Just in case you were wondering where all of our information comes from you have to do a little reading. Below are links to the FAA and a skydrive which the city should have read before wasting sooo much money and all of the letters the city has recieved from MODOT and the FAA.
First, all the rules
http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/
Research
"https://skydrive.live.com/embed?cid=7E9617C9B830E108&resid=7E9617C9B830E108%21209&authkey=ABzeKYBKg2vp4ek"
ALP Airport Layout Plan
"https://skydrive.live.com/embed?cid=7E9617C9B830E108&resid=7E9617C9B830E108%21216&authkey=ALaoHob4E5yxVW8"
Letters
"https://skydrive.live.com/embed?cid=7E9617C9B830E108&resid=7E9617C9B830E108%21217&authkey=AI0v5A-vnmK3CV4"
Monday, March 4, 2013
THE FAA ON HANGAR RENT
December 21, 2012
Mr. Rick Childers
City Administrator
City of St. Clair
# I Paul Parks Drive
St. Clair, MO 63077
Re: St. Clair Regional Airport
Informal Complaint Regarding Hangar Rates
Dear Mr. Childers:
I have received your December 10, 20 1 2 response to the informal complaint regarding the City’s 2013 hangar rental rates. MoDOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have reviewed the City’s response to the informal complaint and have determined that the information provided in the City’s December 0, 2012 letter is not sufficient to ensure the City’s compliance with federal grant assurances. The purpose of this letter is to provide the City with guidance to ensure compliance with federal grant assurances and to set forth a timeline for the City to achieve voluntary compliance.
Informal Complaint
The informal complaint asserted that the 201 3 hangar rental rate ($300/month) is unjustly discriminatory and unreasonable, and that the City has discriminated against fixed wing tenants at the airport by raising the rent for hangars, while not raising rent for AirEvac Life Team during this same time period. The informal complaint also asserted that the City’s hangar rent for 2012 was higher than hangar rent at comparable nearby airports.
City Response
In its response, the City indicated that the Board of Aldermen directed City administration to “secure user funds sufficient to cover the full cost of operation, maintenance, insurance and management of the St. Clair Regional Airport” and as a result, 2013 hangar rental rates were set at $300/month. The City’s response confirmed that AirEvac’s rent will not increase in 201 3, because AirEvac’s lease is structured as a five year lease and is not due for renewal until 2015. The City also noted “there is no basis for comparison between fixed wing and
Mr. Rick Childers
Page 2
December21, 2012
rotary wing aircraft operations or field requirements”, nor is there any requirement that the City’s “rental rates and other charges be ‘competitive’ with other airports, only that they be justified to enable the airport to operate on a self-sustaining basis.”
Overview of Lease Review Process
In its response, the City also noted that it could find “no reference to responsibility or authority for the establishment of rental rates by any entity which supersedes or takes precedence over the local governing authority.” The City is correct that MoDOT and the FAA do not have the authority to establish hangar rental rates at the Airport; see FAA Order 5 1 90.6B ¶1 2.4, which states “The FAA does not approve leases, nor does it endorse or become a party to tenant lease agreements.” However, ¶12.3.a. states that when a lease is reviewed, the FAA must determine if a lease has the effect of granting or denying rights that are contrary to federal statute, sponsor federal obligations or FAA policy and identify terms and conditions that could prevent the airport from realizing the full benefits for which it was developed.
As part of the lease review process, the FAA must ensure that “(a) the sponsor maintains a fee and rental structure in the lease agreements with its tenants that will make the airport as self- sustaining as possible and that (b) the facilities of the airport are made available to the public on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination” (see FAA Order 5190.6B ¶12.5). This letter will evaluate each of those components.
