San Gabriel Valley Airport (KEMT)

02/22/2026   ASSESSED TAX VALUES at EMT - "Take a look at table 2, right hand two columns.  Note taxable assessed value when AAC managed the airports, and the sharp increase when tenants were assessed individually in 2025.  Same method of assessment, the “Income Method”.  - The following are the assessed values for 2014 and 2025:

Assessed Values 2025

Assessed Values  2014-2021

2/22/2026   On the subject of Assessed Values   "...we have been in a tussle with the LAC assessor regarding calling for accountability on how the county assessed the KEMT property at nearly double the value than when AAC managed the airports.

02/18/2026   Letter to the Assessor's office:

Please see my responses below for the answers to your questions. They will be numbered to reference which of your question I have answered. An increase to a possessory interest value can be triggered by: Please answer Number one why the net assessed value ranged from $990,000 to $3.7 million for AAC and the total assessed value in 2025 for KEMT tenants was $5.8 million, wile the hangar rents remained the same between 2012 and 2025.  If the income method was used, and the income changed very little, why is there such a  wide range for the assessed value of the KEMT property between 2014 and 2025? Refer to table for data. An increase in total rent paid to the agency,Please show the financials that document the increased in rent paid to the agency A longer term of lease, KEMT hangar tenants are on a month to month license agreement. Both 1. and 2. combined. 2025 values were determined using the income approach. It is hard to understand the mathematical process that valued the current tenants over $2 million more that when AAC managed the airports, given rents have remained stagnant.  Please explain. The income approach to value was/is used.  Please provide the formula and what data was used in the calculations for AAC and for current tenants. Unfortunately, I do not know why. This is a question that would be more suitable for the “County Library.” Please provide direct contact info for Library. I do not know why they are charging more. This is a question that would be more suitable for “Trauma and Emergency Srv.” Please provide contact info for who can address this issue. This is a question that would be more suitable for the Aviation Division. My job pertains to valuing taxable property. The Aviation Division stated that absolutely no tax money from the county nor the PIT benefits the Airports.  Why is this so and who can answer this question? This is a question that would be more suitable for the Sanitation Department. Again, my job pertains to valuing taxable property. These questions would be more suitable for the Treasurer and Tax Collector since they send out the tax bills. Again, my job at the Assessor’s Office pertains to valuing taxable property. Please provide a direct contact in the Treasurer and Tax Collector who can answer this question. I will be happy to answer any more questions that relate to valuing taxable possessory interest. Sincerely, Elaine Joy Gernade  - Appraiser Specialist - Region 22 Possessory Interest | Major Real Property - 213.635.3981 |-  EGernade@assessor.lacounty.gov

Elaine, thank you for your prompt response.  I believe questions 1 and 2 pertain to the assessor’s office, but the responses to our questions seem incomplete.  Please see yellow highlighted areas below and provide detailed answers.  Also, contact information for other departments you referenced would greatly be appreciated. From our analysis, it is clear that KEMT hangar tenants in 2025 are being charged double to quadruple what AAC was obligated to pay while the county considered AAC to have a possessory interest, while the income has not increased significantly. Not only that, it appears tenants between 2014-2021 were being erroneously charged the Sanitation District Direct Assessment, passed through by AAC (AAC never was liable for the PIT, but allowed to pass the tax directly to tenats).  This should be corrected. We appreciate your immediate attention to this matter.

Hello again,

1. I have already explained to you in many emails prior to today that I cannot answer questions that do not pertain to your PI parcel. I was doing my best to give you a general sense as to why there was an increase in value. This scenario could be given to any number of parcels throughout LA County, so that is the answer. If you want specifics, I cannot provide them to you. This will be the last time I entertain this question since it has been explained to you repeatedly since 2/25/2025.
2. Annual rent, minus 3% Vacancy and Collection, minus 5% Management Expenses, giving the Net Operating Income. NOI is then multiplied by the Present Worth of 1 per Period Factor based on a Discount Rate of 8% and an anticipated term of 3 years, which gives us the estimated possessory interest tax value. We round that figure to the nearest thousands, and then allocate 50% to land and 50% to improvements.
3. Their phone number is listed on your tax bill.
4. Their phone number is listed on your tax bill.
5. I do not know. Therefore, I cannot answer your question.
6. FYI, no follow up question.
7. Their phone number is listed on your tax bill.

