DOWN TO FOUR TENANTS

Another tenant is moving to the Sullivan Airport.  A local Franklin County resident, with a St. Clair address is moving out due to the high hangar rates, taxiway conditions, and lack of fuel on the field.   This leaves four tenants.  The management practices of the city will no doubt cause the airport to lose money, and become a burden to the taxpayers of the city.   This will bring the income down to about $8500 a year.  This will not cover the insurance cost, let alone any of the other expenses.   In 2008 the airport had an income of $33,000.  It only took Ron Blum five years to total ruin the airport.  No matter what the city says or prints in the newspaper, the actions by the city tell the real story.  

AIRPORT SUSTAINABILITY

It has been often been told and repeated over and over, and also published in the local news publication, that the airport has never shown a profit, according to city records.   To objectively look at this, you have to take a serious look at the city records.

 In 2002 the city records show a gross income of $29,605.37, and expenses of $15,334.08.   Both the old and the new math will tell you this is $14,271.29 of profit.

In 2003 the airport shows a gross income of $19,015.82, and expenses of $4,509.88, and $14,505.94 of profit.  .  (In 2002 the city had $5203 of bad aviation fuel.  It went bad after sitting in the tank for too long, and the city could not sell it as 100LL aviation fuel.  After several months the fuel disappeared, no one knows where it went, the tank was emptied.  If this would be included in the city records, and the airport would be compensated for the fuel, the profit would be $19,475.24 for 2002, for a total profit of $33,981.18 for 2002 and 2003.)

These numbers will tell anyone that the repeated statements that the airport has never shown a profit, are just plain untrue. 

  

In 2004 the City records show airport expenses were $26,356.18 with income at $18,196.03, which will show an $8,160.15 loss for the airport.  Included in the expenses was $3,635.50 for engineering for the AIP funding.  This expense should have been paid for by the AIP Grant, but the city was unaware that the expenses qualified for grant funding.  The city also spent $8,799.50 in repairs to the airport that had gone overlooked in the past.  This also included $10,000 to St. Clair Aviation for airport management contract that included the grass mowing at the airport.   To correct for the engineering expense, that would put the airport profit at $29,456.53 for 02, 03, and 04.  We have heard over and over again that the city could not afford to pay someone $30,000 a year to sit at the airport to pump gas.   The fact of the matter is that only happened in two year 05, 06, which by the way also included grass mowing of the airport, something that the city had neglected to do. 

In 2005 things get interesting.   The city records show a gross income of $16,126.75, and expenses of $121,119.11, for a loss of $104,992.36.   This includes $30,000 for Buzz and the airport contract.  $3,118.70 in more engineering expense and $4,766.76 in MIRMA cost.  What is so different here is that these figures include a cost called MODOT $72,648.89.  (More on this later.)  Without the corrections for the engineering, but correcting the MIRMA cost, and the MODOT cost, the airport shows a profit of $5,343.66 for 02,03,04,05. 

In 2006 there are more corrections that need to be addressed.  The expenses are shown as $468,071.00 and income at $25,303.00 and show a loss of $442,768.00.   This includes a cost of $398,051.00 to MODOT.   Also included is an expense for Airevac for $23,298.00 and equipment repair for $10,044.00 which includes expenses for the helipad constructed for Airevac.   After correcting the above the airport would show a loss of $6,758.34 for 02,03,04,05,06. 

In 2007 city records show a gross income of $21,570.00 and expenses of $ $51,675.38 for a loss of $30,105.38.  These expenses also show a cost for MODOT for $23,642.48, and additional engineering expense of $2,110.55.  For the years 02 through 07 the airport would show a loss of $15,398.04. 

In 2008 the gross income was $33,005.00 and expenses were $62,128.00 for a loss of $29,123.  This includes another MODOT expense of $55,364.00.  With corrections for the MODOT grant, this should show a profit of $25,581, giving the airport a profit of $10,182.96 for the years of 02 to 08. 

In the year 09 through 12, the city started to contract out the grass mowing, and started to charge the airport for MIRMA coverage.  The MIRMA cost for those years was $28,077.15.    The city started to charge this much for insurance when they found out that they could not keep the airport revenue in the general revenue account of the city.   The $553,955.21 in MODOT expenses were not expenses, they were the AIP grant funds paid out by MODOT.  The city portion of the AIP contract was around $29,600 which should have been charged off to a capitol improvements account and depreciated over 20 years at $1390 per year.  Mirma cost should be $785 per year, and correcting for the rent the city paid the airport for the maintenance hangar and other items for Airevac expense, the operating profit for the airport, if accounted for under generally accepted accounting practices would show a profit for the years of 02 to 12, of $25,692.57. 

