UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER ) 

LUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, ) 

BRAD GATE, BETTER AIRPORTS, LLC and ) 

WILLIAM FOSTER, ) 

Complainants, 

vs. 

WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT and WAHOO 

AIRPORT AUTHORITY, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

RECEIVED 

JAN 21 20!5 

FAA Docket Nf3Af:Pr 14-08 

16DOCKETS 

RECEIVED 

JAN 21 2015 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

RESPONDENTS WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AND WAHOO AIRPORT 

AUTHORITY'S REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT 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 of Leo 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 of the 

facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation." 14 CFR Part 16, Section 16.23. 

There is nothing concise about Complainants' FAA Complaint. Complainants filed their 

Complaint listing l 09 Complaint Issues, spanning more than 900 pages, filled with 

unsubstantiated photographs and diagrams, internet downloads, snippets of decontextualized 

audio, accusations, insults and innuendo - all of which were repeated multiple times, bloating the 

pleading beyond comprehension. And although Complainants claim they did not revisit the 

1 
entire 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 in their FAA Complaint- which was 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 of times. 

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 of Grant Assurance violations, Respondents added 

the information under the appropriate Complaint Issue in SECTION FOUR of their 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 admitted that Storm ice 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 in their 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 off in their FAA Complaint and 

2 
Reply, stating "most likely greater than (say) 300 violations." (Reply p. 28) Respondents 

answered the tome as best they could, given the circumstances Complainants themselves created. 

Respondents will rebut Complainants' Reply to the extent that they deem a rebuttal is 

warranted to address the latest barrage of Complainants' accusations and allegations. 

General Rebuttal to Complainants' Criticism of the WAA's Adoption of the 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 of investment that a permanent operator makes at the 

WMA. 

The WMA must have the right to control and manage land use at the Airport through the 

Minimum Standards. One way to 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 not invest in a building or land will not be able to operate. If seasonal operators are permitted 

to operate at the WMA using mobile containment pads, theW AA and WMA's ability to control 

and manage land use will be compromised. 

Additionally, even ifthere have been examples where current operators have, unknown to 

the W AA, 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 violation has occurred. These are mutually distinct 

issues. It simply means the Board must be more vigilant in enforcing the Minimnm Standards. 

Respondents' Affidavits 

With regard to Complainants' bold and bald assertions that the content sworn to in the 

affidavits of Wahoo'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 of Mert Oden, Patrick Burke and others 

(see below) to rebut the latest ludicrous accusations Complainants have made in their Reply. 

Complainants' Purported Evidence and Legal Support 

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 of these photos and diagrams, there is no statement under oath regarding who took 

3 
them, when they were taken, or that the affiant has personal knowledge of the 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 of a section of the WMA, and a drawing of an aircraft, which Complainants claim is 

drawn to scale. From this photograph, Complainants draw a number of unsubstantiated opinions 

regarding the Respondents' alleged violations of Grant Assurances. No one authenticates this 

photograph, or the drawing of the aircraft such that 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, when they did not. 

Complainants do not provide any legal support for the arguments they inject throughout 

their FAA Complaint. They simply submit that their interpretation of what 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 of Nebraska ... " They arrive at this legal conclusion because of a 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 of a 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 sound practically identical to the correct name as 

commonly pronounced, then the name thus given is sufficient identification of the individual 

referred to, and no advantage can be taken of the clerical error, and absolute accuracy in spelling 

names is not required where the names sound the same such that an attentive ear finds difficulty 

in distinguishing them when pronounced." In any event, Respondents deny and object to 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, and Assumptions and Their 

Inability to Believe Anything Respondents Have Said Cannot Provide a F-actual Basis for 

Alleged Grant Assurance 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 of one 

(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 

4 
operation 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 line poster, which has 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 W AA 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 W AA and those businesses that 

legitimately operate at the WMA. 

