FAAPart 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal AviationAdministration 800 IndependenceAvenue SW \Vashington, DC 20591 October 3, 2015 

## HOWARD C. JONES II ATTORNEYAT LAW howardcjones@attglobal.net 105WEST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 400E WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101

TELEPHONE: 336.750.0860 FAX: 336.727.1085



## RECE\VED

OC1 05Z015 PART 16 DOCKETS

Re: WilliamAlfredHicks, Jr. AJK/A Billy Hicks V. City OfMountAiry,North Carolina; A.nd The County OfSurry, Nort.'l Carolina; ThroughThe MountAiry/Surry CountyAirportAuthority; FAA DocketNo. 16-15-07 DearFAAPart 16 Docket Clerk: Enclosedplease find anoriginal andthree copies (one ofwhichhas notbeen stapled) ofthe Answer andIncorporationby Reference ofMotions, Affidavits and Exhibits PreviouslyFiled. I notethatboththe CountyofSurry andthe CityofMountAiry havepreviously filed a notice adoptingthemotions andanswerfiled andto be filed by the Authonty. Also enclosedis copy ofthe first page oftheAnswer. Pleasemark this as filed andremrnitinthe selfaddressed and stampedenvelope. Thankfor your consideration0fthis matter

cc: counsel ofrecordUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC WILLIAM ALFRED HICKS, JR. a/k/a BILLYHICKS Complainant,

vs. CITY OF MOUNTAIRY, NORTH CAROLINA; and the COUNTY OF SURRY, NORTH CAROLINA; through the MOUNT AIRY/SURRY COUNTYAIRPORT AUTHORITYRespondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### ____________________________)

SubmittedBy: HowardC. JonesII,Attorney AtLaw 105West Fourth Street, Suite400-E Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Phone: 336 750-0860; Cell: 336-816-1716 Fax: (336) 727-1085 Email: howardcjonesii@gmail.com AttorneyforMountAiry/SurryCountyAirportAuthority FAA DocketNo. 16-15-07

ANSWER AND INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF MOTIONS, AFFIDAVIISAND EXHIBITS PREVIOUSLY FILED



## RECEIVED OCT 

### 052015 PART 16 DOCKETS

The Mount Airy/Surry County Airport Authority ("the Authority") hereby files the following answer to the complaint filed in this matter. Respondent notes that the sponsors, the County ofSurry and the City ofMount Airy, have previously filed notices adopting the motions and Answer "filed and to be filed" by the Authority. PartI ofthis Answeris a statement offacts. Part II incorporates by reference the prior motions, affidavits and exhibits which respondent has filed herein. Part III sets forth respondent's admissions and denials ofthe allegations ofthe complaint. Part IV sets forth respondent's affirmative defenses.I. STATEMENT OF FACTS On January 7 2013, complainant's friend

- Mr. Venable filed suit against the Authority and the FBO. (Composite Ex. 7-A

- Venable Complaint). Venable's complaint asserted that in April of2012 the Authority violated FAA rules by allegedly granting the FBO an exclusive right to offer flight instruction, Id. at**~~1-19,** and also accused the FBO of making defamatory statements. The complaint sought monetary damages and an orderremoving the FBO as airportmanager. Id., at page 8. Thereafter, the Venable lawsuit was sent to court-ordered mediation and a settlement was reached by all parties. On December 10, 2013, Mr. Venable executed a "Release ofAll Claims" in favor ofthe Authority and the FBO. (Composite Ex. 7-BRelease). In exchange for payments to Mr. Venable and his attorney (who also represents Mr. Hicks in this Part 16 proceeding), the release grantedtheAuthority and the FBO a full release of all claims of any and all matters whatsoever, including those matters alleged in the lawsuit regarding alleged exclusivity. On December 31, 2013, Venable dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice. (Composite Ex. 7-C- Dismissal). OnJune 13 2011, complainant andthe Authority entered a three-yearhangar lease with a stated expiration date ofMay 31 2014. (Ex. 30 to the Part 16 Compl.). In March of2013, plaintiffused his hangar to spray paint his airplane. (Part 16 Compl., page 44). Plaintiff over-sprayed his plane and damaged aircraft belonging to other tenants. Id. The owners ofthese aircraft (and other tenants) complained to the Authority. Examples oftenant letters to the Authority voicing some ofthese concerns are attached as Exhibits 33-1 and 33-2 to the Part 16 complaint. However, Mr. Hicks (who was a sitting member

