UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER ) LUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, ) BRAD GATE, BETTERAIRPORTS, LLC and ) WILLIAM FOSTER, ) Complainants,

vs. WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT and WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

## RECEIVED JAN21 20!5 FAADocketNf3Af:Pr14-08 16DOCKETS 

## RECEIVED

JAN

## 21 2015 PART 16 DOCKETS

RESPONDENTS WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORTAND WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINANTS' REPLYINSUPPORT OF COMPLAINANTS' FAA COMPLAINT COMES NOW the respondents WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ("WMA") and WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY ("WAA") (collectively "Respondents"), by and through their attorneys, KAPLAN, MASSAMILLO & ANDREWS, LLC, and for their Rebuttal to the Reply in support of the FAA Complaint of the complainants WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER LUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, BRAD GATE, BETTER AIRPORTS, LLC and WILLIAM FOSTER (collectively "Complainants"), state as follows: GENERAL REBUTTAL Complainants' Criticism of the Format of Respondents'Answer Complainants complain that Respondents did not respond to their FAA Complaint in the manner mandated by 14 CFR Part 16. Complainants however fail to acknowledge that the Respondents' approach to answering a complaint rivaling the length ofLeo Tolstoy's War and Peace was appropriate given that Complainants themselves failed to abide by the statute's direction, which requires that Complainants "provide a concise but complete statement ofthe facts relied uponto substantiate each allegation." 14 CFR Part 16, Section 16.23. There is nothing concise about Complainants' FAA Complaint. Complainants filed their Complaint listing l09 Complaint Issues, spanning more than 900 pages, filled with unsubstantiated photographs and diagrams, internet downloads, snippets of decontextualized audio, accusations, insults and innuendo

- all ofwhich were repeated multiple times, bloating the pleading beyond comprehension. And although Complainants claim they did not revisit the 1entire FAA Complaint in their 500-plus page Reply, they managed to come fairly close. They also managed to insert multiple new accusations and more Grant Assurance violations than they alleged intheir FAA Complaint- whichwas improper. In their Reply (which Complainants moved for leave to amend on January 12, 2015) Respondents interpreted the labyrinthine, repetitive, confusing

- and sometimes inscrutable

- allegations that Complainants purport support their claims that Respondents violated the Grant Assurances no fewer than hundreds oftimes. With regard to Complainants' multiple assertions that Respondents have not specifically denied certain "alleged and implied" grant assurance violations, Respondents reply that in SECTION TWO of their Answer, they denied ALL of the Grant Assurance violations Complainants alleged. Respondents further state that whatever Complainants have "implied" to be a Grant Assurance violation, and not specifically alleged as such is also denied. Respondents' supporting evidence for their denials is concisely stated in the Subject Matter Categories in SECTION THREE, and, for Complaint Issues that required either additional information or new information to support Respondents' denials ofGrant Assurance violations, Respondents added the informationunder the appropriate ComplaintIssue in SECTION FOUR oftheir Answer. Contrary to Complainants' assertion that Respondents claim that "all the Complainant has said in their formal Complaint is false," Respondents properly addressed the allegations in the Subject Matter Categories and within the listed 109 Complaint Issues. Respondents did not, in their Answer, state that everything in Complainants' FAA Complaint was false. For example, Respondents admittedthat Stormice dusted the Platte River in 2010. Additionally, as Respondents' explanations in the Subject Matter Categories show, Respondents have not disputed every statement made by Complainants. Again, for example, Respondents did not dispute Storm participated in the ice dusting of the Platte River. Respondents maintain, however, that such an admission- as with other undisputed statements
- carmot equate to an admission that a Grant Assurance violation actually occurred, as Complainants assert. Thus, Respondents' denial of each and every Grant Assurance violation is not disingenuous, as Complainants have asserted, just because Respondents have not denied every statement Complainants have alleged intheir FAA Complaint. Although Complainants' Reply was a mere 500-plus pages, it still suffers from the same pleading and evidentiary defects as Complainants' original FAA Complaint. If Complainants decided to provide a concise Complaint that set forth each Grant Assurance violation they are claiming and concise facts they claim support each violation, Respondents could have answered each and every allegation. But Complainants chose instead to engage in a repetitive long-winded rant, rurming more than 900 pages. Not even Complainants appear to know how many Grant Violations they have rambled offin their FAA Complaint and 2Reply, stating "most likely greater than (say) 300 violations." (Reply p. 28) Respondents answered the tome as bestthey could, giventhe circumstances Complainantsthemselves created. Respondents will rebut Complainants' Reply to the extent that they deem a rebuttal is warranted to address the latestbarrage ofComplainants' accusations and allegations. 

### GeneralRebuttal to Complainants' Criticism of the WAA'sAdoption ofthe Minimum Standards The WAA's adoption of Minimum Standards requiring a permanent investment in the Airport is consistent with the Advisory Circular that provides guidance to Airports in establishing minimum standards. Just because Complainants may invest in another airport where Complainants have their base of operation does not mean that they should be able to occupy space at the WMA without making the kind ofinvestmentthat apermanent operatormakes at the WMA. The WMA must have the right to control and manage land use at the Airport through the Minimum Standards. One wayto do this, as has been done by other Airports, is to require that all operators make a permanent investment in a building for a hangar and land for a containment pad. This might mean that a seasonal operator who wishes to only use a mobile containment pad and notinvestin abuilding or land will notbe able to operate. Ifseasonal operators are permitted to operate at the WMA using mobile containment pads, theW AA and WMA's ability to control and manage landuse willbe compromised. Additionally, even iftherehave been examples where current operators have, unknown to the WAA, violated the Minimum Standards, that carmot logically extend to doing away with the Minimum Standards altogether as Complainants continually assert. For example, it does not logically follow that because an operator might store non-aviation equipment in a hangar that WAA's Minimum Standards need to be amended to permit seasonal operators to set up mobile containment pads- or that a Grant Assurance violationhas occurred. These are mutually distinct issues. It simply means the Board mustbe more vigilantin enforcingthe Minimnm Standards. 

