REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

The former tenants and remaining tenants have requested an extension of time of 120 days to amend the part 16 complaint due to events that have transpired since the complaint was filed.  

RUNWAY LIGHTS

The 122.8 frequency that was working last Saturday to control the runway lighting, is no longer operational.  The 122.9 is also inoperative.  It is apparent that the city has dismantled the radio controlled runway lighting equipment. 

From the FAA on Oct 28, 2013.

12. At the time of our inspection, I was able to activate the runway lights and runway end identifier lights (REILs) with a handheld transceiver using frequency 122.8, the Unicorn frequency assigned to St. Clair by the Federal Communications Commission, under call sign WEW4, FRN 0011008422. This license was issued to the City of St. Clair with an effective date of April 08, 2009, and an expiration date of May 10, 2019. During the course of my inspection, it was noticed that a NOTAM had been placed by Rick Childers, City Administrator, on April 16, 2013, decommissioning the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) and Unicorn frequency of 122.8. This change was published in NFDD 082, dated April 29, 2013. At that time, the FAA representative handling the decommissioning of the Unicorn frequency assigned the CTAF frequency of 122.9 to the airport, since the decommissioning request did not indicate that the airport had been closed. The sponsor should confirm that the runway lights can be activated on the published CTAF frequency of 122.9. Local pilots advised that the runway lights are operational at night continuously on a dusk to dawn circuit. This should also be confirmed by the sponsor.

On Dec 27^th 2013 the city responded.

12. We have no ability to confirm the frequency. At the transition of contractors operating the NOTAM notifications we were called, advised as to what our information should be, and informed them that it was OK with us to make changes as needed. Please schedule a site visit to provide direction on how the frequency may be confirmed.

WHERE DID RON BLUM LEARN HOW TO CLOSE AN AIRPORT?

The decision by Ron Blum to close the airport goes back to the 90’s.  It did not go well; as a matter of fact he lost an election for the mayor’s office over it.  That is probably where the “malice” mentioned in the following post comes from.  Where did the Blum plan come from? Obviously not from the FAA or anyone else in the aviation industry.  He did state that he read about it in the newspaper.   Something along these lines; this is not a quote, it was a few years back, but this basically this was the statement.

 I read in the newspaper about the closing of the Festus Airport, if they can close Festus, I can close St. Clair. 

Hey, guess what, Festus is still there.  There is nothing like sound documented evidence to start a bold new initiative that will have national consequence to the national general aviation Industry, and set a precedence in the future of aviation in this country.  

I also think Ron Blum should also spend more time watching Encore Westerns.  The story line of these old shows is always the same, but they are amazingly similar to the city and the airport.  Someone, usually with ties to politics, tries to take land, a mine, water, oil, or something of value from someone or thing that has a right to it.  And of course they always lose, and in some cases they go to jail.  But in this case the Federal Government and the citizens of the United States are the ones that have the right to the property.   There is much more to this than just running of all the tenants.   Sometimes a newspaper story can leave out some of the more important details.  

NPIAS

The city placed an item on the agenda to remove the airport from the NPIAS.  The agenda is normally on the city’s website, usually by Friday morning.  Last week it was not, provoking suspicion, and sure enough first item, an ordinance to remove the airport from the agenda.   The FAA was notified, and they came back with, that’s not how it works.  They are in the NPIAS until the ACO-100 takes them out.   

The following is the last paragraph of the city’s corrective action plan.

As always, thanks for all of your assistance as we try to stumble out way through this increasingly odd and convoluted process. We will in fact continue stumbling along, and we will in fact prevail compelling in the end, no matter how long it takes to reach that end. The story is just too compelling to let it go now.

Sincerely,

Rick Childers

The only thing that is compelling is that the city is under the impression that they are making progress with the FAA.  Basically what they have done is provide additional proof for further compliance action.  The city is also mistaken by thinking they are making progress.  So far they have managed to be found to be in non compliance with the following:

Routine maintenance.

Non-aeronautical use of the property, this cost them $15,000+.

They were found to be in non compliance with the rates and charges policy.  They tried to force the fixed wing tenants off the field, and got caught. 

