Wealthy Developer Trying to Close Cloverdale Airport (O69) - Northern California

[fiveoboy01]

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4887956-181/cloverdale-city-council-votes-to?artslide=1

Boo.

 

[Badger]

bad news.

Anyone know the FAA's tendency when faced with requests to close an airport like this?

 

[wsuffa]

So the city is running a $60K/year deficit on the airport, and a developer wants to close it to build a resort that will attract a wider base of tourists to town that will spend money. The town gets an increased tax base, increased economic activity, and saves money that they'd have to spend on the airport.

Developer pays all costs of closure and litigation. City gets a new park. Oh, and the airport isn't even the property to be developed.

From a strict financial standpoint, closing it is the right thing to do. That's assuming the resort actually gets built and generates the expected economic activity.

But the city fathers have to respond to the voters - if the voters are OK spending money on the airport each year, then so be it.

I don't know the lay of the land, but if there's a way to institute mandatory noise abatement that would give the resort the quiet it seeks, then I don't understand why that isn't considered. If not, the city fathers need to make the best decision for the long-term interest of the city. Developer only cares about money, city has more to consider. But given the facts I have seen, responsible financial management would tend toward closing the airport.

Do I want to see it go? No, not at all. I'd love for it to stay open, but the reality is that it's hard to justify something that's losing money.

 

[Bob Noel]

Actually, it's not really SF Bay Area proper. There's a lot of open space up there. For example, the nearest Taco Bell to Cloverdale is 35 miles away.

wouldn't that make the land even more attractive?

 

[Palmpilot]

Does anyone know when the next city council election is?

 

[ChemGuy]

If you look at the area with satellite pics (google earth, etc) there is a bunch of open farm land in the valley along the river. I assume they don't want to move their resort a little farther away from town to avoid the airport. SO if they want it that bad they can buy a small strip of land down the valley a mile or 2 and put in a runway.

That's the only way they will be able to close the airport in a timely manner as they will have a very long and uphill fight with the FAA, AOPA, etc on this.

Seems really stupid from a business perspective to plan on waiting several years and pay god knows how much in legal fees. But hey its their money.

 

[Dav8or]

So why doesn't the developer keep the airport and improve it as part of the resort project? Wealthy folks from LA, Portland, Seattle, etc. would probably love to fly in in their own jets.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Seems really stupid from a business perspective to plan on waiting several years and pay god knows how much in legal fees. But hey its their money.

I thought it was the taxpayers' money.

Does anyone know when the federal grant assurances expire, if any?

 

[Sam D]

So the city is running a $60K/year deficit on the airport, and a developer wants to close it to build a resort that will attract a wider base of tourists to town that will spend money. The town gets an increased tax base, increased economic activity, and saves money that they'd have to spend on the airport.

Developer pays all costs of closure and litigation. City gets a new park. Oh, and the airport isn't even the property to be developed.

From a strict financial standpoint, closing it is the right thing to do. That's assuming the resort actually gets built and generates the expected economic activity.

But the city fathers have to respond to the voters - if the voters are OK spending money on the airport each year, then so be it.

I don't know the lay of the land, but if there's a way to institute mandatory noise abatement that would give the resort the quiet it seeks, then I don't understand why that isn't considered. If not, the city fathers need to make the best decision for the long-term interest of the city. Developer only cares about money, city has more to consider. But given the facts I have seen, responsible financial management would tend toward closing the airport.

Do I want to see it go? No, not at all. I'd love for it to stay open, but the reality is that it's hard to justify something that's losing money.

These are good, objective points. A few thoughts:

1. I question the $60k loss figure. The same articles that city that figure also cite $40k for dealing with noise complaints. Hard to say how the airport is being run.

2. "Assuming the resort gets built and generates the economic activity" -- I think there is a high probability that it does not. If you look at the developer's background, he's a real estate developer. Running a successful hospitality arrangement is a VERY different kettle of fish. And experience in one area does not translate into competence in the other.