Sincerely,  Elaine Joy Gernade - Appraiser Specialist - Region 22 Possessory Interest | Major Real Property -213.635.3981 | EGernade@assessor.lacounty.gov

01/31/2026   San Gabriel Valley Airport welcomes Christopher Duncan Thomas as the newest member of the L A County Board of Airport Commissioners. Mr. Thomas will represent District #1, San Gabriel Valley Airport and Bracket Airport, His appointment is supported by some significant airport tenants and SCAUWG.IRG.  Already he has proven to be a "straight shooter" and may well be a VERY COMPETENT general aviation supporter.  Mr. Thomas was appointed by Supervisor Hilda Solis. You may see the other members of the Board Here.

01/31/2026   You can learn more about the LA County Board of Aviation Commissioners by reviewing the Aviation Commissioner Fact Sheet Here.

01/20/2026   Summary of some of the subject matter detailed below.  The focus is that tenants have been charged to much for Hangar rentals. The overall goal is to get both Hangar rents adjusted and the taxable liability adjusted.

Re Part 16 update:  LAC was found in violation of federal grant assurances by undercharging FMV for hangars used for non-aeronautical use, violating self-sustainability rules and revenue diversion policy. Further, the FAA Director ordered the county to provide a remedy plan within 30 days to assess FMV and adjust non-aeronautic hangar rates immediately. Additionally, the County is required to rationalize why the sponsor, LAC, should not be required to reimburse aviation accounts (county data estimates at minimum, $3.3 million in discounted rents to aeronautical hangar tenants) for undercharging non-aeronautic tenants.  The recent Santa Monica Airport decision by the FAA spells out how diverted funds are required to return to aviation accounts and how these funds are required to be distributed to current tenants through reduction in hangar rents.  The county plans to appeal this portion of the Director’s Order, and Complainants are gearing up to oppose any appeal. 

Alicia Cruz-Gonzalez, Investigator I, Los Angeles County Public Works, (626) 458-7091

01/15/2026  "Note: Public records request for AMCG RFP,  (Above) contract and communications was made in December of 2024.  The AMCG rent study contracts never went through a proper RFP. " Thank you, Airport Tenant

12/18/2026   Complainants (Airport Tenants) Response to the County regarding their response, a request for an extension, addressing the already received FAA Director's Response View it Here.

12/17/2026   LA County response to the Director's Determination (below) re: Docket 16-24-14 Part 16 Complaint.  View it Here.

2/17/2026   Complainants legal assistance Inquiry:  re: County's response re Docket Part 16 Complain Docket 16-24-14: ",,,the county appears not to appeal yet challenges the reimbursement portion. - The amount of revenue diversion county wide by charging under FMV for five airports is approx. $400,000.  The FAA only calculated the under charge for KEMT over 8 months which is about $130,000.

12/17/2026   Cursory Legal Advice (re: County's response): "Based on a quick read, it looks like the county is attempting to undercut the director’s decision by arguing that it will try to use the corrective action process to reargue whether reimbursement is due and thus asking for an extension of its deadline to appeal.  - That’s not what the corrective action process is for, so I would suggest filing a response to the motion (which would be due on the 26th), making that point and arguing that there accordingly is no basis to extend the appeal deadline.

12/16/2025   Latest EMT Public Records Request Update:

12/04/2025   EMT vs. LA COUNTY re: HANGAR RENT COSTS -   Compliant Filed with FAA  -  Status

12/02/2025   AGENDA - LA County Aviation Commission Meeting - Wednesday December 3, 10 am

Your ATTENDANCE is Requested!

12/02/2025   SPECIAL to SCAUWG.ORG    Subject: Re: Public Records Act Request 6050 - AMCG Airport Rent Studies

We think Jason Morgan, aviation division Chief LAC, has actually taken up the cause, after being led to the trough.

The Assessor assigned land use of aeronautic metal storage hangars of 32.1 “ heavy manufacturing industrial aircraft/ missile”, a M3 zoning code.  He will not acknowledge LAC land use code of 8863, airplane t hangar.  32.1 triggers a high level of direct assessments we have never seen before as airports tenants on a month-to-month hangar rental agreement.

