UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Jim De Vries, et a!., ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Complainants, 

v. FAA Docl{et No. 16-14-03 

City of St. Clair, Missouri, 

Respondent. 

RESPONDENT'S REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINANT'S REPLY DATED JUNE 27,2014 

Respondent, the City of St. Clair, Missouri (the "City"), is in receipt of a document 

entitled "Reply to the Respondents Answer FAA Docket 16-14-03" ("Complainant's Reply"). 

Complainant's Reply, received on or about June 27,2014, is unsigned by Complainant, and fails 

to set forth replies in enumerated paragraphs, making it difficult for the City to respond. 

However, the City will attempt to rebut Complainant's Reply of June 27, 2014 as best as it is 

able. 

Page I 

I. The City admits it charges to the St. Clair Regional Airport ("Airport") Fund five 

percent (5%) of the City's total insurance costs. 

2. The City has documented to the best of its ability the charges for insurance to the 

Airport Fund, especially when the City's insurance company, MIRMA, by Complainant's own 

admission, does not breakout Airport coverage as a separate charge. 

3. The City denies that it creates a policy ofrevenue diversion by charging the 

insurance assessments to the Airpot1. 

4. The City admits that the insurance assessments should have been charged to the 

Airport for many years, but was not done for reasons unknown to the City's present 

administration. 
Page 2 

5. The City believes, and its independent auditors have confirmed, that the charging 

of a portion of the City's insurance assessment to the Airport Fund is a prudent accounting 

practice. 

6. The City has no idea as to how other communities allocate MIRMA costs to their 

airports. 

7. The City admits that the responses of Matthew Brodersen speak for themselves. 

Page 3 

8. The City again admits that the insurance assessments from MIRMA are not 

broken out. 

Page4 

9. The City admits that its audited financial records confirm the Airport fund is 

losing money each year. 

10. The City admits in its request to the FAA that the Airport constitutes a burden on 

the general fund of the City and has requested to close the Airport for this and other reasons. 

11. The City denies any allegation that it is attempting to "bully" its way through 

closure process or that it is conducting anything even remotely referred to as "demolition by 

neglect and financial ruin." 

12. The City denies that it is in violation of any Federal notices. 

13. The City believes that its charges from MIRMA are reasonable. 

Page 5 

14. Complainant's Reply verifies what the City set forth in its Answer; that 

Complainant has had specific knowledge of the City's charges for insurance to the Airport Fund 

2 
since 2008 and yet chose not to file this Part 16 Complainant until May of2014 ("May 2014 

Complaint"). 

15. The May 2014 Complaint should be barred by res judicata, laches and collateral 

estoppel in that Complainant filed a prior Part 16 Complaint with the Federal Aviation 

Administration ("FAA") in January of2012 ("January 2012 Complaint"), while clearly having 

knowledge of the insurance allegations set forth in the May 2014 Complaint, and failed to 

include the insurance charges in the January 2012 Complaint. 

16. Complainant's failure to plead all known complaints in one action has caused 

duplicative work on behalf of the City and the FAA in having to deal with and respond to 

multiple Part 16 complaints. 

17. The City states the attachments attached to Complainant's Reply speak for 

themselves. 

18. The fact that a specific cost is not broken out to the City in its insurance 

assessment from MIRMA does not mean that the City does not incur a cost for insurance 

attributable to the Airport. 

19. The City staff believes the allocation of five percent (5%) ofthe City's total 

insurance assessment to the Airport Fund is not unreasonable. 

20. Complainant had no legal authority to request an insurance quote on property in 

which he has no ownership interest and to which he is not an official or representative of the 

City. See Page 5. 

21. Complainant's insurance coverage quote does not cover general commercial 

liability. 

22. Complainant's insurance coverage quote does not cover workers' compensation 

coverage. 

3 
23. Complainant's insurance coverage does not cover employee liability and claims. 

24. The Director should not be swayed by this feeble attempt to compare insurance 

costs where the policy quote suggested by Complainant does not even cover all that is covered 

by the City's current policy. It is like comparing apples to oranges. 

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 in favor of the City and that the 

FAA find that Complainant's delay in bringing this new Part 16 Complaint is untimely in that it 

should have been brought in the January 2012 Complaint, and even if not required to be brought 

in the January 2012 Complaint, the City's actions in charging five percent (5%) of its total 

annual insurance assessment to the Airport fund is not umeasonable and is based upon 

appropriate federal regulations, and for such other and further relief as may be appropriate. 

Dated this 23'd day of July, 2014. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ZICK, VOSS, POLITTE & RICHARDSON 

A Professional Co oration 

By: I 

Kurt A. V ..ess, MB 

438 West Front Street 

P.O. Box 2114 

Washington, Missouri 63090 

(636) 239-1616 

(636) 239-5161 Facsimile 

kav@zvplaw.com 

City Attorney for the City of St. Clair, Missouri 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 23,2014, a copy of the foregoing document was delivered 

electronically to the Federal Aviation Administration at 9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov, and a 

copy was mailed to Mr. Jim DeVries, Complainant, 501 Ridgefield Drive, Pacific, Missouri 

63069. 

W :\Q-R -S-T -U\St. Clair\A irport\ T enantComp 1 ai nt\Docket# 16-14-03\Re 

5