Thumbnail image courtesy of flycrescentcity.com Cooley | LinkedIn Submitted by Ryan Cooley During the August 26 meeting of the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors, several comments were made regarding the fiscal management of the Border Coast Regional Airport Authority (BCRAA) during my tenure as Airport Director. Some of these remarks placed the blame for current cash flow challenges squarely on my shoulders. With respect, I feel compelled to respond—not to spark a flame war, but to clarify the record and to ensure the community understands the factual issues at stake. Inherited Projects and Financial Conditions When I assumed the role of Director in November 2021, several major projects were already in progress. The grant for the Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) vehicle and ancillary gear had been secured by my predecessor, and the rehabilitation of Runway 18-36 was already moving through the preliminary design phase, with grants awarded for both preliminary and final design. I was to see the design through to completion and apply for the construction grant. I also secured the required 5% local match—nearly half a million dollars—which was provided collectively by all members of the Joint Powers Authority that make up the Border Coast Regional Airport Authority, ensuring every partner participated in funding the project. Unlike my predecessor, I did not have the benefit of CARES Act relief or the 100% federally funded grants made available during the COVID-19 pandemic. Every project during my tenure required not only a 5% local match but also full upfront payment before federal reimbursement. This structural change fundamentally altered the airport’s financial position. I also inherited issues at the airport that required litigation in order to seek proper remedy. This process was initiated with the full approval of the Airport Board and legal counsel. While the specifics must remain confidential under California’s Brown Act, what can be stated is that the litigation carried ongoing legal expenses—costs I inherited rather than caused—which placed additional strain on an already limited budget. It is also worth noting that I was encouraged—and at times directly pushed—during my tenure to place larger, more ambitious projects on the Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP), rather than limiting the list to smaller projects that could be funded more immediately. I had always been cautious about pursuing projects of that scale because of the airport’s ongoing cash flow challenges. However, critical infrastructure needs—such as runway rehabilitation, wildlife fencing, and taxiway work—could not be deferred indefinitely. Under guidance from both the FAA and the Airport Board, I was directed to advance larger projects that would secure long-term safety and compliance, even if they created short-term financial strain. At one point, I was even criticized for not having projects of sufficient scale on the ACIP. This underscores that the push for large projects was shared and deliberate—it was not the product of blind mismanagement. The Nature of FAA and DOT Funding It is important for the public to understand how FAA and Department of Transportation (DOT) funding actually works for small airports. These are reimbursement-based programs. FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants require invoices to be paid in full before reimbursement. The federal government pays 95%, but only after the airport proves the invoice has been satisfied. Alternate Essential Air Service (AEAS) funding also operates on a reimbursement model. The airport must first pay the airline’s monthly bill—often $250,000 to $350,000—before applying for repayment from the DOT, which typically takes 30 to 60 days. These funding structures create predictable cash flow challenges. They are not unique to Crescent City; airports across the country face the same obstacles. Gap funding was discussed as recently as late 2024 as a possible tool to bridge reimbursement delays. Initial internal conversations deemed outside financing too costly, but the issue itself was well recognized and understood. It was clear that these cash flow constraints were structural in nature, not the result of any one individual’s management. While the idea of seeking assistance from the County of Del Norte was discussed internally, those conversations had not advanced to implementation during my tenure. The Terminal Loan Misconception Another point raised at the Supervisors’ meeting concerned the terminal loan. It is important to clarify that BCRAA has never been legally obligated to make annual payments on this loan except when funds were received from very specific revenue sources earmarked for repayment. Those included aviation fuel sales tax revenue—diverted by the State of California before ever reaching the Authority—or outside contributions made expressly for loan repayment, which never materialized. The loan terms, as approved by the County Board of Supervisors, made repayment conditional. Each year, it was ultimately the BCRAA Board—not solely the Airport Director—that determined whether to allocate funds for repayment. My role was to present budget recommendations. In years when the required revenue sources were absent, I recommended against using scarce general funds for optional payments, given the Authority’s already tight financial position. My predecessor had a different approach, and that was his prerogative. Importantly, under the loan’s structure, if the Authority could not make a payment due to the lack of those specified revenue sources, responsibility shifted to the County of Del Norte to cover the payment if able. In such cases, the Authority was not in default. To suggest that the Airport Director personally “chose not to make the payments” is inaccurate. This was always a Board decision, made publicly, and the budgets—many of which I prepared—show years ending both in deficit and in surplus. These decisions were transparent, documented, and voted upon. Board Oversight and Transparency Every project on the Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) was reviewed, discussed, and approved by the Airport Board. Budgets were submitted for review and adoption. At no point did I move projects forward without Board oversight. We fully understood that invoices had to be paid first before