"fA? ! tJl^y f E D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPO R FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . 

# w

AIRPORt/Ef^VIRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 0 

# n



# IH /

VENIC E JE T CENTER , LLC , Complainant , FA A Docke t No . 16-09-0 5

CIT Y O FVENICE , FL , Respondent . RESPONDEN T CIT Y O FVENICE , FLORIDA' S REBUTTA LT O VENIC E JE T CENTER' S REPL Y

Rober t C . Anderson , Esq . Cit y Attorne y Hal l & Anderson , P.A . 131 4 Eas t Venic e Ave. , Suit e E Venice , FL 3428 5 Telephone : (941 ) 480-099 9 Facsimile : (941)480-144 6 Arthu r P . Berg , Esq . KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave . Suit e 140 9 Ne w York , N Y 1002 2 Telephone : (212 ) 328-951 5 Facsimile : (646)514-544 0 Thoma s R . Devine , Esq . W . Eri c Pilsk , Esq . KAPLA N KIRSC H &

. ROCKWEL L LL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 90 5 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-5600X56 8 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6

Counse l fo r

Responden t

Cit y o f Venice , F LTABL E O FCONTENT S

INTRODUCTIO N 1 ARGUMEN T 4 I . Th e Allegation s an dArgument s Se t Forth i n th e Introductio n t o Complainant' s Repl y Ar e Unfounde dan dIrrelevan t t o Thi s Proceedin g 4 II . Th e Assertio n tha t VJ C i s th e Tru e Party at Interes t i s Unsupporte d b y th e Evidenc e i n thi s Proceedin g 1 4 III . VJC/Receive r

Lack s Standin g t o Brin g It s Clai m2 1 IV . VJC' s Clai mI s No t Rip e Fo r Adjudicatio n Becaus e Ther e i s N o Proposal Currentl y Befor e th e City Fro ma n Entity Seekin g t o Construc t th e Hangar s 2 5 V . Th e City i s No t

Applyin g Unreasonabl e Minimu mStandard s i n a Discriminator y Manne r

an dVJ C Ha s No t

Complie dwit h al l Requirement s 2 8 A . Th e Requiremen t o f Demonstratin g Financia l Capabilit y Applie s Unde r

th e Expres s Languag e o f th e Leas e an dth e Applicabl e Minimu mStamdard s Incorporate db y Referenc e int o th e Leas e 3 1 B . Contrary t o Complainant' s Contention , Requirin g FBO s T o Demonstrat e Financia l Capabilit y I s No t an Unreasonabl e Standard , an dth e City Ha s No t Applie dI t

I n a Discriminator y Manne r

3 2 1 . Complainant' s Clai mthat th e Minimu mStandards ' Financia l Viabilit y Requiremen t Ha s Neve r

Bee n Applie dBefore i s Unsupported , and , i n An y Event , Misguide d3 7 2 . Eve n i f

th e Financia l Capabilit y Requiremen t Wer e No t Containe di n th e Airport Minimu mStandards , an Airport Proprieto r

ha s a n Inheren t

Righ t t o Satisf y Itsel f o f th e Financia l Wherewitha l o f an Entit y Constructin g Aeronautica l Facilitie s 4 1 C . VJC/Receiver' s Claim s tha t i t ha s Satisfie dth e Financia l Capabilit y Requiremen t

ar e Unsupporte db y th e Evidenc e 4 3VI . Th e Conflictin g Designatio n o n th e AL P fo r Termina l Are aan d Apro n i s aSufficient

Reaso n t o Tur

n Dow n th e Hangar

Projec t 4 6 VII . VJC/Receive r

Ha s No t Sufficientl y State dClaim s i n it s Complaint , an dIt s Repl y Doe s No t

Cur e Thi s Fundamenta l Defec t 4 8 A . Complainan t

Doe s No t

Disput e Tha t

It Ha s Faile dT o Stat e a Sufficient Clai mFo r

A n Allege dViolatio n o f Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPower s 4 9 B . Complainan t

Ha s Faile dT o Stat e a

n Adequat e Clai mfor Violatio n o f

Assuranc e 22 , Unjus t

Discriminatio n 4 9 C . Complainan t

Has Faile dT o Stat e A Cognizabl e Clai mFo r Violatio n o f

Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Right s 5 1 D . Complainan t

Ha s Faile dT o Stat e A Clai mCognizabl e Unde r Part 1 6 Fo r Violatio n o f

Assuranc e 1 , Complianc e with Al l Law s 5 2 1 . Part

1 6 I s No t

Th e Prope r

Foru mFo r

Adjudicatio n o f A n Allege dViolatio n o f

Federa l Antitrus t

Law s B y A n Airpor t

Proprieto r

5 3 2 . Eve n I f

Complainant' s Antitrus t Clai mWer e Withi n Part 16' s Jurisdiction , VJ C Ha s Stil l Faile dT o Stat e a Vali dClai mUnde r

Th e Sherma n Ac t

5 6 E . Complainan t

Lack s Standin g an dFail s T o Stat e aPrope r Clai mFo r

Violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 19 , Operation s an dMaintenanc e 6 0 1 . Complainan t

Lack s Standin g t o Assert aClai m Relate dt o th e Deterioratio n o f aRunwa y a

t th e Airport 6 1 2 . Eve n I f

I t Ha dStanding , Complainan t Fail s T o Stat e a Prope r Clai mfor

A Violatio n O f

Assuranc e 1 9 6 3 CONCLUSIO N 6 6TABL E O FAUTHORITIE S

Case s Am . Civi l Libertie s Unio n o f Florida , Inc . v . Miami-Dad e County Sch . Bd. , 55 7 F.3 d1177 , 122 8 (11thCir . 2009 ) 3 3 Aspe n Skiin g Co . v . Aspe n Highland s Skiin g Corp. , 47 2 U.S . 585 , 598 , 10 5 S.Ct . 2847 , 285 4 (1985 ) 6 2 Broussar dv . Zonin g Bd . o f Adjustmen t

o f Cit y o f Pittsburgh , 90 7 A.2 d494 , 50 0 (Pa . 2006 ) 3 4 Capita l Cit

y Ca b Serv. , Inc . v . Susquehann aReg' I Airpor t Auth. , 47 0 F.Supp.2 d46 2 (M.D . Pa . 2006 ) 60 , 6 1 Cit y o f Columbi av . Omn i Outdoo r Advertising , Inc. , 11 1 S.Ct . 1344 , 135 3 (1991 ) 5 9 Fernande z V

. Vazguez,39 7 So.2 d1171 , 1173-7 4 (Fla . Dist . Ct . App . 1981 ) 3 5 Omn i Outdoo r

Advertising , 11 1 S.C t

60 , 6 1 Susquehann aAre aReg' I Airpor t Auth. , 42 3 F.Supp.2 d472 , 48 2 n . 1 6 (M.D . Pa . 2006 ) 6 1 Townshi p ofTinicu mv . Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportation , 200 9 W L291448 8 (C.A.3 ) 6 5 WalshConst . Co . o f

