MORE COMPLAINTS

A local news publication has posted an article about the complaint on the trees.  To the uninformed reader, this article would make it appear that this is a disgruntled tenant attempting to cause trouble.  The situation is in reality that the city has chosen to formulate a hostile form of airport management in an attempt to further its closure plan.  The problem with this is that this type of plan is that it depends on no one noticing what the city is doing.  The city moved forward with this type of management with little knowledge of its Federal Obligations, the first of which is that the city fully understands that airport facilities must be kept in a safe and serviceable condition.  This plan is failing miserably despite claims that the city thinks it is making progress in the closure

The first part 16 complaint was dismissed due to the fact that the issue of the hangar lease was settled.  The OIG complaint was not dismissed.  The OIG complaint found the city to be in violation of grant assurance 25. Airport Revenues, and resulted in the city restoring close to $13,000 of diverted revenue to the airport. 

The second complaint was a part 13 and concerned the attempt by the city to raise the rent to $300 a month, in an attempt to force the remaining tenants to move off the airport.  This was a bad mistake by the city and they were told by the feds that this would not stand. 

The city is presently facing another part 16 complaint, three part 13 complaints, and an investigation initiated by the FAA compliance office in DC. 

The city closure was benched due to the results of the actions by the city.  The complaints being filed are due to the results of the actions and by the city, and by the inaction by the city to live up to its Federal Obligations. 

In order to comply with its Federal Obligations, the city must first learn what they are.   No matter what the city might state about its airport management practices, the results of the actions by the city produces the perception that the city has very little desire to live up to the obligations. 

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE

Airport tenant Tim Dempsey has filed a complaint on pavement maintenance, under grant assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, and grant assurance 11.  Pavement Preventive Maintenance.  There are three complaints filed by the tenants and one issue, grant assurance 20. Hazard Removal and Mitigation.  This concerns the trees and brush that grows at the north end of the runway.  Grant assurance 29. Airport Layout Plan.  We were informed by the KC office that the city does not have a current ALP.  The use of Federally funded property for less than fair market value, brought to the attention of MoDOT by the Feds in DC.  

5190.6b page 5-3.

5.6. Receiving the Complaint.

     b. Acknowledging the Complaint. The receiving office should promptly acknowledge receipt

of the informal complaint by letter.

TREES

The city has until Dec 1^st to determine if the trees on the north end of the runway are in the approach airspace and if so what to do about it.   This deadline will probably come and go with no response from the city, as has happened in the past.  

The city is claiming to have made progress in the closure attempt, but they did not mention the progress on the part 16 revenue diversion complaint, the part 13 obstruction complaint, and the most recent part 13 ALP complaint.  T here is also a situation out of DC about the use of Federally funded real estate being used by private corporations without paying rent for the fair market value.   What is fair market value?  The city donated 12 acres of real estate to the outer road project for approximately 1.2 million dollars, thaqt should be close enough for the airport road.  

SENATE BILL 2759

Senate bill 2759, which would close the St. Clair Regional airport, is probably dead.  With the change in power coming, not much of anything is going to happen between now and the new congress.  We will be calling all of the General Aviation Caucus members to ask them to squash this bill, specifically to keep it from coming to the Floor of the senate. 

If this bill goes dead, where does that leave the airport?  It appears that Ron has put all his eggs into the McCaskill basket, without a plan “b”.  Plan “b” is to make plan “a” work.  We’ll see, kind of doubt it though. 

The city is involved with one part 16 complaint, one active part 13 complaint on part 77 airspace, which has been amended to include all obstructions in the approach to 20.During discussion of the part 13 on airspace, it was discovered that the city does not have a current ALP, so another part 13 was sent off to MoDOT concerning the grant assurance on the ALP.  The city spent a lot of money to produce the ALP, and to not approve it and send it to the FEDS is just plain Stupid. 

2759

FREDERICK, Md. – The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and three other general aviation groups have urged key members of the U.S. Senate to forgo  legislation that could close St. Clair Municipal Airport (K39) near St. Louis, and instead follow established Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedures for the potential closure of airports that have accepted federal grants.

In a Sept. 16 letter, AOPA President Mark Baker and the other aviation groups told U.S. Senators John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, that a bill in their committee could improperly close the airport.

“As you know, this legislation would close the St. Clair Regional Airport, in St. Clair, Missouri,” the letter states. “As representatives of the general aviation community, we have serious concerns about closing and further limiting access to general aviation airports across the country, especially through legislation.”

In addition to Baker, the presidents of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, National Business Aviation Association and National Air Transportation Association signed the letter.

U.S. Senate Bill 2759 would, “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.” It was passed by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on a voice vote Wednesday and next will go before the full Senate.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-Mo.). The City of St. Clair has sought to close the airport and make that land available for commercial development, according to news reports.

The FAA is conducting a review of the city’s request to close the field since the city has previously accepted FAA airport improvement funds. The airport has been in operation since 1965.  

