WHAT? THEY DON’T READ THE MAIL

The following statements are from the Jan 7^th 2013 council meeting concerning the pavement.

• Conducting adequate repairs and the regular inspection of pavement surfaces.

“Mayor Blum stated he would like to tell the Alderman and the audience exactly what he knows and far as these actions to date. This portion of the corrective action is completely new to himself and Administrator Childers. This is another item that has never been on any type of documents that we can see, as far as we know. Mayor Blum asked Administrator Childers if he was aware anything concerning pavement surfaces. Administrator Chiders stated no, not that has been mentioned in any of the documents filed so for”.

The city was advised of the pavement conditions in 08, and 09.   The 09 letter refers to items from previous inspections, and show that these seem to be a repetitive situation.  

FORCE THE TENANTS OFF THE AIRPORT

These are comments from the Jan 7^th  2013 meeting.

Mayor Blum stated you have before you 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 documentation, in front of you, that shows all revenue and all expenses. Mayor Blum stated the only thing we can determine is the fact that they want us to go out and physically open a separate checking account. Administrator Childers stated that is the only thing I can read into it, it is already maintained by a separately identified managed fund and noted by the auditor as a separate fund, and it’s as separate a fund as you can get and that doesn’t seem to be enough. Alderman Fuchs stated, so the auditor is approving this system and they are requesting that we maintain that facility with additional banking, additional bookwork, and additional staff time to manage this in a separate

account. Mayor Blum stated that is correct. Administrator Childers stated it’s possible they simply don’t understand anything about accounting and if we have it in a separate bank then maybe they will understand that. Mayor Blum stated maybe it is just their procedure.  Mayor Blum asked if there were any other items the Board would like to discuss, but it would be his recommendation to the Board that we once again do what they ask us to do, we have done this all along, and at some point there has to be foul cried on our part, we are doing everything they are asking us to do, including this here.

Let’s look at a letter from the city to MoDOT dated July 1^st 2008.  I refers to a letter from MoDOT dated June 13^th 2008. 

The city was told in 2008 to put the airport funds in a separate account. 

In 2013 Blum states;  Mayor Blum asked if there were any other items the Board would like to discuss, but it would be his recommendation to the Board that we once again do what they ask us to do, we have done this all along, and at some point there has to be foul cried on our part, we are doing everything they are asking us to do, including this here.

FIVE YEARS go by and the city finally gets it.  

Also in the letter. 

Mr. Arndt makes the statement that the airport is finally not in deficit.  It also refers to declining revenues.  Why would revenues decline? Vacancies caused by high rental rates.  Let’s look at what the city put in their “fact book”.

The City has no intention to expand the current level of these terminal area facilities and services, and the cost of those capital improvements to these areas that are absolutely required will be passed along to the tenants as increases in monthly rental rates and charges. All hangar leases at the Airport expire at the end of calendar year 2010; the lease with Air Evac Lifeteam extends to July 31, 2015. The net effect is that the based aircraft count at the Airport will decrease rapidly and will eventually fail to meet NPIAS eligibility criteria. The use of the

Airport by based and transient aircraft will similarly decline inasmuch as no ground services will be available and other area airports become more attractive for use.

Sounds like a plan to raise the rent a run off all the tenants. 

WHAT'S UNTRUE?

The mayor, Ron Blum, recently made the comment at the state of the city speech at the Chamber of Commerce meeting, about the blog.  He commented that everything on the blog was untrue.   Let’s look at one item, the city tried to raise the rent on the T-hangars to $300 a month in order to make the airport more self sustaining.  He also stated, “Again, the self-sustaining issue, it baffles me, I am no aviation expert, and I am not a FAA guru,” which kind of explains everything.  He is confused, and this comment demonstrates a violation of the grant assurances in itself.   What do the Feds have to say on this subject?

b. Preliminary assessment. FAA must make a judgment call in all cases as to whether a

sponsor is reasonably meeting its federal commitments. A sponsor meets its commitments when:

(1). The federal obligations are fully understood;

(2). A program (e.g., preventive maintenance, leasing policies, operating regulations, etc.) is in

place that the FAA deems adequate to carry out the sponsor’s commitments;

(3). The sponsor satisfactorily demonstrates that such a program is being carried out; and,

(4). Past compliance issues have been addressed.

