1

In The Matter of Compliance

With Federal Obligations

By the City of St. Clair, Missouri

___________________________________________________________________________________

To the Office of the Chief Counsel

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket

AGC-610

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20591

COMPLAINT OF THE

Tenants of the St. Clair Regional Airport

FILED PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. PART 16, RULES OF PRACTICE FOR

FEDERALLY-ASSISTED AIRPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS

Designation of Persons to Receive Service for Complainants:

Jim De Vries 

501 Ridgefield Dr. 

Pacific, Missouri 

63069 

COMPLAINANTS REPLY TO THE RESPONDENTS MOTION TO DISMISS/SUMMARY JUDGMENT

FAA DOCKET 16-14-03

The city has failed to meet the criteria for dismissal as outlined in the Federal Register Notice: Rules of 

Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings (78 FR 56135, Sept. 12, 2013) (PDF) -

Effective November 12, 2013.

56144 Federal Register/ Vol. 78, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

§ 16.26 Motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. 

(a) In lieu of an answer, the respondent may file a motion to dismiss the complaint or a motion for 

summary judgment on the complaint. The respondent may move for dismissal of the entire 

Complaint or move for dismissal of particular issues from adjudication. The motion must be filed 

within 20 days after the date of service of the FAA notification of docketing. 

(b) Motions to dismiss. 

(1) A motion to dismiss shall be accompanied by a concise statement of the reasons for seeking 

Dismissal. The respondent must show that the complaint should be dismissed, with prejudice, if: 

(i) It appears on its face to be outside the jurisdiction of the Administrator under the Acts listed in § 

16.1; 

(ii) On its face it does not state a claim that warrants an investigation or further action by the FAA; or 

(iii) The complainant lacks standing to file a complaint under §§ 16.3 and 16.23.
2

The respondent does not provide evidence to demonstrate that this complaint is outside of the 

jurisdiction of the administrator (i) or that the complainant lacks standing to file the complaint (iii). 

As to item (ii), the respondent appears to be attempting to demonstrate that the complaint does not 

state a claim that warrants an investigation or further action by the FAA. 

The respondent states in item 34 that the city “For many years has charged the Airport fund 

approximately five percent of the city’s total annual self-insurance pool assessment and fees for selfinsurance coverage provided by Missouri Intergovernmental Risk management Association.” This 

statement appears to justify the allocation. The statement does not list the years the complainant has 

done this. The years that the city has charges five percent also coincide with the years of the Blum 

administration, and only the Blum administration. The respondent has not provided documentation or 

evidence to show that this was a practice carried out for the previous 45 years that the airport has 

existed. This 5% assessment is unique to the Blum Administration. 

Concerning item 81 of the respondents answer to the complaint. The Respondent was found to be in 

non-compliance in the revenue diversion issues raised by the OIG investigation, and made restitution to 

the airport account for the funds diverted by the Respondent. 

Item 91. The key issue is defined by this statement. “...so long as the allocation does not result in a 

disproportionate allocation of general governmental cost to the Airport in the consideration of the 

benefits received by the Airport.” The city does not provide any evidence to demonstrate that the 

airport is receiving 5% of the total coverage provided by MIRMA. 

The actions by the city prove the material facts in this case are clear.

The respondent is using an undocumented percentage figure to divert airport revenue to the 

respondents general revenue account. 

The respondent is using the diversion of revenue to substantiate it closure documentation claims that 

the airport is not self-sustaining. 

The respondent admits that documentation for the cost of aviation coverage does not exist.

The respondent, by distributing its insurance cost among its departments by a method other than 

payroll percentages; demonstrates the intention to distribute the cost by a method that produces a 

disproportionate allocation of the cost to the airport.

The respondent provides no documentation to substantiate that the %5 allocation is comparable to 

market prices for comparable goods or services. 

The cost allocation methods being used by the Respondent do not meet the standards of 

documentation as outlined by the FAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue

and does not meet the requirements of Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments 

(OMB Circular A–87) 2 CFR Part 225.
3

The unique circumstances involving this case which include how MIRMA handles its airport coverage, 

the continued pursuit of the respondent for the closure of the airport, and how the respondent 

distributes its insurance cost, warrants an investigation of this case. The complainant here by request 

that the director deny the motion to dismiss this case, and investigate thoroughly the circumstances 

involved. 

I hereby certify that on July 17, 2014, a copy of the foregoing document was delivered electronically to 

the Federal Aviation Administration at 9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov and to Kurt Voss at 

kav@zvplaw.com

Jim De Vries