Illinoi s v . Cit

y o f Detroit , 25 7 F . Supp . 2 d935 , 93 8 (E.D . Mich . 2003 ) 3 4 Statute s Fl . Stat e § 332.08(3 ) 57 , 5 8 Fl . Stat . § 332.08(2)(a ) 57 , 5 8 Othe r Authoritie s Aircraf t Owner s an dPilot s Assoc . Members , v . Cit y ofPompan o Beach , FA A docke t

No . 16-04-01 , 200 5 6 1

11 1Bist i Aviation , Inc . v . Cit y o f Farmington , NM , FA A Docke t No . 16-07-01 , 200 7 14,2 2 Boc aAirport , Inc . v . Boc aRato n Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-04

- 02,200 4 5 5 Centennia l Expres s Airline s v . Arapaho e Count y Publi c Airpor t

Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 13-95-03 , 199 8 3 6 Centennia l Expres s Airlines , FA A Docke t No . 16-98-05 , 199 8 14 , 3 6 Cit y o f Sant aMonica , FA A Docke t No . 16-02-08 , 200 9 6 , 49 , 6 5 Contras t Jimsai r Aviatio n Services , Inc . v . San Dieg o Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FAA Docke t

No . 16-06-08 , 200 7 14 , 22 , 23 , 5 1 I n th e Matte r

o f Complianc e wit

h Federa l Obligation s by th e Cit y o f Sant a Monica , California , FA A Docke t No . 16-02-08 , 200 8 6 5 Je t I Ctr. , Inc . v . Naple s Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-04-0 3 22 , 52 , 5 9 Pacifi c Coas t

Flyers , Inc . v . County o f Sa n Diego , FA A Docke t No . 16-04

- 08,200 5 29,4 7 Sant aMonic aAirpor t

Associatio n v . Cit

y o f Sant aMonica , FA A Docke t 16

- 99-21,200 3 4 8 Sk y danc e Helicopters , Inc . v . Sedon aOak-Cree k Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t No . 16-02-02 , 200 3 14 , 24 , 3 6 Skydiv e Monroe , Inc . v . Cit y o f Monroe , FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-02 , 200 7 35 , 42 , 4 3 Thermc o Aviation , Inc . v . County o f Lo s Angeles , FA A Docke t No . 16-06

- 07 , 200 7 7 , 23 , 24 , 2 5 U.S . Aerospace , Inc . v . Millingto n Mun . Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16

- 98-0 6 23,52,5 9 Unite dState s Constructio n Corp . v . Cit y ofPompan o Beach , FA A Docke t No . 16-00-14,200 2 14,2 4 Wilson Ai r

Cente r LL C v . Memphi s an dShelb y County Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t No . 16-99-10 , 200 1 2 0 Regulation s 14C.F.R . § 16(f

) 1

IV1 4 C.F.R . § 16. 1 5 6

14C.F.R . § 16.2 3 5 0 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(b ) 6 0 1 4 C.F.R . § 204.5 , 204. 6 1 9INTRODUCTIO N Pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16(f) , Responden t Cit y o f Venic e ("City" ) hereb y file s it s Rebutta l t o Complainan t

Venic e Je t

Center' s ("VJC's" ) Repl y i n th e above-captione d matte r an drespectfull y request s tha t th e Directo r

dismis s VJC' s Complain t fo r th e reason s provide dbelo w an di n th e City' s previou s pleading s i n thi s matter. ' Complainan t

seek s an FA A orde r

compellin g th e Cit y t o gran t ablanke t approva l t o an entity , VJC , totall y controlle db y th e Receive r (Complainan t

Exhibi t 1 (Orde r Reappointin g Receiver) ) t o buil dhangar s tha t th e Receiver

say s VJ C wil l not

buil dwhil e i t i s i n Receivership . Cit y Exhibi t 3 . Th e fatal flaw i n VJC/Receiver' s case , uncontradicte d b y an y document s submitte dwith it s Complain t o r Reply , i s tha t

ther e i s currentl y n o entit y tha t say s i t wil l buil dth e facilitie s an dha s demonstrate dth e financial wherewitha l t o d o so . No r ha s an y entit y presente dth e Cit y wit h apla n fo r

constructio n o f

hangar s o n th e VJ C sit e tha t i s consisten t

with th e airport' s FAA-approve dALP . Contrar y t o Complainant' s assertions , n o federal obligatio n compel s th e Cit y o f Venic e t o giv e it s approva l basedo n representation s that as-ye t undetermine dne w owner s ma y com e i n an dbuil dth e facilities . Further , n o federal aviatio n interes t woul db e serve d b y forcin g th e Airpor t

t o approv e developmen t o f hangar s merel y s o tha t

a n entit y create d ou t o f illegall y obtaine dfund s ma y b e sol dat ahighe r price , with th e proceed s o f th e sal e t o b e take n of

f airport . Finally , a s demonstrate db y th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support ,

' VJ C filedit s Complainan t Venic e Je t

Cente r LLC' s Repl y t o Cit y o f

Venice' s Answer , Affirmativ e Defenses , an dMotio n t o Dismis s o n Septembe r 30 , 2009 . O n Octobe r

7 , 2009 , th e FA A grante dth e City' s unoppose dmotio n fo r

a n extensio n o f

tim e unti l Octobe r

28 , 2009 , t o file it s Rebuttal . ^ A s i n th e Responden t

Cit y o f Venice , Florida' s Memorandu mo f Point s an dAuthoritie s i n Suppor t o f it s Answe r an dit s Motio n t o Dismis s ("Memorandu mi n Support") , w e distinguis h betwee n VJ C unde r Mr . Nadel' s contro l ("VJC/Nadel" ) an dsubsequently , unde r th e Receiver' s contro l ("VJC/Receiver") .th e constructio n o f hangar s a

t th e sit e i s inconsisten t

with th e Airport' s FAA-approve d ALP . VJC/Receive r

want s th e Directo r

t o ignor e th e fundamenta l fact s an dcircumstance s o f thi s case , callin g the m"unrelate dt o VJC' s reques t fo r permissio n t o buil dhangars, " (Complainan t