### Respondents'Affidavits With regard to Complainants' bold and bald assertions that the content sworn to in the affidavits ofWahoo's board members is false, untruthful and disingenuous, Respondents rebut all such claims by stating that they stand on the statements set forth in these affidavits. In their Rebuttal, Respondents also provide additional affidavits ofMert Oden, Patrick Burke and others (see below) to rebut the latest ludicrous accusations Complainants have made intheirReply. 

### Complainants'PurportedEvidence andLegalSupport In support of their 900-plus-page FAA Complaint and their 500-plus page Reply, Complainants insert images purporting to represent "facts" that support their arguments. But for the majority ofthese photos and diagrams, there is no statement under oath regarding who took 3them, when they were taken, or that the affiant has personal knowledge ofthe particular images being represented and can attest that the image is indeed what Complainants claim it is. For example, page 31 of Complainants' Reply purports to be a September 2013 Google aerial photograph ofa section ofthe WMA, and a drawing ofan aircraft, which Complainants claim is drawn to scale. From this photograph, Complainants draw a number ofunsubstantiated opinions regarding the Respondents' alleged violations of Grant Assurances. No one authenticates this photograph, orthe drawing ofthe aircraft suchthat any conclusions could be drawn, let alone the Grant Assurance violations Complainants' claim. Page 62 provides another example. The 900- plus page FAA Complaint and the 500-plus page Reply are riddled with such alleged "proofs," which are all inherently faulty, self-serving and untrustworthy, and upon which Complainants create endless innuendo stoking their "belief' that Grant Assurance violations must have occurred, whenthey did not. Complainants do not provide any legal support for the arguments they inject throughout their FAA Complaint. They simply submit that their interpretation ofwhat they claim are facts means Grant Assurance violations have been committed. Perhaps one of the most interesting assertions- especially after Complainants' fail to spell Storm's name correctly throughout most of the FAA Complaint and Reply

- is in Complaint Issue No. 109, where in their Reply, Complainants boldly state that "Storm Flying Service.§ LLC, a company that does not exist according to the state ofNebraska
..." They arrive at this legal conclusion because ofa minor discrepancy in the spelling of the name of Storm's business on the Contract, which is being corrected. Complainants seize on this issue, and then baldly assert that this misspelling has considerable legal implications that it simply does not have. 

### See 65 Corpus Juris Secundum, Names § 3, "Under the doctrine of idem sonans, absolute accuracy in spelling names is not required in legal documents or proceedings; a mistake in the spelling ofa name is immaterial if both modes of spelling have the same sound and appearance. Thus, if a name, as spelled in a legal document though different from its correct spelling, conveys to the ear, when pronounced according to the commonly accepted method, a soundpractically identical to the correctname as commonly pronounced, then the name thus given is sufficient identification of the individual referred to, and no advantage canbe taken ofthe clerical error, and absolute accuracy in spelling names is not required where the names sound the same such that an attentive ear finds difficulty indistinguishing them whenpronounced." In any event, Respondents deny and objectto all legal conclusions reached by Complainants in their FAA Complaint and Reply, especially where Complainants have failed to cite to any legal authority whatsoever. 

### Complainants' Use of Irrelevant Documents, Innuendo, andAssumptions and Their Inability to Believe Anything Respondents Have Said Cannot Provide a F-actual Basisfor AllegedGrantAssurance Violations On multiple occasions

- too numerous to list

- Complainants consistently state that they "believe" something to be true or it "appears" to them that their assumptions are fact. For example, on page 203, Complainants state, "[t]he Complainant does not believe because ofone (1) or two (2) 36" diameter manhole covers tht [sic] it make it too difficult to hand scooping snow away to prevent damage to the manhole covers"; and on page 211, Complainants state "Complainant believe the Sponsor falsely declares a 1,000% +/- grossly over stated aircraft 4operation count." Respondents rebut all such similar statements and irrelevant inclusions by saying Complainants' belief, assumptions, innuendo and hyperbole are not facts. Complainants have also inserted irrelevant documentation, the purpose of which is unascertainable. On page 215, for example, Complainants insert a U.S. Department of Transportation Fraud Report lineposter, whichhas nothing to do with Complainants' allegations. Complainants 900-plus-page FAA Complaint and 500-plus-page Reply- and Luedtke's actions during Complainants' pursuit of their grudge against the WAA and WMA for not allowing itinerant aerial spray businesses that are not compliant with the Minimum Standards to operate at the WMA

