MONDAY NIGHT AGENDA

Airevac is gone and now they are going to present a proposal to terminate their lease to the city council on Monday night.  The city spent tens of thousands of dollars to put Airevac on the airport and now the revenue from Airevac is gone and there is not enough fixed wing tenants to support the airport let alone to make up for the Airevac project.  All this is due to the closure plan by the city. 

The city should reimburse the airport for these expenses. 

I have been contacted by other airport supporters around the country that are following the St. Clair closure issue.  I am told by these people that it seems these other airport sponsors are reading the local news publication and using the St. Clair plan of airport destruction to seek closure for their airport.  The FAA is tasked by congress to prevent this, and the pursuit of this option for a closure, has gained the scrutiny of the FAA.  It appears that the city chose this option with little or no knowledge of airport operating rules and regulations, and with the thinking that no one would notice if they did this a little bit at a time.  Fly under the radar so to speak.

From the closure 

CLOSURE DOCUMENTATION: ST. CLAIR REGIONAL AIRPORT

The City of St. Clair is taking the bold initiative to obtain a release from grant obligations. It is anticipated that other communities will move in a similar fashion.

Federal agency adherence to policies that were well intentioned 40 years ago are misplaced today. Both federal and state governments need to implement smaller, less

costly and more accountable programs. It is imperative that federal and state

legislators, the agencies that they oversee, and those that carry out the relevant

regulations recognize this imbalance and take responsible action, especially in view of

current economic conditions that are not projected to return to "normal" levels for

several years. Let the City of St. Clair, Missouri in the heartland of the United States be

the test case. The City is ready to negotiate a fair settlement of the issue. If not now,

when?

Instead of a “test case”, the city had better hope that it does not become “an example of”, instead.

CITY REPAIRS TAXIWAY

A COMMUNITY WORKING TOGETHER

Of course this plaque was meant for the Old Airevac hangar.  But this image very well describes the actions of the city council.  The city has with great effort tried to explain their airport management practices with the statements that Airevac provided a great community service, and deserved special treatment.   

When Airevac showed up in St. Clair, the city was exceptionally proud that St. Clair was chosen to be one of the Airevac bases.  Airevac did not come to St. Clair because St. Clair was such a great place to operate their business; Airevac came to St. Clair because it had an airport.  There were many that looked at this and watched the money being spent, and just murmured, “I don’t know about all of this.”  As it turned out they were right.

Now that Airevac has left, and the city is left holding the empty bag of cash that they spent to put them on the airport, what now?   What has it really come down to?  For the tens of thousands of dollars the city invested into the airport project, the city, or the airport, is left with two building that won’t house an aircraft without extensive and expensive modifications.   

Now this picture starts to make sense.  The city at this point,  and this is not intended as my usual off the cuff criticism, but is intended to be taken as sound advice, needs to reconsider its present course of action and where it intends to go with this, in light of what it has already done and what little it has accomplished. 

What have they accomplished?

They have brought national attention to what they are doing, and is not generally seen in a good way.

They have brought the full attention of the FAA into play at an airport that the feds barley new existed until this action was started. 

They have embarrassed the city on a national level.

They have by trying to prove their actions are justified, actually proved they are in violation of almost all of the grant assurances that pertain to airport operations. 

They have physically destroyed a publically funded facility. 

They have tried to execute, with no knowledge of the Federal Aviation Laws, a plan that they see as a new bold initiative that will lead to what they call an improvement in the aviation system.  (Just think about this for a minute, with no aviation knowledge, no aviation experience, no expertise in the aviation field what so ever, after all of the “big name” aviation consultants told them they can’t do it, the city goes to DC with a plan that says the Federal Government and the FAA don’t know what they are doing and they know all about this stuff and can help them fix it. 

They have wasted many, many thousands of St. Clair taxpayer dollars. 

They have promised millions in tax dollars to the local community, which they cannot produce. 

The city needs help, and not just someone to explain aviation to them.  They need to get a handle on everything, planning and zoning, environmental, economical, community development industrial development. 

The biggest problem is that the city does not know what they don’t know.   Until they come to realize this, they will for sure run into more difficulty in the future.   When you cannot see what’s ahead of you, you cannot tell what you will run into.   The ones that hurt the most, are the ones you do not see coming.  