RESPONDENTS' SUR-REPLY TO SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS SET FORTH IN 

COMPLAINANTS' REPLY 

As noted above, Respondents stand on their Answers to Complainants' FAA Complaint. 

Complainants' 500-plus page Reply brief injects 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 in the 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 Background Facts of the Dispute (Reply 

pp. 7, 8) 

In addition to Respondents' Answer and supporting affidavits, Respondents further state 

that Mr. Luedtke's assertion in his Reply that he was not instructed to satisfy the five conditions 

is false. The W AA verbally communicated the five conditions to Luedtke, Luedtke agreed to 

these conditions, and he violated all of them at some point during the time in 2011 when Luedtke 

was permitted to operate at the WMA. See affidavit ofMert Oden attached hereto. 

RE: Alleged Lease Violations by Frontier Coop (Reply pp. 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 that the pictures of cardboard-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 a rebuttal, that comes 

to Respondents' minds is, if indeed these pictures depict what Complainants claim they do, what 

5 
are 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 -and they are certainly not Grant Assurance violations. 

They are not proof, as Complainants assert that Respondents have been "intentionally 

disingenuous." It is just another example of Complainants harassment of tenants at the WMA in 

an effort to 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 of Frontier 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 of such items in these hangars. See 

Patrick Burke's affidavit attached hereto and his inspection report. 

The assertion that there was cardboard on Frontier Coop's window is correct. As a result 

of a public records request, Frontier Coop's Jon Brabec received a copy of the 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 Sheriff Kevin 

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 of its hangar to address 

its concerns of unauthorized photographs being taken of the inside of its hangars through the 

windows. See the affidavit of Frontier Coop's Jon Brabec attached hereto. 

Once again, Complainants' accusations are overblown, unfounded, and false. Moreover, 

they are certainly not supportive of anything Complainants' purport them to be, whether Grant 

Assurance violation, the insinuated sordid character ofW AA board members, or otherwise. 

RE: Alleged Pictures of Storm Flying Services' Hangar Space (Reply pp. 58 and 59) 

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 of the Minimum Standards 

because Storm has "trash and waste packaging" outside. Even if the 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 of trash of all 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 W AA does not consider the large plastic expensive and reusable 

6 
containers 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 of Patrick H. Burke attached 

hereto. 

RE: The Meaning of the Term "Operations"for FAA Form 5010 (From Respondents 

Subject Matter Category No. 7) 

Complainants claim that the W AA lied to the FAA about the number of operations at the 

airport. Although Respondents have addressed these allegations in their Auswer, Respondents 

further state that the term "operations" as used in the Form covers a broader swath of flights than 

Complainants believe the term to meart. 

The FAA's definition of"Airport Operations" is as follows: 

The number of arrivals and departures from the airport at which the airport traffic 

control tower is located. There are two types of operations: 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-mile radius of the 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 CFR Part 170.3. 

RE: Missing Attachments to Patrick Burke and Jay Morrow's Affidavits 

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 of those leasing 

space at the WMA. This was an oversight. Attached are the affidavits with the proper 

attachments. 

RE: The Errors in the SPCC (Reply pp. 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 in his 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 on the east side of the hangar occupied 

by Storm] drains to a sump to the North of the pad. I have personally inspected the containment 

area on the east side of this 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' contairrment pad does not have a drain valve. 

7 
RE: Supplemental Responses to Answers 

Complainants claim that as to some Answers, Respondents have not adequately 

addressed their issue. Respondents would like to add the following to their Answers: 

Complaint Issue No. 67- SMC 4 

Complaint Issue No. 75- SMC 4 

WHEREFORE, Respondents W AJIOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT and WAHOO 

AIRPORT AUTHORITY (collectively "Respondents") respectfully request that each and every 

allegation of the Complainants WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER LUEDTKE, 

MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, BRAD GATE, BETTER AIRPORTS, LLC and 

WILLIAM FOSTER be dismissed, and for all other relief the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority 

deems just. 

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 

8 
AFFIDAVIT OF MERT ODEN 

STATE OF NEBRASKA 

) ss. 

