1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. LUTHER KURTZ and SKYDIVE COASTAL CALIFORNIA d/b/a PHOENIX AREA SKYDIVING Complainant, vs. THE CITY OF CASA GRANDE Respondent. ) ) ) ) Docket No.: 16-16-01 ) )



## ~ 

## RECEIVED ) APR 11 

## 2016 ) ) PART 16 DOCKETS ) 

# ________________________) CITY OF CASAGRANDE'S ANSWER, STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The Respondent, City ofCasa Grande (hereinafter "City,) by and through its attorney undersigned, hereby files its Answer, Statement ofFacts, and Affirmative Defenses .(the "Answer") in response to tbe Complaint filed against tbe City in this proceeding. Designation ofPersons to Receive Service City may be served in this proceeding by service upon their City Attorney, Brett D. Wallace, at tbe following address: Brett D. Wallace City Attorney's Office 510 E. Florence Blvd. CasaGrande, Arizona 85122 T: 520-421-8613 bwallace@casagrandeaz.gov INTRODUCTION Complainant has operated a skydiving operation for over 9 years utilizing the Casa Grande Municipal Airport (the "Airport"). Throughout tbat time, Complainant has used a Landing Zone/Drop Zone/Parachute Landing Area (collectively "PLA") located a few miles

-1-1 2 3 4 north ofthe Airport. By all indications this PLA has served Complainant well, and the City has not objected to the location ofthe off-site PLA, located offthe Airport grounds. In fact, and contrary to his statements throughout this process, Complainant has, to the City's knowledge, operated his skydiving business consistently using this safe and efficient PLA. This Complaint 5 is NOT a result ofthe City prohibiting the use ofthe Airport for Complainant's flight operations. 6 This Complaint is NOT a result ofthe City seeking an end to Complainant's operations at the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 off-site PLA. Instead, this Complaint has been manufactured by Complainant to reduce his business costs at the direct expense ofAirport safety by seeking to force the City to allow him to relocate his PLAto a site that either (1) is located directly between the runway and taxiway of this single runway airport or (2) is located in a functional drainage basin that is both directly adjacent to the taxiway and that requires drops directly into the missed approach pathway routinely used by flight schools in the area. The simple fact is that Complainant's desire to reduce his business costs by increasing risk to his clients and other users ofthe Airport should not be permitted and Complainant can, and should, continue his safe operations with a PLA located a safe distance from the Airport runway and approaches. Instead ofsimply continuing to use the existing PLA as he has for several years, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Complainant has filed a Part 16 Complaint alleging that the City is not complying with its grant assurances and obligations to the FAA because the City has not permitted an unsafe PLA next to the runway and taxiway as proposed by Complainant. The City, however, is in full compliance with its grant assurances and obligations to the FAA. A careful review ofthe facts and supporting materials
- even those contained in the Complaint itself- demonstrates that the City has and will continue to work to meet its federal obligations and there is no basis in fact or law to find the City in non-compliance. The City's actions support the overall FAA policy to provide

-2-1 2 3 4 5 for a system ofairports that are safely operated and best protect property and individuals on the ground. CITY OF CASAGRANDE'S ANSWER The Respondent, City ofCasa Grande, Arizona, submits this answer to the Complaint by Luther Kurtz and Skydive Coastal California. The Complaint fails to provide a clear and concise 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 statement ofthe facts the Complainant relies upon, as required by 14 CFR 

### § 16.23(b)(3). Instead the Complaint is ajumble ofsensationalized factual allegations belied by the very documents he attached to his Complaint, presented in a narrative that makes it difficult for the City to fully understand and prepare a response to Complainant's factual allegations. To help facilitate the review ofthe pleadings the City has numbered the individual paragraphs ofthe Complaint (a copy ofwhich, without original Exhibits, is attached as Exhibit 1hereto) in order for the City to refer to the Complaint's allegations in an orderly fashion. The City responds to the individual allegations ofthe Complaint as follows: 1. Upon information and belief, City admits that Complainant started using the Airport in 2006 for skydiving operations and that the PLA was located north ofthe Airport. City admits that it had a lease for terminal space with Complainant but asserts that the lease was a month-to-month lease and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Answering Paragraph 2, City admits that Complainant has operated a business for several years using the Airport as a take-offand landing-area and using the off-site PLA located in a very large, undeveloped, unused area north ofthe Airport. City is without sufficient information to admit the remainder ofthe allegations in Paragraph 2 but has no reason to contest the same.

-3-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3. Answering Paragraph 3, City admits Richard Wilkie was appointed as airport manager 1 and that Mr. Wilkie did deliver a notice to Complainant that the City would be terminating his month-to-month lease in accordance with its terms as a result of renovations to be made to the terminal. City denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 3. 4. Answering Paragraph 4, City admits Complainant met with Mr. Wilkie and denies all remaining allegations ofParagraph 4. 5. Answering Paragraph 5, City admits that Mr. Wilkie was amiable in face-to-face dealings and emails, denies all remaining allegations ofParagraph 5, and further asserts that Mr. Wilkie worked diligently with Complainant to allow the operation to remain in the terminal longer than originally planned in order to help Complainant relocate and as a result ofa delay in the renovation project. 6. Answering Paragraph 6, City is without sufficient knowledge or information concerning the date ofthe proposal, but admits that Mr. Wilkie received a written proposal from Complainant. 7. Answering Paragraph 7, City admits that Mr. Wilkie denied the request for an onAirport PLA as a result ofsafety, insurance, and efficiency concerns. City denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 7. 8. City admits the allegations ofParagraph 8.

1 Mr. Wilkie no longer acts as Airport Manager for the City ofCasa Grande. The current Airport Manager is Mr. Kevin Louis.

-4-1 2 3 4 5 9. Answering Paragraph 9, City admits that Mr. Wilkie responded by email to Complainant and asserts that the contents ofthe email speak for itselfand does not respond to the out-of-context quotes in the Complaint. 10. City admits that Mr. Kurtz made a Part 13 Informal Complaint but is without sufficient koowledge or information concerning his motivation for doing so. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11. Answering Paragraph 11: City admits it was informed ofthe Complaint; admits that Mr. Wilkie reached out to other users to learn about their view ofthe safety of integrating parachuting operations through a PLA at the Airport; admits that Mr. Garcia sent a response with a number ofhis opinions concerning what information he deemed appropriate to consider during the process; and admits that Mr. Garcia said h had asked Flight Standards to determine whether skydiving could be integrated. City affirmatively alleges that the contents ofthe documents speak for themselves, and denies all remaining allegations ofParagraph II. 12. Answering Paragraph 12, City is without sufficient koowledge or information to form a beliefas to whether Mr. Kurtz or the USPA was contacted by FSDO but affirmatively alleges that such contact was not necessary to conduct the independent assessment performed by FSDO, and affirmatively alleges that FSDO did not contact Mr. Wilkie either when conducting their individual assessment. City alleges that, upon information and belief, FSDO did visit the Airport during its assessment. City admits that FSDO fonnd that skydiving could not be integrated safely into the Airport, and denies all further allegations in Paragraph 12. 13. Answering Paragraph 13, City admits Complainant sent a letter to Mr. Garcia and alleges the contents ofthat letter speak for themselves. City admits that Mr. Garcia

-5-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and Mr. Millard met with Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Wilkie to conduct an audit using an unofficial checklist. City denies that Mr. Garcia and Mr. Millard met with all parties with the most knowledge ofthe Airport and affirmatively allege that they refused to meet with other users ofthe Airport to discuss parachuting operations or otherwise. City admits Mr. Wilkie did not sign the Risk Assessment checklist, but denies all further allegations ofParagraph 13. 14. Answering Paragraph 14, City admits that it received a Skydiving Safety Risk Assessment Report dated September 17, 2015 and alleges the contents ofthe document speak for themselves. City specifically denies that the conclusion ofthe FAA was that skydiving could be safely conducted on the Airport. 15. Answering Paragraph 15, City admits it has been attempting to obtain the underlying forms used in preparing the Risk Assessment but has routinely been denied access to these records and requested information concerning the parties participating in the Risk Assessment, which to the City's information and beliefdid not include representatives ofthe FSDO. City admits that 

### Mr. Wilkie told 

### Mr. Kurtz he would reach out to stakeholders to discuss the results and did not identify specific parties within City management that he might consult during that process. City admits it received correspondence from Mr. Garcia, and denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 15. 16. Answering Paragraph 16, City admits that Mr. Garcia and Mr. Kurtz contacted 

### Mr. Wilkie but asserts that the contents ofthe emails speak for themselves.

-6-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17. Answering Paragraph 17, City admits that Mr. Wilkie contacted Complainant by email and asserts that the content ofthat email speaks for itself. City specifically denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 17. 18. Answering Paragraph 18, City admits it received an email from Mr. Garcia and that Mr. Wilkie did notify Mr. Kurtz that the Board was scheduled to meet in January and denies all remaining allegations ofParagraph 18. 19. City denies any allegations in Paragraph 19 and affirmatively asserts the Part 13 Informal Complaint process was still pending at the time offiling this Part 16 Complaint. 20. To the extent the allegations ofParagraph 20 are legal arguments, City does not respond to the same. City denies the factual allegations ofParagraph 20. 21. City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a beliefas to the allegations ofParagraph 21 and on that basis denies the same. 22. City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a beliefas to the allegations ofParagraph 22 and on that basis denies the same. 23. City admits that Mr. Kurtz began operations in Casa Grande in 2006, admits that he rented land for a PLA north ofthe Airport and leased space in the Airport terminal. City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a beliefas to any further allegations and therefore deny the same. To the extent Complainant relies on documentary support, City asserts the contents ofthose documents speak for themselves. 24. Answering Paragraph 24, the City admits that operation ofComplainant's business was permitted with the off-site PLA. City is without further information or

-7-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

### knowledge to form a beliefas to the remainder ofthe allegations but does not contest the same. 25. City admits the allegations ofParagraph 25. 26. City admits the allegations ofParagraph 26. 27. City admits that Mr. Wilkie notified Complainant that his month-to-month lease )'Vould not be renewed, and denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 27. To the extent Complainant references documentation, the City asserts such documents speak for themselves. 28. Answering Paragraph 28, City admits that Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Wilkie met and denies all further allegations. 29. Answering Paragraph 29, City admits that Mr. Wilkie permitted Mr. Kurtz to remain in the terminal in 

### order to provide him more time to relocate because the renovations were being delayed. City admits Mr. Wilkie has a friendly persona toward skydiving when using the off-site PLA, and denies all further allegations ofPanigraph 29. 30. City admits the allegations ofParagraph 30. 31. City denies the allegations ofParagraph 31. 32. Answering Paragraph 32, City admits Complainant applied for a variance with the County to allow him to build a building on his existing PLA site, admits that the City does not havejurisdiction to grant or deny the variance request, admits that the City sent a letter, the contents ofwhich speak for themselves, to the County concerning the zoning ofthis property that falls within the City's plarming area under Arizona law, and denies all further allegations ofParagraph 32.

