County Airports: Board Response

Response says

The Board partly disagrees, describing collaborative lease revisions and a June 23, 2026 Policy F-10 update.

Audit analysis

A partial position and an explanation are explicit, with dated Board action and Legistar file 26-0740. The response explains later alignment but does not clearly identify which part of the earlier policy/practice discrepancy it accepts or disputes.

Response says

The Board wholly disagrees: Policy F-10 delegates specified authority to the Director, while the Operations Officer handles daily operations and lacks that authority.

Audit analysis

Whole disagreement identifies the disputed scope. Concrete delegated powers and the Policy F-10 basis address both the policy’s purpose and the alleged overlap. The score concerns document completeness, not whether the allocation prevents confusion.

Response says

The Board partly disagrees, citing Policy F-10 section B.9, additional lease terms, and identical application requirements for existing and new users.

Audit analysis

The response identifies where criteria are located and gives a checkable policy provision. Its qualification that extra specificity belongs in leases explains the partial position while addressing extension, termination, and application rules.

Response says

The Board agrees with the finding.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement satisfies both position elements and covers the finding. No explanation or supporting record is supplied in this item; that limits public usefulness without reducing the agreement’s position-element score.

Response says

The Board partly disagrees, distinguishing informal public input from formally appointed committees with delegated responsibilities.

Audit analysis

The partial position has a relevant rationale, but committee authority does not identify precisely which alleged engagement shortcoming is disputed or explain how airport engagement was meaningful. Named committee examples are assertions, not cited supporting records.

Response says

The Board agrees with the finding that the Airports website lacks a subscription option.

Audit analysis

Agreement is explicit on PDF page 4, following the finding printed on page 3. No explanatory detail or supporting record is supplied; agreement does not require disagreement reasons.

Response says

The Board agrees about user contributions and public-service benefits but disputes inadequate representation, citing meetings, outreach, and collaboration.

Audit analysis

The accepted and disputed propositions are clearly separated. The response covers subsidy reliance, emergency-service value, and representation, but its engagement examples lack dated or otherwise identified supporting records.

Response says

The Board partly disagrees, stating the County has offered no recommendation or concern regarding private management.

Audit analysis

The disputed private-management concern is identified, but the response supplies only a denial without an explanatory basis and leaves the compound finding’s subsidy sustainability issue unaddressed.

Response says

The Board says implemented through its June 23, 2026 Policy F-10 approval.

Audit analysis

A named policy, dated approval, and completed-action claim directly answer the recommendation. The underlying policy’s implementation is not independently verified.

Response says

The Board will not implement the recommendation, arguing job duties belong in job specifications rather than Board policy.

Audit analysis

The disposition is on page 4; page 5 continues the rationale with reporting lines and the Operations Officer job specification. It explains refusal rather than promising the requested policy rewrite.

Response says

Airports staff and County IT will implement GovDelivery webpage-change notifications by September 1, 2026.

Audit analysis

The future implementation statement specifies an action, responsible participants, and completion date. A past target date does not establish either completion or breach from this source alone.

Response says

The Board requires further analysis while staff try stakeholder engagement and public biannual meetings; staff will report back November 3, 2026.

Audit analysis

A dated review of current engagement efforts is specified. It is not a commitment to create the requested advisory body, and current meetings are not treated as that body.

Response says

The Board says implemented, citing staff direction, FAA hangar-grant work, public event planning, and a June 23 rate sheet.

Audit analysis

Specific revenue initiatives are described, but the response does not identify a completed revenue plan matching the recommendation. Claimed implementation is preserved separately from this documentary limitation.

Response says

Staff will study feasibility and the appropriate evaluation path with the FAA and its Airport Investment Partnership Program, reporting by November 3, 2026.

Audit analysis

Further analysis has a defined scope, coordination partner, deliverable, and date. The promise is evaluation, not privatization or a finding that it is feasible.