UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. Complainant,

v. Town of East Hampton, NY Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-14-07

RESPONDENT TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, NEW YORK ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

Designation of persons to receive service for the Town of East Hampton, New York:

Elizabeth Vail Town Attorney Town of East Hampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 11937 EVail@EHamptonNY.Gov W. Eric Pilsk Catherine van Heuven Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 epilsk@kaplankirsch.com cvanheuven@kaplankirsch.com Telephone: (202) 955-5600 Facsimile: (202) 955-56162 ANSWER The Town of East Hampton, New York (the “Town), by and through counsel, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(h), responds to the allegations of the Complaint filed by Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. (“Sound Aircraft”) as set forth in the numbered paragraphs below. The Town denies all allegations contained in the Comp laint except to the extent such allegations are specifically admitted in this Answer. Sound Aircraft failed to provide numbered paragraphs or otherwise differentiate the allegations in the Complaint. For the Director’s benefit, the Town has provided an annotated version of the Complaint that adds numbers to each paragraph as Attachment A hereto, and has drafted the Answer to correspond to the numbered paragraphs provided in the annotated Complaint. In further support of its Answer, and pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(i), the City submits a Brief in Support of Its Answer to the Complaint, filed herewith and incorporated herein by reference, with a concise statement of the facts upon which the Town relies and discussion of the legal principles demonstrating that the Complaint should be dismissed and the Town found to be in compliance with its federal obligations. 1. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, admits that the Certification of Cindy Herbst is attached to the Complaint, but denies that Sound Aircraft satisfied it pre-complaint resolution obligations under 14 C.F.R. § 16.21. 4. The Town admits the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 5. The Town admits the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.3 6. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the Subcommittee met on March 8, 2014, that minutes were made of the meeting, that the Airport Manager sent an email to the Subcommittee members regarding aviation fuel prices, and that the minutes and the email speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 6 inconsistent with the terms of the emails and the minutes. 7. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, the Town admits there were emails exchanged on the dates set forth in Paragraph 7 and that terms of the emails speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 7 inconsistent with the terms of the emails. 8. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the Subcommittee met on March 29, 2014, that minutes were made of the meeting, and that the minutes speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 8 inconsistent with the terms of the minutes. 9. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the Subcommittee met on May 17, 2014, that minutes were made of the meeting, that the minutes speak for themselves, and that the May 17, 2014, Draft Supplemental Debt Capacity Analysis was not included with the official meeting minutes but was produced on December 16, 2014. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 9 inconsistent with the terms of the minutes. 10. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the Subcommittee presented a progress report at the Town Board’s May 20, 2014 meeting, that a transcript and minutes were made of the meeting, that the terms of the transcript, minutes and the progress report speak for them selves, and that that the Subcommittee documents distributed at the May 20, 2014, meeting were produced to the Complainant in response to its4 Freedom of Information Law request. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 10 inconsistent with the terms of the progress report, transcript, and the minutes. 11. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the Subcommittee presented a progress report at the Town Board’s May 20, 2014 meeting, that minutes and a transcript were made of the meeting, and that the terms of the minutes, transcript, and the progress report speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 11 inconsistent with the terms of the minutes, transcript and progress report. 12. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the Subcommittee presented a progress report at the Town Board’s May 20, 2014 meeting, that minutes and a transcript were made of the meeting, and that the terms of the minutes, transcript, and the progress report speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 12 inconsistent with the terms of the minutes, transcript and progress report. 13. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the Subcommittee met on June 2, 2014, that minutes were made of the meeting, and that the terms of the minutes speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 13 inconsistent with the terms of the minutes. 14. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that Resolution 2014-672 was on the agenda for the June 5, 2014 Town Board meeting, that Resolution 2014-672 was adopted at the June 5, 2014 Town Board Meeting, and that the terms of the Resolution speak for themselves. The Town denies all other all allegations of Paragraph 14.5 15. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that Resolution 2014-673 regarding increasing the fuel flowage fee at the Airport from $0.15 per gallon to $0.30 per gallon was discussed at the June 5, 2014 Town Board meeting, that minutes and a transcript were made of the meeting, and that the terms of the Resolution, minutes and the transcript speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 15 inconsistent with the terms of Resolution 2014-673, minutes, and the transcript. 16. The Town is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint and therefore denies them subject to proof of the substance of those conversations. 17. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the Town Board considered increasing the fuel flowage fee at its June 17, 2014 Work Session, that Subcommittee presented a progress report at that meeting, that minutes and a transcript were made of the meeting, and that the terms of the minutes, transcript, and the progress report speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 17 inconsistent with the terms of the minutes, transcript and progress report. 18. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that Resolution 2014-673 was on the agenda for the June 19, 2014 Town Board Meeting, that Sound Aircraft and others presented testimony and offered letters regarding the Resolution, that minutes and a transcript of the meeting were made, and that the terms of the minutes and transcript speak for themselves. The Town is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the opinion statements of Sound Aircraft and third parties in Paragraph 18, and therefore denies them.6 19. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that Resolution 2014-673 was on the agenda for the June 19, 2014 Town Board Meeting, that Sound Aircraft and others presented testimony and offered letters regarding the Resolution, that minutes and a transcript of the meeting were made, and that the terms of the minutes and transcript speak for themselves. The Town is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the opinion statements of Sound Aircraft and third parties in Paragraph 19, and therefore denies them. 20. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, the Town admits that it did not amend the 2014 Adopted Budget to account for the increased revenues from the fuel flowage fee or the landing fees, but expressly denies that it had any obligation to do so. 21. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 22. In response to Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that a portion of Grant Assurance 24 is correctly quoted, but otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 22. 23. In response to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the FAA has issued a Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges and that the terms of that Policy statement speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 23 inconsistent with the terms of the Policy. 24. In response to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the FAA has issued a Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges and that the terms of that Policy statement speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 24 inconsistent with the terms of the Policy.7 25. In response to Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the FAA has issued a Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges and that the terms of that Policy statement speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 25 inconsistent with the terms of the Policy. 26. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 27. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 28. In response to Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, the Town admits that it received a Freedom of Information Law Request and that the Request speaks for itself. The Town admits that it produced a response to the Request and that the responsive documents speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted above, the Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. Except as expressly admitted above, the Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 30. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 31. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 32. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 33. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that the Subcommittee met on May 17 and June 2, 2014 to discuss, among other things, increasing the fuel flowage fee, that the Subcommittee made a presentation at the May 20, 2014, Town Board meeting; that minutes were made of the meetings; that a transcript was made of the Town Board meeting; and that the minutes and transcript speak for themselves. The Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 33 inconsistent with the minutes and transcripts of those meetings.8 34. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, the Town denies that the first notice of a proposed increase in the fuel flowage fee to $0.30 per gallon was when the agenda for the June 5, 2014 Town Board Meeting was published and denies the opinion statements of Sound Aircraft representative, but otherwise admits the allegations of Paragraph
34. 35. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, the Town admits only that Sound Aircraft sent a letter to Town Board members regarding Sound Aircraft’s position on increasing the fuel flowage fee and that the Town Board approved increasing the fuel flowage fee on June 19, 2014, but otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 35. 36. Except as expressly admitted above, the Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 37. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, the Town admits that it received a Freedom of Information Law Request and that the Request speaks for itself. The Town admits that it produced a response to the Request and that the responsive documents speak for themselves. The Town denies all other allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint. 38. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint. 39. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint. 40. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 41. The Town admits the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. 42. The Town admits the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 43. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 44. Except as expressly admitted above, the Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.9 45. Except as expressly admitted above, the Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. 46. The Town admits the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. 47. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. 48. Except as expressly admitted above, the Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint. 49. Except as expressly admitted above, the Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 50. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 51. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 52. In response to Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, the Town admits that Sound Aircraft requested copies of invoices to outside professionals pursuant to New York’s Freedom of Information Law and that due to inadvertence by Town staff, those invoices were not included in the initial production and were not provided until December 15, 2014. The invoices have been produced and the Town denies all allegations of Paragraph 52 inconsistent with those invoices. 53. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. 54. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 55. The Town denies the allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. The Complaint should be dismissed for failing to state a ripe claim that the Town’s fuel flowage fee or the landing fees violate Sponsor Assurances 24 or 25.

# Exhibit A to the Answer(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)(5)

(6)

(7)(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)(12)

(13)(14)

(15)(16)

(17)(18)

(19)(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)(24)

(25)(26)

(27)

(28)(29)

(31) (30)(32)

(33)

(34)(35)

(36)(38)

(39)

(37)(40)

(41)(42)

(43)(44)

(45)

(46)

(47)(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)(53)

(54)

(55)