MORE COMPLAINTS

A local news publication has posted an article about the complaint on the trees.  To the uninformed reader, this article would make it appear that this is a disgruntled tenant attempting to cause trouble.  The situation is in reality that the city has chosen to formulate a hostile form of airport management in an attempt to further its closure plan.  The problem with this is that this type of plan is that it depends on no one noticing what the city is doing.  The city moved forward with this type of management with little knowledge of its Federal Obligations, the first of which is that the city fully understands that airport facilities must be kept in a safe and serviceable condition.  This plan is failing miserably despite claims that the city thinks it is making progress in the closure

The first part 16 complaint was dismissed due to the fact that the issue of the hangar lease was settled.  The OIG complaint was not dismissed.  The OIG complaint found the city to be in violation of grant assurance 25. Airport Revenues, and resulted in the city restoring close to $13,000 of diverted revenue to the airport. 

The second complaint was a part 13 and concerned the attempt by the city to raise the rent to $300 a month, in an attempt to force the remaining tenants to move off the airport.  This was a bad mistake by the city and they were told by the feds that this would not stand. 

The city is presently facing another part 16 complaint, three part 13 complaints, and an investigation initiated by the FAA compliance office in DC. 

The city closure was benched due to the results of the actions by the city.  The complaints being filed are due to the results of the actions and by the city, and by the inaction by the city to live up to its Federal Obligations. 

In order to comply with its Federal Obligations, the city must first learn what they are.   No matter what the city might state about its airport management practices, the results of the actions by the city produces the perception that the city has very little desire to live up to the obligations. 

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE

Airport tenant Tim Dempsey has filed a complaint on pavement maintenance, under grant assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, and grant assurance 11.  Pavement Preventive Maintenance.  There are three complaints filed by the tenants and one issue, grant assurance 20. Hazard Removal and Mitigation.  This concerns the trees and brush that grows at the north end of the runway.  Grant assurance 29. Airport Layout Plan.  We were informed by the KC office that the city does not have a current ALP.  The use of Federally funded property for less than fair market value, brought to the attention of MoDOT by the Feds in DC.  

5190.6b page 5-3.

5.6. Receiving the Complaint.

     b. Acknowledging the Complaint. The receiving office should promptly acknowledge receipt

of the informal complaint by letter.

TREES

The city has until Dec 1^st to determine if the trees on the north end of the runway are in the approach airspace and if so what to do about it.   This deadline will probably come and go with no response from the city, as has happened in the past.  

The city is claiming to have made progress in the closure attempt, but they did not mention the progress on the part 16 revenue diversion complaint, the part 13 obstruction complaint, and the most recent part 13 ALP complaint.  T here is also a situation out of DC about the use of Federally funded real estate being used by private corporations without paying rent for the fair market value.   What is fair market value?  The city donated 12 acres of real estate to the outer road project for approximately 1.2 million dollars, thaqt should be close enough for the airport road.  

SENATE BILL 2759

Senate bill 2759, which would close the St. Clair Regional airport, is probably dead.  With the change in power coming, not much of anything is going to happen between now and the new congress.  We will be calling all of the General Aviation Caucus members to ask them to squash this bill, specifically to keep it from coming to the Floor of the senate. 

If this bill goes dead, where does that leave the airport?  It appears that Ron has put all his eggs into the McCaskill basket, without a plan “b”.  Plan “b” is to make plan “a” work.  We’ll see, kind of doubt it though. 

The city is involved with one part 16 complaint, one active part 13 complaint on part 77 airspace, which has been amended to include all obstructions in the approach to 20.During discussion of the part 13 on airspace, it was discovered that the city does not have a current ALP, so another part 13 was sent off to MoDOT concerning the grant assurance on the ALP.  The city spent a lot of money to produce the ALP, and to not approve it and send it to the FEDS is just plain Stupid. 

2759

FREDERICK, Md. – The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and three other general aviation groups have urged key members of the U.S. Senate to forgo  legislation that could close St. Clair Municipal Airport (K39) near St. Louis, and instead follow established Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedures for the potential closure of airports that have accepted federal grants.

In a Sept. 16 letter, AOPA President Mark Baker and the other aviation groups told U.S. Senators John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, that a bill in their committee could improperly close the airport.

“As you know, this legislation would close the St. Clair Regional Airport, in St. Clair, Missouri,” the letter states. “As representatives of the general aviation community, we have serious concerns about closing and further limiting access to general aviation airports across the country, especially through legislation.”

In addition to Baker, the presidents of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, National Business Aviation Association and National Air Transportation Association signed the letter.

U.S. Senate Bill 2759 would, “release the City of St. Clair, Missouri, from all restrictions, conditions, and limitations on the use, encumbrance, conveyance, and closure of the St. Clair Regional Airport.” It was passed by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on a voice vote Wednesday and next will go before the full Senate.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-Mo.). The City of St. Clair has sought to close the airport and make that land available for commercial development, according to news reports.

The FAA is conducting a review of the city’s request to close the field since the city has previously accepted FAA airport improvement funds. The airport has been in operation since 1965.  