Example: now we have a charge from the sanitation district, $316, for my hangar, but I do not have water, nor sewage disposal associated with my hangar.  Other direct assessments have been attached to hangar tenants as a result of the 32.1 land use assignment.  And, not every hangar tenant is being charged the same assessments.  KEMT tenants have mined 800 tax bills over the 5 county airports and found numerous  irregularities in how the PIT is assessed and applied.

Now, certain direct assessment entities are requesting we provide more information to the county like prior tax bills so they can go back and collect taxes for prior years where they may neglect to do so.

Possible mess.  Hangar tenants are being billed for 2-6 % of their already above market competitive hangar rents for taxes.  The aviation division chief, after being led to a point of leadership role by tenants in this battle, is making some headway.  However, the taxation authorities at LAC appear to be "out for more blood."

The FAA Western Region Office has a Part 13 Complaint already filed alleging discriminatory charges applied to airport tenants.  They have yet to respond in the affirmative that this is an issue. Still waiting to hear.

- SCAUWG.ORG contributor

12/02/2025   Hangar rents as best can be calculated at this time.  KEMT vs. KWHP

Taken from the county website based upon sq footage.  But the sq ft evaluation does not translate apples to apples as there are several different hangar types of varying age and condition between the two airports.

 

12/02/2025   SPECIAL TO SCAUWG.ORG:     LETTER to the LA COUNTY ASSESSOR:

Date: November 24, 2025 at 9:34:00 AM PST
To: jdominjuez@assessor.lacounty 

Subject: KEMT zoning and land use code.

"Good morning Mr. Dominguez,

Just to clarify, last week you sated that the San Gabriel Valley Airport is assigned a land use code of 32.1, Heavy Industrial Manufacturing Aircraft/Missile by the county assessor’s office.  Additionally, this class of land use falls under M3 zoning, the highest level of industrial land use zone.

Also, you stated that LAC land use code 8863, aircraft t hangar, was not an appropriate code for small metal hangars used for parking aircraft to protect these items from the elements.

Research of M3 zoning requirements, taken from the City of Los Angeles code (https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/los_angeles/latest/lamc/0-0-0-111764) refer to aircraft that are inoperable, wrecked, damaged or unlicensed located in an open storage yard.  There is no reference to storing aircraft in hangars on an airport property under M3 zoning.

Further, the LAC Minimum Standards for San Gabriel Valley Airport, do not allow for commercial manufacturing of aircraft, as M3 heavy industrial manufacturing allows.

https://pw.lacounty.gov/avi/airports/Uploads/Minimum%20Standards%20-%20EMT%2010-30-12.pdf

The incorporated City of El Monte Zoning map designates the San Gabriel Valley Airport property as AP (Airport) and shows residential and light commercial zoned properties adjacent to the airport. https://www.ci.el-monte.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/7459/Zoning-Map-PDF---5142025.

So, the questions is: why does the LAC assessor not assign land use code of 8862 (airport) to the San Gabriel Valley Airport property and use code of 8863 for aircraft t hangars?

Please kindly respond as we are trying to understand better why new direct assessments have been applied to hangar tenants that never appeared before.

Thank you"

- SCAUWG.ORG contributor

11/24/2925   LAND USE CODES  -  LAND USE CODES are A REGULATORY tool that help local governments use to define and manage Land Use and development within their boundaries.  This facet may relate to tax rate determination.

Los Angeles County's land use codes define how properties can be used and developed, with specific regulations outlined in County Code Title 22. Overview of Land Use Codes:

Land use and zoning regulations in Los Angeles County dictate how properties can be utilized, including the types of businesses that can operate and the density of residential units. These codes are essential for ensuring that developments align with community plans and zoning laws.

You can explore Land Use Codes and some useful resources via this YouTube VIDEO on Land Use Here.

11/24/2925   LA County Land Use Codes:  View them Here (Note 8863) -  Specifically, read More about 8863:  "in Los Angeles County, land use code 8863 is used by the Assessor to designate Airport, T-hangar.   -   This code falls under the broader 88xx series, which represents Government Owned or public-serving transportation property. Key details regarding this code include:

• Definition: Specifically refers to T-shaped aircraft hangars, often located at public or general aviation airports.
• Category: It is part of the 8800-8890 range for Government Owned property, generally under the "Transportation, general" category.
• Context: It is often used for assessment purposes where T-hangars are leased or located on public land within airport boundaries."

