The city has denied an individual by the name of Mark
Saunders, not sure of the spelling, a hangar at the airport. The city claims they have to get permission
from Jim Johnson in the FAA airports office in KC. Mr. Saunders has been denied three times by
the city, the third at a city council meeting where Mr. Saunders videotaped the
episode.
Since Ron Blum has become mayor over a dozen aircraft have
move away from St. Clair to other airports mainly due to rental increases. Along with the previous denials by the city,
the question should be; how many aircraft would be on the airport if Ron Blum
was not the mayor.
The question that taxpayers should ask the city is; do we
want to keep funding the airport just so Blum can have his way. How much more are the St. Clair taxpayers willing
to pay to follow Blum.
The following is from pages 26 and 27 of the director’s
determination in the formal complaint against the city.from 2014.
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.
And again on page 29
While at no time were the
Complainants denied access to their leased hangars, the Director
cautions the Respondent that the
continued practice of using its closure petition as a means to
dissuade, intimidate or otherwise
turn away potential tenants could potentially be a violation
of Assurance 24 in the future.
Assurance 24 satisfies the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(13). It states:
[The airport owner or sponsor]
will maintain a fee and rental structure for the
facilities and services at the
airport that will make the airport as self-sustaining
as possible under the
circumstances existing at the particular airport, taking
into account such factors as the
volume of traffic and economy of collection.
No part of the federal share of
an airport development, airport planning or
noise compatibility project for
which a grant is made under Title 49, United
States Code, the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982, the Federal
Airport Act, or the Airport and
Airway Development of 1970 shall be
included in the rate basis in
establishing fees, rates, and charges for users of
that airport.
On page 36.
It appears as though there was
intent on the Respondent’s part to
turn away potential hangar
tenants to allow for the airport to close. As noted below, it is
incumbent upon the Respondent to
provide aeronautical access on reasonable and not
unjustly discriminatory terms and
make the airport as self-sustaining as possible, as it agreed
to do when it received federal funds to use on the
airport.
Sponsors have the obligation to
negotiate in such a way that does not deter potential tenants
from doing business with the
airport. Because the Respondent had requested permission from
the FAA to close the St. Clair
airport it appears that it believed it could begin to close out
services to its aeronautical users.
From the pleadings, the Director
surmises that loose or informal business practices, fueled by
a belief that the airport would
be closing soon, led to Ms. Ficken being told she was not
allowed to lease a hangar. It
appears as though there was intent on the Respondent’s part to
turn away potential hangar
tenants to allow for the airport to close. As noted below, it is
incumbent upon the Respondent to
provide aeronautical access on reasonable and not
unjustly discriminatory terms and
make the airport as self-sustaining as possible, as it agreed
to do when it received federal funds to use on the
airport.
No comments:
Post a Comment