“There is already a process established by statute under the Airport Improvement Program Grant Assurances requirements for the closure of airports like St. Clair that have received federal funding,” the letter states. “The review of the St. Clair airport closure is already underway and we would respectfully request that the established FAA process move forward with a decision in a timely manner. It is our belief that this course will better balance the legitimate interests of the local community, aviation users, and the federal government.”

FROM THE CITY AGENDA

2. Airport Update – Senator McCaskill and Senator Blunt filed bill S.2759 on July 31,

2014. The bill title states, 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.

NEW COMPLAINT STATUS

The Feds had until August 4^th to move on the motion by the city to dismiss the new part 16 complaint.  No word from them as of the 8^th.  If the Feds do not send out a notice that they are extending that deadline, it appears that the case will go to determination.  The complaint is about how much the city is charging the airport for insurance, and how they document that cost, or the lack of the documentation of that cost.  The complaint is asking the Feds to require the city to return $35,000 of undocumented insurance charges to the airport fund.   By the time this case is settled, that could be as high as $45,000.   

THE LEADING LADY

Some people from the army air cops of WWII reading the Leading Lady post.  I did not get to copy all of the Diary, and have some of the missions that I have not posted yet.  The diary is still available, and could get the rest of the missions.  If anyone has an interest, use the contacdt form on the rig

LOST REVENUE

The following is from the FAA rule book, page 22-19, if anyone wants to look it up.

“The nonaviation interest of the sponsor or the local community does not constitute an airport benefit that can be considered in justifying a release and disposal.”

What does this mean?  It means that you cannot close an airport to build a shopping center, no matter what the citizens of the community believe or want.  The citizens’ tax money does not fund the AIP, airport users do.  If you live in St. Clair and don’t fly, you do not support the system.

But wait, isn’t the city subsidizing the airport? 

It is now, and whose fault is that?  The users don’t run it.  The city council operates the airport, and it is the fault of the city council that the taxpayers of St. Clair have to subsidize the airport.

There are many solutions to the St. Clair Airport problem, many of which do not include closing it. 

There is only one solution that interest Ron Blum, and that is closure. 

Look at it in another way, this has been going on for eight years or so and looks like it will go one for many, many more.  Ron Blum told everyone the city will make $2,000,000 a year from a shopping center.  The City has lost $16,000,000 in sales tax dollars trying to close the airport for the nonaviation interest of the sponsor or the local community, and will lose another 30 or 40 million trying to do what Ron Blum wants.

 It would cost the City $2,000,000 to build another airport, and if the city would have chosen the correct way of doing this, in two years from now, the new airport would open and Ron Blum could close the old one, or build his shopping center, or whatever he has promised.

Here’s the catch, why would someone look at these numbers and not jump at the chance to build a new airport in the center of Franklin County, and build a development around it.  The $2,000,000 is nothing compared to the 30 or 40 million the city is going to lose trying to do the impossible. And now the city is looking at spending a lot more money to make the airport compliant.  The catch is that there is no $2,000,000 a year in sales tax, never was, and never will be.  That is why Ron Blum will not take the easy solution to this problem.  If Ron Blum would have read the rule book before he spouted off about the $2,000,000 a year shopping center, he would not be in the situation he is in now.  He can’t come up with another reason in the middle of the game. 

A segment on CBS Sunday morning a couple of weeks ago, reported that 50% of the retail shopping malls in this country will close in the next ten years.  No One in their right mind believes that there is going to be a Chesterfield like Mall in St. Clair, or that there ever was.    

NOT IN VIOLATION??????????

A local newspaper has reported that the city is not in violation of its FAA grant assurances. 

The city was not found in violation of several grant assurances that pertained to the complaint on the T-hangar lease.  Because the city did not evict the tenants, and the fact that the FAA stepped in when the city raised the rent to $300 per month, and a lease was agreed upon, the FAA dismissed the case.  After almost 11 months of attempting to get the city to negotiate, the city caved in to pressure from the FAA.

The city is in violation of many of the grant assurances, on many issues.  The complaints have not been filed yet.  The FAA when asked how many issues could be included in one complaint, they responded with, Try and keep it below ten for any one complaint.   

The city also claimed that they were not in violation of the grant assurances, and then made restitution to  the airport thousands of dollars of diverted revenue. 

Apparently the city is under the opinion that the FAA will make a decision on their closure request because the first complaint is determined.  If you read the Jim Johnson letter;

 “, 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.”  ….. 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 meat 816-329-2601.
Sincerely,
Johnson
Manager, Airports Division

After the issues of compliance are settled, then the FAA will restart to CONSIDER” consider the closure request.  There is still an informal part 13 issue still being adjudicated by MoDOT, with no movement for over a year.  

AIRPORT MONEY

As usual the city has publically demonstrated what little it knows about aviation and the FAA.  Why do they call it entitlement funding?  Because the airport is entitled to the funds, and these funds are guaranteed despite what the city is trying to get the public to believe.  Mr. Childers is either uneducated in these maters or he is lying about the ENTITLEMENT FUNDS.   Most people will probably go with lying. 