BOSS HOGS AND AIRPORT MANAGEMENT

A common theme throughout the city’s closure process is that the city of St. Clair does not have as much money as Washington and Sullivan.  (Which is very true), and therefore should not be expected to operate the airports in a like manor.  (Which is not true), the city has demonstrated, (there is a big difference between “demonstrated”, and “has stated”) that it does not desire to operate the airport as they are required to do so.  The city has stated, “we spend more percentage wise compared to overall city revenues on our airport that Washington and Sullivan”.  What does this mean in relation to the airport finances?  Nothing, it is intended to disguise the real facts and give the false impression that the city is spending more on their airport than Washington or Sullivan.   

Most of the Airport Sponsors that understand aviation, the FAA rules, and what airports are all about, operate their facility like an enterprise operation and recognize the two distinct and different portions of airport finances, Capitol cost and operational cost.  St. Clair is showing what these two sponsors are spending on their airports, (consisting of operational and capital improvement cost,) and making it look like it is beyond the means of St. Clair to do the same, due to the lower amount of city revenue available to St. Clair.   The city should break this down to give a better understanding of their airport operations and a clearer picture of what is being compared here.   

“If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull….”, and that is what is missing here, any form of the “brilliance” part.  What is a mystery here is the continued “bull….”.  The feds have seen this over and over in the past, and recognize it when they see it.  What is so very sad is that the city thinks they are blazing new ground, and that they are brave new explorers hacking a path through the unjust and antiquated federal system that is suppressing and ruining small time little communities. 

One can go to AIRNAV.COM and pick just about any airport in the United States, and read their comments posted by users, and get an impression as to how the sponsor feels about the general public. (Pilots and airport users).  If you compare what other sponsors do compared to what St. Clair does, it is kind of like the following.    Most operators make the general public feel welcomed, offer any assistance needed.  Things like bring the courtesy car out to your aircraft with the AC on and already cooled down when its 105 degrees out.   The aviation world is a tight friendly, close knitted, very tight world, much like a brotherhood.   What does the attitude of St. Clair produce?  When people that do business in St. Clair that use their aircraft fly to Sullivan and drive to St. Clair because of the condition of the airport, it’s just plain sad.  The city might as well say, ”Weall dowant youalls kind’n these here parts”.

WITHHOLDING INFORMATION

1. Administrator: Rick Childers:

A. We’ve discussed compliance issues with MoDOT Aviation to satisfy the most recent closure requirements of the FAA, which includes allegations regarding fund management at the airport.

Administrator Rick Childers is incorrect in stating that this issue is a closure requirement.  This is a compliance requirement.  The closure is not being considered at this time, or being negotiated.  The FAA is not negotiating with the city.  The city’s closure request will remain on hold until they are in compliance with the FAA obligations.  The items that the city has addressed so far are the only items that the FAA is aware of at the present time.   Due to the appearance that the city does not intend to operate the airport in accordance with the grant obligations, the FAA will become aware of other compliance issues as time goes on, and certainly these will include financial issues once the airport records are being kept in accordance with the FAA regulations.  More than likely the requirement for a bank account for the airport was required due to the fact that the city did, or could not comply with the request by MoDOT, the FAA, and the OIG for the financial documentation for the airport.  

From the 12/21/12 compliance, (not closure) letter from MoDOT

Item #1 Airport Revenue Accounting —

The hotline complaint investigation confirmed the City deposits airport revenue into the City’s general fund. During the investigation, the City was asked to present a clear accounting history of airport revenue. In its reply, the City provided accounting ledgers and general fund records from 2003 through 2008. The FAA reviewed the documentation provided and made the following determination:

The City ‘financial records are not complete. Airport revenue and expenses must be separate from the General Fund so separation of funds can be determined.

In response to this finding, the City provided the following statement in its August 28, 2012 correspondence:

Elimination of non-line item budgeting for airport revenues and expenses implemented in 2008 has resulted in significantly enhanced record-keeping. This will continue.

"MoDOT and the FAA appreciate the City’s interest in enhancing its record keeping, but the City’s proposal does not address the continued deposit of airport revenue into the general fund. The City did not provide accounting ledgers and general fund records from 2009 through 2012 in response to this request, but based upon the City’s response in its August 28, 2012 correspondence, MoDOT and the FAA assume that deposit of airport revenue into the general fund has continued.
By failing to provide a clear method of airport accounting and revenue use, the City could be found in violation of its federal grant assurance obligations. Grant Assurance 26d. provides in pertinent part that an airport sponsor will “in a format and time prescribed by the Secretary, provide to the Secretary and make available to the public following each of its fiscal years, an annual report listing in detail: (i) all amounts paid by the airport to any other unit of government and the purposes for which each such payment was made; and (ii) all services and property provided by the airport to other units of government and the amount of compensation received for provision of each such service and property” (See also title 49 U.S.C. §47107(a)(15), (18), and (19)).
An acceptable corrective action plan will include steps to demonstrate that the City will cease deposit of airport revenue into the general fund and will keep clear accounting records documenting airport income and expenses.

