Ward 3 Councilwoman Camille Vella-Wilkinson has docketed a resolution that, if approved by her colleagues next Monday, could result in a year and a half to three-year delay to lengthening Green Airport’s main runway to 8,700 feet and safety improvements to the shorter runway.
The resolution calls on the City Council to appeal the record of decision issued by the Federal Aviation Administration and retain the Taber Law Group of Irvine, CA to file and process the appeal. Further, it allocates up to $65,400, which is earmarked in the current budget, for airport litigation and designates Council President Bruce Place to approve and enter into a retainer agreement with Taber.
Steven M. Taber, owner and founder of the firm, said yesterday he has been in contact with representatives from the Council and that, if a petition for a review of the decision is to take place, it must be filed by Nov. 22.
Taber said filing for a petition does not by itself stop the Rhode Island Airport Corporation from proceeding with the projects.
That’s not the way Rhode Island Airport Corporation President and CEO Kevin Dillon sees it.
Dillon said yesterday he is disappointed the Council is considering an appeal and that the action would throw a level of uncertainty on residents and businesses seeking a resolution to airport expansion. He also said, because of legal action, the FAA wouldn’t issue grants for the projects, meaning the work couldn’t start, putting everything “in suspension.”
Taber said the appeal usually involves a “finite kind of pleading,” where the FAA is being challenged on particular aspects of the record of decision.
He said the city would file briefs representing its argument and then the FAA would respond. This would lead up to an oral argument before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals. RIAC could file its own briefs as part of the process should they choose, he said.
“There is no trial, no dispositions,” he said.
However, the process is not very expeditious. The exchange of briefs, oral arguments and eventual decision could take from 18 months to three years. Further, when asked if the city could target its appeal to certain projects – the lengthening of Runway 5-23 – Taber said the petition for a review applies to the entire record of decision.
This means the safety improvements to the shorter runway, which RIAC has made a priority to comply with FAA standards, can’t be distilled from the process, although council members say they do favor those improvements.
Asked if a petition for review provides the city with “leverage” to gain promises from RIAC, Taber pointed out that the appeal is directed at the FAA, not RIAC. Nonetheless, he said, the petition could be used “to ensure a memorandum of understanding has some teeth.”
The city administration and RIAC sought to go the route of a memorandum of understanding during the process, where the FAA examined the environmental impacts of alternative airport projects including a no build proposal. The agreement presented by Dillon would have committed the agency to relocate the Winslow Park playing fields in addition to addressing a range of other issues raised by the city. Rather than countering the agreement as proposed, the Council rejected it outright.
Soon after the FAA rendered its decision favoring the 8,700-foot runway, that will require an extension to the south and looping of Main Avenue, the city administration met with the Council in executive session to review its options. Based on an item-by-item analysis of the environmental statement, City Planner William DePasquale concluded that the FAA had thoroughly followed the process as defined by law. He did not come up with any glaring omissions he felt could be the basis of an appeal.
Dillon was confident yesterday that the FAA would prevail if an appeal were pursued. He also questioned, given the tumult raised over car taxes, why the Council would spend the money.
“I didn’t think the city was in the position of discretionary money,” he said. After a pause, he added that the Council, in denying a rezoning to allow corporate hangars, “walked away from $160,000 last year.”
Regardless, Council members Joseph Solomon and Steve Merolla have been critical of Mayor Scott Avedisian for not taking a lead and initiating legal action. Solomon contends the money spent on an appeal is not material if it means improved living conditions for Warwick residents. Merolla argues the money has been put aside for an appeal. Further, he contends RIAC has a history of not following mandates on air and water quality nor has it followed through with residential soundproofing and home purchases as they said they would. RIAC has challenged much of what he has said.
Merolla said he would hope the action would have RIAC “put the money aside to do what you say you’re going to do. All I’m asking is for them to follow the law,” he said. He called the record of decision “fundamentally unfair to the public.”
Taber did not estimate what litigation could cost taxpayers.
“My rates depend on who the client is and what the client can afford,” he said. He said his rates are on a sliding scale, but that they would be less than $300 an hour.
In a statement on his website Taber says, “With hourly rates at large law firms significantly over the $300 per hour mark, it has become increasingly difficult or impossible for clients to obtain cost-efficient legal representation. At the same time, environmental liability, and risks and liability associated with running an airport have increased exponentially. On July 1, 2010, Steven M. Taber founded Taber Law Group to provide cost-efficient, top-quality service to environmental, aviation and airport clients.”
The website says Taber has practiced environmental, aviation and airport development law for more than 23 years, including at a large law firm, at the Federal Aviation Administration, and at the Illinois Attorney General’s office.
In her resolution, Vella-Wilkinson bases the appeal on the grounds that the health, safety and welfare of Warwick citizens are paramount and that the airport improvements, as proposed, “will adversely impact many residents.”
It goes on to say that there is little time to take an appeal and based on the work of a legal selection committee that the city retains Taber. The committee mentioned in the resolution convened about five years ago and, in the opinion of Chief of Staff Mark Carruolo, who served on it, no longer exists.
A citizen member of the committee, Michael Zarum, confirmed this week that he had talked with attorneys within the last week but he was doing that neither as a representative of the Council nor the city administration.
As the resolution reads, Taber would be selected to represent the city, even though there was no request for proposals [RFP] as customary for consulting and legal services.
As of yesterday’s deadline, Vella-Wilkinson did not return a call and Avedisian did not respond to an email for this story.
"Dillon was confident yesterday that the FAA would prevail if an appeal were pursued. He also questioned, given the tumult raised over car taxes, why the Council would spend the money ... 'I didn’t think the city was in the position of discretionary money,” he said. After a pause, he added that the Council, in denying a rezoning to allow corporate hangars, “walked away from $160,000 last year.'"