- borders on harassment against the WAA and those businesses that legitimately operate at the WMA. RESPONDENTS' SUR-REPLYTO SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS SET FORTHIN COMPLAINANTS' REPLY As noted above, Respondents stand on their Answers to Complainants' FAA Complaint. Complainants' 500-plus page Reply briefinjects numerous unsubstantiated new accusations and alleged Grant Assurance violations (even more than in the original FAA Complaint), and in addition to the General Rebuttal above, Respondents deny ALL Grant Assurance violations improperly alleged inthe Reply. In addition to the General Rebuttal above, the following provides Respondents' rebuttal to certain specific accusations by Complainants. RE: The Five Conditions as Set forth in tlze BackgroundFacts ofthe Dispute (Reply pp. 7, 8) In addition to Respondents' Answer and supporting affidavits, Respondents further state that Mr. Luedtke's assertion inhis Reply that he was not instructed to satisfy the five conditions is false. The WAA verbally communicated the five conditions to Luedtke, Luedtke agreed to these conditions, and he violated all ofthem at some point during the time in 2011 when Luedtke was permitted to operate at the WMA. See affidavit ofMertOden attached hereto. RE:AllegedLease Violations by Frontier Coop (Replypp. 93-101) Complainants' claim that new photographs inserted on pages 95 through 101 of their Reply are of Frontier Coop's hangar at the WMA taken on December 26, 2014. They do not provide any affidavit regarding who took the photos or when the photos were taken. Complainants claim thatthe pictures ofcardboard-covered windows are evidence that Frontier is trying to hide the contents of its hangar. Complainants claim that other photos are irrefutable evidence of "non-aviation" trucks and a loading auger inside of Frontier's hangar, and thus constitute more Grant Assurance violations. The first question, rather than arebuttal, that comes to Respondents' minds is, ifindeed these pictures depict what Complainants claim they do, what 5are the Complainants doing trespassing on, and seemingly in, the leased property of Frontier Coop? Unfortunately, the "ah ha gotcha" moment Complainants believe these unauthenticated photos represent are not lease violations -andthey are certainly not Grant Assurance violations. They are not proof, as Complainants assert that Respondents have been "intentionally disingenuous." It isjust another example ofComplainants harassment oftenants at the WMA in an effortto scrape up evidence for their alleged Grant Assurance violation claims. This effort comes up particularly short. On January 7, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. WAA board member Patrick Burke performed an inspection ofFrontier Coop's hangar. Mr. Burke reviewed all of the equipment that was contained within Frontier Coop's hangar. The equipment and vehicles that Mr. Burke saw during his inspection are all used in association with Frontier Coop's aviation application services. There is no prohibition ofsuch items in these hangars. See PatrickBurke's affidavit attached hereto andhis inspectionreport. The assertion that there was cardboard onFrontier Coop's window is correct. As a result of a public records request, Frontier Coop's Jon Brabec received a copy ofthe Complainants' 900-plus page original complaint submitted to the FAA and reviewed the document. Within the complaint, Mr. Brabec saw several photos of what appeared to be Frontier Coop's leased property, and discussed his concern regarding trespassers with Saunders County SheriffKevin Stukenholtz. The Sherriff advised Mr. Brabec that it would be appropriate to put up signage informing any member of the public to report to the office before entering Frontier Coop's premises, and suggested that Mr. Brabec further review the security of Frontier's building to address their concerns of trespassing. Following Mr. Brabec's conversation with Sheriff Stukenholtz, Frontier Coop proceeded to install a sign informing the public where to report before entering the premises, and it placed cardboard over the windows ofits hangar to address its concerns of unauthorized photographs being taken of the inside of its hangars through the windows. See the affidavit ofFrontier Coop's Jon Brabec attachedhereto. Once again, Complainants' accusations are overblown, unfounded, and false. Moreover, they are certainly not supportive ofanything Complainants' purport them to be, whether Grant Assurance violation, the insinuated sordid character ofW AA board members, or otherwise. RE:AllegedPictures of Storm Flying Services'Hangar Space (Replypp. 58 and59) On Pages 58 and 59 of their Reply, Complainants claim that the pictures they have inserted were taken on December 26, 2014, and depict a violation ofthe Minimum Standards because Storm has "trash and waste packaging" outside. Even ifthe photos depicted the area that Complainants claim they do, the large, reusable containers near Storm Flying Services' hangar are neither trash nor waste packaging, rather they are containers used and re-used in Storm's business. Both the Lease and the Minimum Standards are clear: The Lease states that "[t]he Premises shall be kept clean and clear oftrash ofall times"; and the Minimum Standards that are referenced in the Lease require that "[t]he Premises shall be kept clean and clear of waste packaging at all times." The WAA does not consider the large plastic expensive and reusable 6containers outside of Mr. Storm's hanger a violation of either the Lease or the Minimum Standards because they are neither trash nor waste. See affidavit ofPatrick H. Burke attached hereto. RE: TheMeaning of the Term "Operations"forFAA Form 5010 (From Respondents SubjectMatter CategoryNo. 7) Complainants claim that the W AA lied to the FAA about the number ofoperations at the airport. Although Respondents have addressed these allegations in their Auswer, Respondents further state that the term "operations" as used inthe Form covers a broader swath offlights than Complainants believe the term to meart. The FAA's definition of"Airport Operations" is as follows: The number ofarrivals and departures from the airport at which the airport traffic control toweris located. There are two types ofoperations: local and itinerant. 1. Local operations are those operations performed by aircraft that remain in the local traffic pattern, execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport, and the operations to or from the airport and a designated practice area within a 20-mileradius ofthe tower. 2. Itinerant operations are operations performed by an aircraft, either IFR, SVFR, or VFR, that lands at an airport, arriving from outside the airport area, or departs an airport and leaves the airport area. See 14 CFRPart 170.3. RE:MissingAttachments to PatrickBurkeandJay Morrow'sAffidavits Complainants are correct that Respondents did not attach the documents noted in Patrick Burke and Jay Morrow's affidavits that show the notes from their inspections ofthose leasing space at the WMA. This was an oversight. Attached are the affidavits with the proper attachments. RE: The Errors in theSPCC (Replypp. 43-44) Complainants claim that the SPCC shows that Mr. Storm's Containment Pad had a manual valve. This is an error in the SPCC, as shown by the letter to J\![r. Patrick Burke by Thomas W. Trumble, P.E. As Mr. Trumble stated inhis letter, his engineering firm found several discrepancies in the SPCC plan, and identified one as follows: "The SPCC plan indicates the collection sump in this pad [the containment pad located onthe east side ofthe hangar occupied by Storm] drains to a sump to the North ofthe pad. I have personally inspected the containment area on the east side ofthis hangar and state that it has no outlets. The only means to remove liquids is by pumping." See Patrick Burke affidavit with letter from Thomas Trumble attached. This finding is consistent with Mr. Storm's affidavit, wherein he avers that Storm Flying Services' contairrmentpad does nothave a drain valve. 7RE: SupplementalResponses toAnswers Complainants claim that as to some Answers, Respondents have not adequately addressedtheirissue. Respondents would like to add the following to their Answers: ComplaintIssue No. 67- SMC 4 ComplaintIssue No. 75- SMC 4 WHEREFORE, Respondents WAJIOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT and WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY (collectively "Respondents")respectfullyrequestthat each and every allegation ofthe Complainants WALKERAG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKERLUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, BRAD GATE, BETTERAIRPORTS, LLC and WILLIAM FOSTERbe dismissed, and for all otherreliefthe U.S. Federal AviationAuthority deemsjust. Dated: January 20,2014 Respectfully submitted,

