1

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 Standards.

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 information required also.

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 Airframe and Power Plant Repair Station so instead of Section (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 Requirements 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 can talk when you return.

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 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 

AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This matter comes before the Centennial Airport Board of Directors 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 following findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, this Recommendation should be DENIED. 

II. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. Epic Aviation Services LLC is a maintenance and avionics shop operating 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 Amore listed as sole owner and listing Epic’s business as “Repair, 

Installations of Avionics and Mechanical” (sic).. Exhibit 1. 

3. Scott Amore is FAA certified to install and repair avionics. Exhibit 1. 

4. Mark May, who was listed as an employee on this application, is FAA certified for A&P 

(Airframe and Powerplant) installation and repair. Exhibit 1, 8. 

5. On February 10, 2011 Epic and the Airport Authority agreed to an Agreement Under 

Standards (“AUS”) which was drafted by the Airport Authority and not subject to negotiations. 

Paragraph 1 of the AUS granted Epic “the right to conduct the following named commercial 

aeronautical activities under the Standards at the Premises: Aircraft Maintenance & Avionics 

Repair as defined under Part 3 Section (11).” In paragraph 8, Epic agreed 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 Rules and Regulations.” Part 3 Section (11) of the 

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

EXHIBIT C
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 comply with any other parts 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 numbers as are required to meet the Standards in an 

efficient manner for each aeronautical service being performed” and that “All personnel of 

Licensee are required to hold current Federal Aviation Administration certificates and ratings, as 

they are required.” In paragraph 11e of the AUS, Epic agreed to “at all times retain qualified and 

competent personnel to conduct its authorized activities and said personnel 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 similarly 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 Specific Requirements set forth herein” and to 

“provide a responsible person in the 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 Administration Certificates and 

rating as applicable.” Exhibit 2. 

8. The AUS and Minimum Standards did not contain any other personnel requirements. 

More specifically, neither the AUS nor the Minimum 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 “in his employ” used in the AUS 

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

EXHIBIT C
section 10 and the Minimum Standards, Part 2, under “Personnel” is not defined in the AUS or in 

the Minimum Standards. Exhibit 2. 

9. Paragraph 12 of the AUS provided for cancellation 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 termination of the license and the term “non-monetary 

default” is undefined. Exhibit 2. 

10. In April 2011, Scott Amore sold his 100% ownership share to Della C. Rosell and left 

Colorado. Exhibit 4. 

11. On April 20, 2011, Scott, Della, and counsel for Epic met with Gwen Balk, Director of 

Administration 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 notice of the change in 

ownership. Exhibit 4. 

12. On April 20th, Epic filed a new Application for Commercial Aeronautical Activities 

listing Della Rosell as the owner. The Application 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 informed when Epic hired a new FAAcertified avionics technician to replace Scott Amore. Balk at 32:15-24, 34:8-15 

14. At that time, Epic had been employing Gene “Dick” Niehues on a part time 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. Niehues had his own business, Front Range 

Transponder Services, which operates at Front Range Airport. Exhibit 8, Mr. Niehues does not 

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

EXHIBIT C
and has never sought business at Centennial Airport, though he has worked here when existing 

clients required him to come to their aircraft. Niehues at 107:8-18. 

16. Epic did not have sufficient work to justify a full-time avionics employee and chose to 

employ Mr. Niehues on an as-needed contract basis. 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 Scott Storie, Aviation Specialist for the Airport stating “Ross Burke has decided 

not to go forward with the Sales for Epic Aviation 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 that he was returning 

the entire application. Exhibit 14. At no time did the Airport request a new application from Epic 

due to the change of ownership. Nor did the AUS or Minimum Standards require a new 

application for change of ownership. 

19. On May 24, Ms Balk wrote to Epic, requesting information “evidencing that Epic does 

have in its employ qualified management 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 requesting 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 ("Standards") because I cannot find 

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

EXHIBIT C
the part you referred to as “Aircraft Maintenance & Avionics Repair.” Would you be so kind as 

to fax or email that section to me so that we can respond to your request?” Exhibit 6. 

