The revocation was effective immediately and imposed for 30 days. After that time, JetAway can seek a hearing to have access reinstated, but the county made it clear the company would have to sign an official access permit agreement.
"The judge has gotten frustrated with this case. He issued what I would term a 'no-doubt' (temporary restraining) order," County Attorney Bob Hill said prior to the commissioners' unanimous vote.
|
Advertisement |
For nearly three years, JetAway and the county have disputed what the aviation company adjacent to Montrose Regional Airport can do in terms under a 2001 agreement.
JetAway sued after the county awarded the fixed-base operator contract to Jet Center Partners in 2005.
The court issued an order in June, terminating JetAway's land lease agreement and instructed it to apply for an airport access agreement. Judge James Schum also said JetAway could call itself an FBO, because it was able to provide many services traditionally provided by FBOs. He denied the county's claim for attorney's fees, which the county has appealed.
The county, arguing new and "continual" safety violations on JetAway's part, secured a temporary restraining order against the company on Friday.
Separately, JetAway filed a federal antitrust complaint that alleged a conspiracy to monopolize business at the airport, and a new complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration.
At the standing-room-only commission hearing Wednesday, several employees of fellow JetAway tenant, Western Skyways, said they stood to lose their jobs if access was cut off and that it was unfair to punish their workplace for JetAway's conduct. Private pilot Tim Heavers, who hangars craft at JetAway, was also concerned.
JetAway's representatives did not attend the hearing. Instead, JetAway attorney Mark Haynes sent a letter Monday, asking the county not to move on revoking access until after the new board of county commissioners is seated in January.
Haynes said the county was only moving to revoke access in "retaliation" for CEO Stephen Stuhmer's opposition to the re-election of Commissioner Bill Patterson. Patterson lost his bid to retain his seat; Western Skyways owner Al Head previously attempted to recall him from office.
Haynes called Wednesday's proceedings a "sham" and "last-ditch effort to shut down JetAway's operations prior to the departure of Commissioners Patterson and (Allan) Belt from the BOCC."
"... they are willing to take whatever actions are necessary, justified or not, to put JetAway out of business," Haynes said earlier in the letter.
Hill said the allegations of retaliation were bogus. "I frankly don't see that as being the case." Hill referred to a Sept. 8 letter that told JetAway it needed to sign the county's access agreement or risk its access. Commissioner Gary Ellis pointed out this letter came well before the Nov. 4 election. (JetAway submitted a letter of application and $250 access fee and says that is adequate. The county says JetAway must sign an official agreement, which would require them to make payments more in line with that of Jet Center Partners — an estimated $75,000).
Schum's statements in court Friday further disputed JetAway's statements. He said evidence of ongoing safety violations were undisputed.
"They (county) are really bending over backwards, in my mind, to try to keep JetAway in business, and yet, are becoming frustrated and almost at their wit's end with JetAway's refusal to comply with the regulations and the minimum standards," a transcript of the hearing read.
"... Perhaps the county is bending over backwards too much, in my opinion."
Though commissioners made clear the access decision Wednesday was limited to JetAway, Western Skyways attorney John Head said his client's business couldn't help but be affected. Ed Tracy, operator of HeliQuest, another JetAway tenant, said much the same.
"I don't frankly understand (the dispute)," John Head, the brother of Al Head, said. "It looks to me like it's gotten personal. My client is caught in a bit of poison between competing interests."
He warned the county it could be setting itself up for a complaint that it used its governmental authority to force Western Skyways out of business and close to 90 employees to the unemployment line in the midst of a recession.
Commissioner Allan Belt said the county was ordered to take action against JetAway, not Western Skyways.
"Why are you not putting pressure on JetAway to come into compliance?" he asked the Heads.
The county ultimately agreed to hammer out a specific agreement to ensure continued access for Western Skyways and HeliQuest.
Public support for revoking JetAway's access was mixed.
"I would like to see us all on a level playing field," Paul Bannister, a pilot, said. "I think JetAway needs to be restricted."
Blake Freeland of Cimarron Air said it wasn't the county's job to act as an agent for JetAway's tenants. Cimarron Air competes with Western Skyways. He also said the county should get back "every cent" spent in litigation before dealing with JetAway again.
Alice Carter, sister-in-law to Al Head, urged the commissioners to consider how its decision would impact Western Skyways. "These people's lives are in your hands," she said, before earning a round of applause.
Belt said the county was tired of taking the heat for JetAway, whose conduct, he said, brought the situation to a head. "How much more patience can we be expected to have with JetAway ... which has yet to comply with regulations we're mandated to enforce?"
He said the revocation of JetAway's access was long overdue, but consideration would be given to other tenants.
"We're committed to working with you. We don't want to punish you because the landlord has screwed up," Belt said.
After the hearing, he said he was fed up with listening to people defend JetAway.
"We could've made it permanent. We're assuming they're all of a sudden going to have an epiphany and use some common sense in a business deal," Belt said of JetAway.
• 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!