BOSCH, KUHR, DUGDALE, MARTIN & KAZE, PLLP A Professional Limited Liability Partnership 

BURTON 0 . BOSCH (1931 -2007) 

JOHN B. KUHR (1931-2003) 

BRADLEY E. DUGDALE 

RONALD MARTIN (1937-1998) 

JAMES M. KAlE 

ATIORN EYS AND COUNSELORS 

335 FOURTH AVENUE 

KEITH A. MARISTUEN 

BRIAN LILLETVEDT 

STEPHEN R. BROWN 

MARY ANN MOOG 

GLENN G. MACLEOD 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

P.O. BOX 7152 

HAVRE, MONTANA 59501 

February 29, 2016 

TELEPHONE 

(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 

counsel of record, pursuant to 14 C.F.R § 16.23(d) and files its Answer to Complaints' 

Part 16 Compalint as follows: 

A. Factual Background 

1. The City admits the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 

14, 20, and 21 of the Complaint 

2. Answering Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, the 1998 Site Lease Agreement 

speaks for itself. 

3. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint asserts a legal conclusion and therefore 

requires no response. 
Offi ce of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-1 2 

4. Answering Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the City admits that at some 

point in time Complainants initiated a construction project involving their hangar. The 

City lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny when 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 construction 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 

information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 19. 
Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

FAADocketNo. 16-15-12 

12. Answering Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, the 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 itself. 

16. Answering Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Complaint, the allegations in 

these Paragraphs 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 Paragraphs 26 and 

27. 

B. Andy Taylor Hangars 

17. Answering Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, the City admits the allegations 

in Paragraph 28. 

18. Answering Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, the City admits Mr. Taylor 

entered into his leases prior to 1998. The City lacks sufficient information or knowledge 

to admit or deny what the Complainants may have been told and therefore denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 29. 

19. Paragraph 30 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." 
Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-12 

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 chemicals. 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 his 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 allegations in Paragraphs 34 through 45. The City affirmatively 

asserts the allegations set forth in these Paragraphs are beyond the scope and control 

of the City and are not relevant to the Complainants' claims against the 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 failed 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 Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

FAA Docket No. 16-1 5-12 

25. Answering Paragraph 4 7 of the Complaint, the City admits the cabin was 

removed. The City lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 47 and therefore denies the allegations. 

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 Complaint, the City admits 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 itself. 

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 Complaint, the City acknowledges the 

Complainants asserted the concerned raised by Mr. Nye about their hangar also 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 commercial spraying business out of his hangars and is a dealer for Monsanto. The 

sale of Monsanto chemicals is related to his aeronautical operation . The City renews its 

denial that Mr. Taylor has an apartment located in one of his hangars; and alleges upon 

information and belief, 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 allegations 

in Paragraph 53. 
Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

FAA Docket 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 the review process is 

ongoing. 

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 itself. 

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 sufficient 

information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 60. 

E. Violation of Airport Sponsor Assurances 

i. Assurance 22. 

38. Answering Paragraphs 61 and 62, the City acknowledges the authenticity 

of the Airport 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 63. 

40. Answering Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, the City denies the allegations 

in Paragraph 64. 
Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

FAA Docket 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 conclusion and is speculative 

in nature; therefore no response is required. 

43. Answering Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, the City denies 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 agricultural chemicals from one of his hangars. The City denies the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 74. 
0 ffi ce of the Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

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 Complaint, the City lacks sufficient 

information or knowledge to admit or deny what assumptions Complainants relied upon 

in proceeding with construction; therefore the City denies the allegations in Paragraph 

81. 
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 injuries 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 Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

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 withdrawn at 

the close of discovery. If any additional affirmative defenses become applicable once 
Office ofthe Chief Counsel 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

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 relief as is deemed just and equitable. 

Dated this 291

h day of February, 2016. 

BOSCH, KUHR, DUGDALE, 

MARTIN, & KAZE, PLLP 

ByP.~ Havre, MT 

~ 59501 

~ 

Attorneys for City of Fort Benton 
Office of the 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 of Fort 

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 

Washington, DC 20591 

9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

Dated this 291

h day of February, 2016. 

Emily Har man 

For the City of Fort Benton