3. In the end, if the airport is not viable, I can't fault the city for wanting to close it. They don't have much of a budget to play with. But there are probably other things they could do first to fix the situation. What does rankle me a bit is what is portrayed as an ultimatum from the developer -- take these permanent actions now and trust us that these great benefits will come.

 

[Sam D]

I thought it was the taxpayers' money.

Does anyone know when the federal grant assurances expire, if any?

I believe its 20 years from the last grant (which was last year according to post #11). There may be a way for the funds to be repaid (this is where the developer would come in) but I believe the FAA would have to agree to it.

 

[timwinters]

That's the only way they will be able to close the airport in a timely manner as they will have a very long and uphill fight with the FAA, AOPA, etc on this.

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any mention of AOPA attending last night's meeting in the news article. If they didn't attend, then they're already late to the party and behind the 8-ball.

Right where they tend to stay. A pretty worthless organization.

Did anyone here attend? Was AOPA there?

 

[bflynn]

Either the councilmen have something to gain, or they have delusions of grandeur that they'll elevate their little town to some ritzy resort by having a few overpriced condos slapped together.

Saw the same thing happen with Sky Park in Scotts Valley, CA in the early 80s. They closed the airport that predated 95% of the town's residents and put in cookie-cutter homes three feet from each other. Some councilmen made money, but 30-some years later it's still a town that heralds K-mart as its premiere shopping destination.

Exactly. What kind of rich people want to go to a ritzy resort which doesn't have an airport?

 

[SCCutler]

As another consideration, the city fathers (so to speak, there are city mothers too) should require not just that the developer promise to cover fees, but commit the money associated with the closing, the "battles," and the development in a solid and irrevocable way - letters of credit, something like that.

I have seen (on more than one occasion) such commitments to governmental owners breached, and the promising entity (as a body corporate) simply goes out of business and the governmental entity is out its asset - and worse off than before.

Point of fact, I could take you to a property at which a government entity closed and demolished a thriving public facility based upon a development group's promises of large-scale development. Developer failed, public facility is scraped and gone, and several theretofore-thriving local businesses, dependent upon the traffic the public facility used to generate, have failed for lack of business. Big win.

 

[Palmpilot]

So the city is running a $60K/year deficit on the airport, and a developer wants to close it to build a resort that will attract a wider base of tourists to town that will spend money. The town gets an increased tax base, increased economic activity, and saves money that they'd have to spend on the airport.

I wonder what the annual expenses of the park will be.

 

[Everskyward]

These are good, objective points. A few thoughts:

1. I question the $60k loss figure. The same articles that city that figure also cite $40k for dealing with noise complaints. Hard to say how the airport is being run.

I don't question this part. How does the airport generate income? There's the lease to the skydivers and some fuel sales if the airport runs the FBO. If it doesn't, then there's the lease to the FBO. I'm not sure how airports in small towns are able to break even without public funds. It would be interesting to hear from a manager of a small airport. The airport has some value to the community and the transportation infrastructure which is the reason for public funding in the first place, but it's hard to see how it can be economically self-supporting.

The airport would need to undergo a large upgrade if it wants to market to jets. The runway is currently 3100' with a 500' displaced threshold at one end. Not sure if it could be lengthened, given its location.

 

[Sam D]

I don't question this part. How does the airport generate income? There's the lease to the skydivers and some fuel sales if the airport runs the FBO. If it doesn't, then there's the lease to the FBO. I'm not sure how airports in small towns are able to break even without public funds. It would be interesting to hear from a manager of a small airport. The airport has some value to the community and the transportation infrastructure which is the reason for public funding in the first place, but it's hard to see how it can be economically self-supporting.

The airport would need to undergo a large upgrade if it wants to market to jets. The runway is currently 3100' with a 500' displaced threshold at one end. Not sure if it could be lengthened, given its location.

