proposal. I'm pretty sure that the current committee will have some questions after it reviews your proposal. Would you prefer to handle these by email, or could we invite you to a committee meeting? We have been meeting at 9am on Fridays, usually the 3rd or 4th Friday of the month. We'll be meeting on the 3rd Fridays in November and December. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/13/98 email from Keith Paulson to the committee ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Paulson Excavating Inc. [paulex] Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 12:33 PM To: Tim Cc: dmb001; joel; lee; whistle; Tim; willowt Tim, I think a list of questions from the committee would be a good way to start. Email dialog is fine with me. After an initial round of questions and answers to lay the ground work, I think round table discussions should follow. Thanks for attention to this matter. Keith. [previous correspondence on this topic follows, below] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/25/91 letter from Keith Paulson to Mike Scannell ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paulson Excavating, Inc. General Engineering Contractor P.O. Box 339 * Albion, CA 95410 (707) 937-0492 July 25, 1991 Mike Scannell Mendocino County Administration Courthouse Ukiah, California 95482 RE: Mendocino County Airport, Little River Dear Mr. Scannell: As you know, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Master Plan for the above mentioned airport approximately a year ago. With this plan in place, the County is now in the position to avail itself of various federal and state funding programs as well as leaseholds which were not available prior to having a plan. These sources of income, their procurement and utilization, are discussed in the plan, and I refer you to that document for further information. More specifically, I would like to discuss with you nonaviation land uses as discussed on page 7 and in chapters 8 and 12: "Approximately 72 acres on the north side of the Airport have been identified as surplus to the long-term needs of aviation. Consideration should be given to offering leaseholds for commercial development. Leasehold revenues would assist Mendocino County in funding ongoing maintenance needs and matching funds for grant-eligible construction projects.,, "The area designated for nonaviation uses is constrained by limitations in the use of septic systems, limited water availability from wells, the narrowness of the existing access road, and the existing residential uses. Three categories of commercial/industrial uses have been identified as having the potential to be environmentally acceptable and economically viable: Mini-storage warehouses, an incubator business park, and offices with limited public contact." "Based upon consultations with individuals familiar with commercial/industrial development on the Mendocino Coast, land rent revenues from nonaviation uses could reach $30,000.00 by 1998". In view of this information, would you please communicate to the Board my interest in a leasehold arrangement for the purpose of constructing mini-storage units. The details of the lease need to be discussed and mutually agreed upon. I foresee no expense to be incurred by the county since I will assume the cost of all improvements and the inherent risk associated with renting the finished product. I would like to meet with you or designates of the Board to discuss the details of an agreement. Please consider this a formal request for action on this matter and feel free to call with any questions you might have. Sincerely, Keith T. Paulson KP:jh ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/30/91 memo from Mike Scannell to Budge Campbell ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MENDOCINO COUNTY MEMORANDUM TO: Budge Campbell, Director July 30, 1991 Public Works Department FROM: Michael Scannell, County Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Mendocino County Little River Airport Attached herewith is a letter from Keith Paulson of the firm Paulson Excavating, Inc. In said letter, a carbon copy of which you received, Mr. Paulson discusses his interest in lease hold improvements at the Little River Airport. Please review Mr. Paulson's letter and, as time permits, let me know your thoughts relative to his proposal. Your assistance in this matter will be very much appreciated. MKS/ldw cc: Mr. Keith Paulson, Paulson Excavating, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8/14/91 letter from Budge Campbell to Keith Paulson ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.F. CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR COUNTY OF MENDOCINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 August 14, 1991 Keith T. Paulson Paulson Excavating, Inc. Dear Mr. Paulson: With reference to your letter of 25 July 1991 to County Administrator Mike Scannell regarding the Little River Airport and your interest in developing a lease hold arrangement (with the County) that would accommodate your construction of ministorage units on airport properties. Mr. Scannell has referred your letter for my review and recommendations. As follow up to our earlier phone conversation and in reviewing status of the Little River Airport Master Plan, I find that while the Public Hearing was held (27 November 1989 and continued to 8 January 1990) and the minutes would indicate (to me) the Board's intent to subsequently adopt the Plan; the minutes are silent and offer no record of actual adoption. I pursued the matter with County Planning and Ray Hall indicated (after his review) that he had reached the same conclusion. The Plan has not been formally adopted. It is my understanding that Planning now (as time and personnel