### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 1

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 2

### EXHIBIT 3

### EXHIBIT 3

### EXHIBIT 3

### EXHIBIT 3

### EXHIBIT 4

### EXHIBIT 5

### EXHIBIT 6

### EXHIBIT 7

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 8

### EXHIBIT 9

### EXHIBIT 9

### EXHIBIT 10

### EXHIBIT 10

### EXHIBIT 10

### EXHIBIT 10

### EXHIBIT 11

### EXHIBIT 11

### EXHIBIT 11

### EXHIBIT 12

### EXHIBIT 12

### EXHIBIT 12

### EXHIBIT 12

### EXHIBIT 12

### EXHIBIT 12

### EXHIBIT 12

### EXHIBIT 12

### EXHIBIT 12

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 13

### EXHIBIT 131 

### Robert Schultz
From: Gwen Balk [gbalk@centennialairport.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 3:33 PM To: bob@rbschultz.com Cc: Scott Storie; Robert Olislagers Subject: Your 5/29/11 FAX Request Attachments: Excerpts from Min Stds.pdf

Mr. Schultz, Regarding the Agreement Under Standards (AUS) dated February 10, 2011 between Epic Aviation (Epic) and the Authority and your request for Part 3 Section (11) of the Centennial Airport’s Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities (the “Standards”). It is part of Exhibit A to the AUS. Exhibit A contains Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3(11) of the S t andards.
Under the AUS, please refer to paragraph 8.a; 10; and 11.e.
Part 2 which applies to all activities and has a section on Licenses & Certifications, and Personnel. The application form is part of the Standards and sets forth the informa tion required als o.
Part 3 Section (11) is a catch

‐ all for activities that don’t clearly fall into another categories and does not contain an exhaustive and complete list of specialized or miscellaneous activities. In the case of Epic, it applied to conduct aircraft and avionics maintenance but not as a Part 141 Airfra me and Power Plant Repair Station so instead of Se ction (3), we placed it under the miscellaneous category although we would look to section (3) and section (4) for some criteria and definitions.
Attached hereto are the following sections of the Standards: Part 3 Section (3)

– Specific Re quirements for Airframe and Power Plan Repair; Part 3 Section (4)

– Specific Requirements for Avionics, Instrument and Propeller Repair; Part 3 Section (11)

– Specific Requirements for Specialized Commercial Aeronautical Activities; and Part 3 Section (12)

– Specific Requirements for Multiple Commercial Activities.
I hope you have a nice vacation. We ca n talk when you retur n. 

### Gwen C. Balk Director - Administration Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority 7800 S. Peoria Street, #G-1 Englewood, CO 80112 303-218-2904 Direct 303-790-0598 Main 303-790-2129 FAX



### EXHIBIT A

### EXHIBIT B

### EXHIBIT B

### EXHIBIT B

### EXHIBIT B

### EXHIBIT B

### EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PR OPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Centennial Ai rport Board of Direct ors on a Recommendation by the airport staff (“Staff”) to terminate Epic Aviation Services LLC’s (“Epic”) License to do business on Centennial Airport (“ the Airport”). Based upon the fo llowing findings of fact and conclusions of law, this Reco mmendation should be DENIED.

II. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Epic Aviation Services L LC is a m aintenan ce and avionics shop ope rating on Centennial Airport at 7395 S. Peoria St, Suite 105 and Hangar 9. Exhibit 1.
2. Epic filed its initial Application for Commencement of Aeronautical Activities on December 4, 2010 with Scott Am ore listed as sole owner and listing Epic’s business as “Repair, Installations of Avionics and Mechanical” (sic).. Exhibit 1.
3. Scott Amore is FAA certifi ed to inst all and repair avionics. Exhibit 1.
4. Mark May, who was listed as an employee on this applica tion, is FAA certified for A&P (Airframe and Powerplant) insta llation and repair. Exhibit 1, 8.
5. On February 10, 2011 Epic and the Airport Au thority agreed to an Agreement Under Standards (“AUS”) which was drafted by the Airpor t Authority and not subj ect to negotiations. Paragraph 1 of the AUS granted Epic “the ri ght to conduct the follo wing name d commercial aeronautical activities under the Standards at the Premises: Aircraft Maintenance & Avionics Repair as defined under Part 3 Section (11).” Inparagraph 8, Epic agre ed to “comply with the requirements stipulated for conduct of Aircraft Maintenance under Part 3 Section (11) as set forth in said Standards and with the Airport Rule s and Regulations.” Part 3 Section (11) of the

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 1 ‐

### Minimum Standards was attached to the AUS. No other section of the Minimum Standards was attached to the AUS and Epic did not agree to co mply with any other part s of said standards. Exhibit 2.
6. In paragraph 10 of the AUS, Epic agreed to “have in his employ and on duty during operating hours trained personnel in such number s as are required to meetthe Standards in an efficient manner for each aeronautical service be ing performed” and that “All personnel of Licensee are required to hold current Federal Avia tion Administration certifi cates and ratings, as they are required.” In paragraph 11e of the AUS, Epic ag reed to “at all times retain qualified and competent personnel to conduct its au thorized activities and said pe rsonnel shall be authorized to represent and act for Licensee.” Epic’s authorized activities were “Aircraft Maintenance & Avionics Repair as defined under Part 3 Section (11).” Exhibit 2.
7. In Part 2 of the Minimum Standards attached to the AUS, Epic similar ly agreed to “have in his employ and on duty during operating hours, trained personnel in such numbers as are required to meet the Minimum Standards and Sp ecific Requirements set forth herein” and to “provide a responsible person in th e office to supervise the operations in the leased area and with authorization to represent and act for and on [its] behalf ... during all business hours” and that personnel are required to hold the appropriate Federal Aviation Ad ministration Certificates and rating as applicable.” Exhibit 2.
8. The AUS and Minimum Standards did not c ontain any other personnel requirements. More specifically, neither the AUS nor the Mi nimum Standards contain any requirements with respect to the competence or qualifications of licensee owners or management who were not otherwise performing Epic’s authorized activities. The words “i n his employ” used in the AUS