You could be right, but here's why I think there is opportunity to operate it better:
-- the city manager is the acting airport manager. while this probably saves some salary (unless there's some large cross charge to the airport for his time), its a side job. The airport sub-committee is made up of him, city attorney, couple of council people.
-- contrast that with Petaluma to the south where there is an airport manager and a 7 person airport commission (volunteer). Between this, you've got a lot of eyes on the operations. And as a result, the airport is comfortably in the black. Granted there are more hangars and Jet A sales, but I still believe that there is probably opportunity at Cloverdale.
-- For example, according to FF, 100LL is $4.72 in Cloverdale and $3.85 in Petaluma. Nearby Cloverdale, its $4.45 to the north (Ukiah) and $4.25 to the south (Healdsburg). I'm betting they are not selling a lot of fuel.
-- in addition to the skydive operation, there is a Zodiac (might have the make wrong) distributor on the airport. They would also have some income from the hangars and tie downs.
-- to your last comments, even if the runway were lengthened, you probably couldn't fly a jet pattern in that valley

P.S. Let me know next time you fly into APC. I'll fly you up to Cloverdale and we can check it out!

 

[MAKG1]

Petaluma also has a good restaurant, and Ukiah is in town.

Cloverdale doesn't have anything to do but buy expensive fuel.

 

[wsuffa]

These are good, objective points. A few thoughts:

1. I question the $60k loss figure. The same articles that city that figure also cite $40k for dealing with noise complaints. Hard to say how the airport is being run.

We don't know. But if the figure of 27 based aircraft is right, and fuel prices are high, I can't see that it's making a lot of money.

2. "Assuming the resort gets built and generates the economic activity" -- I think there is a high probability that it does not. If you look at the developer's background, he's a real estate developer. Running a successful hospitality arrangement is a VERY different kettle of fish. And experience in one area does not translate into competence in the other.

In virtually all cases, the developer sells the resort to someone else or contracts with a hotel management company to run it. Marriott, Starwood, Hilton, etc. have very few hotels that they own (or operate)... they provide the branding and franchise.

Any developer that's been around knows this.

As Spike notes, the question is whether they actually follow-through with the project and promises. If we get another market crash or downturn, it might prove uneconomic to build. Given that they're willing to pay costs, they must see a very viable project.

3. In the end, if the airport is not viable, I can't fault the city for wanting to close it. They don't have much of a budget to play with. But there are probably other things they could do first to fix the situation. What does rankle me a bit is what is portrayed as an ultimatum from the developer -- take these permanent actions now and trust us that these great benefits will come.

Done a lot more than you may think. This sort of justification is done all the time. Heck, in some municipalities, they'll use condemnation to get land for developers.

I wonder what the annual expenses of the park will be.

Don't know. Depends on the park, what proffers the developer puts up, and whether they charge for some of the facilities. Potential ranges from "free to citizens" to "user charge per use". Given that it's slated as a sports park, I would think that there may be some use charge contemplated. Might even be some state money.

 

[Palmpilot]

A poster on a local bulletin board provided this information:

"They accepted a grant earlier this year for $246,335 so they can't close the airport before 2035."

https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/lookup/

 

[Sam D]

In virtually all cases, the developer sells the resort to someone else or contracts with a hotel management company to run it. Marriott, Starwood, Hilton, etc. have very few hotels that they own (or operate)... they provide the branding and franchise.

Any developer that's been around knows this.

As do I -- I happen to be in both businesses. However, if you read the background information, it appears that this developer is building the resort for he and his wife to run as a pet project.

 

[jchang10]

One thing that has bothered me is that CA seems to have lost the importance of having a network of airfields. Each airfield works to support the others. Thus, each time you lose one, it weakens the entire system. The survival of a single airport helps strengthen the entire system, and so it goes.

This is why I love Oregon and Washington state. IMHO, those states get it. Look at the coastlines of WA and OR. There is an airfield every 30 miles. They have *public* airfields on dirt, grass, in the middle of crazy valleys, on the top or ridges in the middle of nowhere, and even on the beach itself (http://airnav.com/airport/S16). How cool is that! Why does OR and WA get it but not in CA?

