CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certifythat on this 15 1h day ofJune 2015, I caused the foregoing Motion For Leave To File Reply To Pro-FlightAviation, Inc.'s Answer To Respondent's Motion For Summary Judgment And Proposed Reply and accompanying declarations to be served electronicallyupon the following: Federal Aviation Administration Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administration Room 921 800 Independence Ave, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 (Telephone 202-267-3473) e-mail 9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov
Benjamin H. Klein Law Offices ofPaul A. Lange, LLC 80 FerryBoulevard Stratford, CT 06615 (Telephone 203-375-7724) e-mail: bhk@lopal.com 

# /2'-:6



# .~ ( Zanett L. Fontes, WSBA 9604 Seni Assistant CityAttorney 

### c· ofRenton CityAttorney's Office 1055 South GradyWay Renton, WA 98057 Phone: ( 425) 430-6486 Fax: (425) 430-6498 e-mail: zfontes@rentonwa.govUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Complainant
v. DocketNo. 16-15-03 CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Respondent RESPONDENT'S MOTION FORLEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC.'S ANSWER TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT AND PROPOSED REPLY MOTION FORLEAVE TO FILE REPLY Respondent City ofRenton Municipal Airport ("Airport") hereby moves for leave to file
a reply ("Reply") to the Answer ("Answer") filed by Complainant Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. ("PFA") to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Summary Judgment Motion"). The Reply should be permitted to correct significant mischaracterizations of the record. As demonstrated below, critical factual assertions in PFA's Answer (some questioning the integrity ofgovernment officials) are unfounded and incorrect.
• PFA alleges that the decision to lease the 760 and 770 Parcels to Boeing was a "foregone conclusion" even before the issue was presented to the Transportation/ Aviation Committee ("Transportation Committee") ofthe CityCouncil. In short, PFA, for the first time and without any concrete evidence, contends that the City Council process was "political theater" and impugns the integrity ofthe Transportation Committee's members. As evidenced by the declarations attached to this Motion and Reply as Exhibits Athrough C, each ofthe Transportation Committee members independently considered the facts pertinent to the proposed lease, including the pros and cons of each application, before voting on the matter. PFA cites no evidence that supports its weighty charge that the approval process was rigged.
• PFA alleges that the parcel previously occupied by a restaurant ("Old Restaurant Site") identified bythe Airport as an alternative to the 760 and 770 Parcels that PFA could lease to meet its "tie-down" space needs is not viable because it is an unpaved property outside the Airport perimeter fence. Yet the reality is that the Airport is in the planning stage of converting the Old Restaurant Site to usable space for tie down parking spaces, as explained in the declaration ofthe current Airport Manager, Jonathan Wilson, which is attached to this Motion and Reply as Exhibit D. PFA offers a comment of a City employee that the property was not cost effective to develop, but even ifthat statement were made as described, it is not sufficient to create a dispute on the current viability of the site. PFA's Answer also misstates the law on a key issue, namely, whether Boeing is an aeronautical user engaged in aeronautical activity at the Airport. More specifically, in its attempt to exclude Boeing's activities from the aeronautical use definition, PFA has simply disregarded published FAA policy guidance that clearly brings those activities well within the scope of aeronautical use. Getting the law correct on this particular legal issue is essential because Boeing's alleged non-aeronautical status provides the basis for PFA's claims that the Airport has unjustly discriminated against PFA in violation ofGrant Assurance 22 by favoring a purportedly non-aeronautical user over its own aeronautical use ofthe Airport. It also plays an important

2role in PFA's Grant Assurance 24 argument that Boeing must be charged the fair market rate applicable to non-aeronautical airport users for its leases. For the foregoing reasons, Respondent Airport hereby moves for leave to file the Reply set forth below. REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT I. The Votes OfMembers OfThe CityCouncil Transportation CommitteeTo Award The 760/770 Lease to BoeingWere Independent Merit-Based Decisions In the Complaint, PFA described its communications with the prior Airport Manager between 2011 (shortly after PFA leased its current Airport space on the 750 Parcel) and 2013 (when the adjacent 760 Parcel became available for lease) regarding PFA's desire for additional space to conduct its FBO operations at the Airport. Complaint, 

### ,-r,-r 18-25. PFA alleged it was misled by this individual regarding the availability of the 760 Parcel, but admits that it nevertheless submitted a lease application for both the 760 and 770 Parcels. !d. at 