To take the city records at their face value without examination of the expense items to get a true picture of the airport financial situation is just plain wrong.  To publicly make claims about the profitability of the airport without care full examination of the figures, is irresponsible and unprofessional. 

The airport will no doubt show a loss for 2013, due to the management practices of the city.  The examination of these management practices show that one of two things is happening, the city is completely incapable of managing an airport, or the city is operating the airport with the intention of forcing it into an unprofitable situation to further its case for closure. 

The following is from a letter by MoDOT to the city on Sept 23, 2010. 

In reviewing information provided by the complainant, the City has presumably charged for insurance in some years and some years has not. Our office would recommend that the City of St. Clair have further discussions with other municipalities that have airports that do not sell fuel and determine how those municipalities establish their insurance costs for the airport. This will allow the City to develop an annual reasonable cost far airport insurance that is consistent in terms of actual cost compared to value received. This will also enhance the airport budget planning process.

The city did not follow this recommendation, but when eight other municipalities similar to St. Clair, were polled, they replied that they did not charge the airport for insurance due to the fact that they did not have any payroll at their airport.  The letter also went on to say;

Airport Sustainability

The MoDOT Aviation Section is participating with other aviation industry representatives in the preparation of a guidebook to assist political subdivisions in the development of a General Aviation Airport Business Plan .A business plan can assist airport owners in the short and long term sustainability of the airport and can allow the airport to respond accordingly in financially challenging times. Once the study is completed, our office will forward you a copy,

Based on information provided by the City for their 2009 revenue and expenses for the airport, it is possible for the airport to sustain itself if management and operational practices were executed in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration guidelines and circulars and in compliance with federal grant obligations. Our office is available to assist the City with any questions related to the airport and can provide FAA documents related to compliance with federal grant assurances.

Our office will await the submittal of the requested information in this letter: Please feel free to contact our office if you should have any’ questions.

In this letter MoDOT concluded that the airport could support itself.  The city made no attempt to resolve this issue, or reply to MoDOT with any information.

NO BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY

Since I can not longer cut and paste from the Missourian, I can only post a link.

http://www.emissourian.com/opinion/editorials/article_23e0dc46-5cf1-11e3-a389-001a4bcf887a.html

Supporters of the Washington Airport inside the Missourian have posted an editorial.  What is sad is that it only refers to the Washington airport.  The statistics the article quote refer to all airports in Missouri.    The difference between the airports at Washington and St. Clair?  Management!!!!  At Washington you have someone that wants to see the airport developed into an asset for the city and surrounding area.  In St. Clair, the management wants to destroy the airport, and remove it from the face of the earth, and will break many state and federal laws to do it.  

NONE OF THE PILOTS AT THE AIRPORT LIVE IN ST CLAIR

This phrase has become the war cry of the city and the newspaper.  It has been used as a reason to enforce the idea that the airport should go away.  It has been used without an explanation.  What difference does it make to anyone where airport tenants live?   The FAA has regulations against residency preferential treatment, when it comes to Federally Funded Airports.  But then, no one that lives in St. Clair would know that.   The continued publishing of this phrase is intended to do one thing, to make the tenants of the airport appear as bad people.   The tenants are costing the taxpayer’s money.   It is an attempt to divert attention from what the city is doing to destroy the airport, and place blame on the tenants.   But like Adolf said, “If you are going to lie, make it big, simple, and repeat it over and over, and eventually people will believe it.”

But the best thing about this phrase is that its finger points in every direction.  Rumors and I repeat RUMORS are that Ron Blum has moved to Sullivan, with all the other previous airport tenants.  If you can come up with something as stupid as “you don’t have to pay taxes on it if you don’t use it”, this should produce something even better. 

Comments by the city administration like we have seen over the airport, and the personal property issue, go to show the Ron Blum must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of his constituents to think that everyone will believe this crap.  But then everyone knows that Ron is smarter than everyone else.  

MORE ON THE RUNWAY

MORE ON THE RUNWAY

MORE PROPPELLER DAMAGE

The latest incident was on Monday.