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 2 ‐

### section 10 and the Minimum Standards, Part 2, unde r “Personnel” is not defined in the AUS or in the Minimum Standards. Exhibit 2.
9. Paragraph 12 of the AUS provided for cance llation and termination of the license for failure to pay fees and for “non-monetary default. ” There is no other provision in the AUS or the Minimum Standards for cancellation and terminati on of the license and the term “non-monetary default” is undefined. Exhibit 2.
10. In April 2011, Scott Amore sold his 100% owne rship share to Della C. Rosell and left Colorado. Exhibit 4.
11. On April 20, 2011, Scott, Della, and counsel fo r Epic m et with Gwen Balk, Director of Adm inistration for the Airport, and discussed the change in ownership. At this meeting, Ms. Balk requested notice of this change in ownership in writing. Balk at 32:15-24. Scott Amore wrote a letter, dated April 22, 2011 and received April 29, providing written notic e of the change in ownership. Exhibit 4.
12. On April 20th, Epic filed a new Applicati on for Commercial Aer onautical Activities listing Della Rosell as the owner. The Applicatio n also changed Epic’s services offered to “Maintenance, Avionics, & Aircraft Sales.” Ross Burke was listed as the Sales Representative. Exhibit 3.
13. In the April 20th meeting, Ms. Balk asked to be inform ed when Epic hired a new FAAcertified avionics technician to repla ce Scott Amore. Balk at 32:15-24, 34:8-15
14. At that time, Epic had been employing Gene “Dick” Niehues on a part tim e basis. Mr. Niehues is FAA and FCC certified for Avionics work. Niehues at 104:7-105:2. Exhibit 8.
15. In addition to working for Epic, Mr. Ni ehues had his own business, Front Range Transponder Services, which operates at Front Ra nge Airport. Exhibit 8, Mr. Niehues does not

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 3 ‐

### and has never sought business at Centennial Airport, though he has worked here when existing clients required him to come to th eir aircraft. Niehues at 107:8-18.
16. Epic did not have sufficient work to justif y a full-time avionics employee and chose to

em ploy Mr. Niehues on an as-needed contract ba sis. Niehues at 106:4- 21. Rosell at 88:11-89:4. Epic continued to employ Mr. Niehues on this basis until August 11, 2011, when Epic hired him as a part-time employee. Niehues at 106:22-107:7. Rosell at 89:7-16.
17. Epic intended to withdraw only the part of Epic’s second application which expanded their business to include Aircraft Sales and no other. Rosell at 95:12-18. On May 19, Kelly Benson emailed Sco tt Storie, Aviation Specialist fo r the Airport stating “Ross Burke has decided not to go forward with the Sales for Epic Aviati on Services, LLC at this time. Could you please return the fee for the Application for Sales to Epic Aviation Services, LLC.” (sic). Exhibit 14.
18. Scott Storie acknowledged the email on May 23 but did not clarify th at he was returning the entire application. Exhibit 14. At no time did the Airport requesta new application from Epic due to the change of ownership. Nor did th e AUS or Minimum Standards require a new application for change of ownership. 19. On May 24, Ms Balk wrote to Epic, requesti ng information “evidencing that Epic does have in its employ qualified m anagement personnel that can represent Epic for the activities of Aircraft Maintenance and Avionics repair.” The letter referred to “Aircraft Maintenance & Avionics Repair as defined under Part 3 Section (11) of the Centennial Airport Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities ("Standards"). Exhibit 5.
20. On May 26, Epic’s counsel wrote Ms. Balk re questing clarification of her May 24 letter. “I do not believe we have a copy of the entire Part 3 Section (11) of the Centennial Airport Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities ("St andards") because I cannot find

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 4 ‐

### the part you referred to as “Aircr aft Maintenance & Avionics Repa ir.” Would you be so kind as to fax or email that section to me so th at we can respond to your request?” Exhibit 6.
21. On June 2 nd

### , Ms. Balk emailed but failed and refu sed to respond to Counsel’s request for clarification as to what she meant by “Aircraft Maintenance & Av ionics Repair as defined under Part 3 Section (11) of the Ce ntennial Airpor t Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities” as stated in her May 24th letter. Exhi bit A. She cited instead Part 3, sections 3, 4, and 12 were not part of the AUS and were not applic able they apply since only to Part 145 repair shops, not Epic. Balk at 59:13 – 62:16.
22. On July 15 th 

### , Ms. Balk wrote to Epic again, w ithout clarifying her May 24 letter but threatening, “You are hereby notifie d that pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Operating Agreement the Authority intends to terminate your Operatin g Agreement if the requested information is not received within 30 days of the da te of this letter.” “Requested information” referred back to her May 24 letter i.e. information “evidencing th at Epic does have in its employ qualified management personnel that can represent Epic fo r the activities of Aircraft Maintenance and Avionics repair.” Exhibit 7.
23. On July 29 th 

### , Epic’s Counsel fully and completely responded Ms. Balk’s July 15 letter, not only providing detailed information in response to Ms. Balk’s request for detailing each of Epic’s current employees and one prospective employee. With respect to Ms. Balk’s specific request for information regarding personnel who w ould be doing avionics work, the letter said: “Mark May is capable and license d to handle the majority of th e mechanical work on his own, calling in Mr. Little and Mr. Ni ehues on a contract basis when the customer requires work beyond the scope of his license. As demonstrated by the attached, they are licensed for the services Epic advertises and which they provide . Della is the owner, but does not conduct any

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 5 ‐

### maintenance. Mark May is the only full-time employee who does perform maintenance. When Della is not present, Mark May is Epic’s aut horized representative.” Re levant credentials and resumes were attached. Exhibit 8. Ms. Balk admitted that the July 29 letter had answered the explicit questions posed in the Ju ly 15 letter. Balk at 63:1-65:22.
24. Ms. Balk wrote on August 9, 2011 acknowledging receipt of the July 29 th 

### response to her inquiry but asking new questions. “Does [Ms Rose ll] have any day-to-day hands-on management of Epic?” “Is [Mike May] a part-time employee?” “Has [Mike Hutto] been hired yet?” “[P]rovide the full name and certificate or license number, we can verify the information.” “What are [Kelly Benson’s] duties and responsib ilities to the Epic? How do they differ from Mechanic/Supervisor? Can she also act on behalf of the owner in the owner's absence?” “We also need clarity on Epic's management team and who has responsibility for managing the daytoday activities; who can sign checks; and who hi res and fires your employees. Please provide us with Epic's organizational chart.” “Please provide a satisfactory response to the above questions on or before 8/21/2011. In additi on, under separate cover, I will be e-mailing you a copy of the Staff Report concerning Epic Av iation which will be discus sed during the 3:30 p.m. August 11, 2011 Airport Authority Boar d meeting.” Exhibit 9.
25. Attached to the August 9 letter was a Sta ff Recommendation that the St aff intended to request Epic’s closure at the A ugust 11 Board Meeting. Exhibit 9.
26. Epic appeared in person at the August 11 st aff meeting with Ms. Rosell and Mr Niehues, prepared to answer all the ne w questions posed by Ms. Balk’s August 9th letter. Mr Rosell began testifying but was cut off by Airport Counsel, Brian Magoon, who recommended - over Epic’s objection - that the entire matter be continued to the September 8 Board Meeting.

