MORE ON THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

This is from the city’s corrective action plan

4.       Rotating beacon inoperative: Repairs completed February 7, 2013. Verbal report of broken green lens  inspected March 5, 2013 and found inaccurate. Airport lighting shall be maintained so long as good faith   negotiation continues toward closure. Upon termination of positive discussion regarding closure only those repairs and upgrades for which appropriate documentation can be provided will be considered.

7.       Runway lights broken and mounted improperly: Lighting repairs completed January 22, 2013. All runway lights operational and mounted in accordance with regulations. Airport lighting shall be maintained so long as good faith negotiation continues toward closure. Upon termination of positive discussion regarding closure only those repairs and upgrades for which appropriate documentation can be provided will be considered.

        The green lens was originally mounted to the weather pod of the beacon, instead of mounted on the exterior according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, and according to the manufacture, would probably fail in the first 24 hrs. of operation, which it did.  The green lens was overheated by the bulb, and cracked and fell out of the pod and was lying on the ground.  The green lens was installed according to the manufactures recommendations and continues to function properly.

        The Feds replied with;

For Item 4, “Rotating Beacon Inoperative”, and Item 7, “Runway Lights Broken and Mounted Improperly”, ongoing routine maintenance must continue regardless of the status of negotiations on the City s closure request. An acceptable corrective action plan will include a commitment from the City to ongoing routine maintenance of the rotating beacon and the runway lighting system and will not condition that commitment on the outcome of closure discussions.

What does this mean?

b. Airport Facilities to be

Maintained. This section applies to all airport facilities shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) as initially dedicated to aviation use by An instrument of transfer or federal grant agreement. Essentially this means that the sponsor cannot discontinue maintenance of a runway or taxiway or any other part of the airport used by aircraft until the FAA formally relieves the sponsor of the federal maintenance obligation. The federal obligations of the sponsor remain in force throughout the useful life of the facility, but no longer than 20 years – except for land that specifically obligates the airport in perpetuity.

In addition, under AIP grants, the duration of the terms, conditions, and assurances do not expire with respect to real property acquired with federal funds (land and appurtenances, when applicable)

This means the land and everything attached to it. 

WE TOOK CARE OF ALL THAT.

In the corrective action plan sent to MoDOT by the FAA the city states;

FAA letter 12/28/12:

Action 1 (first bullet point): Per the above, we consider these items all addressed to completion as of March 25, 2013.

Action 2 (second bullet point): Per the above, we consider these items all addressed to completion as of March 25, 2013.

These are the items:

• conducting adequate repairs and the regular inspection of pavement surfaces, runway safety areas, and airport lighting systems including the airport beacon, run way lights and the lighted windsock. The obligation for the City to maintain these facilities exists as long as the airport is used for airport purposes or until the FAA releases the City from this obligation;
• Working with the State of Missouri to address operational and financial issues raised by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General; and

This is what it looked like last summer.

This is the runway.

Routine Maintenance items (M. Parker 2/29/12):

1.       Grass & weeds in cracks on runway & apron: Pavement cracks are sprayed annually. Out contract season begins April 1st and these items are addressed at that time. This standard maintenance operation has been undertaken annually since the inception of the airport, and will continue so long as the airport remains open.

Notice the double talk here; it does not meet the criteria for compliance.  Do they say that they are going to keep the weeds out so the cracks don’t grow even more?   Do they provide a pavement maintenance plan, along with the documentation to show they are actually doing it?   The grass alongside the pavement was shorter than the grass growing up through the pavement. 

WHO IS VISION EXCAVATING?

Someone left a comment about some of the work on the Airevac project.

Those who work in DC when government offices close for a snow day!

HONOR – DUTY – COUNTRY

DUMB AND DUMBER

Upon reviewing letters by MoDOT, the following statement by Mr. Childers, demonstrates the vastness of the lack of understanding of the airport and its operations.  He states;

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 LifeTeam. 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 sing 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.

Lets look at this statement.

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.”