11/24/2025   How do I find the zoning code for my property?  - VIDEO - Watch it Here.

11/24/2925   El Monte Zoning Map -

Download a copy of the ZONING MAP - CLICK HERE

1/22/2025   Special to SCAUWG.ORG -  Another Extension Issued in Public Records Act Request.

From: Alicia Cruz-Gonzalez <AlCruz@dpw.lacounty.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 4:45 PM

To J.M. Haney

EXTENSION IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST

OUR FILE NUMBER 6050

We have reviewed your Public Records Act Request received on December 3, 2024, wherein you requested:

1. The RFP for contracting with AMCG for the AMCG Feb. 7, 2020 Airport Rent Study.
2. All communications between Los Angeles County and AMCG regarding the Feb.7, 2020 AMCG Airport Rent Study, the Feb. 8, 2024, AMCG Aeronautic Airport Rent Study, and the Feb. 8, 2024, AMCG Non-Aeronautic Rent Study.

This Public Records Inspection/Copying Request involves “Unusual Circumstances” which means the following selected situation(s):

¨The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.

¨The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request.

þThe need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.

¨The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data.

Los Angeles County Public Works is actively working on your request and will require additional time to search for and collect responsive records. Therefore, we will contact you with an update by December 16, 2025.

Please note our business hours are Monday-Thursday from 7 am – 5 pm. Thank you.

Alicia Cruz-Gonzalez
Investigator I
Los Angeles County Public Works - (626) 458-7091

11/03/2025  - Tenant tax bills county wide for the five LAC managed airports - Independent research from EMT - Letter to LAC DPW

We have successfully sampled 852 hangar tenant tax bills county wide for the five LAC managed airports and are compiling data.

It is important that we have contact with one representative in the assessor/tax/collector/appraiser/auditor comptroller’s office to sort out the mass of errors in this year’s tax bills issued to LAC hangar tenants.

These irregularities consist of but are not limited to:

1. Application of erroneous direct assessments to certain tenants, but not others (ie sanitation District tax, measure E,  measure A)
2. Errors in assessed values of hangars (ie D row hangars KEMT, some assessed at $13,000, next door same size hangar assessed at over $20,000)
3. Erroneous direct assessment of measure E to a number of tenants (measure E does not apply to Parking, our hangar leases give rights to “park” and airplane in the hangar).
4. The bills are issued a secured property tax, with two payment coupons.  The hangar PIT likely should be taxed on the unsecured tax roll.
5. The Direct Assessments applied this year did not appear on the prior three years of taxes. The same applies to voted indebtedness.
6. There is a real question of change of ownership of the hangars once the county airport management company terminated its contract with the county in 2021.  My hangar contract is between me and LAC established  in 2012.  AAC never had a lease hold contract with the county. Regarding the PIT, the  AAC contract required a maximum liability to AAC of $100,000 , or 10% of the total county PIT for airport property tenants. Airport tenants were charged 100% of the PIT by AAC.  However, the county assessor treated AAC’s contract termination as a change of ownership.  We allege this is not true and tenants with hangar contracts preceding 2021 would be subject to prop 13 rules; the recent property re-assessment should have taken place for long term tenants where no change of ownership too place.

Airport users request the county correct any and all errors surrounding the possessory Interest tax practices. We request the county freeze the current tax bills until accurate and corrected tax bills that properly reflect appropriate PIT fees can be issued.

Thank you, Dr. Haney, liaison for SGVAA to the county.

11/03/2025 EMT to AOPA (asking for assistance)

1. Has AOPA reviewed our concerns regarding the faulty and flawed rent study while LAC has 24% of hangars under management without aviation demand?
2. New concern.  The LAC assessor issued new tax bills for possessory interest of hangars. My bill increase from $260 last year to $855. Users acquired data for nearly 1000 hangar tenant tax bills and found multiple errors in the process.  Discriminatory pricing was found. A Part 13 complaint was filed with the Western Region FAA office.  The county was asked to respond by the FAA.
The assessor, the departments the levied the tax and the auditor comptroller are pointing fingers at each other.  The problem has yet to be resolved.
Thank you,  - J. Marc Haney, DDS, MS

Comment from AOPA

10/23/2025 Alicia Cruz-Gonzalez<AlCruz@dpw.lacounty.gov>

10/23/2025

How much longer?