Self-Sustainability
In its December 10 response, the City indicated that it set its 2013 hangar rental rate at $300/month in order to cover the full cost of operation, maintenance, insurance and management of the Airport, but the City did not provide any additional information or documentation on those costs. While the City provided some documentation regarding Airport expenses as part of the Office of Inspector General hotline complaint investigation, the information provided was not comprehensive. Without current information on the City’s costs to operate, maintain, insure and manage the Airport, MoDOT and the FAA cannot determine whether a rental rate of $300/month would cover Airport expenses without creating a revenue surplus. FAA Order 51 90.6B ¶17.10 notes that “fees for the use of the airfield generally may not exceed the airport’s capital and operating costs of providing the airfield.” Please provide current documentation of the City’s costs to operate, maintain, insure and manage the Airport so MoDOT and the FAA can confirm that no revenue surplus will be created based upon the 2013 hangar rental rate.
Other factors relating to self-sufficiency must also be considered when establishing rental rates, Airport sponsors “must maintain a fee and rental structure that in the circumstances of the airport makes the airport as financially self-sustaining as possible” (see FAA Order 51 90.6B ¶1 8.22.a). This requirement “recognizes that individual airports will differ in their ability to be fully self-sustaining, given differences in conditions at each airport” (FAA Order 5190.6B ¶17.5).
Mr. Rick Childers
Page 3
December21, 2012
The informal complaint asserted that comparable hangar rental rate at neighboring airports ranged from $125/month to $140/month. As part of the investigation of the informal complaint, MoDOT verified that the Washington Regional Airport rents single t-hangars for $ 140/month and that the Washington County Airport, the Sullivan Regional Airport and the Cuba Municipal Airport all rent hangars for $125/month.
The City is correct that there is no federal requirement that hangar rental rates remain “competitive” with those at other airports, but if hangar rental rates are set at a rate that causes current tenants to terminate their leases for less costly options at surrounding airports, such actions would essentially price the airport out of the market and would hinder the sponsor’s ability to become as self-sustaining as possible.
As part of the investigation of the Office of the Inspector General hotline complaint, copies of leases at the Airport were provided. Since 2005, monthly fee for hangar rental in the City Hangar has increased by over 45% (from $120/month in 2005 to $175/month in 2012), and will have increased by 150% when the 2013 hangar rental rates go into effect. During that same time period, AirEvac’s rent has remained unchanged at $300/month, which will be discussed in further detail below.
In order to demonstrate compliance with federal grant obligations, a corrective action plan is required which documents how the 2013 hangar rental rate will allow the airport to become as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances. An acceptable corrective action plan would include documentation identifying the City’s expenses for airport operation, maintenance, insurance and management, as well as documentation confirming that the proposed hangar rental rate will not ultimately hinder the Airport’s ability to become self- sustaining by pricing its hangars out of the market.
Facilities Available on Reasonable Terms Without Unjust Discrimination
When reviewing leases, FAA Order 5190.6B requires the FAA to also evaluate whether airport facilities are made available to the public on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination.
FAA Order 51 90.6 B ¶[9.2.a states that
For facilities that are directly and substantially related to air transportation, regardless of whether an air carrier or user is a tenant, subtenant, or nontenant, the sponsor must impose nondiscriminatory and substantially comparable rates, fees, rentals, and charges on all air carriers and users that assume similar obligations, use similar facilities, and make similar use of the airport. Aside from rates, fees, and rentals, the sponsor must also impose comparable rules, regulations, and conditions on the use of the airport by its air carriers and users, regardless of whether they are tenants, subtenants, or nontenants.
Mr. Rick Childers
Page 4
December 21, 2012
In its response, the City stated that there was no basis for comparison” between the fixed wing tenants and AirEvac Life Team. The City stated that AirEvac requires no runway access (although it is MoDOT and the FAA’s understanding that AirEvac uses the runway for its approach), provides its own landing lights, and requires no City maintenance activities, while the fixed wing tenants “have required and been the recipient of nearly all upgrades and expenses the City has ever undertaken at the airport.” The City stated that AirEvac provides a critical service which serves a community benefit, while the fixed wing tenants “provide no benefit to the community in any form”. The City noted that AirEvac was a business actively recruited by the City, while the fixed wing tenants do not conduct business, that AirEvac has a constant presence at the airport, which provides additional security, while the other tenants are only at the airport infrequently, and that fixed wing tenants’ leases are annual, while AirEvac has a five year lease, next due for renewal in 2015.
