Federal Aviation Regulation

- 14 CFR Part 16

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST

THE WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, WAHOO, NEBRASKA FAA Identifier: AHQ, FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 January 12, 2015 Page 1 of 4



### Complaina nt Motion to Make Corrections to Complainant January 4, 2015 Reply to Respondent December 1 9 , 2014 Answer to Complaint

.

Certified Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Complainant Motion to Make
Corrections to Complainant January 4, 2015 Reply to Respondent December 19, 2014 Answer to
Complaint

, for our Title 14, Chapter I Subchapter B, Part 16

- Formal Complaint on the
following person at the following address, by USPS Priority Mail 2

- Day :

TO: Respondent

– Law Firm Sent Via USPS Priority Mail 2

- Day Larry Kaplan Keith Yamaguchi 200 W. Madison Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 30303

Dated this 12th day of January, 2015

________________________ , William Foster

– Better Airports, LLC Agent f or Complainant

- FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 Walker Luedtke, Walker Ag Supply, LLC, Complainant Brad Gage, Midwest Spray Services, LLC, Complainant Better Airports, LLC

– Agent for Complainant

– 4504 North Versailles Ave, Dallas, TX 75205

1

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08Federal Aviation Regulation

- 14 CFR Part 16

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST

THE WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY

WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

, WAHOO, NEBRASKA FAA Identifier: AHQ

, FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 January 12 , 2015 Page 2 of 4



### Complainant Motion to Make Corrections to Complainant January 4, 2015 Reply to Respondent December 19, 2014 Answer to Complaint.

Certified Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Complainant Motion to Make
Corrections to Complainant January 4, 2015 Reply to Respondent December 19, 2014 Answer to
Complaint , for our Title 14, Chap ter I Subchapter B, Part 16

- Formal Complaint on the
following person at the following address, by USPS Priority Mail 2

- Day :

TO: FAA

- Sent Via USPS Priority Mail 2

- Day

Office of the Chief Counsel

Attention: FAA Part 16 Dock et Clerk

AGC

- 600

Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 2 0591

Dated this 12 th day of January , 201 5

________________________, William Foster

– Better Airports, LLC Agent for Complainant

- FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 Walker Luedtke, Walker Ag Supply, LLC, Complainant Brad Gage, Midwest Spray Services, LLC, Complainant Better Airports, LLC

– Agent for Complainant

– 4504 North Versailles Ave, Dallas, TX 75205

2

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08Federal Aviation Regulation

- 14 CFR Part 16

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST

THE WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY

WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WAHOO, NEBRASKA

FAA Identifier: AHQ

FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 January 12 , 2015 Page 3 of 4



### Complainant Motion to Make Corrections to Complainant January 4, 2015 Reply to Respond ent December 19, 2014 Answer to Complaint.

I, William Foster

, a gent for Complainant, submit this Complainant Motion to Make Corrections

to pages 1

– 12 of the Complainant January 4, 2015 Reply to Respondent December 19, 2014 Answer to Complaint.

In Complainant follow up reviews of the Complainant Reply to the Respondent Answer to the Complaint

, unintentional incomplete and inaccurate statements were found.

The Complainant by Motion to the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel request s the attached 1

- 12 replacement pages to correct the record of the Complainant Reply to replace pages 1

– 11 of the original Complainant Reply dated January 4, 2014.

The Pages to be replaced in the original January 4, 2015 Reply submission are pages 1

– 1 1, with

attached pag es 1

- 12

.

The Agent for the Complainant, William Foster, was negligent in making sure the correct pages were included in the final Reply by the Complaint.

Please accept this Motion for correction to Mr. Foster’s blunder and oversight

, and replace the

attached pages 1

– 1 2 for the original pages 1

– 11 as on the original page 12, only the 1 st
paragraph is replaced . This submission is designed to be a direct replacement of pages 1

– 11 of the original January 4 Complainant Reply with the attached 1

– 1 2 pages , and the included

Corrected additional page 12, as only the 1 st paragraph of the original Reply page 12 is replaced, all the remaining paragraphs and pages of the original Complainant Reply remain

.

---- REMAINING PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

----

3

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08FAA. FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 January 12, 2015 Page 4 of 4



### Complainant Motion to Make Corrections to Complainant January 4, 2015 Reply to Respondent December 19, 2014 Answer to Complaint.