allows) intends to pursue adoption but cannot offer you a time frame for doing so. In this regard, I will by copy of this letter, advise them of your interest and request that they keep you advised of the Plan status. Assuming the Master Plan is adopted and development of Airport lands is allowed, the Department of Public Works will remain supportive of the concept of generating revenue thru planned development and best use of available Airport lands. You should however also be aware that it has been our position (in the past and remains so now)..... that if and when development is allowed, that it should be aggressively solicited (thru advertisement) to assure that the County can be selective of proposals on the basis of both proposed development and financial returns to be anticipated. I suspect County Counsel would also advise that a public offering and award process would be required. At this point, it would seem the County is not yet in a position to consider your proposal and will, by copy of this letter, recommend to the Board and Mr. Scannell that: 1. The County move expeditiously to conclude any remaining discussion/consideration of the Master Plan and then take formal action regarding its adoption. 2. Upon Plan adoption, direct applicable staff (in a joint effort) to prepare a "Development Implementation" policy/procedure for the Board's consideration. 3. Upon the Board's adoption of a "Development Implementation" policy, authorize solicitation of proposals. In the mean time, I will be sure the Board is aware of your interest and place a copy of your proposal in our files for future reference. Please call if any questions. Yours truly, C. F. CAMPBELL, Director of Public Works CFC/vj cc: Board of Supervisors Mike Scannell/Admin. Ray Hall/Plann:Lng DPW File 24-5A ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/4/91 letter from Budge Campbell to Keith Paulson ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.F. CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR COUNTY OF MENDOCINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 October 4, 1991 Keith T. Paulson Paulson.Excavating, Inc. Dear Mr. Paulson: With reference to your initial letter of 25 July 1991 and my subsequent response of 14 August 1991 regarding your interest in developing mini-storage units at the Little River Airport. As indicated by the attached copy of the Planning Department's memorandum of 26 September 1991..... the Board of Supervisors have now formally adopted the "Little River Airport Master Plan Report". I will by copy of this letter to the Board of Supervisors (and assuming your continued interest)..... suggest that it would now be appropriate to consider preparation of a "Development Implementation Policy" (for the Little River Airport property) and you should confirm your request with a formal letter to the Board of Supervisors in this regard. Please call if any questions. Sincerely C. F. CAMPBELL, Director of Public Works CFC/vj cc: Board of Supervisors Mike Scannell/Admin. Ray Hall/Planning DPW File 24-5A Attachment: Planning Memo of 9-26-91 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/16/91 letter from Keith Paulson to BOS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paulson Excavating, Inc. General Engineering Contractor P.O. Box 339 Albion. CA 95410 (707) 937-0492 October 16, 1991 Board of Supervisors County of Mendocino Courthouse Ukiah, California 95482 RE: Mendocino County Airport, Little River Ladies and Gentlemen: Please find attached a copy of a proposal I sent to Mr. Scannell on July 25, 1991. He referred the matter to Mr. Campbell who has contacted me twice. The last communication is attached. Please review my letter to Mr. Scannell and consider my request to be unchanged. I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to further discussion. Please call with any questions you might have. My phone numbers are xxx at work and xxx at home. Keith T. Paulson jh:KP cc: C. F. Campbell/Pub. Wrks. Mike Scannell/Admin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/21/91 letter from Budge Campbell to BOS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.F. CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR COUNTY OF MENDOCINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 November 21, 1991 Honorable Board of Supervisors c/o Courthouse Ukiah. CA 95482 RE: MR. KEITH PAULSON/LEASE HOLD AGREEMENT/LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT Dear Board Members: In the interest of brevity, please find the following correspondence attached for your review/information and to serve as source documents regarding Mr. Keith T. Paulson's initial letter of 25 July 1991 expressing interest/desire in entering into a Lease Hold Agreement (with County) in connection with Little River Airport lands, namely: 1. Paulson letter of 7.25.91 to County Administrator 2. Campbell letter of 8.14.91 to Mr. Paulson 3. Campbell letter of 10.4.91 to Mr. Paulson 4. Paulson letter of 10.16.91 to Board of Supervisors In short..... Mr. Paulson would like to lease some Little River Airport lands, to accommodate his commercial development of Mini Storage Warehouses. In initial review of the matter, we learned that the "Little River Airport Master Plan Report" had not been formally adopted but this issue was subsequently resolved by your action of 10 September 1991. My recommendations of 14 August 1991 remain in that Public Works is supportive of the concept of generating revenue thru the planned development and-best usage of available (and identified) airport lands. It also remains my position/recommendation that if and when development is allowed..... that it should be aggressively solicited (thru advertisement) to assure the County can be selective of proposals on the basis of both proposed development and financial returns to be anticipated. I also suspect County Counsel will advise you that a formal public offering and award process will be required. Recommended Procedure: At this point in time and assuming the Board (in concept) is receptive to Mr. Paulson's proposal, I suggest that: 1. County Counsel and Planning be requested to review the matter and identify any planning environmental or procedural issue that may be required before the Board can take a positive action in the matter. In this regard I suggest that one issue may be whether or not a General Plan or Local Coastal Plan amendment will be required prior to "development of new nonaviation uses". The question is raised under the heading of "Commercial Development" on page 61 of the Master Plan Report. 