-8-1 2 3 4 5 33. Answering Paragraph 33, City denies Mr. Wilkie intentionally delayed, but admits all further allegations ofParagraph 33. 34. City admits the allegations ofParagraph 34. 35. City admits the allegations ofParagraph 35. 36. City admits that it entered into negotiations with a similar user (emergency helicopter 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 service) that hadjust vacated the office space due to their similarity to the departing operation and because that operation did not involve providing unrestricted access to the public as proposed by Complainant. To the extent the Complainant refers to documents the City asserts the contents ofthose documents speak for themselves. City denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 36. 37. City admits that Mr. Kurtz has not rented office space or unused land on the Airport. City asserts that the contents ofany documents referred to speak for themselves, and denies all remaining allegations ofParagraph 37. 38. City admits the allegations ofParagraph 38. 39. Answering Paragraph 39, City admits Complainant proposed a new on-Airport PLA in a functioning drainage basin located adjacent to the taxiway, asserts that the contents ofany documents speak for themselves, and denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 39. 40. Answering Paragraph 40, City asserts the contents ofany documents speak for themselves, and admit the remaining allegations in that Paragraph. 41. Answering Paragraph 41, City asserts the contents ofany documents speak for themselves. City denies all further allegations ofParagraph 41.

-9-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42. Answering Paragraph 42, City admits that Mr. Kurtz filed a Part l3 Informal Complaint and denies the remaining allegations and characterizations ofParagraph 42. 43. Answering Paragraph 43, City admits that it responded to the Part l3 Complaint solely based on the real safety issues presented with Complainant's proposal. City asserts the contents ofany documents speak for themselves, and denies the remaining allegations ofParagraph 43. 44. City denies all allegations and characterizations ofParagraph 44. 45. Answering Paragraph 45, City denies that Mr. Wilkie did not include specific information in his response showing how PLA's at other airports were further removed and less burdensome to air traffic than the one proposed by Complainant. City admits the remaining allegations inthe Paragraph. 46. City denies all allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 46. 47. Answering Paragraph 47, City admits that Complainant's staffer was denied admission to the meeting. City denies the remaining allegations and characterizations ofParagraph 47. 48. Answering Paragraph 48, City asserts the contents ofany documents speak for themselves but admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 48. 49. Answering Paragraph 49, City admits Mr. Garcia again in his letter opined in favor of parachuting as he did throughout the process at the request ofMr. Kurtz, admits that Mr. Garcia said he would ask FSDO to make a determination as to safety ofthe proposed PLA, and admits the remaining allegations.

-10-1 2 3 4 50. Answering Paragraph 50, City admits the Scottsdale FSDO evaluation indicated that they could not support the proposed operation. The City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a beliefas to the remaining allegations ofthe Paragraph and therefore denies the same. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51. Answering Paragraph 51, City admits that Mr. Kurtz was given a copy ofand responded to the FSDO evaluation. City further asserts that 

### Mr. Garcia told 

### Mr. Wilkie that the document relied upon by Mr. Kurtz was for internal review only and denied Mr. Wilkie's request to review the document so the City cannot respond to any allegations concerning the same. 52. Answering Paragraph 52, City admits that after Mr. Garcia received the FSDO denial and Mr. Kurtz asked him to reconsider, Mr. Garcia and Mr. Millard conducted a Risk Assessment, including meeting with 

### Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Wilkie. City denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 52. 53. City denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 53. 54. Answering Paragraph 54, City admits that it continued to not allow an on-site PLAin light ofthe significant safety concerns given the Risk Assessment's determination that there was a medium risk even after the proposed mitigation efforts. City admits it requested information concerning the Risk Assessment and denies all further allegations in Paragraph 54. 55. Answering Paragraph 55, City denies the allegations and characterizations therein. 56. City denies the allegations and characterizations ofParagraph 56. 57. City admits that Mr. Wilkie did not send his draft response to Mr. Garcia, and denies the remaining allegations and characterizations ofParagraph 57.

-11-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58. Answering Paragraph 58, City admits that it has not implemented procedures for an on-site PLA as requested by Complainant. Cityis without sufficient knowledge or information to form a beliefas to the remaining allegations ofthis Paragraph and thus denies the same. 59. Answering Paragraph 59, City asserts the contents ofany documents speak for themselves. City admits Mr. Kurtz asked for the names ofthe committee members and denies the remaining allegations and characterizations therein. 60. City denies the allegations ofParagraph 60 and affirmatively asserts the Board canceled the meeting oftheir own volition. 6I. Answering Paragraph 61, City denies any allegations veiled within this Paragraph. 62. City denies the allegations in Paragraph 62. 63. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 63. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 64. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 64. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 65. Answering Paragraph 65, to the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. City denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 65. 66. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 66. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 67. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 67. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required.

-12-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68. Answering Paragraph 68, to the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. City denies all other allegations in Paragraph 68. 69. Answering Paragraph 69, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same. 70. Answering Paragraph 70, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same. 71. Answering Paragraph 71, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same. 72. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 72. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 73. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 73. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 74. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 74. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 75. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 75. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments, argument, and conclusions, no response is required. 76. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 76. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments, argument, and conclusions, no response is required. 77. Answering Paragraph 77, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same.

-13-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78. Answering Paragraph 78, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same. 79. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 76. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments, argument, and conclusions, no response is required. 80. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 80. To the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments, argument, and conclusions, no response is required. 81. City denies Paragraph 81 in its entirety. 82. Answering Paragraph 82, City denies that Complainant's continuing ofits business model for the past 9 years constitutes a financial loss, denies that the City has taken any unreasonable action, and denies all further allegations ofthe Paragraph. 83. City is without sufficient knowledge or information concerning the allegations made in Paragraph 83 and on that basis, denies the same. 84. City denies all allegations in Paragraph 84. RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS I. The City hereby provides this Statement ofFacts in accordance with 14 CFR Part 16.23(i) to substantiate the responses contained with its Answer. This Statement of Facts will also be used to demonstrate the steps that the City has taken in investigating all ofComplainant's proposals, participated in all safety assessments, and offering locations for Complainant to house his skydiving company. 2. Complainant throughout this process has portrayed the City as unwilling to permit his skydiving business at the Airport (including claiming that the City has refused to

-14-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 allow him to use the Airport to take offand land his planes.) These claims are simply not accurate as the City has allowed Complainant's business to operate out ofthe Airport terminal for several years and continue to allow him to use the airport like any other user even after Complainant had to move his business out ofthe terminal. 3. When it came time for City to remodel its terminal to better serve all ofthe users of the Airport, Complainant's month-to-month lease was not renewed in accordance with its terms and he was forced to move his business from the terminal. However, even in tenninating said lease, the Airport Manager consistently worked with Complainant to give Complainant sufficient time to find an alternate location. In fact, the original lease termination date was November 1, 2013 but due to a combination o requests by Complainant and delays in starting the terminal improvements, Complainant was allowed to stay inthe terminal building until July 6, 2014 to give them ample time to find another location. (Complaint, at Exhibit 1 ). 4. During the interim period between notice to Complainant that the City could not renew the lease and the move-out date, the Airport Manager pointed out several locations for rent or purchase in the City's adjacent Airport Industrial Park. Additionally, Complainant has at all times been given the option to purchase land on the airport on which they could build a hangar to house all oftheir equipment, including their plane, as well as having the ability to conduct their business operations. (Complaint, at Exhibit 1 ). 5. The City has never discriminated against the business ofskydiving from conducting its operations at the airport, nor has it ever prevented a skydiving company from using the airport to take offand land. In fact, Complainant rents both aT-Hanger that

-15-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 houses ills planes and an equipment shed that houses his skydiving gear from the Airport. 6. Although the City supports Complainant's business, the City does, however, object to the placement ofa landing area on Airport property as proposed by Complainant. As two safety assessments have shown, the Airport cannot safely integrate skydiving into the Airport without implementing at least 23 mitigating procedures. (Complaint, at Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 10). Under 14 CFR Part 105.23(b) the City, as the operator of an Airport without a control tower, has exercised its authority, in accordance with 14 CFR Part 105.23(b), to not allow skydivers to land on the Airport due to the safety hazards and inefficiencies it will create to the Airport's air traffic. The City takes its responsibility to provide a safe environment to all ofthe users ofthe Airport, both in the sky and on the ground, seriously. The Airport also has a duty to try to be selfsustaining by being financially responsible and, as the FSDO report showed, the Airport cannot integrate a landing area without it substantially interfering with the normal traffic flow ofthe Airport and that traffic flow would need to be substantially interrupted to avoid hazards. This substantial disruption could cause users ofthe Airport to go elsewhere whereby causing a negative financial impact on the Airport. 7. The CasaGrande Municipal Airport is a non-towered, Class E airspace airport located 7.9 nm from Ak Chin Regional Airport, 12.7 nm from Eloy Municipal Airport, 17 nm from Coolidge Municipal Airport, 19 nm from Chandler Municipal Airport, and 22 nm from Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. The CasaGrande Municipal Airport is located in the Stanfield VOR, initial approach to the CGZ ILS, and falls within the Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and the

-16-1

. 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prescott Flight Service Station areas. The UNICOM frequency is 122.7. The airport property is 640 acres, but over halfofthis acreage is located directly underneath the pattern. The Airport's one runway (5/23) is 5,200' x 100' has a single wheel capacity of 16.5 and a double wheel capacity of65.0. Its navigational aids include a 2-light Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) on right for runway 5 and onthe left for runway 23, a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR), and an instrument approach landing system (ILS). Currently there are I0I aircraft based at the airport, and the estimated average numbe ofaircraft operations is 328 per day and almost 120,000 a year, making it one ofthe busiest airports in the state. (Complaint, at Exhibit 6). 8. With approximately 328 aircraft operations per day, the airspace above CGZ is heavily congested. A major contributor to these daily operations are numerous flight training schools that utilize CGZ to practice their ILS and missed approaches. 9. In October of2006, Complainant was leased office space in the Airport terminal so he could conduct his skydiving operations. Complainant continued to lease that space in the Airport terminal uninterrupted until, in September of2014, Manager Wilkie inform Complainant that the City would have to terminate his lease and that he would have to relocate his operation within thirty days as the terminal was to undergo a renovation. (Complaint, at Exhibit I). 10. Complainant first proposed a PLAto ManagerWilkie on October 4, 2013. The proposed PLA was sandwiched in between the Airport's runway and taxiway. During the time that Manager Wilkie was reviewing the proposal ofComplainant, Complainant asked for numerous extensions ofhis lease termination date so that he

-17-1 2 3 4 5 could find a newplace to locate. Upon every request for an extension, Manager Wilkie agreed allowing Complainant time to find a new place. Manager Wilkie continued giving Complainant extensions until May of2014, when Manager Wilkie told Complainant that he had to be out ofthe Airport terminal by June 6, 2014 so that the renovations could commence. (Complaint, at Exhibit !). 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II. In July of2014, after careful review, Manager Wilkie determined that this PLA would cause a major safety hazard for both the skydivers and the patrons using the Airport (both in the air and on the ground.) Additionally, having a PLA located so close to the runway would cause a disruption in the Airport's efficiency which could affect the viability ofthe Airport. (Complaint, at Exhibit 4). 12. On July 25,2014, Complainant sent in a revised proposal where he moved the PLAto a locationjust south, but still adjacent to, the taxiway. This new location created a new safety hazard because the skydivers would be dropping directly through the establishedmissed approach flight path. Additionally, the revised proposal did nothing to show how Complainant would alleviate either the safety or efficiency concerns that a PLA so close to either the runway or the taxiway would cause. While Complainant did relocate the PLA south ofthe taxiway, this revised location is actually a retention basin that is not a flat surface and is used for runoffand storage o storm-water. Upon receipt ofthis revised proposal, Manager Wilkie advised Complainant that he would review the new proposal and let him know ofhis decision within a few months after he had time to review the proposal and consult with others in the City.