Conclusion

The Complainant by this Motion to the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel requests the attached 1

- 12 replacement pages to correct the record of the Complainant Reply to replace pages 1

– 11 of the original Complainant Reply dated January 4, 2014.

Thank you for your consideration of the Complain t Motion to Make Corrections to Complainant January 4, 2015 Reply to Respondent December 19, 2014 Answer to Complaint

.

Dated this 12th day of January, 2015

________________________, William Foster

– Better Airports, LLC Agent f or Complainant

- FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 Walker Luedtke, Walker Ag Supply, LLC, Complainant Brad Gage, Midwest Spray Services, LLC, Complainant William Foster, Better Airports, LLC

– Agent for Complainant

– 4504 North Versailles Ave, Dallas, TX

75205

– Telephone Office 214

- 219

- 5000, Mobile 214

- 477

- 7077

4

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08Pages 1

– 12 a re Corrected Pages to Complainant Reply to Respondent December 19, 2014 Answer to Complaint , if there is Pending FAA Director Approval, Please Insert these Corrected Pages 1

– 12 in the Original Complainant Reply Dated January 4, 2015

.

Federal Aviation Regulation

- 14 CFR Part 16

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST

THE WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY

WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WAHOO, NEBRASKA

FAA Identifier: AHQ

FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 January 4, 2015



### Complainant Reply to Respondent December 19, 2014 Answer to Complaint.

Certified Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Complainant Reply to Respondent December
18, 2014 Answer to Complaint , for our Title 14, Chapter I Subchapter B, Part 16

- Formal Complaint on
the following person at the following address, by USPS Priority Mail Delivery:

TO: Respondent

– Law Firm Sent Via USPS Priority Mail Delivery Larry Kaplan Keith Yamaguchi

200 W. M adison Street, Suite 1600 Office Telephone 312

- 345

- 3000

Dated this 5 th day of January 2015

________________________, William Foster

– Better Airports, LLC Agent for Complainant

- FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 Walker Luedtke, Walker Ag Supply, LLC , Complainant Brad Gage, Midwest Spray Services, LLC, Complainant Better Airports, LLC

– Agent for Complainant

– 4504 North Versailles Ave, Dallas, TX 75205

1

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08Federal Aviation Regulation

- 14 CFR Part 16

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST

THE WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY

WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WAHOO, NEBRASKA

FAA Identifier: AHQ

FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 January 4, 2015



### Complainant Reply to Respondent December 19, 2014 Answer to Complaint.

Certified Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Complainant Reply to Respondent December
18, 2014 Answer to Complaint , for our Title 14, Chapter I Subchapter B, Part 16

- Formal Complaint on
the following person at the following address, by USPS Priority Mail Delivery:

TO: FAA

- Sent Via USPS Priority Mail Delivery

Office of the Chief Counsel

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk

AGC

- 600

Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 2 0591

Dated this 5th day of January, 2015

________________________, William Foster

– Better Airports, LLC Agent for Complainant

- FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08 Walker Luedtke, Walker Ag Supply, LLC, Complainant Brad Gage, Midwest Spray Services, LLC, Complainant Better Airpor ts, LLC

– Agent for Complainant

– 4504 North Versailles Ave, Dallas, TX 75205

2

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08Federal Aviation Regulation

- 14 CFR Part 16

FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST

THE WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY

WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WAHOO, NEBRASKA

FAA Identifier: AHQ

FAA Docket No. 16

- 14

- 08

January 4, 2015



### Complainant Reply to Respondent December 18, 2014 Answer to Complaint.

I, William Foster agent for Complainant, submit this Complainant Reply to Respondent December 18, 2014 Answer to Complaint

.

Because the Respondent did not answer the allegations one by one, instead they made wide

blanket statements of denial of all Grant Assurances and wide blanket statements that all the Complainant has said in their Formal Complaint is false. It makes it alm ost impossible to accurately reply to the Respondent’s disingenuous statements that are not based on the facts,

without re

- writing the entire Complaint back into this “Reply” to the Respondent Answer document. To have to show all the supporting evidence a gain in the Complaint to refute the false blanket statements that do not address the alleged Grant Assurance violations one by one as required by 14 CFR Part 16 §16.23 (h)

.

