WHAT'S UNTRUE?

The mayor, Ron Blum, recently made the comment at the state of the city speech at the Chamber of Commerce meeting, about the blog.  He commented that everything on the blog was untrue.   Let’s look at one item, the city tried to raise the rent on the T-hangars to $300 a month in order to make the airport more self sustaining.  He also stated, “Again, the self-sustaining issue, it baffles me, I am no aviation expert, and I am not a FAA guru,” which kind of explains everything.  He is confused, and this comment demonstrates a violation of the grant assurances in itself.   What do the Feds have to say on this subject?

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

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

(1). The federal obligations are fully understood;

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

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

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

(4). Past compliance issues have been addressed.

Alderman Fuchs stated; “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. To our City I apologize, I do not know what else to do; our hands are tied because of a small group of hobbyists. 

Alderman Fuchs’s comments insinuate that this expense the city is going to experience is the fault of the tenants.   The actions of the city council, due to its lack of understanding of its federal obligations are responsible for the federal intervention.   

He also stated, “To our City I apologize, I do not know what else to do; our hands are tied because of a small group of hobbyists.”   This statement is untrue, the city hands are not tied because of a few hobbyist; they are tied by the Federal Government.   This comment goes to show that Alderman Fuchs is as confused as the mayor.   

Alderman McGlenn responded they already pay $300 per month rent and they have an existing lease.  Alderman McGlenn said her feeling is similar to the ball field use, if you charge one person an amount of money, then the other people should pay the same amount of money. She continued, Air Evac is charged $300 per month to use the airport and the pilots for a hobby were paying $175.00 per month, if we are charging Air Evac who is doing a public service $300.00 per month and are locked into a contract until 2015, her opinion is that it is only fair to charge the pilots the same amount of money as Air Evac is being charged.

This statement by Alderman McGlenn demonstrates that she is as confused as the mayor, and has little or no understanding of the Federal Grant Assurances. 

What does the FAA state?

18.6. Local Negotiation and Resolution.

a. General. Although federal law provides the DOT with authority to intervene in disputes over

an airport fee or charge, the DOT primarily relies on the sponsor and its aeronautical users to

reach consensus on airport rates and charges. The sponsor may impose a fee unilaterally, after

consultation with users, if the fee is fully consistent with the Rates and Charges Policy. The

sponsor may adopt a fee that varies from the Rates and Charges Policy only if users agree.

b. Consultation. As provided for in the Rates and Charges Policy, DOT encourages adequate

and timely consultation with users prior to implementing rate changes. To permit aeronautical

users time to evaluate proposed rate changes, consultation should be well in advance, if practical,

of introducing significant changes in charging systems, procedures or level of charges. Adequate

information should be provided so users can evaluate the airport’s justification for the change

and to assess its reasonableness. Due regard should be given to the views of both the

aeronautical users and the airport and its financial needs. The Rates and Charges Policy notes

that the parties should make a good-faith effort to reach agreement, and encourages airports and

aeronautical users to include alternative dispute resolution procedures in their lease and use

agreements to facilitate resolution and reduce the need for direct federal intervention to resolve

differences over aeronautical fees.

c. Reasonable Distinctions. The prohibition on unjust discrimination does not prevent a

sponsor from making reasonable distinctions among aeronautical users (such as signatory and

nonsignatory air carriers) and assessing higher fees on certain categories of aeronautical users

based on those distinctions (such as higher fees for nonsignatory versus signatory air carriers).

What else did the FAA say?  They said the city was wrong, and told them to fix it.  They did not say the tenants were wrong.  The tenants did not get a letter from the Feds.  All of the Alderman should have apologized to the citizens of St. Clair for their actions that caused this mess.

The recreational, or hobbyist aircraft owners as the city like to put it, is a 2 billion dollar a year industry.  More homebuilt aircraft are purchased every year than factory aircraft.  The city would be wise to attract this market to their airport, since the business aircraft are not coming here.  What difference does it make as to what type of aircraft rents a hangar, homebuilt one seat aircraft, or a medical helicopter, if each one of them rents an identical hangar, the hangar rent according to the federal law must be the same.

What is the purpose of raising the t-hangar rent?  To get the tenants to move to another airport.