The part 16 action started almost two years ago was
determined on the 20th. The
original complaint was filed due to the city refusing to negotiate in good
faith for the 2013 hangar leases. The
city did not engage in negotiations until the FAA stepped in and suspended
their closure process. The dismissal was
not surprising, since the city did finally talk to the tenants.
There are several points that the FAA has pointed out. The following has been an issue for several
years, but this settles the question.
Perpetuity, the city must operate the airport until the FAA lets them
out of it. The following is from the director’s
determination.
Airport
“The St.
Clair Regional Airport (FAA Identifier K39) is a public-use, non-towered
general aviation airport owned and operated by the City of St. Clair, Missouri,
the airport sponsor (“City” or “sponsor”). The 83-acre airport is located two
miles north of the City, adjacent to Interstate 44. The Airport has 2,780
annual operations and nine based aircraft, comprised of six single-engine
aircraft, two ultralight aircraft, and one helicopter.
Since 1963,
the City has accepted four grants totaling $1,046,969 for various improvements
at the airport. The City received its last federal grant in 2006 to
rehabilitate Runway 2-20, drainage improvements, obstruction removal and
lighting upgrade. In addition, in 1988, the City received $450,000 to purchase
land and other airport improvements. Based on the grant issued for land
acquisition in 1988, the Sponsor is obligated to operate the Airport until
released by the FAA.”
Another
major point is the situation of the hangar rates. The FAA declined to address it in the part
16, and stated that it was an ongoing MoDOT part 13 case. It appears that no one knows the status of
that situation.
The city was
also warned about telling people that the airport is closed or about to be
closed.
“However,
the Director is concerned that the Respondent appears to have used its active petition
to close the airport as part of its justification to postpone hangar
negotiations. As previously discussed, an airport sponsor’s federal obligations
are not altered or suspended based on its intent and desire to close the
airport. The Director notes that the Respondent’s continued practice of waiting
until November to begin lease negotiations for the following year—particularly
if rate increases are involved—could create a situation in the future in which
it may fail to make a good-faith effort to reach an agreement. While at no time
were the Complainants denied access to their leased hangars, the Director
cautions the Respondent that the continued practice of using the City’s airport
closure petition as a means to dissuade, intimidate, or otherwise turn away
potential tenants could potentially be a violation of Grant
Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, or
Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure, in the future.”