Let’s look again at the upgrades and expenses at the airport.  The Federal AIP Grant Cost the city somewhere around $27,900, to rebuild the runway and taxiway that Airevac also was required to use.  Over 20 years that comes to $1350 a year.   That is just about what it cost the city to provide water and sewer service to Airevac each year.  You can also look at it this way, in 05, and 06, the fixed wingers get a new runway; Airevac at twice the city investment, gets a toilet, and therefore should get a huge discount in rent. 

Airport improvements that benefit only Airevac, or were spent for Airevac, counting the road damage, comes to twice that, for 7 years, not twenty.  Somewhere around $5700 a year.  What kind of moron (or morons) would try to justify raising the fixed wing tenants rent and leaving Airevac static for ten years, when in fact Airevac has been the recipient of the majority of the improvements financed by the city, and then spew this crap to the Feds, and expect them to believe it. 

Another spew of intelligence (or severe lack of it) “while the fixed sing tenants do not conduct business,”.  I have to ask, How would he know this?  What is more important is this,  IT IS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPE OF AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITIES.   OR FOR THAT MATTER WHERE THE FLIGHT BEGINS OR ENDS, AND WHERE THE PILOT’S PLACE OF RESIDENCY IS, NOR ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS AS FAR AS RESIDENCY IS CONCERNED.    

The FAA actually has a restriction when it comes to anything based on residency.   But of course only someone with maybe even a handful aviation knowledge could understand this.  But what do we have here?  In the form of aviation knowledge and how it pertains to the city; NONE, ZERO, NATA, NO EVEN A GLIMPSE, NOR EVEN A HINT OF WANTING TO KNOW ANYTHING.  ALL TOTAL BETWEEN THE FOUR ALDERMAN, ADMINISTRATORS, MAYOR, CONSULTANT,  OR REPORTER, NOT A CLUE OR THE DESIRE TO KNOW. 

When we tell other airport operators, the “And none of the pilots live in St. Clair,”  story, their eyes get big, and they ask, “Don’t they know…”, and when you know that is what is coming, you just shake your head no, and then their eyes close a little bit and they just go, “ ooooooo noooooo!!!!!!!!

I am getting a mental image here,  of Sam Walton when he came to the St. Clair  Airport, someone running up and squealing, what are you doing here, you don’t live in St. Clair. 

AND THEN:

Tell the Feds that if you don’t buy this crap, we are not going to fix the lights, windsock, washouts, or anything else, so then if some people die here, it will make it easier to close the airport. 

WHAT ELSE:

The lights are malfunctioning as we speak.  They have been on 24/7’s for over three or four months, during the darkest time of the year.  One would wonder why no one has noticed, or maybe they do, and just don’t care.  Maybe they want to spend the extra money that this is costing.   At this point its almost all city money anyway. 

I flew to Marshal Missouri yesterday afternoon.  In planning this trip, I phoned the city of Marshall on Monday to inquire as to the runway conditions.   They explained that the airport was closed due to two inches of ice on the runway, but they would be trying to remove it on Wednesday and Thursday.   I told them I would check back with them about the runway.  On Thursday morning I received a phone call from the city of Marshall and was told that the airport would be open and the runway cleared by Thursday afternoon.  That describes how you operate an airport for the benefit of the public.   I have been to a lot of airports in the last year and will visit many more in the next couple of months. I have found this type of attitude about airport operations to be the norm.   When you compare how the city of St. Clair operates its facility as a comparison to others around the state one has to wonder what is driving this type of attitude.   If St. Clair is following everything they are told to do by the Feds, is everyone else doing it wrong?  If that is the case, why is the FAA not telling these other airports that they should be using St. Clair as an example on how to run their airport. 

The people in the St. Clair community bought this ground and gave it to the city for an airport.  Now some one destroys that gift and says it’s no good anymore we have to get rid of it.  Then they go on the Feds and try to explain that it is not their fault, and that this should be the new form of airport management, and that the laws are outdated, should be changed to allow this to happen to other airports around the country.   It is delusional to think that the Feds would take this seriously. 

