Williams News Logo
Grand Canyon News Logo

Trusted local news leader for Williams AZ and the Grand Canyon

City to pay in airport suit<br>

An interior shot through a broken window of one of Larry Ely’s two hangars at the Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field airport shows a state of disrepair and why the building was condemned. The city chose this as its main reason to throw Ely off the property. Ely recently sued the city for the cost of having to rent a new place of business and won.

It ran successfully until about 1972, when Ely sold the business to one of three bidders. Only six years later, the new owner went bankrupt and Ely bought the company back. He retained some property, stayed on as a mechanic, then went into the maintenance and used plane business. In the mid to late 1980s, Ely was issued a 25-year lease for two hangars, a mobile home, office and fuel facility.

Not too long after, trouble began to brew between the city and Ely.

According to him, the city was looking at plans for improvements to the airport. They began “nit-picking” about his properties — claiming that he was in violation of numerous building codes pertaining to safety, environmental hazards, and structural integrity — in an effort to rid the airport of Ely so that improvements could be made.

Charles Bassett, general manager at Grand Canyon Helicopters and then-manager of the Williams airport, says that Ely’s viewpoint isn’t entirely correct.

Bassett maintains that while it is true the city was realizing progress with the airport and wanted to begin making improvements, all properties on the airport at that time were inspected without prejudice.

“All tenants were inspected evenly and equally and no undue pressure was put on any one tenant more than another,” Bassett states.

Bassett added that many other tenants had the same code issues as Ely, but the majority of them corrected their problems in a timely manner.

Ely’s building code and safety violations included leaking roofs, the presence or improper storage of hazardous chemicals, and structural issues leading to the outright condemnation of one of his two hangars. There was also an illegal oil-dumping pit that the city had to pay $10,000 to have excavated by the order of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

Notice of Ely’s violations began with letters from the city, continuing until a final one in November of 2001, stating that he was to vacate the airport within seven days. On the final day, Ely showed up to the airport, only to be met by a Williams Police Department officer who denied him entry.

Though Ely claims he did correct the issues, Williams City Manger Dennis Wells, not a part of the city’s staff until about three years ago, said, “The corrections I’m aware of were minimal.”

Wells added that hazardous chemicals are still present in one of Ely’s hangars and that the city kept its stance on the issue because his continued presence at the airport presented a large liability potential for Williams.

Soon after the city’s final letter to him and their denial of his entry into the airport, Ely contacted a Flagstaff attorney, Gerald Nabours, and brought suit. Unfortunately for the city, it took the jury only six hours to deliberate on the four-day case — which took place recently in August — and award Ely $212,000 in compensation for what he lost at the airport, plus attorney’s fees and court costs for a total of about $245,000.

“In my opinion, [the jury] thought that the city acted unfairly and with some ill will by former city employees,” offered Nabours about the decision.

According to Nabours, the case could have cost Williams much less, had city officials accepted Ely’s counter-settlement offer of $95,000 after making a settlement offer of $45,000 before the case went to trial. The current amount awarded to Ely does not sit well with city staff.

“We believe the award was not justified by the evidence presented,” stated Wells, explaining that Ely’s property at the airport had nowhere near a value of $212,000.

The city will be seeking an appeal or overturning of that decision in the future.


Donate Report a Typo Contact