The differences between AirEvac and the fixed wing tenants at the Airport are apparent, and these differences could substantiate different rental structures for businesses operating at the airport and for other fixed wing tenants. However, the City has not provided any documentation outlining its rental structure for businesses operating at the airport, and without such documentation, MoDOT and the FAA cannot determine whether AirEvac’s current lease agreement is consistent with such rental structure.
While different rental schedules can be utilized for differently situated tenants, having no increase in rent for a tenant since 2005, regardless of whether that entity is receiving some sort of business entity consideration, raises additional compliance issues.
FAA Order 51 90.6B ¶J9.5.e. states that
Ground leases with terms of five (5) or more years should contain an escalation provision for periodic adjustments based on a recognized economic index. This will facilitate parity between new and established lessees. An escalation provision also helps the sponsor comply with Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure, which requires the sponsor to make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances.
Entering into business entity leases with a five year term and no escalation provision while increasing hangar rental rates for other airport tenants 150% over the same time period raises questions regarding unjust discrimination against fixed wing tenants, as well as self- sufficiency issues. While MoDOT and the FAA understand that the City’s current lease with AirEvac is not subject to renegotiation until 2015, the City has not indicated that it intends to increase AirEvac’s rent at that time as part of its effort to become self-sufficient.
In order to demonstrate compliance with federal grant obligations, a corrective action plan is required which documents that the City’s current lease agreement with AirEvac is consistent with the City’s rental structure for businesses operating at the Airport. An acceptable corrective action plan would also include a City commitment to modifying its lease with AirEvac at the next available opportunity to include an escalation provision which would
Mr. Rick Childers
Page 5
December 21, 2012
increase AirEvac’s rent at the same rate as the other airport tenants in order to work towards achieving airport self-sufficiency.
Please provide a final and comprehensive corrective action plan addressing the items herein within 60 days of the date of this letter in order to ensure that the City is not found to be in informal noncompliance status. It may also be beneficial for the City to meet with the current airport tenants to discuss the 2013 hangar rental rates in an effort to resolve this informal complaint.
MoDOT would be happy to work with the City in its pursuit of an acceptable corrective action plan. We are available to meet with the City at any time to discuss these issues in further detail and to identify steps the City can take to ensure future compliance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Amy Ludwig
Administrator of Aviation
cc: Mr. Jim Johnson, Federal Aviation Administration
Ms. Lynn Martin, Federal Aviation Administration
Mr. Ed Hassinger, Missouri Department of Transportation
In 2006 or there abouts the city signed a grant agreement with the FAA to resurface the runway. This was a 5/95 program. 5% of the money had to come from the sponsor. This was started back in the late 90’s and according to MoDOT the runway overlay was going to happen even if St. Clair applied for the grant or not. The ALP was expensive we don’t know how much was spent on it, but it was a requirement for the AIP grant, program.
If this airport had been operated by a sponsor that understood the obligations, and the opportunities, St. Clair would have 100 aircraft on the field at the present time. The city cannot prove that they understand their obligations, have a plan in place, and are carrying out the obligations, which basically makes them in violation of everything. This is going to be a hard lesson for the city to learn, but they will learn it. MoDOT also told the city that if St. Clair would come up with a project, it would be funded. That leaves out the uncertainty of obtaining grants.
Over the years land was purchased with Federal grant money, which means that the land and all its appurtenances, that means everything attached to it, are under the grant obligations forever. Also the city signed special grant assurances for the operation of the lighting, and for the land. I have not seen these, but they are referenced in the grant documents.
This is page 2 of the ALP. When St. Clair was told by the FAA to come up with a plan, it would be understandable to think that something similar to this is what the FAA is expecting from the city for the Washington and Sullivan airports. You do not spend the feds money with out a plan ON PAPER.
This is similar to what the city sent the Feds ion their closure dcumentation, and then stated that their was no room for expamsion of the airport.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
ARTICLE ON THE TENATS LEASE
Ron Blum stated that the city was trying to follow the law as best we can here.