Back in 2012 the Feds made a comment about the way St. Clair operates its airport.

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.

What did MoDOT actually state? 

The city states

DESIGN DEFICIENCIES:
We do not have the ability or resources to correct deficiencies in design which were presumably approved at some point in the past.
Please contact me at your convenience to schedule a site visit regarding items 10 and 12, and if you have questions regarding the above. Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Rick Childers
City Administrator

The city cannot fix the airport because they don’t have any money, but they give the entitlement money back to MoDOT.

CABELAS NEW STORE

The Cabelas rumor has surfaced again, this time it was rumored that it had been reported in a newspaper, that the city had secured a contract with Cabelas to build a store on the airport property. 

In a telephone conversation yesterday with the Cabelas midwest real-estate personal, they responded to this rumor that they were not aware of anything that would lead them to believe that Cabelas was planning a store in the Franklin County area.   

The real estate person from Cabelas stated that often times articles do appear in news publication, just for the reason of trying to attract the attention of Cabelas to a particular site. 

NEW COMPLAINT DOCKETED ON JUNE 9TH

The FAA has docketed the tenants complaint concerning the MIRMA airport insurance cost, and the lack of supporting documentation, on June 9^th, docket number 16-14-03.

What does that mean?  The FAA thinks that enough evidence exist, and this situation needs to be investigated, so now the city will now have to provide the documentation for the insurance cost of the airport, or pay back the airport for the overcharges.  

HELLO CHICAGO READERS

There is allot of activity from the Chicago area this morning.  Please comment as to your interest, or use the contact form on the right, would love to hear from you.

PART 16 DISMISSED

The part 16 action started almost two years ago was determined on the 20^th.  The original complaint was filed due to the city refusing to negotiate in good faith for the 2013 hangar leases.  The city did not engage in negotiations until the FAA stepped in and suspended their closure process.  The dismissal was not surprising, since the city did finally talk to the tenants. 

There are several points that the FAA has pointed out.  The following has been an issue for several years, but this settles the question.  Perpetuity, the city must operate the airport until the FAA lets them out of it.  The following is from the director’s determination.

Airport

“The St. Clair Regional Airport (FAA Identifier K39) is a public-use, non-towered general aviation airport owned and operated by the City of St. Clair, Missouri, the airport sponsor (“City” or “sponsor”). The 83-acre airport is located two miles north of the City, adjacent to Interstate 44. The Airport has 2,780 annual operations and nine based aircraft, comprised of six single-engine aircraft, two ultralight aircraft, and one helicopter.

Since 1963, the City has accepted four grants totaling $1,046,969 for various improvements at the airport. The City received its last federal grant in 2006 to rehabilitate Runway 2-20, drainage improvements, obstruction removal and lighting upgrade. In addition, in 1988, the City received $450,000 to purchase land and other airport improvements. Based on the grant issued for land acquisition in 1988, the Sponsor is obligated to operate the Airport until released by the FAA.”

Another major point is the situation of the hangar rates.  The FAA declined to address it in the part 16, and stated that it was an ongoing MoDOT part 13 case.  It appears that no one knows the status of that situation.

The city was also warned about telling people that the airport is closed or about to be closed.

“However, the Director is concerned that the Respondent appears to have used its active petition to close the airport as part of its justification to postpone hangar negotiations. As previously discussed, an airport sponsor’s federal obligations are not altered or suspended based on its intent and desire to close the airport. The Director notes that the Respondent’s continued practice of waiting until November to begin lease negotiations for the following year—particularly if rate increases are involved—could create a situation in the future in which it may fail to make a good-faith effort to reach an agreement. While at no time were the Complainants denied access to their leased hangars, the Director cautions the Respondent that the continued practice of using the City’s airport closure petition as a means to dissuade, intimidate, or otherwise turn away potential tenants could potentially be a violation of Grant

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, or Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure, in the future.”

NEW COMPLAINT

A new part 16 complaint was sent to the city attorney Kurt Voss and the FAA compliance office in Washington DC.  The complaint addresses revenue diversion, and undocumented insurance cost for the airport.  

SECOND REQUEST FOR COPY OF ORDINANCE

The city did not respond to the request for a copy of the ordinance that the airport supporters allegedly violated, so a request was sent to city attorney Kurt Voss for a copy of the ordinance.

NEW TENANT

Apparently the airport has a new tenant.  A gentleman from Lonedell has rented a hangar for his aircraft, and is going to teach his two sons how to fly.  This pilot does not live in St. Clair.

WHAT MINIMUM STANDARDS

The following is from the 5190.6b. 

What is confusing is that the city has no published minimum standards for the airport.

e. Minimum Standards. To aid in establishing uniform rates and charges applied to aeronautical activities on the airport, the sponsor should establish minimum standards to be met as a condition for the right to conduct an aeronautical activity on the airport.