Alderman Fuchs stated; “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. To our City I apologize, I do not know what else to do; our hands are tied because of a small group of hobbyists. 

Alderman Fuchs’s comments insinuate that this expense the city is going to experience is the fault of the tenants.   The actions of the city council, due to its lack of understanding of its federal obligations are responsible for the federal intervention.   

He also stated, “To our City I apologize, I do not know what else to do; our hands are tied because of a small group of hobbyists.”   This statement is untrue, the city hands are not tied because of a few hobbyist; they are tied by the Federal Government.   This comment goes to show that Alderman Fuchs is as confused as the mayor.   

Alderman McGlenn responded they already pay $300 per month rent and they have an existing lease.  Alderman McGlenn said her feeling is similar to the ball field use, if you charge one person an amount of money, then the other people should pay the same amount of money. She continued, Air Evac is charged $300 per month to use the airport and the pilots for a hobby were paying $175.00 per month, if we are charging Air Evac who is doing a public service $300.00 per month and are locked into a contract until 2015, her opinion is that it is only fair to charge the pilots the same amount of money as Air Evac is being charged.

This statement by Alderman McGlenn demonstrates that she is as confused as the mayor, and has little or no understanding of the Federal Grant Assurances. 

What does the FAA state?

18.6. Local Negotiation and Resolution.

a. General. Although federal law provides the DOT with authority to intervene in disputes over

an airport fee or charge, the DOT primarily relies on the sponsor and its aeronautical users to

reach consensus on airport rates and charges. The sponsor may impose a fee unilaterally, after

consultation with users, if the fee is fully consistent with the Rates and Charges Policy. The

sponsor may adopt a fee that varies from the Rates and Charges Policy only if users agree.

b. Consultation. As provided for in the Rates and Charges Policy, DOT encourages adequate

and timely consultation with users prior to implementing rate changes. To permit aeronautical

users time to evaluate proposed rate changes, consultation should be well in advance, if practical,

of introducing significant changes in charging systems, procedures or level of charges. Adequate

information should be provided so users can evaluate the airport’s justification for the change

and to assess its reasonableness. Due regard should be given to the views of both the

aeronautical users and the airport and its financial needs. The Rates and Charges Policy notes

that the parties should make a good-faith effort to reach agreement, and encourages airports and

aeronautical users to include alternative dispute resolution procedures in their lease and use

agreements to facilitate resolution and reduce the need for direct federal intervention to resolve

differences over aeronautical fees.

c. Reasonable Distinctions. The prohibition on unjust discrimination does not prevent a

sponsor from making reasonable distinctions among aeronautical users (such as signatory and

nonsignatory air carriers) and assessing higher fees on certain categories of aeronautical users

based on those distinctions (such as higher fees for nonsignatory versus signatory air carriers).

What else did the FAA say?  They said the city was wrong, and told them to fix it.  They did not say the tenants were wrong.  The tenants did not get a letter from the Feds.  All of the Alderman should have apologized to the citizens of St. Clair for their actions that caused this mess.

The recreational, or hobbyist aircraft owners as the city like to put it, is a 2 billion dollar a year industry.  More homebuilt aircraft are purchased every year than factory aircraft.  The city would be wise to attract this market to their airport, since the business aircraft are not coming here.  What difference does it make as to what type of aircraft rents a hangar, homebuilt one seat aircraft, or a medical helicopter, if each one of them rents an identical hangar, the hangar rent according to the federal law must be the same.

What is the purpose of raising the t-hangar rent?  To get the tenants to move to another airport. 

This is soooooo stupid, I'm going to have to think about this one.

A PILOT WALKS INTO A BAR!!!

Why would anyone write a news article about one pilot moving From St. Clair to Sullivan?    It’s not news. What is news is the controversy that it produces.  Ron Blum’s plan to run off all of the pilots in order to make it easier to close the airport is slowing down.  It actually kind of hit a derailment with Airevac.  Ron Blum was trying to get rid of the pilots, and instead got rid of the one of thing that St. Clarions were proud of.   Airevac left St. Clair after about 8 years, a now the city has no way to recover the cost of the improvements made to the airport to get Airevac to stay in the first place.   So, there is an article in the local news media about one guy moving his airplane to Sullivan.  BIG DEAL.  But the article also goes on to spout about the airport losing money every single year.   The article makes it clear, AUDITED CITY RECORDS; this comment by the city is delusional.  Why doesn't the city just explain the records?   Instead, the city has taken a course to show that the people making these allegations are misguided.  After all these records have been audited, how could this be true?  They have been audited and therefore they must be accurate.  Repeat this over and over again, but in regards to the facts, well just sidestep, brush off, change the subject, divert attention, bellow out irrelevant crap, do whatever it takes to divert attention to the truth.