It is a vital network for emergency services, refueling, or any of a number of reasons that work together. The synergy effect - the sum total is greater than its individual parts. Step back and look at it from the bigger picture.

Yes, clearly, if you analyze it by the books and budget, it doesnt make sense. Since when did anybody ever look at their flying budget and said to themselves, "Yep makes good sense." So why do it then?

We do it to keep the network healthy. Ideally, the feds or the state should do the advocacy. Unfortunatley, it doesnt seem like CA is doing its job. If the state wont do it, then it is up to the local advocacy. I am active at my own airfield. Similarly, there are those active at Cloverdale and at every airport.

I love knowing that people can come fly to Half Moon Bay with their families and kids, loved ones, dates, or guests, fairly easily walk to some of the best restaurants around and have a great time. I know our group works hard to keep the system alive for all of you fellow aviators. The local businesses get it, local residents get it, county gets it, etc. Win win. Only the short-sighted profit seeking developers lose.

You betcha the developers would love to get their hands on a piece of CA coastline gold, but if they did, we would all lose a piece of what we love living here. The neighbors know they would rather have the airport here preserving the coastlines, incredible hikes, natural vistas, and all instead of having yet another strip mall, condo, or probably a parking lot.

For example, someone from our group represents pilots at NOAA meetings where they discuss the safety of "birds." You know that dotted line keeping you 1,000 to 2,000 feet AGL on the coast else you are subject to fines. Believe me, there are a metric ton more bird loving people than our poor airplanes. Without our aviation advocate, there would be no airports on the coast. That would be a sad day indeed.

Ok, this turned out to be a lengthy rant, but anyway, i hope some of it made sense.

 

[wsuffa]

As do I -- I happen to be in both businesses. However, if you read the background information, it appears that this developer is building the resort for he and his wife to run as a pet project.

I didn't get that far. That's troublesome, but not unheard of. The one who recently did that with the Salamander resort in the hunt country of Virginia is not finding it as easy as expected.

 

[flyingron]

If that's valid, then the city will have to pay it back before they can close the airport. I wonder if the developer is willing to cough up that much to cover the city's loss. As a tax payer, I would not want my city managers spending my money that way.

Unless you've got a lot of political clout, just paying it back is NOT an option. Unless you can buy some high up people, your obligation is to keep the airport open. There's no provision to just buy your way out of the obligation.

 

[mr_happyland]

Bummed to hear this. I happened to have stopped off there (driving) on my way back from Mendocino a few months ago. Nice little town. I would think the developer would view that airport as an asset for his resort.

 

[Everskyward]

You could be right, but here's why I think there is opportunity to operate it better:
-- the city manager is the acting airport manager. while this probably saves some salary (unless there's some large cross charge to the airport for his time), its a side job. The airport sub-committee is made up of him, city attorney, couple of council people.
-- contrast that with Petaluma to the south where there is an airport manager and a 7 person airport commission (volunteer). Between this, you've got a lot of eyes on the operations. And as a result, the airport is comfortably in the black. Granted there are more hangars and Jet A sales, but I still believe that there is probably opportunity at Cloverdale.
-- For example, according to FF, 100LL is $4.72 in Cloverdale and $3.85 in Petaluma. Nearby Cloverdale, its $4.45 to the north (Ukiah) and $4.25 to the south (Healdsburg). I'm betting they are not selling a lot of fuel.
-- in addition to the skydive operation, there is a Zodiac (might have the make wrong) distributor on the airport. They would also have some income from the hangars and tie downs.
-- to your last comments, even if the runway were lengthened, you probably couldn't fly a jet pattern in that valley

P.S. Let me know next time you fly into APC. I'll fly you up to Cloverdale and we can check it out!

I don't know if you can equate Cloverdale with Petaluma. I've been to Petaluma a couple times (with Kim) and it struck me as being quite active. Petaluma, the town, also seems pretty built-up and suburban while Cloverdale seems more sleepy.

It would be fun to see Cloverdale. We occasionally fly into Napa and Santa Rosa but are rarely there for any length of time. I get to the Bay Area every few months for personal reasons, though.