2. Once any remaining Planning/Environmental issues have been identified/addressed direct applicable staff (in a joint effort) to prepare a "Development Implementation" policy/ procedure for the Board's consideration. It will require thoughtful drafting with careful review and you will want to retain applicable Board discretion. 3. Upon the Board's adoption of a "Development Implementation" policy the next step would be to authorize solicitation of proposals. To start the process I will (by copy of this letter) ask for County Counsel and Planning response to item No. 1, and schedule the issue for initial/general discussion at your regular meeting of 10 December 1991. I will of course alert (again by copy of this letter) Mr. Paulson to the situation and suggest his presence at the 10 December 1991 Board meeting (1:30 P.M.). There will be many questions and we will provide you the best information we have. Respectfully submitted, C. F. CAMPBELL, Director of Public Works CFC/ha cc: Mr. Keith T. Paulson Peter Klein/County Counsel Ray Hall/Planning Board Corres. DPW File No. 24-5A Attachments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12/10/91 memo from Ray Hall to Budge Campbell ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MENDOCINO COUNTY MEMORANDUM TO: C.F. Campbell, Director of Public Works DATE: 12/10/91 FROM: Raymond Hall, Director of Planning and Bldg. Services SUBJECT: Little River Airport - Your Memorandum dated November 21, 1991 Development of non-aviation uses at and around the Little River Airport was subject to substantial comment during preparation and adoption of the 'Little River Airport - Master Plan Report' dated February 1990. Two issues must be addressed before the County leases 'excess' lands for commercial development - (1) Consistency with County General Plan and Coastal Element and (2) environmental review as requested by CEQA. (1) Consistency with County General Plan. Development of new non-aviation uses requires a General Plan or Local Coastal Plan Amendment. (2) Leasing of County lands at the airport is a 'project' as defined in CEQA and is therefore subject to environmental review. According to page 6 of the Master Plan Report "The area (72 acres) designated for non-aviation uses is constrained by limitations in the use of septic systems, limited water availability from wells, the narrowness of the existing access road, and the existing residential uses. Three categories of commercial/industrial uses have been identified as having the potential to be environmentally acceptable and economically viable: mini storage warehouses, an incubator business park and offices with limited public contact." Should the Board of Supervisors wish to pursue leasing surplus lands adjacent to the airport for commercial purposes they should (1) direct that Planning and Building Services to initiate a General Plan amendment and (2) consider limiting the types of potential businesses and reducing the physical area that may be available for lease. 1 Item #3, page 171 Board of Supervisors Minutes of January 8, 1990 and page 6 Little River Airport - Master Plan Report 2 County Counsel Opinion #89-340 Please include a copy of this memorandum with your report to the Board of Supervisors. RH:cec Attachments cc: Mike Scannell, CAO H. Peter Klein, County Counsel Jerry Heath Little River Airport File ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12/20/91 letter from Budge Campbell to Keith Paulson ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.F. CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR COUNTY OF MENDOCINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 December 20, 1991 Keith Paulson RE: LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT REQUEST Dear Mr. Paulson: The attached Copy of Ray Hall's memorandum of 10 December 1991 (first received 12.19.91) is self explanatory and will have an impact upon your pending request to the Board. Thought you should be aware of it. Yours truly, C. F. CAMPBELL, Director of Public Works CFC/ha cc: Board of Supervisors DPW File No. 25-5A ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/14/94 BOS Agenda proposal ------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA SUMMARY - PLANNING MATTERS TO:- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPLY NECESSARY: YES FROM:-PLANNING & BLDG SERVICES INFORMATION ONLY: NO AGENDA DATE: February 14, 1994 AGENDA#: AGENDA TITLE: Little River Airport - Direction and Funding for Development Plan BRIEF SUMMARY: The Board of Supervisors in 1992 directed Planning and Building Services to process land use changes to allow private commercial development on approximately 10 acres at Little River Airport. Planning and Building Services has identified several options, recommending a two-phase comprehensive development plan. This request is for approval of this conceptual approach and allocation of $40,000 to fund the Phase 1 study tentatively consisting