-18-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13. On August 8, 2014, before Manager Wilkie evenhad time to digest the revised proposal from Complainant, muchless make a determination, Complainant filed an Informal Complaint with the FAA against the City ofCasa Grande. In this complaint Complainant unjustly accused Manager Wilkie ofunreasonably terminating his lease and not helping him find another place to locate. First, there was nothing unreasonable about terminating Complainant's lease as the City, as the owner ofthe terminal, needed the office space that Complainant was renting to renovate the terminal to enhance its features for all airport users. Additionally, Manager Wilkie was extremely reasonable and helpful in Complainant's search for a new location by extending his move out date by more than seven months and in that time Manager Wilkie, even though there was no office/classroom space available on the airport, pointed out several places in the Airport Industrial Park that Complainant could rent or purchase and offered Complainant an opportunity to purchase a lot at the Airport on which Complainant could have built a hangar. 14. On October 3, 2014, Manager Wilkie sent his response to the Informal Complaint outlining why he denied Complainant's proposal for a PLA. Manager Wilkie again described his reasons for denying Complainant's PLA proposal which included the safety of skydivers and that the users ofthe Airport would be compromised ifthe PLA was approved at the location requested in the proposal. Manager Wilkie also described how a PLA that close to the runway would substantially interfere with the air traffic that uses the Airport and would affect the efficiency ofthe Airport and thereby could affect the revenues the Airport receives from these users. (Complaint, at Exhibit 6).

-19-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15. Manager Wilkie then goes on in his response to respond to Complainant's revised proposal to point out that the new PLA is in direct conflict with the missed approach flight pattern that has been established and that the new PLA is in a retention basis which is not ofa flat surface. 16. As part ofthis Informal Complaint Process, the FAA asked the Scottsdale Flight Standards District Office (hereinafter "FSDO") to evaluate the Airport and whether skydiving onto the Airport could be safely integrated. 17. On February 5, 2015, James H. Guthrie, who at the time was the Acting Manager of the Scottsdale FSDO, sent his findings to Nicholas Reyes, who was the Manager of the Regional Flight Standards Division, in a memo which stated "a significant amount ofdisruption to normal traffic flow will be required to avoid a hazard to other aircraft utilizing CasaGrande Municipal Airport." The memo goes on to say that the "requirements of 14 CFR sections 105.5 and !05.23(c) have not been met to avoid the traffic pattern, thereby creating a hazard to other aircraft." The conclusion ofthe memo was that the Scottsdale FSDO "did not support the proposed parachute operation." (Complaint, at Exhibit 8). 18. After receiving this report, Western-Pacific Region Airports Division ofthe FAA conducted another safety evaluation on July I, 2015 with FAA officials, Anthony Garcia and Mike Millard. On September 17, 2015, Brian Armstrong, the Manager of the Safety and Standards Branch ofthe Western-Pacific Region Airports Division, sent Manager Wilkie their findings in a Skydiving Safety Risk Assessment whereby stating that as the Airport currently operates, there were nine risk factorsjudged to be low-risk and five risk factorsjudged to exceed the desirable low-risk level, including

-20-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 two that were determined to be at a high-risk level. Within this Assessment, Garcia provided Manager Wilkie with 23 mitigation measures that could lower these risks levels to a medium and speculated that after implementation the risk could even be shown to be lower. (Complaint, at Exhibit 1 0). 19. This assessment from the FAA left many unanswered questions and concerns for the City including: who will be responsible for implementing the 23 mitigation measures, some ofwhich are outside the City's control; even after implementing these mitigation measures, the formal determination was that the risk would be medium with no guarantee that implementing these mitigation measures 

### will lower the risk level to the desired low level; how will implementing these mitigation measures affect the efficiency and, in turn, the financial viability ofthe Airport and all ofits users; and the effect the potential increase in insurance coverage to cover a skydiving activity will have onthe Airport's finances. After receiving this Assessment, Manager Wilkie told Complainant that he was going to take all ofthe information to the appropriate persons and boards to get feedback. While Manager Wilkie was working through the evaluation ofthe Assessment and the Informal Complaint process, Complainant filed this 14 CFR Part 16 Formal Complaint prior to the Part 13 Informal Complaint Process having run its course. 20. On March 14,2016, the City received a letter from Mike Williams, the Manager of the Phoenix Airports District Office, stating that the City had 14 days to compile a corrective action plan to introduce skydiving and to initiate negotiations ofreasonable terms to allow for a skydiving operation at the Airport. This letter shows how Complainantjumped the guu on the Part 16 Formal Complaint process by not

-21-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 allowing the Part 13 Informal Complaint Process to run its course. In fact, by prematurely filing the Part 16 Formal Complaint and serving an improper party, Complainant has cause a lot ofconfusion for the City and the FAA, as the proper parties in the City did not receive the Notice ofDocketing. Moreover, it appears that neither Mr. Garcia nor Mr. Williams was even aware during the Informal Complaint process that Complainant is still operating his skydiving business in CasaGrande. Clearly not all ofthe parties involved in the Part 13 Informal Complaint Process were even aware that Complainant had already filed a Part 16 Formal Complaint. DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES I. The Complaint does not establish a reasonable basis for fnrther investigation by the FAA. 2. The Complaint does not contain sufficient evidence to meet Complainant's burden of proofto establish that the City has violated any Grant Assurance or 49 U.S.C. 

### § 40103(e). 3. The City has acted in good faith in response to Complainant's request to establish a PLA adjacent to the runway and taxiway at the Airport. 4. The City is, and has been, in compliance with its grant agreements and FAA 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 obligations. 5. Complainant failed to either complete or abandon the Part 13 Informal Complaint process he initiated prior to filing the Complaint. 6. Complainant has failed to serve a property party to initiate this Complaint against the City ofCasa Grande.

-22-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ReliefRequested City respectfully requests that the FAA terminate the pending Part 13 proceedings and any purported obligations ofthe City thereto as a result ofthis Part 16 action, and deny all relief requested by Complainant.
DATED this 61 h day ofApril, 2016. City OfCasa Grande, Arizona 

### By 

# ]rLJd 1J0 Brett D. Wallace Attorney for Respondent City OfCasa Grande 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing CITY OF CASA GRANDE'SANSWER, STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES on the following person at the following address by mail: Richard J. Durden Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 27987 Richmond Hill Rd. Conifer, CO 80433 Counsel for Complainant Dated this{;_ day ofApril, 2016

-23- 

### By 

# 1MfrJJl Brett D. Wallace Attorney for Respondent City OfCasa Grande

# EXHIBIT ONE·:;. }

\ ; ) )

)I ) 

### . · ...·•··...··.·•·· .·.....· .·. < .. . •·••··•·•·••··.. · ..··. .


# .**~~~-·~1W.TION** :.:-":._;·-·<<· :--:<:.-.. \ ·:·:·_:·:::·-:.-.---::-.. ··.'. .- · .. 

### LUTHER KURTZ and ....•.·. ·•.·· ..• ••.·.•.···..••.•...• 

## <··.·. .. .. 

# r .. SKYD1VE COASTAL CALIF()RNlA .··· ·. · .. ) . d/b/aPHOENIX AREA SKYl)IVING.. ) · 

### Complainant, · 

### vs.

· THE CITY OF CASAGRANDE, ARIZONA Respondent ) ).· 

### ) 

### ) Docket No.: Not Yet Issued 

### ) ) 

### ) )


### 14 CFRPart 16 COMPLAINT 

### Please Serve: Richard J. 

### Durden Richard J. 

### Durden, Attorney at Law 27987 Richmond Hill Rd. Conifer, Co. 80433 

### T: 616/901-6516 avlawver@yahoo.com Counsel for Complainant L Entitles/Persons ThatAre the Subject ofthe Complaint 

### Luther Kurtz brings this Complaintfor himselfand as owner ofSkydive Coastal California, d/b/a Phoenix Area Skydiving ("Mr. 

### Kurtz" or "Complainant"). Since October 2006 Complainanthas been a commercial aeronautical user at Casa Grande Airport, Arizona ("Airport"), which is owned by the City ofCasaGrande, Arizona ("City"). As represented by counsel, Complainant makes the 

### following Complaint under

### FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirport Proceedings, 14 

### Code ofFederal Regulations ("CFR") Part 16 for 1

### )
) 

### ) )

) )
) ) . .

# ,;,lotio~ of49 USC

# 1!41I0.~@i<)~~~-~-' Nondiscrimination

# and23,E#:l:Js~e~ii~(s,£aA~~;t{)**cb~ply** mthgrant obligations and Federal

. '

..**~::_-** .·; .. ·: 

### Aviation Administration

### (Jr4ersi9fi.l!i.B;Ai1k∈;c.;,;itpltdttc~Manual, and relttted Advisory

. . ·· ....,............. ...: · ...., .......· .. : ...·· ··. . . . . . 

### Circulars prohibiting establishiU¢fitofe)(dl!sivi,)**r~ghtsat** 

### imairport, unjust discrimination against a commercial

# aeronauticalactivits~k~iafrport~es~andthe establishmentofarbitrary, unattainable and discrimi!latory staridards for

# ~c()@nercial aeronautical activity seeking airport access, againstthe City ofCasaGrande, Arizonaastheownerand sponsorofthe Airport, as will be more fully set out below. The City ofCasa Grande, Arizona, through its City Manager, James Thompson, may be Teached at 510 E. 

### Florence**Blvd~** 

### CasaGrande, Arizona, 85122.

II. 14 CFR §16.21 Certification


### Complainant began services as a commercial skydiving center on the Airport in 2006 under an agreement through which it would rent space in the airport terminal until such time as rental office and 

### classroom space became available on the Airport. (Exhibit 2) 1 

### At the time the parachute landing area (PLA)/drop zone (DZ)/landing zone (LZ) was located some three miles north ofthe Airporton rented land. (For convenience, the space used by skydivers for landing ) will be defined as aPLA, LZ or DZ, interchangeably.) ) ) _) 1 Due to the large number ofemails relevant to this matter, for convenience mosthave been collected into one, multi-page document and labeled as Exhibit 1. Throughoutthis Complaint, when reference is made to evidence in an email, it will be to Exhibit l and the appropriate page number or numbers ofthe exhibit. The single-document exhibits begin with Exhibit 2. 

### 2

### \j 

# l

**:;:~** 

### j) 

### }

**;~** ::"Y } 

### ) >·--

**'~)** ·y 

# 3 ) 

# "" ,_,. j 

## :;

**:-~** J -:-,

**·~** 

### '"' ;,j 

### )



# ~ **-.,_~** )

**~,.** j 

### ) ] j ) 

### ) 

### ) ) 

# t) t
\ I 

### ) 

## ' ,_, } 

# [p ) 

# ' ' ' ··•··•···· .··.· << 

# > ' .• 

# >' . Shortly aftersta1ting

# its



# s~nrice,@p~pla)n~tw~stoldby the City that it 

### could not operate a skydivingbusiuess



# ollth(\~o~. **fJo~~uicatiOJ1 b~een**  Complainant, theCity, the ScottsdaleFSDO and Los Angeles



## ~it:.tld~~j)ivisi~n re$olved .the situation and Complainant began what became several years df:successf:utandsafe opeiati(ln.