To date there has been 4 events that have involved propeller damage at the St. Clair regional Airport in the last several years.   Two have been minor, one involved replacement of the propeller blades, and one required factory repairs.   This will probably continue, and end up costing the city money due to an increase in insurance premiums.  The city seems to be reluctant to do any repairs to the taxiway; after all they are going to close the airport, right?  We heard this in 06, eight years ago.   The city still has to come with a workable plan, and according to the FAA people in K.C. the plan that they think they can go with, has “no support” in the entire FAA organization.  As the city continues to drag this out, the damage to aircraft will continue, and the insurance will continue to cost the city money.  Propellers are extremely expensive, and rock strikes are extremely hazardous, they operate at supersonic speeds during takeoff.  Replacement cost of two of the propellers on the field could be as high as $15,000. 

The city can ignore this as long as they want, but propellers on other aircraft that have used St. Clair in the last couple of years, cost in excesses of $30,000.   Not to mention a jet engine sucking up a rock.  

Airfield Appears to Be In Good Repair

This is from the MoDOT safety inspection that was done prior to the FAA suspending its consideration of the St. Clair closure request.  This was not done in response to the complaint filed by the tenants.  The remark “Airfield Appears to Be In Good Repair” refers to the airside portion of the development, which is everything on the runway side of the hold short line.  This does not refer to the landside portion of the airport property.  The one major item in the report, one of the very few, is the condition of the common use taxiway.  This taxiway is in horrible condition, and is causing damage to aircraft, for which the city is responsible.    

City financial records will show that no money has been spent on airport taxiway maintenance.  City financial records will also show that the city has not spent any money on the removal of trees from the approaches, which has been an item on three previous MoDOT inspections.

City financial records also show that approximately $70,000 to $80,000 of depreciation expense being charged to the airport.  The city was asked for the information on this, including the asset that was being depreciated, the date the asset was acquired, and the value of the asset.  The response was that they did not know, but it appeared that it was being charge towards a 1.6 million runway in the 90’s. 

The city financial records from the mid 90’s do not show any improvements made to the airport for 1.6 million dollars.  

The city financial records show that the city is charging the airport for %5 of the city insurance cost, when asked for the documentation to show this cost, the city stated that this documentation does not exist.  

LACK OF MAINTENANCE

After a request from an aircraft owner, the city has cleaned the secondary taxiway.   The debris on the taxiways led to propeller damage to a tenant’s aircraft.  This was not the first incident involving propeller damage.   The condition of the taxiways was listed in the inspection completed by the state aviation department , and was listed in the things the city needed to address in order for the FAA to continue to address the city’s attempt to close the airport.   Maintenance of federally funded projects is a requirement of the grant assurances that accompany federal funding.   Maintenance of the airway structures has been ignored by the city since 2006.  The runway has started to develop cracks that if left un addressed, will cause early deterioration of the runway.

FRANKLIN COUNTY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES

If you own an aircraft in Franklin County, and it is worth less than $60.200, and it is older than 25 years, and flies less than 50 hours per year, you have been over charged on your personal property taxes for years.   Before this year Franklin County has appraised all aircraft in Franklin county at $10,000, and assed them at 33%.  They should have been valued at the market value, and assed at .05%.   There are 59 aircraft on the FAA registry, and 6 are not older than 25 years.  Two of which are balloons.   If the average value of these aircraft is $30,000, the county has over taxed the owners by approximately $53,000 in the last ten years.  If you are the owner of an older aircraft in Franklin County, check your tax bill, you might be due a refund.  One owner walked out of the assessor’s office with a $300 check.  

AND NOW WE HAVE PROPELLER DAMAGE

The city it seems is liable for propeller damage from FOD damage at the airport.  The city’s insurance people told the owner of the propeller to “send us the bill”.  This is not the first case of propeller damage, other tenants have also had claims filed with MIRMA, but MIRMA refused to pay them.  The propeller that was damaged recently was brand new out of the box, and had not even made it into the air, before it was damaged in two places.  The repairs are estimated to be around $1000.  In the previous claim that MIRMA did not pay, the repairs were estimated at $4500.  The city was cited by MODOT for poor taxiway conditions in the last safety inspection of the airport.  As of date, the city has done nothing to eliminate the FOD or the poor conditions of the airport pavement.  