The City did not provide accounting ledgers and general fund records from 2009 through 2012 in response to this request,"

When you withhold information from the Feds, it presents the appearance that there is something that the city does not want the Feds to see.   This is a very simple concept.  When the Feds ask you for the financial information, give it to them.  Don’t wine and carry on about how ignorant the Feds are and that they don’t know what they are talking about. 

“Mayor Blum stated you have before you 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 documentation, in front of you, that shows all revenue and all expenses. Mayor Blum stated the only thing we can determine is the fact that they want us to go out and physically open a separate checking account.   Administrator Childers stated that is the only thing I can read into it, it is already maintained by a separately identified managed fund and noted by the auditor as a separate fund, and it’s as separate a fund as you can get and that doesn't seem to be enough. Alderman Fuchs stated, so the auditor is approving this system and they are requesting that we maintain that facility with additional banking, additional book work, and additional staff time to manage this in a separate account. Mayor Blum stated that is correct. Administrator Childers stated it’s possible they simply don’t understand anything about accounting and if we have it in a separate bank then maybe they will understand that. Mayor Blum stated maybe it is just their procedure.

Read this again.  From MoDOT, "the City provided accounting ledgers and general fund records from 2003 through 2008."

From Ron Blum, “Mayor Blum stated you have before you 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 documentation, in front of you, that shows all revenue and all expenses."  

What is happening here.  It appears that the mayor is trying to give the impression that the city did what the FAA asked them to do, and now they are being picked on.  

Why did the city not send 09,10,11,12 revenue and expenses when they were requested? 

Alderman Dierker stated he does not understand this because it is already line item and separated, if this is the route we need to take to show them the appropriations are correct, then that’s what we will do. Aldermen Tate asks if we go in the red on that account then what will we do. Administrator Childers stated the only reason the airport continues to exist is because the city continues to subsidize the airport every year. We will do the same thing we always do; the city will send a check to put in that account.

Administrator Childers stated it’s possible they simply don’t understand anything about accounting and if we have it in a separate bank then maybe they will understand that.

“Administrator Childers stated the only reason the airport continues to exist is because the city continues to subsidize the airport every year.”  The reason the airport continues to exist is due to the fact that it is required to do so by Federal Law, and will continue to exist long after this administration is long gone.  The reason the city will subsidize the airport is because of bad management practices by the city.

“Mayor Blum stated as part of the response from Ms. Ludwig, there was a comparison between airports in Sullivan, Washington and St. Clair, that the rental rates are not comparable. Mayor Blum stated this is my personal belief; you cannot compare Washington and Sullivan financial status to St. Clair’s financial status. To me that is like saying we have more money, we are going to put you out of business by keeping the rates lower.
I will reiterate one last time, we are being set-up to fail, we are already there, were set-up to fail.”

The management practices executed by the city are the reason for the failure mentioned here.  No one else but the city is to blame.  To put it plainly, the city got caught.   

SOUNDS FAMILIAR

SOUNDS FAMILIAR

On May 13, 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the City of Palmer, Alaska (city), settled a qui tam civil action resulting in the city paying $813,000 to the U.S. Government and $44,000 to the qui tam complainant for his/her expenses associated with filing the action.  According to the complaint, the city made false claims on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant applications by attesting that it would collect rent at fair market value for the lease of airport property for non-aeronautical uses, which is required by FAA rules.

The DOJ intervened in this qui tam civil action following an investigation by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (OIG).  The investigation confirmed that the airport failed to collect rent at fair market value for airport property that was used for non-aviation purposes, such as for a municipal golf course and little league field on airport property.

This investigation was conducted by the OIG, with assistance from DOJ.

• Conducting adequate repairs and the regular inspection of pavement surfaces

Also from 1/17/13 meeting.

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. 

This Blum hole in the taxiway is a prop eater, it can not be seen while taxing, and it is covered in the standing water after the slightest rain fall.  (see next picture).  In the case of a Cirrus 22, prop $35,000, engine tear down and inspection in excess of $50,000.  

