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.

OTHER AIRPORTS IN TROUBLE

There have been a lot of page hits from Wichita KS.  If you are reading this, and you are experiencing airport problems, we would be interested in knowing about them.  We are communicating with the Huron County airport in Ohio, and are exchanging ideas and experiences with airport sponsors.  We would like to hear from other airport users that are having difficulty.   

We are thinking that It would be a good idea for users with similar trouble to be able to communicate with each other.

2008 MODOT LETTER

This post is the 2008 MoDOT letter mentioned in the next couple of post.

PROPAGANDA, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

From the Jan 7^th council meeting

Mayor Blum asked if there were any other items the Board would like to discuss, but it would be his recommendation to the Board that we once again do what they ask us to do, we have done this all along, and at some point there has to be foul cried on our part, we are doing everything they are asking us to do,

Including this here.

On May 21st, 2013 the Feds came back with this.

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.

Also included in the 12/21/2012 letter from MoODT.

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.

What did the city do to in response to the May 21^st letter?  Articles that address this issue cannot be found in any local news publications that mentioned the contents of this letter.

“Propaganda

Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:

It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.

Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound ...

What, for example, would we say about a poster that was supposed to advertise a new soap and that described other soaps as 'good'?

We would only shake our heads.

Exactly the same applies to political advertising.

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.”

Mein Kampf

And for what purpose?  See the following post.

THEY’RE PICKING ON ME

Blum is trying to paint a picture of being persecuted and picked on by the FAA and MoDOT.  Imagine that, a bully complaining about being bullied. 

Mayor Blum asked if there were any other items the Board would like to discuss, but it would be his recommendation to the Board that we once again do what they ask us to do, we have done this all along, and at some point there has to be foul cried on our part, we are doing everything they are asking us to do,

Including this here. 

This is pure political propaganda.

Blum has repeated over and over and over, what he believes to be, and has reported after the FAA DC meeting, that the FAA is guiding them on a step by step process of getting an FAA closure, and that the city has “done everything they have asked”.   

MoDOT along with the FAA, but especially MoDOT, has been looking into the finances of St. Clair since 2008, when the city admitted that they were not using all of the airport revenue for use on the airport.  The city has been reluctant to cooperate.   How did they respond to a FEDERAL OIG investigation?

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

Six years of trying to hide financial information from the Federal Government. 

§46313. Refusing to appear or produce records

A person not obeying a subpena or requirement of the Secretary of Transportation (or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) to appear and testify or produce records shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

ANOTHER EXTENSION

FORMAL COMPLAINT DECISION

The FAA publishes their findings on a website for their formal complaints.

http://part16.airports.faa.gov/index.cfm?page=CaseFileResults

As of 10:20 on Wednesday, nothing yet.  I appears that the city is under the impression that the March 3rd date was for a determination on closure, when it is actually for a determination on the formal complaint.  The findings of this case one way or another has nothing to do with closure of the airport.  The city has many obstacles to over come in this process, which apparently they are not aware of.

PART 16 COMPLAINT

As of 2:30 today there are no new part 16 decisions on the FAA Formal Complaint data base.

TERMINATION OF AIREVAC LEASE

The city council voted to release Air Evac from their lease at the rate of $300 per month for 17 months.  And the city will retain the building, as stipulated in the lease. 

From the MoDOT Dec. 21^st letter on Hangar Rates.

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 had an opportunity in the termination of the Air Evac lease, to increase the rate for the final 17 months of the lease, or to require an additional rent payment that would have satisfied the above determination.  

USE THE AIR EVAC HANGAR

This is concerning the use of the Air Evac hangar or the city maintenance hangar for the restoration of the city museum documents and other items damaged in the fire at the city museum.  The tenants at the airport would not oppose this action, and would consider this an excellent idea to use either of the buildings to help the museum recover and restore these items.  

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

                                                                                                                          105 West Capitol Avenue
Mo DOT                                                                                                                       P.O. Box 270
____________________________________________                                  Jefferson City, Missouri 5102
Missouri Department of Transportation 573.751.2551
David B. Nichols, Director Fax: 573.751.6555
                                                                                                                  1.888.ASK MODOT (275.6636)

May 21, 2013

Mr. Rick Childers
City Administrator
City of St. Clair
#1 Paul Parks Drive
St. Clair, MO 63077

Re: St. Clair Regional Airport
March 26, 201 3 Correspondence

Dear Mr. Childers:

Thank you for your March 26, 201 3 letter. The corrective actions described in your letter demonstrate that the City has made significant progress in addressing the action items contained in my December 21 , 2012 letters and Jim Johnson’s December 28, 2012 letter.

However, there are still a few items that must be addressed in order for the City’s corrective action plan to be accepted by MoDOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The purpose of this letter is to outline the items which require additional action and to provide the City with guidance to ensure that its corrective action plan is accepted.

Routine Maintenance Items

For Item 1, “Grass and Weeds in Cracks on Runway and Apron”, the City’s response suggests that pavement cracks are only sprayed once a year. However, if weeds begin to grow out of pavement cracks after the annual spraying has occurred, these weeds should be sprayed as needed. An acceptable corrective action plan will include a commitment from the City to ongoing routine
maintenance of grass and weeds in cracks on pavement surfaces.

For Item 4, “Rotating Beacon Inoperative”, and Item 7, “Runway Lights Broken and Mounted Improperly”, ongoing routine maintenance must continue regardless of the status of negotiations on the City’s closure request. An acceptable
corrective action plan will include a commitment from the City to ongoing routine maintenance of the rotating beacon and the runway lighting system and will not condition that commitment on the outcome of closure discussions.
Compliance Plan Correspondence
For Item 3, which relates to main hangar storage, the actions proposed are acceptable and address the compliance issues raised, but additional information is

Our mission is to provide a world-class transportation experience that delights our customers and promotes a prosperous Missouri.