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 6 ‐

### 27. The following Monday, August 15, Epic’s Counse l contacted Airport Counsel to attempt to resolve the issue by providing whatever in formation the Airport needed . Mr. Magoon authorized Epic Counsel to speak to Robe rt Olislagers directly. Schultz at 18:20-24
28. On August 16, Epic’s Counsel encountered R obert Olislagers at The Perfect Landing

restauran t and attempted to arrange this meetin g. Robert Olislagers declined the offered and demanded that future communications be made through Mr. Magoon and that he intended to resolve the matter at the Septem ber 8 hearing. Schultz at 19:5-9. 29. On August 17, Epic’s Counsel wrote Mr. Magoon answering some of the questions of the August 9 letter, but attempting to clarify the issues by reque sting definitions of several

am biguous terms in the AUS and Minimum Standards. Exhibit 10.
30. On August 26, Kimberly Breutsch, C ounsel fo r the Airport, responded to the August 17 letter but failed and refused to clarify any of the issues raised in the August 17 letter. Instead she listed six issues never before raised. Exhibit 11.
31. Among the six issues was an alleged lack of a valid lease. Exhibit 11. Si nce Epic’s previous lease was signed by Scott Amore, Epic’s landlord requested that a new lease be signed by Ms. Rosell. The new lease was signed on August 21. Exhibit B.
III. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority (the “Airport Author ity”), is a political subdivision of the State of Colo rado created by and subject to th e Public Airport Authority Law C.R.S. 41-3-101 et. seq.
2. As a political subdivision of the State of Co lorado, the Airport Authority is subject to the provisions of the Colorado Administrative Proc edures Act C.R.S. 24-4-101 et. seq. (the”APA”).

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 7 ‐

### 3. Epic Aviation Services LLC (“Epic”) is a licensee of the Airport Authority (Agreement Under Standards Ex 2 “AUS”).
4. Any action on Epic’s license is subj ect to th e provisions and prot ections of the APA.
5. C.R.S. 24-4-104(2) of the APA provides revoc ation of Epic’s license shall be based solely upon the “stated criteria, term s, and purposes of the statute.”
6. C.R.S. 24-4-104(3)(a) of the APA provides th e it shall be unlawful for the Airport Authority to revoke Epic’s license unless it has given Epic notice in writing of “objective facts or conduct established upon a full investigation that m ay warrant such action.”
7. C.R.S. 24-4-104(6) of the APA provides Epic’s license ma y not be revoked “until after hearing as provided in secti on 24-4-105.” And section 24-4- 105(7) provides that Airport Authority shall have the burden of proof.
8. In exchange for millions of dollars in ai rport improvement grants from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Airport Authority signed a grant assurance promising among other things, to make the airport "availab le for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination." (t he “Assurances”) United States Department of Transportation et. al. v. Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority, FAA Order No. 1999-1 (Part 16, Subpart G) Docket Nos. 16-98-05, 13-94-03.
9. In exchange for millions of dollars in ai rport improvement grants from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Airport Authority signed a grant assurance promising among other things, that the Airport Authority will take necessary acti on to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, thatat least 10 percent of all bu sinesses at the airport selling consumer products or providing consumer services to the public are small business concerns owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual. 49 U.S.C.

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 8 ‐

### 47107(e). Women are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged. 49 U.S.C. 47113(a)(2).
10. Under the Assurances provided by the Air port Authority to the FAA may not impose different conditions on the Epic than they do on similar licensees.
11. The Airport Authority may not impose qualifications for Airm an Certificate holders that differ from the qualifications imposed by the FAA.
12. The Airport Authority never establish ed “stated criteria” for the revocation of Epic’s license to wit, the only provi sion for revocation of Epic’s li cense is AUS paragraph 12 for nonpayment of fees and “non-monetary default.” Bu t since non-monetary default is undefined, it is not a “stated criteria” under which the Airport Authority may revoke Epic’s license. Moreover, when Epic sought clarification of the “stated criteria,” it received inst ead “issues” not “stated criteria.” Exhibit 10 and 11.
13. The Airport Authority’s attempt to revoke Ep ic’s license is unla wful because before institution of these proceedings it failed to gi ve Epic notice in writing of “objective facts or conduct established upon a full investigation.”
14. The Airport Authority violated its Assurances provided to the FAA by im posing different conditions on the Epic than they do on similar li censees to wit, no other licensee has ever been required to employ only non-contract employees.
15. The Airport Authority violated its Assurances provided to the FAA by im posing different conditions on the Epic than they do on similar li censees to wit, no other licensee has ever been required to have its employees approved by the Airport Authority.
16. The Airport Authority violated its Assura nces provided to the FAA by not taking necessary action to ensure, to the maximum extentpracticable, that at least 10 percent of all

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 9 ‐

### businesses at the airport selling consumer products or providing c onsumer services to the public are small business concerns owned and controlle d by socially and econom ically disadvantaged individuals.
17. The Airport Authority failed to meet its burde n of proof that Epic’s license should be revoked because it failed to provi de stated criteria upon which su ch revocation m ay be based and it failed to provide proof of objective facts or co nduct establishing that it met such stated criteria for revocation.
18. Rule 700.1 of the Centennial Airport Ru les and Regulations provides that “All commercial aeronautical activities performed on th e Airport must be approved by the Authority under the Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities.” A “commercial aeronautical activity” is defined as “Any operation which relates to the operation of aircraft as prescribed in the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority's Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activity.” The “Minimum Standards” in all cases refer to “operators’ not the operator’s employees. 19. Epic did not violate Rule 700.1 of the Cent ennial Airport Rule s and Regulations by employing Mr. Niehues because there is no re quirement that employees of a “commercial aeronautical activity” as opposed to employers (operators) be appr oved by the Airport Authority.
20. Epic did not violate paragraph 8 of the AUS in that it did not (1) change any required insurance coverage; (2) change its hours of operation; (3) cha nge the qualifica tion/certification required of its employees; (4) change the locatio n of its required faci lities; (7) change its company name; or (8) change in the scope of busin ess services. “Change in aircraft fleet” (5) is inapplicable. The only applicable change was (6) change in pr incipals or ke y officials of Licensee” and it gave written notice.