Venic e Je t

Center , LLC' s Repl y t o Cit y o f Venice' s Answer , Affirmativ e Defenses , an dMotio n t o Dismis s ("Reply" ) a t 28 ) becaus e the y ar e s o devastatin g t o it s case . Bu t Complainan t

canno t expec t eithe r th e Cit y o r

th e FA A t o preten dtha t

thi s cas e i s lik e an y othe r

disput e betwee n an airport sponso r an da n airport

tenan t ove r th e us e o f airport property . I

t i s not . Nothin g i n th e gran t assurance s o r

federal statute s require s th e Cit y t o ignor e th e unstabl e an dunsavor y circumstance s surroundin g VJ C an dth e reques t t o construc t hangars , areques t

that ha s nothin g t o d o with adesir e t o provid e aeronautica l service s t o th e publi c an dver y muc h t o d o wit h sellin g th e entit y for th e highes t

possibl e price , withth e proceed s t o b e use dfor non-airpor t

purposes . VJC/Receive r

claim s tha t

VJ C i s alega l entit y i n it s ow n right, wit h lega l rights o f it s ow n (Repl y a

t 6-7) , ye t whe n respondin g t o assertion s that thi s supposedl y independen t entit y ha s not

demonstrate dfinancial abilit y t o buil dth e hangars . Complainan t cite s t o th e fact tha t "VJC , a s part

o f areceivershi p estate " (includin g al l entitie s place di n th e receivership , not

jus t VJC ) ha s "$3. 3 millio n i n cas h o r cas h equivalent s an dove r adoze n rea l propert y holdings." ^ Repl y a t 18 . Complainan t

eve n take s exceptio n t o a n uncite d

' VJC/Receive r

state s that

sinc e th e tim e th e Receive r submitte dacop y o f

repor t t o th e City , th e cas h o n han d o f th e Receivershi p "ha s increased " t o $3. 3 million . Repl y at 18 . Whe n th e Receive r

submitte dtha t

repor t t o th e Cit y Attorney , h e claime di n alette r that th e Receivershi p ha d$ 4 millio n i n cash . Cit y Exhibi t 3 at 1 . VJC/Receive r

i n it s Repl y doe s no t

explai n ho w achang e fi-om$ 4 millio n t o $3. 3 millio n constitute s a n increase . No r

di dVJC/Receive r

disput e th e City' s assertio n that th e report

that accompanie dth e Receiver' s lette r di dno t suppor t th e Receiver' s contention . Cit y Memorandu mi n Support at 46-47 . Instead , th e Receiver' s Secon dInteri mRepor t indicate dthat

th e entir e Receivershi p ha dcas h o n han do f approximatel y $1.5 6 million . Apparentl y VJC/Receive r concede s thi s point , whic h demonstrate s wh y i t i s pruden t

t o vie w(an dunmade ) suppose dclai mb y th e Cit y that th e Receivershi p fund s ar e segregate d (Repl y a t 18-19) ; i n s o doing , VJC/Receive r appear s t o b e sayin g that an y Receivershi p fund s froman y sourc e ma y b e use dt o fun ddevelopmen t

o n th e VJ C site . Thi s contradict s Complainant' s insistenc e tha t VJ C i s aseparat e lega l entity tha t mus t b e evaluate d independentl y o f

it s statu s i n Receivership . Moreover , VJC/Receive r concede s that

th e Receive r

canno t spen dReceivershi p fund s o n th e hangar s withou t acourt order . Id . a

t 18-19 . VJC/Receive r

provide s n o evidenc e that

th e court ha s issue dsuc h a

n orde r - o r eve n tha t th e Receive r

ha s applie dfor one . Althoug h VJC/Receive r ma y hop e th e court

i s poise dt o approv e suc h areques t b y th e Receiver, i t

i s certainl y reasonabl e for th e City , an dth e FAA , t o vie w an y suc h clai mwith skepticism , i n ligh t

o f th e fac t that (1 ) th e Receiver

ha s bee n appointe dt o marsha l al l o f th e asset s relate dt o th e $35 0 millio n stole n b y Mr . Nade l (founder , owner , an dformer managin g membe r

o f VJC) ; (2 ) t o date , th e Receive r ha s recoupe donl y ane t

o f $3. 3 millio n an dte n propertie s (whic h ma y o r ma y no t b e mortgaged , a s i s VJC' s airport property^) ; an d(3 ) th e cos t o f th e hangar s woul db e $1-1. 5 million , o r roughl y one-thir dt o one-hal f o f th e tota l cas h o n han di n th e Receivershi p after nin e month s o f

diligen t effor t b y th e Receiver .

wit hskepticis man y assertion s b y th e Receive r a s t o ho w muc hcas h i s o n han dan davailabl e for th e hanga r construction . * Instead , th e Cit y simpl y state dthat th e mer e fact

that th e Receive r

ha drecovere dsom e o f

th e Nade l frau d asset s di dno t

mea n tha t

thos e asset s wer e availabl e t o b e spen t o n th e constructio n o f

hangar s o n th e VJ C site , i n ligh t

o f th e cour t mandat e that

th e Receive r

marsha l asset s for

afun dfor

th e victim s o f

th e Nade l fraud . Cit y Memorandu mi n Support at 47 . Th e correctnes s o f

th e City' s assertio n i s demonstrate db y VJC/Receiver' s acknowledgemen t that th e Receive r

woul dhav e t o obtai n acourt orde r permittin g suc h us e o f th e Receivershi p funds . Repl y at 18-19 .

' VJC' s propert y carrie s amortgag e o f approximatel y $1.9 6 million . Cit y Exhibi t 1 6 at p . 22-23 .VJC/Receive r als o claim s tha t

ther e ar e multipl e potentia l buyer s o f VJC , al l o f who mar e intereste di n buildin g th e four bo x hangar s a s las t

propose db y VJC/Nadel . Repl y a t p . 6 , n . 5 an dp . 19 . Complainan t ha s not , i n thi s proceedin g o r i n an y direc t communication s with th e City , identifie dan y o f th e potential buyers , muc h les s supplie d informatio n a s t o thei r

financial capabilit y t o buil dth e hangars , despit e repeate drequest s b y th e City for

thi s information . Se e Cit y Exhibi t 1 1 a t p . 4 , (Excerp t

fromFebruar y 10 , 200 9 Cit y Counci l Regular Meeting) , p . 11-1 2 (Excerp t fromMarc h 10 , 200 9 Cit y Counci l Regular Meeting ) an d21-2 2 (Excerp t fromJun e 9 , 200 9 Regula r Meeting) . Thus , th e recor di s devoi do f

an y evidenc e tha t

m\ y buye r woul dbuil dth e hangars , eve n if , contrar y t o th e facts , the y wer e consisten t with th e ALP , o r

that an y buye r

woul dprefe r

t o pa y a premiu mt o VJC/Receive r for th e privileg e o f

buildin g th e hangars . ARGUMEN T I . Th e Allegation s an dArgument s Se t Fort h i n th e Introductio n t o Complainant' s Repl y Ar e Unfounde dan dIrrelevan t t o Thi s Proceeding . Complainan t

assert s tha t

it s discours e an dfilings wit h respec t t o Florid aSunshin e Ac t issue s an dindividua l Cit y Counci l Members ' neighborhood s an dcampaig n platform s ar e relevan t

t o thi s proceedin g (Repl y a t 2) , but that th e circumstance s relatin g t o VJC' s foundin g an dfunding , th e evolvin g plan s for developmen t

o f th e VJ C leasehold , an dth e pas t ownershi p an dcontro l o f VJ C ar e o f

n o significanc e t o VJC/Receiver' s claim s tha t th e VJ C ha s bee n treate dunfairl y b y th e City . Id . However , a s pointe dout b y th e City , an d concede db y Complainan t (Repl y a t 6) , FA A i s concerne dwith th e curren t complianc e o f th e airport

sponsor , th e Cit y o f

Venice , with it s federal obligations . Thus , VJC/Receiver' s assertio n that

th e Cit y di dno t

kno w las t

year tha t VJ C was funde dwit h stole n fund s b yVJC' s founde r an dmanagin g membe r