GET OUT OF THE AIRPORT BUSINESS

  It has been discovered in preparing this article, that after the first July meeting of 2013, you can no longer high light and copy the city minuets on the city website.
The following comments are from the recipient of the St. Clair business of the month.  He added them to the public comment section at the end of the meeting.
Mr. Marty Hinterlong commented the airport was never run as a business except for the gentleman about 15 years ago. He often pondered when the regional districts say an airport is one of the better assets why we would have an airport with no gas. Mr. Hinterlong said he would love to see the City let the airport be run as a business and see where it can go. Mayor Blum asked Mr. Hinterlong for suggestions. Mr. Hinterlong said he suggested we advertise as a business opportunity for someone. Then the City could say to the Airport Authorities we really tried. Mayor Blum replied he feels it has been tried several times. Fifty years has been spent on that facility, and if we spend another five years and the economy turns around, we may miss out on another opportunity.
This highlighted sentence made by Blum, along with other comments on the airport, give the impression that Ron Blum is trying to implicate that the airport is to blame for it present situation.  He is trying to implicate others for the failure that has been spawned by the city.  This airport has been abused by the city ever since Fred Atkinson left.  The city is the airport.  Is Ron Blum really going to try and throw off on someone else what he has done to the airport??
Citizens like Mr. Hinterlong need to become more involved with the city and its operations and find out what is really going on.  They need to look into the audits and ask questions.  They need to ask why the St. Clair Water and Sewer department, and the airport have been funding 45% of the city’s insurance cost.  If someone would look at the numbers, they would see that the W/S department make up 20% of the payroll.
Look at the rest of the paragraph above.  Retail is not coming to St. Clair as was promised.  This was stated over and over and long after the retail boom was long gone.  It has been a mantra for Ron Blum to justify the Gestapo tactics used to destroy the airport.
This is where it strands as the tenants see it.  The city has no FAA acceptable plan.  The amendment did not work, and by going the amendment route, the city has shown that they do not intend to follow the law.  It is time for the city to get out of the airport business and find another sponsor for the facility.  

AIREVAC

Another St. Clair based business is leaving town.  What is really sad about AirEvac leaving is that the city spent a lot of money to put Airevac on the field.  They built a hangar with publically donated and city funds.  This hangar came to about $22,000.    Then the city spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 to make airport improvements, in order for AirEvac to build its new maintenance facility.   If you add the $100 a month that it takes to provide free water and sewer services, add another $10,000.  (The $10,000, for water and sewer cost, has been put into to operating expenses of the airport, and has been subsidized by the fixed wing tenants.)

In nine years, the AirEvac Rent would be $32,000, about half of the city’s investment in the AirEvac Project. 

What happened to the idea that AirEvac was going to stay on site?  We will find a place for AirEvac in the city, no matter what the FAA says. 

The AirEvac project was put together before Blum, and would have eventually made a profit for the airport.   This was done with the thinking that AirEvac was here for the long term.  Now we are looking at a huge operating loss for the airport, due to mis-management by the city.  But what we are looking at is premeditated mismanagement by the city, just to satisfy Ron Blum’s personal vengeance against the airport.  

Without AirEvac's rent, and their only being five tenants, Ron Blum has finally after six years, sent the airport into the red.  

MILLIONS

According to an FAA official, the city has been informed with how much they would be required to pay back the Federal Government for the airport.  The FAA official that stated this, could not recall the exact number, but stated that he would find out what that number was, but it is in the MILLIONS.   The city has led the public to believe that they can sell the land for $550,000, and pay back the grant with the sale proceeds, and it is over. 

As soon as we find out the number the Feds have quoted, it will appear here.  This is the real situation, even if the McCaskill amendment were to pass, which does not seem likely, the city would have to come up with the difference between the appraised value, and what the Feds say the airport is worth.  No one would pay the Feds price for this property, so the city will be on the hook for the difference.  The appraisal has evidence of city influence, $6800 an acre, really!!  What is obvious here but not really surprising, is that the city thinks that no one would notice,  TEN YEARS AGO, a large parcel just down the interstate, maybe a mile, went for $8000 an acre on the same day it was listed.   Not a fair comparison????   We are looking at prime retail development property here, LOCATION-LOCATION-LOCATION.   What appears here is that someone is trying to influence the appraisal, thinking that the property would be easier to obtain if the appraised price were lower than market conditions.   The appraisal is really not the issue, the Feds will set the price.                       