reimbursement. What none of us anticipated was the sheer size of those invoices. My expectation—reinforced by internal conversations where weekly billing was mentioned as commonplace—was that invoices would arrive in smaller, more manageable amounts. That approach would have allowed us to pay, be reimbursed, and then move on to the next bill in sequence. Instead, after my departure, the contractor submitted multi-million-dollar invoices all at once, creating cash flow challenges far greater than anyone foresaw. While this was a collective oversight shared by staff, the Board, and myself, I also accept responsibility for not recognizing the potential for such large, upfront billings sooner. The County’s Auditor-Controller frequently acknowledged cash flow shortages during the last two years of my tenure, both with me and at Authority board meetings. Whenever I was asked whether reimbursements of $250,000 to $350,000 were pending, the answer was always “yes.” This was simply the reality of how the airport operated. Functioning in a constant reimbursement cycle meant that playing “catch-up” was built into the system—not the result of negligence. Investing in People and Mandated Projects My focus as Director was on carrying out FAA-mandated projects and investing in our employees. Retaining trained staff was critical, as the cost of turnover—recruiting, certifying, and training new personnel—was unsustainable for a small agency. At the same time, projects like wildlife fencing and runway rehabilitation were not optional. They were required by federal mandate to keep the airport safe and operational. Misplaced Blame It is both inaccurate and unfair to suggest that current challenges stem from one individual’s mismanagement. The financial strain faced by the airport is structural. It is the direct result of how federal programs are structured, combined with the realities of operating a small, rural airport with limited reserves. Yes, there were oversights in anticipating the scale of certain invoices tied to the Runway project. While those oversights were collective—shared by the Airport Board and staff—I accept my share of responsibility for not recognizing the possibility sooner. The challenges were not created by any one individual, but I acknowledge that, as Director, I shoulder part of that oversight. Looking Forward The Del Norte County Regional Airport must comply with federal safety and operational requirements regardless of whether governance remains under the Joint Powers Authority or reverts to the County. The question is not if compliance must be achieved, but how to finance it sustainably. I firmly believe the Joint Powers Authority should remain in place. The JPA model is the best path forward because it provides regional participation, shared accountability, and ensures every partner has a vested interest in the airport’s success. For this structure to work, however, Del Norte County’s contribution must be updated to reflect today’s realities. As the legal owner of the airport and its infrastructure, the County carries the ultimate responsibility. Out of all the JPA partners, it is appropriate that the County provide a consistent, appropriate annual contribution. Ultimately, if the JPA were ever dissolved, full responsibility for the airport would return to the County—making their financial commitment essential. The County currently provides $271,000 in support—an amount based on the administrative costs of running the airport back in 2007, now 18 years ago. Adjusted for inflation alone, that figure would be roughly $447,000 in 2025 dollars. Some may argue that inflation by itself is not the right measure for government contributions, and in one sense they are correct—because airport costs have risen even faster than inflation. Since 2007, the Authority has faced sharply higher labor and retirement obligations, state-mandated wage increases, more expensive consulting and engineering services, rising fuel and equipment costs, and expanded federal compliance requirements. In truth, inflation provides only a conservative baseline. Updating the County’s contribution to reflect these modern realities would stabilize operations, sustain compliance, and ensure the airport continues to serve as a vital economic driver for the region. Even with an increase in annual contributions and periodic support for AIP matching grant funds, Del Norte County would still spend far less under the JPA model than it would if the airport were operated solely as a County department. Running the airport independently would mean the County absorbing the full weight of expenses such as consulting contracts, facilities upkeep, grounds and building maintenance, vehicle and equipment repairs, fuel costs, and the substantial staffing and training costs tied to Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF). On top of that, the County would be solely responsible for non-federally funded or ineligible airfield projects that are nonetheless critical for safety and compliance. By sharing these responsibilities through the JPA, the County leverages regional cost-sharing, maintains access to federal reimbursements, and avoids carrying the full administrative and operational burden on its own. In other words, investing more now into the JPA’s success is still far more cost-effective than trying to run the airport in-house. With proper funding, the airport can function as a true enterprise fund—operationally independent from the County—while keeping all members of the Joint Powers Authority invested in its success. If brought back into the County, there is a risk the airport could be reduced to a minimal “maintenance mode,” funded at the lowest possible level in order to save money. Humboldt County experienced this in the past, and the FAA ultimately stepped in, requiring the County to separate the airport into its own division rather than continue operating under Public Works. I remain proud of what we achieved during my tenure: securing local matches, advancing critical projects, expanding air service, and investing in staff retention—all without pandemic-era relief that previous leadership enjoyed. Blame will not resolve structural issues. Honest dialogue, long-term planning, and realistic funding commitments will. That is where the focus should be—not on scapegoating those who dedicated themselves to keeping this airport open and safe.