Chapter 10. Reasonable Commercial Minimum Standards

10.1. Introduction. This chapter describes the sponsor's prerogative to establish minimum standards for commercial service providers and to establish self-service rules and regulations for all other airport activities. Flying clubs are not-for-profit commercial operations and are not normally covered by commercial minimum standards. However, flying clubs are covered within this chapter since a majority of federally obligated airports where flying clubs exist have historically addressed the issue in their minimum standards.

What ordinance was violated?

READER IN WITCHITA

Google Analytic gives the location of the page readers.  Wichita KS is the second after Missouri in page views.  We would like to here from Wichita, if you would like to contact the blog, please use the contact form on the left side of the Web version, and email us.  

WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU

If you have ever wanted to take an airplane ride, flying lessons, rent an airplane, or wanted to charter an aircraft, rent a hangar at St. Clair, open a business on the airport, sell aeronautical supplies or conduct any aeronautical activity what so ever, please use the contact form on the website version to email the blog.  We want to hear from you.

NEW AIRPORT SUPPORTERS

The blog has been getting inquiries about the supporters meetings, from people that do not live in St. Clair, who want to attend.  The city was asked for a copy of the ordinance that they claim the meeting violated, but the city has not responded with the ordinance as of yet.  As you will notice, the ordinance was not cited in the letter.  

FEDERAL LAW states that the city is obligated To operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public to make it available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination.

This means the general and aviation public is welcome at the airport for any aeronautical activity at anytime.  The FAA is the final authority in determining what, in fact, constitutes a compromise of safety.  As such, an airport sponsor that is contemplating the denial of a proposed on-airport aeronautical activity or access is encouraged to contact the local ADO or regional airports division. Those offices will then seek assistance from FAA Flight Standards (FS) and Air Traffic (AT) to assess the reasonableness of the proposed action because of safety and efficiency, and to determine whether unjust discrimination or an exclusive rights violation results from the proposed restrictions.

AIRPORT SUPPORT MEETING IS CANCELLED

The next meeting on Sat. has been cancelled.  The following letter was sent by the city.

NEXT AIRPORT SUPPORT MEETING

The next meeting of the airport supporters will be April 26th at 3:00 p.m.  Bring a snack.

PART 16 ON HOLD

REMOVED COMMENT

The comment from Don't Live in St. Clair has been removed.  The local news publication has requested in the past that the blog refrain from using any direct quotes from the newspaper.  An online search for the article using “Enough is Enough” did not produce any hits in the search page for that title, but that does not mean the article does not exist.

The comment started with a reference to the statement that everyone has a right to their opinion.  That is certainly true.  How one forms an opinion and what information is used to do so is also important.  Reliable information on the subject will produce an intelligent opinion.  Rumors and gossip are not reliable information; neither is the biased and one sided information. 

The city has chosen to initiate a process with little or no understanding of the rules that are applicable to the process.  Apparently what the city does not seem to understand, is that these rules are in place to prevent what the city is attempting to do.  The city is boasting that they are breaking new ground in order to correct inequalities in the aviation system, but what they have done is blindly fallen into a maze of Federal Regulations with no hope of ever getting out of.  That is just an opinion

The city is producing the opinion that the future of St. Clair is dependent on retail development, and that this is going to be a cure all for the city.  Every city would jump at the chance to bring in millions of tax dollars to their town, but how realistic is that assumption that this is the answer.  It sounds wonderful, but is it based on sound and solid economic realities?  The city has not promised, or told anyone that these millions in taxes are coming, but instead they have held the numbers up for everyone to see and let them form an opinion based on what?  Nothing!!  What the city has told everyone is that the airport and the tenants are standing in the way of these millions.  What millions?

What should be disturbing to the citizens of St. Clair is that the city leaders might actually believe this will happen, and what should be even more disturbing, is what if they don’t believe it.  

St. Clair JUNE 20th LETTER TO MoDOT

June 20, 2013
Amy Ludwig
Administrator of Aviation
Missouri Department of Transportation
Dear Ms. Ludwig,
Thank you for your response to the City’s previous correspondence. We greatly appreciate the time and assistance given to our situation by your office and both the regional and central FAA facilities.
I will provide clarifications per your letter of May 21, 2013:
Routine Maintenance Items
Item 1, Grass & Weeds: We did not mean to imply that the only weed treatments provided were once in the spring. Our crews spray sidewalks, parking lots and the airport throughout the growing season. That practice will continue on an “as needed” basis.
Item 4, Beacon & Runway Lights: The City will continue to provide timely and qualified repairs to all materials and equipment at the airport for which we have a legal obligation for as long as the obligation remains.
Compliance Plan Correspondence
Item 3, Storage Fees: Attached please End correspondence from the firm of Steven Broadbent, CPA, providing confirmation regarding the establishment of St. Clair Regional Airport Bank Account at Heartland Bank, and documenting the deposit into said account of a check issued by the City of St. Clair in the amount of $1 1,700 for storage fees.
Additionally, Mr. Broadbent’s firm has been engaged to develop and operate the sale at auction of all materials remaining within the maintenance hangar at St. Clair Regional Airport, and to ensure that all proceeds from such sale are deposited into the St. Clair Regional Airport Bank Account at Heartland Bank. Attached please find Mr. Broadbent’s summation of the proposed timeline for said auction.