of a conceptual land use plan, market analysis and preliminary environmental analysis. The decision to proceed to Phase 2 (final land use/site plan, business plan and environmental document) will rely on the conclusions of Phase 1; the cost will depend in part on the type of environmental document required to process the land use changes. PREVIOUS ACTION: On March 24, 1992, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to process a general plan amendment to allow private commercial uses at Little River Airport. In 1993 Planning and Building Services discussed with the County Administrative Officer and Public Works Director a range of land use options, based on County goals for economic development and revenue generation, community desires expressed to date, and statutory requirements. By consensus, it is recommended that a comprehensive development plan be pursued. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Move the recommended motion. The recommended comprehensive plan would address development opportunities, constraints and mitigations, under a master planning permit, thereby minimizing permitting requirements for individual businesses. The alternative options that could be pursued under 'Alternative Motion' differ by approaching development on a case by case basis. Negative implications may include difficulty in addressing cumulative issues and in maximizing the economic and environmental resource,potential of the site. Regardless, funding for technical environmental studies-may be required. RECOMMENDED MOTION: That it is the directive of the Board of Supervisors to pursue a comprehensive management plan for private commercial development at Little River Airport, that $40,000 is transferred from ________ to Planning and Building Services Department to retain consulting services for preparation of Phase 1 studies, (conceptual land use plan, market analysis and preliminary environmental analysis), upon recommendation to the Board of Supervisors by the County Administrative Officer, Planning and Building Services, and the Department of Public Works. ALTERNATIVE MOTION: That Planning and Building Services Department be directed to process an alternative option for a general plan amendment to allow private commercial development at Little River Airport (see attached memorandum for options). RESOURCE PERSON: Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/14/94 memo from Planning & Building to BOS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNTY MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: 2-14-94 FRCM: Planning and Building Services County Administrative Officer Public Works Director SUBJECT: Little River Airport-- Development Options The Board of Supervisors in 1992 directed Planning and Building Services to process land use changes to allow private commercial development on approximately 10 acres of nonaviation use area at Little River Airport. Planning and Building Services has identified several options, recommending a two-phase comprehensive development plan. The decision to proceed with Phase 1 requires the commitment of funding for consultant services, tentatively consisting of a conceptual land use plan, market analysis and preliminary environmental analysis. The decision to proceed to Phase 2 (final land use/site plan, business plan and environmental document) will rely on the conclusions of Phase 1 and the cost will depend in part on the type of environmental document required to process land use changes. Please note that regardless of the development option selected, environmental issues must be adequately addressed, potentially requiring the services of a consultant. It is not the purpose of this correspondence to debate the merits of each land use alternative, but instead to seek agreement on the general approach to land use planning at Little River Airport. Therefore, land use alternatives are addressed only in general terms. Project Description: On March 22, 1992, the Board of Supervisors adopted their Planning and Transportation Committee's recommendation that approximately 10 acres of the 72 acres designated for "possible nonaviation uses" in the Little River Airport Master Plan, Airport Layout Plan, be reclassified for commercial uses. The county expressed its intent as being to offer commercial leaseholds to facilitate economic development and generate revenue for airport activities. Nonaviation uses must be restricted to the 72 acre "possible nonaviation use area designated on the Airport Master Plan, being the northeast portion of the airport property, adjacent to County Road #404. Although the Board of Supervisors recommended that approximately 10 acres be reclassified, this assessment was based on staff's preliminary advice to limit the size of the area due to environmental constraints. Planning staff evaluated several alternatives for reclassification of the nonaviation use area to commercial uses, including reclassification of the entire northerly 72 acres, reclassification of approximately the northwestern 25 acres, or reclassification of the most northwesterly 10 acres which would take access directly from County Road #404. Taking into account County goals and environmental constraints, reclassification of approximately 25 acres may be the preferred alternative. Alternative Lard Use Classifications: Several land use alternatives were evaluated by Planning staff. The recommended classifications should correct existing General Plan and zoning inconsistencies, meet County's goals for the use of the property, provide maximum flexibility for development, be environmentally sound, and promote land use compatibility among private commercial uses, aviation uses and adjacent off-airport uses. A general assessment of compatibility