COUNTY OF SAUNDERS ) 

The undersigned Affiant upon being first duly sworn, does hereby depose and state: 

' 1. My name is Mert Oden. I am overthe age of eighteen (18) years. I am of sound 

mind and am competent to make this Affidavit. 

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit and they are 

true and correct except for those facts stated upon information and belief, and 

as to those facts, I verily believe them to be true. If called to do so, I could 

competently testify under oath as to the matters stated herein. 

3. I am currently the Treasurer of the Wahoo Airport Authority ("WAA''), and have 

served the WAA in various capacities since 1976, including serving as the 

Chairman of the Board from January 2003 until April 2012. 

4. As a result of a special Board Meeting in July 2011 that I attended, the WAA 

agreed to authorize Walker Luedtke to operate his aerial spraying business 

temporarily at the Wahoo Municipal Airport ("WMA"), if he satisfied five 

conditions: 1) that he operate at the end of the taxi lane; 2) that he use a 

portable containment pad; 3) that he keep his trucks off the taxiway; 4) that he 

operate with no more than two airplanes; and 5) that the airplanes have and use 

radios. Luedtke agreed to satisfy the conditions. 

5. The agreement between Luedtke and the WAA regarding the five conditions for 

operating at the WMA in 2011 was verbal. 

6. Thereafter, over the course of approximately 8 to 10 days over two different 

months that Luedtke operated aircraft at the WMA, he, at various times, violated 

this verbal agreement and the conditions. 

7. Without permission, Luedtke operated his aircraft from a location different than 

the end ofthe taxi lane, but which was more convenient for his aircraft and 

which blocked access to the commercial hangar. 

8. He did not request permission to operate in this location prior to actually moving 

and operating his aircraft from this location. 

9. After I became aware that Luedtke had moved his aircraft to the new location, I 
asked him why he moved his operations. 

10. Luedtke told me he moved his operations because it was easier to turn the 

aircraft around in this area and it was easier to get the planes lined up for 

refueling and the refilling of the products aerially applied. 

11. Because the spraying season was in full swing and given the fact that I knew the 

corporate jet in the commercial hangar would be gone for a couple of days, I 

then, after Luedtke had already moved his aircraft, gave Luedtke permission to 

temporarily operate at the location until the corporate jet returned. 

12. Upon the return of the corporate jet, Luedtke's aircraft obstructed the 

commercial hangar, and when one of his sprayers was told to move, a verbal 

altercation ensued. 

13. During the time Luedtke operated his aircraft at the WMA in 2011, I had the 

opportunity to observe his activities on occasion at the WMA and was told by his 

employees that they were not using a portable containment pad. 

14. During the time Luedtke operated his aircraft at the WMA in 2011, I had the 

opportunity to observe his activities on occasion at the WMA and observed that 

Luedtke did not at all times keep his truck containing pre-mixed chemicals off 

the taxi way. 

15. On information and belief, during the time Luedtke operated his aircraft at the 

WMA in 2011, all of his pilots did not have and/or did not use radios at all times. 

I make this statement based on verbal acknowledgements I heard from Patrick 

Burke where Luedtke himself commented that all of his pilots would not use 

radios. 

16. During the time Luedtke operated his aircraft at the WMA in 2011, he operated 

with more than two aircraft. 

17. Regarding the reference to entitlements on page 500 of Complainants' Reply 

quoting the January 16, 2012 WAA Board Minutes, the Complainants refer to a 

comment I made regarding the WAA's grant of entitlements to Storm Flying 

Service prior to the implementation of the Minimum Standards, when Storm 

Flying Service was the only provider of aerial spraying services at the WMA. My 

reference to "entitlements" at the January 16, 2012 Board meeting, was made 

within the context of the WAA board's discussion of how long Storm Flying 

Service had been at the Airport as the only aerial sprayer, and a discussion of 

how many operators could operate from the WMA. As such, throughout the 

years and prior to the implementation ofthe Minimum Standards, the WAA 

worked with Storm Flying Service on various issues as the only aerial applicator 
on the WMA's field. During that time, If Storm Flying Service's request was 