### (Exhibit~) ', :· .· -. :·:·._:·: . :_ .-.-:

### ·::

..: ..::-.--_·-: -:,:.. ·'

### -.:

## ......· . ' ... - . . -



### . After Complainanthad:been



# o~tatillg o)l theAirportfor over six years, a new airport ; -' -. -· ··- -._· .. - . 

### manager, Richard Wilkie, was appointed. Withina short time manager Wilkie began to execute his strategy for full denial ofairport ac.cl:lSSfor skydiving. It first surfaced on September 25, 2013, when he left Mr .. 

### Kurtz a voicemail advising himthat his business was being evicted from the office spacein theterminal it hadoccupied continuously since 2006. (Exhibit 2) Mr. 

### Kurtz met with managerWilkie on October 4, 2013 to point outtbathe had been tryingto rent other space onthe airportforover six years. At the meeting Wilkie not only said that Complainant's company was not going to be able to continueto rentits space inthe tenninal, it also would notbe allowed to rent any spac.e on the Airport and would not even be allowed to fly its clients out ofthe Airport. (Exblbit 2) Mr. 

### Kurtz reminded managerWilkie ofthe Airport sponsor's obligations to allow airplanes carrying skydivers-or any other occupants-to take offfrom its Airport and manager Wilkie .backeddown on the ban, agreeing to continue to allow Complainant's aircraftto take off carrying skydivers. (Exhibit 2) Wilkie also agreedto delay eviction ofComplainant's business from the terminal for an indeterminatetime and, initially, was amiable in face-to-face dealings and emails. (Exhibit 1, 

### generally) Later on the same day, Complainant made a written proposal to manager Wilkie to establish a PLA on the Airport. (Exhibit 3) 3) 

### ' ,!

)

) ) I 

# A~**mili~ on~~~1¥Po¥~~~.~loly**  7, 

### 2014,

# =-

**Wi~o ~~**  Complainant a letter



# (EXhibi~J.kaie 17



# ~4k~blf~)**d~~ymgthe** request foran



# on-~irport PLA 

### citing safety,



# insuran~eap<f~{[j~i¢llg;, OnJuly 25, 2014,·



# Mr.Kurttbtovided~••·Ietter.to.manager Wilkie addressing each ofthe .·__ .. _-_:_.:_.... .· .. ·.: ... ·..__.-_ . 

### reasons relied upon for thedenialandwitha 

## newproposalthatmet each one. (Exhibit 5) On August 1, 2014, managerWilkie responded by saying that he wocld meet mth airport users and City officials to discuss the proposal over the next few months "ifat all possible." (Exhibit 1, page 22, also see Exhibit 1, pages 18-21). As a result ofmanager Wilkie's actions, Mr. Kurtz made a Part 13 Informal Complaint to the FAA Airports Division,

**Westem~Pacific** 

### Region. (Exhibit2) Airports Program Compliance Specialist, Western-Pacific Region, Anthony Garcia, informedthe City ofthe Complaint. Manager Wilkie issued a letter to the aviation community in the Phoenix area seeking support for his opposition to skydiving at CasaGrande and held a series ofmeetings only open to those who were opposed to skydiving. The City, .through manager Wilkie, then responded to the Part 13 Complaint with its reasons for skydiving denial. (Exhibit 6) After consideration ofthe City's response, Mr. Garcia ofthe FAA 

### informedthe City, on October 8, 2014, that its denial was notreasonable,ihat itwas inappropriate to reach outto flight schools based on other airports to seekreasons to deny skydiving atCasaGrande and thatthe issue ofsafety was for the FAA 

### to detennine, not the sponsor. Mr. 

### Garcia requested that Flight Standards determine whether skydiving could be integrated into the Airport's operations "in spite ofthe reasons" provided by theCity. (Exhibit 7)

4

### ) } 

### ) -} J ) 

### ) 

# i

# 1 '**:~/** ) ) ) i ) ) 

### On

### Fob<- 5,

# 2frl5:<ws~~~Po"<Uf,~.w~~ 8) 

### ootiioillg

# fu'="'"

. . _,_. ,•', . . .. . ' ' -. 

### ofits safety audit. .The persoJ)Ilei

## ~~<!**@Mu~t¢dille** 

## aQi:liti.lld not visitthe Airportto perfonn ,,<-... 

### the audit. They did not contacrJ.:J1thirkurtfotfueUrH!iedstatesParach4ieAssociation to get expert input on parachute

# operations,;rhe~~enlo{ExhibitJ~)appearedtotrackthe Part 13 opposition letter (Exhibit 6) 

### Written

# b;rm~~gerWiWe and concludedthatthe FSDO did not

· supporttheproposed parachute operation..

. . . 

### Luther Kurtz immediately sent

### a lettertoMr. Garcia, Airports Program Compliance Specialist,Jistingthe shortcomingsin the Scottsdalesafety audit. (Exhibit 9) 

### OnJuly l, 2015, 

### IVfike Millard; Aviation Safety Inspector, ·General Aviation Operations Branch; AFS-830; Flight · 

### Standards Service- General Aviationand Commercial Division, and Anthony Garcia, Airports Compliance Specialist, Western-Pacific region, Airports Division- Safety & 

### Standards Branch, traveled to the Airport to conduct an on-site safety audit and meet with the parties most knowledgeable aboutthe Airport and its operations, including manager Wilkie and Mr. Kurtz. They carried outtheir review in accordance with the FAA's 

### RiskAssessment for Airports with Parachute Operations checklist Upon·completion ofthe on-site review, managerWilkie refused to signthe Risk Assessment checklist acknowledging his 

### presence at the review. (Exhibits 10 

### andll) On September 17, 2015,

### Brian Annstrong, Manager, Safety and Standards Branch ofthe Western-Pacific Region sent the fmdings made 

### by the FAA 

### during its on-site review andRisk Assessmentevaluation. Its conclusion was that with application ofthe risk mitigation measures outlined by the FAA, skydiving could besafely conducted onto the Airport. (Exhibit 1 0)

5)
)

) ) 

# ) ,.7 ) ) ) 

### The City's resp6nseto



## th~FAA ·wasto delb®dJlte



## ~nderlying fonn the FAA used in tlle safety audit andto !mowwho



# ~t~efAJ\~asinviiveaiq rellching the decision (Exhibit 1, pages

.58-61) 

### and to ignorelMr.



# Kmiz'sr~tlests**tol!egotiakthe~cessary** arrangements to 

### establish . skydiving. Manager Willdethen saidhewasgoing

**tPn~achout** 

### to "stakeholders" tosee ifit wouldbepossible for skydiving to•tal\:epl;l.Qe. {ExJljbit 1,page 60) Ratherth®take any action

. . . .· . ·... ·.. .. . . . 

### to work with the Airportusers andMr. Kurtz

# and bill com.pany, m®agerWilkie refused to hold any meetings in which Airport users and Mr..Kurtz

### could discuss integration ofskydiving onto the Airport. In addition, managerWilkie refusedtorespond to Mr. 

### Kurtz's 

### requests that he provide the names oft.'los.e hereferredto as "stakeholders;' so that Mr. 

### Kurtz could reach out to them regarding integrationofskydiving at the Airport. TheFAA, through Al!thony Garcia, responded immediately to ManagerWilkie's dem®d for underlying information onthe report and stated: ''We are providing this response as a timely reply to your request, but we shall be communicating with you again shortly to detennine what actions the City is taking to make the airportavailable for all kinds and classes ofaeronautical activities, whichincludes skydiving." (Exhibit 1, page62) On October 20, 2015, 

### Mr. Garcia followed up his communication with an email to ManagerWilkie demanding to know why 

### the City was continuing its stance ofdelaying rather than 'lakingaction to allow seydiving onthe 

### Airport. (Exhibit 1, pages 62.fi4) Complainant Luther Kurtz 

### attempted to contact manager Willie following Mr. Garcia's email, but Mr, Wilkie refusedto respond or take any actionto negotiate procedures for skydiving on tlle Airport. (Exhibit 1, pages 64-66) On November 20,2015, 

### afull month afterMr. Garcia's email, manager Wilkie finally responded with an email thatdid not agree to allow skydiving but said that an old airport 6**'~** :7 'WI ;.;;.7 j)**;~ ?~**  ,:·:·?**}:~** ;} 

## 3 ) 

### ) ') ;:;,_-7 ,J 

### ) ':'''< 

# Ig ·.**'~** ;,r ') J

..

### ,.**~J** 

### ) ) 

### ) :;;. j**.~.** } 

### J 

# l**~** ) ) )

i

## ~0 ) 

### committee, long defunct,

# :()f,q~<l,en#~td lt)>'nrbers hadbeen brought back into existence to 

### "move the discussion'' on

# skY~~~~.**~bitl,•p~ge65).lW;.** Kurtz asked manager Wilkie for contactinformation for the:rtu:orl1bkrsso heei)uldprovideinforrrtation on skydiving to them. (Exhibit 1, page 65) WhenJvtr:

# I{Urtt said•

## he \'louldprovidetheminformation onparachute operations at the next

# commi~ee,lfi~ting,MaflgerWilkie cancelled the meeting andthen said that Ul) 

### action would be takenbytheconunittee

# ~tilatleastJanuary or February of2016. (Exhibit 1, page 67) Upon receiving a copy oflminager Wilkie's statement that no action would be taken on skydiving until after the 

### fmlt ofthe year, Airports Program Compliance Specialist Garcia sent another email to Wilkie advising himthat the delay was unreasonable and asking why the City was continuing to drag itsfeet. (Exhibit 1, page 65) Wilkie responded by stating thatthe committee to discuss sk-ydiving might ormight not get to the.subject in January 2016. As may be seenfrom the above; Complainanthereby certifies thathe and his company have made a substantial and reasonable good faith effort to resolve the matterinformally, including a Prut 13 Complaintthat found in his favor, andthere is no reasonable prospect of practical and timely resolution ofthe dispute. As a result ofComplainant's repeated requests for access to the Airport, the FAA's findings on safety and the City's passive aggressive policy against the FAA's requirements to equally allow aeronautical users access to its Airport despite assertive action by the FAA office involved, Complainant elected to file this Complaint and respectfully requests that the FAA find ) he and his company have fulfilled its 14 CFR § 

### 1621 obligations.

l / 

### 7.l ) ) 

### ) ) ) . . . 

## ·· ..

### ···.•... · ' ·.. ···· 

### · .. ·· .· .·· .·.· .•. ·..

·. ·\:
.._·:... . - . ·. . ·_, . . -. . 

## ·



## ~)\ **~actllatB~Ickgroulld** ··

A. The Long-Established



# Stcydi~i~~;(Operati<ln... •·. ·

. - -- _· .· .·' ·_<--:->:':_<·_:...:_·.,:.-·,_:---< .. · __--. -_ .. .. . . .. . 

### Luther Kurtz has beena skydiyersince

### l997. ·Heholds, or has held, the following United States Parachute Associationratings:



# ~~dentinstructor/Examiner, AFF Instructor, Coach/Examiner, Static Line Instructor, and 

## IAD Instructor. He has completed over9,00(} jumps. He also holds an FAA Co111tnercial pilot certificate and has approximately 1,200 hours of flying time, mostlyinsk-ydiving operations. Mr. Kurtz started offering sk-ydiving services to the public in 2001 through SkydiveHarborSprings, Inc. in Michigan. Later, while attending the University ofCalifornia atSanDiego he startedanother skydiving center, Pacific Coast Skydiving Inc. Following graduation, he went into the business ofstinting

### skydiving centers around the country. Since 2007, Mr. Kurtz has successfully negotiated with more than 20 airports to offer skydiving services to the public. Eight ofthe operations served major metropolitan areas including; Phoenix, SanDiego, Los Angeles,Detroit, Washington DC, Atlanta, Fort Myers, and :Miami. Currently, Mr. Kurtz's businesses offer skydiving services atmore than ten airports, with 

### six nearmajor metrQpolitan·areas. In 2006, Mr. Kurtz approached the Casa. Grande Airport about operating a commercial skydiving company on. the Airport. During the course ofdiscussions, it was agreed that he would rent landfor aPLA some three miles north ofthe Airport andbase the business in the Airport tenninai becausethere was no office/classroom space available for rent on the Airport.