What kind of game is this? Mr Dillon or the RIAC board has no business nosing around in city affairs. What he needs to do is secure the financing for the Gycol Management Plant at RIAC -- $25 million -- and fast. That is step one. The city has every right and the responsibility to insist that RIAC does this. It protects our health and the environment. Yet, I see no formal movement by RIAC to secure this funding.
For that reason alone, the City Council should move forward with a formal appeal to the FAA as described in the article above.
In 2005, the Warwick City Council unanimously passed a resolution requesting the mayor hire specialized legal council for as needed serviced to protect the interests of the city and its citizens. The mayor refused to sign it, yet for the subsequent six years went on record telling his constituents that when the time came (issuance of the FAA Record of Decision) he would take action to protect the interests of the city and its constituents, Now, in his typical two faced fashion, he passes the buck by in August send City Council a letter asking them to decide what to do. Hello Mr. Mayor - The City Council already told you to hire qualified legal counsel by virtue of the 2005 resolution. Since the mayor is on record by filing hundreds of pages of written comments as to valid reasons for objecting to the FAA decision, he's told constituents that when this time came he would preserve our rights by filing an appeal, and now that, that time is here, he's turning his back on his constituents once again by going on radio and saying things indicating he's willing to sacrifice his 80,000 plus constituents by siding with the state's wanting to further damage our community. In the mean time, due to the mayor's failure to act, the City Council has a resolution scheduled for vote on November 14, 2011 to begin at 5:00 pm. This is the city's last chance as part of the federal process that's been going on, to legally object to the FAA's self-admitted comments the airport damages the city.. If the City Council doesn't pass the resolution they not have another chance to protect you and rights will be forever lost,. Please call your city council rep and tell them to support challenging the FAA Record of Decision and attend the city council meeting Monday November 14, 2011 starting at 5:00pm
Why City should Challenge the FAA Record of Decision
!) To Preserve the rights of the City of Warwick and its constituents.
If there is one and only one reason, it to preserved the rights of those who live here.
There are many additional reasons. RIAC has failed to comply with many local, state and federal laws that are designed to protect the public from the industrial toxicity of airports. It is there mode of operating the airport to not spend money on programs that do not directly contribute to moving passengers and aircraft. That is, the airport does not want and has a history of not complying with laws on discharging de-icing fluid into the wetlands and brook that feed and damage fish stock, recreational and commercial fishing, have several time out the residential home and sound program on hold, and refused to put funds in a trust account for future use, the large amount of tax loss to the city from the airport is made up by people like you, losses from the homes taken off the tax roll, using metrics in one FAA commissioned study, the impact on lowering home values is a loss of over $500,000,000 to Warwick taxpayers' home equity, losses from hundreds of acres of airport property that should be taxable is not and that tax loss is made up by those who are assessed taxes being required to pay a higher pro-ration of total taxes, the airport cost Warwick taxpayers millions of dollars per year, the city does not get equitable reimbursement from the airport for fire, rescue, police services provided for the airport. Why should you, the Warwick taxpayer, be required to pay and make up for what the airport gets away without paying? And more so, the runway length they specified for a new airport layout plan, is not needed and even Boeing has stated they don't need an 8,700 foot runway to fly to the west coast. It's a story that was made up starting with the arrogant Bruce Sundlun, then the myth carried on other who could care less about the right of the people who live in Warwick. The City Council's vote scheduled to Challenge the FAA decision on not only about the runway, even of the runway if built, challenging the FAA decision is about forcing the airport to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and other related laws designed to protect the public. Please tell your city council representative to pass the Resolution on Monday and ask them to no longer let constituents down.
Why City should Challenge the FAA Record of Decision
1) To Preserve the Rights of the City of Warwick and its constituents.
If there is one and only one reason to challenge the FAA Decision, it to Preserve the Rights of those who live here.
There are many additional valid reasons to challenge the Record of Decision.
RIAC has failed to comply with many local, state and federal laws that are designed to protect the public from the industrial toxicity of airports. It is the airport’s mode of operating the airport to not spend money on programs that do not directly contribute to moving passengers and aircraft. That is, the airport has a history of not complying with laws designed to protect the public. A few examples are on continuing to discharge de-icing fluid into the wetlands and a brook that feeds and damages fish stock, harms recreational and commercial fishing, they have several times put the residential home and sound program on hold, and refused to put funds in a trust account for future sound insulation use, the large amount of tax losses to the city from the airport is made up by people like you, losses from the homes taken off the tax roll forever; Using metrics in one FAA commissioned study that was hidden from the recent EIS, the impact on lowering home values from noise impact, is a loss of over $500,000,000 to Warwick taxpayers' home equity, losses from hundreds of acres of airport property that should be taxable is not taxable by the city, and that tax loss is made up by those of you who are assessed taxes by the city, by your being required to pay a higher pro-rata share of total taxes assessed, the airport cost Warwick taxpayers millions of dollars per year, the city does not get equitable reimbursement from the airport for fire, rescue, police services provided to the airport.
Why should you, the Warwick taxpayer, be required to pay and make up for what the airport gets away without paying? And more so, the runway length they specified for a new airport layout plan, is not needed and even Boeing has stated they don't need an 8,700 foot runway to fly to the west coast. It's a story that was made up starting with the arrogant Bruce Sundlun, then the myth carried on by others who could care less about the rights of the people who live in Warwick. The City Council's vote scheduled on Monday to Challenge the FAA decision is not only about the runway. Even if the runway is built, challenging the FAA decision is about forcing the airport to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and other related laws designed to protect the public. Make the airport comply with all laws and pay their fair share of taxes to the city.
Please call your city council rep and tell them to support challenging the FAA Record of Decision and attend the city council meeting at City Hall on Monday November 14, 2011 starting at 5:00pm