Valley Aviation Servs., LLP v. City of Glendale, Ariz.-197

FAA Docket No:

16-09-06

Lexis Cite:

2011 FAA LEXIS 136

Westlaw Cite:

2011 WL 2274635

Author:

Fiertz, Randall S., Director

Author Title:

Director

Complainant(s):

Valley Aviation Services, LLP

Respondent(s):

Glendale (Ariz.)

Airport(s):

Glendale Municipal Airport (GEU)

Holding:

Finding violation.

Abstract:

Complainant, Valley Aviation Services, LLP, filed a complaint against Respondent, the City of Glendale, alleging Respondent had undertaken a “long-term attempt to discriminate against” Complainant in violation of Grant Assurances 19, 22, 24, and 25. (pp. 1). The Director also considered whether Complainant had violated Grant Assurance 29. (p. 3). The Director found the Respondent in violation of Grant Assurances 19, 22 and 29, but not in violation of Grant Assurances 24 and 25. (p. 3).|Grant Assurances 19 and 29:|Complainant alleged that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19 by allowing the operation of non-aeronautical commercial businesses, storage of non-aeronautical items by tenants, and storage of non-airworthy, disabled aircraft in hangars designed for aeronautical use. The Director found that these activities violated Grant Assurance 19 by interfering with aeronautical activities. It also found violations of federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 47107(c), and FAA Order 5190.6B, both of which require use of the Airport for aeronautical activities. (pp. 32-27).|Respondent’s actions also violated Grant Assurance 29, which prohibits commercial uses of land designated and maintained for aeronautical purposes. (p. 37).|Grant Assurance 22:|Respondent violated Grant Assurance 22, when it allowed storage of non-aeronautical items and disabled aircraft in some hangars but not others (all of which was prohibited by the Airport Rules and Regulations). (pp. 37-47).|Respondent violated Grant Assurance 22 when it informed Complainant that it was in default of its lease because its hangar and tie-down rates were not “reflective of comparable rates in the local area,” and that it must lower those rates or face eviction. (p. 15). While Complainant’s low hangar occupancy rate was a legitimate cause for concern, the Airport acted without sufficient evidence when it determined that low occupancy was caused by high hangar and tie-down rental rates. (p. 38).|Grant Assurance 24:|Complainant’s allegation that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 24 by allowing uncontrolled subleasing without establishing any fee structure or controls for those subleases was dismissed. The Director found that the fact that the Airport “might be able to collect additional fees or a higher rate is not sufficient to show” it is in violation of Grant Assurance 24. (p. 59).|Grant Assurance 25:|Complainant’s allegation that allowing uncontrolled subleasing without establishing any fee structure or controls for those subleases deprived the Airport of appropriate revenue in violation of Grant Assurance 25 was dismissed. Complainant had provided “no evidence to show airport revenues received were unlawfully diverted” under Grant Assurance 25. (p. 59). However, the Director cautioned that if certain tenants were able to “operate as a commercial business by entering into subleases without meeting the same standards and paying taxes and fees comparable to what the Complainant pays,” it would likely be a violation of Grant Assurance 22. (p. 59). The Director cautioned Respondent that it should review its policies and practices to ensure they were not unjustly discriminatory. (p. 60).

Index Terms:

Valley Aviation Servs., LLP v. City of Glendale, Ariz. -- No. 16-09-06 -- No. FAA-2009-1020