The following is from the city minutes concerning airport
insurance cost.
Administrator Childers answered 2012 was $7,904 and we are
anticipating $9,000 in 2013.
“The
budgeted number is $6,900, and in 2011 it is $6,736 to date which is a split of
50% of the
general
fund, which is 45% Administration, 5% Airport, 10% Parks, 20% Water and 20%
Sewer.
How does
that break down? Total insurance
cost would be $158,080.00
Administration $71,136.00
Airport $7,904.00
Parks $15,808.00
Water dept. $31,616.00
Sewer dept. $31,616.00
MIRMA
airport cost for St. Clair in the 09-10 year was $1515. Airports like Down Town Parks have
experienced a decrease in insurance cost for the past three years.
Looks like the airport is subsidizing the city instead of the other way around.
ReplyDeleteAnd they said the airport had no benefit to the city.
ReplyDeleteThe figures you've posted actually are what was paid to MIRMA last year. I have a copy of the city's final 2012 budget. There, it shows that the total 2012 cost for MIRMA was $71,904 for administrative, $7,904 for the airport, $31,617 for both water and sewer and $15,808 for parks. The breakdown is 45 percent of the overall insurance cost for administrative, 5 percent for the airport, 20 percent water, 20 percent sewer and 10 percent parks. That is the amount that was paid to MIRMA as directed by MIRMA. Remember, the head man at MIRMA himself has said that St. Clair is being fair and reasonable in budgeting 5 percent of its total insurance premium costs to the airport.That man said MIRMA determines at the start of each fiscal year how much costs will be. MIRMA divides that amount by each town's payroll and comes up with a figure for each municipality per $100 of payroll. Since St. Clair has no payroll specifically directed to the airport, the MIRMA man said it can be difficult to determine what percentage directly would go toward the airport, but 5 percent is a reasonable amount. So, that's exactly what the city does. ... MIRMA does include the airport and the exposure it represents when it determines rates. The man there said that since the city does direct personnel to work at the airport for maintenance, it's fair and reasonable that the city charge back a percentage to the airport. The man said if the city did not have an airport, its rate would decrease.
ReplyDeleteAnd, the above-mentioned information is fact, not fiction.
ReplyDeleteSo, based on the figure of $100/payroll that would mean the amount of payroll for the airport is around $60,000/year?
ReplyDeleteThe city has several people who spend part of their payrolled time at the airport or working on airport information, not just maintenance people. And, yes, the city contracts out mowing. You don't have to be an FBO to spend work time at the airport. And, if you would have read more closely instead of already starting to point fingers, MIRMA has said since St. Clair has no payroll specifically directed to the airport, it can be difficult to determine what percentage directly would go toward the airport, but 5 percent is a reasonable amount. That is from MIRMA, not the city.
ReplyDeleteDoes MIRMA write the Federal regulations for the FAA.
DeleteIf you're now complaining about insurance costs in addition to everything else, your beef is with MIRMA on this, not the city. MIRMA is the one that said 5 percent is reasonable and fair. And, the city's auditing firm never has raised any red flags on the city's budget and how it spends or receives its money. Never! And, since the city is now following the recommendations of MoDOT and the FAA, there's no beef anymore with the city there either. Your beef is with MoDOT and the FAA.
ReplyDeleteMoDOT has not yet addressed the MIRNMA issue.
DeleteThe man from MIRMA should have read the Federal Law. In this case the airport receives $1515 worth of insurance.
ReplyDeleteFederal Register /Vol. 64, No. 30 /Tuesday, February 16, 1999 /Notices 7719
B. Allocation of Indirect Costs
1. Indirect costs of sponsor services may be allocated to the airport in accordance with this policy, but the allocation must result in an allocation to the airport only of those costs that would otherwise be allowable under 49 U.S.C. § 47107(b). In addition, the documentation for the costs must meet the standards of documentation stated in this policy.
2. The costs must be allocated under a cost allocation plan that meets the following requirements:
a. The cost is allocated under a cost allocation plan that is consistent with Attachment A to OMB Circular A–87, except that the phrase ‘‘airport revenue’’ should be substituted for the phrase ‘‘grant award,’’ wherever the latter phrase occurs in Attachment A;
b. The allocation method does not result in a disproportionate allocation of general government costs to the airport in consideration of the benefits received by the airport;
c. Costs allocated indirectly under the cost allocation plan are not billed directly to the airport; and d. Costs billed to the airport under the cost allocation plan must be similarly billed to other comparable units of the airport owner or operator.
