[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
22-9583 Coons versus FAA.

[00:00:04] Speaker 02:
Mr. Mansfield, you may proceed.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
May it please the court and counsel.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
Again, my name is Robert Mansfield.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
I'm here on behalf of Neil Coons.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
With me at council table is Megan Garrett and also with me in the gallery is the Coons family.

[00:00:25] Speaker 03:
Your Honors, we believe the agency decision was incorrect in several respects.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
First, the associate administrator erred in determining that Salt Lake City was not in violation of the grant assurances.

[00:00:37] Speaker 03:
One, for failure to assure that adequate protection was in place for the airspace above the Coons property and for Salt Lake City's failure to reimburse the Coons for their attorney's fees and litigation costs as a result of their abandonment of the eminent domain proceeding.

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
First, we do not believe that the decision that Salt Lake City fulfilled, the grant assurance, the ruling is arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
The primary issue here is whether the state court action should or should not have been considered by the director and the associate administrator.

[00:01:18] Speaker 03:
Let me give you a little background, if I may, on that.

[00:01:21] Speaker 03:
An eminent domain action was originally filed by Salt Lake City in 2007 to acquire an avocation easement over the Coons property.

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
And the Coons property lies just to the south of the Tuala Valley Airport.

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
This is an airport.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
It's controlled by the Salt Lake City Airport Authority, but is actually in the next county over to the west, so not within Salt Lake City's jurisdiction.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
What do you do with our case in Arapahoe, where we said the Colorado Supreme Court's decision had no impact on the FAA and its administrative decisions?

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
Sure, and I think Arapahoe is distinguishable on several grounds.

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
First, in Arapahoe,

[00:02:08] Speaker 03:
the airport authority, Arapahoe County Airport Authority, tried to make binding on the FAA the determination by the Colorado Supreme Court that there was not a violation of the grant assurance.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
And as this court found that the Colorado Supreme Court decision could not control the supremacy clause barred consideration of the binding effect of that.

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
Well, that makes sense, doesn't it?

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
Well, it does make sense because in Arapaho, it does control how the FAA goes about protection of the airspace here.

[00:02:46] Speaker 03:
In this case, how I think this is different, you have Salt Lake City Airport Authority

[00:02:51] Speaker 03:
who was an intervener in this action, took the position that in order to comply with grant assurance 20 and 21, that it was seeking airport overlay zones through Tooele County.

[00:03:06] Speaker 03:
And what they stated was that their efforts to obtain the airport overlay zone was promising.

[00:03:12] Speaker 03:
Now, I think how the state court action applies here, and this is how it's different from Arapaho, is I think that is binding on Salt Lake City, and Salt Lake City should be stopped from asserting that in order to comply with the grant assurances,

[00:03:28] Speaker 03:
that it could pursue an airport overlay zone.

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
And in fact, throughout the course of the eminent domain proceeding, Salt Lake City explicitly took the position before the court that it was bound by the grant assurances, specifically mentioned the grant assurances, and that it was bound by those grant assurances and is required to pursue an eminent domain action.

[00:03:53] Speaker 02:
What's the status of the eminent domain action?

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
So what has happened is, and that goes into grant assurance 35.

[00:04:00] Speaker 03:
So the eminent domain action was dismissed by the district court of Tooele County for... On Mr. Coon's motion over the city's objection.

[00:04:11] Speaker 03:
That is correct.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
It was dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-filing conditions that the Utah Code requires before an eminent domain action can proceed.

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
That then went up to the Utah Appellate Courts.

[00:04:27] Speaker 03:
That decision of the District Court was affirmed.

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
During the pendency of the appeal and even subsequent to the appeal, Salt Lake City, again, passed another resolution authorizing the use of the power of eminent domain to acquire the abrogation easement over the Coons property, even went so far as to have an appraiser.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
But nothing was filed.

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
Nothing was filed.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
They chose not to file, and they based on that, what Salt Lake City then said, that they undertook efforts to obtain an airport overlay zone over the Coons property.