The Complainant will attempt to set the record straight, against such grand, and g eneral, false statements in the body of the Answer and in the multiple Affidavits.

Each of the alleged Grant Assurance violation had specific evidence and facts to support the claim. The Complainant envisioned each alleged Grant Assurance stated violatio n would be denied, admitted, or a

pass
, in specific detail. Not a menu list choice of SMC 1 through 12.

For Example, an answer of say SMC

- 2 is the Respondent response for all the photographs in a specific

Item Number “X” where the Respondent has not unif ormly enforced the Minimum Standards to keep the trash clear and chemical containers securely stored at the AG Hangar on a specific date

. The Respondent has not given a direct answer to the specific allegations in that Item Number in the Complaint. Each Item Number “X” in the Complaint is about a specific alleged Grant Assurance Violation on a specific date, as each event on each date is a separate proven Grant Assurance Violation, proven one after the other, proven year after year.

It is difficult for the Complainant to “ Reply ” to such a wide gap of needed missing credible detail saying the Respondent position on each and every detailed allegation to agree, deny, or pass as to the alleged

Grant Assurance Violation . There may be actually as many as 300 alleged violations of Grant Assurances, for each Item of alleged Issues there may be 4 alleged violations of Grant Assurances

within each Item Number “X”

.

3

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08The Complainant does not believe the Respondent “ Answer ” fully meets the requirements of 14 CFR Part 16 §16.23 (h).

The issues are alleged Grant Assurance Violations and the Respondent Answer to over 940 pages of evidence, and over 110 alleged Grant Assurance Violations with possible more than say 300 individual

Grant Assurance violations.

Here is the Respondent “Answer” to the Complaint of the (say) 300 alleged Grant Assurance Violations. Respondent make one blanket statement of denial of all ( say ) 300 alle ged Grant Assurance Violations as their Answer on Page 5, last paragraph shown here :

The entire 940+ page Formal Complaint is about a lleged Grant Assurance Violations and the Respondent has denied each and every one of the violations in a 4 line statem ent, directly above.

With this handicap of having to “Reply” to such a blanket statement when the Respondent later in the

“Answer” does admit the evidence given in the Complaint was true as to Grant Assurance Violations.

In spite of what the Complainant believes are improper answers, or non

- responsive answers by the Respondent, the Complainant will do their best to not re

- visit the entire Complaint again, even though the blanket false general blanket statements by the Respondent could require it . The Co mplainant feels compelled to not let the Respondent’s false statement stand without a Repl y, with the facts and the truth that are already in the Complaint and in this “Reply”.

The Complainant will follow the order of presentation of the Respondent Answ er of December 18, 2014 and try and match up with the actual alleged numbered Item and Issues found in the Formal Complaint.

Respondent Answer s page 2

Complainant Reply

4

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08As required by 14 CFR Part 16 §16.23 (h) the Respondent has not specifically answered the specific
alleged issues in in the Respondent Answer and the allegations in the Formal Complaint of Grant

Assurance Violations.

Respondent Answers page 3

Complainant Reply
The Respondent states in YELLOW above that in 2010 that the Board established a limit to the number
of planes allowed to conduct aerial applications business at one time, and limited the number of
operators allowed to be on the WMA. That is a true statement as in December of 2011 the W AA did
vote to limit the number of aerial spray operations. Mr. Jarod Storm even voted to limit the number of
aerial operators as is evidence from the meeting notes. This again shows how the WAA has shown
preferential treatment towards Mr. Storm by allow ing him to sit in and directly impact the outcome of
votes upon the WMA.

When Walker Ag Supply and Midwest Spray service used the airstrip in 2011 for seven (7) days there
were zero (0) chemical spills. Hence the implied statement that there were spills is completely
misleading and not correct.

To limit the number of planes and number of operators allowed to be on the WMA is a violation of
Grant Assurance 22 and Grant Assurance 23 that are not part of the Complaint, yet are now WAA

admitted acts that are violations.

The Respondent above statement gives a false impression of their attempt to maintain control of risks
associated with chemical spills. Going back to 2010, then whey in the Complainant are there aerial
photographs that show a great deal of chemical spill stains going away from Storm Flying Service
Leased AG Hangar containment pad that have been there for years as evidence by the degree of stains.