### ,-r,-r 25-26. PFA further explains that its application was rejected by the City Administration, the City Council's Transportation Committee, and ultimately by the whole City Council, allegedly in violation ofthe Airport's federal grant assurance obligations. !d. at 

### ,-r,-r 27-29. Although PFA was required by the Part 16 rules to provide a complete statement ofits facts in its Complaint (see 14 C.P.R. §16.23), PFA now adds the additional factual claim in its Answer (at pp. 2,8,9) that the outcome with respect to the competing leases was a "foregone conclusion" even before the matter was sent to the City Council for a vote, suggesting that the City Council hearing and voting process was a meaningless rubber-stamping ofa decision that had been made and imposed on the Transportation Committee bythe City Administration. This late-asserted allegation is based principally upon a July 24, 2013 letter that the City Administration sent to PFA the daybefore the Transportation Committee hearing, which advised
3that the "City Administration"-not the City Council-had decided to lease the property to Boeing. Answer, p.7 (referencing Complaint, Ex. 1 0). PFA ignores the distinction between two different governmental entities in a tripartite government by equating the "City Administration" with the elected City Council; in fact, they are not one and the same. The Administration includes individuals hired by the City to manage various city functions. In this case, the pertinent administrators include the Airport Manager and the Public Works personnel who
oversee the operation of the City's transportation facilities, including the Airport. Those individuals did indeed decide to recommend lease of the disputed parcels to Boeing, and so advised the City Council's Transportation Committee members. The ultimate decision, however, rested with the City Council. Those acting for the City Administration are separate and apart from the City Council, which alone, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, has the legal authority to grant or deny Airport lease applications. As set forth in the attached declarations from each of the members of the City Council's Transportation Committee, these three elected officials attended the Committee meeting on July 25, 2013, where the competing applications for the lease ofAirport Parcels 760 and 770 were contemporaneously considered. Each Councilperson attests to having gone into the meeting with an open mind and making an independent decision on which application to approve based upon the presentations of both lease applicants as well as the responses to questions asked by Council members. Declaration of Marcie Palmer, Renton City Council Woman (hereinafter**"Palmer")~~** 3 and 7; Declaration ofDon Persson, Renton City Councilman (hereinafter "Persson")**~~** 6 and 7; Declaration of Greg Taylor, Renton City Councilman (hereinafter "Taylor")**~~** 6, 9, and 10. In complaining about this process, PFA makes little mention that its representatives appeared at the meeting and argued the merits ofits proposed

4lease ofthe property to the Council members. The Council members also heard from the then Airport Manager regarding the two competing lease applicants. Palmer, at

**~** 10. Indeed, as they do in all matters, the Council members based their decision upon the information presented to them byAirport management and the involved parties. Palmer,

**at~~** 13 and 14; Persson

**at~~** 7 and 9; Taylor,

**at~** 10, 11, and 12. The fact that the Transportation Committee ultimately chose the lease applicant recommended by the Airport Manager does not suffice to create a genuine issue on PFA's serious charge that the outcome was predetermined, and PFA has offered no other evidence to support that contention. Indeed, the only evidence in the record pertaining to the Council members' deliberative process shows that the Transportation Committee members found the selection of Boeing to be the logical and best choice considering all the facts and circumstances presented to them. II. Even Though PFA's Space Shortage Is A Predicament OfIts Own Making, The Airport Continues To Make Reasonable Efforts To Accommodate PFA's Desires PFA has argued in its Answer (at pp.12, 23-24) that there are no viable locations for placement ofits aircraft other than the 760 and 770 Parcels. That is not true, and the Airport's current efforts to develop the Old Restaurant Site described below highlight the lengths to which the Airport has gone to accommodate PFA. Tobegin with, PFA should notbeheard to complain about its spaceproblems when they are the direct result of PFA's own actions. As explained in the Summary Judgment Motion (at pp.10-11), PFA and Renton Gateway Center ("RGC"), a "sister" company that is PFA's landlord and in which PFA's owners have a substantial interest, divided the ramp space on the 750 Parcel in a way that left PFA almost immediately with inadequate space for its aircraft. Specifically, RGC/PFA decided to lease limited ramp space to the King County Sheriffs Department, to the media aircraft operators, and to other aircraft owners, a decision that left PFA with insufficient