**--~--~~-------,**



# s~-=-=-s

**/~**

Larry S. Kaplan, Esq. Keith S. Yamaguchi, Esq. Susan J. Russell, Esq. KAPLAN, MASSAMILLO & ANDREWS, LLC 200 W. Madison Street, l61 h Floor Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 335-3000 Firm I.D. No. 42047 Attorneys for Respondents Wahoo Municipal Airport and Wahoo Airport Authority

8AFFIDAVIT OF MERT ODEN

STATE OF NEBRASKA )ss. COUNTY OF SAUNDERS ) The undersigned Affiant upon beingfirst duly sworn, does hereby depose and state: 

### ' 1. My name is Mert Oden. Iam overthe age of eighteen (18) years. Iam ofsound mind and am competentto makethis Affidavit. 2. Ihave personal knowledge ofthefacts contained in thisAffidavit and they are true and correct exceptfor those facts stated upon information and belief, and as to thosefacts, Iverily believe them to be true. Ifcalled to do so, Icould competentlytestify under oath as tothe matters stated herein. 3. Iam currentlythe Treasurer ofthe Wahoo Airport Authority ("WAA''), and have served theWAA in various capacities since 1976, including serving as the Chairman ofthe Board from January 2003 until April 2012. 4. As a result ofa special Board Meeting in July 2011 that Iattended, the WAA agreed to authorize Walker Luedtke to operate his aerial spraying business temporarily attheWahoo Municipal Airport ("WMA"), ifhe satisfied five conditions: 1) that he operate atthe end ofthetaxi lane; 2) that he use a portable containmentpad; 3) that he keep his trucks offthetaxiway; 4) that he operate with no more than two airplanes; and 5) that the airplanes have and use radios. Luedtke agreed to satisfythe conditions. 5. The agreement between Luedtke and theWAA regardingthe five conditionsfor operating atthe WMA in 2011 was verbal. 6. Thereafter, overthe course ofapproximately 8 to 10 days overtwo different months that Luedtke operated aircraft attheWMA, he, at various times, violated thisverbal agreement and the conditions. 7. Without permission, Luedtke operated his aircraft from a location different than the end ofthetaxi lane, but which was more convenientfor his aircraft and which blocked access to the commercial hangar. 8. He did not request permission to operate in this location priorto actually moving and operating his aircraft from this location. 9. After Ibecame aware that Luedtke had moved his aircraftto the new location, Iasked him why he moved his operations. 10. Luedtke told me he moved his operations because it was easierto turn the aircraft around in this area and it was easierto getthe planes lined up for refueling and the refilling ofthe products aerially applied. 11. Because the spraying season was in full swing and given the fact that Iknewthe corporatejet in the commercial hangar would be gone for a couple ofdays, I then, after Luedtke had already moved his aircraft, gave Luedtke permission to temporarilyoperate at the location until the corporatejet returned. 12. Upon the return ofthe corporatejet, Luedtke's aircraft obstructed the commercial hangar, and when one ofhis sprayers was told to move, a verbal altercation ensued. 13. Duringthe time Luedtke operated his aircraft atthe WMA in 2011, Ihad the opportunityto observe his activities on occasion at the WMA and was told by his employeesthatthey were not using a portable containmentpad. 14. During the time Luedtke operated his aircraft atthe WMA in 2011, Ihad the opportunityto observe his activities on occasion at theWMA and observed that Luedtke did not at all times keep his truckcontaining pre-mixed chemicals off the taxi way. 15. On information and belief, duringthe time Luedtke operated his aircraft atthe WMA in 2011, all ofhis pilots did not have and/or did not use radios at all times. Imake this statement based on verbal acknowledgements Iheard from Patrick Burke where Luedtke himselfcommentedthatall of his pilots would not use radios. 16. During the time Luedtke operated his aircraft atthe WMA in 2011, he operated with more than two aircraft. 17. Regarding the reference to entitlements on page 500 of Complainants' Reply quotingthe January 16, 2012 WAA Board Minutes, the Complainants referto a comment Imade regarding the WAA's grant ofentitlementsto Storm Flying Service priorto the implementation ofthe Minimum Standards, when Storm Flying Service was the only provider of aerial spraying services at theWMA. My reference to "entitlements" attheJanuary 16, 2012 Board meeting, was made within the context ofthe WAA board's discussion of how long Storm Flying Service had been atthe Airport as the only aerial sprayer, and a discussion of how many operators could operate from the WMA. As such, throughoutthe years and priorto the implementation ofthe Minimum Standards, the WAA worked with Storm Flying Service on various issues as the only aerial applicatoron theWMA's field. During thattime, IfStorm Flying Service's requestwas reasonable to theWAA, it was generally granted. However, since theWAA adopted Minimum Standards, we have required Storm Flying Service to comply with all ofthe Minimum Standards. The WAA does not provide "entitlements" to Storm Flying Service because it has been here the longest, as the Complainants suggest. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and underthelaws ofthe State ofNebraska thattheforegoing is true and correct.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this4WLday ofJanuary, 2015, by 