8

### )

) ) 

### ) ) )
) 

### (Exhibit 2) Mr. 

## Kurttadvised (Jity

# p~rso~e!Jbath~wisbedtotent such space on the Airport should it

### become avaihtble. · ..·· . ·.··: ··:. ·

.. 

### A

# sh~rt time afrers.tartm·· ..·.g·····..o .. p

.erations:

# the.Cizytold~. Kum that his company could not

...·, ... ·.... ··.· 

### .....: ,_.. . . . 

### operate its business onthe }\jl'port Once Mr.

# Ku~**c~?lU.Ull;)llicated** withthe Cizy, the Scottsdale, Arizona FSDO andthe Los

# Angel~sAfrports Divisiort,theCity again agreed that );Jr. 

### Kurtz's company couldoperate .a

### co!l1!11eTcial<ikydiving 

### business from the tenninal. (Exhibit 2) The operation ofMr. Kum'

### sskydiving business at the Airportwent so well that when he applied to open a commercial skydivillg operation on an airportin Virginia, Kevm Louis, the CasaGrandeAirport Director, wrote a letter praising Kut'a:'s operation as safe, professional and courteous. (Exhibit 12) Later, manager Wilkie;. ill

### writing, described 

### Mr. Kurtz's company as a good Airporttenant. (Exhibit l, page 11) B. 

### The Airport. CasaGrande Airport is a smgle-runway, general aviation airport owned by sponsor, the Cizy ofCasa Grande,.Arizona, the recipient offederal AlP grant funds. According to the Cizy, there are some 101

### aircraft based on thefield and in the year endingApril 29; 2014, 

### theAirport average 328 aircraft operations per day-aportion ofwhich-were Complainmt's aircraft. During the time Complainmt has 

### operated from the Airport there have been a number ofaircraft accidents and incidents on or near the Airport. None involved skydiving. 

## c. Notice ofEviction from Office Space in the Tenninal.

· Shortly afterRichard Wilkiebecame the new airport manager, he began an apparent three-pronged strategy to deny all skydiving access to the Airport-evict Complainantfrom its 9

### established office space o11

# ~¢**AJ~o~, r¢fut~etorentitneWofjlce**  space anywhere on the Airport and prevent 

### it

# frolllbUici~g·~**~?fice adj;i6~~ttoi~**  Orf"aiiport PLA. Step Me occurred withoutwarning on

# Septernb¢!·23,idij**l1l~~ger~iilkie'le~avoicemail** for Mr. Kmiz

# telling him that his business

# was.!)eing:tbto'YlioiltoftheAirp~rtterminal and he had 30 

### days to vacate

# ~ the premises.

# (Exhibit2)Manager~Hltie;s subsequt1!1tjustification for eviction from the**~** 

### terminal included,**;~~** :3



### )
) ) ) )

)
} 

### "...theplannedrenovatioi).s to the terminalalso.presented the city withan excellentopportunity to reprogramthe very limited space 

## iiithe terminal in onierto erthance the image and reputation ofthe airport, tobettermeettheneeds ofthe increase in flight operations that theairportis.**vurr~tly** 

### experiencing and is anticipating with the development ofthe PhoenixM:artinternationalBusiness Sourcing Center, and topositionthe airportto be able to capture some ofthe significall.ttourism dollars thatare rt1lated to the major events held inthe valley bypromoting ourairportas an alternative to themore congestedairports ilp inthe valley." (Exhibit 1p. 11) Mr. Kurtz was allowed to meet with manager Wilkie on October4, 2013. 

### Wilkie told Mr. Kurtz that

### in addition to his skydiving operation being evicted from a space 

### ithad used for six years, itwas not goingto be allowedto rent space anywhere on the Airport and would be

. . 

### prohibited from flying skydivers from the 

### Airport. (Exhibit 2) 

### Manager Wilkie was reminded by Mr. 

### Kurtz that the Airport sponsor could not prohibit airplanes engaged in a legitimate aeronautical activity-that ofcarrying skydivers-from taking offfrom the Airport. At thatpoint, Mr. 

### Wilkie backed down on the skydiving takeoffban and agreed to delay eviction ofthe company from the terminal. (Exhibit 2) 

### Emails showthat manager Wilkie thenpresented a friendly persona toward skydiving for a tin1e. (Exhibit 1) D. 

### On-Airport PLA Application.

10

# ):

**3~** )

) 

### ) ) 

### ) 

# l-mmclyfull•~•"~"'"'**~~i~#twn~<** M' 

# M-,maw. proposal and application



# to·th~Cio/tbrOU~-~~ag~t~i!Jd~to-establish a PLA on the Airport andto establish oifice and



### da8s~ool'l1faciliti¢s o!} fue'f>ltp<n:f. {Exhibit3} The City, through



# manager~il~e,delayedrespondingto the proposal for eight months. E. 

### Off-Airnort Office Proposal.·· Due to the hostility towardskydiving exhibitedby manager Wilkie, Mr. 

### Kurtz began looking for options.to continue to ope;ratehis blJsiness in away that minimized the need to deal with Wilkie and the City.. He. obtained.permission from the ovmer oftherural property he was renting for a PLA to erecta building

## to house his company ori site. Mr. 

### Kurtz then applied to the local County (the City did .not havejurisdiction or control overthe site) to have the zoning ofthat property changed so thathe could buildthe building. Ten days beforethe hearing for the zoning variance, despite a lackof jurisdiction orcontrol over the site; City personnel senta lettertothe County Zoning Board opposing the variance. (Exhibit 13) The variance 

### was denied. Manager Wilkie originally denied involvementwiththe 

### City's opposition to the variance; however, the

. langliage oftheCity's letterwas composed by someone with knowledge ofComplainant's

business. Later, another denial by manager Wilkie regarding his actions proved to be false. He held a number ofmeetings for areapilots to stirup opposition to sk-ydiving onthe Airport. At one, he denied admission to 

### a staffmemberofMr. Kurtz's company, repeatedly claiming that the ) meeting was only for invitees, yetthe group that announced the meeting at manager Wilkie's ) requestproducedevidence that manager Wilkie's request was for a public meeting. (Exhibit 1 

### ) pages 30-42) F. Office Space Denial. ) 

### 11 )) )


### )**·~** ;? ) ) 

### The proposal.f&ran:on-Ai;porl:'PLAi:n.;i@6ci l1'

### prqposalfor office spaeeonthe Airport.

. (Exhibit 3) After eight

# l11onthsof®lay,)U~~~r~il~e deniedboththe PLA and the office

spare. OnJune 30,·

### 2014,

## Mr. Kum

# againmact~~requestfor.•office space onthe Ai;portto manager Wilkie. (Exhibit

### l, p.14)Mr. Wilkie

# r:ep~ed~atdaysaying there was no commerdal
.·. ·. . ·.. ·.. . .. . . 

### space available, but**'~as** 

### the airportcontinuesto growthere will come a time where additional ()Omrnercial space will beneededandyouwill 

### ofc{}ursehave the opportunity

### to make aproposal to utilize the space," (Emphasis added, Exhibit l,

### p. 15) 

### Following the PLA denial, Mr. Kurtz again asked manager Wilkie to"...start an open dialogue in

### regards to f'mding a more permanentlocation for meto 

### operate on the ai;port... " (Exhibit 1, 

### p. 21) DespiteMr. Kurtz having requested office space on the Airport otherthan the terminal, when space opened up, manager Wilkie gave it

### to anyone exceptMr. Kurtz: On September 29, 2014, Mr. Kumbecame aware ofoffice space that was open onthe Airport and llpproached Mr. Wilkie torent it. (Exhibit 1, 

### p; 42) Mr. Wilkie rentedit to someone else. Mr. 

### Kurtz called- Mr. 

### Wilkie onhis "no office space for skydiving strategy onNovember 19, 2014. (Exhibit I, 

### page 43) 

### Mr. Wilkie's strategy was so egregious that itwas noticed and commented on adversely byAnthony Garcia oftheFAA's Airports Division, Western-Pacific Regioll'-"repeated denials will likely create

### a pattern indicating that the City is purposely denying access to Mr. Kum

### for any purpose:" (Exhibit 1, 

### page45) The remainder ofExhibit l 

### hasemailsbetweenMt:. Kurtz and manager Wilkie as Mr. Kurtz tries to get office space and manager Wilkie holds out and then 12. ·- . · .. _·._.... .- . . .· .. :'·

.


# . .· ·. .. ·,__ ....·,_··..:··<· >' . _· : .·· 

### f)
.withdraws anumber of.•Pqteritlal19cations...

## Man~gerWi1kie has·still notrented either.existing 

# '**~**

## ·~ j**:~l** 

## ; 1:.\1 ,;7**~0** :_':%, ·.$ ,;;,<>

·.·.··.···'· "7! •'



### _)

) 

## ) lh"'l 1 

### IV -1 

### ) } 

### ) ) 

### · office space or unusedlandfor

# ~~(ld~ar

# ?ft!(Je to

# Mr. KUrtz.·.. G. 

### On-Airport DZ DeJliat. .·.

. . ·.. •'. . ·.. .·. . 

### OnJuly 7, 2014, managerWilkie sentalettertoMr. kurtz denying the request for an on**~** - ,• - . . . . . - . . -. . 

### Airport DZ. (Exhibit 1, page.17, Exhibit4) The.den:ialcitedconcerns with safety, insurance and

. . · ..·. .**~** . . .. : . . . . 

### a threatto the Airport becoming self-sufficient·because {)fageneral fear that skydiving would scare away bizjet traffic, but did.not include any evidence to support the perceived threats. Complainant Kurtz prepareda response to manager Wilkie's denial ofan on-Airport DZ, and provided it to him onJuly 25,2014. (Exhibit 5) In ithe addressed each ofthe concerns raised by manager Wilkie through willingness to move the location ofthe proposed PLA and work with the airport "to make the safest enviromnentpossible for all users," work with the airport on findin:g appropriate insurance (he asked .forthe name .ofthe insurer.usedby the City to workdirectly with it) and rebutted the fear ofloss ofbizjets with reference to the real world of professional pilots flying bizjets where the owners want to go into airports across the nation that have all types ofaeronautical activities operating. (Exhibit 5) The response ofmanagerWiikie (copied'to Anthony Garcia ofthe FAA's WesternPacific Region) was to say thathe would meet with "...other major users ofthe airport... " "... professional aviation associations and groups, and other airport manager's{sic) within the region andthe state." Oncehe·had done that, he would"... draftup a response thatI will submit to the city's seniormanagementteam and city council for their consideration." Only then would Mr. Kurtz get a response. (Exhibit 1, page 18)

13

### The following day,

### theFAA'sAnthol).yG~cias<:lntan.~mail to·manager Wilkie noting

. that Wilkie's plan for disclosur()to.#sersi"... i$

# a~~oiitiv<:l**~toti~n**... " and pointing outthat "...the

. ·

... ._ 

### purpose of

## the**disclost~re** 

### slloti\(l })¢ 

### to. s&li<lit

# ac¢¢Prance a:rldideas for a workable, safe and efficient way to integrate

# sky~villgi11t<1fhe**~tiJortmix ~faeronautical**  users and activities." Mr. 

### Garcia went on to warn,

# "Itwouldnotbe~ppropriatet() use negative responses from airport users relatedto skydiving, 

### inpart

# ~r~hole, to

# ~orrn»late a decisionthat denies skydiving at

. - - . . -. . . - _' . 