### 5space from the outset ofits sublease in 2011. Thus, PFA could solve its problems through a reallocation oframp space onthe 750 Parcel. As also explained in the SummaryJudgment Motion (at pp.3, 11, 15), the Airport offered PFA the 820 Parcel back in 2011 as soon as the spaceproblems were mentioned, but that Parcel
was rejected byPFA. In fact, PFA continues to reject the space in 2015 even as it complains about the potential lease ofthat space to Boeing. !d. at p.15. As also mentioned in the Summary Judgment Motion, the Airport has previously suggested the Old Restaurant Site as another parcel that might be able to accommodate PFA's aircraft, but PFA contends that this property would not truly solve its space problems. !d. at pp.3, 14-15. Although PFA correctly notes in its Answer that the Old Restaurant Site is not currently configured for PFA's needs, the Airport has begun the process ofdeveloping the site to accommodate tie-down aircraft parking spots for both Renton-based and transient aircraft. Specifically, as explained in the Wilson declaration (at

**~~** 5-7), the Airport has requested a design and cost analysis for that property, which will provide the basis for a complete design, solicitation of bids, obtaining of permits, and construction. Finally, the Airport has also identified 9 tie-down spaces dedicated to month-to-month leases on the east side ofthe Airport which maybecome available for PFA'suse. See

**Wilson,~** 8. In sum, cognizant of its obligations as an airport operator, the Airport has taken reasonable steps to help PFA find additional aircraft parking spaces even though PFA's space crunch was and continues to be a product ofits own making. Having originally entered a lease for inadequate space and rejected the Airport's prior offers ofother space to accommodate its aircraft, PFA should not now be heard to complain at this late date of the Airport's recent decision to lease space to Boeing, another long-standing Airport tenant.

6III. Boeing Is An Aeronautical User Engaged In Aeronautical ActivityAtThe Airport PFA has strenuously argued throughout its Answer that Boeing is a "non-aeronautical user" of the Airport. To reach this conclusion, PFA argues that Boeing is not engaged in aeronautical activity because aircraft manufacturing overall is not aeronautical in nature (Answer, pp.16-17). What is at issue here is not the FAA's categorization ofthe overall aircraft manufacturing process, but rather a subset of aircraft assembly-related activities that will take place on the newly-leased 760 and 770 Parcels. These activities include, (i) the temporary storage ofaircraft pending certification and sale, (ii) aircraft maintenance, (iii) reengineering and modification ofthe aircraft to the extent required based upon flight and othertest results, (iv) the initiation ofthe aircraft flight tests from the Airport, and (v) the operation ofaircraft under Part 91 at the time ofdelivery to the airline customer or other purchasers. All ofthese activities have been described by the FAA as aeronautical. Order 5190.6B, Appendix Z, Definitions and Acronyms; FAA Advisory Circular 150/590-6, ExclusiveRights atFederally ObligatedAirports, App. 1, § 1.1(a). Further, as the Airport explained in its Summary Judgment Motion (at pp.18-19), the FAA last year clarified its position on aeronautical use, stating unequivocallythat even "thefinal assembly of an aircraft, leading to the completion of the aircraft to a point where it can be taxied", is aeronautical use. See "Policy on the Non-aeronautical Use ofAirport Hangars", 79 Fed. Reg. 42483, 42485 (July 22, 2014) ("2014 Policy Statement"). PFA attempts to limit the FAA's 2014 Policy Statement to only homebuilt aircraft (Answer, pp. 19-20), but the FAA policy does not contain any such limitation. To the contrary, the FAA expressly states in its 2014 Policy Statement that "the same principles apply generally to large aircraft manufacturing" and expressly identifies as aeronautical activities two distinct classes ofactivities related to the

