STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Other Sections
One (8/22/89 thru 4/19/94) -
Two (6/10/96 only) -
Three (thru 9/19/96)
Four (thru 9/18/97) -
Five (thru 8/10/98) -
Six (thru 10/26/98)
Seven (thru 4/14/99) -
Eight (thru 6/24/99) -
Nine (thru 9/8/99)
Ten (second complaint) -
Eleven (thru 12/27/99) -
Twelve (thru 7/25/00)
Thirteen (thru 10/9/00) -
Fourteen (thru 9/11/01) -
Fifteen (thru 10/1/02)
Sixteen (thru 1/19/03) -
Seventeen (thru 1/19/03)
[This is the exact document which was sent to the County.]
The Georgetown Airport is a vital part of the Georgetown Divide community. The Cimmarustis have shown themselves to be the key ingredient to a healthy airport. Consequently, their ability to conduct their business at the airport is a concern of the entire community. Therefore we, "The Friends of the Georgetown Airport", are continuing to examine matters concerning the health and well-being of the Cimmarustis. The Cimmarustis' contract with the County is a concern of ours.
We understand that there was a meeting on January 15, 2003, in which the key terms of the proposed lease between El Dorado County and the Cimmarustis were discussed. Present were Charlie Paine, Craven Alcott, Louis Green, Joe Harn, Sandy Green, Michael Gray, Sherril Jodar, and the Cimmarustis (Steve and Trish). The document titled KEY TERMS OF PROPOSED FBO AIRPORT LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO AND STEPHEN G. CIMMARUSTI was presented by the County.
In our scheduled meeting of January 19, 2003, we have examined and reviewed the terms proposed in the aforementioned document and have the following comments.
First, we believe that County General Services should carefully review the Board of Supervisors policy with regard to the Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities for El Dorado County Airports, particularly paragraph III.F. which includes by reference 49 CFR Part 21, concerning exclusive rights. Through compliance with the foregoing,the county can avoid violating its federal obligations regarding exclusive rights as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 40103(e), 47107(a)(4), and in its grant agreements as occurred at Placerville Airport before the Minimum Standards were adopted.
In regard to paragraph 3 concerning the time period of 10 days after the
approval by the Board of Supervisors we have the following comment.
The period of 10 days is acceptable as stated, provided that we have
had a copy of the final lease agreement in advance and have been given
sufficient time to review it and comment upon it - and that the
document we review is exactly the same document that
is submitted for approval by the Board of Supervisors.
In regard to paragraph 3d concerning monthly rent, we believe that this paragraph should not be included in the lease agreement because we do not understand it.
In regard to paragraph 5c, it should be modified to state that painting is
permitted outside when performed in compliance with applicable local,
county, state, and federal laws. The following reasons apply.
1. Painting is a necessary part of the Cimmarustis' business.
2. Painting by the Cimmarustis has always been done in compliance with
local, county, state, and federal laws.
3. County approval would require delays and arbitrary obstruction
of the work.
5. According to paragraph III.F. of the Minimum Standards, all FBOs in the
County must conform to the same set of rules.
Again in regard to paragraph 5c, the statement that no other types of
business are to be conducted is unacceptable and should not be included
in the final agreement for the following reasons.
1. Due to low population density, business on the Divide may not be
sufficient for continued long-term survival when only the
stated types of business are allowed.
2. There is no legal requirement that an FBO have only one type of
business.
3. According paragraph III.D. of the Minimum Standards, regarding
non-aeronautical activities, other types of business are allowed.
According to paragraph III.F. of the Minimum Standards all FBOs in the
County must conform to the same set of rules.
In regard to paragraph 5d, we believe the wording to be ambiguous. What do they mean?
In regard to paragraph 5e, the fuel pumping and any simple emergency
repairs should be the responsibility of the on-site FBO. The County should
be responsible for the fuel being present, the inventorying of the fuel,
major repairs, and the maintenance of the fuel facilities. The FBO should
be paid a percentage for gallons pumped and the remainder of the profit on
fuel should go to the County. This is true for the following reasons.
