Tim Scully 6/12/95 Tom sent extensive written comments on the 1st draft of this report. I have done my best to incorporate his input. I have received verbal input from Paul Krause and Joel Bornstein. The hangar subcommittee met 6/12 and I got more input from Liz and Judith. Please get any further corrections or additions back to me immediately! I will FAX this report to the committee on Friday to be sure it is in the committee's hands before the meeting. Andy is meeting with the Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare committee at 9:30am on 6/19. The session may be closed - Charles wasn't able to tell me for sure. We are on the agenda for 10:15 am on 6/19. The meeting is at 301 South State Street in Ukiah. Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee Interim Report Introduction ------------ The Ad Hoc Airport Advisory Committee formed in response to strong concerns from both pilots and neighbors of Little River Airport regarding a wide range of airport-related issues. Our plan was to do research on the various issues, meet as a committee and its subcommittees until we could agree (or agree to disagree) on a draft report for each issue, then hold one or more community meetings until we have heard and incorporated added community input from those meetings and finally present a package of reports to the Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare Committee. We are still in the research and discussion phase on almost every issue. We have learned that it takes a great deal of discussion to reconcile the initially divergent viewpoints of the airport users and neighbors of the airport, and we have also learned that digging up the facts on each issue is time consuming. Although we have distributed posters to airports and post offices to let the community know what we are doing, we have not yet received much input from outside the committee and the pilot community. Some of the issues have not yet been discussed in depth by our committee. We have not yet held any community meetings and do not consider any of the material in this interim report to be final or representative of the entire community's opinions. Due to the very short notice between Charles Peterson's request that we speak to the Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare Comittee of the Board, this report was drafted by the AHAAC chairman and circulated by mail to AHAAC committee members for comments. ISSUES ====== GRADING AND WEED CONTROL ------------------------ The pilots and neighbors of the airport are in complete agreement that the old County policy of grading the dirt areas between and around the runway and taxiway is a bad method of weed control. It encourages erosion, spreads dust which everyone hates and which leads to another expense for keeping the drainage ditch open. The best weed control strategy would be to mow the weeds, as needed. One airport neighbor, Bill Heil suggests planting something ecologically appropriate (e.g. native grasses) which would require little or no mowing. The County has been charging several thousand dollars each year to the airport budget for this unneeded and unwanted work. ANDY BECKER ----------- The full Ad Hoc Committee has not yet formally discussed Andy Becker and has only briefly discussed the airport manager issue. A discussion of these issues is included here and now only because we have been told that the Planning, Transportation, Health and Welfare committee will be considering Andy's status on June 19th. Most of the pilots who are based at Little River have met and discussed these issues. I have also spoken individually with each committee member and with most of the pilots based at Little River. This is a brief summary of what I learned. Andy Becker has been airport manager at Little River for a number of years. Until recently, he has also had a maintenance shop at Little River. The pilots at Little River, with one exception (a pilot and mechanic who declines to comment), have found him to be an unusually competent mechanic (from a consumer's point of view) and good airport manager. The two non-pilots on the committee have both expressed support for Andy as a good airport manager who has handled their questions and complaints fairly and politely. The committee, with one exception, agrees that the airport manager's contract at Little River doesn't pay enough to keep a good manager if it is his sole support. This low pay has led to high turnover in the job. Many past managers have supplemented this income by other work. Some have given flight instruction, some have rented cars, some have managed rental properties, etc. The current airport manager's contract forbids the manager from other work on the airport. All but one committee member feels this is impractical. It is common for small airports to be managed by FBO's (Fixed Base Operators). This "conflict of interest" is commonly permitted because of economic reality. The committee, with one exception. agrees that it is important for competent aircraft maintenance services to be available at Little River, and that the County needs to take action beyond its recent decision to close down Andy Becker's shop. The dissenting opinion is that the County's contract which permits Coast Flyers to hire a mechanic is an adequate response by the County to this need. There is still disagreement on whether the airport manager should be allowed to also be a mechanic, with a minority of the group feeling that this is unfair to other mechanics who may want to work on the field. Most of the pilots feel