21. On June 2nd , Ms. Balk emailed but failed and refused to respond to Counsel’s request for 

clarification as to what she meant by “Aircraft Maintenance & Avionics Repair as defined under 

Part 3 Section (11) of the Centennial Airport Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical 

Activities” as stated in her May 24th letter. Exhibit A. She cited instead Part 3, sections 3, 4, and 

12 were not part of the AUS and were not applicable they apply since only to Part 145 repair 

shops, not Epic. Balk at 59:13 – 62:16. 

22. On July 15th , Ms. Balk wrote to Epic again, without clarifying her May 24 letter but 

threatening, “You are hereby notified that pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Operating Agreement 

the Authority intends to terminate your Operating Agreement if the requested information is not 

received within 30 days of the date of this letter.” “Requested information” referred back to her 

May 24 letter i.e. information “evidencing that Epic does have in its employ qualified 

management personnel that can represent Epic for the activities of Aircraft Maintenance and 

Avionics repair.” Exhibit 7. 

23. On July 29th , 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 would be doing avionics work, the letter said: 

“Mark May is capable and licensed to handle the majority of the mechanical work on his own, 

calling in Mr. Little and Mr. Niehues 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 ‐ 

EXHIBIT C
maintenance. Mark May is the only full-time employee who does perform maintenance. When 

Della is not present, Mark May is Epic’s authorized representative.” Relevant credentials and 

resumes were attached. Exhibit 8. Ms. Balk admitted that the July 29 letter had answered the 

explicit questions posed in the July 15 letter. Balk at 63:1-65:22. 

24. Ms. Balk wrote on August 9, 2011 acknowledging receipt of the July 29th response to her 

inquiry but asking new questions. “Does [Ms Rosell] 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 responsibilities 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 hires 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 addition, under separate cover, I will be e-mailing you a copy of the 

Staff Report concerning Epic Aviation which will be discussed during the 3:30 p.m. August 11, 

2011 Airport Authority Board meeting.” Exhibit 9. 

25. Attached to the August 9 letter was a Staff Recommendation that the Staff intended to 

request Epic’s closure at the August 11 Board Meeting. Exhibit 9. 

26. Epic appeared in person at the August 11 staff meeting with Ms. Rosell and Mr Niehues, 

prepared to answer all the new 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 ‐ 

EXHIBIT C
27. The following Monday, August 15, Epic’s Counsel contacted Airport Counsel to attempt 

to resolve the issue by providing whatever information the Airport needed . Mr. Magoon 

authorized Epic Counsel to speak to Robert Olislagers directly. Schultz at 18:20-24 

28. On August 16, Epic’s Counsel encountered Robert Olislagers at The Perfect Landing 

restaurant and attempted to arrange this meeting. 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 September 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 requesting definitions of several 

ambiguous terms in the AUS and Minimum Standards. Exhibit 10. 

30. On August 26, Kimberly Breutsch, Counsel for 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. Since 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 Authority”), is a political 

subdivision of the State of Colorado created by and subject to the Public Airport Authority Law 

C.R.S. 41-3-101 et. seq. 

2. As a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, the Airport Authority is subject to the 

provisions of the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act C.R.S. 24-4-101 et. seq. (the”APA”). 

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

EXHIBIT C
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 subject to the provisions and protections of the APA. 

5. C.R.S. 24-4-104(2) of the APA provides revocation of Epic’s license shall be based 

solely upon the “stated criteria, terms, and purposes of the statute.” 

6. C.R.S. 24-4-104(3)(a) of the APA provides the 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 may warrant such action.” 

7. C.R.S. 24-4-104(6) of the APA provides Epic’s license may not be revoked “until after 

hearing as provided in section 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 airport improvement grants from the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), the Airport Authority signed a grant assurance promising 

among other things, to make the airport "available for public use on reasonable conditions and 

without unjust discrimination." (the “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 airport 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 action to ensure, to the 

maximum extent practicable, that at least 10 percent of all businesses 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 ‐ 

EXHIBIT C
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 Airport 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 Airman Certificate holders that 

differ from the qualifications imposed by the FAA. 

