REPLY to TSAIA ANSWER 

April 29, 2010 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Docket No. 16-09-14 

C E 1¥ 

MAKAIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW, AGC-60Q 

REPLY t o 

ANSWE R TO ''AMENDMENT " 

RDM, LLC V. Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

REPLY 

RDM, LLC (RDM), hereby Replies to the Answer filed by Ted Stevens Anchorage 

International Airport (TSAIA) in regard to RDM's Amendment dated April 14, 2010. 

In doing so, RDM will reference the page and lines from the TSAIA Answer that is in 

question. 

Page 3, Line 4-8 

TSAIA did not treat AGLAD (and hence RDM) fairly. TSAIA had vastly differing policy 

with regards to its tenants. These differences are concisely detailed in both the 

original RDM Complaint and the corresponding filings. 

Page 3, Line 9-17 

This paragraph clearly illustrates TSAIA's inability to neither grasp the nature nor the 

gravity of their policy failures. TSAIA committed policy failures before AGLAD even 

signed their lease, during the signing of AGLAD's lease, during AGLAD's tenancy, and 

finally when TSAIA took AGLAD's lease back. Examples of these policy failures 

occurring at very differing time periods is clearly illustrated in previous filings. 

TSAIA's continued reference that AGLAD only alleges policy failure at the end of their 

lease is both wrong and confusing. 

Page 3, Line 18-26 & Page 4, Line 1-3 

TSAIA again makes the feeble argument that AGLAD's development was too 

ambitious and that the project failed because "its economics proved to be unsound 

and its developer incapable of sustaining it." This is simply not true. TSAIA 

continues to ignore their failed policy. 

Specifically, had TSAIA not violated Title 49 United States Code §47107 (a) General 

Written Assurance by: 

1. Inserting a "financial" obligation into AGLAD's lease which had not been 

included in other TSAIA tenant leases. 

2. Not ignoring or substantially extending AGLAD lease obligations to the 

degree that CargoPort received extensions. 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 1 of 4 
REPLY to TSAIA ANSWER 

3. Failing to significantly extend AGLAD's lease in light of the terrible 

world/national recession. CargoPort received this concession in 1998 for 

like cause. 

4. Failing to grant a longer initial term in which to complete Phase I 

improvements. CargoPort received this concession. 

5. Failing to allow AGLAD to default on only one of its parcels instead of all 

the parcels when AGLAD was found in default for not providing proof of 

financing for Phase I. CargoPort's and FedEx's parcels were treated 

individually not collectively. 

6. Not giving AGLAD rent deferral until improvements were substantially 

complete. CargoPort and FedEx received this concession. 

7. Not granting AGLAD the ability to pay bacic deferred rent over two years. 

FedEx received this concession. 

8. Failing to provide AGLAD with free "fill" material for its site development. 

FedEx and UPS received this concession. 

9. Failing to provide AGLAD the ability to sell its improvements to TSAIA 

and lease back the improvements as a mechanism to receive favorable 

financing. CargoPort received this concession. 

10. Denying AGLAD the ability to use First Riglit of Refusals for their 

development. UPS and FedEx received this concession. 

11. Denying AGLAD "Preferential Use" of hardstands P-1, P-2, and P-3. UPS 

received this concession. 

12. Not giving AGLAD the right to rent the P-1, P-2, and P-3 hardstands at a low 

rate. FedEx received this concession. 

13. Making AGLAD pay for taxiway construction, maintenance, and operation. 

CargoPort, UPS, and FedEx received this concession. 

14. Making AGLAD pay for site civil work for their development. FedEx 

received this concession. 

15. Making AGLAD pay for hangar construction. FedEx received this concession. 

16. Economically undercutting AGLAD's development by decreasing TSAIA's 

fee for parking carriers at their hardstands from $179 per four hour stop to 

$88.52, a 51 % decrease. 

17.Transferring AGLAD's wetlands permit to TSAIA without compensation. 

AGLAD's project would have easily moved forward and been successful. 

Page 4, Line 4-18 

TSAIA makes the statement that the question at hand "is not whether ANC's leasing 

policy was ultimately perfect, nor whether different decisions, in hindsight, might 

have better promoted aviation in Alaska...." This is false. RDM^s complaint has 

everything to do with ANC's leasing policy. This is because of the following: 

Review of Major Points: 

1. The planning and development of Ted Stevens Anchorage International 

Airport has been financed, in part, with funds provided by the FAA under the 

RDM V. TSAIA - Page 2 of 4 
REPLY to TSAIA ANSWER 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP), authorized by the Airport and Airway 

Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §47101, etsec7. 

2. As such, TSAIA must comply with Title 49 United States Code §47107 (a) 

General Written Assurances. 

3. AGLAD Postmark, LLC (AGLAD) signed a lease with TSAIA on November 18, 

2005. 

4. RDM, LLC is a member of AGLAD Postmark, LLC. (See Exhibit A RDM 

Complaint Dated October 27, 2009.) 

5. TSAIA violated Title 49 United States Code §47107 (a) General Written 

Assurance by: 

See 17 violations mentioned above. 

6. TSAIA's violations of Title 49 United States Code §47107 (a) General Written 

Assurance "directly and substantially affected" the AGLAD development. In 

fact, it lead directly to the failure of the development. 

7. RDM (a member of AGLAD Postmark, LLC) lost approximately $1.3M because 

of TSAIA's violations, and hence has been "directly and substantially 

affected". 

As evidenced above, it was failed TSAIA leasing policies that directly lead to the 

failure of AGLAD's development. 

Page 4, Line 19-25 & Page 5 Line 2-12 

Contrary to TSAIA's assertions found in these paragraphs, RDM has consistently 

asked the FAA to judge its complaint based upon TSAIA's failed leasing policy as 

applied to AGLAD and exhaustively explained in RDM's filings. RDM feels that its 

rights were violated and it is precisely for this reason that Part 16 is made available 

by the FAA. 

Conclusion 

Again, because of the seriousness and magnitude of the TSAIA policy failures, RDM 

urges the Director to find TSAIA in "non-compliance" and furthermore that the FAA 

deny continued FAA/Public funding to TSAIA until proper and appropriate corrective 

actions are rendered. 

RDM's plight reveals not only wrongs administered to AGLAD by TSAIA but it also 

reveals a much greater TSAIA systematic public policy failure that needs to be 

addressed and fixed. 

Sincerely, 

Shaun Debenham 

Member, Debenham Properties, LLC 

Managing Member of RDM, LLC 

2960 C Street, Suite 202 

Anchorage, AK 99503 

RDM V. TSAIA-Page 3 of 4 
REPLY to TSAIA ANSWER 

W: (907) 562-9330 

F: (907) 562-9331 

E: shaundebenham@alaska.net 

RDM V. TSAIA-Page 4 of 4