 

[Dav8or]

-- to your last comments, even if the runway were lengthened, you probably couldn't fly a jet pattern in that valley.

True. There is no room for jet sized VFR patterns. The only way I could see is a straight in approach.

 

[Silvaire]

A poster on a local bulletin board provided this information:

"They accepted a grant earlier this year for $246,335 so they can't close the airport before 2035."

https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_histories/lookup/

I believe this is the gist of it. They have tried to close Buchanan Field at Concord at least four times over the past 20 years and it's never happened for this exact same reason. They even offered to build a new airport out by the dump but the FAA wouldn't go for it.

 

[NordicDave]

Santa Clara Country tried a few times to close KRHV Reid Hill View in an unincorporated area of San Jose.

KRHV was originally surrounded by farm land. Eventually the country built Eastridge mall under the approach, to later claimed the airport represented a danger to shoppers. The county saw the airport property as an opportunity to double the size of the mall and Sales taxes. The number of life line flights, CAP, and survey & rescue services that occur and the vitality of support it provided during the brutal Loma Prieta earthquake were quickly discounted.

In the end, the FAA saved the day and shutdown the county's ambitions.

 

[Dav8or]

I believe this is the gist of it. They have tried to close Buchanan Field at Concord at least four times over the past 20 years and it's never happened for this exact same reason. They even offered to build a new airport out by the dump but the FAA wouldn't go for it.

They would still be trying to close it, but we got lucky and the Navy gave Concord a bunch of undeveloped land and so the developers now can go to work on easier prospects instead of fighting over an airport. At least that's my understanding of it.

 

[Dav8or]

Santa Clara Country tried a few times to close KRHV Reid Hill View in an unincorporated area of San Jose.

KRHV was originally surrounded by farm land. Eventually the country built Eastridge mall under the approach, to later claimed the airport represented a danger to shoppers. The county saw the airport property as an opportunity to double the size of the mall and Sales taxes. The number of life line flights, CAP, and survey & rescue services that occur and the vitality of support it provided during the brutal Loma Prieta earthquake were quickly discounted.

In the end, the FAA saved the day and shutdown the county's ambitions.

Isn't the case out there that the county is now trying to starve the airport to death? My understanding is that the county is still doing whatever it can to close the airport and likely just doing a waiting game with the FAA. I haven't flown in there in years. Is it crumbling as bad as I had heard awhile back?

 

[SCCutler]

Let's be honest here; the developer of the project may be sincere in wanting to create a resort which benefits the community; but the only reason (or at least, the principal reason) that they would like to use airport property to do it is that it represents a means of acquiring the property, through force of law, for far less money than it would take to purchase the property in the open market (and, no risk or minimal risk). It is not as if there is nowhere else at which it could be built.

This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it limited to airports. It just happens that, when trying to get airports closed and converted to a different use, the pool of stakeholders (aviation businesses and airport users) is usually smaller (at least in public perception) than for many other public spaces.

Look at AT&T Stadium, in Arlington, Texas; a very large majority of the property used for this development was acquired by the city of Arlington, Texas, through eminent domain proceedings. It is a "public" improvement, in that the land is owned by the city; but, its use and administration is completely and absolutely controlled by, and for the sole benefit of, the Dallas Cowboys organization and its ownership.

Could the property have been acquired through private means? Of course, but for a price much higher, one that would not make economic sense to an owner/developer, especially if the developer can play various municipalities against each other in a race for the greatest quantity of public gift.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Is [RHV] crumbling as bad as I had heard awhile back?

Not that I've noticed.

 

[Silvaire]

They would still be trying to close it, but we got lucky and the Navy gave Concord a bunch of undeveloped land and so the developers now can go to work on easier prospects instead of fighting over an airport. At least that's my understanding of it.

You don't see any development on the Concord NWS land because it is covered with old RR tracks and weapons bunkers. Also, much like the old Alameda NAS it's highly contaminated from 60+ years of military use. The entire airfield at Alameda has been completely fenced off since the Navy left and is deemed unusable.