2of the board) refused to attend the duly noticed meeting of the Authority which was intendedto address this matter. (Springthorpe Aff.,**~** 59). On May 17, 2013, the Authority's transactional attorney, Jay Williams, sent a letter to Mr. Hicks attempting to terminate the lease due to lease violations, which included the overspray incident. In response, on June 5 2013, Mr. Hicks filed a declaratoryjudgment action in state superior court seeking an injunction against eviction and a renewal ofthe lease. (Composite Ex. 7-D- Hicks State Court Complaint). After litigating this action and engaging in protracted discovery, Mr. Hicks dismissed the state court action withoutproceedingto trial. (Composite Ex. 7-D- Dismissal). On May 31 2014, the Hicks lease expired by its terms. On August 14 2014, the Authority filed a summary ejectment action in state magistrate's court on the basis that the lease had expired and plaintiffrefused to vacate. (Composite Ex. 7-F

- Summary Ejectment Complaint). Mr. Hicks' written answer requested transfer to state district court, alleged that the Authority had violated plaintiff's constitutional rights, and incorporated his request for renewal of the lease. (Composite Ex. 7-G

- Answer to Summary Ejectment). After multiple continuances by Mr. Hicks, the state court peremptorily set summary ejectmentfor hearing onJanuary 13 2015. (Composite Ex. 7-I -StateCourt OrderDatedJanuary 20 2015). On the evening of January 12 2015 Mr. Hicks filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking renewal of the lease and damages from the Authority and each of the seven current board members. (Composite Ex. 7-H

- Hicks Federal Complaint). The next morning, Mr. Hicks attempted to use the federal lawsuit to stop the state court summary ejectment hearing. However, the state courtjudge refused and entered a written finding

3that the last minute filing ofthe federal lawsuit was filed "for the purposes of delay." (Composite Ex. 7-I- State Court OrderDated January 20 2015). After hearing evidence, the state court found that Mr. Hicks was not entitled to an extension ofthe lease and granted summary ejectment. (Composite Ex. 7-J- State Court Order Dated January 30 2015). On February 5 2015, Mr. Hicks appealed the summary ejectment order to the North CarolinaCourt ofAppeals. (Composite Ex. 7-K-Notice ofAppeal). On February 23 2015, despite the fact thatthe Authority had not issued a writ of possession, Mr. Hicks vacated the leased premises and surrendered possession to the Authority. (Composite Ex. 7-L- Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot,**~3(c)).** On April 1, 2015, inreliance on Mr. Hicks' decision to surrender and vacate hangar number 7, the Authority entered a new lease for hangar 7 with a new tenant

- Mr. O'Neal. (Springthorpe Aff.,**~61).** Mr. O'Neal moved his aircraft into hangar 7 and is currently occupying the hangar. Id. Thereafter, Mr. Hicks agreed that his surrender ofhangar 7 mooted his state court appeal ofthe summary ejectment order. (Composite Ex. 7-L- Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Moot,**~3(c)).** Accordingly, Mr. Hicks agreed to dismissal ofthe appeal in order to avoid the imposition ofsanctions for a frivolous appeal. Id. at**~6.** On April 16 2015, the state court ofappeals dismissed Mr. Hicks' appeal as moot. (Composite Ex. 7- M- State courtofappeals order dated April 16 1015). OnApril 6 2015, Mr. Hicks amended his federal lawsuitto add claims against the Authority's transactional attorney, Jay Williams, and the Surry County Fire Marshal. (Composite Ex. 7-N- Hicks First Amended Complaint). The amended complaintfiled in federal court does not contest that plaintiffdamaged airplanes belonging to other tenants