MORE ON THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

This is from the city’s corrective action plan

4.       Rotating beacon inoperative: Repairs completed February 7, 2013. Verbal report of broken green lens  inspected March 5, 2013 and found inaccurate. 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.

7.       Runway lights broken and mounted improperly: Lighting repairs completed January 22, 2013. All runway lights operational and mounted in accordance with regulations. 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 green lens was originally mounted to the weather pod of the beacon, instead of mounted on the exterior according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, and according to the manufacture, would probably fail in the first 24 hrs. of operation, which it did.  The green lens was overheated by the bulb, and cracked and fell out of the pod and was lying on the ground.  The green lens was installed according to the manufactures recommendations and continues to function properly.

        The Feds replied with;

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.

What does this mean?

b. 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.

In addition, under AIP grants, the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances do not expire with respect to real property acquired with federal funds (land and appurtenances, when applicable)

This means the land and everything attached to it. 

WE TOOK CARE OF ALL THAT.

In the corrective action plan sent to MoDOT by the FAA the city states;

FAA letter 12/28/12:

Action 1 (first bullet point): Per the above, we consider these items all addressed to completion as of March 25, 2013.

Action 2 (second bullet point): Per the above, we consider these items all addressed to completion as of March 25, 2013.

These are the items:

• conducting adequate repairs and the regular inspection of pavement surfaces, runway safety areas, and airport lighting systems including the airport beacon, run way lights and the lighted windsock. The obligation for the City to maintain these facilities exists as long as the airport is used for airport purposes or until the FAA releases the City from this obligation;
• Working with the State of Missouri to address operational and financial issues raised by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General; and

This is what it looked like last summer.

This is the runway.

Routine Maintenance items (M. Parker 2/29/12):

1.       Grass & weeds in cracks on runway & apron: Pavement cracks are sprayed annually. Out contract season begins April 1st and these items are addressed at that time. This standard maintenance operation has been undertaken annually since the inception of the airport, and will continue so long as the airport remains open.

Notice the double talk here; it does not meet the criteria for compliance.  Do they say that they are going to keep the weeds out so the cracks don’t grow even more?   Do they provide a pavement maintenance plan, along with the documentation to show they are actually doing it?   The grass alongside the pavement was shorter than the grass growing up through the pavement. 

WHO IS VISION EXCAVATING?

Someone left a comment about some of the work on the Airevac project.

Those who work in DC when government offices close for a snow day!

HONOR – DUTY – COUNTRY

DUMB AND DUMBER

Upon reviewing letters by MoDOT, the following statement by Mr. Childers, demonstrates the vastness of the lack of understanding of the airport and its operations.  He states;

Mr. Rick Childers

Page 4

December 21, 2012

In its response, the City stated that there was ‘no basis for comparison” between the fixed wing tenants and AirEvac LifeTeam. The City stated that AirEvac requires no runway access (although it is MoDOT and the FAA’s understanding that AirEvac uses the runway for its approach), provides its own landing lights, and requires no City maintenance activities, while the fixed wing tenants ‘have required and been the recipient of nearly all upgrades and expenses the City has ever undertaken at the airport.” The City stated that AirEvac provides a critical service which serves a community benefit, while the fixed wing tenants ‘provide no benefit to the community in any form”. The City noted that AirEvac was a business actively recruited by the City, while the fixed sing tenants do not conduct business, that AirEvac has a constant presence at the airport, which provides additional security, while the other tenants are only at the airport infrequently, and that fixed wing tenants’ leases are annual, while AirEvac has a five year lease, next due for renewal in 2015.

Lets look at this statement.

while the fixed wing tenants ‘have required and been the recipient of nearly all upgrades and expenses the City has ever undertaken at the airport.”

Let’s look again at the upgrades and expenses at the airport.  The Federal AIP Grant Cost the city somewhere around $27,900, to rebuild the runway and taxiway that Airevac also was required to use.  Over 20 years that comes to $1350 a year.   That is just about what it cost the city to provide water and sewer service to Airevac each year.  You can also look at it this way, in 05, and 06, the fixed wingers get a new runway; Airevac at twice the city investment, gets a toilet, and therefore should get a huge discount in rent. 

Airport improvements that benefit only Airevac, or were spent for Airevac, counting the road damage, comes to twice that, for 7 years, not twenty.  Somewhere around $5700 a year.  What kind of moron (or morons) would try to justify raising the fixed wing tenants rent and leaving Airevac static for ten years, when in fact Airevac has been the recipient of the majority of the improvements financed by the city, and then spew this crap to the Feds, and expect them to believe it. 