The following is an example, and not the only one, of what the city started to do to the airport.

 Did the Auditor find in the airport records where the city charged the airport for 10 taillight bulbs on 4/12/07?  For what purpose does the airport need ten 1157 tail light bulbs?  

To catch this, one would have to know what 1157's are.  

The tenants did not have to look very hard to find this, once we got the information.  Getting the information was hard.  I required repeated request for records according to FAA regulations, intervention by the Missouri House of representatives, and the Missouri State Attorney General Office to get the airport records that are supposed to be made available to the public, in a manor prescribed by the U.S. Department of Transportation.  It took over two years to get this detailed information.  

No wonder MoDOT told the city that the airport could be self sustaining if it would just follow the rules.   Federal Law also requires a compliance audit to confirm that an airport sponsor is following the rules, when they receive a Federal Grant.   The Specifications for a compliance audit a very clear and detailed.  The audit states, that it did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance…   It does not state how hard they looked. 

The continued reporting that the airport operates in the red according to audited, un-audited, or whatever kind of records you want to look at does not matter, a close look at the records will show other items charged to the airport, charges made to the operations of the airport, and not to capital improvements, charges to operations that were spent for Airevac, and being paid for by fixed wing tenants.  The airport records are in bad shape already, but when someone is intentionally trying to make them worse, does not show very well for the city.   

The point here is:  if the city cannot or does not wish to defend its record keeping, the next best thing is to attack the opposition.   This has been the SOP since 06, make it look like the airport tenants are bad people, and the airport is the down fall of the city financially.   Make it big, keep it simple, and tell it over and over and soon everyone will eventually believe it.  AH.

CONCERNING THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.

I received an email from Mr. Domke on Thursday Jan 2^nd.   The paper publishes on Friday mornings.  I did not check my email until Saturday.  I was going to reply to comment to the online article, but have decided not to do so.  In December, I received an email from the tenant that recently moved to Sullivan, which stated that the reason he was leaving, was due to the poor condition of the taxiway, the lack of fuel, and the high hangar rent.   St. Clair is $40 a month higher than similar surrounding facilities.   With four tenants, airport income will be around $8500 for 2014 with a rental rate of $175.  If the rate was competitive, as outlined by the FAA guidelines, the airport income could be $15,000.   This action by the city to keep hangar rates above market rates, to discourage full occupancy, demonstrates intent to not follow FAA guidelines.    

In September of 2010 MoDOT Aviation sent a letter to the city stating that “Based on the information provided by the City for their 2009 revenue and expenses for the airport, it is possible for the airport to sustain itself if management and operational practices were executed in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration guidelines and circulars and in compliance with federal grant obligations.  Our office is available to assist the City with any questions related to the airport and can provide FAA documents related to compliance with federal grant assurances.”   The FAA has stated repeatedly that the prime obligation of an airport sponsor is to operate the facility for the benefit of the aviation public.   The number of tenants on the airport will have no bearing on the decision by the FAA in regards to a plan submitted by the city to close the airport; if the city does present a plan.  The FAA has stated that there is no support for what the city has submitted so far, anywhere in the entire FAA organization.   The FAA has not lifted the hold on the closure issue due to a formal complaint, and an ongoing United States Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General Investigation of the airport management.    

The audited financial statements also show depreciation of a 1.6 million asset at the airport.  No one has stated what this was where it is, or when it was completed. 

The key element here is, if management and operational practices were executed in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration guidelines and circulars and in compliance with federal grant obligations.  Until the city understands this and realizes that the direction they have chosen to proceed is not going to get them what they want, the airport closure attempt will continue to sink into a quagmire that will end up costing the city and city taxpayers  more and more money.   