4and in so doing violated the lease and the fire code. Instead, the amended federal complaint asserts that other tenants may have also violated their leases (albeit without damaging other tenants' aircraft); and asserts in that the lease was not renewed in retaliation for Mr. Hicks' support of Mr. Venable. (Composite Ex. 7-N

- Amend. Compl., 'j88). The amended federal complaint asserts that this was part of a grand conspiracy involving each of the seven members of the Authority, the Authority's transactional attorney andthe Surry County Fire Marshal. On May 4 2015, Mr. Hicks filed this forty-nine-page Part 16 complaint. In keeping with prior litigation, the Part 16 complaint once again claims that Mr. Hicks is entitledto a hangar lease and once again contendsthathis lease was notrenewedbecause ofa conspiracy against Mr. Hicks due to his support for Mr. Venable. However, in this Part 16 complaint Mr. Hicks also seeks to re-litigate the exclusive rights claim Mr. Venable previously raised in state court and settled in the fall of 2012. The Part 16 complaint also seeks to litigate claims that unsuccessful 2013 bidders for the FBO contract (who are not parties to this filing) should have been allowed to resubmit their bids. The Part 16 complaint also alleges a myriad ofconspiracies purporting to effectuate purported "special interests" spanning aperiod ofahnosttwenty years. As should be evident by claimant's delay in raising these other matters, at the heart ofthe Part 16 complaintis Mr. Hicks' contentionthat he is entitledto a newhangar lease. This is the same claim Mr. Hicks raised in the state court declaratoryjudgment action (which Mr. Hicks dismissed without proceeding to trial); in the summary ejectment action (whichMr. Hicks lost); and inthe appeal (which was dismissed as moot because Mr. Hicks vacated and surrendered the hangar to the Authority). It is also the

5same claim Mr. Hicks raised in the federal lawsuit (which has been briefed and is awaitingruling onmotions to dismiss). The complaint inthis Part 16 proceeding is lengthy and makes a variety offactual claims. Afuller discussion ofthese matters is provided inthe Motionto Dismiss orinthe Alternative for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum and the affidavits filed in support ofthe same. The facts relating to these claims are summarized as follows. With regard to the lease, the Authority terminated Mr. Hicks's lease because he damaged aircraftbelongingto several othertenants, and in so doing violatedhis lease and the fire code. The termination did not treat Mr. Hicks differently than other similarly situated tenants

- there were no similarly situated tenants

- that is, there were no other tenants besidesMr. Hicks who damaged othertenant's aircraft. With regard to alleged removal ofan unnamed friend from the waiting list, the Authority did not remove another (unnamed) person from a hangar waiting list because of a relationship with Mr. Hicks and Mr. Hicks was not banned from the airport, constructively or otherwise. With regard to the airport expansion project, the Authority has acquired all title and easements necessary for the portions of the expansion project which have been funded. The Authority's efforts to acquire title and easements were reasonable giventhe constraints they faced. The purposes or goals ofthe expansion project are not a special interest. With regard to Pike through the fence access, Pike does in fact have a written agreement withthe Authority and the agreement does in fact protect airport interests and adequately compensatethe airport.

6With regard to corporate leases and fuel farms, these practices alleged are beneficial to the airport, reasonable andinkeeping withindustrypractices. With regard to shared maintenance, the Authority's maintenance cost sharing practices with adjoining landowners are beneficial to the airport, reasonable and in keeping with industry practices. The example cited in the complaint did not interfere with airport use. With regard to the hayfield, the Authority does not use or authorize the use ofthe hayfield owned by Mr. and Mrs. Kirkman. There has never been an occasion where the hayfieldinterferedwiththe use ofthe airport. Withregard to the fuel audit, Mr. Springthorpe did notchangethe Tasking for the audit. The audit was performed per the Tasking. The Authority has taken reasonable steps to develop and implement procedures to address the issues raised in the audit. Authority funds are no longer usedfor maintaining fuel inventory. With regard to airport management, the authority has retained sufficient control

overthe airport manager. This control is retainedinthe FBO agreement and documented by the Authority's history. Withregardto FBO bidding, the bidding process for the FBO contract was fair andthe Authority did not grantthe FBO an exclusive right to bid on the contract. With regard to Mr. Venable, the Authority settled Mr. Venable's claim regarding exclusivity. Even ifthe Authority had not settled this claim, the Authority did not grant the FBO an exclusiverightto conductflight training.