accompanied the designation of the nonaviation use area in the Airport Master Plan. With thoughtful management, the airport property may be viewed as an economic asset to generate County revenues, economic development opportunities and employment. Ultimately the County exercises discretion over land use through lease agreements with potential businesses, if the decision to lease facilities is the preferred alternative. Commercial site development could entail physically separate buildings or clustered facilities, circulation, and utilities. Wastewater disposal and water supply would be via onsite individual or coordinated facilities. Compliance with the Airport Height (AH) Combining District, building and health codes, as well as other improvement standards, will be required for all development. A brief summary of alternatives identified by staff follows. The preferred concept, alternative #1, contemplates application of the Aviation (AV) and Planned Development (P-D) Districts. The AV district allows a range of commercial and industrial uses subject to the issuance of minor use permits on a case by case basis. The P-D Combining District would be added to allow issuance of a comprehensive use permit for future commercial uses, rather than issuing individual use permits. This approach facilitates environmental and economic development goals. The open Space district (O-S) is also proposed over other portions of the nonaviation use areas to balance development with resource protection. A second alternative proposes reclassification of portions of the nonaviation use area to Limited Industrial (I-1). However, this alternative may not meet the needs of the County because certain commercial uses and food establishments are not allowed. A third alternative would reclassify portions of the nonaviation use area to General Commercial (C-2) and Limited Industrial (I-1) - This alternative may be consistent with immediate and long-term County goals, but is less flexible than the first alternative. A number of other alternatives vary the acreage and location of the C-2, I-1 and AV districts. The O-S and P-D Districts could be added to each alternative to address cumulative impact issues. Summary of Impacts: The major constraints to development are pygmy vegetation, soil limitations for onsite sewage systems, traffic, ground water availability, compatibility with adjacent residences, and impacts to potential businesses such as noise, vibration and safety. The potential for adverse effects and the level of evaluation provided specific development proposals, as well as mitigation measures varies among the alternatives, dependent on these types permitted by right or under a use permit. Staff recommends comprehensive facility planning occur under the P-D District, prior to the initiation of development, rather than planning for infrastructure and mitigating environmental impacts on a piecemeal, project by project basis. Consulting Services for Comprehensive Development Plan: The concept of a two Phase Planning approach was advanced at a meeting among the CAD, Planning Director and Public Works Director. Phase 1 consists of a conceptual land use/site- Plan, market analysis and preliminary environmental analysis, including preliminary field work and consultation with agency personnel and community advisors. The market analysis will evaluate the cost and benefits associated with various property management options, such as direct leaseholds, a private management scheme, property sale, or no project, as well as evaluate the target business market for economic development. The Phase 1 cost estimate for informational purposes only was provided at staff's request by a joint venture of three firms versed in airport land use planning, environmental review and economic development. The $40,000 estimate included $25,000 for site planning and environmental review and $14,000 for a target market analysis. Phase 2 would encompass a final land use/site plan, business plan and environmental document including community input. Phase 2 would be followed by the formal general plan amendment and master use permit processes and site development. Potential Funding Sources: Funding sources for planning studies, site development or economic development activities identified at this time include: Mendocino County Budget Unit 1810- Promotion of economic development activities Timber harvest revenues generated at Little River Airport Community Development Block Grant- site development (must tie project to assistance for low income households) EDA funds SUMMARY OF FACTS - LITTLE RIVER AIRPORT OWNER/APPLICANT: Mendocino County Planning and Building Services REQUEST: change the General Plan land use classifications and rezone that portion of Little River Airport located outside the coastal zone, to allow commercial/light industrial uses to be established and to correct land use inconsistencies LOCATION: Little River Airport, lying south of Little River Airport Rd. (CR# 404), 1.5 miles east of the community of Little River. SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT: 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS: Land Use Classification: PL; RR-5; PS Zoning: P-F:AH; R-R:L-5:AH Area: Airport- 548 acres total; nonaviation area- 72+- acres Improvements: 78 acres of the total airport are developed; 8+- acres of the nonaviation use area are developed with the access road, fire station and parking Soils: Preliminary SCS 1987 Maps: 330 Blacklock-Aborigine (True pygmy) 760 Shinglemill-Gibney (Pygmy transitional) Topography: 0-5 percent slopes Drainage: Drains west and southwest to Schoolhouse and Buckhorn Creeks Surrounding Land Use Classifications and Surrounding Zoning: North: P-F, R-R:L-5:A-H East: T-P: A-H South: P-F, F-L, T-P: A-H West: R-R: L-5, T-P, P-F: A-H Surrounding Parcel Sizes and Surrounding Uses: North: 1-16, 240 Residential, State Park East: 36, 45 Forest lands South: 20-201 Airport, Forest West: 22-160 Airport SERVICES: Access: Little River Airport Road (CR# 404); CR# 404B provides onsite access; Albion Little River Road (CR# 403) traverses the airport Fire: Albion-Little River Fire District Medical: Mendocino Coast Hospital and other medical facilities located in Fort Bragg Police: Mendocino County Sheriff Public Transportation: None - 1 mile to State Highway 1 Schools: Mendocino Unified School District Sewage Disposal Onsite system(s) Water: Onsite Wells Other Service District: None ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/2/94 memo from Mike Scannell to Ray Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MENDOCINO COUNTY MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Scannell CAO DATE: 5-2-94 Planning & Bldg Services Director From: Raymond Hall. 1994/95 County Budget SUBJECT: Little River Airport Development Plan The Board of Supervisors in 1992 directed the Planning and Building Services Department to process amendments to the County general Plan and Zoning Ordinance to allow private commercial development on approximately 10 acres at Little River Airport. Planning and Building Services has identified several options, recommending a two phase comprehensive development plan. Phase 1 could be expected to cost $40,000 and tentatively consists of a conceptual land use plan, market analysis and preliminary environmental analysis. Attached you will find draft reports prepared on this subject. The Board of Supervisors has not previously seen nor reviewed the topic of a phased development plan for Little River Airport because it was viewed that, due to the funding requested ($40,000), the issue should be addressed during the County budget process. Please be advised that the assigned net county cost for Planning and Building Services does not allow for the inclusion of a $40,000 appropriation thus this project is not funded within the submitted Planning and Building Services budget for Fiscal- Year 94/95. RH:DAW Attachments cc: Jim Anderson C.F. "Budge" Campbell Pam Townsend 94/95 Budget File Little River Airport File ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3/24/95 memo from Planning & Building to Mr. Peterson, Scannell & Hall ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MENDOCINO COUNTY MEMORANDUM DATE: 3/24/95 TO: Supervisor Peterson Michael Scannell, CAO Ray Hall, Planning Director FROM: Pam Townsend, Planner II, Planning and Building Services Department SUBJ: Little River Airport Meeting- 11:00 AM, March 29, 1995 In preparation for the above-referenced meeting, background information is provided regarding development/land use options and approximate costs for preparation of a comprehensive development plan at Little River Airport. Due to funding issues, this material was not presented to the Board of Supervisors. (the background information is above) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/10/96 letter from Charles Peterson re non-aviation uses ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES PETERSON Supervisor FIFTH DISTRICT Mailing address: COURTHOUSE Ukiah, California 95482 May 10, 1996 Members of Little River Airport Ad Hoc Advisory Committee c/o Tim Scully Dear Committee Members and other interested parties, There has been a lot of speculation about the meaning and intent of my proposal to investigate what potential, if any, exists for the development of non-airport dependent uses at the Little River Airport. My purpose in suggesting such an exploration is to try to find a way to make sure that the airport is self-sufficient, and is not a drain on intensely limited County government financial resources. Among the questions that have been asked are: Wouldn't any business that opens at the airport have to pay impact fees and a percentage of gross revenues? How much and how big a development is envisioned? What kind of jobs? For the rich only? For blue collar workers? Will the road have to be widened? Isn't the intersection of Little River Airport Road and Highway I too dangerous? How would sewage disposal and water needs be handled? What about the sensitive pygmy forest ecosystem? What would the impacts be on current airport users? Would the businesses create more flights? More Noise? Even jets? Etc.? I want to make sure that everyone understands that there is virtually no proposal for any project in hand. I am simply eager to get answers to all the questions. In order to do that, a basic study needs to be financed and completed, and numerous public meetings held. Considering the extreme financial constraints that County government is experiencing, I do not know if or when such a study could be undertaken. Until such time, any discussion is mere premature speculation. I am certain that I would not support any proposal that had not received plenty of public scrutiny, and did not enjoy general public support. However, I am willing to make the exploration. Sincerely, Charles Peterson 5th District Supervisor cc: Mendocino Beacon ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/22/96 letter from Keith Paulson to the Ad Hoc committee ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paulson Excavating, Inc. General Engineering Contractor P.O.Box 339 Albion,CA 95410 (707) 937-0492 May 22, 1996 Tim Scully Mendocino County Airport ad hoc Advisory Committee RE: Mini Storage construction Dear Tim: Enclosed you will find a series of communications regarding the use of non-aviation lands at the Little River Airport. These communications were precipitated by a letter of inquiry I sent to Mike Scannell on July 5, 1991. A copy of that letter is also included. The order of letters and responses is as follows: 1. 