C. Standard of Documentation for the Reimbursement to Government Entities of Costs of Services and Contributions Provided to Airports
1. Reimbursements for capital and operating costs of the airport made by a government entity, both direct and indirect, must be supported by adequate documentary evidence. Documentary evidence includes, but is not limited to:
a. Underlying accounting data such as general and specialized journals, ledgers, manuals, and supporting worksheets and other analyses; and corroborating evidence such as invoices, vouchers and indirect cost allocation plans, or
b. Audited financial statements which show the specific expenditures to be reimbursed by the airport. Such expenditures should be clearly identifiable on the audited financial statements as being consistent with section VIII of this policy statement.
2. Documentary evidence to support direct and indirect charges to the airport must show that the amounts claimed were actually expended. Budget estimates are not sufficient to establish a claim for reimbursement. Indirect cost allocation plans, however, may use budget estimates to establish predetermined indirect cost allocation rates. Such estimated rates should, however, be adjusted to actual expenses in the subsequent accounting period.
MIRNMA? No wonder you can't read well.
ReplyDeleteWe,, let's see ... I'm sure you pay the amount of car insurance your agent tells you to pay, same with your house and .. could it be? ... even for your plane? Your agent tells you the amount and you pay it. Your agent tells you what is covered for the amount you pay, and you pay it. MIRMA tells the city the amount and the city pays it. ... And, I will repeat myself since you obviously didn't comprehend it the first time. Since the city is following the advice of MIRMA, MoDOT and the FAA, your beef now is with MIRMA, MoDOT and the FAA.
ReplyDeleteI just posted what the FAA and MoDOT have to say, where did you get your information, did you talk to MIRMA? I did not see where you had a reference to any documentation from the FAA or MODOT that shows that this is approved by MoDOT and the FAA. Like I said, the airport receives $1515 worth of insurance.
DeleteIf your insurance agent said that your homeowners insurance was $1500, but that he thought it was fair to charge you $8000 for it, what would you think about the agent? Did it EVER occur to you that just maybe the man from MIRMA does not understand the FAA rules?
DeleteSt. Clair All the Way -- YOU ROCK!
ReplyDeleteWait and see what the FAA has to say about value recieved and overcharging.
ReplyDeleteSure, I'm guessing MIRMA people are not experts on FAA rules. But, it's very apparent that the FAA doesn't even understand all of its own rules. But — again — you're missing the point. I can't write it more slowly and more simply than this: The ... city ... is ... doing ... what ... MIRMA ... says ... is ... fair ... and ... reasonable ... just... like ... our ... officials ... now ... are ... doing ... what ... MoDOT ... and ... the ... FAA ... are ... asking ... them ... to ... do. That is the point. Your issue is with MIRMA, MoDOT and the FAA, not the city.
ReplyDeleteThe city is not following the FAA rules and the issue is between the city and the FAA, not the pilots and the FAA.
ReplyDeleteMIRMA…does…not…get…to…decide…what…is…fair…and…reasonable. Read …the...FAA…rules.
ReplyDeleteOne… of…the…considerations…for…determining…the…reasonableness…of…a…cost…is…market…prices…for…comparable…goods…or…services. The…market…price…for…the…airport…insurance…is…$1515.
St Clair airport- YOU ROCK MORE
ReplyDeleteWe to are jerks for letting the people running the city take us down the road to nowhere.The pilots didn't get the city in the cluster... they are in.
ReplyDeleteIn 2009 the city started to divide up the MIRMA cost among the city departments.
ReplyDeleteTotal MIRMA $98,697
Water & Sewer $65,140 66%
Admin $25,839 26.18%
Airport $7,718 7.82%
Question for anyone. Since Federal law trumps State and local laws and the FAA informed the City -
ReplyDeleteairports are not closed for the reasons given. What is the City's "Plan B"?
these people dont know what a plan b is, they still think they are closing the airport.... Whatever!
ReplyDeleteWhat a shame. Any manager, planner, administrator, etc., worth his pay will have more than one plan in place to insure success. Unless he wants egg on his face.
ReplyDeleteI am not a St. Clair resident nor do I use this airport, but I do fly as often as I can. I have tried to pay attention to this blog here and there after someone told me to check it out a while back. I've been reading about this place when I can. What I'm finding here is a city looking for its best solution to help it attain growth and a few people trying to stand in their way using the FAA as their front. We do not need this airport in the overall scheme of the national aviation system and it is my opinion that with the financial crisis going on in our nation's capital and with the FAA potentially affected, any airport manager wishing to close their strip should be allowed to do so, under certain conditions, especially if it saves everyone, including the FAA, money in the long run. This is the only thing that makes sense here. From what I can see, this city's leaders are trying to get along with the FAA. Yes, maybe everything is not in exact compliance, but there are other municipality-run airports in the exact same situation. FAA rules and regulations are very difficult to understand fully, and I think our feds get caught in their own red tape often. But if closing this airport could benefit the FAA, which it looks to me like it could pending the looming financial crisis, and it also helps the city, let the place close. I know you can't close an airport for economic development. I know the rules pretty well, but it's easy to see in this specific case that closing this airport is the best thing all the way around. You pilots protesting this are giving us a bad name.