They were found to be in non compliance with, and still are in non compliance with the rates and charges policy, along with about seven other grant assurances. 

So, if you were to pick a number from 1 to 100, on the closure scale, the city in 2004 or 05 or somewhere around their, was probably around a -85.   After the grant, they were at 0.   The city thinks they are somewhere around a +75 or even +85, but what they don’t know or what they are not reporting is that they are probably around -25.  

The DC Compliance office is in charge of St. Clair, this was a major step in preserving the airport.  An even bigger step is that now the FAA (the ones in DC) is in the house of St. Clair.  This is a monumental step in preserving the airport. 

The city has been mistaken in thinking it was in negotiations with the FAA!!!  From the city corrective action plan;

        Upon termination of positive discussion regarding closure only those repairs and upgrades for which appropriate documentation can be provided will be considered.  

       

        The FAA said;

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.

The important element and the most obvious is the attitude of resistance to be in compliance.  This shows an uncooperative and abusive nature.  What is more obvious is the presence of malice in the attitude of the city toward the airport, tenants, pilots, and supporters of the airport.  Yes, MALICE; the intention or desire to cause harm or pain to somebody.  There is no question that the city has intentionally tried to cause harm the airport.  The lack of maintenance shows the intent to cause harm to a person and or personal property. 

This list can go on and on, but the reality here is that the city is going backwards in its closure plan, and the city just does not know it yet.  The more the city tries to carry out their plan of airport destruction for closure, the further they get behind.  Why does the city not see this??  They have preached the anti- airport propaganda for so long, they now believe it themselves. 

A prediction!!  The Feds will eventually tell the city “put it back the way you found it.”

8 A LUSCOMBE

Al Koebel is looking for a fuselage for an 8A, if anyone out there knows of one pleas leave a comment.

122.80

The city decommissioned The 122.80 frequency.   What for is anyone’s guess.  But it still works on my radio.  It also turns up the intensity of the runway lights.   They still are operating 24 hours a day, just burning up city tax dollars.  I don't think the city knows that there is a manual switch to turn them on, someone probably thought is was light switch for hangar lights and flipped it up an then went,  huh, that don't work.

WHERE DID AIREVAC GO?

The following exchange between the Feds, MoDOT and the city went on over a period of six months.  The city as seen the last reply agreed to raise the rent to Airevac, equal to the t-hangars.  TWO MONTHS AFTER AIREVAC GOT A CUP FOR THE SULLIVAN SIGHT.

On Airevac, This is what the feds said.

Item #4 Air Evac —

The 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 Air Evac unit at the airport appears to have been given special treatment not q[forded 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 $1 75/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 fricility 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 5190.6B ¶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.

The city responded with;

Item #4: Attached is the 2000 AirEvac lease, at a monthly rate of $150, and copies of letters of support from local service organizations and emergency responders requesting that the City secure a local site for AirEvac’s use. We have not located documentation regarding negotiation of the current lease, which was signed at a monthly rate of $300 with a five year term by Mayor Mindy McCoy in 2005. This lease contained a provision to automatically renew without increase in 2010 for another five years. While this’ does not comply with FAA Order 51 90.6B p9.5.e, the Order was, not brought to the City’s attention by the FAA at the time of original lease issuance, and therefore is not possible to include at this date. When the lease is renegotiated in 2015 the City will include a CPI indexing clause linked to Midwest Urban, Size D (Non metropolitan [less than 50,000]) changes. The City will consider a CPI-based consideration on all lease rates, but not as a sole determinant for any type of lessee. As with any form of lease, the rate must reflect more than simple square footage used. Tenants which require taxiways and runways require more area maintenance than tenants which use neither. Tenants providing and maintaining their own approach lighting require less maintenance than tenants demanding those items. Tenants with 24-hour staffing provide a security presence which tenants using the facility on an intermittent basis do not provide. Tenants who provide their own snow removal cost less to house than tenants needing services. Additionally, we will not insert language from a lease specific to one form of tenant (rotary, fixed, commercial, private, etc.) into leases specific to additional forms of tenant unless the language is directly applicable to each, per 18.2 Lb of the Compliance Handbook noting the appropriateness of lease distinctions based on use.