# met=-r- od.!U\ GENERALNOTARY.StateofNebraska LUCINDA JMORROW My Comm.EJ<p.January 11,2017AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICK BURKE

STATE OF NEBRASKA ) ) COUNTY OF SAUNDERS )ss. The undersigned Affiant upon beingfirst duly sworn, does hereby depose and state: 1. My name is Patrick H. Burke. Iam overthe age ofeighteen (18) years. Iam of sound mind and Iam competentto make this Affidavit. 2. Ihave personal knowledge ofthe facts contained in this Affidavit and they are true and correct; and ifcalled to do so, Icould competentlytestify underoath as tothe matters stated herein. 3. Iam the current Chairperson ofthe Wahoo Airport Authority ("WAA'') and have been the Chairperson since April9, 2012. 4. On January7, 2015 at 11:15 a.m., Iperformed an inspection ofFrontier Coop's hangar attheWahoo Municipal Airport ("WMA") for the purposes ofreviewing the businesses' use ofthefacility, and to determine whetherthere were any violations ofthe minimum standards. 5. The equipmentthat Ireviewed in Frontier Coop's hangar was necessary for Frontier Coop's aviation operations, and the storage ofthat equipment was compliant with the lease and with the Minimum Standards. 6. Atrue and correct copy ofmy notesfrom that inspection are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 7. Attached as Exhibit Bto this affidavit is atrue and correctcopy ofa letterthat I received from Thomas W. Trumble P.E. dated January 19, 2015. 8. Storm Flying Services sometimes stores large, reusable empty hard plastic containers and equipment outside ofthe hangar buton the premisesthat it leasesfrom theWahoo Municipal Airport. 9. These containers are expensive, clean, and reused by Storm in his aerial spray business. 10. Storm Flying Services' Lease statesthat "[t]he Premises shall be kept clean and clear oftrash ofall times." 11. The Minimum Standards that are referenced in the Lease require that "[t]he Premises shall be kept clean and clear ofwaste packaging at all times."12. The WAA does not consider the large reusable clean containers that Storm sometimes stores on the property he leases from the airporttrash or waste packaging. 13. The WAA does not consider the location ofthese containers aviolation ofthe Lease orthe Minimum Standards.

1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and underthe laws ofthe State of Nebraska thatthe foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Patrick H. Burke 

# p SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this .;(o.fl, day ofJanuary, 2015, by



### ~;:t,_ 

## ItBt..nb

# r••'"·"''"""'



# ~ LUCINDAJ MORROW Notary Pu 

### Jd My comm.EJ<p.January 11,2017
.

### COMMERCIAL AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITIES- INSPECTION REPORT
Date and Time ofInspection: 

# 1/1/'lD 15 

## Uf: IS A II"\. Inspection Conducted by: 

# P e...li- 

# JS '"'t!

## /"-'<- Commercial Operation Observed:



### 0~ S <"c...'S <lh 9 

### u .I.A.- 

# "'25 tr£>"-{-,-.,.,. Ju......_t"'"" Activities Observed: · 

### U.s e

**~ ~""3"'** **·~** 

### o!;;£



## 1;-)1~ 

## '::Iu.s.±l/A

**~ee~. ~~**  <'}<"'<..$""'-. 

### M,;.}-



## ~II'<M.~ if I

Comments:



## ~ **{v~>,J· ~**  i, {1(-.vvy



## b~<+ **~~~.$'** 

# + f '- - 'ib 

# .s""""d .,..,_ 

# fk-

# .Be l

# + 

# eo .... UT{;v

·..e. '

Any issues ofnon-compliance to be addressed by the Board:

_ _,l--J_;.a-'-"-='e._,_______ _



### EXHIBIT 

# I 

# A

## Ol **~~C>o· r·~~**  

### -."'»,dJ

# L

**~'\ll** ® ASSOCIATES

January 19, 2015

Mr. Pat Burke- Chairman Wahoo AirportAuthority P.O. Box 122 Wahoo, NE 68066-0122

RE: Wahoo Municipal Airport Wahoo, Nebraska AlP Project No. 3-31-0085-10 OA No. 010-2016

Dear Mr. Burke: Olsson associates and the airport have identified several minor discrepancies in the SPCC plan. One such item relates to the containment pad located on the east side ofthe hangar occupied by Storm Flying Service. The SPCC plan indicates the collection sump in this pad drains to a sump to the North of the pad. I have personally inspected the containment area on the east side ofthis hangar and state that it has no outlets. The only means to remove liquids is by pumping. TheAuthority and OlssonAssociates are committed to revise the SPCC plan to correct this, other discrepancies, and incorporate changes made since the SPCC plan was completed. Sincerely



# ~ **~~**



# A~~~A~(i

Thomas W. Trumble P.E.