In past determinations, the Director has consistently applied a general standard of compliance to the airport specific circumstances in all compliance cases. This standard is found in the Order:
The judgment to be made in all cases is whether the airport owner is reasonably meeting the Federal commitments. It is the FAA’s position that the airport owner meets commitments when: (a) the obligations are fully understood, (b) a program (preventive maintenance, leasing policies, operating regulations, etc.) is in place which in the FAA’s judgment is adequate to reasonably carry out these commitments, and (c) the owner satisfactorily demonstrates that such a program is being carried out.
What is not included in the article is that the city attorney offered to present the tenant’s revisions to the city.
This article shows that the city is making a point to prove that it is a benefit to aviation to have fewer tenants on the field that pay a higher hangar rate than more tenants on the field that pay a lower rate. It sounds more like an attempt to justify higher rates in order to get tenants to move off of the airport.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
CITY AGENDA MONDAY NIGHT.
The agenda for Monday night includes some airport business, it does not say what, but Gib said the City tabled the tenant proposed lease to lower the rent to $125/month, so this could be what it is about. Gib also said that the alderman not only SMIRKED at the $125 idea, they thought it was laughable, and that is what they did, laugh, out loud. But of course that was not in the paper either.
WHAT IS THE REAL COST?
Counting the redevelopment plan, best guess to date, the city has probably spent over $122,000 trying to close the airport. That number could climb higher since the OIG has not finalized its investigation. This does not include what the corrective action plan which could cost well over another $150,000. Six year so far, and the city is apparently is losing ground in the battle with the FAA to close the airport on the north end of town. The city is projecting $4,950,000 in annual sales and personal property tax revenues from the development of a Chesterfield Mall like development on the airport, which lies partially in the Union School district. If it takes another six years, the city will have lost $59,400,000.00 in tax revenues by wasting time trying to close the airport as opposed to selecting another location. The cash registers could have been ringing for at least a couple of year already.
EIGHT TENANTS???
The local news publication is reporting that there are eight tenants on the field. This is incorrect, there are presently six hangars being occupied on the airport. The city is really on top of this issue. Four of the tenants that have occupied hangars in the past; have stated that they will return if the hangar rates were reasonable and in line with the market rates for hangars. The number of tenants could even drop to four in the near future.
Four tenants at 175 is $700 per month.
Six tenants at $175 is $1025 per month.
Ten tenants at $125 is $1250 per month. hat would be a $2700 increase in airport revenue for the year if noone else leaves.
It is the opinion of a lot of airport supporters that it is not the intention of the city to generate revenue at the airport.
Hangar rates that are out of line with local rates, and continue to produce vacancies, or as the FAA stated, price St. Clair out of the market, could be considered to be unfair and unreasonable.
Friday, March 1, 2013
MODOT COMPLIANCE LETTER
There might be some typo's it was a PDF and does not copy well.
December 21, 2012
Mr. Rick Childers
City Administrator
City of St. Clair
#1 Paul Parks Drive
St. Clair, MO 63077
Re: St. Clair Regional Airport
Compliance Corrective Action Plan
Dear Mr. Childers:
Thank you for your August 28, 2012 correspondence regarding the City of St. Clair’s corrective action plan for St. Clair Regional Airport (K39). On July 25, 2012, MoDOT sent you a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) findings resulting from an investigation of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) hotline complaint. Four items from the investigation required corrective action by the City.
The proposed corrective actions set forth in the City’s August 28, 2012 letter are not sufficient to ensure the City’s compliance with federal grant assurances. The purpose of this letter is to provide the City with guidance to ensure compliance with federal grant assurances and to set forth a timeline for the City to achieve voluntary compliance.
Item #1 Airport Revenue Accounting —
The hotline complaint investigation confirmed the City deposits airport revenue into the City’s general fund. During the investigation, the City was asked to present a clear accounting history of airport revenue. In its reply, the City provided accounting ledgers and general fund records from 2003 through 2008. The FAA reviewed the documentation provided and made the following determination:
The City's financial records are not complete. Airport revenue and expenses must be separate from the General Fund SO separation of funds can be determined.
