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.

                                

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.

EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT

The reporter for a local news publication apparently has accused two individuals of unwarranted and unfounded  attacks on Mayor Ron Blum and stated the these same individuals had previously filed complaints with MoDOT and The FAA, as if it is wrong to file a complaint with the FAA.  One of the individuals has not filed any complaints with the FAA or MoDOT.  If the facts were unfounded, Why  did Blum go to the county and pay the taxes?

You had to be real quick to read about it online, because the article has been removed from the online source, and updated.  The local news publication has admitted to incorrectly reporting the facts.  What appears to have happened was that the local news publication was trying to protect Ron Blum from a potentially embarrassing situation, and possible a legal nightmare.   To make the claim to have incorrectly interpreted what Copeland said is hard to believe.  It is a long way between having to pay taxes on personal property if you own it, and not having to pay taxes on it if you are not using it.  This is common knowledge and again has the appearance that the local news publication is trying to protect the mayor.  The updated article is now saying that it is taken care of, and the matter is closed.  The matter of the taxes might be closed, but what did the mayor sign when he declared his running for office?  Also assets were transferred from a corporation to a private individual, according to the DOR, sales taxes are due on the transfer of these assets.  

The article also claimed that a phone call to the county assessor confirmed that Ron Blum did not need to pay taxes on personal property because it was not being used.  The article did not state who made the phone call.  To claim a have incorrectly interpreted comments from Copeland is ridiculous.  This goes to show how far the local news publication will go to protect the mayor, even when it is obvious that they know better.  To think that this explanation would stand up and to print it and expect the public to believe it shows what little respect the city and the reporter have for the intelligence of the general public. 

This might have been an oversight, on the mayor’s part, no big deal; but to claim that taxes were not due because it is not being used, and to claim that the assessor agreed to this, and to get it printed in the newspaper, that’s another matter altogether.  This shows how much influence city hall has over what is reported in the newspaper.

This appears to be a situation of the local news publication, lying to cover up something that the mayor has done, or did not do.  Why would someone do this? 

Phone calls to the county assessor later on confirmed that he was mis-quoted in the article. 

This article was more concerned with who is making trouble for the mayor, than about the issue of the unpaid taxes.  The next piece on this should be about the filing for the mayor’s office.  Did Ron Blum make a false statement when he filed for mayor?  Did he commit perjury?  The reporter should look into this document and print the facts.  Did Ron Blum owed taxes when he ran for mayor?  

The last four paragraphs of the article refer to the airport and the closure and are obviously  trying to move the focus of this night mare and make it look like a couple of individuals are just trying to cause trouble because of the city’s attempt to close the airport.   It is obvious that the entire purpose of the article is to divert attention from the fact that Ron Blum could possibly have violated the law and should not be the mayor of St. Clair. 

I called the Franklin county assessors office to verify that unused personal property is not assessed.

I received a call from the assessor a few minutes ago and he told me that unused personal property must be declared and taxes paid until disposed of or scraped.  They kinda go by the honor system whereas they expect the person to declare the property without the county going through their belongings to assess the taxes.  This will be interesting how it plays out because of the article in the Missourian miss-quoted the assessor about unused personal property not being assessed. The assessor himself said to me that he was miss-quoted by the Missourian.  A bit of creative writing to say the least?

There are some people who are gullible enough to believe everything that Ron Blum tells them, and also have such an opinion of their own expertise, that they think they have enough information and intelligence to offer opinions on the FAA budget, and how they should delegate their resources.   These people would be well advised to study the city budget, and put as much if not more effort into watching the resources closer to home. 

These people stood by, watched and cheered as the city was clubbing the airport to pieces, but now after the city, according to the local news publication, has paid $17,000 back to the airport, where is the angry mob now.  This should have never happened, but thanks to the Ron Blum airport management plan, St. Clair citizen’s tax money is being pounded down a rat hole, but let’s tell the FAA what they need to do instead!!!!