This reminds me of a monkey with a rock in one hand and a stick in the other.  He drops the rock and hits his toe, and now his toe hurts.  So he starts beating the rock with the stick.  He does not know why he is beating the rock, or why his toe hurts, and does not know what is going to happen if he keeps beating the rock.  All he knows is that he wants to beat the rock with a stick.  Soon the monkey's arm starts to hurt from beating the rock.  Now he has a sore toe and a sore arm, and he doesn't know why, but he just keeps beating on that rock. 

HOSTILES TO THE LEEEEEFT!!!!!

Alderman McGlenn is close to understanding the self-sustaining principal, but is incorrect about who they are responsible to.  The board is obligated to the Federal Government to make the airport sel-sustainable.  They are obligated to the citizens to do that in a manner that is in compliance with Federal Law.  When the sponsor does not understand the Federal Law, they are not in compliance.  When they understand Federal Law and do not operate in accordance with Federal Law that shows intent and demonstrates a hostile attitude. 

Administrator Childers remarks demonstrate the hostile attitude of the city in his remarks. 

 Alderman McGlenn asked don’t we have an obligation to the citizens of this town to make the airport self-sustainable and not have to take from the general revenues to support them. Administrator Childers stated in my mind we have an obligation to the citizens of this town to make the community sustainable, and if what it takes to make the community sustainable requires one more year of ineffective revenues in order to be rid of a burden that has been inflicting this community for 50 years, maybe we need to do that.

This hostile attitude is also demonstrated by the comments from the mayor.

Mayor Blum stated I can tell you what I do know. I do know that there was a grant issued to the City of St. Clair in the 1980’s for the installation of the lights. That grant was for 20 years, and that grant has expired. We told the FAA that in order to save money we were going to discontinue night operations at the airport. They responded by saying, no you can’t do that you are obligated. They sent us some paperwork stating such, but those obligations only pertained to land. There was nothing that pertained to any of the maintenance items including the light. We then again requested information from the FAA to confirm that yes you have to maintain those lights past grant obligations. To date we have not received anything. But, for the Board and the audience’s information, we have contracted with an electrician to correct these issues.

The city is obligated in perpetuity to maintain the airport.  What is an airport? According to the FAA definition:

Airport:       An area of land or water which is used, or intended to be used, for the aircraft takeoff and landing. It includes any appurtenant areas used, or intended to be used, for airport buildings or other airport facilities or rights-of-way, together with all airport buildings and facilities located thereon. It also includes any heliport.

So what is happening here is a sponsor trying to close an airport, and justify its actions by basing them on non-aviation practices.  The intent of all of the Federal Laws that pertain to airports is summarized by the following and describes an appropriate attitude for an airport sponsor.

(2) Obligation: To operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public to make it available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination.

The FAA also defines this to mean the aviation public. 

The comments and actions of the city council show how far off-based their thinking is.  The law is plain and clear and right in front of them, and the FAA is there to help them understand it.  All they have to do is listen to them, but that could be hard to swallow if you don't like what they say.

GO SOME PLACE ELSE

It appears that the airport is being used by people other than the tenants.  People have been observed on the north side of the hangar, who are not tenants at the airport and it is clear that they are there because they want to be some place secluded and un-observed.  On more than two occasions in the past, I have observed this happening, and on one of these occasions, the individual appeared to be dead, but was just asleep in a vehicle.  It is a very frightening experience to approach a vehicle where the occupant appears to be dead or unconscious.   On several of these occasions, the license plate of the vehicle indicated that the individual was associated with a public entity.  It has become very clear that this is happening more than we knew about in the past.   Just remember, if you are looking for privacy, everyone has a camera these days.