To J.M. Haney

EXTENSION IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST

OUR FILE NUMBER 6050

We have reviewed your Public Records Act Request received on December 3, 2024, wherein you requested:

1. The RFP for contracting with AMCG for the AMCG Feb. 7, 2020 Airport Rent Study.
2. All communications between Los Angeles County and AMCG regarding the Feb.7, 2020 AMCG Airport Rent Study, the Feb. 8, 2024, AMCG Aeronautic Airport Rent Study, and the Feb. 8, 2024, AMCG Non-Aeronautic Rent Study.

This Public Records Inspection/Copying Request involves “Unusual Circumstances” which means the following selected situation(s):

¨The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.

¨The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request.

þThe need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.

¨The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data.

Los Angeles County Public Works is actively working on your request and will require additional time to search for and collect responsive records. Therefore, we will contact you with an update by November 20, 2025.

Alicia Cruz-Gonzalez
Investigator I
Los Angeles County Public Works

(626) 458-7091

_______________________________________________

09/24/2025   Special to SCAUWG.ORG from Marc Haney DDS- AOTHERN DELAY!   - Draw your own conclusions.

09/19/2025    Special to SCAUWG.ORG from Marc Haney DDS - On September 12, the LAC Subcommittee on Self Sustainability held a ZOOM meeting for KEMT tenants regarding the 2025 AMCG rent Study. The stated purpose of the meeting was “for the Aviation Commission Subcommittee members to solicit feedback from airport tenants regarding the 2025 Aeronautical rent Studies and related potential adjustments to the monthly rental rates for use of County-owned aircraft storage hangars and tiedowns.”

At the immediate onset of the meeting, Commissioner Lord forcefully attempted to shut down any discussion of the 2025 rent study, and tried to censor comments to that affect.  Meeting strong opposition to his maneuver to quash comments and discussion on the rent study, participants were able to voice concerns regarding study defects.  Refer to attachment for summary table of the study.

First, most notably, AMCG found all KEMT hangar rents are higher than the competitive airports, the main stated comparable element of the study.  Second, AMCG proposed rents 20 to 34% higher than the competitive airports for all hangar types, basing the higher rent on a nebulous Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) factor.  By the way all the competitive airports reside in the same MSA, but AMCG going against its own methods and results, inflated recommended KEMT rents by comparing hangars to the country’s  highest MSA, not to competitive airports as the study stated,. Although not defined, AMCG likely chose the heist MSA, such as possibly New York City (the study did not explain how AMCG arrived at this upcharge multiplier).  Very confusing and not appropriate.

Second, AMCG introduced bias into the study by classifying run down1,520 sq/ft rectangular hangars as “Executive Hangars” and evaluated these hangars differently than all other metal hangars (AMCG used triple net lease comparison, which opposes the month-to-month gross rent method all KEMT  hangars were compared). In 2020, AMCG defined an “Executive Hangar” as a hangar with a minimum foot print of 2,500 sq/ft, with storage, office space and waiting areas.  None of the KEMT hangars meet these criteria, yet AMCG continued to segregate these hangars proposing for  sharp rent increases above the competitive market place.

Third, AMCG recommended a $5 per month increase for certain 1,520 sq/ft hangars, while a $119 per month increase was recommended for a group of other, exactly like 1,520 sq/ft hangars.  Keep in mind, the 2025 AMCG study recommendations relied on a one-time 2019 observation made by AMCG staff.

Please review the attached study summary.  The left column summarizes AMCG’s actual study results obtained by data collection.  The center column depicts AMCG’s recommended new rates based upon a flawed MSA multiplier).  The third column depicts the percent increase over anticompetitive airports charge.

AI generated a response regarding what happens when an airport sponsor increased rates far above competitive airports, while experiencing a 24% aeronautical hangar vacancy rate (264 hangars out of 1,089 under LAC management do not have aeronautical use, according to June 2024 county records ( no current inventory numbers are available as last week).