In response to this finding, the City provided the following statement in its August 28, 2012 correspondence:
Mr. Rick Childers
Page 2
December21, 2012
Elimination of non-line item budgeting for airport revenues and expenses implemented in 2008 has resulted in significantly enhanced record-keeping. This will continue.
MoDOT and the FAA appreciate the City’s interest in enhancing its record keeping, but the City’s proposal does not address the continued deposit of airport revenue into the general fund. The City did not provide accounting ledgers and general fund records from 2009 through 2012 in response to this request, but based upon the City’s response in its August 28, 2012 correspondence, MoDOT and the FAA assume that deposit of airport revenue into the general fund has continued.
By failing to provide a clear method of airport accounting and revenue use, the City could be found in violation of its federal grant assurance obligations. Grant Assurance 26d. provides in pertinent part that an airport sponsor will “in a format and time prescribed by the Secretary, provide to the Secretary and make available to the public following each of its fiscal years, an annual report listing in detail: (i) all amounts paid by the airport to any other unit of government and the purposes for which each such payment was made; and (ii) all services and property provided by the airport to other units of government and the amount of compensation received for provision of each such service and property” (See also title 49 U.S.C. §47107(a)(15), (18), and (19)).
An acceptable corrective action plan will include steps to demonstrate that the City will cease deposit of airport revenue into the general fund and will keep clear accounting records documenting airport income and expenses.
Item #2 Sewer Lift on Airport Property —
The hotline complaint alleged the airport was not receiving fair market value for the City’s sewer lift station that was constructed on the airport in 2008.
In its initial March 14, 2012 response letter, the City did not explain how the sewer lift station supported airport operations. Instead, the City stated that the sewer lift station on airport property pumps sewage back to the City’s sewer treatment plant and confirmed the City does not pay rent.
In the July 25, 2012 letter from MoDOT to the City requesting a corrective action plan, MoDOT relayed the findings of the OIG complaint investigation. The findings specifically stated the City’s failure to receive fair market rent for the property occupied by the sewer lift station may not be consistent with its federal obligations. In response to this finding, the City provided the following statement in its corrective action plan:
This land is fully owned by the City of St. Clair, as is the lift Station . . . As ills installed to provide services to the airport lands no fees will be assessed, paid or collected for its placement.
Mr. Rick Childers
Page 3
December 21, 2012
The City’s confirmation that it has not or will not pay rent coupled with the lack of any explanation as to how the sewer lift station supports and/or benefits the airport indicates that the City may not be in compliance with Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure. This assurance states an airport sponsor “will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at the particular airport” (see also title 49 U.S.C., §47107(a)(13)).
A sewer lift station is considered nonaeronautical, and nonaeronautical uses of airport property must be assessed at fair market value. The FAA permits exceptions for community use leases, but this exception does not allow for general governmental purpose uses. Therefore, if any portion of the lift station is not directly supporting airport operations, the airport must receive rent at fair market value in accordance with FAA’s Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue (64 Fed. Reg. 7696, published February 1 6, 1999) (Revenue Use Policy), which states:
If a sponsor’s use of airport property qualifies as community use, and the other requirements for community-use leases are satisfied, the FAA would not object to a lease at less than fair market value. . .‘The community use provision of the Final Policy does not apply to airport property used by a department or subsidiary agency of the sponsoring government seeking an alternative site for the sponsor’s general governmental purposes at less-than-commercial value (See Revenue Use Policy at
7711).
‘The City has not identified the direct airport use and benefit ofthe sewer lift station, has not agreed to pursue obtaining fair market value for the lift station, and has not provided documentation demonstrating what portion of the sewer lift is being utilized to support airport systems. The OIG investigation found the airport restricted use of its restroom facilities to one tenant, which raises added concerns regarding possible denial of access to airport infrastructure to aeronautical users and tenants.