5

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08Below is a copy of the stains outside the containment pad flowing away from the containment, as also
shown in the Complaint. Also note all the chemical container off the concrete containment pads next to
the hangar, they are on grass and dirt. Aerial taken in September of 2013:

The Respondent references “Affidavit of Melissa Harrell attached as Exhibit 21” as the source for the

statement in YELLOW :

This statement in part is not factual as evidenced by the aerial photo of chemical leaks here and photos in the Complaint that the WAA is “NOT” active to maintain control of the risks associated with chemical spills. The facts here and in the Complaint do not support this statemen t by Ms. Harrell. Chemical Stains from Chemical

Leaks flowing away from the

Con tainment pad for years, to

create such vast stains as seen

from and Aerial in September of

This is a lower grade then

the containment pad, per

Jared Storm’s ground

elevation survey copy in

the Complaint. AG Hangar

Containment

Loading and

Unloading

Airplane Pad Chemical Mixing Containment Pad

that does not 100% Slope Directly

to Collecting Containment Pad as

Required by Minimum Standards

6

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08The Sponsor had years to perfect the risks for chemical spills from Storm Flying Service, a Tenant or Operator since the mid

- 1990s and never did. It was not until the summer of 2013 that Mr. Storm finally made a public admission that he cannot use his containment pad because his airplanes are too large for a pad that was designed in the 1970s for much smaller airplanes. Storm Flying Service does not use his containment pad as required per the minimum standards and our photos and audio re cording s show the facts surrounding this grant assurance violation as our F ormal C omplaint goes into great detail on this subject. Storm Flying Service had never been told by the WAA he had to use his containment pad 100% of the time and to have his airplane cover the containment pad 100% until the WAA received complaints from the Complainant starting June 1, 2012. Then the WAA sent a letter to Mr. Storm and allowed him to use portable barriers and containment, which is a violation of the WAA minimum standards and exactly what Walker Ag Supply was asking to do yet has been denied this use for three years. This letter

can be found in the Formal Complaint. Unfortunately it appears Ms. Harrell Affidavit statement is disingenuous and not supported by the facts. As Mr. Storm still does not use his pad as required. The facts are in the photos, audio tapes and documentation.

When Compla inant asked Ms. Harrell via a Public Record Request for copies of all Chemical Spill Reports, as per the State Law and the SPCC that all spills are to be reported in a spill report, Ms. Harrell reply was they had no chemical reports. Yet the public apron in front of and on the down slope, slopes away from the AG containment pad is completely stained with chemical spills.

Respondent Answer continued page 3

Complainant Reply

Mr. Walker Luedtke was not instructed by the WAA to satisfy five conditions as Mr. Patrick Burke

states in his Affidavit found in Exhibit 20.

In particular Mr. Walker Luedtke was never told he had to use his portable containment pad as Mr.

Patrick Burke states. Mr

. Luedtke had a portable containment pad available in his mobile un it in case of spill that is all he agreed to. Which is no different than what Mr. Storm is allowed to do even to this day. Mr., Luedtke was NOT required to use portable containment in 2011 as he fell under the 14 day exemption rule of the Department of Ag riculture. Unlike Mr. Storm for 2012, 2013, 2014 where he still

continues to not use his contain ment, Storm knows it, the airport knows it yet Storm is allowed to

7

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08continue to operate not meeting the required minimum standards. In fact, this false statem ent by Mr. Burke was demonstrated to be false in the Complaint when Mr. Luedtke challenged Mr. Burke for saying such a false statement in the WAA Board Meeting, when Mr. Burke said all the board heard that Mr. Luedtke was required to use a portable contain ment pad, when someone in the audience said, well ask them [the WAA Board who all were sitting there] and there was dead silence as no other WAA

Board member would defend Mr. Burke’s statement. No other WAA Board Member would confirm

Mr. Burke’s statement s that Mr. Luedtke finally had to call a “lie” after Mr. Burke kept repeating it, and has again now. All of these Complainant statements have been produced as evidence in the Complaint in transcript and in audio recordings of the WAA Board meeting where t his took place.

