SR 04-12-2016 1H
Add to 1-H, I, J, and K
04/13/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Bob Rigdon <bobrigdon@roadrunner.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item 1 Closd Session Litigation Report
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
To City Council:
I am a concerned neighbor of the airport, and I have a comment on the litigation to be
discussed in tonight’s closed session.
In 1994, the City made a bargain with the FAA to abide by some onerous “grant
assurances” for twenty years. In return, the City bought the ability to move to
something better starting in 2015. The twenty-year waiting period was a huge burden
on me personally, but that was the deal. In 2003, the City asked for and received about
$240,000 from the FAA, but the City Attorney’s office failed to reconfirm the 2015
expiration date. It is a basic rule of contract drafting to write down all the important
terms, especially the ones that favor your client. The expiration date was crucial, and
the City would clearly not have asked for or accepted money from the FAA at the price
of a seven-year extension. By failing to document this term, the City opened the door
to the argument that the grant assurances were extended until 2023. I find the case for
this so-called extension to be pretty sleazy, but it has been argued by aviation lobbies
and the federal government and Justice Aviation in all five cases before you
tonight. Much litigation could have been prevented by a single sentence back in
2003. We knew that the FAA and the airport users were hostile and crafty. We knew
that the road ahead was uncertain. This problem was entirely foreseeable. I intend no
disrespect to the City Attorney’s office, but this poor drafting job should be a source of
great embarrassment. The City Attorney’s office might prefer to sweep it under the
carpet. Please consider this possible source of bias during your discussions this
evening. Thank you for your hard work and difficult decisions.
Very truly yours,
Robert N. Rigdon
1