7With regard to alleged car detailing by the FBO, the Authority did not give permission for car detailing. The Authority took prompt and reasonable steps to insure that, ifcardetailing was currently occurringit would be stopped and not occur again. II. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF MOTIONS, AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS PREVIOUSLYFILED. Respondent reasserts and incorporates by reference the motions raised in the previously filed Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum and affirmatively asserts the statements contained therein

as part ofthis answer. Respondent also incorporates by reference the affidavits which respondent filed in support of these motions and affirmatively asserts the statements containedtherein as partofthis answer. Respondent further incorporatesby reference the Composite Exhibit ofRelatedLawsuits as evidence ofthe history ofthis controversy. III. ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT Respondent notes that the complaint filed in this part 16 proceeding does not contain numbered paragraphs. Respondent further notes that, in addition to rambling factual assertions, unsupported conclusions and speculation, the complaint contains legal argument. Respondent has attempted to set forth admissions and denials ofthe factual assertions found in the complaint by restating the subject headings ofthe complaint in italics, and then providing respondent's response. To the extent this answer does not expressly admit allegations ofthe complaint, the allegations ofthe complaint are hereby denied.

8A. Complainant's section entitled JURISDICTION on pages 1-2 of the complaint. Respondent admits that in a Part 16 proceeding the FAA has jurisdiction to determine compliance with grant assurances. However, complainanthas raised anumber ofissues in the complaintwhich do notrelate to grant assurance compliance. Respondent denies that the FAA has jurisdiction under Part 16 to determine state law contract disputes regarding complainant's hangar lease and the waiting list (which have already been litigated in the state courts). Respondent also denies that the FAA hasjurisdiction in a Part 16 proceeding to entertain allegations concerning the appropriateness of the policy goals of the airport improvement project (previously approved by the FAA). Respondent also denies that the FAA has jurisdiction under Part 16 to entertain allegations regarding the private use of private property belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Kirkman (who are not a parties to this proceeding, and whom, upon information and belief, have receivedno federal aviation grants pertaining to said property). B. Complainant's section entitledPARTIES on page2 ofthe complaint. It is admitted that Mr. Hicks was a past board member and a past tenant. It is further admitted that respondent Mount Airy/Surry County Airport Authority is the governing body ofthe airport and the City ofMount Airy andthe County ofSurry are the sponsors. Inall otherrespects, the allegations ofthis section are denied. C. Complainant's section entitled CERTIFICATIONS OFATTEMPTS ATRESOLUTIONon pages 2-3 ofthe complaint. It is admitted that complainant did attempt to resolve his allegation that he was entitled to a renewal ofthe hangar lease. However, it is denied that complainant made

9the required attempts to resolve the othermatters alleged in the complaint. This matter is

more fully addressed on pages I0 and II ofrespondent's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum and paragraph 2 ofMr. Springthorpe's affidavit which are incorporatedhereinby reference. D. Complainant's section entitled BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT on pages 3-5 ofthe complaint. It is admitted that Mr. Hicks was a past member of the board of the Mount Airy/Surry County Airport Authority. It is denied that complainant is directly or substantially affectedby the matters alleged inthe complaint. Subparagraphs (i) through (x) ofthis section are argument and legal conclusions, and do notrequire aresponse. Alternatively, the same are denied. Onpage four, complainant asserts thatrespondent has violated grant assurances 4, 5, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24. Again, this constitutes argument and legal conclusions, and does not require a response. Alternatively, it is expressly denied that respondent has violated these grant assurances. In all otherrespects, the allegations ofthis section are denied. E. Complainant's section in STATEMENTOFFACTS entitledA. Parties involvedatKMWKandwith these issues on pages 5-6 ofthe complaint. The first three paragraphs ofthis section are admitted only as to the identity ofthe persons and entities identified. With regard to the fourth paragraph ofthis section, it is admitted that Joseph H. Williams is an attorney and provides legal services to the board. Itis further admitted the FBO agreementhas been filed by respondent as Exhibit 4 to the affidavit ofMr. Zamora and is the best evidence ofthe same.