(Repl y a t 8) , i s besid e th e point . Th e simpl e fac t i s tha t VJ C di dno t

demonstrat e financia l abilit y t o carr y ou t th e projec t

eithe r unde r Mr . Nade l o r unde r th e Receiver . An dth e Cit y no w know s that VJC/Nade l coul dno t

hav e honestl y demonstrate dthat i t ha dlegitimat e financial resource s t o carr y ou t th e project , regardles s o f

an y representation s Mr . Nade l ma y hav e mad e o n behal f o f th e company . Th e Repl y begin s b y assertin g tha t th e Cit y ha s attempte d"t o abrogat e th e VJC' s propert y rights." Repl y a t 2 . However , Part

1 6 i s no t th e prope r

foru mt o adjudicat e propert y rights. Th e fals e assertion s tha t th e Cit y "ha s repeatedl y engage di n discriminator y an danti-competitiv e behavior " (id.) , ar e addresse dspecifically , i n section s V.B . an dVII.B . Complainan t als o claim s tha t

"th e Cit y ha s violate dfederal la w an d regulations " b y refiisin g t o allo w VJ C t o buil dhangar s a t th e Airport , but

fail s t o cit e an y suc hregulations . Id . Th e Repl y als o claim s that "a s th e FAA' s staf

f ha s alread y observed , th e Cit y ha s engage di n a

n on-goin g patter n o f

conduc t whic h violate s it s federal obligation s i n orde r t o reac hit s goal, " whic h i s supposedl y "t o preven t expansio n o f

th e Airport

- an dt o actuall y constric t it s activities. " Id . However , VJ C Receive r provide s n o evidenc e o f thi s allege d Cit y goa l - onl y th e statement s o f on e Counci l Membe r

i n particular . Moreover , eve n i f true , an y "observation " b y FA A staf f outsid e o f

afull y briefe dPart

1 6 proceedin g canno t gover n th e outcom e o f

thi s proceeding . And , a s pointe dou t i n th e City' s Memorandu mo f Point s an dAuthoritie s i n Support o f it s Answer , Affirmativ e Defenses , an dMotio n t o Dismis s ("Memorandu mi n Support" ) at p . 18-20 , th e FA A AD O official referre dt o b y VJC/Receive r

wa s operatin g unde r

mistake n assumption s (becaus e o f th e willfii lmalfeasanc e an dcover-u p b y VJC' s owner , founder , an dmanagin g member ) that wer e materia l t o th e preliminar y guidanc e provide do n th e matter . Th e Reply' s lis t

o f pas t allege daction s o f

th e Cit y (Repl y at

2-3) , eve n i f

the y wer e true , d o no t

demonstrat e an y gran t

assuranc e complianc e violations . Abolishin g th e Airport Advisor y Boar dwas clearl y withi n th e Cit y Council' s prerogative . I t i s withi n th e Council' s authorit y t o determin e tha t i t wil l receiv e inpu t

directl y fromintereste dpartie s suc ha s VJC , othe r

Airport tenant s an dusers , an dth e community , rathe r tha n havin g thi s inpu t filteredthroug h an Advisor y Board . Simpl y put , ther e i s n o federal obligatio n t o kee p a n airport advisor y boar di n existence , an dman y airport sponsor s d o no t

utiliz e suc h a board . Th e Cit y dispute s th e Complainant' s characterizatio n o f th e reason s for

disbandin g th e Advisor y board , but

thi s issu e nee dnot

b e discusse dhere. ^ Moreover , th e Sunshin e Ac t cas e agains t

th e Cit y i s not

relevan t t o thi s proceedin g an di n an y even t

th e resolutio n o f

tha t cas e certainl y doe s no t

indicat e an y willfii l destructio n o f

publi c record s o r

us e o f liaison s o r

privat e communication s t o slo w airport development , a s allege db y Complainan t (Repl y a t pp . 3 , 7 , n . 7) . Se e Cit y Exhibi t A (Stipulatio n i n Settlemen t o f Sunshin e Ac t

lawsuit) . Finally , whethe r th e Cit y Council , or , mor e accurately , certai n individua l members , explor e whethe r aparticula r

runwa y i s mor e appropriatel y classifie da s B-I I o r C-IL s o a s t o ensur e tha t i t complie s wit h applicabl e FA A safet y requirements , raise s n o complianc e issues. ^ Contrar y t o th e implicatio n i n th e

* Th e Cit y ha s alread y refute dth e assertio n tha t th e Cit y seek s t o reduc e th e functionalit y o f th e Airport

a s asserte di n Repl y at

p . 3 , n . 3 . Se e Cit y Memorandu mi n Suppor t at 22-23 . ^ Contrar y t o VJC/Receiver' s allegatio n (Repl y p.3 , n.3) , th e Cit y Counci l ha s no t sought , an dha s no t

taken , actio n t o downgrad e th e Airport' s AR C designation . Moreover , changin g suc h designatio n woul dno t "limi t th e type s o f

aircraf t serviced. " Id . I n fact , FA^^ ha s hel dt o th e contrar y i n acas e cite db y VJC/Receive r fo r othe r purposes . I n r e Cit

y o f Sant aMonica , F/i A Docke t No . 16-02-08 , 200 9 W L215208 6 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , Jul y 8 , 2009) .Reply , recipient s o f AI P fiand s ar e unde r

n o federa l obligatio n t o encourag e large r je t traffic . Th e Cit y ha s not

develope da

n alternativ e AL P consisten t with aB-I I designation , althoug h certai n segment s o f th e citizenry hav e advocate dfor this . Complainant' s Exhibi t 9 , cite db y Complainant , doe s no t support thi s assertion . Complainan t

list s aserie s o f

purporte daction s b y th e Cit y that hav e n o bearin g o n th e initia l issue s raise di n th e Complaint , an dseek s t o injec t a n additional issu e int o thi s proceeding . Th e cost-fre e municipa l us e o f airpor t propert y for

non-aeronautica l purpose s (Repl y a t 3 ) i s an issu e tha t

FA A ha s alread y investigated , a s tacitl y acknowledge di n th e Reply , sinc e i t

include s a n FA A lette r

o n th e subjec t

a s an exhibit . Whil e th e Cit y i s workin g independentl y with th e FA A t o resolv e thi s issue , it i s clear that i t ha s n o bearin g o n th e VJ C hanga r

issue , sinc e th e area s allegedl y use dfo r non-aeronautica l purpose s ar e fa r remove dfiro

mth e VJ C cit e an dhav e n o impac t o n tha t site . Repl y Ex . 1 . Se e Thermc o Aviation , Inc . v . County o f Lo s Angeles, FA A Docke t No . 16-06-07 , 200 7 W L189382 1 (Director' s Determination , Jun e 21 , 2007 ) aff'd . Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r Dec . 17 , 2007. ^ A s for th e allegatio n tha t

th e Cit y ha s allowe dth e majorit y o f th e Airport' s runway s an dtax i way s t o remai n i n poo r condition , th e Repl y cite s a199 8 report include di n th e 200 0 Maste r

Pla n (Repl y Exhibi t

2) , whic h doe s not

reflec t th e fac t that i n 2006 , th e Cit y complete damajo r

reconstructio n o f

Runwa y 13-31 . Thi s runwa y i s capabl e o f handlin g al l aircraf t that serv e th e Airport , a s discusse dmor e fiill y below , a t Sectio n VII.E .