It is disturbing that the Aviation commission Chairman would so forcefully attempt to quash any discussion on the AMCG study, going against the stated purpose of the ZOOM meeting.

Attached Summary: Documentation:

Mathematics does not yield to misguided ideology. The table found here states data taken from the 2025 AMCG Aeronautical Rate Study.  Column one states the actual comp rate for competitive airports in the study.  Column 2 states AMCG’s recommended rates based on an erroneous MSA factor.  Column 3 depicts the percentage the AMCG recommended rates are above the actual rates AMCG determined for competitive airports to KEMT.

It is clear that AMCG is recommending LAC increase KEMT hangar rates that are far higher than competitive airports in the region.

2025                                                                 2025                                  %over

Hangar type                   AMCG Comp                                recommendations                    Comp

Executive Hangars      $644                                                  $819                                                  27%

Small T-Hangar            $433                                                  $450-$520                                     20%

Medium T-Hangar       $462                                                  $520-$605                                     23%

Large T-Hangar             $594                                                  $800                                                  34%

Next, you will find how AI projects a negative outcome by implementing the rate increases.  Note: I did not make this up.  Check for yourself and verify.

AI prompt: “What happens when an airport sponsor increases hangar rental rates above market competitive rates while suffering a 24% vacancy rate”.

AI Overview:

When an airport sponsor increases hangar rental rates significantly above competitive market rates while experiencing a 24% vacancy rate, the sponsor will likely see declining rental revenue, potential violations of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant assurances, and damage to their relationship with the aviation community. This strategy is generally counterproductive because it disincentivizes potential tenants in an already soft market.

Financial consequences

Declining revenue and utilization: With a 24% vacancy rate, the airport already has low demand. Increasing prices further reduces the number of willing tenants, causing the occupancy rate to fall even more. The financial gain from higher rates on occupied hangars is quickly negated by the loss of revenue from a growing number of vacant units.

Cost recovery issues: Airport sponsors are expected by the FAA to set "fair and reasonable" rates that help the airport become self-sustaining. However, setting rates far above market value may prevent the airport from adequately recovering its costs if the vacancy rate becomes too high.

Non-aeronautical rental complications: Airports with vacant hangars may seek FAA approval to rent them for non-aviation use on a month-to-month basis, but they must charge fair market commercial rates. This option may be limited or less profitable than hoped, especially if the non-aeronautical rate is now significantly higher than what the local commercial market will bear.

Regulatory and compliance issues

Violation of FAA grant assurances: Airports that have accepted federal grants are obligated to keep fees "fair and reasonable". An egregious pricing structure that keeps occupancy artificially low can be viewed as failing to maintain the facility for public aeronautical use. One FAA document cites high vacancy rates attributable to "aviation rental rates above market competitive aviation hangar rates" as a violation of these grant rules.

Discrimination claims: If an airport charges different market rates to different users without a justifiable reason, it could lead to claims of unjust discrimination, which is prohibited under FAA regulations.

Operational and community impacts

Deterring new tenants: Pilots and aircraft owners have options. With a 24% vacancy rate, they are likely to seek more affordable hangar space at competing nearby airports. Some owners may even choose to move their base of operations to a different airport entirely, especially if a cheaper option is only a short drive away.

Strained relationships with the aviation community: The move could sour the relationship between the airport sponsor and the resident aviation community, which includes pilots, flight schools, and other on-field businesses. Higher costs may cause businesses to cut back services or relocate, hurting the airport's ecosystem.

Underutilization of assets: The high vacancy rate represents a major inefficiency. The airport's hangars are an asset intended to generate revenue and support aviation, but instead, they sit empty. An alternative strategy would be to lower rates to a competitive level to fill the hangars, ensuring the asset generates some revenue rather than none.

09/07/2025  Here are some updates. - KEMT: The FAA is reviewing the case and should have a determination soon.
The LAC Aviation Commission formed a subcommittee to study ways to make LAC airports more self-sustaining. The committee has scheduled zoom meetings with the five airport tenants to receive feedback on the 2024 AMCG rent studies.  However, the Commission announced at last week’s commission meeting held at Compton Airport that the county plans to increase hangar rents in January 2026 based upon the AMCG rent increase recommendations.  Special to SCAUWG.ORG by Marc Haney DDS, MS

08/17/2025    LA County's "Airport at a Glance" from January 2019

Summary:

Marc Haney requested public records from Los Angeles County Public Works regarding AMCG Airport Rent Studies on December 3, 2024. 