10In all other respects, the allegations ofthis section are denied. F. Complainant's section in

### STATEMENTOFFACTS entitled

### B. Audit ofFBO'fuel usage and hangar rents inteifered with by 

### Chairman Springthorpe on pages 6-7 ofthe complaint. Itis admittedthatthe board voted to engage the accounting firm ofHaynes Strand to perform an audit, and by definition this means that at least a majority ofthe board was in favor of an audit and that the decision to undertake an audit was supported by the board, not just complainant. The Part 16 complaint correctly attached a copy of the Tasking for Haynes Strand as Exhibit I to the complaint. However, the complaint incorrectly states that Mr. Springthorpe changed the Tasking. Further, complainant also failed to attach a full copy ofthe Haynes Strandreport, and instead, misleadingly limited complainant's Exhibit 2 to the two pages ofrecommendations from Haynes Strand but omittedthe eight-page report on whichthese recommendations werepredicated.
It is further admitted and alleged that the true and correct factual history ofthis matter is set forth on pages 34-37 ofthe Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum, paragraphs 15-20 of Mr. Springthorpe's affidavit and paragraphs 1-12 of Mr. Zamora's affidavit, which are incorporatedhereinby reference. In all otherrespects the allegations ofthis section are denied.
G. Complainant's section in 

### STATEMENT OF FACTS entitled C. 

### RaTech permitted exclusiveflight training terminating a competitorflight instructor on pages 7-10 ofthe complaint.

11With regard to the allegations ofthe first paragraph ofthis section, it is admitted that respondent has filed a copy ofthe FBO agreement with this tribunal and that this is thebestevidence ofsaid agreement. In all otherrespects, this paragraphis denied. With regard to the remaining paragraphs in this section, it is admitted that Mr. Venable did not obtainpermissionto engage inflight instruction anddidnot comply with the rules and regulations for the same. It is expressly denied that respondent granted exclusive rights to Mr. Spane or RaTech. In all other respects the allegations ofthese paragraphs are denied. It is further admitted and alleged that the true and correct factual history ofthis matter is set forth onpages 42-44 ofthe Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum and paragraphs 52-56 of Mr. Springthorpe's affidavit, which are incorporated herein by reference. It is further admitted that the history of Mr. Venable's litigation and settlement of this matter is documented by the complaint, settlement and dismissal of the same which have been filed byrespondent inthe CompositeExhibit ofRelatedLawsuits. In all otherrespectsthe allegations ofthis section are denied.

H. Complainant's section in 

### STATEMENT OF FACTS entitled 

### D. Request forproposalsto operate the

### FBO at

### KMWKonpages 10-11 ofthe complaint. This section ofthe complaint contains allegations concerning two matters: (1) allegations concerning the FBO bidding process and (2) allegations concerning car detailing by theFBO. Withregard to allegations concerningthe FBO bidding process, it is admittedthat the board put the FBO contract up for bid in 2013. It is further admitted that the board

12voted to enter a contract with Mr. Spane and Ra-Tech. Itis further admitted and alleged that the true and correct factual history ofthis matter is set forth on pages 40-42 ofthe Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum and paragraphs 36-42 of Mr. Springthorpe's affidavit, which are incorporated herein by reference. In all other respects, the allegations concerning the FBO biddingprocess are denied. With regard to allegations concerning car detailing by the FBO, the complaint cites complainant's Exhibit SA as evidence of current non-aeronautical operations. Exhibit S appears to be a less than normal printout of a facebook posting with parts missing. However, the language concerning car detailing contained in SA indicates a date ofSeptember of2012. It is further admitted and alleged that the true and correct factual history ofthis matter is set forth on page 4S ofthe Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Sunm1ary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum and paragraphs 43-46 of Mr. Springthorpe's affidavit which are incorporatedhereinby reference. Respondent is withoutknowledge as to whether car detailing occurred atthe FBO

or whether it occurred for any significanttime and therefore denies the same. However, respondent has taken steps to assure this is not now occurring and will not occur in the future.