ReplyDeleteYou would be right if the city was not misrepresenting the facts. There has been no buyer step up and say they were going to build anything anywhere in St. Clair, especially the airport. The cost is too high, there is other land available from private owners at less cost. The city displaced more than 20 aircraft from the field and blocked development from taking place. The funds from the FAA has been available and returned by the city, so the excuse of no money is false.
ReplyDeleteThe city has failed to comply with the requirements of closure. There is no contracts for the sale or distribution of funds. None of the required contracts with the recieving party if the sale is allowed. It will be very costly to meet all of the FAA requirements, not even counting the years it will take.
ReplyDeleteThis person is not a real pilot but merly someone pretnding to be one to try and upset the blog. Really? You have no other means but to lie about who you are.
ReplyDeleteIf the FAA would allow the airport to close after what the city has done it would open the door for other airport sponsers to try the same thing.The FAA has put rules in place to stop this exact thing from happening.If the airport was run like it was intended by the FAA it would not cost the city a penny.
ReplyDeleteI've lived in the St. Clair community for 25 years (I know, I'm not a native, but still), I operate a business that serves the local community, been a member of the Chamber, etc. In other words, I've watched this community's progress and demise for years. I have very mixed feelings about current efforts to improve the community.
ReplyDeleteI can't for the life of me understand eliminating one of the most unique assets we have to attract and support development, when there's so much commercial land for sale along all of our existing commercial thoroughfares. I can understand the "secrecy" about developers/buyers, etc.before a deal is actually possible, but with the state of the present economy, this just seems like a pipe dream on the part of the city.
And the animosity that's been engendered through the whole process just deepens the ugliness associated with our community. I know I'm late to the process, but it just seems such a shame that the pilots were not taken up on their offers to help the city run the airport properly and profitably.
And it seems really dumb for the city to have zeroed in on that property and the gamble of being able to undermine the general aviation system for it's pipe dream development.
Well said PW.
DeleteFrequent flyer, I doubt you are a pilot, if you really were you would help protect what few aviation assets this country has left. If you read anything you can easily see the city is not in compliance, rule #1 for closure. If you are a pilot you know we have to follow the rules, so do they.
ReplyDeleteTim Dempsey: If you would have read my comments more carefully, you would have seen that I said that maybe everything isn't in compliance. And I really don't care whether you think I'm a pilot or not. My guess is, however, I have logged a lot more miles than you, but that's not important. But what is important is that we have enough aviation assets to get by and shutting down one small airport that in the overall scheme of things isn't critical to the FAA or aviation in general is an OK thing for a city to ask for under these circumstances.
ReplyDeletePW: Many of your comments are good ones. And it is too bad the pilots have made this such an ugly issue.
ReplyDeleteHow did the pilots make this an ugly issue? The pilots did not break the law.
DeleteThe city built the lift station not the pilots.
The city put the junk in the maintenance hangar, not the pilots.
The city raised the rent to force tenants off the airport, not the pilots.
The city received the letters from the FAA and MoDOT not the pilots.
The city has failed to maintain the airport not the pilots.
Pilots do not log miles.
ReplyDeleteThe city charges the airport more than Mirma pays for insurance. How is that made ugly by the pilots?
ReplyDeleteTo Frequent Flyer, Where are these assets you refer to? We need hanger space to move from K39
ReplyDeleteWhere is hanger space available? You speak without knowledge.
Proud St. Clair Citizen
ReplyDeleteHow did the pilots make this an ugly issue? The pilots did not break the law.
The city built the lift station not the pilots.
The city put the junk in the maintenance hangar, not the pilots.
The city raised the rent to force tenants off the airport, not the pilots.
The city received the letters from the FAA and MoDOT not the pilots.
The city has failed to maintain the airport not the pilots.
Does anyone else notice that the water and sewer department paid a large amount of the insurance?????
ReplyDeleteThat appears to shift the cost of insurance from the general revenue account to the water/sewer. The largest payroll and ins. cost should come out of gen revenue? That is one way to cook the books.
ReplyDelete