* "Thermc o ha s faile dt o sho w tha t i t doe s no t enjo y along-ter mhanga r leas e at th e Airport

becaus e o f

th e City' s pas t

land-us e practices . .. . Finally , Thermc o fail s t o sho w i t wa s denie daleas e i n favo r o f anon aeronautica l use . Consequently , th e Directo r correctl y exercise dhi s discretion , determinin g that Thermc o ha d no t show n that

it wa s directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y th e City' s failur e t o us e Airpor t propert y for strictl y aviatio n uses. " Fina l Agenc y Decisio n at 25 .Complainan t assert s that

th e Cit y refuse dapproximatel y $ 5 millio n i n federal fiindin g that

FA A previousl y allocate dt o repai r Runwa y 4-22 , but

ignore s th e fac t

that th e Cit y an dFAA agree dt o reconstruc t Runwa y 13-3 1 instead , becaus e thi s coul db e accomplishe dmor e swiftl y tha n areconstructio n o f Runwa y 4-22 . Conformity t o change s i n FAA' s runwa y safety standard s ( aprerequisit e for AI P funding ) coul dreadil y b e accomplishe dwith Runwa y 13-31 , bu t ther e ar e issue s tha t

mus t stil l b e worke dou t

with respec t t o Runwa y 4-22 . Se e Sectio n VILE. , below . Finally , VJC/Receive r

assert s tha t

th e City seek s "approva l o f aComprehensiv e Plan that woul ddevelo p Airport

lan di n th e Souther n Gatewa y corrido r fo r non aeronautica l an dnon-revenu e producin g purpose s withou t FA A approval. " Repl y a t 3 . First , ther e i s n o evidenc e that th e City sough t

t o implemen t

an y suc h pla n withou t

FA A approval . Th e mer e fac t

that th e Cit y ma y hav e sough t othe r necessar y approval s prio r t o seekin g FA A approva l i s n o complianc e infraction . I n fact , thi s i s simila r

t o th e proces s tha t VJC/Nade l followe di n seekin g approva l for th e hangar

constructio n firo

mth e Southwes t

Florid aWate r

Managemen t

Distric t prio r t o seekin g approva l fi-omth e City . Repl y a t 10 . Seekin g on e necessar y approva l fro ma n oversigh t

bod y prio r

t o obtainin g a necessar y approva l firomanothe r bod y doe s no t

rais e complianc e concerns . Implementin g aprojec t withou t securin g al l necessar /

approval s woul drais e complianc e concerns , bu t tha t i s not th e cas e with respec t

t o th e Souther n Gatewa y proposal . Th e Repl y the n list s element s tha t i t characterize s a s Cit y "dela y tactics " t o preven t VJ C frombuildin g th e hangars . First , th e Complainan t assert s tha t

th e Cit y denie d"VJC' s reques t t o construc t

4 bo x hangar s i n Jul y 200 8 eve n thoug h th e propose dconstructio n complie dwith al l applicabl e plannin g am dbuildin g cod e provision s an dme t al l Minimu mStandard s for th e Venic e Municipa l Airpor t an dFixe dBase dOperation s (th e 'minimu m standards'). " Th e recor dcontain s n o evidenc e tha t VJC/Nade l mad e an y suc h reques t at tha t time . Moreover , th e projec t di dno t mee t al l minimu mstandards , a s ther e wa s n o demonstratio n o f

financial viabilit y o r

complianc e with othe r

standards , discussed , belo w a t Sectio n V . Se e als o City' s Memorandu mi n Support a t 41-45 . Complainan t

assert s that

th e Cit y denie dth e reques t t o buil dhangar s i n Augus t 200 8 an drequire dVJ C t o submi t aconcep t

pla n "eve n thoug h th e VJ C ha dno t previousl y bee n require dt o produc e aconcep t pla n whe n i t

buil t it s first hangar s o n th e leasehold. " Repl y a t 4 . I n fact , th e Cit y di dnot

tur n dow n th e projec t

unti l Marc h 2009 . Moreover , th e hangar s that

VJ C first buil t o n it s leasehol dfulfille darequiremen t i n th e leas e impose db y th e Cit y tha t

VJ C tear dow n an dreconstruc t

existin g hangars . Complainan t Exhibi t 3 (VJC' s Lease) . Ther e woul db e n o reaso n for th e Cit y t o approv e aconcep t pla n o f a projec t that it require dVJ C t o undertak e t o replac e dilapidate dhangar s o n th e site . Contrar y t o VJC' s assertion , th e Cit y di dno t misrepresen t

t o th e FA A i n Septembe r 200 8 tha t VJC' s reques t

wa s denie dbecaus e i t

mad e n o formal reques t

t o buil dth e hangars . Evidenc e i n th e recor dindicate s tha t VJ C applie dfor

buildin g permit s i n Novembe r 2008 . Cit y Exhibi t

10 . Contrar y t o VJC' s assertion , "seekin g legal advic e a s t o whethe r th e Cit y coul d terminat e th e VJC' s lease " (Repl y at 4 ) wa s no t

adelayin g tactic . A s discusse di n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Suppor t at 21 , i t wa s reasonabl e an dpruden t for th e Cit y t o investigat e whethe r

VJC' s bein g force dint o receivershi p was an even t o f defaul t unde r th e lease .Whil e a n official at th e FAA' s AD O di dencourag e approva l o f th e hanga r

projec t (Repl y a t 4) , thi s wa s don e i n ignoranc e o f th e fact s relate dt o VJC' s receip t o f stole n fund s an dit s inabilit y t o demonstrat e that i t coul dfian

dth e projec t

withou t relyin g o n stole n funds , eithe r

directl y o r

indirectly . On e o f

th e AD O letter s reference di n th e Repl y relatin g t o th e AL P issu e als o appeare dt o b e contrar y t o FAA' s publishe dwritte n guidanc e o n no t allowin g developmen t

inconsistent

with a n approve dALP . Whil e counse l ma y lik e t o believ e tha t aclien t mus t alway s follo w counsel' s advice , client s alway s hav e th e ultimat e decisio n a s t o th e cours e o f actio n the y take . Exercisin g tha t

prerogativ e i s no t

a"delayin g tactic " a s Complainan t asserts . Id . Moreover , a s discusse di n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support a t 16-18 , th e Decembe r 200 8 Kapla n Kirsch & Rockwel l LLP memorandu mwas base do n severa l erroneou s factual assumptions . Finally , th e City Counci l di dfollo w th e memorandum' s advic e tha t i f th e approve dAL P depicte dfuture developmen t o n th e site incompatibl e with th e propose d hangars , th e Cit y woul dhav e abasi s for denyin g approva l for