In all otherrespects, the allegations ofthis section are denied.
I. Complainant's section in 

### STATEMENT OF FACTS entitled 

### E. Runway expansion questions on pages 11-14 ofthe complaint.

13It is admitted that respondent has acquired the necessary title and easements for the portions ofthe project that have been funded. Itis further admitted and alleged that the true and correct factual history ofthis matteris set forth on pages 21-25 ofthe Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum, paragraphs 3-14 ofMr. Springthorpe's affidavit, paragraphs 1-17 ofMr. Kirby's affidavit and paragraphs 1-6 ofMr. Semones' affidavit which are incorporated hereinby reference. In all otherrespects, the allegations inthis section are denied. 

### J. Complainant's section in 

### STATEMENT OFFACTS entitled F. 

### Pike Electric Company and a "Through the Fence" Agreement on pages 14-15 of the complaint. This section contains allegations concerning (I) Pike's through the fence access; (2) corporate hangars; and (3) fuel farms. It is admitted that Pike has through the fence access controlled by the agreement which respondent has filed as an exhibit to the affidavit of Ms. Hall. It is further admitted that Mr. Kirkman provided pilot services for Pike and Insteel. It is further admitted that corporate tenants have invested their own funds to construct hangars and improve airport property. It is further admitted that Insteel has a fuel farm which it constructed with its own funds. However, it is denied Mr. Springthorpe, or any entity associated withMr. Springthorpe, has a fuel farm. In all otherrespects, the allegations of this section are denied. With regard to Pike's access, it is further admitted and alleged that the true and correct factual history ofthis matter is set forth on pages 27-28 ofthe Motionto Dismiss

14or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum, paragraphs 22-23 of Mr. Springthorpe's affidavit and paragraphs 1-3 of Ms. Hall's affidavit, whichare incorporatedhereinby reference. Withregard to corporate hangars and fuel farms, it is further admitted and alleged that the true and correct factual history ofthis matter is set forth on pages 28-31 ofthe Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum, paragraphs 24-31 ofMr. Springthorpe's affidavit which are incorporated hereinby reference. In all otherrespects, the allegations ofthis section are denied. K. Complainant's section in STATEMENT OF FACTS entitled G. SpecialInterestsbylong-termAirportAuthorityBoardMembers on pages 15-16 ofthe complaint. This section contains allegations concerning (1) the Hayfield belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Kirkman and (2) allegations thatthe purpose ofthe airport expansion project is

animpermissible special interestfor boardmembers. With regard to the Hayfield, it is admitted that Mr. and Mrs. Kirkman own a hayfield and that, on occasion, Mr. Kirkman uses the hayfield to land and take off. It is further admitted and alleged that the true and correct factual history ofthis matter is set forth onpages 33-34 ofthe Motionto Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum, paragraphs 32-35 of Mr. Springthorpe's affidavit andparagraphs 1-4 ofMr. Kirkman's affidavit, which are incorporatedhereinby reference. In all otherrespects, the allegations ofthis sectionofthe complaint are denied.

15With regard to the purpose of the expansion project, it is admitted that the improvements called for in this project are designed to enhancethe capacity and safety of operations for the public, general aviation and corporate and business aircraft using the facility. Itis further admitted and alleged thatthe true and correct factual history ofthis matter is set forth on pages 25-27 ofthe Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum, and paragraphs 4-9 of Mr. Springthorpe's affidavit which are incorporatedhereinbyreference. In all otherrespects, the allegations ofthis section ofthe complaintare denied. L. Complainant's section in STATEMENT OFFACTS entitled H. Billy Hicks hangarlease terminatedbytheBoardon pages 16-20 ofthe complaint. This section contains allegations concerning (1) the termination of Mr. Hick's lease; (2) allegations concerning banning Mr. Hicks from the airport and the removal of "an acquaintance" from a waiting list; and (3) allegations concerning car detailing. With regard to the allegations concerning the lease, it is admitted that Mr. Hicks

was a member ofthe board. Itis further admitted that Mr. Hicks had a lease and was on the waiting list for another hangar. It is further admitted that Mr. Hicks's lease was not renewed, and his name was removed from the hangar waiting list, because Mr. Hicks engaged in spray painting of his aircraft in his leasehold to the detriment and serious damage to the aircraft of several tenants and in so doing violated his lease and the fire code. Itis expressly denied that any othertenanthas ever engaged inthis type ofconduct to the damage ofaircraft owed by other tenants. In all other respects, the allegations of this section are denied.