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 10 ‐

### 21. Epic did not violate paragraph 10 and 11e of th e AUS in that at all times relevant, it had in its employ and on duty during operating hours trained personnel in such numbers as are required to meet the Standards in an effici ent manner for each aeronautical service being performed and that all such personnel held curr ent FAA certificates and ratings, as they were required – to wit, for the amount of business they had as a st artup company, Della Rosell as owner and manager, Mark May working full time as an airframe and power plant mechanic and Mr. Niehues working part time as an avionics te chnician fully met this requirement to provide sufficient, qualified and competent personnel. Moreover, between Ms Rosell and Mr May, there was always someone on duty who was “author ized to represent and act for” Epic.
22. Epic did not violate paragraph 11f of the AUS in that it never violated any law, ordinance, rule or regulation of the United St ates of America or of the State of Colorado, Arapahoe County, or the Authority.
23. Epic did not violate paragraph 11s of the AUS in that it never assigne d or transferred the AUS. Epic always was and remains the Licensee.
24. Any dispute over the meaning of any unclear terms in the AUS must be decided against the Airport Authority which prepared the AUS becau se Epic had no part in selecting the words. Christmas v. Cooley , 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333 (1965)
25. The term “in his employ” is unclear and ther efore must be decided against the Airport Authority’s interpretation thatit is lim ited to employees who are paid wages as opposed to Epic’s interpretation that it includes contract employees.
26. The term “non-monetary default” is unclear and therefore must be decided against the Airport Authority’s interpretation that it incl udes failure to answer any question posed by the Airport Authority as opposed to Epic’s interpretation that it is limited to material breaches.

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 11 ‐

### 27. Epic’s alleged failure to timely respond to Ms. Balk’s questions is not a material breach and therefore not a “non-monetary default.” Dated this 16 th 

### day of September 2011.

Schultz & Associates LLC

By Robert Schultz Attorneys for Licensee Epic Aviation Services LLC

EPIC AVIATION SERVICES LLC PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ‐ 12 ‐This matter came before the Board of Commissioners of Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority (the ‘Board”) on September 8, 2011 on the Airport Authority Staffs Motion to terminate the Agreement Under Standards dated February 10, 2011 between Epic Aviation Services, LLC and the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority. Appearing were representatives of Epic Aviation Services, LLC (“Epic”) and the Airport Authority Staff. Both parties were represented by counsel. The Board heard the testimony of the witnesses and admitted exhibits. Having now considered the evidence presented, the arguments of counsel, the applicable law, and the history of tins case, the Board finds, concludes and orders as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT Epic is a licensee pursuant to an Agreement Under Standards. See Exhibit 2. Epic submitted its application in December 2010. Exhibit 1. The initial application identified Scott J. Amore as the principal owner. Id. Scott Amore and Mary May were identified in the application as the only two key personnel for Epic. j Epic’s application sight approval to offer repair installations of avionics and mechanical. Exhibit 1. Epic’s application was approved and the Agreement Under Standards was executed on February 10, 2011. Exhibit 2. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement Under Standards, Epic was authorized to perform Aircraft Maintenance and Avionics Repair.
In April 2011, Epic submitted an application seeking to expand their services on the airport to include Aircraft Sales. Exhibit 3. On April 20, 2011, the Authority met with Epic to discuss the application. Transcript of Proceedings, p. 20: 2-14. Due to a review of Epic’s application and discussion at the meeting, the Authority became aware that a change in ownership had occurred at Epic. Transcript, pp. 31-32. Epic’s new application listed Della Carol Rosell as the principal owner. Exhibit 3. During the meeting, Mr. Amore disclosed to the Authority that he was selling Epic to Ms. Rosell and he would no longer be associated with the company. Transcript, p. 32: 10-20. At that time, Gwen Balk told Mr. Amore that he was required to disclose a change in ownership to the Authority pursuant to the terms of the AUS. Transcripe’. p. 32:21-24.
In addition to the change in ownership, Epic’s application contained additional changes.’ The key personnel now included Ross Burke, Sales Representative and Kelly Benson, Office Manager. Epic had not disclosed these changes to the Authority prior to submitting the application. Transcript. p. 34:2-4. During the April 20, 2011 meeting, Ms. Balk requested that Epic provide the background information and credentials on the new owner and to advise who would be replacing the avionics expertise that was previously satisfied by Mr. Amore’s credentials. Transcript, p. 34:8-14. Epic only partially complied with the Authority’s request. On April 22, 2011, the Authority received a letter from Mr. Amore disclosing that he sold Epic to Ms. Rosell. Exhibit 4. Epic did not provide any of the other infonnation requested by the Authority at this time.