7final assembly ofaircraft-"themanufacturing" and the "homebuilt construction process"-with the following language: 5. Final, active assembly of an aircraft in the manufacturing or homebuilt construction process, resulting in a completed, operational aircraft requiring access to the airfield, is considered an aeronautical activity for the purposes ofthis policy. 79 Fed. Reg. at 42485 (emphasis added). In short, the FAA recognized that the final steps in preparing aircraft for flight, whether they are commercial aircraft or homebuilt aircraft, are aeronautical activities for the purposes of interpreting and carrying out the Grant Assurances. This FAA clarification clearly establishes that Boeing is engaged in "aeronautical activity" when it performs the final assembly and modification ofthe 737 MAX aircraft temporarily located on the 760 and 770 Parcels. In demanding (Answer, p.l6) that the FAA "affirm a definition of aeronautical use that excludes activities that are related, directly or indirectly, to the commercial manufacture ofaircraft," PFA is asking the FAA in this proceeding to issue a decision in direct conflict with the clarification issued bythe Agency in its July 2014 Policy Statement. This is not
an appropriate venue to effect any such policy change. The policy of the FAA as to the completion of commercial aircraft manufacture is clear and should control the decision as a matter oflaw in this Part 16 proceeding. Contrary to PFA's argument, recognizing Boeing's use of Parcels 760 and 770 as aeronautical will not lead to "effectively convert[ing] a public airport into a private one." (Answer, p.16.) As an initial matter, PFA dramatically overstates the impact ofthe Boeing lease
on its operations. With some minor parking space reassignment ofaircraft, PFA will continue to be able to operate as a full-service FBO at the Airport as it has been doing since 1994, serving the general aviation community. Moreover, the Renton Airport is uniquely situated insofar as it has a final assembly facility ofone ofthe world's leading aircraft manufacturers immediately


### 8adjacent to the Airport. Consequently, unlike other operators ofreliever airports, Renton Airport management must endeavor to balance the unique needs ofthis long-standing manufacturer with the needs ofother tenants, which it has done for decades when carrying out its leasing program that is now being challenged. Renton has been even-handed, above board, and fair in allocating limited airport space among its Airport tenants. PFA has not met its burden ofproving that the Airport has not done so in compliance with the applicable Grant Assurances. Accordingly, summaryjudgmentinfavor oftheAirport should be granted and PFA's Complaint dismissed. Respectfully submitted CITY OF RENTON

By: etta L. Fontes, WSBA 9604 Its: eniorAssistant CityAttorney

9

## DECLARATION OF COUNCILWOMAN, MARCIE PALMERUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Complainant DocketNo. 16-15-03 

### v. CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Respondent

DECLARATION OF MARCIE PALMER, RENTON CITY COUNCILWOMAN I, Marcie Palmer, hereby declare based uponmypersonal knowledge, underpenalty of petjury underthe laws ofthe state ofWashington, that the following is true and correct: 1. Priorto my electionto the Renton City Council, I was a memberofthe Renton Airport Advisory Committee (RAAC), having servedbetweenMay 2001 (the first
everRAAC meeting) until I resigned to take my seat onthe City Council. I served
as a chair ofthe RAAC. 2. I was electedto the Renton City Council inthe fall of2003. I started my term of office inJanuary 2004. 3. I have always beenproud ofmy work onthe City Council and its Committees, and
am committedto fully, fairly and independently consideringthe matters that come to me as a Council member.

Declaration ofMarcie Palmer- l4. Inmy tenure onthe Council, I have served onthe TransportationAviation Committee ("Committee") for 12 years, chairing the Committeefor 10 ofthose 12 years. My break in service came as a result ofserving as president ofthe Council. 5. This Committee does not have the authority to act onbehalfofthe Council as a whole. Rather, itmakes a recommendation to the entire City Council about the aviation and othertransportation-related matters that come before the Committee andthat require action by the City Council. 6. I was the Chairperson ofthe Committee in 2013 whenthe Committee considered the lease ofthe 760/770 parcels. The competing applicants were Pro Flight Aviation ("ProFlight") and The Boeing Company ("Boeing"). 7. As a council member onthe Committee I consideredthe recommendation made by Renton City staff, as well as the substance ofthe presentations made and answers given atthe Committee meeting by the applicants and staff. 8. The Paholkes, who I knewfrom myparticipation onthe RAAC, presented PFA's
case atthe July 2013 meeting where the Committee considered the leasing ofthe 760 and 770 parcels at the Airport. 9. A Boeingrepresentative made Boeing's case. 10. The Committee heard from Ryan Zulauf, the Airport Manager atthe time, andthen from both applicants. I will always allowpeople who take thetime to cometo a Committee meeting the opportunity to make a presentation. That was no different inJuly, 2013, whenthe Committee considered the competing applications between ProFlight and Boeing.