“There is already a process established by statute under the Airport Improvement Program Grant Assurances requirements for the closure of airports like St. Clair that have received federal funding,” the letter states. “The review of the St. Clair airport closure is already underway and we would respectfully request that the established FAA process move forward with a decision in a timely manner. It is our belief that this course will better balance the legitimate interests of the local community, aviation users, and the federal government.”

FROM THE CITY AGENDA

2. Airport Update – Senator McCaskill and Senator Blunt filed bill S.2759 on July 31,

2014. The bill title states, to release the City of St. Clair, Missouri, from all

restrictions, conditions, and limitations on the use, encumbrance, conveyance, and closure of the St. Clair Regional Airport.

NEW COMPLAINT STATUS

The Feds had until August 4^th to move on the motion by the city to dismiss the new part 16 complaint.  No word from them as of the 8^th.  If the Feds do not send out a notice that they are extending that deadline, it appears that the case will go to determination.  The complaint is about how much the city is charging the airport for insurance, and how they document that cost, or the lack of the documentation of that cost.  The complaint is asking the Feds to require the city to return $35,000 of undocumented insurance charges to the airport fund.   By the time this case is settled, that could be as high as $45,000.   

THE LEADING LADY

Some people from the army air cops of WWII reading the Leading Lady post.  I did not get to copy all of the Diary, and have some of the missions that I have not posted yet.  The diary is still available, and could get the rest of the missions.  If anyone has an interest, use the contacdt form on the rig

LOST REVENUE

The following is from the FAA rule book, page 22-19, if anyone wants to look it up.

“The nonaviation interest of the sponsor or the local community does not constitute an airport benefit that can be considered in justifying a release and disposal.”

What does this mean?  It means that you cannot close an airport to build a shopping center, no matter what the citizens of the community believe or want.  The citizens’ tax money does not fund the AIP, airport users do.  If you live in St. Clair and don’t fly, you do not support the system.

But wait, isn’t the city subsidizing the airport? 

It is now, and whose fault is that?  The users don’t run it.  The city council operates the airport, and it is the fault of the city council that the taxpayers of St. Clair have to subsidize the airport.

There are many solutions to the St. Clair Airport problem, many of which do not include closing it. 

There is only one solution that interest Ron Blum, and that is closure. 

Look at it in another way, this has been going on for eight years or so and looks like it will go one for many, many more.  Ron Blum told everyone the city will make $2,000,000 a year from a shopping center.  The City has lost $16,000,000 in sales tax dollars trying to close the airport for the nonaviation interest of the sponsor or the local community, and will lose another 30 or 40 million trying to do what Ron Blum wants.

 It would cost the City $2,000,000 to build another airport, and if the city would have chosen the correct way of doing this, in two years from now, the new airport would open and Ron Blum could close the old one, or build his shopping center, or whatever he has promised.

Here’s the catch, why would someone look at these numbers and not jump at the chance to build a new airport in the center of Franklin County, and build a development around it.  The $2,000,000 is nothing compared to the 30 or 40 million the city is going to lose trying to do the impossible. And now the city is looking at spending a lot more money to make the airport compliant.  The catch is that there is no $2,000,000 a year in sales tax, never was, and never will be.  That is why Ron Blum will not take the easy solution to this problem.  If Ron Blum would have read the rule book before he spouted off about the $2,000,000 a year shopping center, he would not be in the situation he is in now.  He can’t come up with another reason in the middle of the game. 

A segment on CBS Sunday morning a couple of weeks ago, reported that 50% of the retail shopping malls in this country will close in the next ten years.  No One in their right mind believes that there is going to be a Chesterfield like Mall in St. Clair, or that there ever was.    

NOT IN VIOLATION??????????

A local newspaper has reported that the city is not in violation of its FAA grant assurances. 

The city was not found in violation of several grant assurances that pertained to the complaint on the T-hangar lease.  Because the city did not evict the tenants, and the fact that the FAA stepped in when the city raised the rent to $300 per month, and a lease was agreed upon, the FAA dismissed the case.  After almost 11 months of attempting to get the city to negotiate, the city caved in to pressure from the FAA.

The city is in violation of many of the grant assurances, on many issues.  The complaints have not been filed yet.  The FAA when asked how many issues could be included in one complaint, they responded with, Try and keep it below ten for any one complaint.   

The city also claimed that they were not in violation of the grant assurances, and then made restitution to  the airport thousands of dollars of diverted revenue. 

Apparently the city is under the opinion that the FAA will make a decision on their closure request because the first complaint is determined.  If you read the Jim Johnson letter;

 “, the Agency will not consider closing St. Clair Regional Airport, as the city requested several months ago, until the city corrects deficiencies at the airport.”  ….. Again, the FAA has placed the City’s request for closure on hold. Future discussions will be limited to issues related to the City completing the steps detailed in this letter, including correcting the known safety violations at the airport, adequately addressing your outstanding Part 16 and Part 13 compliance complaints and completing an acceptable corrective plan related to the OIG Hotline complaint.

Should you require clarification, please contact meat 816-329-2601.
Sincerely,
Johnson
Manager, Airports Division

After the issues of compliance are settled, then the FAA will restart to CONSIDER” consider the closure request.  There is still an informal part 13 issue still being adjudicated by MoDOT, with no movement for over a year.