that all aircraft mechanics are not equal, that Andy is an unusually good mechanic, and that we would be foolish to drive him away. The airport neighbors do not want a large maintenance operation on the airport which would attract aircraft from far away, just for maintenance. They want to see a modest repair facility suitable for local pilots and occasional emergency repair of intinerant aircraft. In other words, they do not want to increase traffic at the airport. This means restricting the potential income of any maintenance shop. With respect to the airport manager's position, we have discussed several possible alternatives: a) - install a card-lock fuel system and shrink the airport manager's job to collecting tie-down fees and other part-time airport maintenance activities, then contract this to an FBO (Fixed Base Operator). More recent data suggests that the airport manager currently spends only about 10-20% of his time pumping gas, with the balance of his time being devoted to answering numerous phone calls (requests for weather, occasional noise complaints, requests for airport information, etc.), collecting parking and tie-down fees, answering questions from people who come to the airport office and doing minor airport maintenance. b) - keep the current duties but make the manager a county employee with better pay and benefits c) - keep the current duties and contract the job to an FBO. The possibility of combining the poorly paying airport manager's job with a limited maintenance shop offers a chance for two marginal jobs to be combined into one good job. If this is done, the FBO should be required to maintain insurance coverage to protect the County from liability with respect to the FBO's work. This is commonly done at other airports. The committee feels that options such as "b" which involve substantial new costs to the county are not likely to be adopted. If an FBO is involved, the committee members agree that the county should get a percentage of the FBO's income, as is currently the practice (Coast Flyers pays 2% of its gross.) HANGARS ------- There are several hangar-related issues: a) - the fate of the existing privately owned portable hangars, which have been in limbo for several years, since the County sent a letter to hangar owners telling them that hangars would be converted to County ownership in July 1999 by buying them at an unspecified depreciated value. With one dissenting opinion, the committee agreed that the County's letter to hangar owners should be withdrawn until a clear policy has been developed for how hangars would be bought from private owners (if they need to be). The hangar owners feel that a county purchase is unnecessary and would be costly to the county. If the hangars were bought over a 15 year period by forgiving hangar rent (a zero interest loan which hangar owners might not agree to), the figures would look roughly like this: costs to the county during the buyout period -------------------------------------------- lost tiedown fees - $720-$960 per year per hangar maintenance - many hangars are going to need new roofs soon at a cost of several thousand dollars each property taxes - when the county owns the hangars it will mose the property tax revenue on the land and hangar, about $280 per hangar per year Over a 15 year average buyout period, this is $12,600 lost fees (figuring an average of $70 per month) $4,000 estimated maintenance over 15 years $4,200 lost tax revenue ----------------------- $20,800 net negative cash flow per hangar x 14 hangars ------------- $291,200 cost to the county The committee agrees that if the County insists on buying private hangars, it should pay at least the assesed value used for property tax purposes. b) - how to make more hangars available The barriers to making more hangars available are: uncertainty over the status of privately owned hangars and the cost of developing the area allocated for more hangars in the Master Plan - this development involves bridging the ditch North of the runway in two places and building new taxiways, an estimated cost of $50,000. The neighbors of the airport are concerned that new hangars not become a magnet to attract more traffic to the airport. They would like to see the number of new hangars, if any, limited to those needed by local pilots. Our research suggests that currently this is about 12 additional hangars. We looked into a possible private-public partnership for building hangars. The costs and return on investment made this approach result in rental fees approaching $250 per month. This is very high for an airport with Little River's level of services and location, about twice what it should be, when comparing data from other airports. If hangars could be built with a long-term low interest government loan, the costs would fall more in line with market values. There is State (Caltrans) money available at 7%, which would lower the rental cost to about $200 per month. Alternatively, if the future of privately owned hangars is resolved favorably (for hangar owners), it is possible that a group of private would-be hangar owners could form to develop a block of hangars with private financing. One possibility would be for the county to outright sell hangar owners the land their hangars sit on. It looks as though the assessed value of the land a typical hangar sits on is about $2500. If we multiply this by about 14 existing privately owned hangars and add 12 new ones, this would raise 26 x $2500 = $65,000 which would pay for the taxiway and bridging. One committee member