16It is further admitted and alleged that the true and correct factual history ofthis matter is set forth on pages 2-6 and 14-20 ofthe Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum and paragraphs 57-63 of Mr. Springthorpe's affidavit which are incorporated herein by reference. The extensive litigation history ofthis matter is also documented in the Composite Exhibit ofRelated Lawsuits whichrespondenthas filed herein. With regard to the allegations concerning FBO car detailing, these allegations are addressed above and said response is incorporated herein by reference. In all other respects, these allegations are denied. With regard to the allegations regarding the alleged unnamed "acquaintance" and allegations that Mr. Hicks has been banned from the airport, it is denied that respondent has removed anyone from a waiting list for reasons relating in any way to Mr. Hicks. It is also denied that Mr. Hicks has beenbannedfrom the airport. Itis further admitted and alleged thatthe true andcorrectfactual history ofthis matter is set forth onpage 20 ofthe Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum and paragraphs 63-64 of Mr. Springthorpe's affidavit which are incorporatedhereinbyreference. Inall otherrespects, the allegations ofthis section are denied. M. Complainant's section entitled STATEMENT OF COMPLAINTS PRESENTED on pages 20-21 ofthe complaint. This section (including but not limited to items I through IX thereof) is legal argument and does not require admission or denial. Accordingly, no response ts required. Alternatively, the allegations ofthis section are denied.

17N. Complainant's section entitled ARGUMENT on pages 21-46 of the complaint. This section (including but not limited to sections I through IX thereof) is legal argument and does not require admission or denial. Accordingly, no response IS required. Alternatively,the allegations ofthis section are denied. 0. Complainant's section entitled CONCLUSION on page 47 of the complaint. This section (including but not limited to items A through H thereof) is legal argument and does notrequire admission or denial. Accordingly, no response is required. Alternatively, it is denied that respondent has violated grant assurances and it is denied that claimant is entitled to any relief from this tribunal. Alternatively, in all other respects, the allegations ofthis section are denied. P. Complainant's exhibits. It is admitted that the excerpts from deposition testimony are coptes of the deposition testimony. It is further admitted that the exhibits purporting to be copies of the Tasking, the complainant's lease, minutes, and emails and letters from board members, tenants and counsel, are the documents they purport to be. However, it is denied that complainant has attached full and complete copies ofsome ofthe documents (i.e., the Haynes Strand Audit). With regard to the remainder ofthe exhibits, respondent objections on the grounds that these documents are not authenticated and many ofthese documents contain false or misleading information and unsubstantiated hearsay and are otherwise inaccurate.

18Q. Further denial. To the extent that respondent has not expressly admitted any ofthe allegations of the complaint, said allegations are expressly denied. S. Incorporation by reference. The substance ofand statements contained in the affidavits respondent has filed herein are incorporated herein by reference as affirmative allegations and part of this answer. The substance of and statements contained in the Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum are incorporated herein by reference as affirmative allegations andpartofthis answer. IV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Byway offurther defense to the matters allegedinthe complaint, respondent alleges as follows: 1. All ofcomplainant's claims except for those pertaining to termination of his lease are barred by complainant's failure to attempt resolution prior to filing this Part 16 complaint. 2. Complainant lacks standing to assert claims pertaining to Mr. Venable, complainant's unnamed "acquaintance" and the unsuccessful bidders for the FBO contract because complainant is not the real party in interest and the real parties in interest are notpartiesto this Part 16 proceeding. 3. Complainant lacks standing to assert any of the claims raised in the complaintbecausehe is not directly or substantially affectedby the matters alleged.