A citizen attendant in the audience even said if it was a requirement to have portable containment it would also be in the minutes of the WAA Board meeting and no minutes described Mr. Patrick Burke’s

false statements found in his untruthf ul Affidavit.

Again, a Complainant Side Note to the FAA When the Respondent says there are no Grant Assurance Violations and all stated violations in the Complaint are false and not true, the Complainant does not feel it necessary, expected, or a proper use of the Director’s time to have to repeat all the evidence in the Complaint now in this Reply.

In order for the Complainant to be efficient and to save everyone’s time, the Complainant will not re

state and reproduce all the facts in the Complai nt again here in this Replay and will reference the Complaint as the record of facts and for the Director to look there to see the facts that have been demonstrated instead of one’s disingenuous words in an Affidavit.

Complainant continued Reply

Mr. Bu rke’s Affidavit statements were not supported by any of the other WAA Board Members when they had the chance to in the public Board Meeting, and Mr. Burke’s false statements of requirement were not stated or found in the WAA Board Meeting Minutes of record

.

Remember this was a special WAA Board Meeting specifically ONLY to address Mr. Walker Luedtke access to the Airport for July 27, 2011 for 7 days. This was the only purpose of the July 21, 2011meeting and there has always been a history of good detailed minutes taken of all WAA Board Meetings.

All the other WAA Board Members had only complements for Walker Luedtke for the aerial spraying work and access to the Airport during his 7 days of use starting July 27, 2011. The complements to Mr. Luedtke by al l the other WAA Board members can be found in the Complaint.

8

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08Here is a December 19, 2011 public statement by then WAA Chairman Mr. Mert Oden at the WAA Board Meeting that complemented Walker Luedtke on the job he did using the Airport in July of 2011

for the seven (7) days starting on July 27, 2011:

19:45 minutes into the recording of the December 19, 2011 WAA Board Meeting

Mert Oden

– Airport Board Chairman states: Weren’t we successful with the location we sprayed from Last Year [July 2011 with the 2 nd operator [Walker Luedtke]? We had one small conflict with a person that was not very proper in what he was accusing us of down there [south end of the Airport next to the Corporate Hangar].

Patrick Burke replies to Chairman Mert Oden question and statemen t: OK, but that wasn’t what I, the locations that you had given, the locati o ns that you had shown me on the diagram where on this

.

Mert Oden replies to Patrick Burke: That plus at the same area using the same locati o ns of the concrete in the area.

---- End of Transcript Selected Section

----

The Complainant purpose in showing this transcript is the WAA Chairman demonstrated that the location that Walker Luedtke was instructed to use at the Airport was successful and Patrick Burke’s reply was “ OK, bu t that wasn’t what I was [addressing now]”.

Another public statement by WAA Chairman Mr. Mert Oden at a WAA Board Meeting on January 16, 2012 he states about Walker Luedtke use of the Airport July 27, 2011 for seven (7) days:

At 0:46:00 minutes into the audio recording of the January 16, 2012 WAA Board Meeting.

Mert Oden

– Airport Board Chairman states: About last year Patrick Burke stated problems “There was not a problem” and two (2) other WAA Board Members are heard to support by saying in agreement “n o problem” [with Walker Luedtke’s use of the Airport for an Aerial Application Operation].

Here is another public statement made by then WAA Chairman Mr. Mert Oden at the February 13, 2012 Board Meeting where Mr. Oden complemented Walker Luedtke on the job he did using the Airport in July of 2011 for the seven (7) days starting on July 27, 2011:

At 0:41:03 minutes into the audio recording for 30 seconds at the February 13, 2012 WAA Board Meeting.

Mert Oden

– Airport Board Chairman states: “We allowed y ou [Walker AG Supply] to come on and use a taxiway to move your planes, even park your planes, it wasn’t a problem. So, so, were not trying, and I’m not picking on you. I like you; you are a friend of mine. All the farmers are friends, I just want the f acts to be exposed to where they are,

and this is where we are.”

9

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08Mr. Mert Oden went on to say at the July 13, 2012 WAA Board Meeting about the great job Mr. Walker Luedtke did in his use of the Airport in late July 2011, where Mr. Oden stated:

0:17:47 min utes into the recording for 11.2 minutes.