Another spew of intelligence (or severe lack of it) “while the fixed sing tenants do not conduct business,”.  I have to ask, How would he know this?  What is more important is this,  IT IS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPE OF AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITIES.   OR FOR THAT MATTER WHERE THE FLIGHT BEGINS OR ENDS, AND WHERE THE PILOT’S PLACE OF RESIDENCY IS, NOR ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS AS FAR AS RESIDENCY IS CONCERNED.    

The FAA actually has a restriction when it comes to anything based on residency.   But of course only someone with maybe even a handful aviation knowledge could understand this.  But what do we have here?  In the form of aviation knowledge and how it pertains to the city; NONE, ZERO, NATA, NO EVEN A GLIMPSE, NOR EVEN A HINT OF WANTING TO KNOW ANYTHING.  ALL TOTAL BETWEEN THE FOUR ALDERMAN, ADMINISTRATORS, MAYOR, CONSULTANT,  OR REPORTER, NOT A CLUE OR THE DESIRE TO KNOW. 

When we tell other airport operators, the “And none of the pilots live in St. Clair,”  story, their eyes get big, and they ask, “Don’t they know…”, and when you know that is what is coming, you just shake your head no, and then their eyes close a little bit and they just go, “ ooooooo noooooo!!!!!!!!

I am getting a mental image here,  of Sam Walton when he came to the St. Clair  Airport, someone running up and squealing, what are you doing here, you don’t live in St. Clair. 

AND THEN:

Tell the Feds that if you don’t buy this crap, we are not going to fix the lights, windsock, washouts, or anything else, so then if some people die here, it will make it easier to close the airport. 

WHAT ELSE:

The lights are malfunctioning as we speak.  They have been on 24/7’s for over three or four months, during the darkest time of the year.  One would wonder why no one has noticed, or maybe they do, and just don’t care.  Maybe they want to spend the extra money that this is costing.   At this point its almost all city money anyway. 

I flew to Marshal Missouri yesterday afternoon.  In planning this trip, I phoned the city of Marshall on Monday to inquire as to the runway conditions.   They explained that the airport was closed due to two inches of ice on the runway, but they would be trying to remove it on Wednesday and Thursday.   I told them I would check back with them about the runway.  On Thursday morning I received a phone call from the city of Marshall and was told that the airport would be open and the runway cleared by Thursday afternoon.  That describes how you operate an airport for the benefit of the public.   I have been to a lot of airports in the last year and will visit many more in the next couple of months. I have found this type of attitude about airport operations to be the norm.   When you compare how the city of St. Clair operates its facility as a comparison to others around the state one has to wonder what is driving this type of attitude.   If St. Clair is following everything they are told to do by the Feds, is everyone else doing it wrong?  If that is the case, why is the FAA not telling these other airports that they should be using St. Clair as an example on how to run their airport. 

The people in the St. Clair community bought this ground and gave it to the city for an airport.  Now some one destroys that gift and says it’s no good anymore we have to get rid of it.  Then they go on the Feds and try to explain that it is not their fault, and that this should be the new form of airport management, and that the laws are outdated, should be changed to allow this to happen to other airports around the country.   It is delusional to think that the Feds would take this seriously. 

This reminds me of a monkey with a rock in one hand and a stick in the other.  He drops the rock and hits his toe, and now his toe hurts.  So he starts beating the rock with the stick.  He does not know why he is beating the rock, or why his toe hurts, and does not know what is going to happen if he keeps beating the rock.  All he knows is that he wants to beat the rock with a stick.  Soon the monkey's arm starts to hurt from beating the rock.  Now he has a sore toe and a sore arm, and he doesn't know why, but he just keeps beating on that rock. 

HOSTILES TO THE LEEEEEFT!!!!!

Alderman McGlenn is close to understanding the self-sustaining principal, but is incorrect about who they are responsible to.  The board is obligated to the Federal Government to make the airport sel-sustainable.  They are obligated to the citizens to do that in a manner that is in compliance with Federal Law.  When the sponsor does not understand the Federal Law, they are not in compliance.  When they understand Federal Law and do not operate in accordance with Federal Law that shows intent and demonstrates a hostile attitude. 

Administrator Childers remarks demonstrate the hostile attitude of the city in his remarks. 

 Alderman McGlenn asked don’t we have an obligation to the citizens of this town to make the airport self-sustainable and not have to take from the general revenues to support them. Administrator Childers stated in my mind we have an obligation to the citizens of this town to make the community sustainable, and if what it takes to make the community sustainable requires one more year of ineffective revenues in order to be rid of a burden that has been inflicting this community for 50 years, maybe we need to do that.