Item 4, AirEvac Lease: The City will ensure that all future hangar lease agreements with AirEvac LifeTearmsubsequent to the completion of their current lease in 2015 will specifically link the percentage increase of said lease(s) to the lease rate increases levied on fixed-wing tenants, and that all such increases shall comply in full with FAA Rates and Charges Policy.

Again, thank you for your ongoing assistance as we continue to move forward to the ultimate closure of St. Clair Regional Airport.
Sincerely,
Rick Childers
City Administrator
Cc — all the usual suspects
F—

AIRPORT SUPPORTERS

There will not be a meeting on Easter weekend, but we will meet again on the 26^th.   Congressman Tim Jones will be at this meeting also.  

PAVEMENT ANALYSIS

Just a little review about pavement. 

Yesterday, a company that does pavement analysis studies for the FAA was at the airport conducting an assessment of the pavement conditions at the St. Clair Regional Airport.  When they surveyed the common use taxiway, they made the comment that they rate pavement conditions between 1 and 100, and that the common use taxiway appears to be about a 2.   That is a 2 out of a possible 100, that is 1 point above the lowest rating out of a possible 100.   Just to remind everyone of the comments by Ron Blum from the city council meeting in Jan 2013.

“Mayor Blum stated but before we do any repairs, so to speak to the runway surfaces, he would invite every St. Clair resident, every county resident, everyone in the state of Missouri, in the United States to go down and look at that runway and then go travel our city streets and tell me which one is in worse repair.”

What is misleading about the mayor’s statement is that he is only talking about the runway, but what do the Feds say?

Airport Facilities to be Maintained.

This section applies to all airport facilities shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) as initially dedicated to aviation use by an instrument of transfer or federal grant agreement. Essentially this means that the sponsor cannot discontinue maintenance of a runway or taxiway or any other part

of the airport used by aircraft until the FAA formally relieves the sponsor of the federal maintenance obligation. The federal obligations of the sponsor remain in force throughout the

useful life of the facility, but no longer than 20 years – except for land that specifically obligates

the airport in perpetuity.

The insurance provider for the city just recently has paid one tenant over a thousand dollars for propeller repairs due to FOD.  This was a brand new out of the box propeller, put in use for about 20 minutes, and was damaged.  

NEXT MEETING

The St. Clair airport supporters will meet April 12^th at 3:00.   This is going to be a potluck deal, we will check with Bubba to see if the Shrimp can make it on Sat.  We might still need a few brats and buns. 

Congressman Tim Jones, the speaker of the Missouri House will be there for a short while.  Congressman Jones and a couple of airport supporters met with Amy Ludwig, from MoDOT Aviation, on Tuesday in Jefferson City.  Amy Ludwig gave the congressman a description of the situation at St. Clair, after which the congressman asked Amy Ludwig, what do we have to do to keep the airport open?  The congressman also stated that he wants to see the airport stay open.  

Anyone that wants to get a clear picture of the airport situation, is welcome to attend.  

AIRPORT SUPPORTERS

Supporters of the St. Clair airport met Sunday to discuss the airport and other aviation issues.  The group decided to meet on a regular basis to discuss and inform interested parties of the situation at the airport.  

Skipped meeting

Both the meeting agenda and the minutes from the city council meeting that dealt with the NPIAS, are not listed on the city website.   They skipped that meeting.   Maybe they just forgot!

http://stclairmo.com/coc/index.php/archives-menu

REQUEST FOR A MEETING

The city is protesting the request for an extension in order to amend the tenant’s formal complaint.  The local news publication is reporting that the city is stating that the meeting requested cannot be substantiated.  The request for a meeting was made by Missouri Congressman Tim Jones Eureka office on behalf of the complainants.  Two attempts by phone were placed to the city, and the person responded with, I’ll take the message.   The city did not respond.  

CONTACT

Readers can contact the blog by e-mail for additional information without having to display private information

VIEWERS

The blog readers have been increasing.  There are readers in 21 states, including the District of Columbia.  In Missouri, there are readers in from 28 locations, 22 of which have viewed on multiple occasions. The second largest group of viewers come from  Wichita Kansas.  Of the 21 states, 18 have multiple hits.  Since Feb. 26^th there have been 1150 page views, with 216 unduplicated visitors.In Missouri the largest group of viewers is from Washington  mo, 15 page hits from Jefferson City.

WHAT IS LOGICAL AND REASONABLE?

A local news publication has quoted City administrator Rick Childers in reference to the NPIAS, as reasonable and logical in the closure process.  I did not see anything in the documents from the FAA that referred to dropping out of the NPIAS or refusing $600,000 of entitlement grant dollars to the Federal Government.  Entitlement is a key word, these are funds that St. Clair is entitled to receive, and do not have to compete for.  The city refused these funds which are granted for maintenance and evelopment, but in a response to the last inspection report by MoDOT.