th e hangars . Thus , Complainan t

simultaneousl y criticize s th e Cit y fo r "ignoring " advic e fro moutsid e counse l an dfor followin g tha t

advic e with respec t

t o th e AL P issue . Repl y at 4 . A s for th e Cit y "ignorin g th e FAA' s communicatio n indicatin g tha t th e AL P presente dn o suc h barrie r t o th e projec t

an dagai n encouragin g th e Cit y t o approv e construction, " {id.) , a s note dabove , thi s wa s on e o f th e thre e FA A AD O letter s Complainan t

alread y referenced , an dth e ADO' s opinio n appear s t o contradic t publishe d FA A guidance . Se e Cit y Memorandu mi n Suppor t at 18-20 . Complainan t

include s thre e separat e assertion s that appear t o relat e t o th e sam e actio n take n b y th e Cit y Counci l o n Marc h 10 : "denyin g VJC' s writte n reques t date d

1 0Februar y 200 9 t o buil dth e hangars, " "denyin g VJC' s writte n reques t date dFebruary 25 , 200 9 t o buil dth e hangars, " an d"formall y denyin g th e VJC' s reques t o n Marc h 10 , 200 9 at aCit y Counci l meetin g an dcontendin g th e VJC' s leas e was voi dbecaus e th e compan y i s i n receivership. " Repl y a

t 4-5 . I t i s no t clear wh y VJC/Receive r

repeate dthi s point . No r i s i t clear wh y Complainan t

assert s that

th e Cit y sough t

"ye t anothe r lega l opinio n t o determin e whethe r th e Cit y coul dterminat e th e VJC' s leas e becaus e th e compan y i s i n receivership. " Id . a t 5 . Th e Cit y sough t

on e lega l opinio n o n thi s issue , an dth e Cit y ha s explaine dwh y i t i s perfectl y reasonabl e t o investigat e whethe r th e involuntar y receivershi p was a n even t o f defaul t unde r th e lease. ^ Cit y Memorandu mi n Support a t 7-14 , 21 . Contrar y t o VJC/Receiver' s assertion , th e Cit y di dno t ignor e outsid e counsel' s opinio n that

th e leas e remain s valid , a s th e Cit y ha s no t take n an y actio n t o voi dth e lease . Moreover , th e outsid e counse l opinio n als o indicate dthat th e Cit y ha dareasonabl e argumen t tha t th e leas e di dnot

permi t additiona l hangars . Complainant' s Exhibi t 1 9 a t 3-8 . Complainan t

finally assert s that

th e Cit y ha s delaye db y denyin g VJC' s reques t o n th e basi s tha t

th e Receive r

di dnot demonstrat e financia l capabilit y "despit e th e fac t that : (1 ) VJ C ha dno t

previousl y bee n require dt o demonstrat e financial capabilit y t o buil d hangars ; (2 ) n o othe r

Airport tenant s wh o hav e buil t

hangar s hav e bee n require dt o sho w financial capability ; an d(3 ) th e VJ C ha s satisfie dth e financia l capabilit y requirement. " Id . Withrespec t

t o ite m(1) , VJC' s leas e specificall y require dVJ C t o demolis h existin g dilapidate dhangar s o n th e leasehol dan dbuil da10,00 0 foo t hanga r o n th e sit e withi n 5 year s o f executin g th e leas e (Complainant' s Exhibi t 3 at p . 25) . Failur e t o d o s o woul d

9 VJC/Receive r

contradict s itsel f

b y assertin g that

th e Cit y contende dthat

VJC' s leas e wa s voi dan dthe n statin g tha t

th e Cit y sough t

a n opinio n a s t o whethe r thi s wa s th e case . 1 1constitut e adefaul t unde r th e leas e {id . a

t p . 15 ^ 26) , an dth e Cit y coul dterminat e th e lease , amon g othe r

remedies . Thus , th e Cit y wa s protecte din cas e VJ C di dno t fully carr y ou t th e prescribe dhanga r

project , an ddi dnot

nee dth e additiona l protectio n o f verifyin g th e financial wherewitha l o f VJ C t o carry ou t

th e project . Moreover , onc e VJ C wen t int o Receivership , base do n th e Receiver' s swor n statemen t t o th e Court

tha t VJC' s purchas e o f th e asset s o f

Tripl e Diamon dwa s funde dcompletel y with stole n fund s an dVJ C ha d accepte da

t leas t $325,00 0 i n additiona l stole n fund s - an dlikel y more , whic h ha dnot bee n tracke ddow n b y th e Receive r a s o f th e dat e o f

th e filing (Cit y Exhibi t

2 a t p . 7-8 ) - thi s raise dlegitimat e question s a s t o th e financial resource s availabl e t o VJ C t o buil dth e hangars . Thus , i t

was perfectl y reasonabl e for th e Cit y t o inquir e a s t o VJC/Receiver' s financial resource s t o complet e th e project . With respec t

t o Ite m(2) , Complainan t provide s n o evidenc e tha t an y othe r

tenan t ha dbee n force dint o receivershi p (o r was capitalize dwith stole n funds) , whic h justifie s treatin g VJC/Receive r

differentl y fro mothe r

tenant s seekin g approva l t o fundprojects . A s for Ite m(3) , VJC/Receive r

clearl y ha s not

satisfie dth e financial capabilit y requiremen t

unde r an y reasonabl e standard . Th e Receive r ha s simpl y mad e flat

assertion s a s t o th e tota l cas h o r

cas h equivalent s o n han di n th e entir e Receivershi p (Cit y Exhibi t 3 a t p . 1) , whic hassertion s wer e unsupporte db y th e Receiver' s Report s t o th e Cour t {id . a t p 1

- 2 o f 2 (tabl e attache dt o th e Receiver' s Secon dInteri mReport) ) an dar e contradicte db y th e assertion s mad e i n th e Repl y (Repl y at 18-19) . It

woul db e irresponsibl e for th e Cit y t o rel y o n th e assertion s mad e b y th e Receive r unde r thes e circumstances , an dthes e assertion s d o not satisf y th e financia l viabilit y requirement . Moreover , th e Repl y als o acknowledge d tha t th e Receive r

woul dhav e t o obtai n court approva l t o spen dReceivershi p asset s o n th e

1 2hangar

projec t {id.) , an dth e Complainan t provide s n o evidenc e tha t suc h approva l ha s bee n obtaine d- o r

eve n sought . Complainan t

conclude s Sectio n I o f

it s Repl y b y claimin g tha t "th e City i s subjectin g th e VJ C t o unreasonabl e an ddiscriminator y standards , denyin g it reasonabl e acces s t o th e publi c Airport t o improv e it s leasehold , an dpreventin g developmen t tha t i s necessary t o mee t

aeronautica l demand , al l i n fiirtheranc e o f th e City' s goa l t o preven t expansio n an dt o actuall y constric t aeronautica l activit y a

