Management and Performance Review of County Government ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Enterprise Operations of Jefferson County Boarding totals differ slightly from others used elsewhere in this chapter due to different FAA data sources. EXHIBIT 8-9 PASSENGER BOARDINGS 1999-2004 Airport 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Average Annual Change 1999-2004 SETRA 100,684 92,174 78,215 59,021 44,103 53,900 -11.75% Wichita Falls 52,127 52,800 49,936 40,285 37,147 37,147 -6.55% Laredo 68,358 74,497 71,058 66,206 63,318 68,668 0.09% Waco 58,913 59,602 59,158 48,505 46,178 54,449 -1.56% College Station 90,623 90,347 84,289 74,923 65,887 81,846 -2.02% Tyler 73,845 72,654 65,336 54,824 53,854 58,976 -4.40% Longview 28,631 33,376 30,869 25,683 27,762 22,273 -4.90% San Angelo 40,180 44,067 48,599 37,745 40,975 46,970 3.17% Killeen 86,649 98,012 98,574 100,285 92,106 92,782 1.38% Brownsville 57,569 65,249 51,895 50,738 59,796 55,371 -0.78% Abilene 45,905 52,197 55,012 43,269 44,112 47,285 0.59% Lake Charles 78,006 71,051 48,514 43,214 40,925 41,351 -11.92% Average by Yr 65,124 67,169 61,788 53,725 51,347 55,085 -3.29% Source: FAA, FPO Terminal Area Forecast, January 2005 (some 2004 data are estimates). As already noted, recent years have seen a significant reduction in commercial airline traffic at SETRA. In 1999, SETRA boarded more passengers than the 11 other regional airports cited in Exhibit 8-9. By 2004, its boarding had declined by about 47 percent over 1999 levels, or an average of 11.75 percent annually. Among the airports in the exhibit, only Lake Charles fared worse. The impact of 9/11 is responsible for some of this decline; none of these airports has regained its pre-9/11 passenger traffic levels. While SETRA has not fared well in recent years, it has not suffered alone. In 2004, SETRA’s number of passenger boardings rose to 53,900, a 26.9 percent increase over 2003. Even more encouraging is the fact that boardings are running 44.5 percent higher for the first quarter of 2005 compared to the same period last year Page 8-22
Enterprise Operations of Jefferson County (14,024 in 2005 versus 9,689 in 2004). If that percentage increase could be maintained through the end of the year, boardings could exceed 60,000 for 2005. Recent developments regarding Delta’s service will severely affect SETRA’s ability to maintain its growth. One criticism heard repeatedly about SETRA is that Jefferson County and other Southeast Texas residents would rather drive to Houston or Lake Charles because fares there are cheaper. To test this assertion, MGT compared fares over several dates (Exhibit 8-10). To Atlanta 3/23/05 To Washington. D.C. 3/23/05 To Washington. D.C. 5/19/05 To Atlanta 5/19/05 To Washington. D.C. 5/19/05 To New York City 5/19/05 To Los Angeles 5/19/05 EXHIBIT 8-10 SAMPLE AIRFARES SETRA, HOUSTON (GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINENTAL) AND LAKE CHARLES From SETRA via Delta Source: MGT of America, Inc. From Lake Charles via Delta $399 $425 From SETRA via Continental From Lake Charles via Continental $592 $748 $489 $494 From Houston via Continental $333 $398 $255 From Houston via Continental $386 $386 $283 $288 $194 $194 $333 $338 $244 $438 $349 $339 $220 Based on this admittedly small survey, SETRA appears to be a less costly departure point than Lake Charles, with a generally larger difference in fares for Delta than Continental. On the other hand, passengers departing from Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental would save money on either carrier. (MGT did not compare rates for Houston Hobby airport.) Page 8-23
Page 1 and 2:
Management and Performance Review o
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d) 7.0 JU
Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This review has be
Page 7 and 8:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MGT was selected
Page 9 and 10:
Executive Summary To finance these
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary from generating e
Page 13 and 14:
Executive Summary assistant chiefs,
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary in good working o
Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGR
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction and Background 1. Ford
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction and Background EXHIBIT
Page 23 and 24:
Introduction and Background The rev
Page 25 and 26:
Jefferson Peer Average Brazoria EXH
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction and Background Jeffers
Page 29 and 30:
Introduction and Background Jeffers
Page 31 and 32:
Introduction and Background EXHIBIT
Page 33 and 34:
Introduction and Background In Augu
Page 35 and 36:
2.0 JEFFERSON COUNTY EMPLOYEE SURVE
Page 37 and 38:
Jefferson County Employee Survey Re
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
3.0 ASSESSMENT OF THE ORGANIZATION
Page 51 and 52:
Assessment of the Organization and
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF THE FINANCE AND B
Page 65 and 66:
Assessment of the Finance and Busin
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
CHAPTER 5.0 HEALTH & WELFARE/LIBRAR
Page 115 and 116:
Health & Welfare/Library/Veterans S
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
6.0 MAINTENANCE - EQUIPMENT AND STR
Page 153 and 154:
Maintenance - Equipment and Structu
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Maintenance, and Fleet Operations o
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
CHAPTER 7.0 JUDICIAL AND PUBLIC SAF
Page 181 and 182:
Judicial and Public Safety Function
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222: Judicial and Public Safety Function
Page 251 and 252: 8.0 ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS OF JEFFER
Page 253 and 254: Enterprise Operations of Jefferson
Page 271: Enterprise Operations of Jefferson
Page 299 and 300: APPENDIX 1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INC
Page 301 and 302: Economic Development Incentives Pol
Page 319 and 320: APPENDIX 2 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY
Page 321 and 322: Fiscal Impact Summary Recommendatio
Page 323:
Fiscal Impact Summary Recommendatio
show all

Management and Performance Review of County Government ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?