DOWN TO FOUR TENANTS

Another tenant is moving to the Sullivan Airport.  A local Franklin County resident, with a St. Clair address is moving out due to the high hangar rates, taxiway conditions, and lack of fuel on the field.   This leaves four tenants.  The management practices of the city will no doubt cause the airport to lose money, and become a burden to the taxpayers of the city.   This will bring the income down to about $8500 a year.  This will not cover the insurance cost, let alone any of the other expenses.   In 2008 the airport had an income of $33,000.  It only took Ron Blum five years to total ruin the airport.  No matter what the city says or prints in the newspaper, the actions by the city tell the real story.  

AIRPORT SUSTAINABILITY

It has been often been told and repeated over and over, and also published in the local news publication, that the airport has never shown a profit, according to city records.   To objectively look at this, you have to take a serious look at the city records.

 In 2002 the city records show a gross income of $29,605.37, and expenses of $15,334.08.   Both the old and the new math will tell you this is $14,271.29 of profit.

In 2003 the airport shows a gross income of $19,015.82, and expenses of $4,509.88, and $14,505.94 of profit.  .  (In 2002 the city had $5203 of bad aviation fuel.  It went bad after sitting in the tank for too long, and the city could not sell it as 100LL aviation fuel.  After several months the fuel disappeared, no one knows where it went, the tank was emptied.  If this would be included in the city records, and the airport would be compensated for the fuel, the profit would be $19,475.24 for 2002, for a total profit of $33,981.18 for 2002 and 2003.)

These numbers will tell anyone that the repeated statements that the airport has never shown a profit, are just plain untrue. 

  

In 2004 the City records show airport expenses were $26,356.18 with income at $18,196.03, which will show an $8,160.15 loss for the airport.  Included in the expenses was $3,635.50 for engineering for the AIP funding.  This expense should have been paid for by the AIP Grant, but the city was unaware that the expenses qualified for grant funding.  The city also spent $8,799.50 in repairs to the airport that had gone overlooked in the past.  This also included $10,000 to St. Clair Aviation for airport management contract that included the grass mowing at the airport.   To correct for the engineering expense, that would put the airport profit at $29,456.53 for 02, 03, and 04.  We have heard over and over again that the city could not afford to pay someone $30,000 a year to sit at the airport to pump gas.   The fact of the matter is that only happened in two year 05, 06, which by the way also included grass mowing of the airport, something that the city had neglected to do. 

In 2005 things get interesting.   The city records show a gross income of $16,126.75, and expenses of $121,119.11, for a loss of $104,992.36.   This includes $30,000 for Buzz and the airport contract.  $3,118.70 in more engineering expense and $4,766.76 in MIRMA cost.  What is so different here is that these figures include a cost called MODOT $72,648.89.  (More on this later.)  Without the corrections for the engineering, but correcting the MIRMA cost, and the MODOT cost, the airport shows a profit of $5,343.66 for 02,03,04,05. 

In 2006 there are more corrections that need to be addressed.  The expenses are shown as $468,071.00 and income at $25,303.00 and show a loss of $442,768.00.   This includes a cost of $398,051.00 to MODOT.   Also included is an expense for Airevac for $23,298.00 and equipment repair for $10,044.00 which includes expenses for the helipad constructed for Airevac.   After correcting the above the airport would show a loss of $6,758.34 for 02,03,04,05,06. 

In 2007 city records show a gross income of $21,570.00 and expenses of $ $51,675.38 for a loss of $30,105.38.  These expenses also show a cost for MODOT for $23,642.48, and additional engineering expense of $2,110.55.  For the years 02 through 07 the airport would show a loss of $15,398.04. 

In 2008 the gross income was $33,005.00 and expenses were $62,128.00 for a loss of $29,123.  This includes another MODOT expense of $55,364.00.  With corrections for the MODOT grant, this should show a profit of $25,581, giving the airport a profit of $10,182.96 for the years of 02 to 08. 

In the year 09 through 12, the city started to contract out the grass mowing, and started to charge the airport for MIRMA coverage.  The MIRMA cost for those years was $28,077.15.    The city started to charge this much for insurance when they found out that they could not keep the airport revenue in the general revenue account of the city.   The $553,955.21 in MODOT expenses were not expenses, they were the AIP grant funds paid out by MODOT.  The city portion of the AIP contract was around $29,600 which should have been charged off to a capitol improvements account and depreciated over 20 years at $1390 per year.  Mirma cost should be $785 per year, and correcting for the rent the city paid the airport for the maintenance hangar and other items for Airevac expense, the operating profit for the airport, if accounted for under generally accepted accounting practices would show a profit for the years of 02 to 12, of $25,692.57. 