AIRPORTS IN TROUBLE

Heard from johngalt57 today.  He said out blog was at the top of the list in the search engines.  We discussed airport issues and decided that a national organization to protect airports was an excellent idea.  We will be running this by AOPA, EAA, NBAA, and every aviation organization we can think of.   I think the response to the crooks that want to close airports, would be stronger if more than one airport at a time was voicing their problems.   Kind of like “MESS WITH ONE AIRPORT, YOU MESS WITH ALL OF THEM.”    Johngalt57 was telling how the local airport is run by a county commission, and they are using St. Clair as an example as how to close an airport.   

FAA EXTENSION

Someone is very confused.  The FAA extended the time for consideration of the Part 16 complaint, not the consideration of the closure.  The closure is not being considered until the airport is in compliance to the satisfaction of the FAA.  See the letter on the blog.  The closure will be considered after the airport is found to be in compliance with its Federal obligations, and not just the conclusion of the part 16 complaint.   

PRIORITIES

Ron Blum is making a feeble attempt to convince the community that his personal vendetta against the airport is justified, and that St. Clair cannot thrive if it remains the sponsor of the airport.   The city has an obligation to the Federal Government, and this cannot be overridden by his personal preferences.  The obligation to the community does not override the Federal obligations.   Ron Blum is marketing the concept that the city cannot afford the airport, and that the only solution is closure.  If the city cannot afford to operate the airport, it has another option, find another sponsor for the airport.  The city does not have to be the sponsor.  The obligations are transferable.   Retail development is nowhere in site, and the continued efforts to destroy the airport have backfired on Ron Blum’s plan.   The city should seek to turn over the airport to another party.  

WHERE IS THE RETAIL?

How many years is it going to take until the citizens of St. Clair start to realize that they have been led down a path to nowhere, and this path was extremely expensive? 

The following is what was produced to bring everyone on board.   (From the redevelopment plan page 39.)

At build-out, it is estimated that the total equalized assessed value (“EAV”) of the Redevelopment Project Area, based upon 385,000 square feet of total retail/outparcel space and will be $14,064,531. It is also estimated that at full build-out, the Redevelopment Project Area will produce, based upon estimated annual taxable sales of $99,875,000, the following annual tax revenues:

Local Sales Tax: $ 4,744,063

Personal Property: $ 206,604

So where is the retail?  If you look real close, you might be able to see it at the end of the road.

MCCASKILL AMENDMENT 1800

MRW13702                                                                                                                               S.L.C.

AMENDMENT NO.______________               Calendar No._________

Purpose: To release the City of St. Clair, Missouri, from all restrictions, conditions, and limitations on the use, encumbrance, conveyance, and closure of the St. Clair Regional Airport.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—113th Cong., 1st Sess.

S. 1243

Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation,

and Housing and Urban Development, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2014, and for other purposes.

Referred to the Committee on __________ and

ordered to be printed

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed AMENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mrs. MCCASKILL

(for herself and Mr. BLUNT)

Viz:

1   On page 24, between lines 16 and 17, insert the fol-

2   lowing:

3   SEC. 119F. (a) The United States, acting through

4   the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,

5   shall release the City of St. Clair, Missouri, from all re

6   strictions, conditions, and limitations on the use, encum

7   brance, conveyance, and closure of the St. Clair Regional

8   Airport, as described in the most recent airport layout

9   plan approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, to

2

MRW13702                                                                                                                               S.L.C.

1    the extent such restrictions, conditions, and limitations are

2    enforceable by the Administrator.

3           (b) The release under subsection (a) shall not be exe

4   cuted until the City of St. Clair, or its designee, transfers

5   to the Department of Transportation of the State of Mis

6   souri—

7          (1) the amounts described in subsection (c), to

8    be used for capital improvements within the meaning

9    of airport development (as defined in section

10  47102(3) of title 49, United States Code) and con

11   sistent with the obligations of the Department of

12  Transportation of the State of Missouri under the

13  State block grant program of the Federal Aviation

14  Administration; and

15        (2) for no consideration, all airport and avia

16   tion-related equipment of the St. Clair Regional Air

17   port owned by the City of St. Clair and determined

18   by the Department of Transportation of the State of

19   Missouri to be salvageable for use.

20   (c) The amounts described in this subsection are the

21   following:

22   (1) An amount equal to the fair market value

23   for the highest and best use of the St. Clair Re

24   gional Airport property determined in good faith by

3

MRW13702                                                                                                                             S.L.C.