DESIGN DEFICIENCIES:
13. Runway 02 Approach Surface — Trees and various signs along Interstate 44 violate the 20:1 slope. Trees are within the 7:1 transitional surface along the edges of this approach surface.
14. Runway 20 Approach Surface — Trees are within the 20:1 slope. Trees are within the 7:1 transitional surface along the edges of this approach surface.
15. Runway Primary Surface — Trees and brush are within this surface at the Runway 20 end. High ground at this same location needs verification. Trees, ground, t-hangar, signs, and wind cone are within the 7:1 transitional surface along the sides of the primary surface.
16. Runway Object Free Area - Nonstandard runway object free area at the Runway 20 end. Trees and brush continue to violate the clearing requirements of this surface, which measures 250 feet wide and extends 240 feet beyond each runway end.
17. Runway Safety Area - A concrete box culvert runs under the runway safety area on the north end of the runway, approximately 40 feet north of the Runway 20 threshold. The drainage ditch and opening to the culvert on the west side is within the runway safety area in violation of AC 150/5300-13: Drainage ditches may not be located within the safety area. The runway safety area shall be cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations.
18. The asphalt taxilane pavement leading from the apron to the one remaining hangar is in poor condition. The pavement has severe alligator cracking and has failed in several areas. The pavement condition also presents a foreign object debris (FOD) hazard to aircraft due to deterioration of the asphalt. The hangar taxi lane does not have a center line.

The city administrator replied,

DESIGN DEFICIENCIES:
We do not have the ability or resources to correct deficiencies in design which were presumably approved at some point in the past. 

WHERE IS THE CITY HEADED

The local news publication has published a statement by the mayor as to pursuing the closure of the airport until they get it closed.  It is clear by the response from the FAA last December that certain compliance conditions will have to be met in order for the FAA to continue the consideration of the closure request.  One of the conditions is to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public to make it available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination.  The FAA also determined that to mean the Aviation public.   It is also obvious that the city lacks an understanding of this concept.  Their actions demonstrate a plan to do the opposite. 

If you were to take a look at where the city is now and where they need to be, you would realize that the city’s plan is not working.  From the aviation point of view, it appears that the city is actually going backwards.  With little to no aviation expertise, the city is trying to invent a new way to close an airport.  The city has produced documents that state their redevelopment plan, and their closure request, and both of these documents in reality provide documentation that the city is not living up to its Federal requirements to operate the airport. 

Until the city realizes they do not have an understanding of what is required, and can demonstrate that understanding, produce a plan to operate the airport as the FAA and the United States Congress intended, and prove that the plan is in place and working, closure is hopeless.
One high ranking FAA official put it this way, there is no support for the St. Clair plan, ANYWHERE, IN THE ENTIRE FAA ORGANIZATION.   

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

The former tenants and remaining tenants have requested an extension of time of 120 days to amend the part 16 complaint due to events that have transpired since the complaint was filed.  

RUNWAY LIGHTS

The 122.8 frequency that was working last Saturday to control the runway lighting, is no longer operational.  The 122.9 is also inoperative.  It is apparent that the city has dismantled the radio controlled runway lighting equipment. 

From the FAA on Oct 28, 2013.

12. At the time of our inspection, I was able to activate the runway lights and runway end identifier lights (REILs) with a handheld transceiver using frequency 122.8, the Unicorn frequency assigned to St. Clair by the Federal Communications Commission, under call sign WEW4, FRN 0011008422. This license was issued to the City of St. Clair with an effective date of April 08, 2009, and an expiration date of May 10, 2019. During the course of my inspection, it was noticed that a NOTAM had been placed by Rick Childers, City Administrator, on April 16, 2013, decommissioning the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) and Unicorn frequency of 122.8. This change was published in NFDD 082, dated April 29, 2013. At that time, the FAA representative handling the decommissioning of the Unicorn frequency assigned the CTAF frequency of 122.9 to the airport, since the decommissioning request did not indicate that the airport had been closed. The sponsor should confirm that the runway lights can be activated on the published CTAF frequency of 122.9. Local pilots advised that the runway lights are operational at night continuously on a dusk to dawn circuit. This should also be confirmed by the sponsor.

On Dec 27^th 2013 the city responded.

12. We have no ability to confirm the frequency. At the transition of contractors operating the NOTAM notifications we were called, advised as to what our information should be, and informed them that it was OK with us to make changes as needed. Please schedule a site visit to provide direction on how the frequency may be confirmed.

WHERE DID RON BLUM LEARN HOW TO CLOSE AN AIRPORT?

The decision by Ron Blum to close the airport goes back to the 90’s.  It did not go well; as a matter of fact he lost an election for the mayor’s office over it.  That is probably where the “malice” mentioned in the following post comes from.  Where did the Blum plan come from? Obviously not from the FAA or anyone else in the aviation industry.  He did state that he read about it in the newspaper.   Something along these lines; this is not a quote, it was a few years back, but this basically this was the statement.

 I read in the newspaper about the closing of the Festus Airport, if they can close Festus, I can close St. Clair. 