suggested a long term lease instead of outright purchase, to give the County better control. Terms ranging from 25 to 99 years were discussed. If the term was as short as 25 years, some renewability provision would be reassuring to hangar owners. County mandated maintenance standards were suggested as a means of keeping the area tidy. - how to better manage the hangar waiting list, the rental and sale of hangars Public Works has already taken one good step with the hangar waiting list by making it more publicly visible. The committee agrees that there should be published policies for how County hangars are handled and for how private hangars may be built and sold, so that all interested parties are playing on a level field with good information. We plan to propose such policies. - the recent increases in tiedown and hangar fees have sparked protests from airport users The airport users have been unhappy both about recent fee increases and the process by which they were increased. Many pilots attended a County meeting last year when they were told that fees would not be raised without consulting pilots, then a fee increase was made with no further public input. Transient pilots complain that the nightly tiedown fee is about twice the level of most comparable airports. The neighbors of the airport want fees to be high enough to balance costs at the airport and to avoid attracting more traffic. One pilot is of the opinion that a day use fee should be implemented to discourage transient pilots who do not remain overnight. Many other pilots are uncomfortable with this suggestion. NOISE ABATEMENT AND TRAFFIC --------------------------- Noise is one of the big issues for neighbors of the airport, surface traffic, on airport road and at the junction of Highway 1 and airport road, is another issue. The airport neighbors would like to see no further increase in either noise or surface traffic. This is one of the driving forces behind their efforts to limit airport improvements. The committee is investigating the amount of business transient aircraft bring to town. We are seeking input from business (store and B&B owners) on this point. There is particularly strong opposition to helicopter and jet aircraft traffic, due to the high impact these have. The concerns about highway traffic lead the airport neighbors to oppose non-aviation development of airport land. Pilots are concerned that the parcel size recommendation in the Airport Master Plan be followed to stop increases in residential density and more conflict with the airport. Added development also increases traffic on the highway. The committee has been working on a proposed noise abatement policy for the airport which might help. This is not yet in a final form 1. designate aerobatic areas (at least one inland and one at sea) One committee member is very strongly opposed to aerobatics over land or near shore. 2. require departing aircraft to reduce power as soon as feasable and to continue climbing to a minimum initial altitude of 2000 feet AGL. 3. Increase the Little River traffic pattern altitude from 800 feet AGL to 1000 feet AGL. 4. During approach and landing, used reduced power settings and as steep a descent as weather conditions and safety allow. 5. Restrict jet traffic to certain time periods. Several committee members feel that this is not going to be helpful. One member would like to ban all jets at all times. 6. Request all aircraft to maintain a minimum 2000 foot AGL clearance along the Albion-Little River-Mendocino area. The noise abatement committee agreed to work on specific proposals for aerobatic areas and to further research the question of restrictions on hours for jet operations. Trey pointed out that Ukiah has such a restriction. FUEL PRICING and AVAILABILITY: ----------------------------- There are several issues around fuel at Little River - the existing underground fuel tanks will probably have to be converted to above-ground to meet EPA regulations. This probably will have to be done in the next couple of years and will cost in excess of $150,000. - local pilots felt that fuel prices are too high. An investigation revealed that fuel prices are in line with comparable airports. - there has been a lot of interest in card-lock fuel, to provide fuel 24 hours a day and 7 days a week with less staff cost. The capital cost of setting up a card-lock system and the low volume of fuel sales at Little River are the barriers to this system. One committee member feels that fuel should not be available at night because wider availability might increase traffic at the airport. This member suggests that card-lock fuel should be disabled at night, if it is installed. Most of the remaining committee members feel that making fuel available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week would improve safety and have minimal noise impact. - there was discussion of making turbine fuel available. This probably would be a moneymaker, but it would attract exactly the sort of traffic not desired by airport nbeighbors: helicopters and jets. WEATHER STATION (AWOS or ASOS) ------------------------------ There is unanimous agreement on the committee that we should have an automated weather station at Little River Airport. It appears that there is no FAA funding available for an AWOS at this time (though more research might turn up grant possibilities). The Califormia Dept of Aeronautics said that they have no specific funding for AWOSs, though the County could choose to use its block grant funds for this purpose. We are trying to find the