601 PStreet, Suite 200 P.O. Box 84608 TEL 402.474. 

### EXHIBIT 

# 0

Lincoln, NE 68508-2303 FAX 402.47 4.**~!lllll!lllllllllilllli!llllllllllllllirlfl!'e·s.com**AFFIDAVIT OF JON BRABEC

STATE OF NEBRASKA ) ss. COUNTY OF SAUNDERS ) The undersigned Affiant upon being first duly sworn, does hereby depose and state: 1. My name is Jon Brabec. I am overthe age of eighteen (18) years, and I am ofsound mind and I am competent to make this Affidavit. 2. I have personal knowledge ofthe facts contained in this Affidavit and they are true and correct; and ifcalled to do so, I could competentlytestify under oath as to the matters stated herein. 3. I am an employee of Frontier Coop and work in Sales and Marketingforthem. 4. As a result ofa public records request, I received acopy ofthe Complainants 900+ page original complaint submitted to the FAA and reviewed said document. 5. Contained in the original copy ofthe complaint filed with the FAA were several photos ofwhat appeared to be Frontier Coop's property. 6. Following my review ofthe complaint I discussed my concern with Saunders County Sheriff Kevin Stukenholtz oftrespassing. He advised that itwould be appropriate to put up signage informing any member ofthe public to reportto the office before entering Frontier Coop's premises, and suggested we further review the security ofour building to address our concerns oftrespassing. 7. Following my conversation with Sheriff Stukenholtz, Frontier Coop proceeded to install a sign informingthe public ofwhere to repqrt before enteringthe premises, and we placed cardboard over the windows ofourfacility at theWahoo Airportto address our concerns with unauthorized photographs being taken ofthe inside of our hangars through the windows. 8. Frontier Coop only stores equipment in this hangar that is used in association with the aviation application services we provide our customers. 9. Patrick Burke, Chair ofthe Wahoo Airport Authority, made an unannounced inspection ofthe Frontier hangar on January 7, 2015 and inspected ourfacilities to check, among other things, that Frontier was only storing equipment associated with the aviation application services we provide ourcustomers in its hangar. I declare under penaltyof perjury underthe laws ofthe United States ofAmerica and underthe laws ofthe State of Nebraska thatthe foregoing is true and correct.FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. J,1Kirabec SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me thisJe.i!\ day ofJanuary, 2015, by 

# Jo I\ 

# R· Bca.h;_,;v

:. lUCINDAJ MORROW . .J;GENERALN.OTARV-SlaleofNebraska

.; ...... My Comm. Exp.January 11,2017AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICK H. BURKE

STATE OF NEBRASKA ) )ss. COUNTY OF SAUNDERS ) The undersigned Affiant upon being first duly sworn, does herebydepose and state: 1. My name is Patrick H. Burke. Iam overthe age ofeighteen (18) years. Iam of sound mind and Iam competentto make this Affidavit. 2. Ihave personal knowledge ofthefacts contained in this Affidavit and they are true and correct; ifcalled to do so, Icould competentlytestify under oath as to the matters stated herein. 3. As used in my affidavit, "WAA'' means Wahoo Airport Authority, "WMA" means Wahoo Municipal Airport, Minimum Standards means theWAA's Minimum Standards, and "FAA" means the Federal Aviation Authority. 4. Since April 9, 2012, Ihave been the Chairperson oftheWahoo Airport Authority. 5. The documents attached to my affidavit as Group Exhibit Aare true and correct copies ofnotes that Itookduring random inspections that Iconducted atthe Wahoo Airport during July and August of2013. 6. The purpose ofthese inspections was to determine, 