reasonable to the WAA, it was generally granted. However, since the WAA 

adopted Minimum Standards, we have required Storm Flying Service to comply 

with all of the 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 

under the laws of the State of Nebraska that the foregoing is true and correct. 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this4WL day of January, 2015, by 

met=-r- od.!U\ 

GENERAL NOTARY. State of Nebraska 

LUCINDA J MORROW 

My Comm. EJ<p. January 11,2017 
AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICK BURKE 

STATE OF NEBRASKA ) 

) 

COUNTY OF SAUNDERS ) ss. 

The undersigned Affiant upon being first duly sworn, does hereby depose and state: 

1. My name is Patrick H. Burke. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years. I am of 

sound mind and I am competent to make this Affidavit. 

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit and they are 

true and correct; and if called to do so, I could competently testify under oath as 

to the matters stated herein. 

3. I am the current Chairperson of the Wahoo Airport Authority ("WAA'') and have 

been the Chairperson since April9, 2012. 

4. On January7, 2015 at 11:15 a.m., I performed an inspection of Frontier Coop's 

hangar at the Wahoo Municipal Airport ("WMA") for the purposes of reviewing 

the businesses' use of the facility, and to determine whether there were any 

violations of the minimum standards. 

5. The equipment that I reviewed in Frontier Coop's hangar was necessary for 

Frontier Coop's aviation operations, and the storage of that equipment was 

compliant with the lease and with the Minimum Standards. 

6. A true and correct copy of my notes from that inspection are attached hereto as 

Exhibit A. 

7. Attached as Exhibit B to this affidavit is a true and correct copy of a letter that 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 of the hangar but on the premises that it 

leases from the Wahoo Municipal Airport. 

9. These containers are expensive, clean, and reused by Storm in his aerial spray 

business. 

10. Storm Flying Services' Lease states that "[t]he Premises shall be kept clean and 

clear of trash of all times." 

11. 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." 
12. The WAA does not consider the large reusable clean containers that Storm 

sometimes stores on the property he leases from the airport trash or waste 

packaging. 

13. The WAA does not consider the location of these containers a violation of the 

Lease or the Minimum Standards. 

1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and 

under the laws of the State of Nebraska that the foregoing is true and correct. 

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. 

Patrick H. Burke 

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

~;:t,_ It Bt..nbr••'"·"''"""' LUCINDA J MORROW ~ Notary Pu Jd 

My comm. EJ<p. January 11,2017 . 
COMMERCIAL AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITIES- INSPECTION REPORT 

Date and Time of Inspection: 1/1/ 'lD 15 Uf: IS A II"\. 

Inspection Conducted by: P e...li- JS '"'t! /"-'<-

Commercial Operation Observed: 0~ S <"c...'S <lh9 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 of non-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 Airport Authority 

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 of the 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 of this hangar and state that it 

has no outlets. The only means to remove liquids is by pumping. 

The Authority and Olsson Associates 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 P Street, Suite 200 

P.O. Box 84608 TEL 402.474. 

EXHIBIT 

0 

Lincoln, NE 68508-2303 FAX 402.4 7 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 over the age of eighteen (18) years, and I am of sound 

mind and I am competent to make this Affidavit. 

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit and they are true and 

correct; and if called to do so, I could competently testify under oath as to the matters 

stated herein. 

3. I am an employee of Frontier Coop and work in Sales and Marketing for them. 

4. As a result of a public records request, I received a copy of the Complainants 900+ 

page original complaint submitted to the FAA and reviewed said document. 

5. Contained in the original copy of the complaint filed with the FAA were several photos 

of what appeared to be Frontier Coop's property. 

