While many speakers urged Montrose County to reject the proposal, calling the off-airport business a "bully," others said the county hadn't fairly presented the facts.
"I'm glad the sheriff is here, because these same fellas are still trying to hold up the stagecoach," former county commission candidate Jim Haugsness said of JetAway.
 Advertisement |
If the county signs off on the agreement by Sept. 15, JetAway will drop all of its federal claims.
Wednesday, during a public meeting the county called to discuss the offer, special counsel Brian Magoon was critical of certain elements of the offer.
He said the "reasonable lender's requirements" for the proposed deed of trust called for in the agreement haven't been specified. The settlement offer calls for JetAway's consultant to serve as the engineer, but the county already has its own, which was selected by competitive bid.
There's nothing in the offer, Magoon said, that would protect the county from parties other than JetAway making legal claims and JCP could sue for breach of contract.
"You just switch parties," he said.
Additionally, Magoon said the agreement simply calls for JetAway to be designated the second FBO without a request for proposal process.
JetAway attorney Bill White would later use his three minutes of public comment to say JetAway wasn't given equal time to present its case to residents, which would've included answers to the issues raised.
"If the county is truly interested in public comment, there's got to be a little better forum for it," he said.
White and others took issue with a timeline of events the county developed and presented during the meeting, saying it wasn't objective.
Richard Harding criticized the county's timeline for making no mention of the state court's ruling that JetAway could call itself an FBO, or that the court denied the county's request for legal fees.
Al Head, owner of Western Skyways, a fellow tenant of JetAway's, was the first to speak Wednesday. He said he was "dumbfounded" by the county's conduct concerning the acreage where JetAway sits. It was purchased by the Montrose Economic Development Corporation in 2001, from the county, but the county in 2003 identified it as land it would be good for the airport to have.
"Why, when they had the land identified, didn't they jump on it?" Head said.
Head was one of three men who spearheaded recall efforts against Commissioner Bill Patterson last year.
Those speaking after Head were less enthused about JetAway. Several said the FBO bidding process had been fair and, as pilot Dale Reed said, "the loser had his chance."
Pilot Kirby Kline said industry standards showed a minimum of 5 million gallons in fuel sales was necessary to sustain two FBOs — and Montrose sells far less.
"It's really clear we shouldn't be doing business with these folks," resident Bob Nicholson said.
"They have been a bully ever since (losing)," said Shirley Leonard. "I think that's wrong. Are we going to let the commissioners run things, or are we going to let JetAway run it?"
Another resident, Patricia Vitela, called JetAway's conduct "mean-spirited and unethical."
But David Keinholz, whose real estate company contributed $14,000 to the Patterson Recall Committee's efforts, said having two FBOs would encourage competition.
"Are there two banks that are able to operate? It is competition, and competition makes us all better," he said.
Good-faith negotiations would benefit Montrose in the long run, Keinholz said.
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!