1   an independent and qualified real estate appraiser

2   on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

3           (2) An amount equal to the unamortized por

4   tion of any Federal development grants other than

5   land paid to the City of St. Clair for use at the St.

6   Clair Regional Airport, which may be paid with and

7   shall be an allowable use of airport revenue notwith

8  standing section 47107 or 47133 of title 49, United

9   States Code.

10      (3) An amount equal to the airport revenues re

11  maining in the airport account for the St. Clair Re

12  gional Airport as of the date of the enactment of

13  his Act and otherwise due to or received by the City

14  of St. Clair after such date of enactment pursuant

15  to sections 47107(b) and 47133 of title 49, United

16   States Code.

17   (d) The Federal Aviation Administration shall remove

18  the runway end indicator lighting system at St. Clair Re

19  gional Airport.

20  (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit

21  the applicability of—

22  (1) the requirements and processes under sec

23  tion 46319 of title 49, United States Code;

4

MRW13702                                                                                                                          S.L.C.

1            (2) the requirements under the National Envi

2    ronmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

3   seq.);

4   (3) the requirements and processes under part

5   157 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; or

6   (4) the public notice requirements under section

7   47107(h) of title 49, United States Cod

JUMPING AROUND THE RULES.

I recorded an event today on CSPAN, the Senate voted to discontinue debate on the transportation and HUD bill (Senate Bill 1243).  The vote failed.   I recorded it for posterity.   The bill has hundreds of amendments, one of which was amendment 1800.

Purpose:

 To release the City of St. Clair, Missouri, from all restrictions, conditions, and limitations on the use, encumbrance, conveyance, and closure of the St. Clair Regional Airport.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—113th Cong., 1st Sess.

S. 1243

The democrats were very upset.   This will leave the bill open for more discussion and filibuster.   With the Senate going into a five week recess, aviation organizations will have five weeks to inform the Senate on the amendment 1800.   The person at our legislative affairs office thinks this bill is dead in the water, and will never make it to a vote before the October deadline. 

This amendment was an attempt by the city to use the political process and to try and circumnavigate the rules.   I seems that the city has a problem when it comes to rules.  Instead of trying to learn them and follow them, they just do what they want and then try to double talk their way out of them.   The full amendment will be posted in the near future, this will be the first in a series of post on this subject.  

FAA EXTENSION OF TIME

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, DC

Jim DeVries     Complainant,                          Docket   No. 16-12-07

V.

City of St. Clair, Missouri     Respondent.

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above- referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director’s Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to September 16, 2013.
An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.
Randall S. Fiertz Date
Director, Airport Compliance
and Management Analysis

WHATS ON THE TABLE?????

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Central Region 901 Locust 

Federal Aviation Iowa, Kansas, Kansas City Missouri 64106 

Administration Missouri, Nebraska (81 6) 329-2600

December 28, 2012

Mayor Ronald Blum
City of St. Clair
#1 Paul Parks Dr.
St. Clair, MO 63077
Dear Mayor Blum:

Thank you for your letter dated August 30, 2012, about the City of St. Clair’s (City) formal request to close the St. Clair Regional Airport (K39).

In accepting Federal Airport Improvement Program funds, the City signed a grant assurances contract and agreed to specific federal obligations, including the commitment to keep the airport open and to make it available for public use as an airport. The City may not close the airport without the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s consent and without a formal release from its applicable federal obligations.

When evaluating a sponsor’s request to close a federally obligated airport, the FAA considers a number of pertinent factors. These factors include the sponsor’s past and present compliance record and its actions in making the airport available for aeronautical use by the public. In light of the FAA’s concerns about the City’s apparent unwillingness to maintain St. Clair Regional Airport available as a usable airport, the Agency will not consider closing St. Clair Regional Airport, as the city requested several months ago, until the city corrects deficiencies at the airport.
The corrective actions include:

 Conducting adequate repairs and the regular inspection of pavement surfaces, runway safety areas, and airport lighting systems including the airport beacon, runway lights and the lighted windsock. The obligation for the City to maintain these facilities exists as long as the airport is used for airport purposes or until the FAA releases the City from this obligation;

Working with the State of Missouri to address operational and financial issues raised by the Department of Transportation Office of inspector Genera!; and

 Resolving the formal complaint filed under 14 CFR Part 16 and the recent informal complaint regarding the increase in tenant rental fees.