CITY NEEDS TO WAKE UP

The corrective action plan post is the 4^th most read post. 

As one reads through the rules regulations and Federal Laws, it is quite obvious that they are written with one thing in mind, to protect the Federal Government investment in the airport system.   Where does the funding for this investment come from?  Taxes paid on aviation fuel. 

They are also written to ensure the most benefit be received to the aviation public.  For example:  If market rent for nonaeronautical uses results in a surplus, that surplus can be used to subsidize aeronautical costs of the airport. It is to the benefit of aviation and the traveling public that aeronautical users be able to use the airport at rates and charges below the cost of providing the aviation facilities and services if these are effectively subsidized by nonaeronautical revenues.

What is also clear in the example of St. Clair is that the city has no respect for the intentions presented by the FAA.  The city has taken a position that these laws can be twisted and interpreted to provide the city with justification for their actions.  This is not the case. 

It is obvious that the city administration is intentionally slaughtering the airport.  What the city will eventually learn is that this is the wrong approach.   The longer the city takes this approach, the more obvious it becomes that the intention of the city is to destroy the airport. 

What is obvious also is that the path chosen by Ron Blum to close the airport was poorly thought out.  But besides that, it is also obvious that causing as much damage to the airport in the process was the intention.   The whole plot reeks of VENGEANCE.

What it will boil down to is the following:

b. Preliminary assessment. FAA must make a judgment call in all cases as to whether a

sponsor is reasonably meeting its federal commitments. A sponsor meets its commitments when:

(1). The federal obligations are fully understood;

(2). A program (e.g., preventive maintenance, leasing policies, operating regulations, etc.) is in

place that the FAA deems adequate to carry out the sponsor’s commitments;

(3). The sponsor satisfactorily demonstrates that such a program is being carried out; and,

(4). Past compliance issues have been addressed.

Until the city can demonstrate these four points, they are beating their head against the wall. 

If the city is not willing to operate the airport per their agreement, the city should find an entity that will operate it according to the rules and regulations.   It is time for the city to give up the operation of the airport to someone who can follow the rules.   The direction the city has chosen will not get them to where they want to go.

MORE ON THE TRACTOR PULL

The documents have been requested, so this is just rumor at this time, but for now, the rumor is that when the city was informed about the requirements to conduct a non aeronautical activity on the airport, by MoDOT the City "DENIED" that the event was going to take place, but later on replied back to MoDOT with if we were going to have a tractor pull, what is required.
This is from the city agenda:
3. Ozark Tractor Pullers: The Board of Aldermen had previously approved a request by this organization to hold their event at St. Clair Regional Airport, as has been done for many years in the past.

MoDOT knew about the pull before they contacted the city, what is hilarious about all of this, is that whoever denied that they were going to have a tractor pull on the airport, thought that lying about it was the way to go here.  That brings up another situation.  When city hall thinks that it is smart enough to lie to a government agency about something, and get away with it, and they know that they are lying to the Federal Government, who by this time have probably figured out that if they ask St. Clair a question, they had better find the answer out first before they ask it, this all starts to erode the image of city hall.

ONEROUS

This is also from the city agenda.

Per the attached email from MoDOT Aviation, the requirements for doing so are now too onerous to allow the event.

Onerous

on·er·ous

  [on-er-uhs, oh-ner-]  Show IPA

adjective

1.

burdensome, oppressive, or troublesome; causing hardship: onerous duties.

2.

having or involving obligations or responsibilities, especially legal ones, that outweigh the advantages:an onerous agreement.

There is nothing wrong with having the tractor pull at the airport, we love having them.  Any activity at the airport is good for the airport as long as it follows the rules.  BUT the law places certain restrictions on non-aeronautical activities, and it is apparent that the city thinks that the rules are burdensome, oppressive, or troublesome and are causing hardship.  One can only assume that the city thinks the same thing about the rules that pertain to operating an airport.   The last letter now makes it the fourth time the FAA has tried to explain it in writing.   How many more times is it going to take?  