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
First, they did so through Tooele County.

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
That was rejected by Tooele County.

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
Second of all, a new city was incorporated.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
And there's a pending inverse condemnation action?

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
There is a pending inverse condemnation.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
The Coons family.

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
That is correct.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
What's the status of that?

[00:05:20] Speaker 03:
That is proceeding now.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
We're in the middle of expert discovery.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
No trial date has been set, but that matter is proceeding.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
Well, isn't that your remedy?

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
Well, that certainly is a remedy.

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
But also the Utah law is clear, as is federal law, that a landowner should not be required to bring an inverse condemnation suit in order to enforce a government entity's taking of private property.

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
Well, but here, I mean, the FAA was not a party to any of the litigation.

[00:05:55] Speaker 03:
They were not a party.

[00:05:56] Speaker 03:
That is correct.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
And the FAA has determined, after the Utah case,

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
They readjusted their plans and they were able to put in the, what's it called, the land plan?

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
The airport layout plan?

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
Yes, and they were able to put in the technology that they wanted without the Coons property.

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
Well, that is not correct.

[00:06:28] Speaker 03:
And now the airport layout plan, which does not reference the Coons property as a property that is required to be taken.

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
Now under Grants Assurance 20, it states that Salt Lake City, it says it,

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
the recipient of the federal funds, will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal air spaces is required to protect instrumental visual operation.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
So, Grant Assurance 20 was not part of your action before the Director.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
I think it was, now.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
Well, it wasn't named, you never said Grant Assurance 20, right?

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
No, Mr. Coons filed the complaint.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
It was a pro se complaint.

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
No Grant Assurance whatsoever was mentioned by number, not 35, not 20, not 21.

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
But I think certainly the complaint implicates both 20, 21, and 35.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
And the only

[00:07:29] Speaker 03:
reference to a grant agreement or grant assurance is in the plural on page one, which this is record AR004.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
I am filing a formal complaint against Mr. Alan McCandless in Salt Lake City Department of Airports for noncompliance with grant agreements going on.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
Here, under Grant Assurance 20 and I think 21, you're talking about a proposed flagpole, right?

[00:08:02] Speaker 03:
Well, that is one issue.

[00:08:04] Speaker 03:
That's not really the whole issue.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
And a tree.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
So what it is, is this.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
Well, I'm right about those two things.

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
Well, those two things would be obstacles that the FAA and Salt Lake City has sought to remove.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
Okay, let me focus you on those for just a moment.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
Those two obstacles, are they on Mr. Coons' property?

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
They are not on Mr. Neal Coons' property.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
They are on his family's property, which adjoins it.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
It's not on his property.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
No, that is very true.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
It is not on his particular property.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
The action does not limit a complainant under Part 16 to only discuss what is

[00:08:54] Speaker 03:
only on that person's property, all it requires is that he be an affected person.

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
And Mr. Koontz clearly is an affected person.

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
The problem here isn't necessarily the flagpole or the tree as well.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
On Mr. Koontz's property itself, because of the slope of the avagation easement, would prevent development on his property.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
This is a slope that's at 16 feet, I believe, at the northern end of the entirety of the Coons property and then goes up from there.

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
But this would restrict development also on Mr. Neal Coons' individual property.

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
Developmental restriction is the nature of your inverse condom that is action and the inverse condom nation action is brought not just by Mr. Neil coons but also his mother and his father who passed away the other three the other lots within this coon subdivision are owned by them well the the airports been operating

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
with this navigation system since 2008 without an easement and presumably the FAAs made a determination that the airport can be safely operated without acquiring the Coons' property.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
How do you respond to that finding by the

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
director of the FAA, and what do we do about that?

[00:10:16] Speaker 03:
And that is not correct.

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
It was operating with the abrogation easement in place.

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
Salt Lake City obtained an order of occupancy from the trial court, which gave them the same restriction as sought by the abrogation easement.