right person at the National Weather Service to find funding for an ASOS (this is their version of AWOS) from them. The AWOS-A (altimeter only) is no longer manufactured. We might be able to get a used one for about $7500. The AWOS-1 (altimeter, wind, temperature and dewpoint) costs about $15000. The AWOS-3 (adds ceiling and visibility) costs from $50,000-$100,000. The ASOS is the newest type of automated weather station. We don't have a cost figure for it. An ASOS is better than an AWOS-3 because it looks at cloud cover over a larger area, the AWOS only looks straight up. Most new installations are ASOS. Maintenance is an issue. If NOAA, the State or FAA puts in a weather station, they will maintain it at no cost to the County. If we have to buy one on our own, then we have to pay for maintenance. Depending on the station, this can run from $3000 to $8000 per year, I'm told. An alternative is to have someone local go through a training course to do the maintenance (Tim is willing to do this maintenance for free if the training fee is paid for), reducing our costs to just parts. The training costs about $3000. At least one committee member feels that the County should not spend money on an AWOS or ASOS, we should hold out for State or Federal funding. INSTRUMENT APPROACH ------------------- Airport users at Little River have wanted an instrument approach for many years. Recent advances in GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) technology now make this technologically practical. It is no longer necessary to have expensive ground support equipment for an approach, and suitable receivers for general aviation use are becoming affordable and commonly available. The FAA is willing to develop and maintain a GPS approach for Little River at its expense (funded by aviation fuel taxes). They do need a formal request from the county, some answers to technical questions and a statement of no environmental impact. We also would need to cut some trees that have grown into the approach zone. It may be necessary to get some surveying done to update NOAA's obstruction chart which identifies tree locations and heights near the approach area. The type of GPS approach which is now available is a non-precision approach. In the future, precision GPS approaches will become available. It would be good to proceed with the land swaps recommended in the Airport Master Plan to secure the clear zone at the apporach end of runway 29 for a possible future precision GPS approach (which would be most helpful considering our coastal fog). Although the instrument approach issue has not yet been fully discussed by the committee, it is clear that the airport's neighbors are very concerned about the possible impact of an instrument approach. Some people fear that an instrument approach would make it easier for off-shore oil to move in. Some are concerned that an approach would increase traffic or increase the liklihood of an accident. Neighbors of the airport were once told that they would have to trim some trees on their property at their own expense if an instrument approach were approved. They are strongly opposed to trimming trees on their private property and still more strongly opposed to having to pay for it. We are investigating this further - initial data suggests that only trees near the approach end of runway 29, on airport land, would have to be trimmed. In past years, when various other instrument approaches were considered for Little River, the analysis done by various airport managers and the FAA suggested that the increase in traffic, if any, would be about 5%. The flight path used during an official instrument approach would have lower noise impact than that used by either normal VFR approaches (straight-in vs a standard traffix pattern with downwind and base legs) or the home-made approaches now used by pilots when the status cloud layer is low (typically done by flying up Albion River canyon on a right base for runway 29 or from the ocean over the Little River Inn to runway 11). Safety of operations at Little River would be enhanced by establishing an instrument approach. Currently, controlled airspace begins at 5000 feet, allowing instrument rated pilots to fly without a clearance up to that altitude. Once an approach is established, this floor whould be lowered to 700 or 1200 feet AGL, requiring operations to be done with a clearance. More AAC discussion and community discussion will be needed on this issue before the concerns of the airport's neighbors can be fully heard and hopefully answered satisfactorily. By the way, if off-shore oil did decide to try to use Little River (unlikely due to poor highway access, public ownership and frequent low fog, compared to the lumber company strip in Fort Bragg which is privately owned and nearly at sea level and hence usually below the fog), the oil companies could easily establish a privately owned instrument approach. One committee member expressed the strong opinion that an instrument approach should be developed only if it can be done at no expense to the County. MOVIE COMPANY AIRPORT USE: ------------------------- At one time Little River was able to allow large jets to land (by appointment). Movie companies used this capability. We had a subcommittee look into whether this certification should be renewed and whether movie company use of the airport should be encouraged. It looks as though the large jet certification is not really necessary for movie companies - they can and have used smaller aircraft. The question of whether we should encourage