This hostile attitude is also demonstrated by the comments from the mayor.

Mayor Blum stated I can tell you what I do know. I do know that there was a grant issued to the City of St. Clair in the 1980’s for the installation of the lights. That grant was for 20 years, and that grant has expired. We told the FAA that in order to save money we were going to discontinue night operations at the airport. They responded by saying, no you can’t do that you are obligated. They sent us some paperwork stating such, but those obligations only pertained to land. There was nothing that pertained to any of the maintenance items including the light. We then again requested information from the FAA to confirm that yes you have to maintain those lights past grant obligations. To date we have not received anything. But, for the Board and the audience’s information, we have contracted with an electrician to correct these issues.

The city is obligated in perpetuity to maintain the airport.  What is an airport? According to the FAA definition:

Airport:       An area of land or water which is used, or intended to be used, for the aircraft takeoff and landing. It includes any appurtenant areas used, or intended to be used, for airport buildings or other airport facilities or rights-of-way, together with all airport buildings and facilities located thereon. It also includes any heliport.

So what is happening here is a sponsor trying to close an airport, and justify its actions by basing them on non-aviation practices.  The intent of all of the Federal Laws that pertain to airports is summarized by the following and describes an appropriate attitude for an airport sponsor.

(2) Obligation: 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 defines this to mean the aviation public. 

The comments and actions of the city council show how far off-based their thinking is.  The law is plain and clear and right in front of them, and the FAA is there to help them understand it.  All they have to do is listen to them, but that could be hard to swallow if you don't like what they say.

GO SOME PLACE ELSE

It appears that the airport is being used by people other than the tenants.  People have been observed on the north side of the hangar, who are not tenants at the airport and it is clear that they are there because they want to be some place secluded and un-observed.  On more than two occasions in the past, I have observed this happening, and on one of these occasions, the individual appeared to be dead, but was just asleep in a vehicle.  It is a very frightening experience to approach a vehicle where the occupant appears to be dead or unconscious.   On several of these occasions, the license plate of the vehicle indicated that the individual was associated with a public entity.  It has become very clear that this is happening more than we knew about in the past.   Just remember, if you are looking for privacy, everyone has a camera these days.

WHAT EVER YOU DO--- DO NOT TELL THEM THE TRUTH

After going back and reading the city minuets from last Jan for the previous posts, there are some things about Alderman Fuchs' comments from the Jan 7^th meeting that are very disturbing.  Alderman Fuchs seems to be stating that the tenants of the airport have wronged the city, and that filing a complaint with the FAA was something disgraceful.  Let’s put it in perspective; a crime was being committed, and the tenants reported it.  The Federal Government said yes the law is being broken and this is what you must do.  The city was found to be in non-compliance with Federal Law.  Let’s look at it from another angle, what if someone was stealing picnic tables from the city park, and the tenants witnessed it, and reported it to the appropriate officials and the perpetrators were caught.  Would Alderman Fuchs be stating the same thing?  The tenants acted on behalf of the public to protect the welfare and the interest of the public. 

From the city minutes; “I do not know how you guys or anybody can file complaints at a federal level that destroys a community, but that is what has happened.”

The complaint was not filed against the community, it was filed against the city administration, and the administration was found to be in violation.  I am sure the Alderman feels this way, due to the fact that he was one of the persons responsible for the federal infraction.   It is a good thing it was stopped when it was, or the city could have been ordered to pay back even more money.  The alderman should be thanking the tenants; we could have waited a few more years, and let the payback grow even larger.  If the city would have educated themselves on the federal law, as they are required to do, this would never have happened.  It is clear that Alderman Fuchs is trying to divert the attention that the city administration rightly deserves. 

One thing is very clear, the tenants did not receive a letter from the Feds requiring a payback to the airport, the City received the letter and they wrote the check.  The city was the guilty party. 

What is sad is that it is clear that the city has learned nothing from this.  They should at the very least Google "making a false statement to the FAA". 

NEW DEVELOPMENT

Well now, we have another opportunity for the city to lie to the Feds.  New development is starting off of Airport road.   What it is yet we do not know, but since no one else knows yet, it only makes sense that the city is going to let Boulder put the 175 or so homes within 800 feet or so of the centerline of a runway.   So apparently the city learned nothing over the outer road 7460 fiasco, but now when they say “we didn’t know!!!” they will look dumber than they did before. 