6. Following my review ofthe complaint I discussed my concern with Saunders County 

Sheriff Kevin Stukenholtz of trespassing. He advised that it would be appropriate to put 

up sign age informing any member of the public to report to the office before entering 

Frontier Coop's premises, and suggested we further review the security of our building 

to address our concerns of trespassing. 

7. Following my conversation with Sheriff Stukenholtz, Frontier Coop proceeded to install 

a sign informing the public of where to repqrt before entering the premises, and we 

placed cardboard over the windows of our facility at the Wahoo Airport to address our 

concerns with unauthorized photographs being taken of the 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 of the Wahoo Airport Authority, made an unannounced inspection 

of the Frontier hangar on January 7, 2015 and inspected our facilities to check, among 

other things, that Frontier was only storing equipment associated with the aviation 

application services we provide our customers in its hangar. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and under the 

laws of the State of Nebraska that the foregoing is true and correct. 
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. 

J,1Kirabec 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me thisJe.i!\ day of January, 2015, by 

Jo I\ R · Bca.h;_,;v 

:. lUCINDAJ MORROW . .J;GENERAL N. OTARV- Slale of Nebraska 

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

STATE OF NEBRASKA ) 

) ss. 

COUNTY OF SAUNDERS ) 

The undersigned Affiant upon being first duly sworn, does hereby depose and state: 

1. My name is Patrick H. Burke. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years. I am of 

sound mind and I am competent to make this Affidavit. 

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit and they are 

true and correct; if called to do so, I could competently testify 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 the WAA's Minimum 

Standards, and "FAA" means the Federal Aviation Authority. 

4. Since April 9, 2012, I have been the Chairperson of the Wahoo Airport Authority. 

5. The documents attached to my affidavit as Group Exhibit A are true and correct 

copies of notes that I took during random inspections that I conducted at the 

Wahoo Airport during July and August of 2013. 

6. The purpose of these inspections was to determine, inter alia, whether Storm 

Flying Services' loading of chemical on aircraft and storage of chemical was 

compliant with the Wahoo Airport Authority's Minimum Standards. 

7. As my notes, which contain my findings, show, I did not find any violations of the 

Minimum Standards for chemical loading or storage by Storm Flying Services 

during my random inspections. 

8. Group Exhibit A is a true, complete and accurate copy of the notes that I 

submitted to the Wahoo Airport Authority's Minimum Standards file. 

9. The WAA attempted to work with Luedtke on his request. 

10. As a result of a special Board Meeting in July 2011, Luedtke was authorized to 

operate at the WMA if he satisfied five conditions: 1) that he operate at the end 

ofthe taxi lane; 2) that he use a portable containment pad; 3) that he keep his 

trucks on the grass, not the taxiway; 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 of the conditions. 
12. Additionally, Luedtke's ability to operate at the WMA using a portable 

containment pad resulted in four to six other seasonal operators inquiring about 

using the WMA as their base of operations by setting up portable containment 

pads. 

13. These requests by multiple operators to set up temporary bases of operation at 

the WMA required the WAA to determine how it could best promote the 

orderly development of WMA land. Previous discussions included limiting the 

number of operators on the field and/or limiting the number of planes allowed 

to fly on the field, all which were not acceptable operations. The WAA contacted 

the local (Kansas City) FAA office and was encouraged to adopt minimum 

standards in order to meet this challenge. 

14. In order to promote the orderly development of airport land, the WAA 

determined that if aerial application operations were permitted to operate using 

mobile containment pads, these pads would be taking up prime real estate and 

locking up the use of that land which otherwise might be used for the 

construction of airport buildings. This would not "promote the orderly 

development of airport land" and would prevent airport expansion as 

envisioned by the WAA. Thus, it was decided by the WAA that the minimum 

standards adopted would require that all aerial applicators who want to use the 

WMA as a base of operations must operate from a permanent hangar and use a 

permanent containment pad. 

15. Since the adoption of the Minimum Standards, a second agricultural operator, 

Frontier Coop, has also made the necessary investment in a building and land 

lease in order to satisfy the Minimum Standards. 