### interalia, whether Storm Flying Services' loading ofchemical on aircraft and storage ofchemical was compliant with theWahoo Airport Authority's Minimum Standards. 7. As my notes, which contain my findings, show, Idid notfind any violations ofthe Minimum Standards for chemical loading or storage by Storm Flying Services during my random inspections. 8. Group ExhibitAis a true, complete and accurate copy ofthe notes that I submitted to the Wahoo Airport Authority's Minimum Standardsfile. 9. The WAA attempted to work with Luedtke on his request. 10. As aresult ofa special Board Meeting in July 2011, Luedtke was authorized to operate attheWMA ifhe satisfied five conditions: 1) that he operate atthe end ofthetaxi lane; 2) that he use a portable containment pad; 3) that he keep his trucks on the grass, not thetaxiway; 4) that he operate with no more than two airplanes; and 5) that the airplanes have and use radios. 11. This was a verbal agreement. Luedtke violated all ofthe conditions.12. Additionally, Luedtke's ability to operate atthe WMA using a portable containmentpad resulted in four to six other seasonal operators inquiring about using the WMA as their base ofoperations by setting up portable containment pads. 13. These requests by multiple operators to setup temporary bases ofoperation at the WMA required the WAA to determine how it could bestpromotethe orderly development ofWMA land. Previous discussions included limiting the number ofoperatorson thefield and/orlimitingthe numberof planes allowed tofly on thefield, all which were not acceptable operations.The WAA contacted the local (Kansas City) FAA office and was encouraged to adopt minimum standards in orderto meetthis challenge. 14. In orderto promotethe orderly development of airport land, the WAA determined that if aerial application operations were permitted to operate using mobile containment pads, these pads would betaking up prime real estate and locking up the use ofthat land which otherwise might be used for the construction of airport buildings. This would not "promotethe orderly development ofairport land" and would prevent airport expansion as envisioned by theWAA. Thus, it was decided by theWAA thatthe minimum standards adopted would require that all aerial applicators who wantto use the WMA as a base ofoperations must operatefrom a permanent hangar and use a permanent containmentpad. 15. Since the adoption ofthe Minimum Standards, a second agricultural operator, Frontier Coop, has also madethe necessaryinvestment in a building and land lease in orderto satisfy the Minimum Standards. 16. TheWAA Board reviewed the Coranco Great Plains Report regardingJared Storm's containment pad which recommended that Storm Flying Services purchase portable bermsthat could be placed onthe apron eastofthe existing containment pad and the location ofwherethe aircraft are loaded, as well as that Storm Flying Service purchase a manhole cover to help seal offthe manhole nexttothe loading area. The WAA has made it a point to ensure that Storm Flying Service hasthese items on hand and accessible in case of a spill. 17. Ifthe Complainant would have submitted an application that attempted to comply with Minimum Standards, the WAA would have worked with him the exact same way it has worked with all otheroperators on the WMA. 18. The applications Luedtke submitted did not comply with thetwo basic componentsofthe Minimum Standards for an aerial applicator: a permanent containment pad or a buildingthat could accommodate his aircraft. 19. In the spring of 2012, theWAA discussed howtheJet Fuel System could bepromoted to serve moretenants and customers.The location ofthe Jet Fuel System in the cornerofthe apron area makes it difficult for larger aircraft to get close enough to be serviced because oftheir longerwing span. 20. The WAA discussed the need for a longer hose as part ofthe system to allow for the transfer offuel from the tankto anothertank orto a tanker wagon. 21. The WAA decided to purchase a longerJet Fuel Farm service hose. The longer hose makes it easierfor larger aircraftto pull up to the pump to be served. The WAA was informed that this expense would not befederal grant-eligible and, therefore, WAA funded the hose 100 percent. 22. The photos depicted in Complaint Issues Nos. 40, 49 and 50 depict the areas located on the north side ofthe main FBO hangar building. In this area there is onetie-down space. Also in this are there are manholes for 100llFuel System and areas of concrete that are raised up slightly. Given thetime ofyear the photos were taken, there would not have been as much demand on the tie downs as in the warmer months. Additionally, ifthe tie-down areas depicted in the photos had been needed for use, an aircraft could still use those tie-down areas. 23. When the WAA has become aware ofa lease violation by any ofits tenants, the WAA has worked with the tenant to bring the tenant into compliance. No known violations have been permitted to continue. 24. The EAA Hangar originallyfunctioned as the aircraft mechanic's hangar; the mechanics served the WMA tenants. In the late 1990's a new mechanic's hangar was constructed at the WMA. That made the EAA Hangar availablefor rent. Historically theWMA has had afull-time mechanic at the WMA who has also been In charge of all facility maintenance. In 2009, the relationship theWAA had with High Planes Aviation was terminated and the WAA began searching for a replacement. The responsibilities ofthis business/person included providing aircraft mechanic services to the tenants, and providing all the maintenancefor thefacility, buildings, and grounds. The WAA searched for a number of months to find someone or entitythat could do both, and eventuallytheWAA determined thatthe responsibilities would need to be split into two contracts. 25. These two contracts are now held respectively by WanahooAviation and Storm Flying Services. Wanahoo Aviation leases the main FBO Building. When theWAA splitthe contractinto two, it became apparentthattheWAA had no shop space where a maintenance providercould store or work on equipment as needed. At this pointthe WAA Board began the discussion of ending the lease with the EAA group sothat the EAA hangar could be used as a shop area. Aside from the main FBO Building, the Ag Hangar, and the Corporate Hangar, the EAA hangar is the only hangarthat is heated.26. The EAA hanger does not have a permanentcontainment pad in front ofit. The doors on the EAA hanger do not allow for the aircraft thatWalkerAg Supply has indicated it would be usingfor aerial application to be stored inside 27. The WAA is Board is in the process of budgetingthe costto replace the entire roofofthe EAA hanger. Some repairs have been made to protectthe structural integrity ofthe building to protect it from moisture. 28. Respondents answer as follows: the mechanicwas allowed to operate while WAA was working on formalizing an agreement. 29. It has been a common practice at the WMA to allow a tenant to begin operations before a lease is finalized. 30. TheWAA agreed that Frontier was allowed to proceed without a completed, signed agreement in place. However, while WalkerAg had a signed agreement when he was allowed to operate in 2011, all the needed documentation for his application to be complete were not supplied. 31. With regard to theT-hangar lease provision prohibiting parking or driving on any turfareas, it is the intent ofthis provision to prohibit parking or driving on the turf runway and the grass around the runways and taxiways. Under no conditions are any ofthetenants (excludingthose maintaining theWMA) to driving orparking on the turf runway orthe grass around the runways and taxiways. The purpose ofthe requirement was in response to issues atthe airport several years ago. It was intended to keep peoplefrom driving all over the airport, notto limit parking around the hangars. 32. Walker Ag Spray and Midwest Spray should rememberthat the WAA actually asked them to keep their non-aircraft equipment on the grass (notturfrunway), sothere was no preferential treatment given to non-commercial operators. The lease provision is not intended to keep pilots and passengersfrom parking next to the hangar out ofthe way of aircraft. Also, for the storage units on the end of the hangars, the only access is on the grass. 33. Additionally, the "relocation oftenant" language is necessaryfor Storm and Wanahoo (FBO) becausethese are unique facilities atWMA. The Airport has 39 T-hangars that are similar and interchangeable. The FBO and Ag Hangars are not. The WMA owns hangarsthat would fit Mr. Walker's aircraft; however, the spacesthat have become available are spacestoo small to allow this aircraftto even be stored. 34. The June 2012 photographs were taken at the WMA during a one-day open house event where Frontier showcased its aerial operation as well as the other non-aviation operationsthey provided. These activities did not impede the runway or taxiway in anyway. Duringthis open house, Frontier also gavehelicopter rides. 35. Other indoor photographs captured the storage ofnon-aviation equipment inside Frontier's hangar which did constitute a violation ofthe Minimum Standards. The majority oftheequipment in the photographs is used for providing aerial applications, but there were a few items that were not. WMA was initially unaware ofthese violations, but we are working with Frontier to ensure thatthey are in compliance with Minimum Standards on this issue. 36. The vehicles in the photos are long gone. Notwithstanding, the Minimum Standards allow for parking ofemployees and customers. 37. The event described in Complaint Issue No. 78 ofthe FAA Complaint was not an