[00:10:29] Speaker 03:
Now, the formal abrogation easement wasn't declared by the court as being transferred.

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
But there is no abrogation easement.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
The same restrictions of the abogation easement were the subject of the order of occupancy.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
The order of occupancy sought the restriction on the Coons property, which mirrored the proposal that sought abogation easement.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
Well, aren't those two different things?

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
It gives them the temporary right during the pendency of the case.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
An order of occupancy is good during the pendency of the litigation with the idea that it's... Which case?

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
Excuse me?

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
Which case?

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
The original eminent domain case that has now been dismissed.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
So there is no order of occupancy.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
So the order of occupancy went away when that case was... It did.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
It did go away.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
So at the moment, there's no order of occupancy and there's no abrogation easement.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
And there is no protection over the Coons property.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:11:25] Speaker 03:
But Salt Lake City certainly has taken the position that they can comply with the grant assurances by getting an airport overlay zone or some other method.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
And the FAA approved that, correct?

[00:11:39] Speaker 03:
They did not approve that.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
The director made the determination that was upheld by the associated ministry.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
What legal duty did the director violate

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
the subject of this appeal, if you could summarize that.

[00:11:53] Speaker 02:
I feel like we're wandering around.

[00:11:55] Speaker 02:
Focus me on what the FAA did to your clients.

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
The FAA, the director should have considered the state court action where Salt Lake City itself took the position that under the grant assurances, it was required to obtain a navigation easement in order to meet the grant assurances.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
Before the director, Salt Lake City took the position that no, it was not required to do that.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
It took the 180-degree position and said it could comply with the grant assurance by attempting to get the airport overlay zone.

[00:12:31] Speaker 03:
The only evidence before the director, and this is where I believe there's not substantial evidence, is that all Salt Lake City said was that it was promising that it could obtain the airport overlay zone.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
In this in the number of years a disagrees that a easements necessary oh And you know the city city you know the city could the city might want an easement for a variety of reasons And you know not just for safety and I assume part of your inverse condemnation injury would be noise which you know wouldn't necessarily be a safety hazard for the operation of the airport so anyway, I'm the eminent domain could cover a lot of

[00:13:14] Speaker 02:
topics beyond airport safety.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
So the FDA does, it's not really...

[00:13:19] Speaker 02:
It doesn't have to acquiesce in every eminent domain.

[00:13:22] Speaker 02:
No, no.

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
Does it under the grant assurance?

[00:13:24] Speaker 03:
Certainly it does not.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
But what the FAA has determined is it can be done in, I mean, a taking of the entire property, a navigation easement, or an airport overlay zone to protect it would all be appropriate methods in order to protect the airspace over the Coons property.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
Where the director and the associate administrator erred is,

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
An airport overlay zone has been rejected and is not possible.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
Salt Lake City does not have the authority to enact that as though this were property within the municipal boundaries of Salt Lake City.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
That not being a possibility, it leaves two alternatives to comply with grant assurance 20 and 21.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
which is navigation easement or a total take of the property.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
And that is where I think the director erred.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
In this case, although an airport overlay zone may generally be a possibility, it is not possible here to obtain.

[00:14:24] Speaker 02:
But the remedy you're seeking is attorney's fees under Grant Assurance 35.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
That would be a second issue.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
Yes, we're also, because based on Salt Lake City's abandonment.

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
Do you want the court to order

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
If the FAA to order Salt Lake City to proceed with eminent domain?

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
Either to proceed with eminent domain or to reimburse the coons for the attorney's fees they incurred as a result of Salt Lake City's abandonment of the eminent domain action.

[00:14:51] Speaker 02:
And is it your position that the airport's being operated on safely because of the slack of condemnation?