To take the city records at their face value without examination of the expense items to get a true picture of the airport financial situation is just plain wrong.  To publicly make claims about the profitability of the airport without care full examination of the figures, is irresponsible and unprofessional. 

The airport will no doubt show a loss for 2013, due to the management practices of the city.  The examination of these management practices show that one of two things is happening, the city is completely incapable of managing an airport, or the city is operating the airport with the intention of forcing it into an unprofitable situation to further its case for closure. 

The following is from a letter by MoDOT to the city on Sept 23, 2010. 

In reviewing information provided by the complainant, the City has presumably charged for insurance in some years and some years has not. Our office would recommend that the City of St. Clair have further discussions with other municipalities that have airports that do not sell fuel and determine how those municipalities establish their insurance costs for the airport. This will allow the City to develop an annual reasonable cost far airport insurance that is consistent in terms of actual cost compared to value received. This will also enhance the airport budget planning process.

The city did not follow this recommendation, but when eight other municipalities similar to St. Clair, were polled, they replied that they did not charge the airport for insurance due to the fact that they did not have any payroll at their airport.  The letter also went on to say;

Airport Sustainability

The MoDOT Aviation Section is participating with other aviation industry representatives in the preparation of a guidebook to assist political subdivisions in the development of a General Aviation Airport Business Plan .A business plan can assist airport owners in the short and long term sustainability of the airport and can allow the airport to respond accordingly in financially challenging times. Once the study is completed, our office will forward you a copy,

Based on information provided by the City for their 2009 revenue and expenses for the airport, it is possible for the airport to sustain itself if management and operational practices were executed in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration guidelines and circulars and in compliance with federal grant obligations. Our office is available to assist the City with any questions related to the airport and can provide FAA documents related to compliance with federal grant assurances.

Our office will await the submittal of the requested information in this letter: Please feel free to contact our office if you should have any’ questions.

In this letter MoDOT concluded that the airport could support itself.  The city made no attempt to resolve this issue, or reply to MoDOT with any information.

NO BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY

Since I can not longer cut and paste from the Missourian, I can only post a link.

http://www.emissourian.com/opinion/editorials/article_23e0dc46-5cf1-11e3-a389-001a4bcf887a.html

Supporters of the Washington Airport inside the Missourian have posted an editorial.  What is sad is that it only refers to the Washington airport.  The statistics the article quote refer to all airports in Missouri.    The difference between the airports at Washington and St. Clair?  Management!!!!  At Washington you have someone that wants to see the airport developed into an asset for the city and surrounding area.  In St. Clair, the management wants to destroy the airport, and remove it from the face of the earth, and will break many state and federal laws to do it.  

NONE OF THE PILOTS AT THE AIRPORT LIVE IN ST CLAIR

This phrase has become the war cry of the city and the newspaper.  It has been used as a reason to enforce the idea that the airport should go away.  It has been used without an explanation.  What difference does it make to anyone where airport tenants live?   The FAA has regulations against residency preferential treatment, when it comes to Federally Funded Airports.  But then, no one that lives in St. Clair would know that.   The continued publishing of this phrase is intended to do one thing, to make the tenants of the airport appear as bad people.   The tenants are costing the taxpayer’s money.   It is an attempt to divert attention from what the city is doing to destroy the airport, and place blame on the tenants.   But like Adolf said, “If you are going to lie, make it big, simple, and repeat it over and over, and eventually people will believe it.”

But the best thing about this phrase is that its finger points in every direction.  Rumors and I repeat RUMORS are that Ron Blum has moved to Sullivan, with all the other previous airport tenants.  If you can come up with something as stupid as “you don’t have to pay taxes on it if you don’t use it”, this should produce something even better. 

Comments by the city administration like we have seen over the airport, and the personal property issue, go to show the Ron Blum must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of his constituents to think that everyone will believe this crap.  But then everyone knows that Ron is smarter than everyone else.