Hey, guess what, Festus is still there.  There is nothing like sound documented evidence to start a bold new initiative that will have national consequence to the national general aviation Industry, and set a precedence in the future of aviation in this country.  

I also think Ron Blum should also spend more time watching Encore Westerns.  The story line of these old shows is always the same, but they are amazingly similar to the city and the airport.  Someone, usually with ties to politics, tries to take land, a mine, water, oil, or something of value from someone or thing that has a right to it.  And of course they always lose, and in some cases they go to jail.  But in this case the Federal Government and the citizens of the United States are the ones that have the right to the property.   There is much more to this than just running of all the tenants.   Sometimes a newspaper story can leave out some of the more important details.  

NPIAS

The city placed an item on the agenda to remove the airport from the NPIAS.  The agenda is normally on the city’s website, usually by Friday morning.  Last week it was not, provoking suspicion, and sure enough first item, an ordinance to remove the airport from the agenda.   The FAA was notified, and they came back with, that’s not how it works.  They are in the NPIAS until the ACO-100 takes them out.   

The following is the last paragraph of the city’s corrective action plan.

As always, thanks for all of your assistance as we try to stumble out way through this increasingly odd and convoluted process. We will in fact continue stumbling along, and we will in fact prevail compelling in the end, no matter how long it takes to reach that end. The story is just too compelling to let it go now.

Sincerely,

Rick Childers

The only thing that is compelling is that the city is under the impression that they are making progress with the FAA.  Basically what they have done is provide additional proof for further compliance action.  The city is also mistaken by thinking they are making progress.  So far they have managed to be found to be in non compliance with the following:

Routine maintenance.

Non-aeronautical use of the property, this cost them $15,000+.

They were found to be in non compliance with the rates and charges policy.  They tried to force the fixed wing tenants off the field, and got caught. 

They were found to be in non compliance with, and still are in non compliance with the rates and charges policy, along with about seven other grant assurances. 

So, if you were to pick a number from 1 to 100, on the closure scale, the city in 2004 or 05 or somewhere around their, was probably around a -85.   After the grant, they were at 0.   The city thinks they are somewhere around a +75 or even +85, but what they don’t know or what they are not reporting is that they are probably around -25.  

The DC Compliance office is in charge of St. Clair, this was a major step in preserving the airport.  An even bigger step is that now the FAA (the ones in DC) is in the house of St. Clair.  This is a monumental step in preserving the airport. 

The city has been mistaken in thinking it was in negotiations with the FAA!!!  From the city corrective action plan;

        Upon termination of positive discussion regarding closure only those repairs and upgrades for which appropriate documentation can be provided will be considered.  

       

        The FAA said;

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.

The important element and the most obvious is the attitude of resistance to be in compliance.  This shows an uncooperative and abusive nature.  What is more obvious is the presence of malice in the attitude of the city toward the airport, tenants, pilots, and supporters of the airport.  Yes, MALICE; the intention or desire to cause harm or pain to somebody.  There is no question that the city has intentionally tried to cause harm the airport.  The lack of maintenance shows the intent to cause harm to a person and or personal property. 

This list can go on and on, but the reality here is that the city is going backwards in its closure plan, and the city just does not know it yet.  The more the city tries to carry out their plan of airport destruction for closure, the further they get behind.  Why does the city not see this??  They have preached the anti- airport propaganda for so long, they now believe it themselves. 

A prediction!!  The Feds will eventually tell the city “put it back the way you found it.”

8 A LUSCOMBE

Al Koebel is looking for a fuselage for an 8A, if anyone out there knows of one pleas leave a comment.

122.80

The city decommissioned The 122.80 frequency.   What for is anyone’s guess.  But it still works on my radio.  It also turns up the intensity of the runway lights.   They still are operating 24 hours a day, just burning up city tax dollars.  I don't think the city knows that there is a manual switch to turn them on, someone probably thought is was light switch for hangar lights and flipped it up an then went,  huh, that don't work.

WHERE DID AIREVAC GO?

The following exchange between the Feds, MoDOT and the city went on over a period of six months.  The city as seen the last reply agreed to raise the rent to Airevac, equal to the t-hangars.  TWO MONTHS AFTER AIREVAC GOT A CUP FOR THE SULLIVAN SIGHT.

On Airevac, This is what the feds said.

Item #4 Air Evac —

The fourth issue identified during the hotline complaint investigation relates to Air Evac’s
usage and operations at the airport. MoDOT’s July 25, 2012 letter advised the City of the FAA’s finding that:

The Air Evac unit at the airport appears to have been given special treatment not q[forded to other airport tenants.

The OIG investigation report found Air Evac’s rental arrangement could be inconsistent with the City’s federal obligations. Based on the documentation the City provided, it appears Air Evac’s rent has remained unchanged ($300/month) since 2004, while other airport tenants’ rent has increased approximately 45% during that same time frame (from $1 20/year in 2004 to $1 75/year in 2012). The OIG hotline complaint also included allegations that the City had given Air Evac additional building and helipad space during this timeframe without assessing Air Evac for same. In its August 27, 2012 correspondence, the City stated that:

Air Evac Life Team is a business entity of the type intended to be attracted to the fricility to provide benefit to the airport and the community. It is treated consistently with all business entities located at the airport. All other tenants are single-hangar rental pilots not subject to business entity considerations.