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
It is.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:14:59] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Carolyn Lopez, on behalf of the FAA.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
I think it might be helpful to sort of just step back and clarify a few things.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
As Your Honors were discussing with counsel for petitioners, the question here isn't what should or shouldn't happen in state court proceedings.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
The question is whether or not the Part 16 question is whether or not FAA reasonably determined on the record before it.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
that the city had violated its grant assurances to the FAA or obligations to the FAA.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
And the answer to that is no, as confirmed by the prior discussion.

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
The best citation for that is AR318, which is one of the property maps in the airport layout plan.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
And as the associate administrator explained, that really lays out, and that map and a series of other maps in the airport layout plan that sort of go through what is the runway protection zone, what are the slopes that airplanes need to depart

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
and to depart and come back safely.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
Those did show a variety of properties which in the FAA's opinion did have to be acquired or were already acquired.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
The discussion of this is at AR562 parcels adjacent to the airport that had to be acquired for approach protection, missed approach, aeronautical and future developments, and have received AIP funds.

[00:16:27] Speaker 00:
and petitioner's property just wasn't one of those.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
And that really answers the entire question here.

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
And as your honors were discussing... Are you saying that an easement acquisition was not required under the applicable property plan airport overlay zone?

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
So I want to sort of be careful to pull apart those two things, because I do think those are sort of two different alternatives.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
So there are some things that are sort of so integral to airport safety.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
So if your property is within the runway protection zone, then it has to be acquired before you can proceed with expanding the runway in that manner, for example.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
Other things, like the types of things covered under grant assurance 21, which is about compatible land use, so sort of goes to our honors questions about in a way is compatibility.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
Those things, the FAA says,

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
you sponsor airport sponsors have a choice.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
They can either try and get an easement or sort of own it, get the property outright, or they can pursue a variety of other methods.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
And whereas here, the airport sponsor doesn't have direct zoning authority, it's enough under FAA authorities for them to be making reasonable efforts to do that.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
And I do just want to point out here, this is outside of the record because it's a pretty recent development.

[00:17:49] Speaker 01:
I mean, if it's outside of the record, we probably shouldn't know it.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
It just has to do with the zoning update and is in response to the, it is in response to something that came up in the opening, but I'm happy to also not discuss it.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
Well, if we can take judicial notice of it, it's fine otherwise.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
It's just that currently the Utah state code has been updated to require an airport zoning overlay, including in areas like this.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
but your honors are, we don't think anything turns on that because the actual FAA authorities say that you just have to be making reasonable efforts and so we're perfectly happy for the court to not take traditional measures of that.

[00:18:26] Speaker 02:
What do we do with Salt Lake's admission that it needed the property, Coons's property to operate the airport safely?

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
So that really has to do with the associate administrator, the associate administrator of course did not ignore the state court proceedings, they just, the associate administrator explained

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
why those proceedings weren't persuasive.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
They are, of course, not binding under this court's precedent in Arapahoe and explains why they weren't persuasive.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
And the reason they weren't persuasive is because the parties were operating under a mistaken factual assumption.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
And that factual assumption was that, and this is going to sound, my apologies, it's going to sound very technical, was that you needed a 34 to 1 slope for approach and departure, but actually in looking

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
at the airport layout plan for sort of current uses at the airport as opposed to potential future uses, you only need a 20-to-1 slope.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
And in Lehman's terms, a 20-to-1 slope lets the planes fly higher coming in and out.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
And so that's why, while an avagation easement might have been needed if it were in fact factually true that a 34-to-1 slope was required, it was not needed under a 20-to-1 slope.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
And that sort of, you know, really underscores why Arapaho came out.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
One of the reasons Arapaho came out the way that it did

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
because you really need the agency expert to be taking a look at what's happening, and that's really what's laid out in the airport layout plan, what is and is not required.

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
Is it your understanding that grant assurance 20 and 21 were properly before the FAA, the director?

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to that.

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
So I do also just want to

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
clarified, because I think it may have gotten a little bit muddied in the oral argument this morning.