194. All ofthe claims alleged in the complaint are barredbecause they are stale and on the grounds oflaches and on the grounds ofthe inexcusable delay ofcomplainant inbringingtheses claims. 5. All ofthe claims are barred onthe grounds thatthey do notrelate to issues concerning presentnon-compliance with grant assurances. 6. Complainant's claims concerning the lease and waiting list are barred on the grounds that they are moot because complainant voluntarily vacated his lease and thereafter the hangar was leasedto another tenant. 7. The claims concerning Mr. Venable are barred by the prior litigation and settlement of Mr. Venable's claims and Part 16's policy of promoting settlement and informal resolution. 8. Complainant's claims regarding his lease and the waiting list have been litigated in state court and are barredby res-judicata and collateral estoppel. 9. The following claims are not proper claims for consideration under a Part 16 proceeding and this tribunal lacksjurisdiction regarding the same: (a) Mr. and Mrs. Kirkman's hayfield; (b) claims concerning the wisdom and policy goals of the airport improvement project; and (c) claims concerning state law contract rights under the lease

orthe waiting list. 10. Complainant's claims regarding his lease and the waiting list are barred on the grounds of complainant's illegal, unjust and irresponsible behavior and his unclean hands in that he and he alone decided to engage in behavior which damaged the aircraft of other tenants (which also violated his lease and the fire code) and he and he alone refused to even attend the meeting which was duly noticed to address concerns regarding

20the same or offer any assurances thathe would not engage inthis type ofbehavior again. Instead, complainant steadfastly maintained and continues to maintain this this was a trivial occurrence and that complainanthas the right to violate rules withoutregard to the consequences on othertenants. 11. Respondent's practices with regard to the maters alleged in the complaint

were reasonable, inkeeping with respondent's duties, in keeping with industry standards for an airport ofsimilar local and size, and were prudent and beneficial to the airport and the users ofthe airport. 12. Much ofthe conduct complained ofby complainantwas requiredby Grant Assurances andthe responsibilities thatflow therefrom. Forexample: (a) With regard to long term leases for hangars constructed usmg tenant funds, Grant Assurance 38 requires the granting of long-term leases to tenants which construct hangars at their own expense. The corporate leases complained of by complainant in this case which were granted to tenants who expended their own funds to construct the same were a reasonable exercise of these responsibilities. (b) With regard to fuel farms, respondent has a duty to permit selffueling under reasonable standards that enhance the safety and efficiency of an airport operation. The fuel farm at issue in this case was a reasonable exercise of these responsibilities. (c) With regard to Mr, Hick's lease, respondent has an obligation to protect the rights ofother tenants to be able to use their hangars without fear of incurring damage to their aircraft resulting from illegal conduct ofirresponsible

21tenants such as Mr. Hicks. Terminating Mr. Hicks' lease after he interfered with othertenants' rights was areasonable exercise ofthese responsibilities.

WHEREFORE respondent respectfully requests that this tribunal dismiss the complaint with prejudice and for such other and further relief as this tribunal deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, this the 3rd day ofOctober2015.

Winston-Salem, NC 2710106 Telephone: (336) 750-0860 Fax: (336) 727-1085 Email: howardcjonesii@gmail.com Attorney for Mount Airy/Surry County Airport Authority



### 22rERTIFICATE OF**SERVI~E** I, Howard C. Jones II, certifY that on October 3, 2015 I filed and served this Answer by placingthe original thereofand three copies to the FAA, in prepaid first class or express envelopes or boxes in the custody ofthe United Stutes Mail and by delivering a copy to counsel ofrecord addressed as follows: Mailed To: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Mailed To: Randolph M. James Attorney for Plaintiffs Randolph M. James, P.C. P.O. Box 20069 Winston-Salem, NC 27120 A!!orney ForComplainant Mailed To: EdwinM. Woltz 119 Rawley Avenue MountAiry, NC 27030 Attorney forthe County ofSmry, North Carolina Mailed To: Hugh 

### B. Campbell, lil 235 E. Independence B Ivel. PO Box 1846 Mount Airy, North Carolina27030 Attorney for the City ofMount Airy, North Carolina

23