t th e Airport. " Thi s assertio n i s unsupporte dan dabsurd . VJC/Receive r

point s t o n o standar dtha t i s "unreasonable. " Rather , VJC/Receive r assert s that

i t i s unreasonabl e t o requir e i t t o provid e evidenc e o f

financial capability t o carr y ou t th e project , despit e th e fac t that thi s i s acommo n requiremen t at airport s an dth e Actin g Associat e Administrato r ha s specificall y acknowledge dthat thi s i s th e City' s prerogativ e wit h respec t

t o thi s matter . Cit y Exhibi t 4 (C . Lan g lette r

t o Sen . Martinez.) . Moreover , applyin g thi s standar dt o VJC/Receive r bu t no t t o othe r entities , includin g VJC/Nade l with respec t

t o reconstructio n o f

hangar s a s require dunde r it s lease , i s not "discriminatory, " becaus e n o othe r entit y tha t

attempte dt o buil dfacilitie s a t th e Airport wa s know n t o hav e bee n fiande dwith stole n fund s an dpushe dint o involuntar y receivershi p at th e tim e th e project s wer e propose do r undertaken . Finally , VJ C ha s not

bee n denie dreasonabl e acces s t o th e Airport - i t i s an dha s bee n functionin g a s an FB O at th e Airfjor

t sinc e it signe dit s leas e i n 2006 . Se e Complainant' s Exhibi t

3 (VJC' s Lease) ; Cit y Exhibi t 3 (Receiver' s Secon dInteri mReport ) at p . 20-21 ; an dCit y Exhibi t 1 6 (Receiver' s Thir dInteri mReport ) a t p . 21 . Attemptin g t o characteriz e VJC' s circumstance s a s denia l o f acces s t o th e Airpor t

i s contrar y t o FA A

1 3precedent . Contras t Jimsai r Aviatio n Services , Inc . v . San Dieg o Regiona l Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-08 , at

21 , 24 , 200 7 W L240582 1 (Director' s Determination , Apr . 12 , 2007) , an dBist i Aviation , Inc . v . Cit y o f Farmington , NM , FAA Docke t No . 16-07-01 , at

1 6 (Director' s Determination , Dec . 4 , 2007 ) (complainan t operate da

t th e airport

an dwa s no t

denie daccess ) with Unite dState s Constructio n Corp . v . Cit y ofPompan o Beach , FA A Docke t No . 16-00-14 , 200 2 W L182188 2 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , Jul y 10 , 2002) , Skydanc e Helicopters , Inc . v . Sedon aOak-Cree k Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-02-02 , 200 3 W L 152450 0 (Director' s Determination , Mar . 7 , 2003) , an dCentennia l Expres s Airlines , FA A Docke t No . 16-98-05 , 199 8 W L108338 2 (Director' s Determination , Aug . 21 , 1998 ) (denia l o f acces s t o th e airport

becaus e complainan t

wa s no t allowe dt o operat e at

th e airport) . In addition . Complainan t ha s provide dn o evidenc e o f a"Cit y goal " t o "preven t expansio n an dactuall y constric t aeronautica l activit y a

t th e airport. " Id . At

most , i t ha s pointe dt o statement s b y on e o r mor e individua l counci l members , whic h hav e n o legal significance . II . Th e Assertio n tha t VJ C i s th e Tru e Part y a t Interes t i s Unsupporte db y th e Evidenc e i n thi s Proceedin g Complainan t

distort s th e City' s argument s an dmisapplie s th e law i n assertin g tha t VJ C i s th e rea l part y i n interes t an dtha t an y discussion s o f

th e tota l contro l o f

VJC/Nade l b y Mr . Nade l an dthe n VJC/Receive r b y th e Receive r

i s irrelevant . Complainan t i s simpl y wrong . Althoug hth e VJC/Receive r asserts , withou t

citation , tha t

th e Cit y claime dtha t

VJ C wa s "Nadel' s 'alte r

ego' " (Repl y a

t 7) , but tha t VJ C wa s no t

actuall y Mr . Nadel' s alte r ego , VJC/Receiver' s positio n appear s t o contradic t th e statement s th e Receive r himsel f mad e t o 1 4th e Court i n support

o f th e expansio n o f

hi s Receivershi p t o includ e VJC . Th e Receiver asserte dthat : 20 . Accordin g t o documentatio n retrieve dfro mth e Office , o n Augus t 8 , 2005 , Mr . Nade l entere dint o a n Asse t Purchas e Agreemen t

t o purchas e afixedbas e operatio n know n a s "Tripl e Diamon dJe t Center, " whic hoperate din th e Venic e Airport i n Venic e Florid a( acop y o f th e Asse t Purchas e Agreemen t

i s attache dheret o a s [City Exhibi t B ] 21 . Unde r

th e term s o f

th e Asse t Purchas e Agreement , Mr . Nade l agree dt o pa y $2,795,000.00 , includin g $2,695,000.0 0 payabl e a t closing,.. . Se e [City Exhibi t B ] a t Tn|1.41 , 1.8 . Further , th e Asse t Purchas e Agreemen t

contemplate dtha t

Mr . Nade l woul dassig n hi s interes t t o th e purchase dasset s (whic h wa s a100 % interest ) t o a n LLC . 

### SeeId\A.\ . 22 . Th e documentatio n reveal s that VJ C wa s forme di n Apri l 2006 , an di n th e sam e mont h th e Tripl e Diamon dJe t Cente r wa s purchase dwith atransfe r o f mone y o n Jul y 8 , 2006 , fro mScoo p Capita l [on e o f th e investmen t

firms throug h whic h Mr . Nade l perpetrate dhi s illegal scheme ] for

$2,793,587.12 . Th e ledge r fo r th e Scoo p Capita l accoun t fro mwhic h th e transfe r

occurre didentifie dth e purpos e o f th e transfe r a s "fo r VJ C Closing. " Thus , despit e th e possibl e co-ownershi p o f VJ C b y Mr . Nade l an dhi s wife," ' th e asset s hel db y VJ C wer e purchase d with mone y fromScoo p Capita l (an dthus , Mr . Nadel' s scheme) . 23 . Further , accordin g t o document s locate di n th e Office , sinc e th e formatio n o f

VJ C an dit s acquisitio n o f asset s a s discusse dabove . Scoo p Capita l ha s mad e at leas t th e followin g transfer s o f mone y t o VJ C (i t i s likel y tha t

significantl y mor e mone y was transferre dt o VJ C from Receivershi p Entities , an dw e continu e t o loo k for evidenc e o f

additiona l transfers) : Dat e 06/11/0 6 06/28/0 6 10/24/0 6 12/12/0 6 Paye e

VJ C VJ C VJ C VJ C TOTAL : Amoun t $100,00 0 100,00 0 75,00 0 50,00 0 $325,000.0 0

' " Se e Cit y Exhibi t

C (Article s o f

Organizatio n o f

Venic e Je t

Center) . I n respons e t o inquirie s fro mth e Cit y Counci l at

it s Januar y 13 , 200 9 meeting , on e o f VJC/Nadel' s lawyer s asserte dthat "th e ownershi p [o f