WHAT EVER YOU DO--- DO NOT TELL THEM THE TRUTH

After going back and reading the city minuets from last Jan for the previous posts, there are some things about Alderman Fuchs' comments from the Jan 7^th meeting that are very disturbing.  Alderman Fuchs seems to be stating that the tenants of the airport have wronged the city, and that filing a complaint with the FAA was something disgraceful.  Let’s put it in perspective; a crime was being committed, and the tenants reported it.  The Federal Government said yes the law is being broken and this is what you must do.  The city was found to be in non-compliance with Federal Law.  Let’s look at it from another angle, what if someone was stealing picnic tables from the city park, and the tenants witnessed it, and reported it to the appropriate officials and the perpetrators were caught.  Would Alderman Fuchs be stating the same thing?  The tenants acted on behalf of the public to protect the welfare and the interest of the public. 

From the city minutes; “I do not know how you guys or anybody can file complaints at a federal level that destroys a community, but that is what has happened.”

The complaint was not filed against the community, it was filed against the city administration, and the administration was found to be in violation.  I am sure the Alderman feels this way, due to the fact that he was one of the persons responsible for the federal infraction.   It is a good thing it was stopped when it was, or the city could have been ordered to pay back even more money.  The alderman should be thanking the tenants; we could have waited a few more years, and let the payback grow even larger.  If the city would have educated themselves on the federal law, as they are required to do, this would never have happened.  It is clear that Alderman Fuchs is trying to divert the attention that the city administration rightly deserves. 

One thing is very clear, the tenants did not receive a letter from the Feds requiring a payback to the airport, the City received the letter and they wrote the check.  The city was the guilty party. 

What is sad is that it is clear that the city has learned nothing from this.  They should at the very least Google "making a false statement to the FAA". 

NEW DEVELOPMENT

Well now, we have another opportunity for the city to lie to the Feds.  New development is starting off of Airport road.   What it is yet we do not know, but since no one else knows yet, it only makes sense that the city is going to let Boulder put the 175 or so homes within 800 feet or so of the centerline of a runway.   So apparently the city learned nothing over the outer road 7460 fiasco, but now when they say “we didn’t know!!!” they will look dumber than they did before. 

Not sure if this is Boulder, but if it was anything else Ron Blum would be telling everyone about the new progress he brought to St. Clair.   This had to be of knowledge at the time of the Chamber speech, so the rational speculation here is that Boulder is going ahead, without any 7460, and the city is trying to keep it quiet, hoping that they can get to a “ it’s too late to stop it now!” point. 

That’s fine, but, in order to get what the city wants, they have to be in compliance.  Allowing this development to proceed, could cause the FAA to suspend closure consideration for ever.   The city signed a contract, and agreed to prevent any residential development this close to an airport. 

See  Chapter 20 of 5190.6b. 

I am not going to post them here; the mayor will say that they are untrue. 

If Ron Blum was telling the truth about a retail development at the airport sight, why would he allow a residential development to sit right in the middle of the shopping center, the commercial property all around it?  This is the stupidest think to come out of St. Clair yet.  Well maybe not as stupid as having to shut down the outer road project the same day as the ribbon cutting.

Concerning airport road and the damage that Airevac did to the road back in 2011.  If a pilot would have done this to the road the city would have taken them to court, and made them pay for it. 

From the city minuetes.

Mayor Blum stated, “This is a situation that happened unexpectedly and I think…..(this is funny as hell.  “ I think”) …..this primarily occurred when Air Evac was installing their new modular home for the tenants at the airport.

“I think”……there is no thinking to b e done here.   Ron Blum was at the airport with the administrator the day it happened.  So the city spent another $24,350.52 on repairs due to damage by AirEvac.  Let’s look at the total so far.   The $33,749.46 they spent to put Airevac on the field, the $22,000 they spent on the first hangar, and now $24,350.52 on the airport road repairs.  That’s about $82,404.00 according to my spreadsheet.  How much money did the city make on renting to Airevac?  Somewhere around $20,000.   Brilliant management practices. 

Previous post about the amount of money the city spent on AirEvac, did not take into account the road damage.   What is sick here, after the first truck started to tear up the road, why didn’t they stop?   Why didn’t the city tell them to stop?