### CGZ." (Exhibit 1, page 19) Despite 

### Mr, Garcia'sfriendly ·guidance, manager Wilkie wentto the

. . . . . . . 

### state aviation communizy with a letter.stating his oppositionto skydiving on the airport because he felt it 

### was unsafe (he never askedtheultimate arbiter ofairport safety, the F M, t<J 

### conduct a t;afely study) and to "... meetwith as many ofyouas I can... " inorder to "... clearly identifY the •"] safety concerns and compile as much documentation supporting the concerns as possible." ·:;- '"O:'i 

### •" (Exhibit 1, page 27) •:)**~y** 

### .) H. 

### Part 13 Complaint. On August 8, 2014, after an eight-month delay in responding to his original proposal and witnessing the delaying tactic manager Wilkie had announced to avoid responding to his letter addressing the PLA denial, Mr. 

### Kurtz filed a 14 CFR Part 13 Informal Complaint withthe FAA Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, (Exhibit 2) The City responded to the Complaint on October 3, 2014 asserting that its ban on ) skydiving access to the Airportwas purely based on safety issues (Exhibit 6. Note, the 17-page 

# )Y 3 response is attached as an exhibit, the additional 16 pages of"supporting docmnents" are not ! 

### included an attempt tominimize the size ofthis Complaint. Should those pages be desired, ;< j ) ) 

### 14 )**-~** df 

## 31 I)

## :~ 

# Ys '1

) ' }
) 

### ) 

### ) ) ) ) ) 

### Complainant will providetht\m

# inUliddi~t~ly,) Inits

# re~po11Se,the City dropped its insurance and

. .. ·.. _... : '-:
. . _.... ·_ ··. -· .' _-.:.·.···. 

### frightening away bizjets cdnce!ns. 

# < Interestingly, .even

## thoughth~City!Wdlnuf**ei~]}t**rl1o11ths to examine specific concerns

. . . ' ' - ' . - .- ' .. . . . ' . . 

### with safety-which it

# isassmne~~tdidi;ftacfectfugoodfaith-the City used none ofthe analysis it did during that eight months !nits**re~ponse**

### to.the Part 13 Co.mplaint. Rather, it scrambled to co.ntactas many

# usersas~ossibleto getthemto. write up a parade ofpotential ho.rribles were skydiving to. take place onthe Airportas aposthoc

### justification for the original denial. It used solely the post-denial material 

### itcolle.cted in its Part 13 response-a clear indication thatthe original denial was basedon nothing but speculation. lVIr. 

### Wilkie asked for and was granted a two-week extension o.ftime to respond to the Part 13 Co.mplaint so that he could collect data on safety. In

### the email granting the extension, Anthony Garcia said, "The data col!ectio.n should identify airport specific reaso.ns why parachuting cannotbe reasonably integrated into normal airport operations at CGZ. It

### should consider why other general aviation airports that are similarto CGZ canintegrate parachuting without undermining safety. It should also consider 'l"thy other airpo1ts that are busier than CGZ can also accommodate parachuting without peril. You may also wish to explore the material benefits to the airport ofbased aeronautical businesses versus transient users., (Exhibit 1, 

### page 38) ManagerWilkie foHowed none ofthose recommendations. During the eight months manager Wilkie sat 

### o.n the original proposal and two months he spent scrambling to come up with denialjustifications, he never once met with anyone with knowledge ofparachuting operations such as Luther Krutz (who operates multiple DZs acwss the U.S.), other DZ operators orthe United States Parachute Association to. honestly discuss 15;:) :;1

)

.**~** ) ) ) )

} 

# . . >.··.•• •..·· •..·· .··.·..·. •·••·.···· 

# > ·.. ·.. . whether skydiving cou14sl1felyheintegtatedintoihe

# AJrpqrl'$• operations. Then, to prepare his response to the Part 13

# .C~~~~~ni, he

# ~d•notggibdtitr~~-pick data that supported his preconceived notion

# thath~di~'t**~a~ts~di~ingo~~e ~rPQrt-hardly**  an objective, rational, safety analysis and clearly e.Videhee 

### dfh.is intent to prohibit skYdiving no matter what. Manager Wilkie sentoutthenoticeofone ofthel]nti-skydiving meetings he held inviting all users. When one ofC(lmplainant's staffers arrlvedatthetneeting to provide information on .· . . . . '
. . . 

### skydiving operations to 

### Airport users, he was denied entrance by Mr. 

### Wilkie. 

### Mr. Wilkie subsequently claimed that the meeting was 

### by invitation orily-· however, the meeting organizer provided evidence that Mr. Wilkie Was lying. (Exhibit 1, pages27"37) Western-Pacific Airport Programs Compliance Specialist, Anthony Garcia, who was assigned to evaluate the Part 13 

### Complaint, replit:Jd onto the City after receiving its response in an October .8, 

### 2014letter entitled FeedbackRegarding 

### City's Reply tolnfonnal Complaint. 

### (Exhibit 7) 

### Init, Mr. 

### Garciawent through the reasons the City had expressed for denying skydiving access and noted that "Interestingly, some ofthe reasons the City presented to exclude skydiving might conceivably be used to 

### exclude other aeronautical activities." He then specifically identified additional flight schools, ultralights and helicopters. Addressing the unwillingness offlight schools to share an airport with skydivers by stating, "... it may provide a better environment for flight training iftlle mix

### ofairport activities instills situationalawareness in student pilots." He went on to state, "Furthermore, the complete denial ofairport access based on local user opinions is also not reasonable in the absence ofobjective data that might actually justify a 

### denial."

16

# ~so

**·~e>** /)

**~:')** 

### Mr. Garcia



## closedhiwJ~tt~r

## by statfug, 

### ''Itis

## 9Ur

**s~!lSi;\that** the .Ci1y's denial ofaccessis likely unreasonable and



# r~pre$i;\nts~ju$tdis~rifukatt~naga~tparachuting." He requested that Flight Standards perform



# asafetyt<v~~ti6nand·~tat~~~~tpehding thesafety evaluation his 

### letter was a "preliminary



# informafd~t~r~n~ti~u':byth~~estem-Pacific Airports Division

attheFSDO sent a memo saying they didnot supportthe proposed parachute operation. (Exhibit 8) The memo appears to largely restate the reasons thatthe City had set out in its letter ) ·in opposition to 

### the Part 13 Complaint. (Exhibits 

### 6 and 8) 

### ') )

) ) ) 

# )sJ.. ) '· ) ) ) 

## J Complainant sent a letter to Anthony Garcia-signatory ofthe FAA's informal determination ofthePart 13 Complaint-and others, outlining specific concerns with the FSDO's reviewmemo. (Exhibit 9} TheFAA's Western-PacificRegionAirports Division Office made the decision to conductanon-site safety audit. It dispatched Mike Miliard, Aviation Safety Inspector, General AviationOperations Branch, AFS-830, Flight Standards Service- General Aviation and Commercial Division, and Anthony Garcia, Airports Compliance Specialist, Western-Pacific region, Airports Division- Safety & 

### Standards Branch, to the Airport on

### July 1, 2015. As a part ofthe- audit, the FAA team·met withcah:port users and those mostfamiliar "With its 

### operations, including manager Wilkie and Complainant. (Exhibit I0) According to the exhibit, the FAA
17:·."'····.··.·.·.· d



### ) ) ) 

# )55

) ) 

### team carried out its audit

## i!l<accordliJ1c~ wit,hJ:1ieJ<':t\A's Risk.Assessment for Airports with

. - ' - - . . ' . .

### .. . . ' . 

### Parachute Operations checldist

# ;Wllickwl}lip;i~yiq~dtfl~llllager- Wilkie andMr. Kurtz. In keeping withhis intense

# oppositiontosky4i~in~·ontl1eA·npof1,manager Wilkie refused to even sign the checklist

# acknowledginglllspresencel!~(iinv\iiYe!llentwith the on.site audit. (Exhibit 10) 

### On September 17, 2015, BrianA!'Ilistrong,Manager, Safety and Standards Branch ofthe Western·Pacific Region ofthe FAA published the findings madeby the FAA, and reviewed at the highest level ofthe Airports Divisionfollowingthe**ou~site.**

### audit andRisk Assessment evaluation. Those findings clearly statedthatwith some minor risk mitigation measures cmnmon to many skydiving operations, skydiving could safely be conducted onto the Airport. {Exhibit 10) 

### With the fmal safety study concluded, the October 8, 2014 

### preliminarY determination that the City's denial ofaccess was unreasonable by the Western-Pacific Region Airports Office became final.

.Rather than take steps to begin integrating skydiving into Airport operations, the City continued its refusal to allow the aeronautical activity to take place. On September 29, 2015, its first public step was to demand that the FAA provide the form used in reaching its decision and the identities ofthepersons involved. (Exhibit 1, pages 58 

### and 61) Mr. Kurtz had; by this time, attempted again to work with the City and manager Wilkie to set up procedures to integrate skydiving into Airport operations. (Exhibit 1, page 59) He had no success. (Exhibit 1, page 60 et. seq.) 

### In masterful bureaucratese, manager Wilkie told Mr. Kurtz that hewas going to reach out to unidentified and undefined "stakeholders" to see ifit 

### were possible for skydiving to take place on the Airport. (Exhibit 1, page 60) 18) ) 

### J ) 1 

### I 

### "bO )

j ) 

### By October 20, 2015,

# Apili~ni**G~rci?J** haQJ)iovidedmanager Wilkie with all ofthe information he hadrequest¢t! ·.·.

# ~or~**~~tillce ah~s~ntanemail** toMr. Wilkie. about.Wilkie's repeated requests

# for•~e**same~fottn~tlion~q(]v~rmtioot·dn~gging.** (Exhibit 1, page 62) 

### Manager WilkierefusedallofMr.

# Ku~'stequeststo .organize meetings with users, to integrate skydiving into operations and refusedto idef1ticy the "stakeholders" he referenced. He also refused to answertheuumerous questions askedby 

## Mr. Garcia in his October 20, 2015 email, including when the never-ending consultation with stakeholders would be concluded. The October 20, 2015 .email caused Mr. Kurtz to.again reach outto the City offering to work with itto setup procedures to begin operations-to no avait (Exhibit 1, page 64) 

### A month afterMr. Garcia's email, manager Wilkie deigned to reply-not stating that the City was taking any actionto comply with its obligations, but that 

### a defunctcommittee would be ·resurrectedto "·move·the discussion." (Exhibit 1, page 65)' Uponreceipt ofa copy ofmanager Wilkie's email, Mr. Kurtz asked for the names ofthe committee members so he could provide information to them. (Exhibit 1, page 65) 

### Mr. Garcia's responsetomanager Wilkie's referring the matter to committee email came the next**day~** 

### (Exhibit 1·, p; 66) 

### In it

### he said; "Stakeholder consultations appear to be a way for the City to delay an announcement Of

### the City's actual skydiving policy. Inthe meantime, there have notbeen apy meaningful negotiations with Mr. Kurtz. The City has 

### not been able to tell the FAA whether or ·not it will allow skydiving. These realitiesmay be causedby what appears to be a de facto City policy j:hat actually prevents · skydiving at CGZ. Taken all together, the City's actions can

reasonably be interpreted as a denial ofaccess for skydiving." (Exhibit 1, page. 66) 

### MangerWilkie's response was more delay-he cancelledthe committee meeting at which Mr. Kurtz was prepared to present information on skydiving operations and announced 19

### )
) 

### ) ) 

# ) bd- .) )

\ J! 