1. Automated fuel systems can and do fail. Pilots come in and may need fuel
immediately. The cost of keeping a County employee on site just to wait
for a pilot to ask for fuel or to handle on-the-spot repairs is not in
accord with good economy.
2. The County is the owner of the fuel facility and the one who keeps the
records on fuel sales and major maintenance. Therefore, the County should be
keeping the profits over and above what is given to the one pumping the
fuel, and be reponsible for the inventory, major repairs, and maintenance
of its fuel facilities.
In regard to paragraph 6a, the mail does not always arrive in time and sometimes it does not arrive at all. There may be instances when mail is inadvertently routed so as to use excessive time before it is logged in. To avoid such problems, paragraph 6a. should be modified to include the correct and complete County address to which the rent is to be sent, and to say "A late charge of 6% ($42) shall be due if payment sent to this address is not postmarked by the 10th day of the month."
In regard to paragraph 6b, should the County insist upon such a paragraph remaining, to avoid the same problems mentioned above, the paragraph should be modified to include the correct and complete County address to which the rent is to be sent, and the words in paratheses "receipt after the 10th of the month" should be replaced with the words "postmarked after the 10th day of the month"
In regard to paragraph 7, any deposit should be taken from the amount the County owes the Cimmarustis, and a receipt for same should be given to the Cimmarustis.
In regard to paragraph 8 in its entirety including its subparagraphs,
we have the following to say.
1. The Minimum Standards specify the insurance requirements for FBOs.
Risk Management is not legally allowed to dictate requirements over and
above those specified. Should the Minimum Standards be changed, the new
standards must be applied to all FBOs at both airports regardless of
whether the leases be new ones or old ones.
2. The lease agreement is a contract. The insurance requirements should
reflect what is in the Minimum Standards.
3. For the following reasons, there should be no prepayment of the
insurance.
a. Such prepayment is exorbitant and unwarranted.
b. Such prepayment does not guarantee continued insurance coverage.
c. According to the public record, there has never been a lapse in
insurance coverage or a failure to provide required documentation.
Apparent failures have been due to County administration errors and
Risk Management requiring insurance which was not available.
4. According to paragraph III.F. of the Minimum Standards, all FBOs in the
County must conform to the same set of rules.
In regard to paragraph 9, the use of the Unicom should be considered and the paragraph altered appropriately.
In regard to paragraph 13, we have the following comments based upon
documents presented to Paul Miller by the County.
1. The County and various County employees were sued by the Cimmarustis
for conspiracy to drive the Cimmarustis out of business.
2. The County was also sued by the Cimmarustis for personal injuries
to Steve.
3. The two lawsuits were consolidated and the County settled out of court
(Stipulation for Settlement, dated 4/25/00, reference #1130000377).
4. Subsequently, the County continued to harass and demand money from the
Cimmarustis for items that were in contention prior to the settlement.
The County had no legal right to this money because the settlement was for
all prior issues.
5. The County failed to provide a proper accounting and succeeded it
taking money from the Cimmarustis by threatening eviction.
6. Consequently, it appears the County owes the Cimmarustis in excess of
$10,000 as well as a published public apology for its actions.
See Dollars
We understand that Louis Green, at the meeting of January 15, 2003, stated that there was no settlement, that it was instead an agreement, and that none of his attorneys were aware of any such settlement. He also wished to know if the Cimmarustis had a copy of the "agreement". We would like to know how Mr. Green managed to remain unaware of this settlement (Stipulation for Settlement, dated 4/25/00, reference #1130000377) all this time (especially since one of his attorneys was one of the defendants in the lawsuit).
Why was this document not provided in a redacted form with the other documents given to Paul Miller?
Was this information ever provided to the County Supervisors?
Paragraph 13 of this proposed agreement appears to be a way to force the Cimmarustis into signing away their right to the money the County owes them. Therefore, paragraph 13 should be stricken from the document and no similar paragraph should be substituted.
We understand that there are negotiations in progress and the proposed lease is being modified accordingly. If any of the comments found herein no longer apply, please ignore them.
On behalf of the Friends of the Georgetown Airport,
_________________________________
Pat Leeds, President
Friends of the Georgetown Airport