Mert Oden

– Airport Board Member makes the statement: “I have no problem with where you ended up locating or what the situation was [in 2011] or if you didn’t use a spill prevention pad or whatever, but the indicat ion were that you were and I never said a word to you about that and I’m still not going to condemn you for it or say you did a bad thing. You [Walker AG Supply] did a hell of a job last year, okay?”

During the time Mr. Walker Luedtke and Walker AG Suppl y operated an Aerial Spray Operation for seven (7) days at the Airport starting on July 27, 2011 Mr. Pat Burke had only been a WAA Board Member for 16 days, and WAA Chairman Mr. Mert Oden had been a WAA Board Member for some 36

+ years.

Mr. Walker Luedtke was taking his directions and seeking approvals for any needed changes as the circumstances changes; with 1.5” of rains the night before and made the grass impassable for a fully

loaded semi

- tractor and trailer; the ability to have another airplane to hel p finish up the spraying for only two (2) days, for time is critical to the farmers crops in the application of chemicals by all the Commercial Aerial Sprayers; the final location on the Airport as the true details are seen on site, VS from imaginary visio n from a board room; ALL decisions and application of what the WAA wanted from Mr. Luedtke and Walker AG Service was directed and approved directly in the field, at the Airport on the days Mr. Luedtke was using the Airport by the WAA Chairman, Mr. Mert Od en. All decisions and permissions were done by Mr. Oden the Chairman of the WAA and not Mr. Patrick Burke who had only been a WAA Board Member for 16 days.

Out of respect to Mr. Burke a new Board Member he was communicated with as well as Mr. Oden by

Mr. Luedtke, yet it was the permissions and approvals by the Chairman, Mr. Mert Oden, that Mr. Luedtke looked to as the final advisor on all the Mr. Luedtke did those seven (7) days of operating at the Airport starting on July 27, 2011.

As for Mr. Burkes iss ues with Mr. Luedtke using the airport in 2011 prior to any Minimum Standards being enacted. Again, Mr. Luedtke’s contact with the airport was Mr. Mert Oden board president not board member Mr. Burke. Mr. Luedtke repeatedly met and called Mr . Oden to ensu re that that the way he was conducting operations was acceptable to the WAA. Mr. Oden has repeatedly not backed up Mr. Burkes statements in board meetings and publicly said he took no issues along with other board members in the way Mr. Luedtke operated in 2011. It is and was very apparent to Mr. Luedtke in 2011 when they did use WAA that he would have issues with Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke repeatedly called or came to the airport every time Mr. Luedtke used the airstrip and told Mr. Luedtke he needed to do this, do that, move here, move there, don't do this, don't do that, you have to do this, you have to do that. All while Mr. Luedtke’s contact with the airport was with board president Mr. Oden not Mr. Pat

Burke. Mr. Burke seems to be the only person that tak es issue with the way Mr. Luedtke operated in 2011. Even though Mr. Luedtke worked very hard to meet Mr. Burkes demands. If the way Mr. Luedtke operated in 2011 was so unsafe, why did Mr. Burke bring his son to the airstrip and do touch and goes

all aftern oon when all three of Mr. Luedtke’s spray planes (according to Mr. Burke without radios) and Mr. Storms two planes were using the airstrip to conduct operations? The formal complaint details other aspects of this issue.

10

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08What seems to be occurring is the W AA Board Members except Mr. Burke thought Mr. Luedtke did a “fine” job at the Airport as an Aerial Applicator Operator. It is only Mr. Burke who at the time, had only been a board member since July 11, 2014, some 10 days prior to the first July 21, 2011 W AA Board Meeting Mr. Burke references falsely as having some conditions that were not met, yet were also not stated in the vote or the WAA Board Meeting Minutes as required conditions.

It is most likely Mr. Burke at the time was trying to make a name for himself as the new member when all the other WAA Board Members had been there from 6 years to 36 + years. Mr. Burke may have felt he had tall shoes to fill for he took an aggressive stand against Walker Luedtke and has not let up since, apparently to just ify his extreme positions since his becoming a WAA Board Member on July 11, 2014. Again, Mr. Burke had only been a WAA Board Member just 16 days before Walker Luedtke submitted 100% of the required paper work and started flying aerial spraying on July 27, 2011 for a total of seven (7) days at the Airport. That documentation was all provided in the formal complaint.