WHO'S CLOSING WHAT?

This is being posted again just to let everyone that believes the rumors that St. Clair has already gotten approval to close the airport, and it is going to happen soon.  You can  be sure of one thing, if the city already had a closure authorization  the St. Clair Missourians would run a special edition to blast it all over the area.  So far we have not seen anything of the sorts.  The reply to St. Clair's corrective action plan should also squelch such foolish rumors.  

There was rumor going around that the FAA had made a deal with the city of St. Clair on the closing of the airport.  A part of this rumor was that it came from someone connected with the FAA in Kansas City.  

 When contacted, the FAA responded with the following.

All I am at liberty to say is that no decisions have been made about the St. Clair Regional Airport. 

Lynn Martin
Compliance Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration
Central Region, Airports Division
901 Locust - Room 364
Kansas City, MO  64106-2325
Phone: 816-329-2644
Fax: 816-329-2611 

AIR EVAC LEASE

The Air Evac lease is interesting to say the least.  But the alderman’s comments last year are even more interesting!!  If Air Evac is paying $300/month, then so should the Tee-hangar tenants.   Air Evac for $300 is entitled to water and sewer service, use of close to an acre of airport property, and a heated hangar, which alone should rent for $300 per month.   But what Air Evac is paying is irrelevant. The point to all of this is that in trying to run off all of the tenants buy raising the rent, the city discriminated against the fixed wing tenants.   

Air Evac is going to move.   It appears that one of two things needs to happen to fix this.  Either the city will have to raise Air Evac’s rent, which they cannot do, or lower the fixed wing tenants rent to the 07 levels.   What would this do?   Fill the hangars, and produce more revenue that the city is producing now.   The city has proven that they are not exorcizing their responsibilities in a manner that is consistent with their Federal obligations.   

The goal of the city is to force the tenants off of the airport.  Did they want to run off Air Evac?         POOR MAGEMENT, POOR JUDGEMENT, POOR PLANNING, IRRESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP. 

In a previous posted about the gentleman in the 421 Cessna from Denver that landed at Sullivan and then drove to St. Clair to do business.  This projects the attitude of “DON’T COME HERE!!!!  WE DON’T WANT PILOTS IN OUR COMMUNITY.   IF YOU ARE A PILOT, WE DON’T WANT YOUR BUSINESS EITHER!!!!”    This is a brilliant economic plan.   

AIRPORT LIGHTING

This is from the city corrective action plan.

Airport lighting shall be maintained so long as good faith negotiation continues toward closure. Upon termination of positive discussion regarding closure only those repairs and upgrades for which appropriate documentation can be provided will be considered.  

The Feds have stated that this documentation has been sent to the city on several occasions.  

This statement also shows that the city is mistakenlly under the impression that they have a position to negotiate from!!  The FEDS, from DC to KC have stated,"we are not negotiating with the city.   PEROID."  

This sounds like a threat to stop maintenance of the facility.   How did the Feds respond? 

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. 

MoDOT is trying to help the city achieve compliance, but it seems like the city has a different understanding of the word compliance. 

What is required for the city to reach an agreement with MoDOT and the FEDS, is far more than the city is willing to produce.  The city it seems has taken the position that the only way to accomplish Ron Blum’s goal is to destroy the airport, make it “appear” to be a financial burden on the city.  Make it “appear” to be abandon.  Make it “appear” to be not needed.   When the city started down this road, it is perfectly clear that the city had no idea of the regulations involved, nor did they care about them.   Now the city finds itself in a position where they are going to have to realize they took the wrong path and now they are going to have to double back and start over.  Wasting taxpayers’ money at the speed of sound.   POOR LEADERSHIP, POOR JUDGEMENT, POOR PLANNING!!!!!!

The city does not have the knowledge, the desire, the capabilities, resources, or the professionalism to accomplish what Ron Blum wants---- no pilots in his town!!!!