## BOSCH, K UHR, DUGDALE, MARTIN & KAZE, PLLP A Profes s i ona l Limited Liability Partnership BURTO N 0 . BOSCH (1931 -2007) JOHN B. KUHR (1931-2003) BRADLEY E . DUGDALE RONALD MARTIN (1937-1998) JAMES M . KAlE A TI O RN EYS AND CO UN SE LORS 335 FOURTH AVE NUE KEITH A. MAR I STUEN BR IA N LI LLETVEDT STEP H EN R . BROWN MARY ANN MOOG GLE NN G . MACLEOD

Office of the Chief Counsel Attn : FAA Part 16 Docket C lerk AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave . SW Washington , DC 20591 P . O . BOX 7152 HAVR E , MO NT A NA 59501

February 29 , 2016 T ELEP HONE (406) 265 -6706 TELEFAX NUMBER (406) 265-7578 E -MAIL blilletvedl@bkdlaw .org

RE: Safer Medical of Montana, Inc. and George Ackerson v. City of Fort Benton, Montana, Chouteau County, Montana, and Chouteau County Joint Airport Board FAA Docket No. 16-15-12 To Whom it May Concern: COMES NOW Respondent , City of Fort Benton , Montana (the City) , through its counse l of record , pursuant to 14 C . F . R 

### § 16 .23(d) and files its Answer to Compla i nts' Part 16 Compa l int as fo ll ows : A. Factual Background 1 . The Ci ty admits the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 , 2, 3, 4 , 5 , 6 , 7, 9, 14, 20, and 21 of the Complaint 2. Answeri ng Paragraph 8 of the Complaint , the 1998 Site Lease Agreement speaks for itse lf. 3. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint ass erts a legal conclusion and therefore re q uires no re sponse .Of fi ce o f the C hief Coun sel FAA Part 16 Dock et C lerk FAA Docket No. 16-15-1 2 4. Answering Paragraph 11 of the Complaint , the City admits t hat at some point in time Complainants initiated a construction project involving their hangar . The City lacks sufficient i nformation or know ledge to admit or deny w hen the project began and therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11 . Based upon information and belief, the City believes members of the Chouteau County Joint Airport Board observed co nstruction at Plaintiffs' hangar around August , 2014 . 5 . Answering Paragraph 12 of the Complaint , the City denies it had notice of the project from its initiation and throughout construction . Based upon information and belief , the City believes the Complainants first communications with the Board concerning the project occurred in November, 2014 . 6 . Answering Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the City lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 . 7. Answering Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, the City admits the authenticity of the "May 20th Letter." The "Letter" speaks for itself. 8 . Answering Paragraph 16 of the Complaint , the City admits the authenticity of the "1998 Agreement." The "Agreement" speaks for itself. 9 . Answering Paragraph 17 of the Complaint , the "1998 Agreement" speaks for itself. 10 . Answering Paragraph 18 of the Complaint , the "1998 Agreement" speaks for itself. 11 . Answering Paragraph 19 of the Complaint , the City lacks sufficient i nformation o r knowledge to admit or deny the al legations and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 9 .Office of the Chief Coun sel FAA Part 1 6 D ocket Clerk FAADocketNo. 16-15-12 12 . Answering Paragraph 22 of the Complaint , t he City admits the authenticity of the "May 20th Letter." The "Letter" speaks for itself. 13. Answering Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, the City admits the authenticity of the "May 20th Letter." The "Letter" speaks for itself. 14. Answering Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, the City admits the authenticity of the "May 20th Letter." The "Letter" speaks for itself. 15. Answering Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, the City admits the authenticity of the "May 20th Letter. " The "Letter" speaks for itse l f. 16 . Answering Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Comp laint , t he allegations i n these Paragraphs are not directed towards the City ; therefore no response is required. In the event a response is required, the City lacks sufficient info rmation or knowledge to admit or deny the al legations and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraphs 26 and 27 . B. Andy Taylor Hangars 17. Answering Paragraph 28 of the Complaint , the City admits the alleg ations in Paragraph 28. 18. Answering Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, the City adm its Mr . Taylo r entered into his leases prior to 1998 . The City la cks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny what the Complainants may have been to ld and therefore den ie s the al legations in Paragraph 29. 19. Paragraph 30 of the Complaint asserts a conclusion and the refore requires no response. Mr. Taylor's right to con tinue to operate under h is leases is dependent upon the terms and cond itions of his leases and the "1998 Agreement."Office of the C hief Coun se l FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk FAA Docket N o. 16-15-1 2 20 . Paragraph 31 of the Complaint asserts a conclusion and therefore requires no response . Mr. Taylor's right to continue to operate under his leases is dependent upon the terms and conditions of his leases and the "1998 Agreement." 21 . Answering Paragraph 32 of the Complaint , the City admits Mr . Taylor runs a commercial spraying business out of his hangars and is also a dealer for Monsanto and sells chemica ls. The City denies large semis are frequently at Mr . Taylor's hangars acquiring chemicals. 22 . Answering Paragraph 33 of the Complaint , the City admits Mr. Taylor has renovated his hangars over the years. The City denies there is an apartment located in one of the hangars . Based upon information and belief, the City believes Mr. Taylor has a bathroom and sleeping quarters to allow h is spray pilots to rest before going out on another run . 