For Item 4, which relates to Air Evac’s lease, MoDOT and the FAA agree that inclusion of a CPI indexing clause in the next Air Evac lease will help to ensure that Air Evac’s monthly rental rate reflects current economic conditions. MoDOT and the FAA also agree that different categories of tenants can have different rental rates, so long as a consistent methodology is utilized to establish fees for
comparable aeronautical users of the airport.
Although the City’s letter indicates it will include a CPI indexing clause in its next lease agreement with Air Evac, the letter does not state whether the base monthly rental rate for Air Evac will increase from $300/month when the Air Evac lease is next negotiated. Without this information, MoDOT and the FAA cannot determine whether the City’s proposed corrective action plan for Item 4 is acceptable.
The City’s March 26 letter stated that its lease rates reflect a variety of factors that differentiate certain types of tenants from one another. The differences between Air Evac and the fixed wing tenants may substantiate different rental structures for businesses operating at the airport and for other fixed wing tenants, but without any type of documentation outlining the City’s rental structure for businesses
operating at the airport, MoDOT and the FAA cannot determine whether Air
Evac’s lease agreement is consistent with such rental structure.
In order to address the remaining questions relating to Item 4, any future Air Evac leases should reflect a similar percentage increase in the base monthly rate to the increases experienced by other tenants from 2007-2013 pursuant to Title 49 United States Code Section 47107. In the alternative, the City should provide its cost
allocation methodology for its rental rates. This methodology should be consistent with the FAA’s Rates and Charges Policy.
MoDOT is available to work with the City to address these remaining corrective action plan items and to identify steps the City can take to ensure future compliance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. As soon as a response is received on these remaining items, I will coordinate with the FAA to determine whether the City’s corrective action plan is acceptable.

And with;

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 increase AirEvac’s rent at the same rate as the other airport tenants in order to work towards achieving airport self-sufficiency.

The city responded by;

Item 4, AirEvac Lease: The City will ensure that all future hangar lease agreements with AirEvac LifeTeam subsequent to the completion of their current lease in 2015 will specifically link the percentage increase of said lease(s) to the lease rate increases levied on fixed-wing tenants, and that all such increases shall comply in full with FAA Rates and Charges Policy. 

AIRPORT MAINTENANCE

Click on a picture to view full screen.

Crack in front of City hanger.

Box culvert at north end of runway.  Each opening is about four feet tall, this ditch is in the ten to twelve feet deep range.  This is 45 feet off of the runway.

 FOD on common taxiway in front of the hangar

Open electrical junction box in the ramp area.

Asphalt damage left from snow plowing.  The tenants cleaned this up.

This is from the the city reply to the FAA reply to the city corrective action plan.

Routine Maintenance Items
Item 1, Grass & Weeds: We did not mean to imply that the only weed treatments provided were once in the spring. Our crews spray sidewalks, parking lots and the airport throughout the growing season. That practice will continue on an “as needed” basis.
Item 4, Beacon & Runway Lights: The City will continue to provide timely and qualified repairs to all materials and equipment at the airport for which we have a legal obligation for as long as the obligation remains.

Summer 2013 weed control

summer 2013

 This is common after rain.  Water is four inches deep.

These two pictures were taken over the summer of 2013

The tall grass in this picture is not mowed due to a four foot deep ditch 500 feet of the end of the runway.

After a snow storm last winter the city plowed half of the runway.

Common use taxiway.

that is gravel, the paving is gone.

The following are on the secondary taxiway.

OTHER AIRPORTS IN TROUBLE

There have been a lot of page hits from Wichita KS.  If you are reading this, and you are experiencing airport problems, we would be interested in knowing about them.  We are communicating with the Huron County airport in Ohio, and are exchanging ideas and experiences with airport sponsors.  We would like to hear from other airport users that are having difficulty.   

We are thinking that It would be a good idea for users with similar trouble to be able to communicate with each other.

2008 MODOT LETTER

This post is the 2008 MoDOT letter mentioned in the next couple of post.