16. The WAA Board reviewed the Cora nco Great Plains Report regarding Jared 

Storm's containment pad which recommended that Storm Flying Services 

purchase portable berms that could be placed on the apron east of the existing 

containment pad and the location of where the aircraft are loaded, as well as 

that Storm Flying Service purchase a manhole cover to help seal off the manhole 

next to the loading area. The WAA has made it a point to ensure that Storm 

Flying Service has these items on hand and accessible in case of a spill. 

17. If the 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 other operators on the WMA. 

18. The applications Luedtke submitted did not comply with the two basic 

components of the Minimum Standards for an aerial applicator: a permanent 

containment pad or a building that could accommodate his aircraft. 

19. In the spring of 2012, the WAA discussed how the Jet Fuel System could be 
promoted to serve more tenants and customers. The location of the Jet Fuel 

System in the corner of the apron area makes it difficult for larger aircraft to get 

close enough to be serviced because of their longer wing span. 

20. The WAA discussed the need for a longer hose as part of the system to allow for 

the transfer of fuel from the tank to another tank or to a tanker wagon. 

21. The WAA decided to purchase a longer Jet Fuel Farm service hose. The longer 

hose makes it easier for larger aircraft to pull up to the pump to be served. The 

WAA was informed that this expense would not be federal 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 of the main FBO hangar building. In this area there is 

one tie-down space. Also in this are there are manholes for 100ll Fuel System 

and areas of concrete that are raised up slightly. Given the time of year the 

photos were taken, there would not have been as much demand on the tie 

downs as in the warmer months. Additionally, if the 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 of a lease violation by any of its 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 originally functioned 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 available for rent. 

Historically the WMA has had a full-time mechanic at the WMA who has also 

been In charge of all facility maintenance. In 2009, the relationship the WAA had 

with High Planes Aviation was terminated and the WAA began searching for a 

replacement. The responsibilities of this business/person included providing 

aircraft mechanic services to the tenants, and providing all the maintenance for 

the facility, buildings, and grounds. The WAA searched for a number of months 

to find someone or entity that could do both, and eventually the WAA 

determined that the responsibilities would need to be split into two contracts. 

25. These two contracts are now held respectively by Wanahoo Aviation and Storm 

Flying Services. Wanahoo Aviation leases the main FBO Building. When the WAA 

split the contract into two, it became apparent that the WAA had no shop space 

where a maintenance provider could store or work on equipment as needed. At 

this point the WAA Board began the discussion of ending the lease with the EAA 

group so that 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 hangar that is heated. 
26. The EAA hanger does not have a permanent containment pad in front of it. The 

doors on the EAA hanger do not allow for the aircraft that Walker Ag Supply has 

indicated it would be using for aerial application to be stored inside 

27. The WAA is Board is in the process of budgeting the cost to replace the entire 

roof of the EAA hanger. Some repairs have been made to protect the structural 

integrity of the building to protect it from moisture. 

28. Respondents answer as follows: the mechanic was 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. The WAA agreed that Frontier was allowed to proceed without a completed, 

signed agreement in place. However, while Walker Ag 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 the T-hangar lease provision prohibiting parking or driving on any 

turf areas, it is the intent of this provision to prohibit parking or driving on the 

turf runway and the grass around the runways and taxiways. Under no 

conditions are any of the tenants (excluding those maintaining the WMA) to 

driving or parking on the turf runway or the grass around the runways and 

taxiways. The purpose of the requirement was in response to issues at the 

airport several years ago. It was intended to keep people from driving all over 

the airport, not to limit parking around the hangars. 

32. Walker Ag Spray and Midwest Spray should remember that the WAA actually 

asked them to keep their non-aircraft equipment on the grass (not turf runway), 

so there was no preferential treatment given to non-commercial operators. The 

lease provision is not intended to keep pilots and passengers from parking next 

to the hangar out of the 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 of tenant" language is necessary for Storm and 

Wanahoo (FBO) because these are unique facilities at WMA. The Airport has 39 

T-hangars that are similar and interchangeable. The FBO and Ag Hangars are not. 