                                                                                                                                                                          

Again, the FAA has placed the City’s request for closure on hold. Future discussions will be limited to issues related to the City completing the steps detailed in this letter, including correcting the known safety violations at the airport, adequately addressing your outstanding Part 16 and Part 13 compliance complaints and completing an acceptable corrective plan related to the OIG Hotline complaint. Should you require clarification, please contact me at 816-329-2601,

Sincerely,

Jim Johnson
Airports Division

MISSOURI LAW

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 71 
Provisions Relative to All Cities and Towns 
Section 71.005 

Candidates for municipal office, no arrearage for municipal taxes or user fees permitted.

71.005. No person shall be a candidate for municipal office unless such person complies with the provisions of section 115.346 regarding payment of municipal taxes or user fees.

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 115 
Election Authorities and Conduct of Elections 
Section 115.346 

Persons in arrears for municipal taxes or fees shall not be candidates for municipal office, when.

115.346. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, no person shall be certified as a candidate for a municipal office, nor shall such person's name appear on the ballot as a candidate for such office, who shall be in arrears for any unpaid city taxes or municipal user fees on the last day to file a declaration of candidacy for the office.

WHAT WILL THE CITY DO NEXT???????

The following is from the FAA response the last letter the city sent the Feds.

The FAA has stated, “In order to address the remaining questions relating to Item 4, any future Air Evac leases should reflect a similar percentage increase in the base monthly rate to the increases experienced by other tenants from 2007-2013 pursuant to Title 49 United States Code Section 47107. In the alternative, the City should provide its cost allocation methodology for its rental rates. This methodology should be consistent with the FAA’s Rates and Charges Policy. “

What does this mean?  One would have to read the Rates and Charges policy to understand this, but it basically states that you cannot raise the rent on one group of airport users, and not raise the rent on another user.   You cannot charge one group of users for the cost associated with another group of users. 

These rules are very clear as to the intent with which they are written, run the airport for the benefit of the aviation public.   Until the city figures this out, they are dead in the water.  The city does not have a rental rate method, nor do they understand the Rates and Charges Policy, they probably do not know where to find the Rates and Charges policy, since they are published in the rules and regulations for airport operators.

As the man said, life is tough, it's allot tougher if you are stupid!! 

FAA REPLY TO CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

The city has not produced any information on the following letter.  No articles in the paper, not even a mention in the council minutes.  It is like they did not get a copy of the letter.  There were plenty of articles in the paper about MoDOT stating they would not oppose the closure.  Why have we not heard from the City on this letter? 

FAA REPLY TO CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

May 21, 2013

Mr. Rick Childers
City Administrator
City of St. Clair
#1 Paul Parks Drive
St. Clair, MO 63077

Re: St. Clair Regional Airport

March 26, 2013 Correspondence

Dear Mr. Childers:

Thank you for your March 26, 2013 letter. The corrective actions described in your letter demonstrate that the City has made significant progress in addressing the action items contained in my December 21, 2012 letters and Jim Johnson’s December 28, 2012 letter.
However, there are still a few items that must be addressed in order for the City’s corrective action plan to be accepted by MoDOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The purpose of this letter is to outline the items which require additional action and to provide the City with guidance to ensure that its corrective action plan is accepted. 

Routine Maintenance items 

For item 1, “Grass and Weeds in Cracks on Runway and Apron”, the City’s response suggests that pavement cracks are only sprayed once a year. However, if weeds begin to grow out of pavement cracks after the annual spraying has occurred, these weeds should be sprayed as needed. An acceptable corrective action plan will include a commitment from the City to ongoing routine maintenance of grass and weeds in cracks on pavement surfaces. 

For Item 4, “Rotating Beacon Inoperative”, and Item 7, “Runway Lights Broken and Mounted Improperly”, ongoing routine maintenance must continue regardless of the status of negotiations on the City s closure request. An acceptable corrective action plan will include a commitment from the City to ongoing routine maintenance of the rotating beacon and the runway lighting system and will not condition that commitment on the outcome of closure discussions. 