Epics application was never approved as it was ultimately voluntarily withdrawn by Epic. Exhibit 14.On or about May 24, 2011, Ms. Balk sent a letter to Epic reiterating the request she made for information at the April 20, 2011 meeting. Exhibit 5. The Authority requested that Epic respond to its request within 30 days of receipt of the letter. j
On May 26, 2011, Robert B. Schultz, counsel for Epic, acknowledged receipt of the Authority’s letter and sent Ms. Balk a letter requesting copies of the Minimum Standards. Exhibit 6. Ms. Balk responded to Mr. Schultz’s request and emailed him the requested information. Transcript. p. 38:3-9. Epic did not provide any further response to Ms. Balk’s May letter. Transcript, p. 38:14- 16. As a result, on July 15, 2011, the Authority sent Epic a 30-Day Notice of Termination. Exhibit 7. Pursuant to the terms of the letter, Epic had the opportunity to cure its default by providing the requested information within 30 days of the date of the letter. Ii
On July 29, 2011, Epic, through its counsel, Jason Schultz, sent a letter to the Authority that purported to be a response to the 30-Day Notice of Termination. Exhibit 8, The July 29, 2011 letter did not fully respond to the Authority’s request for information and raised additional questions that required a response from Epic. Transcript, p. 40:1-3.
On August 9, 2011, the Authority sent Epic yet another letter outlining the deficiencies in its responses and requesting clarifications regarding some of the limited information that was provided. Exhibit 9. Specifically, Epic had not yet provided the Authority with background information regarding the new owner of Epic, Ms. Rosell. Epic was asked to clarify the title and responsibilities of Mark May and Mike May. Id. The licenses and credentials provided by Epic were illegible and additional copies were requested. Finally, the avionics expertise was originally based upon Mr. Amore’s credentials. The Authority had previously requested information regarding who would be responsible for avionics following Mr. Amore’s departure. Id. Epic’s July 29, 2011 letter indicated that Epic may have been using independent contractors for avionics and such contractors were not approved to perform services at the airport. Transcript, p. 44: 4-24. Epic was required to clarify these issues and provide the remaining information no later than August 21, 2011. Exhibit 9. With respect to the avionics, Epic’s July 29, 2011 letter indicated that Epic is utilizing services of at least two independent contractors. Exhibit 8. Neither of the independent contractors has been approved to provide services at the Airport nor have they submitted an application to do so. Epic did not provide the requested information by the August 21, 2011 deadline. Transcript, p. 46:4-6. Epic did send a letter to counsel for the Board on August 17, 2011. Exhibit 10. Such letter, however, did not respond to the Authority’s request for information and, therefore, did not cure Epic’s default under the terms of the AUS. Transcript. p.46:12-25.
RELEVANT CONTRACTUAL PROVISJONS
Section 6 of the Agreement Under Standards requires that Epic maintain true and accurate books and records that are subject to the Authority’s review.Epic is also required to permit the Airport Authority to inspect Epics premises under section 7 of the AUS. Section 8 of the AUS (Notifications) requires Epic to notify the Authority of any changes in the elements of its operations including, but not limited to, changes in qualifications/certification required of its employees, changes in principals or key officials and changes in the scope of business services. Section 10 and 11(e) of the AUS and Minimum Standards Part 2 requires that Epic have in its employ trained personnel as are required to meet the Minimum Standards in an efficient manner for each aeronautical service being performed and to keep such personnel properly licensed or certified.
Section 11(t) of the AUS requires that Epic shall observe and obey all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the United States of America and of the State of Colorado, Arapahoe County, and the Authority which may be applicable to its operations at the Airport. Section il(s) of the AUS prohibits Epic from assigning or transferring the AUS without the written approval of the Authority. Section 12 of AUS permits the Authority to terminate the AUS upon 30 days notice due to any default. Section 700.1 of the Airport Rules and Regulations requires that all commercial aeronautical activities performed on the Airport must be approved by the Authority under the Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities.
CONCLUSIONS Epic is in default of its obligations under the AUS as follows: (1) Epic failed to notify the Authority of changes in elements of its operations including, but not limited to the change in ownership as required by AUS ¶jJ 8, 10,11 and 12; (2) Epic failed to comply with the Authoritys request for information by the August 22,2011 deadline as required by AUS 

## ¶ 12; (3) Epic does not have in its employ approved qualified avionics personnel as required by AUS 

## ¶J 8, 10, 11 and Minimum Standards, Parts 2, 3 and 4; (4) Epic is in violation of the Minimum Standards by allowing unapproved personnel to provide avionics services as prohibited by AUS 

## ¶ 11, Minimum Standards Parts 1 and 2 and Rules and Regulations 

## § 200.6, 300.1 and 700.1; and (5) Because Epic failed or refused to comply with the Authoritys request for information, it is unable to determine whether Epic has in its employ a qualified manager for its operations as required by AUS 

## ¶f 8, 10, 11 and Minimum Standards, Parts 2, 3 and 4It is undisputed that Epic failed to notify the Airport Authority of the changes in ownership and personnel as required by the AUS, paragraph 8. Although this is a default in and of itself, the Authority gave Epic the opportunity to cure this default. Exhibit 5. Epic, however, chose to ignore the Authority’s deadlines and refuse to provide certain portions of the requested information,
As a result of Epic’s failure to cure its violation of the notification requirements, the Airport Authority issued a 30 day notice of termination and gave Epic yet another 30 days to respond to the requests for information. Exhibit 7. Once again, instead of simply providing the information, Epic chose to ignore the requests andlor engage in arguments with the Authority about its requests. Exhibit 8. Epic was given until August 22nd to comply with the Authority’s request for information. It chose not to comply

- as a result, it is in default of its obligations under the AUS and the Minimum Standards. This refusal to comply with the Authority’s request is sufficient by itself to justi’ termination of the Operating Permit. The Authority cannot be expected to safely operate an Airport where a service provider is permitted to refuse to respond to requests for information regarding its operations or set its own deadlines for compliance. Permitting such conduct would set a dangerous precedent. Epic was approved to provide avionics services based upon the qualifications of Scott Amore. Exhibit 1. Once Mr. Amore was no longer associated with Epic, it was required to provide the Authority with information regarding its qualified avionics personnel. Epic failed to provide this notification on its own. Once such information was demanded, Epic revealed that it does not have any qualified avionics personnel in its employ. Epic is utilizing the services of at least 2 independent contractors that the Authority is aware of. Exhibit 8. Neither of the independent contractors has been approved to provide services at the Airport nor have they submitted an application to do so. Because Epic does not have any qualified avionics personnel, it is in violation of its obligations under the AUS. Epic’s responses were vague and incomplete regarding the manager of Epic and their qualifications. Upon Mr. Amore’s departure, the Authority requested information regarding Epic’s management and personnel. The information provided to date has been vague and incomplete. Ms. Rosell was represented to be a “responsible person” at Epic and it appears that either Ms. Rosell or Mr. May was designated as a manager when they were present. The application and AUS require that the background information of all key personnel be provided to the Authority. Ms. Balk requested information regarding Ms. Rosell’s day to day activities at Epic, in part, to determine what additional information might be required.
In addition to her role as a manager, during the application process, an owner is required to provide their background and financial information to the Airport Authority. When Ms. Rosell purchased Epic Aviation, she became subject to those requirements as well. It should be noted that an Assigment of the AUS is prohibited without approval. Here, in essence, a de facto assigment has occurred because the entire business was sold. As such, the Board would be permitted to deny the Assignment for any reason. Therefore, the Authority is absolutely permitted to request information regarding Ms. Rosell’s background both to determine her qualifications and to explore whether this is actually an assignment.Epic failed to provide any additional information in response to the Authoritys requests

- As a result, it is unclear who is managing Epic and whether such individuals hold the appropriate qualifications. By failing to provide this information, Epic has failed to prove that they have qualified management personnel and, therefore, they are in default. Epic appeared at the hearing and attempted to provide evidence that they can meet the Authority’s requirements to maintain their AUS with the Airport. Epic, however, was required to provide this information no later than August 22, 2011. The September 8, 2011 hearing was not the appropriate place or time for such information to be evaluated.
ORDER
As set forth above, Epic is in default of its obligations under the terms of the AUS, the Airport Rules and Regulations and the Minimum Standards. As a result, the Agreement Under Standards between the Authority and Epic is hereby terminated effective this 19th day of September 2011.

### RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -07 WHEREAS. this matter came before the Board of Commissioners of the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority (the "Board") on the Airport Authority Staffs Motion to terminate the Agreement Under Standards dated February 10, 201 1 between Epic Aviation Se~vices, LLC ("Epic") and the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority ("Airport Authority"); and WHEREAS, appearing were representatives of Epic and the Airport Authority Staff; and WHEREAS, Epic and Airport Authority Staff were rcprcsented by counsel; and WHEREAS, the Board heard the testimo~ly of the witnesses and received exhibits; and WHEREAS, the Board took the matter under advisement and continued the public hearing until the special public meeting held on September 19, 201 1 ; and WHEREAS, the Board having considered the evidence presented on September 8, 201 1. the arguments of counsel, and the proposed findings and conclusions tendered by Epic's counsel and the Airport Authority's Staffs counsel and having considered applicable law and the history of this case. the Board directed its counsel to prepare proposed findings and conclusions; and WHEREAS, the Board now finds: concludes, and orders: Findings 

### of Fact 1. Epic is a licensee pursuant to an Agreement Under Standards. 

### See Exhibit 2. Epic submitted its application in December 20 10. Exhibit 1. The initial application identified Scott 

### J. Amore as the principal owner. Id. Scott Amore and Mark May were identified in thc application as the only two key personnel for Epic. 

### Id. Epic's application sought approval to offer repair installations of avionics and mechanical. Exhibit 1. 2. Epic's application was approvcd and the Agreement Under Standards was executed on February 10, 201 1. Exhibit 2. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement Under Standards, Epic was authorized to perform Aircraft Maintenance and Avionics Repair. Id. 3. In .4pril2011, Epic submitted an application seeking to expand its services on the airport to include Aircraft Sales. Exhibit 3. On .4pril20, 201 

### I. the Airport Authority met with 

### ( Epic to discuss the application. Transcript of Proceedings, p. 2r)j"i:2-14. Due to a review of

Epic's application and discussion at the meeting, the Airport Authority became awarc that a change 

### in ownership had occurred at Epic. Transcript, pp. 31-32. Epic's new application listed Della Carol Rosell as the principal owner. Exhibit 3. During thc mccting. Mr. Amore disclosed to the Airport Authority that he was selling Epic to Ms. Rosell and he would no longer he associated with the company. Transcri~t, p. 32: 10-20. At that time, Gwen Balk told Mr. Amore that he was required to disclose a change in ownership to the Airport Authority pursuant to the terms of the AUS. Transcript, p. 32:21-24.

RESOLUTION IN? 2011-07 P.4GE I4. In addition to the change in ownership, Epic's application contained additional changes. The key personnel now included Ross Burke, Sales Representativc, and Kelly Benson, Ofice Manager. Epic had not disclosed these changes to the Airport Authority prior to submitting the application. Transcript. p. 34:2-4. During the April 20, 201 1 meeting, Ms. Balk requested that Epic provide the background information and credentials on the new owner and to advise who would be replacing the avionics expertise that was previously satisfied by Mr. 

# I Amore's credentials. Transcript, p. 34:8-412.
5. Epic only partially complied with the Airport Authority's request. On April 22, 201 I, the Airport Authority received a letter from Mr. Amore disclosing that he sold Epic to Ms. Rosell. Exhibit 4. Epic did not provide any of the other information requested by the Airport Authority at this time. 6. On May 19, 201 1, Epic withdrew its application to expand its services to include Aircraft Sales. See Exhibit 14. 

### 7. On or about May 24, 201 

### 1, Ms. Balk sent a letter to Epic reiterating the request she made for information at the April 20, 201 1 meeting. Exhibit 

### 5. The Airport Authority requested that Epic respond to its rcqucst within 30 days orreceipt of the letter. Id.
8. On May 26, 201 1, counscl for Epic acknvwledged receipt of the Airport Authority's letter and sent Ms. Balk a letter requesting copies of the Minimum Standards. Exhibit 6. Ms. Balk responded to counsel for Epic's request and e-niailed him the requested information. Transcript, p. 38:3-9. 9. Epic did not provide any further response to Ms. Balk's May letter. Transcript, p. 38: 14- 16. As a result, on July 15, 20 1 1, the Airport Authority sent Epic a 30-Day Notice of Termination. Exhibit 

### 7. Pursuant to the terms of the letter, Epic had the opportunity to cure its default by providing the requested information within 30 days of the date of the letter. Id. 10. On July 29, 201 1, Epic, through its counsel. sent a letter to the Airport Authority that purported to be a response to the 30-Day Notice of Termination. Exhibit 8. The July 29, 201 1 letter did not fully respond to the Airport Authority's request for information and raised additional questions that required a response from Epic. Transcript, p. 40:l-3. 11. On August 9,201 1, the Airport Authority sent Epic yet another letter outlining the deficiencies in its responses and requesting clarifications regarding some of the limited information that was provided. Exhibit 9. Specifically, Epic had not yet provided the Airport Authority with background information regarding the new owner of Epic, Ms. Rosell. Epic was asked to clarify the title and responsibilities of Mark May and Mike May. 

### Id. The licenses and credentials provided by Epic were illegible and additional copies were requested. Finally, the avionics expertise was originally based upon Mr. Amore's credentials. The Airport Authority had previously requested information regarding who would be responsible for avionics following Mr Amore's departure. Id. Epic's July 29, 201 1 letler indicated that Epic may have been using independent conrractors for avionics and such contractors were not approved to perform servicesat the airport. Transcript, p. 44:4-24. Epic was required to clarify these issues and provide the remaining information no later than August 21,201 1. Exhibit 9. 12. Epic did not provide the requested information by the August 21, 201 1 (Sunday) deadline. Transcript, p. 46:4-6. Epic's counsel did send a letter to counsel for the Board on August 17, 201 1. Exhibit 10. Such letter, however, did not respond to the Airport Authority's request for information and, therefore, did not cure Epic's default under the terms of the AUS. 