Declaration ofMarcie Palmer - 211. ThePaholkes were given anopportunity to address the Committee and did so. The Paholkes explainedthey wantedto use the 760 and 770parcelsprimarily for tie down space. They were discussing theirneed for a long-term lease. 12. The Boeing representative then spoke and advised that Boeingwas looking for a short-term lease inconjunction withthe production ofthe new737MAX aircraft. 13. I appreciatedthe input the Committee received from the applicants and the informationtheyprovided. Itassisted me inmaking the difficult decisionofserving two different applicants who bothuse the airport. 14. Afterthepresentations by staffas well as comments from the Paholkes andBoeing, I decided thatthe best interests ofthe Airport would be served ifthe shorter-termed lease was executed at this time, allowing the Airportthe greatest amount of flexibility in the future. 15. As there appeared to be other space available for ProFlightto use for the short term, leasingthe 760 and 770parcels to Boeing appeared to meto be the best and highest use ofthe parcels. 16. I voted to recommendto the City Council, as a whole, to approve the lease with Boeing. 17. A Committeereport was prepared and signedby all three members ofthe Committee and the recommendation was made to the 7-membercity council for consideration atthe next council meeting. 18. Any member ofthepublic can attend a City Councilmeeting. Ifthe Paholkeshad
cometo the City Council meeting where the Committee'srecommendation was considered, they would have been allowedto address the council as a whole and

Declaration ofMarcie Palmer

- 3would have been able to explain whythe Committee'srecommendation to the Council should notbe adopted. I do notrecall ifthe Paholkes were inthe audience atthe Council meeting. However, they did not address the Council before its consideration ofthe Committee'srecommendation.

DATED THIS day ofJune, 2015. 

# 'lf)OAW__



# ~ Marcie Palmer, Renton City Councilwoman

Declaration ofMarcie Palmer- 4

## DECLARATION OF COUNCILMAN, DONPERSSONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Complainant DocketNo. 16-15-03 v. CITY OF RENTONMUNICIPAL AIRPORT Respondent

DECLARATION OF DONPERSSON, RENTON CITY COUNCILMAN
I, DonPersson, hereby declare based uponmypersonal knowledge, underpenalty of perjuryunderthe laws ofthe state ofWashington, that the following is true and correct: 1. I have served onthe Renton City Council sinceJanuary 2000. 2. Inmy capacity as an elected member ofthe City Council it is myresponsibilityto exercise my independentjudgment. I take this duty very seriously. 3. I have served onthe Transportation Aviation Committee ("Committee"), offand on, for thirteen (13) years. Four (4) ofthoseyears, I served as chair ofthe Committee. 4. Ourdeliberative process involves this Committee making a recommendationto the entire City Council about the matters that come before the Committee and that require action bythe City Council. Approval ofa lease atthe Airport isjust such
an ISSUe. Declaration ofDon Persson - 1Ill Ill 5. I was onthe Committee in2013, whenthe Committee consideredthe lease ofthe 760/770 parcels. The competing applicants were Pro FlightAviation ("PFA") represented byMr. and Mrs. Paholke, and The Boeing Company ("Boeing"). 6. As a member onthe Committee I consideredthe presentations made bya City staff member as well as the commentsmade and answers given by staffand the representatives ofPFA and Boeing atthe Committeemeetingheld onJuly 25, 2013. 7. The Committee heard from both applicants, who were provided as muchtime as neededtomaketheirpresentationsto the Committee explainingtheirneed for and intended use ofthe property. 8. Duringthe course ofthe Committee meeting I considered both applications without any specific outcome inmind. My interest was indoingwhat was best for the Airport and the Cityoverthe long term. I exercised myindependentjudgment throughout the course ofthis process. Any suggestionthat the PF A application was not given due considerationis incorrect. 9. Basedon what I heard from all interestedparties who spoke, I concludedthatthe City should enterinto the proposed lease with Boeingrather thanPF A. 10. In my opinion, it was inthe City and Airport's best interest to enterinto the proposed lease with Boeing. I voicedthat opinion at the time.

Declaration ofDon Persson - 211. I signedthe Committee report withthe recommendation to the full City Council thatparcels 760 and 770 be leasedto Boeing. 