Not sure if this is Boulder, but if it was anything else Ron Blum would be telling everyone about the new progress he brought to St. Clair.   This had to be of knowledge at the time of the Chamber speech, so the rational speculation here is that Boulder is going ahead, without any 7460, and the city is trying to keep it quiet, hoping that they can get to a “ it’s too late to stop it now!” point. 

That’s fine, but, in order to get what the city wants, they have to be in compliance.  Allowing this development to proceed, could cause the FAA to suspend closure consideration for ever.   The city signed a contract, and agreed to prevent any residential development this close to an airport. 

See  Chapter 20 of 5190.6b. 

I am not going to post them here; the mayor will say that they are untrue. 

If Ron Blum was telling the truth about a retail development at the airport sight, why would he allow a residential development to sit right in the middle of the shopping center, the commercial property all around it?  This is the stupidest think to come out of St. Clair yet.  Well maybe not as stupid as having to shut down the outer road project the same day as the ribbon cutting.

Concerning airport road and the damage that Airevac did to the road back in 2011.  If a pilot would have done this to the road the city would have taken them to court, and made them pay for it. 

From the city minuetes.

Mayor Blum stated, “This is a situation that happened unexpectedly and I think…..(this is funny as hell.  “ I think”) …..this primarily occurred when Air Evac was installing their new modular home for the tenants at the airport.

“I think”……there is no thinking to b e done here.   Ron Blum was at the airport with the administrator the day it happened.  So the city spent another $24,350.52 on repairs due to damage by AirEvac.  Let’s look at the total so far.   The $33,749.46 they spent to put Airevac on the field, the $22,000 they spent on the first hangar, and now $24,350.52 on the airport road repairs.  That’s about $82,404.00 according to my spreadsheet.  How much money did the city make on renting to Airevac?  Somewhere around $20,000.   Brilliant management practices. 

Previous post about the amount of money the city spent on AirEvac, did not take into account the road damage.   What is sick here, after the first truck started to tear up the road, why didn’t they stop?   Why didn’t the city tell them to stop? 

FOOLS WITH TOOLS

This is stupider than plowing half of the runway.  Don't plow any of it.  This has all the appearances of intentionally wanting to damage an aircraft.

Just do a doughnut off the end of the runway and leave mud all over the runway.  Idiots!!!!!

An then leave mud and turf on the runway from the previous fiasco. 

FAA EXTENSION

Mayor Blum stated he did not believe we spent any funds, that Air Evac spent their own funds.

The following relates to what is true and what is not true concerning content on this blog.   The FAA is clear on certain elements of aviation; a pilot must obtain “all pertinent information” concerning the weather, airports, equipment, and physical conditions, when planning a flight.   To make statements about the airport without all the pertinent information is reckless, and irresponsible.   Something that could ground a pilot.   It is very clear that statements are made by the city or the mayor concerning the airport without all the pertinent information. 

The following is from the public comment period of the Dec 17^th 2012 meeting. 

 Mr. Dempsey asked if airport funds were spent fixing the facility for Air Evac and how much was spent. Mayor Blum stated he did not believe we spent any funds, that Air Evac spent their own funds.  

If a person is going to make claims about how much money the airport is costing the city, it would make sense to at least look at the books.

What is interesting is that this is all blamed on the fixed wing tenants. No mention has ever been made as to what it cost to put Airevac on the field.  But if the fixed wing tenants want the runway plowed, well that's just to bad, we are only going to plow half of it.  

Let’s look at the airport expense from 2006, $23,298 is listed as expense for AirEvac.  Someone does not know what they are talking about.  

That $23,298 listed as an Air evac expesnse.

Other expenses that are chargeable to the Airevac project are listed in misc. and Repairs and maintenance.  

Other expenses include
Septic Services	pump out holding tank	110
Binks Trucking	rock and tractor time	260
Vision excavating	storm water, reil excavation asphalt cutting 12" riser, back-fill	9383.46
Paul Gross	wiring the sewer pump replace breakers	487
"	Install disconnect on FAA riel system	556
Central Missouri Septic	pumping disposal	480
Septic Services	pumping out tank	175
total		11451.46

All this was done for the AirEvac project.  That comes to $33,749.46 the city spent on AirEvac. 

This is at a time where Airevac is paying %1.4 of the airport income.  The fixed wing tenants were paying 98.6% of the airport income. 

But then again who is running the airport?  The mayor, and by his own admission does not know how to operate an airport.