movies companies to use the airport and to make movies on the coast is more contraversial and needs public airing. Some people really like having movies made on the coast and some even make money from the activity. Other folks are opposed due to the noise and traffic. AIRLINE USE ----------- There seems to be general agreement on the committee that it would be nice if airline service to Little River were resumed. The convenience to the community outweighs the noise and traffic. The barriers to this in the past were: lack of instrument approach and possibly lack of enough regular passengers. One factor in low airline ridership in the past was the large number of stops the flight from Little River made - something like 5 stops on the way from Little River to the Bay Area. AIRPORT COSTS AND BENEFITS -------------------------- A subcommittee worked to compile a list of the costs and benefits of the airport. With one exception, the pilots feel that the County's accounting technique of separating capital and regular income and expenses, and then reporting only the regular section of the budget, is misleading. Since the $10,000 annual state block grant goes into the capital budget and the $5000 County matching funds are "transferred" from the regular budget to the expense budget, quite a bit of airport funding is "hidden" by this accounting practice. Nevertheless, the committee agreed that we are unlikely to be able to get the County to change its accounting methods, and hence we agreed to accept the County's FY 93-94 statement of a $18,267 deficit for the airport. This figure includes operating expenses for various county departments which allocate costs to the airport. The committee also agreed that the airport has operated at a deficit for some years, using this accounting technique. As reported under fuel, the airport is facing a major capital outlay for the removal of underground fuel tanks in the near future. The committee was unable to identify any recent Federal subsidy for the airport. Substantial Federal fuel taxes are collected from pilots. It is possible for Federal grants to be sought for capital improvements on the airport. In past years, the County has declined some Federal offers of assistance (e.g., an AWOS and an instrument approach). Most of the pilots wanted various indirect income and benefits to the County to be considered when listing the benefits of the airport to the community. One pilot felt strongly that if these "soft" benefits are considered, various "soft" costs must also be considered. The soft benefits include - a substantial but undetermined amount of income brought into the County by businesses which depend on the use of airplanes in their businesses. A good number of jobs depends on the airport either directly or indirectly (a wild estimate is about 20 jobs). - aircraft and hangar owners pay property taxes on their aircraft, hangars and on the possesory interest they lease in public land. This amounts to at least $3335 in annual taxes. - the airport is of potential value in the event of emergencies such as earthquake which block ground transportation - the committee is investigating the value of medical air evacuation flights, but has not yet been able to determine the number of these. - the committee is researching how much economic benefit the airport brings to the merchants, innkeepers and other businesses of the community. - one committee member believes that "the principal value of a large airport such as Little River to most communities is airline service." There is no indication that airline service will be resumed in the near future. The soft costs include: - the noise and surface (highway) traffic impact on the neighbors of the airport, the precise value of which cannot be determined. - the airport occupys 548 acres of public land, which one committee member values at $10,000,000. Some committee members dispute this valuation, pointing out that the land is almost entirely pygmy. The neighbors of the airport oppose non-aviation use of airport lands, on a grounds that such use would increase highway traffic. - more indirect costs not currently billed to the airport, such as police and fire protection, highway maintenance, etc. - the airport has some potential to serve as a base for off-shore oil operations. There is disagreement in the committee regarding the relative likelihood of Little River being used vs Sonoma County or Ft. Bragg airports. There is agreement by the committee that use of the airport for oil development would be undesirable and should be discouraged by any legal means. FORMATION OF AAC ---------------- The pilots at Little River have generally been in agreement that an officially recognized Airport Advisory Committee should be formed, including airport users and airport neighbors. Such a committee should meet regularly (monthly) and provide advice to the Board and to Public Works on aviation related issues. Both airport users and neighbors would like to be sure that their concerns are considered when the County makes decisions regarding the airport. One member of the Ad Hoc committee states that the current committee lacks the maturity and integrity to be afforded any official status. Several committee members disagree with this opinion and would like to see the Ad Hoc Committee be a starting point for an eventual officially recognized committee. GOVERNANCE ---------- We have formed a subcommittee to consider the airport's governance. We want to investigate alternatives to the current scheme, including an airport services district.