 

[arnoha]

Not that I've noticed.

Agreed. I'm based there. It's not in fantastic shape, but it's a long way from crumbling. The airport is very, very active. Two CAP squadrons, four flight schools, multiple sellers of fuel, multiple service shops, and an FAA tower.

The other piece that will likely keep it around is that KSJC is very unfriendly to piston GA. Fuel prices are insane, the small runway is long-since closed, and there are no inexpensive FBOs. KPAO has absolutely no capacity available to absorb all of KRHV.

About the only way closing KRHV would not be a disaster is if KNUQ fell into civilian hands, but that is highly unlikely in the short or medium term.

 

[Shawn]

About the only way closing KRHV would not be a disaster is if KNUQ fell into civilian hands, but that is highly unlikely in the short or medium term.

Unlikely since Google has taken it completely over.

 

[MAKG1]

Unlikely since Google has taken it completely over.

Unlikely since Sunnyvale exists. The locals would have thrown out the Navy in the 70s if they could.

There have been a number of proposed reuses for Moffett over the years, including a fourth international airport. All of them have lacked even the slightest sense of reality, mainly that access to the site is poor. A GA airport is probably the least stupid, but no one is going to get past the value of all that land.

 

[NordicDave]

Agree with the comments & observations regarding KRHV - the county is providing minimum life support. The terminal is a near disaster, and they FINALLY painted it last summer. San Jose police use the terminal as a substation for bio breaks, paperwork, breaks. This compelled local govt to provide some basic maintenance. The grounds are weeds and the place would benefit from some small measure of extra care. Parts of the property are a weed over grown little league field, dirt lot for seasonal selling of pumpkins and Christmas trees, and dealers store excess auto inventories there as well.

The twin runways are great, especially for flight training. Personally, I find the tower staff very polite and professional, and accommodating. It's common for 31R to handle arrivals and departures and 31L with closed traffic patterns for students refining take-offs and landings. It's where I was able to master slow flight and effective landings. I still hear my CFI saying "pitch for speed, throttle for altitude".

 

[Shawn]

Unlikely since Sunnyvale exists. The locals would have thrown out the Navy in the 70s if they could.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27823009/google-takes-over-aging-moffett-field-and-its

"Google on Wednesday formally takes over the 1,000-acre site with plans to re purpose its three airship hangars as laboratories for developing robots, rovers, drones, Internet-carrying balloons and other cutting-edge technology. The company will also manage the airfield's two runways and upgrade an old military golf course for public use."

"Google has declined to discuss its plans for the airfield ahead of Wednesday's takeover, but the $1.16 billion, 60-year lease deal it signed with NASA last year has been welcomed as a lifesaver for the decaying property"

 

[Dav8or]

Agree with the comments & observations regarding KRHV - the county is providing minimum life support.

I'm guessing that this means they will never again accept Federal funds and they are just waiting for the clock to run down?

 

[Dav8or]

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27823009/google-takes-over-aging-moffett-field-and-its

"Google on Wednesday formally takes over the 1,000-acre site with plans to re purpose its three airship hangars as laboratories for developing robots, rovers, drones, Internet-carrying balloons and other cutting-edge technology. The company will also manage the airfield's two runways and upgrade an old military golf course for public use."

"Google has declined to discuss its plans for the airfield ahead of Wednesday's takeover, but the $1.16 billion, 60-year lease deal it signed with NASA last year has been welcomed as a lifesaver for the decaying property"

That's great news for those hangars! I'm curious though, is NASA still going to work there? They weren't mentioned in the article. The wind tunnels they have there are amazing!! I got to work in there once and they are seriously impressive. Their biggest tunnel is big enough to put a 737 in there and it is capable of moving air fast enough to fly it!! That's never been down though.

It would be awesome if Google were to open up the airfield to GA and build some hangars to rent, but I seriously doubt Google has any interest what so ever in that idea. I imagine they like their private strip for their jets all to themselves.