Alicia Cruz-Gonzalez acknowledged the request and indicated the need for extensions due to "unusual circumstances" requiring additional time to search and collect records - Multiple extensions were granted, with updates promised by specific dates, the latest being June 17, 2025 - Marc Haney and SCAUWG.ORG have expressed frustration over the delay

..............................................

07/28/2025

07/28/2025

Subsequently, "this was a response that the county needs more time. I narrowed the request yesterday to Horvath’s order for the county to decline FAA funding for KWHP."

07/22/2025

05/28/2025

05/24/2025  Program Guidance Letters (PGLs) and Program Information Memorandums (PIMs) for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) - This page includes the following guidance for the Airport Improvement Program:

05/21/2025

5/22/2025   SCAUWG.ORG NOTES REGARDING THE COUNTY RESPONSE ABOVE:

1. Btw, their May email includes Paul Maselbas.  He retired in March.  Jason Morgan C.M.  is now acting chief of the County Aviation dept. - Obviously, they are lawyering up.

2. "Cc: Paul Maselbas <pmaselbas@dpw.lacounty.gov>, "W. Eric Pilsk" <epilsk@kaplankirsch.com>, Warren Wellen <wwellen@counsel.lacounty.gov>
   Subject:RE: Public Records Act Request 6050 -  AMCG Airport Rent Studies"

• Kaplankirsch is the County's attorney!  One might ask if most records requests go through the County Council, and the very expensive Attorney that represents the County.

3. Already they are announcing that they will feel free to review and withhold info.  e.g.    "On April 30, 2025, our office provided a letter response that included non-exempt responsive records. The County has located additional records responsive to your CPRA request. The review process is ongoing,..."

01/22/2025   Letter written to the Brackett Pilot's association by J.M. Haney:

4/25/2025

01/05/2025   Here is a Birds Eye view of the Part 16 complaint:

“Headline: Los Angeles County plans to increase aviation hangar rates as much as 50%, while maintaining a 24% aviation hangar vacancy rate”
“Two KEMT hangar tenants, on behalf of 42 tenant petition signers, filed a Part 16 formal complaint against LAC alleging the county has habitually charged higher rents for aviation tenants, and below fair market value rents for hangars being used for public storage. The county has issued its response, and complainants have 45 days to rebut.

LAC owns and manages 1089 aircraft hangars, 137 being used for public storage, and 126 remain vacant, with no demand. This phenomenon of 76% hangars being used for aviation purposes is unique to Los Angeles County.  No other single airport, nor multiple airport system managed by a single sponsor in the nation has this high hangar vacancy problem.  All surrounding airports in the So Cal region are full of aviation purpose clients, and have wait lists for hangars.

LAC’s recent hangar appraisal study confirms the Part 16 Complaint: All hangar types in the study were at higher rental rates than any comparable or competitive hangar types.  The complaint brings up two FAA grant assurance violation issues. 1. LAC fails to offer its five county owned airports to the public as airports on a fair and reasonable basis, without discrimination. 2. The county fails to meet the self-sustainability rules through its practice of charging below fair market value rents for non-aviation hangar tenants using aeronautic hangars for public storage AND failing to market empty hangars for aviation and non-aviation rental income.

Tenants at KEMT, KPOC, KWHP, and KCPM are encouraged to review the ACMG 2024 Aeronautic Rent Study for the proposed rent increases ranging from 4% to 50 % this coming July, 2025.  The study can be accessed on the County’s Aviation Division website.
Any questions can be directed to Haney@haneyperio.com”

Thank you,

J. Marc Haney, DDS, MS

11/27/2024

Read the ENTIRE DOCUMENT HERE:     Minutes_November 27, 2024 Final Draft

10/31/2024   The FAA stated that the resubmission of the Part 16 complaint likely will be docketed Monday.  Once confirmed, I will process a brief.  Thanks, Marc

08/29/2024   PART 16 COMPLAINT DOCKETS

08/29/2024   PART 16 COMPLAINT

READ THE FULL DOCUMENT HERE