### DATED THIS 

# ({fir day ofJune,



# 2~



# 71

**DonPersso~**

**~** Renton City Councilman

Declaration ofDon Persson

- 3

## DECLARATION OF COUNCILMAN, GREG TAYLORUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Complainant DocketNo. 16-15-03 v. CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Respondent

DECLARATION OF GREG TAYLOR, RENTON CITY COUNCILMAN I, Greg Taylor, hereby declare based upon my personal knowledge, under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe state ofWashington, that the following is true and correct: 1. I have served as a Council member for the City ofRenton since January of2008. 2. When acting as a member ofthe City Council or its Committees, I fully evaluate and consider the various options and information presented on all matters coming before the Council. I take my obligation to exercise my independentjudgment very seriously. 3. In my time on the City Council, I have served onthe Transportation Aviation Committee ("Committee") for three (3) years. 4. Issues considered by this Committee that require a Council action (e.g., leasing at the airport) are sent to the Council as a whole by way ofa recommendation from this Committee.
Declaration ofGreg Taylor- I5. I was on the Committee on July 25, 2013, when the lease ofthe 760/770 parcels
was on the agenda. The two applicants for this property were Pro Flight Aviation ("Pro-Flight") and the Boeing Company ("Boeing"). 6. As a member ofthe Committee I considered the recommendation made by City staffmembers, as well as the presentations made and answers given by staffand the applicants' representatives. 7. Mr. and Mrs. Paholke, Pro-Flight's owners, were present at the July 25,2013 meeting where the Committee considered the leasing ofthe 760 and 770 parcels. 8. A Boeing representative also attended the meeting. 9. The Committee heard from staff, and then from both applicants. 10. I did not start the Committee meeting favoring any particular outcome, other than identifying a lessee for the parcels. In fact, I am always concerned about the needs ofsmall business owners, never wanting to stifle their growth opportunities. Consequently, I specifically inquired about whether there were alternate locations for ProFlight at the Airport, in the event these two parcels were leased to Boeing on
a short term, and whether any otherparcels might be coming available later. 11. I learned there was at least one other location where Pro-Flight could relocate their planes. 12. It appeared to me that both applicants could be served and that, under the circumstances, it was in the Airport's best interest to lease the 760 and 770 parcels to Boeing for the proposed term. 13. Accordingly, I voted to recommend to the City Council, as a whole, to approve the lease with Boeing.

Declaration ofGreg Taylor- 214. I signed the Committee report with that recommendation to the City Council.

**hf~** DATED THIS

**/~** day ofJune, 2015.

Renton City Councilman

Declaration ofGreg Taylor- 3

## DECLARATION OF AIRPORT MANAGER, JONATHAN WILSONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. PRO-FLIGHT AVIATION, INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Complainant Docket No. 16-15-03 v. CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Respondent

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN WILSON, AIRPORT MANAGER, RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT I, Jonathan Wilson, hereby declare basedupon mypersonal knowledge, underpenalty ofperjuryunder the laws ofthe state ofWashington, that the following is true and correct: 1. I am the current Airport Manager at the Renton Municipal Airport. Prior to my appointment as the Airport Manager in October, 2014, I served as the Airport's Assistant Manager for 7 years. 2. Onthe North West comeroftheAirport, there is open space formerly used bya restaurant. Wereferto this location as the Old Restaurant Site. 3. Based on ourpreliminary analysis ofthe capacity ofthe Old Restaurant Site, itwill accommodate approximately 11 single engine or small multiengine type aircraft. 4. The Airport has started the architectural and engineeringprocess for preparingthe Old Restaurant Site to bringit within the perimeter fence and to prepare the site to accommodate aircraft tie-downparkinglocations.
Declaration ofJonathan Wilson- 15. Wehave alreadyidentified a consultant to prepare a 30% design & cost estimate. This is a precursor step to puttingtheproject out forbids from contractors. 6. Once thepermitting and design process is complete, theproject will beput out for bids. The actual constructiontime is expectedto be 6-8 weeks. 7. The currentbest estimate is that the Old Restaurant Site developmentproject would be completedbyJuly2016. 8. In his declaration that is attached to Pro FlightAviation's Answerto the Airport's pendingmotion for summaryjudgment , Mr. Paholke claims to have spokento
someunnamed individual who manages sometie-down spaces onthe East side of the Airport. Mr. Paholke did not talk to orinquire ofme, theAirport Manager, about the Airport's tie-down space on the East side ofthe Airport. TheAirporthas dedicated 9 tie-down spaces onthe East side ofthe Airport for monthto monthtie downusage. The availabilityofthese spaces can fluctuate from monthto month and, depending onthen current demand, spaces wouldbe available for leaseby PFA. \ t_.... DATED THIS
___day ofJune, 2015.

Declaration ofJonathan Wilson- 2 ,..**~**

# ~~ Jo athanWilson, Renton AirportManager