Because the sewer lift does not appear to provide value or a benefit to the airport, a determination should be made as to the fair market value of the property where the sewer lift is located, and the City should deposit fair market value rent for its nonaeronautical use of airport property into a separate airport account. These actions would demonstrate compliance with Grant Assurance 24 and with the FAA’s Revenue Use Policy. An acceptable corrective action plan must address these items. If the City can demonstrate that all or part of the sewer lift station is directly related to airport use, please also provide that information as part of the corrective action plan.
Item #3 City Storage in Airport Hangar —
In the course of investigating the hotline complaint, the FAA and MoDOT requested
information regarding the City’s use of an airport hangar (referred to as the “Maintenance Hangar”) to store various items. The hotline complaint stated that individuals attempted to rent the hangar to store aircraft but were denied access. In its March 14, 2012 letter, the City stated that the Maintenance Hangar “does not contain any internal mechanisms for keeping
Mr. Rick Childers
Page 4
December21, 2012
private aircraft secure and separate from public assets.” This letter also acknowledged there had been requests to rent part of the hangar for aeronautical storage, but “without funds to reconfigure the facility to accommodate private aircraft, it is simply not economically feasible.”
Because other hangars were available for rent on the airport at the time the requests were made to rent the Maintenance Hangar, denial of those requests is not a violation of federal grant assurances. However, failure to pay fair market value rent for nonaeronautical use of the Maintenance Hangar raises other compliance issues.
In its May 30, 20 1 2 letter, the City stated the following items were stored in the hangar:
A tractor, IWO brush hogs, three riding mowers, a spray trailer, a mower trailer, a
pump assembly, sprayer, saw horses, a table/chairs, lockers, a ladder, HVA C cabinet,
a push broom, and a fire extinguisher.
Federal grant assurances do not prohibit use of an airport maintenance shed to store airport property, but if the hangar is being used for general City storage needs, this would be considered a nonaeronautical use of the hangar. The items being stored in the Maintenance Hangar do not clearly imply an aeronautical use or airport purpose, which is why MoDOT’s July 25, 2012 letter requested the City provide a corrective action plan to address its failure to pay rent for the nonaeronautical storage in the Maintenance Hangar. In its response, the City offered the following corrective action:
All materials within the hangar are for use on the airport. It would be inappropriate to remove them from the facility.
In order to demonstrate compliance with federal grant assurances, please provide an explanation and all available supporting documentation demonstrating how and when the items stored in the Maintenance Hangar are utilized at the airport. For example, the mowers may serve a legitimate airport purpose, but documentation showing that the mowing contract for the airport includes use of City owned mowers would clearly demonstrate an airport purpose. If the City can clearly document that all items stored in the Maintenance Hangar are used solely at the airport, that will address the compliance issue identified in the OIG complaint.
If the City cannot provide such documentation and the City wishes to continue to use the hangar for nonaeronautical storage, an airport layout plan (ALP) update is required in accordance with Grant Assurance 29 (also codified at title 49 U.S.C., §47107(a)(16)). The ALP update must identify the parcel where the Maintenance Hangar is located as nonaeronautical and will need to be submitted to MoDOT within 60 days of the date of this letter.
In addition, the City must demonstrate that the airport has begun collecting fair market value rent for any stored items proportionate to their non-airport purposes and must also recapture fair market value rent for those items since the storage began, up to six years, in accordance
Mr. Rick Childers
Page 5
December 21, 2012
with statute (see Title 49 U.S.C., §47107(b)). An acceptable corrective action plan will address all of these concerns.
Item #4 Air Evac —
‘ihe fourth issue identified during the hotline complaint investigation relates to Air Evac’s
usage and operations at the airport. MoDOT’s July 25, 2012 letter advised the City of the FAA’s finding that:
The A ir Evac unit at the airport appears to have been given special treatment not afforded to other airport tenants.
The OIG investigation report found Air Evac’s rental arrangement could be inconsistent with the City’s federal obligations. Based on the documentation the City provided, it appears Air Evac’s rent has remained unchanged ($300/month) since 2004, while other airport tenants’ rent has increased approximately 45% during that same time frame (from $ 1 20/year in 2004 to $175/year in 2012). The OIG hotline complaint also included allegations that the City had given Air Evac additional building and helipad space during this timeframe without assessing Air Evac for same. In its August 27, 2012 correspondence, the City stated that:
Air Evac Life Team is a business entity of the type intended to be attracted to the flicility to provide benefit to the airport and the community. It is treated consistently with all business entities located at the airport. All other tenants are single-hangar rental pilots not subject to business entity considerations.