“I am no aviation expert, and I am not a FAA guru”

GRANT ASSURANCE 11 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE

By not knowing this requirement, or ignoring it on purpose, constitutes non-compliance.  This Grant assurance is common knowledge among airport operators.  See 7.5 below.

11. Pavement Preventive Maintenance. With respect to a project approved after

January 1, 1995, for the replacement or reconstruction of pavement at the airport, it assures or

certifies that it has implemented an effective airport pavement maintenance-management

program and it assures that it will use such program for the useful life of any pavement

constructed, reconstructed or repaired with federal financial assistance at the airport. It will

provide such reports on pavement condition and pavement management programs as the

Secretary determines may be useful.

5190.6b

7.3. Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance. Grant Assurance 19, Operation and

Maintenance, is the most encompassing federal grant assurance related to airport maintenance.

It requires the sponsor to operate and maintain the airport’s aeronautical facilities – including

pavement – in a safe and serviceable condition in accordance with the standards set by applicable

federal, state, and local agencies. FAA pavement guidance applies.

7.4. Maintenance Procedures. Generally, airport agreements require the sponsor to carry out a

continuing program of preventive and remedial maintenance. The maintenance program is

intended to ensure that the airport facilities are at all times in good and serviceable condition to

use in the way they were designed. Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5380-7A, Airport Pavement

Management Program, discusses the Airport Pavement Management System (APMS) concept,

its essential components, and how it can be used to make cost-effective decisions about

pavement maintenance and rehabilitation. The airport agreement may express or imply such

maintenance requirements and include specific federal obligations such as:

a. Frequently check all structures for deterioration and repair.

b. Inspect runways, taxiways, and other common-use paved areas at regular intervals to ensure

compliance with operational and maintenance standards, to prevent progressive pavement

deterioration, and to make routine repairs such as filling and sealing cracks.

c. Inspect gravel runways, taxiways, and common-use paved areas at regular intervals to ensure

compliance with operational and maintenance standards, to prevent progressive deterioration of

operation areas, and to make routine repairs including filling holes and grading.

d. Inspect turf airfields at regular intervals to ensure there are no holes or depressions, and

otherwise to ensure that all turf areas are preserved through clearing, seeding, fertilizing, and

mowing.

e. Maintain field lighting and Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASIs) in a safe and operable

condition at all times. When conditions dictate, realign VASIs on a regular basis.

f. Maintain airfield signage in a safe and operable condition at all times.

g. Frequently inspect segmented circles and wind cones to ensure accurate readings and proper

functioning.

h. Frequently inspect all drainage structures including subdrain outlets to ensure unobstructed

drainage.

i.                    Frequently check all approaches to ensure conformance with federal obligations.

7.5. Criteria for Satisfactory Compliance with Grant Assurance 19, Operation and

Maintenance.

Although an acceptable level of maintenance is difficult to express in measurable units, the FAA

will consider a sponsor compliant with its federal maintenance obligation when the sponsor does

the following:

a. Fully understands that airport facilities must be kept in a safe and serviceable condition.

b. Makes available the equipment, personnel, funds, and other resources, including contract

arrangements, to implement an effective maintenance program.

c. Adopts and implements a detailed program of cyclical preventive maintenance adequate to

carry out this commitment.

7.6. Airport Pavement Maintenance Requirement. A parallel assurance to Grant

Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, is the airport sponsor’s federal obligation to maintain

a pavement preventive maintenance program under Grant Assurance 11, Pavement Preventive

Maintenance. This assurance requires sponsors with federally funded pavement projects for

replacement or reconstruction approved after January 1, 1995, to implement an effective

pavement maintenance and management program that runs for the useful life of any pavement

constructed, reconstructed, or repaired with federal financial assistance. The program, at a

minimum, must include (a) a pavement inventory, (b) annual and periodic inspections in

accordance with AC 150/5380-6B, Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport

Pavements, (c) a record keeping and information retrieval system, and (d) identification of

maintenance program funding.

d. Pavement Recordkeeping. Complete information concerning all inspections and

maintenance performed should be recorded and kept on file. The severity level of existing

distress types, their locations, their probable causes, remedial actions, and results of follow up

inspection and maintenance should be documented. In addition, the file should contain

information on potential problem areas and preventive or corrective measures identified.

Records of materials and equipment used to perform all maintenance and repair work should also

be kept on file for future reference. Such records may be used later in identifying materials and

remedial measures that may reduce maintenance costs and improve pavement serviceability.