[00:20:08] Speaker 00:
With respect to grant assurance 20 and 21, not only were they never mentioned in the original complaint, but by contrast, all of the statutory and FA authorities that were discussed were things that go to this grant 35.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
So there was just nothing to put the FA on notice, but also

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
As Your Honors have underscored, even in front of the associate administrator, the argument was about what was happening to property that Mr. Kroons's family members owned, but that he did not own.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
And it's just categorically incorrect that under FAA authorities, that he just has to have an interest in some piece of land that wouldn't be redressed by the Part 16 proceedings.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
To the contrary, the FAA regulations

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
state that it has to be somebody, quote, this is 14 CFR, section 1623A.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
Somebody has to be directly and substantially affected by any alleged noncompliance.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
And that just isn't true with respect to other folks' property.

[00:21:16] Speaker 00:
And then similarly, the jurisdictional grant to this court to review such orders, it requires that the person disclose a, quote, substantial interest in an order.

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
And a substantial interest in an order

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
Sort of similar to the Article III framework as well, which is that you have to have a complete interest that would be actually redressed.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
And whatever happens in other folks' property couldn't change what's happening on his property.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
And so there are a myriad of reasons why the grant assurance 20 and 21, we think, fall out of this case.

[00:21:53] Speaker 02:
What if he started operating his

[00:21:55] Speaker 02:
or manages its property differently, say, to erect taller buildings or flagpole launch fireworks.

[00:22:05] Speaker 02:
What happens then?

[00:22:06] Speaker 00:
So, well, there's sort of a couple of answers to that.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
With respect to what happens with the FAA, what he would do is file as they, as happens with the two other properties owned by his family members,

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
a study for the FAA to figure out whether or not it would actually pose a hazard.

[00:22:26] Speaker 00:
So there's nothing like that on his property now.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
And so that sort of just would be a new question for the FAA.

[00:22:32] Speaker 00:
And then if he went ahead and erected those properties, and then sort of this is, I will say that this is where sort of it segues into sort of the change in state law.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
I think my understanding of it is that that would be prohibited under state law now.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
But, you know, there certainly are circumstances if things change in the future that might require different obligations from the city, but it wouldn't sort of apply retroactively whether or not the city did anything wrong here in terms of its grant assurances.

[00:23:01] Speaker 01:
You're not, it isn't your position that if the

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
the proposal, the airport is operating consistently with its obligations under Grant Assurance 35.

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
You're not suggesting that that doesn't mean that there is a taking of the value of the Coons property.

[00:23:25] Speaker 00:
That's absolutely right.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
So we think that those are two entirely different issues and the question of takings and condemnation proceedings and reverse condemnation proceedings are absolutely for the state courts.

[00:23:36] Speaker 00:
but they don't go, the only way they sort of link up to what happens with the FAA and whether or not an airport sponsor has violated its obligations to the FAA comes in, and this is actually a crucial second step, comes in only when the FAA actually disburses federal funds for that acquisition.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
So for example, if a state just acquired a property for its own ends that FAA had never said,

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
we think you need to acquire this property as part of the airport layout development plan.

[00:24:09] Speaker 00:
It's not, for example, part of the runway protection zone.

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
And FAA said, and because we didn't really think it was necessary for the airport layout plan, we're not going to disburse federal funds.

[00:24:20] Speaker 00:
Grant Assurance 35 just would never come into play because that land effectively has no relationship

[00:24:26] Speaker 00:
between the state and the FAA.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
So it's sort of a two-step process.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
Let me focus you on the attorney's fees issue for a moment.

[00:24:35] Speaker 01:
If the city had been the one to dismiss that case, as I understand it, the director would still say there are no attorney's fees owed because this property was never governed by

[00:24:51] Speaker 01:
Grant Assurance 35.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
Am I understanding you?

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
And that goes to what we were just talking about, which is that Grant Assurance 35.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
Because FAA never required them to get an easement over petitioner's property, and FAA has much less dispersed any federal funds for that acquisition, the way Grant Assurance 35 works is it means that an airport sponsor, when seeking federal grant money to reimburse them for that acquisition,

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
has to be able to certify that it has complied with all of the state court condemnation laws.