12. The Airport Authority never established “stated criteria” for the revocation of Epic’s 

license to wit, the only provision for revocation of Epic’s license is AUS paragraph 12 for nonpayment of fees and “non-monetary default.” But 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 instead “issues” not “stated 

criteria.” Exhibit 10 and 11. 

13. The Airport Authority’s attempt to revoke Epic’s license is unlawful because before 

institution of these proceedings it failed to give 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 imposing different 

conditions on the Epic than they do on similar licensees 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 imposing different 

conditions on the Epic than they do on similar licensees to wit, no other licensee has ever been 

required to have its employees approved by the Airport Authority. 

16. The Airport Authority violated its Assurances provided to the FAA by not taking 

necessary action to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that at least 10 percent of all 

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

EXHIBIT C
businesses at the airport selling consumer products or providing consumer services to the public 

are small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 

individuals. 

17. The Airport Authority failed to meet its burden of proof that Epic’s license should be 

revoked because it failed to provide stated criteria upon which such revocation may be based and 

it failed to provide proof of objective facts or conduct establishing that it met such stated criteria 

for revocation. 

18. Rule 700.1 of the Centennial Airport Rules and Regulations provides that “All 

commercial aeronautical activities performed on the 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 Centennial Airport Rules and Regulations by 

employing Mr. Niehues because there is no requirement that employees of a “commercial 

aeronautical activity” as opposed to employers (operators) be approved 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) change the qualification/certification 

required of its employees; (4) change the location of its required facilities; (7) change its 

company name; or (8) change in the scope of business services. “Change in aircraft fleet” (5) is 

inapplicable. The only applicable change was (6) change in principals or key officials of 

Licensee” and it gave written notice. 

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

EXHIBIT C
21. Epic did not violate paragraph 10 and 11e of the 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 efficient manner for each aeronautical service being 

performed and that all such personnel held current FAA certificates and ratings, as they were 

required – to wit, for the amount of business they had as a startup 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 technician 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 “authorized 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 States 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 assigned 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 because 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 therefore must be decided against the Airport 

Authority’s interpretation that it is limited 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 includes 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 ‐ 

EXHIBIT C
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 16th 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 ‐ 

EXHIBIT C
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.

EXHIBIT D
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.

EXHIBIT D
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 4

EXHIBIT D
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 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.

EXHIBIT D
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.

EXHIBIT D
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 I 

EXHIBIT E
4. 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 services 

EXHIBIT E
at the airport. Transcript, p. 44:4-24. Epic was required to clarify these issues and provide the 

remaining information no later than August 21,201 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: 

EXHIBIT E
(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 357426.1 

EXHIBIT E
serve 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 5 

EXHIBIT E
I. 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 6 

EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES LLC 

9710 W. 82nd Ave. 

Arvada, CO 80005

ROBERT B. SCHULTZ

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. Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority 

Confidential Settlement Offer 

Not admissible for any purpose in this or any other litigation between the parties 

Dear Mr. Magoon: 

This is our attempt to informally resolve this dispute before filing a FAA Rule 16 complaint. I 

already met 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 required to provide all this information before 

an Agreement Under Standards would be approved and entered into with them; and based on 

their conduct up to that point, it appears that that’s really the only procedure at this point that is 

going to work.” Accordingly, I recommended that Epic reapply and they did so. 

Since the Airport Authority expressed concern that the current 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 would 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 experience as an aviation attorney and executive. I 

worked as a charter pilot and flight instructor and have also been President of two aerospace 

companies and Vice President of another. 

I see great potential in Epic but only with Mark May as an employee. He is well regarded in the 

war bird and experimental aircraft community and with the FAA. Unfortunately, however, Mr 

Olislagers made it clear that he had no intention of recommending this application or any 

application by Epic as long as Mark May was employed. 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. 

EXHIBIT G
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. Schultz 

EXHIBIT G
LAW 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

EXHIBIT H