# 1 Transcriut, p. 46: 12-2S.g. The letter specifically stated, in palt, "Regarding Ms. Balk's lerter, we

will be providing answers to those questions as are appropriate at the hearing.''
Relevant 

### Conrractual Provisions 13. Section 

### 6 of the Agreement Under Standards requires that Epic maintain true and accuratc books and records that are subject to the Airport Authority's review.
14. Epic is also required to permit the Airport Authority to inspect Epic's premises under section 7 of the AUS. 15. Section 8 of the AUS (Notifications) requires Epic to notify the Airport Authority of any changes in the elements of its operations including, but not limited to, changes 

### in qualifications/certification required of its employees, changes in principals or key officials, and changes in the scope of business services. 16. Sections 10 and 1 l(e) of the AUS and Minimum Standards Part 2 require that Epic have in its employ trained personnel as are rcquired to meet the Minimum Standards in an efficient manner for each aeronautical service being performed and to keep such personnel properly licensed or certified. 17. Section I l(f) of the AUS requires that EPIC shall observe and obey all laws. ordinances. rules and regulations of the United States of America and of the State of Colorado, Arapahoe Coun~y, and the Airport Authority which may be applicable to its operations at the Airport. 18. Section 1 l(s) of the AUS prohibits Epic from assigning or transferring the AUS without the written approval of the Airport Authority. 19. Section 12 of AUS permits the Airport Authority to terminate the AUS upon 30 

# I days' notice due to any 

### vn-lna:xt;Z default. 20. Section 700.1 of the Airport Rules and Rcgulationb requires that all commercial aeronautical activities performed on the Airport must be approved by the Airport Authority under the Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities.

A. Epic is in default of its obligations under the AUS as follows:(1) Epic failed to notify the Airport Authority of changes in elements of its operations including. but not limited to, the change in ownership as required by AUS 

### 77 8, 10. 11 and 12. (2) Epic failed to comply with the Airport Authority's request for information by the August 22,201 

### 1 deadline as required by AUS 

### 7 12. (3) Epic did not have in its employ approved qualified avionics personnel as required by AUS 

### 1(l[ 8, 10, l 1 and Minimum Standards. Parts 2: 3, and 4. (4) Epic is in violation of the Minimum Standards by allowing unapproved personnel to provide avionics services as prohibited by AUS 

## 7 11, Minimum Standards Parts 1 and 2: and Rules and Regulations 

### 99 200.6, 300.1 and 700.1. (5) Becauae Epic failed or refused to comply with the Airport Authority's request for information; Airport Authority Staff is unable to determine whether Epic has in its employ a qualified manager for its operations aa required by AUS 

### 77 8, 10, 11 and Minimum Standards. Parts 2, 3, and 4 

### B. It is undisputed that Epic failed to notify the Airport Authority of the changes in ownership and personnel as required by the AUS, paragraph 8. Although this is a default in and of itself, the Airport .4uthority gave Epic the opportunity to cure this default. Exhibit 

### 5. Epic. however, chose to ignore the Airport Authority's deadlines and refused to provide certain portions of the requested information. C. As a result of Epic's failure to cure its violation of the notification requirements, the Airport Authority issued a 30-day notice of termination and gave Epic yet another 30 days to respond to the requests for information. Exhibit 

### 7. Once again, instead of simply providing the information, Epic chose to ignore the requests and/or engage in contentious and argumentative behavior with the Airport Authority Staff about its requests. Exhibit 8. Epic was given until August 22nd (Monday) to comply with the Airport Authority's request for information. It chose not to comply. As a result. it is in default of its obligations under the AUS and the Minimum Standards. This refusal to comply with the Airport Authority's request is sufficient by itself to justify termination of the Operating Permit. The Airport Authority cannot be expected to safely operate an Airport where a service provider is permitted to refuse to respond to requests for information regarding its operations or set its own deadlines for compliance. Permitting such conduct would set a dangerous precedent. See Transcript, pp. 46-47:25-19.
D. Centennial Airport is the third busiest general aviation airport in the United States and among thc 25 busiest airports in the United States, which group includes the commercial sewice airports such as 

### DIA, New York. Chicago, Atlanta, DFW, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Aircraft from Centennial Airport are within minutes of important Federal and State governmental operations in Denver. Further, Centennial Airport has many business parks and neighborhoods in its immediate vicinity. Pursuant to grant assurance 22(i) of the Federal grant assurances, the Airport Authority may act for the safe operation of Centennial Airport and to

RESOLUTlONh~O. 2011-07 PAGE 4 357426.1serve the civil aviation needs of the public. CJ: Arapahoe COINI~~ Pub. Airport A~rthor. 

### v. Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., 956 P.2d 587, 596 and n. 11 (Colo. 1998) (The Colorado Supreme Court recognized that Colo. Rev. Stat. $ 41-3-106(1)(h) gives the Airport Authority the power "to define and limit the scope of permissible operations at its Airport" and recognizes that grant assurance 22(i) "allows airport proprietors to prohibit specific aeronautical uses"). Thc power of the Airport Authority encompasses the safe operation of the Airport in all respects, which includes not only the qualifications and licensing of personnel to provide aircraft maintenance and avionics but also the qualifications and experience of management of aviation businesses. Further, the Airport Authority may assess whether inexperienced management may result in business profit and cost efficiencies being chosen over aviation safety. The failure to comply with Airport Authority Staff requests and being contentious and argumentative is evidence of such inexperience.
E. Epic was approved to provide avionics services based upon the qualifications of Scott Amore. Exhibit 

### I. Once Mr. Amore was no longer associated with Epic, it was required to provide the Airpo~t Authority with information regarding its qualified avionics personnel. Epic failed to provide this notification on its own. Once such information was demanded, Epic revealed that it did not have any qualified avionics personnel in its employ. Epic was utilizing the services of at least two independent contractors of which the Airport Authority is aware. Exhibit 8. Neither of the indcpendent contractors has been approved to provide services at the Airport, nor have they submitted an application to do so. Because Epic did not have any qualified avionics personnel, it is in violation of its obligations under the AUS. 

### F. Epic's responses were vague and incomplctc regarding the manager of Epic and the qualifications. Upon Mr. Amore's departure, the Airport Authority requested information regarding Epic's management and personnel. The information provided was vague and incomplete. Ms. Rosell was represented to be a "responsible person" at Epic and it appears that either Ms. Rosell or Mr. May was designated as a manager when they were prcsent. The application and AUS require that the background information of all key personnel be provided to the Airport Authority. Ms. Balk requested information regarding Ms. Rosell's day-to-day activities at Epic, in part, to determine what additional information might be required. 