This response does not specifically identify the benefit Air Evac provides to the airport. The community benefit is clear, but that does not exempt the City from its obligation to make the airport available “for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination” (see Grant Assurance 22(a)). The City has not demonstrated how Air Evac is treated consistently with all business entities located at the airport, because the City did not submit its airport rules and regulations or other “business entity” leases. An airport sponsor may apply differing terms to users that are not similarly situated, but aeronautical fees may not unjustly discriminate against aeronautical users (See FAA Order 5190.6B ¶18.5).
In responding to the investigation, the City did not provide documentation or other information supporting its decision to provide Air Evac with certain favorable lease terms, which has the potential to result in findings of unjust discrimination (Grant Assurance 22), and the City did not provide an explanation or documentation supporting its fee and rate structure (Grant Assurance 24).
An acceptable corrective action plan will include documentation demonstrating that: the City’s actions in establishing the terms of its current leases are not unreasonable and not unjustly discriminatory; the City has not given Air Evac exclusive use of any of its public use infrastructure; and the airport’s fee and rental structure is not unjustly discriminatory against all its aeronautical users.

The city responded with;

Item #4: Attached is the 2000 AirEvac lease, at a monthly rate of $150, and copies of letters of support from local service organizations and emergency responders requesting that the City secure a local site for AirEvac’s use. We have not located documentation regarding negotiation of the current lease, which was signed at a monthly rate of $300 with a five year term by Mayor Mindy McCoy in 2005. This lease contained a provision to automatically renew without increase in 2010 for another five years. While this’ does not comply with FAA Order 51 90.6B p9.5.e, the Order was, not brought to the City’s attention by the FAA at the time of original lease issuance, and therefore is not possible to include at this date. When the lease is renegotiated in 2015 the City will include a CPI indexing clause linked to Midwest Urban, Size D (Non metropolitan [less than 50,000]) changes. The City will consider a CPI-based consideration on all lease rates, but not as a sole determinant for any type of lessee. As with any form of lease, the rate must reflect more than simple square footage used. Tenants which require taxiways and runways require more area maintenance than tenants which use neither. Tenants providing and maintaining their own approach lighting require less maintenance than tenants demanding those items. Tenants with 24-hour staffing provide a security presence which tenants using the facility on an intermittent basis do not provide. Tenants who provide their own snow removal cost less to house than tenants needing services. Additionally, we will not insert language from a lease specific to one form of tenant (rotary, fixed, commercial, private, etc.) into leases specific to additional forms of tenant unless the language is directly applicable to each, per 18.2 Lb of the Compliance Handbook noting the appropriateness of lease distinctions based on use.

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.

And with;

In order to demonstrate compliance with federal grant obligations, a corrective action plan is required which documents that the City’s current lease agreement with AirEvac is consistent with the City’s rental structure for businesses operating at the Airport. An acceptable corrective action plan would also include a City commitment to modifying its lease with AirEvac at the next available opportunity to include an escalation provision which would increase AirEvac’s rent at the same rate as the other airport tenants in order to work towards achieving airport self-sufficiency.

The city responded by;

Item 4, AirEvac Lease: The City will ensure that all future hangar lease agreements with AirEvac LifeTeam subsequent to the completion of their current lease in 2015 will specifically link the percentage increase of said lease(s) to the lease rate increases levied on fixed-wing tenants, and that all such increases shall comply in full with FAA Rates and Charges Policy. 

AIRPORT MAINTENANCE

Click on a picture to view full screen.

Crack in front of City hanger.

Box culvert at north end of runway.  Each opening is about four feet tall, this ditch is in the ten to twelve feet deep range.  This is 45 feet off of the runway.

 FOD on common taxiway in front of the hangar

Open electrical junction box in the ramp area.

Asphalt damage left from snow plowing.  The tenants cleaned this up.

This is from the the city reply to the FAA reply to the city corrective action plan.

Routine Maintenance Items
Item 1, Grass & Weeds: We did not mean to imply that the only weed treatments provided were once in the spring. Our crews spray sidewalks, parking lots and the airport throughout the growing season. That practice will continue on an “as needed” basis.
Item 4, Beacon & Runway Lights: The City will continue to provide timely and qualified repairs to all materials and equipment at the airport for which we have a legal obligation for as long as the obligation remains.

Summer 2013 weed control

summer 2013

 This is common after rain.  Water is four inches deep.

These two pictures were taken over the summer of 2013

The tall grass in this picture is not mowed due to a four foot deep ditch 500 feet of the end of the runway.

After a snow storm last winter the city plowed half of the runway.

Common use taxiway.

that is gravel, the paving is gone.

The following are on the secondary taxiway.