### ) flW 

### ili< 

### commili<e



# ~-tfu><~~~ ... 

# l,i~~b=ry, lfttwooo.;OOd



# 00~ the matter under consideration,



# ~xlJ~itl,page

# o'7)••..•··.>· · .. 

# •

•

•

i/ > •••.• TV.



### Viol~tions•}lytbe City !lfCasa



### G~ande, Arizona



### A. 

### FAASafety Finding and Part 13 Informal Complaint. Following the Part 13 Complaint filed by Complainant, the FAA's Western-Pacific Region, on September 17, 2015, published its fmding that skydiving could be safely conducted onto the Airport with application ofthe risk mitigation measures outlined. (Exhibit 9) After the City, through manager Wilkie, repeatedly stiff-armed the FAA with vague statements that it



### .would talk with "stakeholders" and bring a dead committee2 

### back to life to possibly look into someday allowing skydiving, the FAA, through Anthony Garcia, describedthe continual delaying tactics ofthe City as unreasonable and that they may resultin a determination that the City is inviolation ofits Grant Assurances in aPart 16 action. (Exhibit 1, page 66) The City has never disputed the safety findings ofthe FAA. Rather, it has engaged in the tactic ofnot doing anything while vaguely promising totalk with some people about the subject. As setforth above, the FAA's initial decision on the Part 13 Complaint thatthe City was in violation ofits GrantAssurances became fmal upon the completion ofthe safety study by its Western-Pacific office. B. 

### Law, Argument and Specific Violations by the City.

2 A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain." RobettA. Heinlein 

### 20

# 1bS ) 

### )
) ) ) ) ) 

### 49 USC§ 47101,

# etseq,,~rovide~J<>ff'~4¢r~l~irportfmancialassistanceforthe . development

# ofpublic~use**airpo~\U14~tth~~rrpo~~dAi~vay**ImprovementAct (AAIA), as 

### :·-···:::: ....··<·-··..._ amended. 49 USC § 

### 47107,etseq.,

## $ecifotth.~$stif~c~lrto**~hich** an ai1portsponsor agrees as a condition ofreceiving Federal

# fi~~ciat~sl~~!lce.**Upo~acceptance** ofan AlP grant, the .assurances become abinding

# contractualo])Jig~tion·be~eentheairport sponsor andthe Federal

. . :-_ ·._- . .'·' .. '• ':. ·. . · 

### .. :. 

# '..

. 

### government The assurances made by ail'p()tt sponlmrsin

## AIP grant agreements 

### are important factors in maintaining a viable national airport system. [SeeFlorida AerialAdvertising v. St. Petersburg-ClearwaterInternationalAirport, 

### FAA Docket No. 16-03-01, Director's Determination (December 18, 

### 2003).] The FAA has a statutory mandate toensure that airport operators comply with the sponsor assurances. 49 USC §

### 47107(a) states, in part: "General

### Written Assurances.
- 

### The Secretary ofTransportation may approve 

## aproject grant application under this subchapter for anairport development project only ifthe Secretary receives written assurances, satisfactory to the Secretary that- (1) 

### the airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without oojust · discrimination.; ..." As a recipient offederal grants for its airports, the City ofCasaGrande, Arizona provided written 

### assurances ofcompliance with its obligation to make its airports available for public use for all types ofFAA

### "recognized activities, including skydiving, without unjust discrimination. The owner ofany airport developed with Federal grant assistance is required to operate the airport for the use and benefit ofthe public .and to make it available to 

### all types, kinds, and classes ofaeronautical activity ori reasonable terms, and without unjust 

### discrimination; see Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, 

### ofthe prescribed sponsor assurances which implements the provisions of49 USC§ 47107(a)(l) through (6). 

### 21**\}~** 01 

### \} •t'!> -,_ff 

### ?) if 

# ;; '}

**~;:** 

# b8

**~** -,J

**-~;**

**'-~** \;;1

**:::·_'~j** ,}lf -.-') -J 

### :) 

### ;) '\

**-~::1** -:---. ) c.\

..} ---; ) J ) "1

**,,~** 

### ) )



# "~ )
\ J . ·. . ..

**·-~----_** . _. 

### 1. Grant Assurance 22. · · Specifically,



# GrantAss!lfaJ1cf)~2s~tes, iflpatr,witltrf)gardto the airport owner/sponsor: :

**--~·-_.**. .-:_ ..: 

### "a.



## Itwillirrakethe~irport~v~ila~I¢~ruia~~()rt for public use and 

### onrc;:aso11a\)le



### t~t)lls 

## and

**Witliqu~~lit1J!l$tdiscdmination**to aU types, kinds

**ari4C!~sses .ofaerpna\Joti<?~lll.Ctiyities,**  

### including coriJmercia:laerona:utical

**a~tiyiti~s** 

### offering services to the public at the airport. . . . .. . . . It goes on to say insection {i)that, "[t}he spo.11sormay prohibit or limit any given type,

. ' -. . . . . . . 

### kind or class ofaeronautical use ofthe airport ifsuchaction is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs ofthe public," however, the provision does not provide the sponsorwith unilateral authority to ban certain aeronautical uses at its airport. [SeeJeff Bodin and Garlic City Skydivingv. County of Santa Clara, California, 

### F M Docket No.

**16-11~06,** 

### Final Decision (Augnst 12, 2013)]. 

### F M Order5190.6B 

### furtheroutlines the limitations on a sponsor's restriction ofaeronautical activities. It 

### states that any restriction must be based on safety and efficiency and adequatelyjustified aud supported; mustbe reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory; and the FAA will 

### be the final arbiter as to whether the particular activity can be conductedsafely andefficiently andwhether the sponsor's proposedlimitationfare reasonable. 

### (emphasis added) [See Jeff Bodin and Garlic City Slrydiving] 

### While the City originally included a speculative prospect offrightening biz jets away fromthe Airport inits original denial ofan on-Airport DZ, it dropped that rationalization in its response to the Part 13 Complaint. Nevertheless, FAA Order 5190.6B 

### does not include concerns aboutpotential eeonomic loss as ajustification for restriction onaeronautical activities. Here the City claims 

### Mr. Kurtz is attempting to "inject" himselfonto the Airportto make money. Itfails to recognize and understand that not only has skydivipg been safely taking place within

### three miles ofthe Airport (and the FAA has stated that thebest placefor a PLA is on an 22

# '">'~ um,dj-)



# ~~~~,J~~**~~~~W uul~**  fum my

### ofu& aeronautical activity



# iliat.hap~J~cii~b~iavo~~bjtherii~, Ital$o fails to understand fuat anyone operating a


# connnerciali\<iro~liuti~atactiyi~hpp~;t~~ake money doing so. After six years


# ofsafeskydi~inihevi~~tYofth¢Airport,the only variable that ' ..-.-·._---·..... _·, .... ·.· .· ·--: ---1-- .; ···. 

### changed was the identity oftheairrott:managet



# ~.Wilhe·brought in his prejudice against

. . - .... :·:.. . :. : \
. :·

### ... ·. - _- ---,_- 

### skydiving and. 

### made it the de facto

### City p()licy.. As setforth above, he was a little heavy-handed at first, attempting to throw



# Compl~na.Iltoutofits 

### officespace and prohibit any aircraft carrying parachutists from taking offfrom the Airport.. Once 

### Mr. Kurtz pointed outthe ban on departures ofaircraft carrying parachutists wa.Sn't evenclose to being.appr<lptiate, manager Wilkie became more subtle in pursuing his anti-skydiving agenda. He delayedthe eviction, but made sure Mr. ,') Kurtz couldn'trent office space anywhere on the Airport and made sure the City wrote a letterto ) the County that was evaluating zoning to make sure l\1r. 

### Kurtz couldn't build an office adjacent ) to his off-AirportPLA. ) Manager Wilkie then denied l\1r. 

### Kurtz's application for an on-airport PLA after eight 

### )

)

) )
) 

### ' / ) 

### monfus ofdelay on ilie basis ofsafety, withoutevidence. Once hi$ safety bluffwas called, he went outand, inprivate meetings with anyone he could find thatwas opposed to skydiving, attempted to find evidence to support what he'd claimedwas an eight-month detailed review of the on-airportPLA application. The FAA did an on-site safety study and concludedthat skydiving could safely be conducted on the airport by following some routine safety procedures, which Complainant was (and is) willing to follow. At that point the City's denial ofskydiving access became a violation ofGrant Assurance 22 as unreasonable. The sponsor may only prohibit a given aeronautical use ifsuch action is necessary for the safe operation ofthe airport

23'j ·-·"
) )


### ' } 

### ) ) ) """"""In '"" "'

## <Nil ., ••., ......



# ~ """" ""Gmm



# ~=m,~ 22(;) 

## ""Jiff
.... ·., ·,,. 

### Bodin and Garlic City Skydiving] ,, • 

### 2. GrantAssurance23., , ,,,

. ·... ·, 

### Grant assurance 23,



# EXqlustve~ights,1mpletnentsstatutory provisions 49 §§ 47103(3) and47107(a)(4)providing, in summary, illaithete shallhe noexclusive rightfor the use ofany landing area on which Federal flllldshavehe¢neXJ.len<ledandthere will 

### be no exclusive rightfor the useofthe airportby.any personprovidingorintendingto provide, aeronautical services to the public. An 

### exclusive right is definedas a power, privilege, orotherright excluding 

### or debarring another from enjoying or exercising a like power, privilege, or right. [See FloridaAerial Advertising, 

### above.] Such a right conferred on one or more parties, but excluding others from enjoying or 

### exercising a similarright or rights would, be an exclusive right. [FAA Order 5190.1A, Exclusive Rights at

**Airport~,,**

### p. 1] It

### is 

### the FAA's policy that the sponsor ofa federally obligated airport will 

### permit no exclusive right for the use ofthe airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public... will

### not, either directly or indirectly, grant or permitany person, firm, or corporation, the exclusive right at the airport to conduct any aeronautical activities. [FloridaAerialAdvertising) 

### The application ofany unreasonable or unjustly discrimilllitory requirement or standard to proposed aeronautical use ofsuch airports is considered a constructive grant ofan exclusive right contrary to applicable Jaw and FAA 

### regulations. [FloridaAerialAdvertising] 

### By unreasonably denying access to a proposed aeronautical activity, an airport sponsor is in violation ofthe exclusive right prohibition.

24

### -~

**~** 

# ;75

**-~**

**~** 

# i» .... -· ·

. .