Below is a copy of the July 21, 2011 “Special Meeting” WAA Board Minutes that does not support in any way Mr. Patrick Burke’s false Affidavit statements in Exhibit 20 in the Answer.

Mr. Burke’s Affidavit statement that was also not truthful is where he states:

“Unfortunately, Luedtke violated all of the conditions” [for access to aerial spray for seven days starting July 27, 2011].

11

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08Mr. Burke professed this above statement with “Luedtke was authorized to operate at the WMA if he satisfied five conditions: 1) that he operate at the end of the taxi lane [ which Mr. Luedtke did until Mr. Mert Oden the then Chairman of the WAA Board allowed h im to move to a different spot some forty feet (40) farther North to allow easier maneuvering of the spray planes which still did not impact any users of the airport as evidence by Mr. Doug Robinsons e

- mail to Mr. Luedtke pertain ing to his use of the

apr on area near his Hanger. ]; 2) that he use a portable containment pad [ Complainant has already shown this to be a false statement here and in the Complaint, that even all the other WAA Board Members will not support Mr. Burke’s claim ]; (3) that he keep his trucks on the grass, not the taxiway [ Mr. Luedtke agreed to keep a “Loaded Truck” off the concrete taxiways, and he only went off the grass

when it had rained 1.5 ” the night before and to save the grass from being torn up with extensive mud ruts, at 6:30 AM in the morning Mr. Luedtke unloaded his semi

- trailer to remove all the weight so he could drive on the pavement to the approved staging area and not ruin the grass. The truck was not loaded and that is what he had agreed to

. NOTE that all the WAA reques ted delivery of fuel is from an 80,000

- 90,000 lbs. fuel truck that drives on the apron and taxiways every delivery, many of Mr. Storms

deliveries come in semi

- trucks and those trucks drive on aprons and taxiways. Yet these trucks weight

far more than Mr. Luedtke’s mobile truck that services his aerial spray operation and Mr. Burke contends that these are OK yet Mr. Luedtke is in Violation.]; (4) that he operate with no more than two airplanes With crops needed sprayed for disease and insects, time is of th e essence, one day difference in spraying or not spraying can make 100’s of dollars difference for the farmer. That year Mr. Luedtke’s time was running out to service his growers using best management practices. So a crop duster pilot and plane with all i nsurance and pilot license papers was brought in to help finish the contracted acres. Mr.

Luedtke informed than Chairman of the WAA Board Mr. Mert Oden. Yet all of this is already in the Complaint; 5) the airplanes have to have radios [even though it is not a FAA requirement and many of the supposed 47 operations per days very likely would not have radios] Mr. Luedtke did have radios for two (2) airplanes. The third airplane that had radio issues used a radio from Mr. Burke himself. For the

use of the rad io and the unfortunate breaking of a belt clip off the radio Mr. Luedtke paid Mr. Burke $35 (check #2387) for the clip on the handheld radio, for a belt.

---- End of Corrected January 12, 2015 Insert to Complainant Reply to Respondent Answer dated

Decembe r 19, 2014

----

Next is page 12 in the Original January 4, 2015 Complainant Reply to Respondent Answer dated December 19, 2014

, commences after the first (1 st ) paragraph on the original January 5, 2015 filed Complainant Reply on page 12 , as the 1 st paragraph has been replaced with this document

.

This insert is inserted on Page 12 and replaces the 1 st paragraph and all pages and paragraphs in original document going back to and including all of page 1.

“All this is in the Complaint and it is clear again that Mr. Patrick Burke’s Affidavit statements are disingenuous at best, or Mr. Burke is just being vindictive to save face even now for his statements from the time he was a new, only 16 days on the WAA Board, and was trying to make a name for himsel f and defends it today, at all costs, including knowing making false statements in his now included exhibit #20

Affidavit.”

This page “12” is a duplicate page“12” to overlay the Original page “12” first paragraph only, 2 nd
paragraph on remains as Complain ant Reply.

12

Formal Complaint Issues, Evidence, and Allegations against the Wahoo Airport Authority from Better Airports, LLC, Walker AG Supply, LLC and Midwest Spray Service, LLC

– Complainant

- Delivered to Sponsor, the Wahoo Airport Authority, on September 22 , 2014

- Docket: 16

- 14

- 08