7/25/96 Paulson letter to M. Scannell 2. 7/30/91 Scannell memo to C. F. Campbell 3. 8/14/91 Campbell letter to Paulson 4. 10/4/91 Campbell letter to Paulson 5. 10/16/96 Paulson letter to Board of Supervisors 6. 11/21/91 Campbell letter to Board of Supervisors 7. 12/19/91 R. Hall letter to Campbell 8. 12/20/91 Campbell letter to Paulson In response to Mr. Campbell's letter of 11/21/91, I participated in a question and answer session at the December 10, 1991 Supervisors Board meeting. The issue was referred to the Transportation Committee and to my knowledge, no further action was ever taken. I put the issue on the back burner and became involved in other projects. Approximately two weeks ago, I contacted Mike Scannell's office to see what might be done to get the process moving again. Initially, I spoke with Pamela Swan and briefed her on some of the history of this issue. In a return call from Mike Scannell, he and I reviewed the subject again. His suggestion was to call Charles Peterson and make him aware of the proposal as a first step in getting the process moving. I have spoken with Mr. Peterson and given him a verbal overview of what has happened to date. He is interested in learning more and suggested involving the ad hoc committee in the process of making any recommendations. Consequently, I am sending you this chronology. It is clear to me that if non-aviation use land is ever going to be utilized, the Board of Supervisors must direct the Planning Department to begin the process of creating a General Plan Amendment. In addition, environmental review in compliance with CEQA should be addressed. Your committee's involvement in addressing questions and reviewing information will be helpful in providing the Board with community input and sentiment regarding this and other issues. Beyond that, Board action will be required to get things moving. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Keith Paulson President cc: Charles Peterson/5th Dist. Supervisor Mike Scannell/Admin. C. F. Campbell/Pub. Wrks. Ray Hall/Planning ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5/29/96 letter from Tim Scully to Keith Paulson ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully 5/29/96 Keith T. Paulson Paulson Excavating, Inc. P.O. Box 339 Albion, CA 95410 Dear Keith: Thanks for your letter of May 22. I duplicated your package of letters and distributed it to the Ad Hoc Committee members in our meeting on Sunday. The committee members will almost certainly have many questions after they have read through the correspondence. In an effort to move the process along, I am writing to ask a few of them. * How large is the proposed development? (How many buildings, what size and shape, etc.? How much land would be involved? Would there be some area paved for parking?) * How deep would any foundations penetrate into the ground? Approximately how much load would be applied to the ground? * Where would the proposed development be located? * Do you have any estimate of how much additional traffic this would generate on Little River Airport Road? How many customers a day would you expect to have visiting? * Do you have an estimate of how much revenue would be generated, and thus any estimate of how much would be generated for the airport? * Who would ultimately own the improvements on the land? Would they eventually become County property or would they remain private property? If they become County property, over how long a period, and how does this affect the cash flow generated for the airport? * Would there be any need for water or septic? * How would the business be managed? Would there be an on-site manager full time? The concerns that have been previously raised regarding any development at the airport have included: - precedents that might make additional and in some way undesirable development easier - damage to the fragile pygmy ecosystem, including concerns about surface and subsurface drainage, erosion, etc. - increased traffic on Little River Airport road and at the intersection of Highway 1 and Little River Airport Road (which is currently considered a dangerous intersection) - possible pollution from septic, waste disposal, etc. - Is private development on public land appropriate? - How much control does the County retain over private development, once it has been built? Thanks for your attention. Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/25/96 letter from Keith Paulson to Ad Hoc Committee ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paulson Excavating, Inc. General Engineering Contractor P.O. Box 339 * Albion, CA 95410 (707) 937-0492 July 25, 1996 Tim Scully RE: Non Aviation Use Land, Little River Airport Dear Tim: Thank you for volunteering your time to work on so many important issues surrounding the Little River Airport. All the Ad Hoc Committee members should be commended for their efforts. The diversity of opinion expressed on the various topics as recorded in the meeting minutes, is healthy for the process and increases the credibility of the conclusions the committee reaches. Keep up the good work. In regard to your request for more information regarding my interest in a mini storage project at the airport, I apologize for not responding sooner. Responses to your questions are as follows: 1. Size of development - Start small and build units in phases as demand warrants. I have not done a market analysis for this project, but feel comfortable with building 30 to 40 units in phase one. Space for outdoor storage of boats and trailers should also be considered. Five acres would be adequate for the initial start up and would allow for expansion with a second and third phase. Type of construction - Undetermined. In general single story, slab floor, 12" foundation, paved access and parking, security fencing, coded entry system with alarm. 