The Loma Prietan
July/August 2002
San Francisco Airport mired in huge debt
by Richard Zimmerman
San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin says officials at San Francisco International Airport are "spending like drunken sailors" as the SFIA's financial losses continue to mount.
The economic slowdown resulted in huge losses at SFIA. For the current fiscal year, SFIA expects a $100 million shortfall. Currently SFIA is over $4 billion in debt. More than $300 million of SFIA's $600 million plus annual budget goes for debt payments.
But SFIA is still moving ahead on the proposed runway project. Runway project co-manager Karen Skelton claimed that the runway project budget has been cut by "71 percent." Since SFIA's budget hides the Airfield Development Bureau's budget in other items, it is not apparent just what was cut.
San Francisco Chronicle columnists Matier and Ross found where some of the money has gone; they listed charges over $1.9 million for public relations and political consultants. As Peskin said, "They are selling the project, not studying it."
One expense that raised eyebrows in the South Bay was a report entitled "Situation Analysis" by the ER Group. Peskin said, at a Budget Hearing, the report cost SFIA $25,000. That's over $1,500 per page, not counting the web page print-outs in the appendix. What raised eyebrows, however, was the discussion of various politicians in the South Bay. One Santa Clara County Supervisor felt "targeted," according to the San Jose Mercury News.
Led by Supervisor Peskin, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is attempting to take control of the SFIA purse strings. There are several steps to reasserting control over the Airport budget:
• A comprehensive audit of SFIA. This would be the first audit of Airport finances in 31 years. SFIA would pay for the audit using its capital reserves.
• Freeze the budget for the runway project. Two ideas are under consideration. One is a total freeze of all funds and the other is a freeze on all "non-scientific" funds. The latter, said one San Francisco neighborhood activist, would lead to Airport PR personnel wearing "junior scientist" name tags.
In addition, the Board of Supervisors would reauthorize the Capital Improvement Plan in such a way as to require SFIA to come to the Board for approval of projects that are over $1 million. This would give control over the Airport back to the Board, something an earlier Board gave away.
The fight over the Budget will be intense in July with final approvals due August 1. The Bay is a regional jewel, not San Francisco's. Write to the Board of Supervisors and suggest they freeze the proposed runway project budget.
Salt Ponds to be acquired
On another front, state and federal agencies announced a deal to buy the Cargill Salt Ponds. This should not be related to runways in the Bay but, due to the machinations of SFIA, may be linked in the public mind.
First, the details: the deal includes 16,500 acres of Cargill ponds. The price is $100 million with contributions of $72 million from the State, $20 million from private foundations, and $8 million from the federal government.
About 8,100 acres in the South Bay will be added to the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. An additional 7,000 acres, just south of the San Mateo Bridge on the east side of the Bay, will become state land. The remaining 1,400 acres are salt crystallizer ponds in the North Bay.
SFIA went on the offensive as the deal was announced. In the past, SFIA claimed they represented the only possible way the salt ponds could be acquired. With that obviously wrong, SFIA now claims they represent the only possible source of funds for restoring the ponds. How an organization billions of dollars in debt could view themselves as a funding source was not explained.
Beyond that, said SFIA representatives, there was a "wink-wink" deal; the acquisition of the salt ponds was dependent upon approval of the runways.
Several politicians stepped up to deny any linkage between runways and salt ponds. Senator Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) said there was no linkage. In fact, SFIA had attempted to contribute $10 million to the acquisition effort last year but Feinstein turned them down. In addition, Feinstein said, "I am not in favor of the airport expanding its size," according to the San Jose Mercury News.
State Senator Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto) also said there was no linkage in the state bill that authorized the first portion of the state funds. And a Governor Davis spokesperson said "there's absolutely no connection whatsoever."
Other reports left a perception that not everything was right with acquisition of the salt ponds. One attorney who had been working for SFIA as a consultant represented the foundations in the salt pond deal. While denying any conflict of interest, the attorney stopped working for the Airport just four days before the salt pond deal became public knowledge.
Sher will chair a Select Committee on Bay Marsh Land Acquisition in June to examine the acquisition in detail.
Learn more about SFIA's Plan to fill the Bay at www.ProtectOurBay.com.
Or check out www.lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/BayCampaign.html.