### C. Other Airports in Montana 23. Answering Paragraphs 34, 35, 36 , 37 , 38, 39, 40, 41 , 42, 43 , 44 , and 45, the City lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the al legations in Pa ragraphs 34 through 45 . The City affirmatively asserts the all egations set forth in these Paragraphs are beyond the scope and control of the City and are not relevant to the Complainants' cla ims against t he City . 

### D. Efforts at Pre-Complaint Resolution 24 . Answering Paragraph 46 of the Complaint , the City admits it had discussions with the Complainants to address the concerns raised by the FAA in its May 20, 2015 letter. Complainants fai led to follow through with their proposal to drain and fill in the water feature. As of February 18 , 2016 , the water feature has not been filled in and there was standing water in several areas .Office of the Chi ef Coun sel FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk FAA Docket No. 16-1 5 -1 2 25 . Answering Paragraph 47 of the Complaint , the City admits the cabin was removed . The City lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the remaining a l legations in Paragraph 47 and therefore denies the al legations. 26. Answering Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, the City admits Complainants' June 19 , 2015 letter , prepared by their counsel Adrian A. Miller, agreed the land would not be used for non-aeronautical purposes . 27. Answering Paragraph 49 of the Compla int , the City adm its following discussions with the Complainants , a letter addressing the concerns raised by Mr . Nye dated June 23, 2015 was sent to Mr. Nye . The letter speaks for itse lf. 28. Answering Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, the City admits the authenticity of the June 23rd letter. The letter speaks for itself. 29 . Answering Paragraph 51 of the Compla i nt , the City acknowledges the Complainants asserted the concerned raised by Mr . Nye about their hangar al so applied to Mr. Taylor ; however, the City denies Mr. Nye's concerns apply to Mr. Taylor's hangars; 30 . Answering Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, the City admits Mr. Taylor runs a commercia l spraying business out of his hangars and is a dealer for Monsanto . The sale of Monsanto chemicals is re lated to his aeronautical operation . The City renews its denia l that Mr. Taylor has an apartment located in one of his hangars ; and alleges upon information and be li ef , that Mr. Taylor has a bathroom and sleeping quarters in a hangar to allow his spray pilots to rest before going out on their next run. 31 . Answering Paragraph 53 of the Complaint , the City denies the allegatio n s i n Paragraph 53 .Office ofthe C hief Coun sel FAA Part 16 Dock et C lerk FAA Do ck et No. 16-15-1 2 32. Answering Paragraph 54 of the Complaint , the June 23, 2015 letter speaks for itself. 33 . Answering Paragraph 55 of the Complaint , the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 . The City , upon information and belief , alleges th e review process is ongo ing . 34 . Answering Paragraph 56 of the Complaint , the City admits the authenticity of the October 15 , 2015 , email from Mr. Nye . The email speaks for itself. 35 . Answering Paragraphs 57 [miss numbered as 54] and 58 , the October 15, 2015 , email speaks for itse lf . 36. Paragraph 59 of the Complaint sets forth several conclusions and is speculative in nature , therefore no response is required . Upon information and belief , the City believes Mr . Nye's position regarding an exemption from the 1998 Agreement is subject to further review by the FAA . 37 . Answering Paragraph 60 of the Complaint , the City lacks suffic ient information or know ledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the all egations i n Paragraph 60 . E. Violation of Airport Sponsor Assurances 

### i. Assurance 22 . 38. Answering Paragraphs 61 and 62 , the City acknowledges the authenticity of the A i rport Assurances set forth in Assurance 22 . The document speaks for itself. 39. Answering Paragraph 63 of the Complaint , the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 3 . 40 . Answering Paragraph 64 of the Complaint , th e City deni es th e allegations in Para g raph 64 .Office of the Chi ef Coun sel FAA P a rt 16 Docket C lerk FAA Do cket No. 16-1 5 -1 2 41 . Answering Paragraph 65 of the Complaint, the City admits the allegations in Paragraph 65 . 42 . Paragraph 66 of the Complaint sets forth a conclu sion and is speculative in nature; therefore no response is required . 43 . Answering Paragraph 67 of the Complaint , the City den ie s the allegations in Paragraph 67 . 44 . Answering Paragraph 68 of the Complaint , the City admits Mr . Taylor sells agricultural chemicals from his hangar and alleges the sale of the chemicals is related to his aeronautical operation. 45 . Answering Paragraph 69 of the Complaint , the City admits the allegation in Paragraph 69. 46 . Answering Paragraph 70 of the Complaint , the City admits it is aware Mr. Taylor sells agricultural chemicals from his hangar and denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 70 . 47 . Answering Paragraph 71 of the Complaint , the City admits the allegations in Paragraph 71 . 48. Answering Paragraph 72 of the Complaint , the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 72 . See City's response to Paragraph 52 . [City's Answer No . 30] 