3. Location: Development should be located in area identified by Hodges and Shutt as suitable for non aviation use. Vegetative buffers should be preserved to eliminate any visual impact to travelers on Little River Airport Road. 4. Traffic estimate - I am basing this proposal on the suggestions made by Hodges and Shutt in their report. This is a recommended use. T suspect that traffic to this development would be minimal based on conversations with operators of other mini storage developments. it seems that people do not visit their stored property very often. Some go months, even years, between visits. 5. Estimate of revenue - Without a lengthy cost analysis review, the county should see a return of approximately $.50/sq. ft. of developed space (floor area) which translates into $5,000 - $10,000 per acre per year. This is excellent in view of zero capital outlay. 6. Ultimate ownership of the improvements - This could go either way. It does not matter to me. what must be kept in mind is that an investor is expecting a return on invested capitol. The return must off set the cost, risks and hassles of the venture. If the improvements revert to the County, the amortization period must appropriate for recovery of principle plus a reasonable return on the investment. Since it is possible to obtain relatively safe, hassle free, returns of 8% to 10% using various securities instruments, it is not likely that an investor is going to settle for much less than a 20% return on an investment of this nature. The potential problems of vacancy, vandalism, liability, and maintenance, must be compensated for. It must also be remembered that unlike many other investments, this one is not liquid. 7. Water and Septic - Not required 8. Management - No onsite manager. Security fencing and alarms with coded access. I hope this information helps you in your discussions. please contact me as the need for additional information arises. Sincerely, Keith Paulson ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7/26/96 letter to Keith Paulson from Ad Hoc Committee ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Scully 7/26/96 Keith T. Paulson Paulson Excavating, Inc. Dear Keith: I'm following up on my letter of May 29, asking for more information about your proposed non-aviation development at Little River. I realize you are very busy. Would it be easier for you to come to one of the Ad Hoc Committee's meetings to talk to us about your project? The agenda and schedule for our meetings is posted on the bulletin board in the airport office. We have been meeting every other Sunday from 4-6pm at Coast Flyers, but there has been some discussion of moving the meetings to another time. The next meeting is Sunday August 4 at 4pm. Thanks for your attention. Yours, Tim Scully, Ph.D. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Airport Profit and Loss statement (Dave Brewer's report) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/18/98 Little River Airport P and L Notes YTD* Estimate see Note 1 Fiscal Year 97-98 97-98 96-97 95-96 94-95 INCOME Fuel & oil Fuel $6,794 $9,058 $9,773 $12,130 $10,973 Oil $115 $154 $231 $192 $217 ------------------------------------------ S/T Fuel & Oil $6,909 $9,212 $10,004 $12,323 $11,190 Tiedown Fees Overnight $3,255 $4,340 $6,173 $5,905 $4,606 Monthly $1,330 $1,773 $3,720 $7,090 $11,619 see Note 2 ------------------------------------------ S/T Tiedown Fees $4,585 $6,113 $9,893 $12,995 $16,225 Auto & RV Parking Monthly $1,445 $1,926 $2,660 $2,950 $2,410 Yearly $2,025 $2,700 $4,700 $6,800 $7,900 ------------------------------------------ S/T Auto & RV Park $3,470 $4,626 $7,360 $9,750 $10,310 see Note 3 Hangar Fees County $6,910 $9,213 $9,545 $11,420 $8,050 Private $9,240 $12,320 $10,000 $7,455 $1,240 ------------------------------------------ S/T Hangar Fees $16,150 $21,533 $19,545 $18,875 $9,290 Miscellaneous $0.00 $0.00 $445 $270 $300 ------------------------------------------ Total Income $31,114 $41,486 $47,247 $54,213 $47,315 EXPENSES Communication $582 $699 $645 $607 $771 Pac Bell Household $1,981 $2,378 $2,219 $1,998 $1,775 FtBragg Disposal Insurance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,837 see Note 5 Maintenance $2,782 $5,000 $10,709 $9,663 $11,019 see Note 6 Office Expense $0.00 $0.00 $266 $127 $344 see Note 7 Architectural & Engineering Svc $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $348 $0.00 Professional & Special Services $31,720 $40,570 $35,728 $36,147 $36,268 see NOTE 8 Pubs & Legal Notices $678 $678 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Recruiting ads? Special Departmental Expense $56 $56 $272 $19 $3,312 see NOTE 9 Utilities $1,664 $1,997 $2,138 $1,570 $1,998 PG&E Operating Transfers Out $0.00 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 see NOTE 10 -------------------------------------------- Total Expense $39,467 $56,380 $56,981 $55,483 $67,325 Profit (Loss) ($8,353) ($14,894) ($9,733) ($1,269) ($20,010) NOTE 1: 97-98YTD = thru March 1998 Fiscal Year is July-June 97-98Est =(97-98YTD) * l.333 NOTE 2: Why did monthly tiedowns fall so fast and far? NOTE 3: Why so low last two Years? NOTE 4: 97-98 EXPENSES Est = DMB WAG NOTE 5: Must have been separate liability policy in 94-95 NOTE 6: Rossi's, Baxman, Big 4 Rents, R.Jones Elec. NOTE 7: "Xerox charges", Savings Bank of Mendo NOTE 8: A/P Supervisor, plus $10k once a year "AdminSvcs for A/P" NOTE 9: Inventory adjustment in 94-95 NOTE 10: Transfer to capital budget to match state grant ----------------------------------------------------------------------------