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 PROC EEDINGS

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

C omplaint or move for dismissal of particular issues from adjudicatio n. 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

D ismissal. The respondent mu st 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 self

insurance coverage provided by Missouri Intergovernmental Ris k 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.

C oncerning 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 Respo ndent.

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 ci ty 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 t he material facts in this case are clear.

The respondent is using an undocumented percentage figur e 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 Respon dent 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