### ii. Assurances 19. 49 . Answering Paragraph 73 of the Complaint , the City acknowledges the authenticity of Assurance 19 . Assurance 19 speaks for itself. 50 . Answering Paragraph 74 of the Complaint , the City admits it is aware Mr . Taylor sells agricu ltura l chemica ls from one of his hangars . The City denies the remaining alleg ations in Paragraph 74 .0 f fi ce o f the Chi e f Counsel FAA Part 16 Docket C lerk FAA Docket No. 16-15-1 2 51 . Answering Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, the City admits Mr. Taylor sells agricultural chemicals from his hangar and alleges the sale of the chemicals is related to his aeronautical operation and is not a separate and unrelated business . 52 . Answering Paragraph 76 of the Complaint , the City admits the allegations in Paragraph 76 . 53. Paragraph 77 of the Complaint set forth a legal conclusion and therefore no response is required . In the event a response is required , the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 77. 

### F. Result of Violations 54. Paragraph 78 of the Complaint set forth a legal conclusion and therefore no response is required . In the event a response is required , the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 78. 55 . Answering Paragraph 79 of the Complaint , the City lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny what the Complainants may have assumed based upon their lease and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 . 56. Answering Paragraph 80 of the Complaint , the City lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny what the Complainants spent in renovating their hangar ; or what assumptions they made concerning the renewability of their lease , therefore the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 80 . 57 . Answering Paragraph 81 of the Complain t, the City lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny what assumptions Complainants relied upon in proceeding with construction ; therefore th e City denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 1.Office of the Chief Counsel FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk FAA Docket No. 16 -15-1 2 58 . Answering Paragraph 82 of the Complaint , the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 . 59 . Answering Paragraph 83 of the Complaint , the allegations set forth in this paragraph are not directed towards the City ; therefore no response is required . In the event a response is required , the City lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 . 60 . Any allegations set forth in this Complaint that have not been specifically admitted by the City, are denied by the City. Affirmative Defenses First Affirmative Defense Complainants' Complaint fails to state a claim against the City upon which relief can be granted. Second Affirmative Defense The City complied with all applicable responsibilities and duties , which bars Complainants' claims. Third Affirmative Defense No acts , failures to act or omissions by the City were the cause in fact or the legal cause of any damages or i njuries alleged or suffered by Complainants . Fourth Affirmative Defense Complainants' claim for damages , if they suffered any damages, are barred or must be reduced because of Complainants' failure to take reasonable steps to minimize or to otherwise mitigate any damages they may have suffered .Office of the C hief Counsel FAA Part 16 Docket C lerk FAA Docket No. 16-15-1 2 Fifth Affirmative Defense The injuries and damages alleged by Complainants were caused in whole or in part by the acts and omissions of Complainants or other third persons unrelated to the City of Fort Benton . Sixth Affirmative Defense The Lease Agreement is void by virtue of illegality, mutual mistake and/or lack of consent. Seventh Affirmative Defense The contract is void or voidable by reason of Complainants ' breach . Eighth Affirmative Defense Complainants wrongfully proceeded with their construction project when they failed to notify the Choteau County Joint Airport Board of their intended construction project and obtain the Board's written approval to proceed with the project. The doctrine of clean hands prohibits the Plaintiffs from benefiting from their own wrongdoing. Applicability of Affirmative Defenses Discovery is in the beginning stages in this matter. The City reserves the right to amend its Answer to add additional affirmative defenses that become known through the course of discovery . The above stated affirmative defenses were asserted based on information and belief that they are or may be applicable to the present claims being asserted by Plaintiffs. In the event the affirmative defenses are not legally or factually warranted, any such inapplicable affirmative defenses will be voluntarily w ithdrawn at the close of discovery . If any additional affirmative defenses become applicable onceOffice ofthe Chief Counsel FAA Part 16 Docket C lerk FAA Docket No . 16- 15-1 2 discovery has been completed ; the City reserves the right to assert the additional affirmative defenses . Relief Requested The City respectfully requests judgment be entered in its favor . The City further requests such other rel ief as is deemed just and equ itable . Dated this 29 1 h day of February, 2016 . BOSCH , KUHR , DUGDALE , MARTIN , & KAZE , PLLP

# By**~ P.~** **~** Havre , MT 59501 Attorneys for City of Fort BentonOffice ofthe Chief Counsel FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk FAA Docket No . 16-15-1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Respondent City ofFort Benton, Montana ' s Answer to Complainants' Part 16 Complaint on the following persons at the following addresses or email addresses by electronic mail : Adrian A. Miller Holland & Hart 

### LLP 401 North 31 st St. Suite 1500 P .O. Box 639 Billings , MT 591 03-0639 AAMiller@hollandhart.com Mitchell A . Young 2717 Skyway Drive , Suite F Helena , MT 59602 myoung@mtcounties.org Office of the Chief Counsel FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk , AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Wash i ngton , DC 20591 9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov Dated this 29 1h day of February , 2016 . Emily Har man For the City of Fort Benton