UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. Jim DeVries, et al., Complainants,



### v. City ofSt. Clair, Missoul'i, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FAADocket No. 16-14-03

RESPONDENT'S SURREBUTTAL TO COMPLAINANT'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS/SUMMARYJUDGMENT FAADOCKET 16-14-03 DATED JULY 17,2014 

### Respondent, the City ofSt. Clair, Missouri (the "City"), is in receipt ofa document entitled "Complainants Reply to the Respondents Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment FAA Docket 16-14-03 dated July 17,2014 ("Complainant's Second Reply"). Complainant's Second Reply fails to set forth replies in enumerated paragraphs, making it difficult for the City to respond. However, the City will attempt to make this surrerebuttal to Complainant's Second Reply as best as it is able. Page I I. The City denies that it has failed to meet the requirement for dismissal. Page 2 2. The City admits that its motion is based upon the fact that an investigation is not warranted and no further action is required by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). 3. The City has admitted the years to which the insurance allocation was made. 4. The current City staffcannot speak ofthe accounting done prior to their involvement with the St. Clair Regional Airport ("Airport") fund.5. The City asserts that its allocation does not result in a disproportionate allocation ofgeneral governmental costto the Airport in consideration ofthebenefits received bythe Airport. 6. In fact, five percent (5%) is not a significantly large number when looking at the size ofthe City. 7. The City admits the material facts in this case are clear. 8. The City again denies that it is using adiversion ofrevenue to substantiate the closure ofthe Airport. Further answering, and as an affirmative defenses, the City states thatthe allocation ofinsurance is a legitimate allocation to the Airportfund, especially when the charge is only five percent (5%) ofthe City'stotal insurance assessment. 9. The City states that the five percent (5%) allocation was used after a review by City staffand confirmed by City auditors as an acceptable allocation ofinsurance costs to the Airport, considering there is no specific breakout ofinsurance costs from MIRMA, the City's insurance carrier, for the Airport. I0. The City denies that the cost allocation methods used do not meetthe standards required by the FAA Policy and Procedures concerning use ofAirport revenue. Page 3 11. The City denies that any fi.niher investigation is needed by the FAA. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated in the City's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment, the City requests that a ruling be granted infavor ofthe City and thatthe FAA find that Complainant's delay in bringing this newPart 16 Complaint is untimely in that it should have been brought in the January 2012 Complaint, and even ifnot required to be brought in the January 2012 Complaint, the City's actions in charging five percent (5%) ofits total

2annual insurance assessmentto the Airport fund is not unreasonable and is based upon appropriate federal regulations, and for such other and further reliefas may be appropriate. Datedthis 23'd day ofJuly, 2014. Respectfully submitted, ZICK, VOSS, POLITTE & RICHARDSON A Professional Co oration

# By:-::c:-~---::c=---'i>=2"1:~/£~-'-~----­ Kurt

### A. Vos,, 438 WestcFront Street P.O. Box 2114 Washington, Missouri 63090 (636) 239-1616 (636) 239-5161 Facsimile kav@zvplaw.com City Attorney for the City ofSt. Clair, Missouri

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that on July 23,2014, a copy ofthe foregoing document was delivered electronically to the Federal Aviation Administration at 9-AWA-AGC-Pmt-16@faa.gov, and a copy was mailed to Mr. Jim DeVries, Complainant, 501 Ridgefie d Drive, Pacific, Missouri 63069.

Kurt

### A. Voss W:\Q-R-S-T-U\St.Clair\Airport\T enantComplaint\Docket#16-14-03\SurrebuttaltoReplyMSJ.doex

3