. 

## . airshow. It was an airport promotion, and aircraft voluntarily performed acrobatic practice. The event was not open tothe public as is implied when the term "airshow" is employed. 38. The corporate hangar lease described in Complaint Issue No. 94 ofthe FAA Complaint is not a commercial lease 39. WMA has not required an application from any other commercial aviation operator. The onlytime an application has not been required has involved a non-commercial use. 40. There are currently no hours ofoperation for mechanics atWMA, but there are hours ofoperation for othertypes ofcommercial operations. 41. WMA denies the allegation thattheyhave not required an application from any othercommercial aviation operator. The only time an application has not been required has involved a non-commercial use. 42. Frontier's execution ofa lease and decision whether ornotto construct a new building had nothing to do with the WAA's decision to enactthe Minimum Standards. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica and underthe laws ofthe State ofNebraska thatthe foregoing is true and correct. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.



# ~J-1~ Patrick H. Burke fl',· ()_ 1



### ~ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

# K day ofDecember, 2014, by 

### r:fL'Wtc!L.

**.e~** 

# .

### A GENERALNOTARY-StateofNebraska

**~~~** lUCINDAJMORROW

- _' ···· My Comm. EJ<p. January 11,20177/27/2013 Verified thatFrontierCo-Op was appropriately using the containmentpad.



# g/l.fJ/!3

**Uev~S't-l**

'



# ~~\1~ 

# f?euteLO 

# of MN\i'MllW\

**~**



# ~~ **P~tA~~**7/27/2013 Verified thatStorm Flying Service was appropriately using the containment pad. 7/31/2013 Discussed with Storm flying service aboutthefollowing:

8/1/13 1) Movingthe pickup so thatthe aircraftcould load more directly onthe main containment pad (they are loading onthe secondary containment pad). 2) Ensuring thatthe spill barriers are easily accessible ifneeded.

Verified compliance ofStorm Flying Service.



## ~13113 **u~ jp~**  

# qt/i3AFFIDAVIT OF LLOYD JAY MORROW STATE OF NEBRASKA )ss. COUNTY OF SAUNDERS ) The undersigned Affiant upon beingfirst duly sworn, does hereby depose and state: 1. My name is Lloyd Jay Morrow. Iam overthe age ofeighteen (18) years. Iam ofsound mind and Iam competentto make this Affidavit. 2. Ihave personal knowledge ofthe facts contained in this Affidavit and they are true and correct; ifcalled to do so, Icould competentlytestify under oath as to the matters stated herein. 3. Since February 2008, Ihave been the Vice Chairperson oftheWahoo Airport Authority. 4. The document attached to my affidavit as Exhibit Ais a true and correct copy ofan email that Isentto Melissa Harrell on August 14, 2013 documenting my observations during random inspections that Iconducted atthe Wahoo Airport during July and August of2013. 5. The purpose ofthese inspections was to determine, 

### interalia, whetherStorm Flying Services' loading ofchemical on aircraft and storage ofchemical was compliant with the Wahoo Airport Authority's Minimum Standards. 6. As my email containing my findings shows, Idid notfind any violations ofthe Minimum Standards for chemical loading or storage by Storm Flying Services during my random inspections. 7. ExhibitAis a true, complete and accurate copy ofthe email that Isubmitted to the Wahoo Airport Authority's Minimum Standardsfile. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica and under the laws oftheState ofNebraska thattheforegoing is true and correct. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.Melissa Harrell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lloyd Morrow [lj_morrow@live.com] Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:15AM Melissa Harrell Patrick Burke Airport Observations FYI: On July 31, 2013, I observed Jared Storm having his purple spray plane being refilled at 1845 and 1910 hours. Also observed was another plane believed to be employed by Storm being refilled at 1915 hours. The tail number for this aircraft was N785TK. These operations took place in the containment area mentioned in the Airport's Board letter to Storm Flying Service last year. This is also the same area mentioned in the engineering study, in our files. During the times shown above, a spray plane was also refilled, directly to the east of the Frontier Coop Hanger, approximately in the center of their containment area. Approximately 1 to 2 cups of fluid were spilled and this was well within the containment area. It was also noted, via a hand held aviation radio, that the approaches and departures of these aircraft, were announced, even though they are not required to do so.

1