### G. During the application process, an owner is required to provide their background and financial information to the Airport Authority. When Ms. Rosell purchased Epic Aviation, she became subject to those requirements as well. It should be noted that an Assignment of the 

### AUS is prohibited without approval. Here, in essence, a de facto assignment has occurred because the entire business was sold. As such. the Board would be permitted to deny the Assignment for any reason. Therefore, the Airport Authority is absolutely permitted to request information regarding Ms. Rosell's background, both to determine her qualifications and to explore whether this is actually an assignment. 

### H. Epic failed to provide any additional timely information in response to the Airport Authority's rcquests. As a result, it is unclear who is managing Epic and whether such individuals hold the appropriate qualifications. By failing to provide this information, Epic has failed to prove that it has qualificd management personnel and, therefore, Epic is in default.

RESOLUTION NO. 201 1-07 PAGE 5I. Epic appealed at the hearing and attempted to provide evidence that it can meet the Airport Authority's requirements to maintain Epic's AUS with the Airport. Epic, however, was required to provide this i~iror~nalion no later than August 22,201 1. The September 8, 201 1 hearing was not the appropriate place or rime for such information to be presented or evaluated for the first time. Thc safc operation or the Airport cannot rest upon the Airport Authority Staff having to bring motions to terminate. The delay inherent in such a process may adversely impact the safe operation of the Airport. Users of the Airport must immediately respond to the requests of Airport Authority Staff. 

### ORDER
.4s set forth above, Epic is in default of its obligations under the terms of the AUS, the Airport Rules and Regulations, and thc Minimum Standards. As a result, the Agreement Under Standards between the Airport Authority and Epic is hereby terminated effective this 13th day of October. 201 1. DATED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOI3ER. 201 1
Board of Commissioners of the Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority

Chair
ATTEST:

Clerk

RESOLUTIOI\'NO. 201 1-07 PAGE 6SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES LLC 9710 W. 82 nd Ave. Arvada, CO 80005 

### R OBERT 

### B. S CHULTZ 

### Attorney at law Licensed to Practice in CO, NY and CA Tel. (303) 456 5565 Fax (303) 456 5575 Bob@rbschultz.com 

### October 24, 2011 Via Email Brian Magoon Robinson Waters & O'Dorisio, P.C. 1099 18th Street, Suite 2600 Denver, CO 80202 Re: Epic Aviation Services vs. Ar apahoe County Public Airport Authority Confidential Settlement Offer Not admissible for any purpose in this or any other litig ation between the parties Dear Mr. Magoon: This is our attempt to informally resolve this dispute before filing a FAA Rule 16 complaint. I already m et with Mr Olislagers last Wednesday before filing the civil complaint but was unsuccessful. Ms. Bruetsch stated several times at the hearing that the proposed resolution “not preclude Epic from reapplying where they would obviously be re quired to provide all this information before an Agreement Under Standards would be approv ed and entered into with them; and based on their conduct up to that point, it appears that that’s real ly the only procedure at this point that is going to work.” Accordingly, I recommende d that Epic reapply and they did so. Since the Airport Authority expressed concern that the curren t owner, Della Rosell had no aviation experience - indeed they alleged that her ownership was a sham and that Mark May remained the real owner – I offered to take over Epic’s management. My offer was to move my airport office to one of the empty Epic offices so that we would be available at all times to manage Epic. I made one caveat. While I woul d assure the Airport Authority that all my employees were appropriately certified by the FAA and qualified, I would never agree to allow the Airport Authority to make my hiring or firing decisions. I started flying in 1966 and have 28 years experien ce as an aviation attorney and executive. I worked as a charter pilot and f light instructor and have also been President of two aerospace comp anies and Vice President of another. I see great potential in Epic but on ly with Mark May as an employee. He is well regarded in the war bird and experime ntal aircraft community a nd with the FAA. Unfortunately, however, Mr Olislagers made it clear that he had no inte ntion of recommending th is application or any application by Epic as long as Mark May was empl oyed. And I made it clear to him that I have no interest in managing Epic without Mark May. This has become personal for Mr. Olislagers.

### Brian Magoon Robinson Waters & O'Dorisio, P.C. October 24, 2011 Page 2 of 2 My settlement offer is still open. Please call me if you wish to discuss this further. Regards,

Robert B. SchultzLAW OFFICES OF 

### ROBINSON WATERS & O’DORJSiO, P.C.

November 1,2011

Robert B. Schultz. Esq. Schultz and Associates LLC 9710 W. 82nd Avenue Arvada. CO 80005
Re: Epic Aviation Services, LLC
Dear Mr. Schultz:
This response to your correspondence C.F.R. 16.2 1(a). Via Email & U.S. Mail

of October 24. 2011 is in accordance with 14

Contrary to the statements in your correspondence, this matter is not personal to Mr. Olislagers nor is the Airport Authority seeking to make hiring or firing detenninations for Epic Aviation Services, LLC (“Epic”). Rather, as set forth in Resolution No. 201 1-07 (the “Resolution”), pursuant to federal grant assurance 22(i), the Airport Authority may act for the safe operation of Centennial Airport (the “Airport”). The power of the Airport Authority encompasses the safe operation of the Airport in all respects, which includes not only the qualifications and licensing of personnel to provide aircraft maintenance and avionics but also the qualifications and experience of management of aviation businesses.
The failure and refusal of Epic to comply with Staff requests and the argumentative and contentious nature of Epic are documented in the Resolution. Subsequent to the Resolution, Epic commenced litigation against the Airport Authority and withdrew its new application filed prior to the Resolution. So, presently, there is no application pending but there is ongoing litigation. The FAA has recognized that an airport may exercise its proprietary powers to not enter into business arrangements with entities or persons that have filed or are threatening litigation. This principle also extends to you. It is neither prudent nor in the best interest of the Airport Authority Agreement Under Standards with anyone presently associated with Epic.

BAM!kc cc: Robert Olislagers

1099 18TH STREET. SUITE 2600 • DENVER, COLORADO, 80202-1926 info@rwolawcon-i • www.rwolaw.com DENvER: (303) 297-2600 • TELLURIDE: (970) 728-3029 to enter into an 

# 1

—7.



# a

Member of the Primerus Society of Law Fi,ms 360669.5722.001