Mr. Rick Childers
Page 2
May 21, 2013

needed for MoDOT and the FAA to accept the City’s corrective action plan for this item. Please provide me with documentation demonstrating that the $ 11,700
transfer to the new airport account has occurred. Please also provide
documentation of the public auction to sell any items remaining in the hangar and documentation demonstrating that the auction proceeds were transferred to the new airport account.

For Item 4, which relates to Air Evac’s lease, MoDOT and the FAA agree that inclusion of a CPI indexing clause in the next Air Evac lease will help to ensure that Air Evac’s monthly rental rate reflects current economic conditions. MoDOT and the FAA also agree that different categories of tenants can have different rental rates, so long as a consistent methodology is utilized to establish fees for
comparable aeronautical users of the airport.

Although the City’s letter indicates it will include a CPI indexing clause in its next lease agreement with Air Evac, the letter does not state whether the base monthly rental rate for Air Evac will increase from $300/month when the Air Evac lease is next negotiated. Without this information, MoDOT and the FAA cannot determine whether the City’s proposed corrective action plan for Item 4 is acceptable.

The City’s March 26 letter stated that its lease rates reflect a variety of factors that differentiate certain types of tenants from one another. The differences between Air Evac and the fixed wing tenants may substantiate different rental structures for businesses operating at the airport and for other fixed wing tenants, but without any type of documentation outlining the City’s rental structure for businesses
operating at the airport, MoDOT and the FAA cannot determine whether Air
Evac’s lease agreement is consistent with such rental structure.

In order to address the remaining questions relating to Item 4, any future Air Evac leases should reflect a similar percentage increase in the base monthly rate to the increases experienced by other tenants from 2007-2013 pursuant to Title 49 United States Code Section 47107. In the alternative, the City should provide its cost allocation methodology for its rental rates. This methodology should be consistent with the FAA’s Rates and Charges Policy.

MoDOT is available to work with the City to address these remaining corrective action plan items and to identify steps the City can take to ensure future compliance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. As soon as a response is received on these remaining items, I will coordinate with the FAA to determine whether the City’s corrective action plan is acceptable.

Sincerely,

Amy Ludwig
Administrator of Aviation

cc: Mr. Jim Johnson, Federal Aviation Administration
Ms. Lynn Martin, Federal Aviation Administration

MAYBE NO ONE WILL NOTICE

Looking back at the maintenance hangar issue; the intentional mismanagement issue in the following post is quite clear. 

Why would the city set the maintenance hangar rate to $325, if they had no intention of renting it?

Why would the city set the maintenance hangar rate to $325, if they had the intention of renting it?

Why did the city drag a bunch of junk out to the maintenance hangar, before they started discussion of the demolition of the Shade hangar and the Atkinson hangar?

Item #3; Main Hangar storage: Items which can be proved as non-aeronautical have been removed from the facility. All items remaining will be sold at public auction in a sale to be contracted for management services to Steven Broadbent, CPA. Because it is impossible to provide documentation regarding the actual use of these items, the City has made payment to the Heartland Bank Small Business Checking Account # 366201441 in the amount of $11,700 as payment in full for storage use. This amount is based on a rate of $325 monthly, which corresponds to the rate published for that hangar for the year 2011. The term proposed for storage coverage is three years, based upon a recommendation from MoDOT Aviation and concurrence by Jim Johnson, FAA Kansas City Regional Office.

“Because it is impossible to provide documentation regarding the actual use of these items”  there you have it!

Why did the city go through the process of trying to justify the demolition?

Why did the city not tear down the maintenance hangar?

Why did the city seek FAA advice on the demolition of the hangars at the St. Clair airport?

Why did the city not seek FAA advice on storing junk in the maintenance hangar?

There can be no other explanation for the actions taken by the city concerning the hangar issues; it is clear that this was undertaken deliberately and with intention, to deny access to the tenants in the Atkinson Hangar that would be displaced by its demolition, and force them to move to another airport, with the intention to lower airport tenancy, airport income, and the utility of the airport in violation of the grant assurances.

DID THEY THINK NO ONE WOULD FIGURE IT OUT?

This level of action is seen by many, as far below the standards of conduct of a person serving the public.  The payment of $11,700 for the hangar rent should not have to be carried by the taxpayers of St. Clair, the city council should make this up out of their own pocket, after all they did it, and they knew it was wrong when they did it. 

EXPERTS IN THEIR OWN MIND

Aviation is a very specialized industry and requires expertise well outside the interest of anyone not associated with the industry.   It is appalling to the people and the users in the aviation industry those groups like the St. Clair City council believe that they are qualified to operate something as complex as an airport.  They have proved with consistency, that they have no knowledge of aviation or the rules, regulations or Federal Laws that are in place to protect and regulate this industry. 

One of the repeated cries by the council is their obligation to the citizens of St. Clair, which is easy to understand.  That obligation is inclusive of the Federal Obligation to operate the airport for the benefit of the aviation public, and includes the obligation to operate it with in Federal guidelines.  The obligations to the local citizens do not give them the right to intentionally miss-mange a Federally Funded Public Facility in the disguise of their obligation to the local taxpayers.  

The City Council has also demonstrated little or no regard for these Federal Laws.   They have had ample opportunities to become familiar with them, turning down offers by both the FAA and MoDOT aviation to help them become familiar with them.   It is quite clear that the St.Clair City council is not qualified to operate this public funded facility, or that they will ever become qualified to do so. 

The City Council’s lack of the knowledge is so cavernous, and has put them into a position that they may not be able to recover from.   The Council has demonstrated by their actions that this mis-management of this airport is intentional, and this continued course of action can only lead to one form of outcome, SELF- DESTRUCTION!