Bartel v. Montgomery Cnty. Revenue Auth. -- No. 13-90-20

FAA Docket No:

13-90-20

Author:

White, James, Deputy Director

Author Title:

Deputy Director

Complainant(s):

Bartel, Richard C.

Respondent(s):

Montgomery County Revenue Authority

Airport(s):

Montgomery County Airpark (GAI)

Holding:

Dismissing complaint.

Abstract:

Complainant, Richard Bartel, filed a complaint against Respondent, the Montgomery County Revenue Authority, owner of Montgomery County Airpark, alleging that Respondent granted an exclusive right in violation of Grant Assurance 23 by not entering into commercial leases with interested competitors. From 1960 to 1980 the Montgomery County Airpark, Inc. (MCAI) held a lease which granted it an exclusive right to operate at the Airport. In 1980, Respondent expanded the airport boundaries and reduced the amount of property under MCAI's control in order to come into compliance with federal grant assurances and receive federal financial assistance. Respondent used federal financial assistance to acquire ten-acres of land to expand the Airport and create additional space for FBO services. Complainant's company managed the Airport through a sublease from 1983 to 1990 until his company declared bankruptcy and Complainant was fired by the court-appointed trustee. Complainant alleged that Respondent did not hold out its newly acquired land for lease or purchase for aeronautical uses and therefore granted an exclusive right to the existing operator in violation of the grant assurances. The Director found no violation and dismissed the Complaint.|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23):|Despite Respondent's inability to find an FBO for its newly acquired parcel, it did not grant an exclusive right to the existing operator where the Airport had two FBOs that have been operating at the Airport for many years and made three attempts to attract new FBOs to the newly acquired parcel - one was awarded a lease but was unsuccessful in developing the FBO operation and defaulted on lease payments; the second entered into negotiations that proved unsuccessful; and the third entered into a lease agreement that was later terminated for failure to make lease payments. (p. 13).|Even if the facts supported Complainant's allegation that one of the FBO applicants was treated unjustly by Respondent, such past treatment was not evidence of the granting of a present exclusive right. "The objective of the FAA's compliance program is to assure that airports are in compliance with their grant obligations on a current basis, not to impose sanctions for past non-compliance." (p. 13).|"While the Authority is obligated to provide available and suitable space for commercial aeronautical activity, it is under no obligation to make improvements to the property." (p. 14).|Airport sponsors may charge different rates to similar uses of the airport if the differences can be justified as nondiscriminatory. (p. 14).|Respondent's delegation of management of the Airport to a single, separate entity did not violate grant assurances where this management arrangement had not prevented the establishment of viable commercial aeronautical businesses at the Airport, including two competing FBOs. (p. 19).|Responsible Parties:|Complainant's request to add Montgomery County as a respondent was rejected, because the Authority, as an independent public corporation, signed the grant assurance and as such was the body responsible to abide by the exclusive right obligation. Montgomery County did not own the Airport and did not sign the contractual agreements assenting to the terms of the grant assurances. (p. 16).

Index Terms:

Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Sublease|Remedied past violations|Procedure