RELATED: Fired airport manager asks judge not to toss his lawsuit
Davis claims he was fired for questioning how airport terminal construction was paid for and warehouse space rented by the Butler County Sheriff’s Office at the airport. He claims both issues, among others, may have violated FAA regulations.
The allegation pertaining to the sheriff’s office seems to have the highest potential for a monetary ramification to the county.
In the complaint, Davis said in 2006 that $630,926 in FAA grant funding was used to purchase the land and warehouse structure where Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones is currently storing non-aviation equipment rent-free.
Davis claims that because FAA money was used and the property is being used for non-aviation purposes, the sheriff’s department should be paying fair market rent.
According to the county, it has an obligation to provide the sheriff with all of the facilities he needs at no cost.
Butler County Development Director David Fehr said he sent the FAA a letter last October offering to transfer “rent” money from the general fund to the airport fund to fix this violation — if it is one. He said he hasn’t received a response.
Butler County Administrator Charlie Young said he can’t imagine the county will be penalized in this instance, especially because it doesn’t involve safety, and the county has already been subsidizing the airport for years.
“It’s kind of like a red herring, it’s something that isn’t what it appears,” Young said. “If we’re already giving the airport $80,00 a year, the fact that we haven’t been accounting for a $3,000 rent seems to be an inconsequential thing.”
MORE: Butler County commissioners fire airport manager
The rest of Davis’ complaint alleges the county may have violated “unlawful revenue diversion” rules with regard to construction of the airport terminal and other capital improvements. In his lawsuit Davis simplified the alleged problem.
“… the city of Hamilton, the city of Fairfield, West Chester Twp. and Fairfield Twp. had contributed a combined total of $937,500 to (Butler County) between 2001 and 2004 to pay for the 2001 airport improvements…,” the lawsuit reads. “(Davis) believed that the funds from the neighboring cities had not actually been spent on the airport improvements or to pay down the airport’s debt related to improvements, but instead had been deposited into the county’s general fund.”
Fehr in his response to the FAA addressed this issue saying, “any monies received by the county from other local governments, or sources other than the airport, are not ‘revenues generated by the airport’ that would be restricted by the grant assurance.”
Davis also complained the county applied some of its “indirect expenses” like liability insurance to the airport budget — an amount that totalled $28,574 in 2016. Another unlawful revenue diversion he says.
Fehr, who is now responsible for airport operations, supplied the FAA with an invoice for all indirect costs assigned to various county offices and departments. Shared costs that are allocated according to U.S. Office of Management and Budget requirements, he said.
The FAA told the Journal-News it is too soon to talk about potential penalties or other remedies that might result from Davis’ complaint.
“The FAA is still reviewing the complaint,” FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said. “It is too early to speculate on penalties, if any.”
Davis’ attorney George M. Reul, Jr. said the fired airport manager filed the complaint because he “legitimately believes” there were was wrongdoing, but a favorable FAA ruling couldn’t hurt their case either.
“A violation ruling from the FAA would likely be helpful, but it’s not necessary for Ron to win this lawsuit. We believe Ron was fired in retaliation for raising concerns that the (regulations) were being violated,” Reul said. “To establish liability for a retaliation claim, he doesn’t have to prove that FAA regulations were in fact violated, only that he raised the concern of a violation in good faith, his employer knew that he had the concern (there are emails to establish this), and that his employer took an adverse action.”
The county has asked the judge to dismiss the case and there is a hearing scheduled for later this month on the matter.
About the Author