Total Pageviews

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

PART 16 DISMISSED


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.”



1 comment:

  1. NOTE: That the newspaper has an article about the dismissal of this part 16.

    ReplyDelete