Maxim United, LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Jefferson Cnty. -- No. 16-01-10

FAA Docket No:

16-01-10

Lexis Cite:

2002 FAA LEXIS 170

Westlaw Cite:

2002 WL 963590

Author:

Bennett, David L., Director

Author Title:

Director

Complainant(s):

Maxim United, LLC

Respondent(s):

Jefferson County (Colo.) Board of County Commissioners

Airport(s):

Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (BJC)|Jefferson County Airport, formerly

Holding:

Finding violation.

Abstract:

Complainant, Maxim United LLC, filed a complaint against Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County, operator of the Jefferson County Airport, alleging that Respondent violated Grant Assurances 22(a) and (f) and Grant Assurance 23 by prohibiting it from self-fueling.|Self-Fueling:|The lease term in Complainant's lease with Respondent, which prohibited Complainant from constructing a self-fueling facility until Respondent revised its Minimum Standards, violated Grant Assurance 22(f), where Respondent enforced this restriction and thereby prevented Complainant from self-fueling for approximately one-and-a-half years. (p. 19).|In the absence of Respondent's timely adoption and implementation of revised Minimum Standards, Grant Assurance 22(f) required Respondent to offer Complainant reasonable standards under which it could self-fuel until such time as the revised standards were adopted and implemented. (p. 19).|Unjust Economic Discrimination:|The fact that some entities were permitted to self-fuel pending adoption of revised Minimum Standards while Complainant was prohibited from doing the same was unjustly discriminatory even though the other leases were agreed to by the Airport Authority, which was abolished before Complainant's lease was executed, because regardless of who was managing the Airport, the County (Respondent) was the sponsor and was therefore bound by the federal grant assurances. (p. 21).|The fact that some entities were permitted to self-fuel pending adoption of revised Minimum Standards while Complainant was prohibited from doing the same was a per se violation of Grant Assurance 22(a). (p. 21).|While minimum standards may, from time to time, be increased to ensure a higher quality of service or to better serve the public interest, they must be reasonable, relevant to the proposed activity, reasonably attainable and uniformly applied. (p. 22).|The fact that leases with Complainant and two other entities required them to comply with revised Minimum Standards while previous leases did not contain that requirement did not necessarily indicate unjust economic discrimination where the previous leases were entered into eight to seventeen years earlier. "No Federal obligation requires a sponsor to forgo improved business practices to equalize terms and conditions among tenants." (p. 24).|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23):|Since Complainant, alone, was denied the right to self-fuel, Respondent granted a constructive exclusive right to the group of other tenants who were permitted to self-fuel during this period. (p. 24).

Index Terms:

Unjust economic discrimination|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Self-fueling|Minimum Standards