[00:25:26] Speaker 01:
So if they withdrew, if they filed a condemnation action and then dropped it,

[00:25:34] Speaker 01:
they would necessarily not have received any federal funds to buy it.

[00:25:40] Speaker 01:
So it sounds like kind of a catch-22 for the property owner that they're never entitled to attorney's fees in an abandoned action because unless they go forward and purchase it, they're never going to have federal funds that are spent to acquire it.

[00:25:56] Speaker 01:
So what am I missing?

[00:25:58] Speaker 01:
Two responses to that.

[00:25:59] Speaker 00:
The first is that it's, so of course if the city sponsor

[00:26:03] Speaker 00:
made false representations about having complied, and FAA later found out after dispersing federal funds, that would be a violation of grant 35.

[00:26:11] Speaker 00:
So that's the first answer to that.

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
It's not sort of a totally- Well, but they would extend federal funds if they abandoned the condemnation.

[00:26:18] Speaker 00:
So that's right, Your Honor, that grant 35 would not apply there.

[00:26:22] Speaker 00:
And here's the unless.

[00:26:24] Speaker 00:
Unless the FAA had said you actually had instructed the airport sponsor that they needed to acquire the land

[00:26:32] Speaker 00:
for part of an airport layout plan, such as if it were in the runway protection zone.

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
And we discussed that at page 35 of the brief.

[00:26:39] Speaker 00:
It's not as expansive as what petitioner would like grant 35 to mean, of course, but it does give meaning to grant 35, grant assurance 35.

[00:26:47] Speaker 01:
Well, I'm still confused on how the property owner gets the attorney's fees.

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
It's expended in an action for condemnation brought because it

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
is required to acquire the land, but then the city, for whatever reason, abandons that condemnation action, maybe so that they can negotiate for a lower price.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
I don't know.

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
So in that circumstance, an airport sponsor might be violating more than one grant assurance, right?

[00:27:19] Speaker 00:
So it might be violating its responsibilities to abide by grant 35 when it is required to obtain at least an easement of our property.

[00:27:30] Speaker 00:
under the FAA's view, and it might also be violating grant assurance 29, which is that airport layout plan grant assurance, which lays out the federal requirements.

[00:27:44] Speaker 00:
If there are no further questions, we rest on briefs and ask that the court affirm.

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Council.

[00:27:52] Speaker 02:
Excuse me, I don't think there was rebuttal time.

[00:27:57] Speaker 02:
Why don't you give, would you care for 60 seconds?

[00:28:01] Speaker 03:
Let me make one point.

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
We'll give you 60 seconds.

[00:28:05] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:07] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:28:08] Speaker 03:
To follow up on the question of the funding, 49 CFR section 24.101d specifically states that, as in quotes, any acquisition, the Relocation Act applies to any acquisition of real property for programs and projects where there is federal financial assistance in any part of the project cost.

[00:28:30] Speaker 03:
It doesn't apply when just, as I read the statute, I think it's quite clear, it doesn't apply only if the monies are being used to acquire that specific property, but if any monies are used within the entire project.

[00:28:45] Speaker 03:
Here there is no dispute that monies, federal monies, were used for construction of the ILS system, which necessitated Salt Lake City filing its complaint

[00:28:55] Speaker 03:
Seeking the abrogation easement over the Coons property.

[00:28:59] Speaker 03:
I think that goes directly to your question your honor Otherwise, I think it's very circular, and it would just have no application.

[00:29:05] Speaker 01:
Could you give me the CFR side again?

[00:29:07] Speaker 03:
I was certainly 49 CFR section 24 point one zero one D Thank you.

[00:29:17] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:29:18] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:29:18] Speaker 02:
I appreciate the arguments counselor excuse and the case is submitted I