This response does not specifically identify the benefit Air Evac provides to the airport, The community benefit is clear, but that does not exempt the City from its obligation to make the airport available “for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination” (see Grant Assurance 22(a)). The City has not demonstrated how Air Evac is treated consistently with all business entities located at the airport, because the City did not submit its airport rules and regulations or other “business entity” leases. An airport sponsor may apply differing terms to users that are not similarly situated, but aeronautical fees may not unjustly discriminate against aeronautical users (See FAA Order 51 90.6B 18.5).
In responding to the investigation, the City did not provide documentation or other information supporting its decision to provide Air Evac with certain favorable lease terms, which has the potential to result in findings of unjust discrimination (Grant Assurance 22), and the City did not provide an explanation or documentation supporting its fee and rate structure (Grant Assurance 24).
An acceptable corrective action plan will include documentation demonstrating that: the City’s actions in establishing the terms of its current leases are not unreasonable and not unjustly discriminatory; the City has not given Air Evac exclusive use of any of its public use infrastructure; and the airport’s fee and rental structure is not unjustly discriminatory against all its aeronautical users.
Mr. Rick Childers
Page 6
December 21, 2012
Please provide a final and comprehensive corrective action plan addressing the items herein within 60 days of the date of this letter in order to ensure that the City is not found to be in informal noncompliance status. MoDOT would be happy to work with the City in its pursuit of an acceptable corrective action plan. We are available to meet with the City at any time to discuss these issues in further detail and to identify steps the City can take to ensure future compliance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Amy Ludwig
Administrator of Aviation
cc: Mr. Jim Johnson, Federal Aviation Administration
Ms. Lynn Martin, Federal Aviation Administration
Mr. Ed Hassinger, Missouri Department of Transportation
AIRPORT JUNK
What I find interesting is that it appears that a local news publication printed in the paper version, the comments from Rick Childers in order to draw particular attention to those certain comments, and what seems to be a misunderstanding by Mr. Childers of the FAA regulations. (See the revenue diversion post.)
According to the local publication, the equipment was being used to maintain the airport. Some of the equipment might have been used in the past in 2006, but not in 2010 when the junk was stored in the hangar. Before 2010 the hangar was empty except for a brief period when it was rented to a private individual for personal aircraft storage. Another comment by Mr. Childers about the pump motors also appears to be a justification for the storage of the rest of the junk. The maintenance equipment does not appear to be functional, and does not look familiar to any of the equipment used in previous years, except for the mower. The airport records show a receipt for a new mower back in July of 05 for $1500. The mower is airport equipment. If the equipment in the hangar is as reported to be airport equipment, then it would also make sense that the proceeds from the auction of these items would also go to the airport.
The city will eventually have to face the reality that it is the responsibility of the city to operate the airport for the benefit of the aviation public, any action or just as important, any inaction by the city that does not produce a benefit to the aviation public, is a violation. The inaction is just as important as any direct action. The city is required to develop or to allow development on the airport for aeronautical use, as outlined by the Directive. To justify action like the maintenance hangar crap as being carried out according to the wishes of the citizens of St. Clair is insulting, and it is not believable that it was put in the hangar because there is nowhere else to store it. This appears to have been done to force tenants off of the airport.
OLD ARTICLES
Keith Domke from the Missourian sent me an E-mal and stated that the articles in the Missourian that were posted on the blog are copyright protected.
“The Missourian is copyrighted and no part of it can be reproduced in any way without permission, and doing so is in violation of copyright laws.”
Mr. Domke offered no explanation as to why the Hangar rent article was not in the online version.
I removed a lot of the old articles, and everything that I could find that had the word Missourian or Keith or Domke in it.
If there was information that you want to refer to, leave a comment on the subject, and we will post a new article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)