### :-. ·..... 

### FAAO<"c



# 5l906B,4ff~ff·¢~1¥f,t~,4<uribe< ;"



# d~l tho



# ~powfu;titie. !\SSumed by the own:ers


# of~ubiic·usea1$o~sdey~lgpedWithFederal assistance. It

### clearly

·. defmes parachute activities



# asa!laerb!iaJri¢a~·~thri~~dg1vesthat activity no greater or lesser

weight than other aerommtical



# activi~ies**pr()teetedljy~rant** assurances. Chapter 14 explains that

. parachute activities are givenequal



# Mcesst~airpprtsdev~loped with Federal assistance as are all

other defmed aemnautical activities.

. . 

### 4 9 USC § 

### 40103(e) prescribes, in part: "N9 

### Exclusive Rights atCertainFacilities,-Aperson does not have an exclusive righttouse an airnavigation facility on which Government money has been expended." FAA Advisory Circular

**AC150/5190~6,** 

### was created by the FAA to provide guidanceto airport sponsors in

### complying withthe statutory prohibition on granting ofexclusive rights ( 49 USC § 

### 40103(e) and lllljustly discriminating againstaeronautical users ofaitports. It

### makes clear in Section 1.2 Agency Policy: "An exclusive rights violation occurs when the airport spons9r excludes 9thers, either intentionally or unintentionally, fmm participating in an 9n-airp9rt aemnautical activity." As sh9wn ab9ve, the City, through its airpmimanager, has implemented a de facto 

### policy ) 9fprohibiting skydiving and implemented it through a denial ofoffice space, unreasonable ) denial ofan on-airport PLA on the false gr9unds ofsafety and then, once it had no more grolUlds
) ) 

### )

J ) 

### for denial, refusal to 

### negotiate with Mr. 

### Kurtz on procedures to 

### integrate skydiving into the Airport's operati9ns and delay after delay using a never-ending "consultation with stakeh9lders" (although it never actually set up any meetings to 

### do SQ 9r

### identified the s.takeh9lders) and then reviving a dead committee made up 9f 

### unidentified personnel thatmight getaroundto meeting and ''m9ving the discussion" ofeven all9wing skydiving sometime in the vague future. 25-.-1


### The FAA



# b$lo~**~~~,~~~~~iv~km~rt ~'~''** **d~iru** "'"=·

· [See FrankHinshaw,



# Skydtving$¢h~#l.tnc.X~b~aS~dive~c;waii andislandSkydiving, L.L.

### C. ···., 

# !''}}6 v. The State <?/Hawaii, 

### F



## AADo¢k~t~().f6,JJl,Q4,lDiteptor'•s•J:>reliminary Determination, (August 18, 2014)] Here, the



# City';ao~orts**h~~e•~tfectl~ely 4~rtied**  airport access to

\ J 

### ) 

## ' }
J ) ) ) ) 

### Complainant, a violation



# ofGrantA~~ancets..·.·•·· ..····· The FAA has a statutory 111Jl1lqateto el1$urethatairport owners comply with sponsor assurances under the Federal A viationAct and Airport and Airway ImprovementAct of 1982 as amended andrecodified, specifically undeithe statutes

**referen~d** 

### above. FAA Order 5190.6B provides the policies andprocedures to be folllxwed by the FAA in cacying outits legislatively mandated functions related to federally obligated airport.owners' compliance with their sponsor assurances. The FAA monitors the administration ofthe valuable rights pledge by airport sponsors to the people ofthe United States in exchange for monetary grants to ensure the public interest 

### is being served. The FAA considers itinappropriate to provide Federal assistance for improvements to airports where the benefits ofsuch improvements 

### will not be fully realized due to inherentrestrictions on aeronautical activities. [See Skydive Perris, Inc. v. Henry County, Tennessee, 

### FAA Docket No. 16-05-06, Director's Determination (January 20, 2006).] The FAA has statutory authority in making determinations of

### safety. [See 49 U.

### S.C. § 

### 40101, etseq., 

### and40103(b).] While an airport sponsor may or may not agree with the FAA's safety determination, the FAA is final arbiter ofmatters regarding aviation safety. [See Skydive Perris]

### As set forth above, the City ofCasaGrande, Arizona is in violation ofGrantAssurances 22 

### and 23.

26**"~**

# ·.-.·~ D'I ·}J 

### [,Jc/.._**~:;;,** } 

# ••

# ~**~!{'** ) ..• } 

### ) ) )

)
) ' J ) 

### Complainanthas.suffered

## finanCiallosl;.d~•tothe~~sts

# oftransporting its clients from the off-airport DZ and the

# conse~uentde!ay$**~l~u~fg~Jgnip'flights,** costs involved with preparing proposals for office spaceandDZ onthe

# ~~~ttthatwere unreasonably denied by the City and lostbusiness duetotheCity's actions

# in conquctinganti-skydiving meetings directed at users ofthe Airport. Mr. 

### Kurtz and his company have paid taxt;lsthathave gone into Federal Grants made to the City for the Airport, but has !Jeen deniedthe benefits ofusing the Airport. Complainant has incurred the costs ofinstitutingthis Complaint against the City because the City has refused all demands by the FAA to comply with its grant assurances. Finally, Complainant has incurred costs defending a lawsuit regarding zoning ofits off-airport PLA due tothe actions ofthe City attacking its use.

VI. 

### ReliefDesired
Complainant seeks an Order from the FAA requiring: That the City ofCasaGrande, Arizona, issue within 30 days approval for Complainant to begin parachute operations onto the CasaGrandeAirportimmediately, and its immediate approval for Complainant to lease appropriate office and .classroom space convenient for ramp
27'I )
) 

### )
) )

\ •' } ) ) 

### access on the Airport, orinstall a modulari!ll'tlcrure:J();.4fi'lce<l1Jd classroom space on a site convenient for ramp access on the



# I~~h,

Dated: December 30,2015 

# ,,'•..

**~esp~cltullY** submitted,

..··.-:>-·:. --.,::::':::.'-:_,;."·--.--:
__-::·_.._,_ . •'



### , ,',·



# R.ic~M~i:l.)urden, Attorney atLaw 

### · · .•.·. Atto!:iley.'for Complainant

28 

### . By: •·



## ~~~~~~­ J. 

### Durden

. . Richmond Hill 

### Road Q:mifer, Colorado 80433 

### ·.· (6i<H 901-65156 

### avlawyer@yahoo.com·}



### ) ) .. -_ ..·-_ ': :._·. _· ·.·.__.... ·-.. ·. · ..:- ".':_:·.. ·._.'.->:_



## .· ·•......· ..•



# tERT:ffitCAT~.6K~t~~CE

... ·.,-. 

### I hereby certify



## iliaHhilv~ti;ld!iays()fV.f4th¢fof¢~iAg14 CFR Part 16 

### Complainton the following person atthefollo:Wipgil.dt!ress.i)yfu;til: ....... James Thompson City Manager 

### .'·>--: 510 E. FlorenceBlvd CasaGrande, Arizona 85122 · · · Dated this 

### 30th day ofDecember, 2015 > 

# i\ 

# i •···.···..·· .·-·,: ..

i' '

# EXHIBIT TWOU.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration March 15, 2016 Kevin Louis Director ofPublic Works City ofCasa Grande 3181 N. Lear Avenue CasaGrande, AZ 85122 **Western~Pacffic** Region Airports Division Phoenix Airports District.Office 3800 N. Central Avenue Suite 1025, 10111 Floor . Phoenix, AZ 85012

Luther Kurtz Skydive Coastal California, Inc 427 Michigan Avenue Charlevoix, MI49720 Casa Grande Municipal Airport Restrictions on Skydiving DearMessrs. Kurtz and Louis: The purpose ofthis letter is to provide the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Western-Pacific Region preliminary determination regarding the City ofCasaGrande (City) policy preventing skydiving at the Casa Grande Municipal Airport (CGZ). Federal assistance in the form ofAirport Improvement Program (AIP) grants and surplus property conveyances is made available to state and local governments (airport sponsors) for the preservation and development ofpublic-use airports. The FAA administers these programs that provide taxpayer funds and other assistance to local communities, such as the City. In exchange for which, airport sponsors agree to obligations, specified in their agreements with the federal government, to operate safe airports that are available for public users to engage in a variety of aeronautical activities. Among the specific obligations are the following:
• Grant Assurance 5, Rights andPowers, obligatesthe Cityto refrain from any action that will deprive it ofrights and powers to perform in accordance with the requirements ofthe Grant Assurances. Among the City's responsibilities is the need to make the airport available for all types and classes ofaeronautical activities. This includes skydiving.
• Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, requires that CGZ be available for aeronautical activities on reasonable terms. Although reasonable restrictions canbe imposed for safety and efficiency reasons, a restriction must be necessary andjustified. There must be factual evidence supporting the need for a restriction as well as the FAA's concurrence thatthe restriction is reasonably needed to ensure the safety and efficiency of airport operations. In July 2014, 

### Mr. Luther Kurtz submitted a written proposal to conduct skydiving operations at CGZ. The City was not receptive tothe proposal and proffered that skydiving could not safely operate inthe airport environment. As a result, a skydiving safety risk assessment inspection was performedbythe FAA at CGZ on July 1, 2015. The results and conclusions ofthe FAA inspection were provided to the City in a report dated September 17, 2015. The FAA concluded2 that it is feasible from a safetyperspective to introduce parachuting/skydiving operations into the airspace at CGZ, as. appropriate safetymeasures can be implemented to mitigate risk. Following.the FAA's safety determination, theFAA Western-Pacific Region regularly communicated withthe City, the latestbeingJanuary I4, 2016, and inquired aboutthe absence of communication with 

### Mr. LutherKurtz. This absence ofcommunication has delayed negotiations for skydiving, as well as the prolonged City deliberations related to skydiving has effectively prevented anymeaningful action bythe Cityto allow skydiving. Furthermore, the City was advised that the delay appeared unreasonable because it had the effect ofpreventing skydiving at CGZ, especially since there was no indication when the City's deliberations would end. Since the FAA has concluded thatparachuting/skydiving activities can be accommodated at CGZ and be safelyintegrated into normal airport operations, the City's continued refusal to allow skydivingrepresents an unreasonable restriction. As a result, this notice serves to infonn the Citythat its restrictive measures to prevent skydiving are not in compliance with the requirements ofGrantAssurances 5 and 22. Forthis reason, the City is expected to take the necessary steps to fulfill its Grant Assurance obligations. 

### As appropriate corrective action, the City will make CGZ available on reasonable tenns for skydiving and negotiate in good.faith for facilities and space to make skydiving possible. We look forward to receiving the City's corrective action plan within the next 

### I 4 days for introducing skydiving and initiating negotiations over reasonable tenns for a skydiving operation atCGZ. Ifthe City fails to comply with the Grant Assurances, this failure will become a matter ofrecord thatcould affectAIP grant funding for CGZ, as well as other consequences, such as fonnal proceedings in accordance with the rules of practice in Title I 4 Code of Federal Regulations Part 16. This preliminary determinationrepresents the conclusion ofthe Western-Pacific Region deliberations conducted under Title 14 Code ofFederal Regulations Section 13.1. As such, it is not a fmal agency decision and is not subjecttojudicial appeal. Notwithstanding, redress maybe sought under Title I 4 Code ofFederal Regulations Part I6. Sincerely, t; Digitally signed by mike.n.williams@faa.gov 

# mike.n.wi

# IIiams@faa.goyQf\1:cn=mike.n.williams@faa.gov

. ·Date: 2016.03.15 16:04:11-07'00' Mike N Williams, A.A.E. Manager, Phoenix Airports District Office cc: Jim Thompson, CityManager Compliance Division, AC0-100 Safety and Standards Branch, AWP-620