Neil Kunz v. Salt Lake City Corporation et al. – No. 16-21-06
Author:
Shannetta R. Griffin, Associate Administrator for Airports
Complainant(s):
Neil KunzRespondent(s):
Salt Lake City Corporation / Salt Lake City Department of Airports, UtahAirport(s):
Bolinder Field-Tooele Valley Airport (TVY)
Holding:
Affirming Director’s Decision (complaint dismissed).Abstract:
Complainant alleged that the City violated the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (“URA”), 42 U.S.C § 4601, et seq., and URA-Real Property Acquisition—Certain Litigation Expenses, 49 C.F.R. § 24.107, by abandoning its condemnation action for an avigation easement over the Complainant’s property and failing to pay litigation expenses. (Final Agency Decision, p. 2.)
The Director of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis concluded the following in the Director’s Determination.
First, the City was not in violation of Grant Assurance 35, Relocation and Real Property Acquisition, by failing to purchase the Complainant’s property or an avigation easement over Complainant’s property. (Final Agency Decision, p. 2.) The Director determined that Grant Assurance 35 was not implicated in this case as [Complainant’s] property lay outside of the runway protection zones for Runway 35. (Final Agency Decision, p. 2.) The FAA had not issued an Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant for the acquisition of the property.
Second, Respondent was not in violation of Grant Assurance 35, Relocation and Real Property Acquisition, by failing to pay litigation expenses related to its failed condemnation action. (Final Agency Decision, p. 2.) The Director determined that Grant Assurance 35 and the URA apply only to situations in which the property is acquired with federal funds, which was not the case here. (Final Agency Decision, p. 2.) The Director also stated that it was outside of the FAA’s jurisdiction to address the legal fees for the failed condemnation action in this case. (Final Agency Decision, p. 2.) The Part 16 process was not intended to address state law legal claims, and the grant assurances do not compel the City to acquire property interests from the Complainant nor specify the terms of such acquisition if so pursued. (Final Agency Decision, p. 2.)
Appeal—Affirmed
Complainant appealed, asserting that the Director’s findings and conclusions should be set aside as “not in accordance with law and FAA’s precedent and policy.” (Final Agency Decision, p. 1.)
More specifically, Complainant argued that “the Director is in error that the sponsor is not required to acquire the Kunz easement as part of the Instrument Landing System (ILS) and Runway expansion project, which was Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funded and for which Grant Assurance 35 allegedly applies. Kunz further appeals that an avigation easement is required for the operation of the Airport because an airport overlay zone (AOZ) has not been adopted and no protection exists for the airspace. Finally, Kunz appeals that the City has not fulfilled a condition that a court of competent jurisdiction previously concluded was necessary for the City to obtain funding, i.e., acquisition of the avigation easement.” (Final Agency Decision, p. 1.)
The Associate Director rejected each of Complainant’s arguments, however. First, “[t]he Complainant does not substantiate any claims related to this issue on Appeal. The record shows that the sponsor is taking reasonable actions to minimize incompatible land use; pursue AOZs; and protect the Airport’s airspace. The FAA does not dictate what the sponsor needs to do to promote compatible land use, such as purchasing property or air avigation easements. Consequently, the Associate Administrator upholds the Director’s Determination.” (Final Agency Decision, p. 9.) Second, “the Associate Administrator affirms that the Director is correct that it is outside of the FAA’s jurisdiction to address the legal fees for the condemnation action in this case. The Part 16 process is not intended to address state law legal claims or provide compensation to aggrieved parties. The grant assurances do not compel the City to acquire property interests from the Complainant nor specify the terms of such acquisition if so pursued.” (Final Agency Decision, p. 10.) And, last: “Having examined the arguments of the City and Kunz, the Associate Administrator affirms the finding in the Director’s Determination. The grant assurances do not compel the City to acquire property interests from Kunz nor specify the terms of such acquisition if so pursued. The Director also did not err concerning the jurisdiction of the court actions. State court action may involve matters of contract law over which the FAA has no jurisdiction. Nor is the FAA’s conclusion dependent on the outcome of such state court action.” (Final Agency Decision, p. 10.)