AUTOPILOT

Looking back at the management decisions of the city in regards to the airport you have to wonder, what were these clowns thinking?

The results of the actions of the city demonstrate one very clear point; they cannot do the wrong things in the right way.  What are the wrong things?  The steady and steep rise in hangar rates that have led the airport into financial ruin is the most obvious.   When AirEvac was going to experience the same rate increase as the fixed wings, they left.  There are five tenants remaining, and the city is refusing to rent hangars.  The airport could easily be experiencing an income of over $20,000 a year, but it is more like $10,000 due to the management decisions of the city.  This is not difficult to understand, it is on the level of grades school math.  So this leads to the obvious conclusion that this must be intentional.  

One thing is very clear, the airport would be better off, and so would the city, if no one was managing the airport.  It would be costing the city less money to just let it go on by itself.  

The city has needlessly created a financial burden on the taxpayers; will this just be considered part of the cost of closing it?  The city claims that it is responsible to the taxpayers of St. Clair and there for are justified in its management practices.  The results of the city actions, demonstrates the lack of aviation knowledge, lack of understanding of the law, and the lack knowledge of just plain common sense and good business practices.  This may not be so much a lack of knowledge, but just an intentional disregard for them, to justify an end result. 

The St. Clair Airport has received national attention due to these management practices.  This blog is being read by eight FAA offices from Maine to California, the Department of Transportation in DC, and the DOJ in DC.   

The fact that the city would deliberately break the law to close the airport is not surprising, but what is surprising, and should be disturbing to the taxpayers of St. Clair, is that they probably thought that no one would notice. 

WHO IS GOING TO BUY IT?

All this has been said by the city, the mayor, or the local news publication at some time in the past.  It kind of started out like this.  

I have a developer standing by to develop the airport.

The city will make 2 million a year in sales taxes.

The airport will clear the way for much needed retail development in St. Clair.

When asked, what is plan “b” if plan “a” does not work?  Plan “b” is to make plan “a” work.  

We are going to sell the airport.  

We are going to market the airport.  

One thing is certain, if the city had a buyer, everyone would know about it.  

The tenants at the airport have been accused of holding the city hostage, this ludicrous propaganda, when in reality, the economic facts of the retail economy is holding the city hostage.  But look at Chesterfield!  The cold hard fact is, St. Clair is not Chesterfield.  The city can try and make plan “a” work, as much as it wants too, but the question still needs to be answered, what happens if the city cannot sell the airport?  

The passing of the St. Clair Airport closure law does not guarantee the closure.  But it does bring the question to the front of the issue.  Where is your buyer?  After almost ten years of trying to find a developer, one has to start to think that a shopping center in today’s retail climate is not going to happen.  

The closure process letter is dated April 7^th 2015, but, almost as month later, the local news publication is reporting that the city needs the closure process to continue.  The next move is up to the city, put up the money.

EXISTING TENANTS

(3) Existing Tenants. The City is responsible to develop a plan for the relocation of existing airport tenants to surrounding airports.

Let’s look at this.  From 5190.6b page 1-3 and 4.

The airport system envisioned in the first National Airport Plan, issued in 1946, has been

developed and nurtured by close cooperation between federal, state, and local agencies. The

general principles guiding federal involvement2 have remained largely unchanged for the

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS); the airport system should have the

following attributes to meet the demand for air transportation:

The airport system should be extensive, providing as many people as possible with convenient access to air transportation, typically not more than 20 miles of travel to the nearest NPIAS airport.

I don’t think the FAA will accept a plan from the city that states the existing tenants will have thirty days to vacate.  What will an acceptable plan consist of?  Let’s look at the Washington Airport.  They recently built as many hangars as they could, due to real-estate restrictions, and they also have a waiting list.  Will the existing tenants at St. Clair be given preference over the people on that waiting list?  If not and there are five people on that list, will Washington need to build enough hangars for the waiting list and the existing tenants at St. Clair?  Washington probably has a capital improvement plan for the future, does that plan include new hangars for the St. Clair tenants?  Where will the real-estate for the hangars come from?  Will the Washington Airport have to amend its capital improvement plan?  How will St. Clair interact with the Washington Capital Improvement Plan?  What will the process entail for the Washington Airport to purchase more land, amend its future plans, and form a contract with St. Clair.  Will St. Clair have to provide funding for this process before the sale of the airport property?  Will St. Clair have to provide proof that it has the funds to carry out such a plan?  Will the placement of the St. Clair tenants take place after the capital improvement plan in place at Washington has been completed?  How long will that take?   Will the city receive enough from the sale of the airport to fund this kind of plan?  If they don’t receive enough, where will the money come from, the City of St. Clair?  Will the city be able to fund an acceptable FAA plan without having a buyer for the airport?  Even if the city does come up with a buyer, how will NEPA play out?

Does the city of St. Clair have an understanding of the complex nature of this kind of situation?

THIRTY DAYS TO VACATE

A letter dated April 7^th, signed by Jim Johnson of the Central Region Airports Office in Kansas City was sent to the city of St. Clair.  This letter describes the conditions under which the FAA will grant a closure.  What is surprising is that there has been nothing reported on this in any of the local news publications.  You would think that this would be published as “BREAKING NEWS”.  The long awaited documentation from the FAA has arrived, and no mention of this by the city.   Maybe the newspaper does not know about it.  After reading the latest article in the local news publication, one would think that the city is still waiting for the Federal Aviation Administration to provide the closure process.  The article also makes one to believe that when the letter does arrive, the tenants will have thirty days to vacate the property.   This is the second time this has been published, and raises the question, why does this seem to be important enough to be repeated? 

Let’s look at this situation from another view, like what the FAA states in the April 7^th letter. 

In furtherance of the Public Law, I am writing to identify the final steps that the City must take before the Federal Aviation Administration can execute a release from Federal obligations for the Airport. MoDOT, as FAA's representative in the State of Missouri, will be responsible for managing the Implementation Plan discussed below.

(3) Existing Tenants. The City is responsible to develop a plan for the relocation of existing airport tenants to surrounding airports.

It appears here that the tenants will be relocated to another airport, before the FAA authorizes closure, and there will be no one left at the St. Clair Regional Airport to give thirty days notice to vacate the premises. 

NO HANGAR FOR YOU

The city seems to be a little reluctant to rent hangars at the airport, claiming that proof of ownership must be provided before a hangar can be rented.  The following paragraph from the hangar lease describes the conditions for the use of a hangar.  

2. Lessee shall utilize the Premises for the sole purpose of storage of the aircraft identified

above, or any aircraft that Lessee has control of, or in Lessee's possession. The Lessee will have

the right to conduct any non-commercial aeronautical activity as defined by the FAA.

An aircraft does not have a title, when an individual purchases an aircraft, they receive a signed bill of sale from the previous owner, and the bill of sale is sent to Oklahoma City with a registration application.   The registration process can take ten days to several weeks at the least.  If the aircraft has never been registered, or is an ultralight aircraft without an N-number there will be no record of the aircraft in the FAA database. 

The key phrase here is, or any aircraft that Lessee has control of, or in Lessee's possession.  Proof of ownership is not required.  So what is the city doing here?  Is the city trying to keep potential tenants off the airport?   Is the city trying to keep the airport from collecting more revenue?  This would not make any sense after the city complains that the airport is losing money.  Why would the city take steps to keep the airport from being more self sustaining?

Did the city investigate the ownership of any other aircraft stored on the airport in the past?  Has anyone else been told that they must provide proof of ownership in the past before they can occupy a hangar?