Compliance Plan Correspondence 

For Item 3, which relates to main hangar storage, the actions proposed are acceptable and address the compliance issues raised, but additional information is needed for MoDOT and the FAA to accept the City’s corrective action plan for this item. Please provide me with documentation demonstrating that the $ 11,700 transfer to the new airport account has occurred. Please also provide documentation of the public auction to sell any items remaining in the hangar and documentation demonstrating that the auction proceeds were transferred to the new airport account. 

For Item 4, which relates to Air Evac’s lease, MoDOT and the FAA agree that inclusion of a CPI indexing clause in the next Air Evac lease will help to ensure that Air Evac’s monthly rental rate reflects current economic conditions. MoDOT and the FAA also agree that different categories of tenants can have different rental rates, so long as a consistent methodology is utilized to establish fees for comparable aeronautical users of the airport. 

Although the City’s letter indicates it will include a CPI indexing clause in its next lease agreement with Air Evac, the letter does not state whether the base monthly rental rate for Air Evac will increase from $300/month when the Air Evac lease is next negotiated. Without this information, MoDOT and the FAA cannot determine whether the City’s proposed corrective action plan for Item 4 is acceptable. 

The City’s March 26 letter stated that its lease rates reflect a variety of factors that differentiate certain types of tenants from one another. The differences between Air Evac and the fixed wing tenants may substantiate different rental structures for businesses operating at the airport and for other fixed wing tenants, but without any type of documentation outlining the City’s rental structure for businesses
operating at the airport, MoDOT and the FAA cannot determine whether Air
Evac’s lease agreement is consistent with such rental structure. 

In order to address the remaining questions relating to Item 4, any future Air Evac leases should reflect a similar percentage increase in the base monthly rate to the increases experienced by other tenants from 2007-2013 pursuant to Title 49 United States Code Section 47107. In the alternative, the City should provide its cost allocation methodology for its rental rates. This methodology should be consistent with the FAA’s Rates and Charges Policy. 

MoDOT is available to work with the City to address these remaining corrective action plan items and to identify steps the City can take to ensure future compliance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. As soon as a response is received on these remaining items, I will coordinate with the FAA to determine whether the City’s corrective action plan is acceptable. 

Sincerely, 

Amy Ludwig
Administrator of Aviation
cc: Mr. Jim Johnson, Federal Aviation Administration
Ms. Lynn Martin, Federal Aviation Administration 

PLEASE SAY AGAIN!!

Does it appear to anyone else that these two concocted this story together?   It certainly seems that way.  It also appears that the reporter of the local news publication has been doing this for so long, it has become second nature.   What is incredible is that this is comprised of the two elements:

1.      STUPIDITY and   INTENTIONAL

STUPIDITY:

Everyone in the county has probably at one time tried to claim something was not being used, no good any more, it’s just junk, and tried to get something off of your personal property tax declaration after it was signed.  It just doesn't happen.  I don’t want to use the word “EVERYONE” but I think it is safe to say that a huge and overwhelming majority of the people that read the comments about the mayor’s equipment being unused and un-taxable, viewed this as an incorrect statement.   With the knowledge of how many people would know this, this was an incredibly stupid move; too stupid to be called plain stupid.  On a scale of 1-10; this is out past the 100’s.  Which brings up this; are they really that stupid to think this would fly?  No, probably not, which makes this all the worse, INTENTIONAL.     

INTENTIONAL:

The mention of the word “unused” by the mayor and the reporter; well, that is a dead giveaway.  It is obvious that these two clowns made up this story and were intentionally trying to run this by everyone.   Everyone believes what they read in the paper, so it must be true, right.   Well,----not anymore!!!!      The idea seemed to be to try and lay this off on the assessor and maybe no one will notice!!!!!       

Either way stupid or intentional, this is a demonstration that reveals an attitude of the mayor and the reporter of the local news publication, for their constituents and their readers.  What is sad about all this, the updated article that followed is also a demonstration of that attitude.  It’s apparent that the newspaper is more interested in who Tim Miller is than if the mayor violated election laws.  It is clear that the intention was to draw attention away from the problems the mayor might have by not paying the taxes, and focus on two random individuals, and make them look like trouble makers, and in general really bad people, after all they are pilots. 

Just to let you all know, there was a comment by Robin Smith about what else are they hiding,  Wait till you find out what these no-good pilots found with the MIRMA and the water and sewer department.