The WMA owns hangars that would fit Mr. Walker's aircraft; however, the 

spaces that have become available are spaces too small to allow this aircraft to 

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 operations they provided. These activities did not impede the 

runway or taxiway in any way. During this open house, Frontier also gave 
helicopter rides. 

35. Other indoor photographs captured the storage of non-aviation equipment 

inside Frontier's hangar which did constitute a violation of the Minimum 

Standards. The majority of the equipment in the photographs is used for 

providing aerial applications, but there were a few items that were not. WMA 

was initially unaware of these violations, but we are working with Frontier to 

ensure that they 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 of employees and customers. 

37. The event described in Complaint Issue No. 78 of the FAA Complaint was not an . . airshow. It was an airport promotion, and aircraft voluntarily performed 

acrobatic practice. The event was not open to the public as is implied when the 

term "airshow" is employed. 

38. The corporate hangar lease described in Complaint Issue No. 94 of the FAA 

Complaint is not a commercial lease 

39. WMA has not required an application from any other commercial aviation 

operator. The only time an application has not been required has involved a 

non-commercial use. 

40. There are currently no hours of operation for mechanics at WMA, but there are 

hours of operation for other types of commercial operations. 

41. WMA denies the allegation that they have not required an application from any 

other commercial aviation operator. The only time an application has not been 

required has involved a non-commercial use. 

42. Frontier's execution of a lease and decision whether or not to construct a new 

building had nothing to do with the WAA's decision to enact the Minimum 

Standards. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and 

under the laws of the State of Nebraska that the 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 of December, 2014, by 

r:fL'Wtc!L. .e~ . 
A GENERAL NOTARY- State of Nebraska 

~~~ lUCINDA J MORROW - _ ' · ··· My Comm. EJ<p. January 11,2017 
7/27/2013 

Verified that Frontier Co-Op was appropriately using the containment pad. 

g/l.fJ /!3 

Uev~S't-l 

' 

~~\1~ f?euteLO of MN\i'MllW\ ~ 

~~ P~tA~~ 
7/27/2013 

Verified that Storm Flying Service was appropriately using the containment pad. 

7/31/2013 

Discussed with Storm flying service about the following: 

8/1/13 

1) Moving the pickup so that the aircraft could load more directly on the main containment 

pad (they are loading on the secondary containment pad). 

2) Ensuring that the spill barriers are easily accessible if needed. 

Verified compliance of Storm Flying Service. 

~13113 u~ jp~ 

qt/i3 
AFFIDAVIT OF LLOYD JAY MORROW 

STATE OF NEBRASKA 

) ss. 

COUNTY OF SAUNDERS ) 

The undersigned Affiant upon being first duly sworn, does hereby depose and state: 

1. My name is Lloyd Jay Morrow. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years. I am of sound 

mind and I am competent to make this Affidavit. 

2. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit and they are true 

and correct; if called to do so, I could competently testify under oath as to the matters 

stated herein. 

3. Since February 2008, I have been the Vice Chairperson of the Wahoo Airport 

Authority. 

4. The document attached to my affidavit as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an 

email that I sent to Melissa Harrell on August 14, 2013 documenting my observations 

during random inspections that I conducted at the Wahoo Airport during July and 

August of 2013. 

5. The purpose of these inspections was to determine, inter alia, whether Storm Flying 

Services' loading of chemical on aircraft and storage of chemical was compliant with 

the Wahoo Airport Authority's Minimum Standards. 

6. As my email containing my findings shows, I did not find any violations of the 

Minimum Standards for chemical loading or storage by Storm Flying Services during 

my random inspections. 

7. Exhibit A is a true, complete and accurate copy of the email that I submitted to the 

Wahoo Airport Authority's Minimum Standards file. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and under 

the laws of the State of Nebraska that the foregoing 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