MORE COMPLAINTS

A local news publication has posted an article about the complaint on the trees.  To the uninformed reader, this article would make it appear that this is a disgruntled tenant attempting to cause trouble.  The situation is in reality that the city has chosen to formulate a hostile form of airport management in an attempt to further its closure plan.  The problem with this is that this type of plan is that it depends on no one noticing what the city is doing.  The city moved forward with this type of management with little knowledge of its Federal Obligations, the first of which is that the city fully understands that airport facilities must be kept in a safe and serviceable condition.  This plan is failing miserably despite claims that the city thinks it is making progress in the closure

The first part 16 complaint was dismissed due to the fact that the issue of the hangar lease was settled.  The OIG complaint was not dismissed.  The OIG complaint found the city to be in violation of grant assurance 25. Airport Revenues, and resulted in the city restoring close to $13,000 of diverted revenue to the airport. 

The second complaint was a part 13 and concerned the attempt by the city to raise the rent to $300 a month, in an attempt to force the remaining tenants to move off the airport.  This was a bad mistake by the city and they were told by the feds that this would not stand. 

The city is presently facing another part 16 complaint, three part 13 complaints, and an investigation initiated by the FAA compliance office in DC. 

The city closure was benched due to the results of the actions by the city.  The complaints being filed are due to the results of the actions and by the city, and by the inaction by the city to live up to its Federal Obligations. 

In order to comply with its Federal Obligations, the city must first learn what they are.   No matter what the city might state about its airport management practices, the results of the actions by the city produces the perception that the city has very little desire to live up to the obligations. 

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE

Airport tenant Tim Dempsey has filed a complaint on pavement maintenance, under grant assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, and grant assurance 11.  Pavement Preventive Maintenance.  There are three complaints filed by the tenants and one issue, grant assurance 20. Hazard Removal and Mitigation.  This concerns the trees and brush that grows at the north end of the runway.  Grant assurance 29. Airport Layout Plan.  We were informed by the KC office that the city does not have a current ALP.  The use of Federally funded property for less than fair market value, brought to the attention of MoDOT by the Feds in DC.  

5190.6b page 5-3.

5.6. Receiving the Complaint.

     b. Acknowledging the Complaint. The receiving office should promptly acknowledge receipt

of the informal complaint by letter.

TREES

The city has until Dec 1^st to determine if the trees on the north end of the runway are in the approach airspace and if so what to do about it.   This deadline will probably come and go with no response from the city, as has happened in the past.  

The city is claiming to have made progress in the closure attempt, but they did not mention the progress on the part 16 revenue diversion complaint, the part 13 obstruction complaint, and the most recent part 13 ALP complaint.  T here is also a situation out of DC about the use of Federally funded real estate being used by private corporations without paying rent for the fair market value.   What is fair market value?  The city donated 12 acres of real estate to the outer road project for approximately 1.2 million dollars, thaqt should be close enough for the airport road.  

SENATE BILL 2759

Senate bill 2759, which would close the St. Clair Regional airport, is probably dead.  With the change in power coming, not much of anything is going to happen between now and the new congress.  We will be calling all of the General Aviation Caucus members to ask them to squash this bill, specifically to keep it from coming to the Floor of the senate. 

If this bill goes dead, where does that leave the airport?  It appears that Ron has put all his eggs into the McCaskill basket, without a plan “b”.  Plan “b” is to make plan “a” work.  We’ll see, kind of doubt it though. 

The city is involved with one part 16 complaint, one active part 13 complaint on part 77 airspace, which has been amended to include all obstructions in the approach to 20.During discussion of the part 13 on airspace, it was discovered that the city does not have a current ALP, so another part 13 was sent off to MoDOT concerning the grant assurance on the ALP.  The city spent a lot of money to produce the ALP, and to not approve it and send it to the FEDS is just plain Stupid.