VJC ] i s Ar t Nade l an dhi s wif

e Peggy. " Cit y Exhibi t

D (Excerp t

o f Venic e Cit y Counci l Meeting , Januar y 13 , 2009) . 1 5Cit y Exhibi t 2 (Receiver' s Declaratio n i n Support o f th e Unoppose dMotio n t o Expan dth e Scop e o f

th e Receivership) , a

t p . 7-8 . Thus , VJ C owe s it s ver y existenc e t o th e decisio n b y Mr . Nade l t o us e stole n fund s t o purchas e th e previou s FB O - pursuan t t o a n agreemen t

Mr . Nade l reache dwith th e FB O a t leas t 8 month s prio r

t o th e establishmen t

o f VJC. " Moreover , ther e wer e additiona l transfer s o f

a t leas t $325,000 , an d"i t

i s likel y tha t

significantl y mor e mone y wa s transferre dt o VJ C fromReceivershi p Entities. " Id . Thi s i s no t

acas e o f a n ongoin g enterpris e i n whic h Mr . Nade l jus t happene dt o inves t stole n funds , an dth e compan y ha dn o ide athe y wer e stolen , i n whic h cas e i t woul d no t b e appropriat e t o plac e th e compan y int o receivership . Instead , VJ C i s acompan y that Mr . Nade l se t

u p i n orde r

t o hous e th e asset s o f

a n FB O that

Mr . Nade l agree dt o bu y lon g befor e VJ C was established . VJ C wa s avehicl e use db y Mr . Nade l t o park asset s h e acquire dwith stole n fijnds. Contrar y t o th e Complainant' s assertio n (Repl y at 7) , VJ C di d not los e an y rights a s aresul t o f Mr . Nadel' s actio n - VJ C woul dno t hav e existe do r

ha d an y rights bu t

for Mr . Nadel' s action . VJC/Receive r

assert s tha t

VJ C was not

use db y Mr . Nade l t o perpetrat e hi s fraudulen t investmen t

scheme . Repl y at

p . 5 , n . 4 . However , th e fac t tha t th e asset s transferre dt o VJ C wer e purchase dsolel y with illegall y obtaine dfunds , an dtha t additiona l illegall y obtaine dfund s wer e pumpe dint o it , mean s tha t VJ C owe s it s ver y existence , an d perhap s it s continuin g viability , t o th e illegall y obtaine dfunds . I f VJ C ha s receive d additiona l infusion s o f

illegall y obtaine dcash , a s th e Receive r ha s asserte d(Cit y Exhibi t 2 at 7-8) , thi s certainl y raise s legitimat e question s a s t o whethe r VJ C was , i n fact , makin g

" Th e precis e timin g i s difficul t t o ascertain , becaus e th e Receiver' s Declaratio n state s tha t "VJ C wa s forme d i n Apri l 2006 , an di n th e sam e monthth e Tripl e Diamon dJe t Cente r wa s purchase dwit h atransfe r o f mone y o n Jul y 8 , 200 6 ... " Obviously , Jul y i s no t "th e sam e month " a s April . 1 6mone y a s a n ongoin g FB O enterprise . I f it was makin g money , i t

i s unclea r

wh y additiona l illega l cas h woul dhav e bee n plowe dint o it , unles s VJ C wer e use dt o launde r th e illegall y obtaine dfunds , whic h woul dmak e i t part o f th e crimina l enterprise . Indeed , th e fac t that th e Receive r

intend s t o plac e al l o f

th e ne t proceed s o f

th e sal e o f

VJ C int o afiindfor

th e benefi t o f Mr . Nadel' s victim s certainl y raise s question s a s t o th e legitimac y o f VJC' s action s an doperations . Th e assertio n tha t

VJ C ha dadhere dt o highes t ethica l standard s (Repl y a t 7-8 ) i s belie db y th e fact

that th e founder , owner , an dcontrollin g manage r o f VJ C accepte dfund s o n behal f o f VJ C that h e kne w wer e stolen . Cit y Exhibi t 2 a t p . 8 . Thi s i s no t

acas e o f a rogu e employe e conductin g illega l activit y withou t th e company' s knowledge . VJ C woul d no t hav e com e int o existenc e bu t fo r stole n funds , an di t

i s not clear tha t VJ C mad e mone y o n it s ow n withou t

th e repeate dinfusio n o f

stole n fund s tha t

th e Receive r

ha s alread y uncovere dan dth e fa

r greate r cas h infusion s h e ha s asserte dh e ma y uncover . Id . VJC/Receive r

asserts , withou t

providin g an y supportin g evidence , tha t th e Receive r ha s communicate dt o th e Cit y o n multipl e occasion s that al l potentia l buyer s hav e state d tha t "approva l o f

th e hangar s an dth e abilit y t o buil dth e hangar s ar e materia l t o thei r determinatio n whethe r

t o purchas e it. " Repl y a t p.6 , n.5 . In fact , th e Receive r ha s refuse d al l Cit y request s for

informatio n abou t

th e potentia l purchasers . And , eve n i f true , VJC/Receiver' s assertio n prove s th e City' s poin t - that som e othe r

entity , rathe r

tha n VJ C a s currentl y constituted , ma y buil dth e hangars . VJ C apparentl y canno t provid e evidenc e tha t i t currentl y ha s th e financia l resource s t o d o so . Frankly , i n ligh t o f hi s dissemblin g contentions , th e Cit y ha s n o reaso n t o accep t at fac e valu e an y assertion s mad e b y th e Receiver .

1 7Complainan t als o assert s that

"th e Cit y ha s mad e n o showin g whatsoeve r tha t th e constructio n o f

th e hangar s woul dno t

hav e bee n accomplishe dwith 'clean ' proceed s o f th e VJC' s operations , rathe r

tha n mone y fro mMr . Nadel' s unrelate dinvestmen t scheme. " (Repl y a t p . 8) . Complainan t

misapprehend s both th e requirement s o f th e minimu m standard s an dth e burde n o f proo f i n thi s proceeding . Th e Cit y di dno t have , an ddoe s no t have , an obligatio n t o demonstrat e tha t VJ C coul dnot

hav e financedth e constructio n with clea n revenues . Rather , unde r th e minimu mstandards , VJ C mus t demonstrat e t o th e City' s satisfactio n tha t

it ha s th e capabilit y o f

financing th e hangars . VJ C ha s mad e n o suc h showing . Despit e th e VJC/Receiver' s oft-repeate dassertion s tha t i t ha s demonstrate d financial capabilit y t o buil dth e hangar s (Repl y a t 5 , 12 , 18-19) , nothin g i n th e recor d show s tha t

it ha s provide dan y evidenc e tha t VJ C ha s sufficien t

fund s o r financing capabilit y t o pa y for

th e propose dhanga r

development . Th e fac t that VJ C ha s not

misse drenta l payment s doe s not demonstrat e tha t

i t ha s th e capabilit y o f

fundin g th e hangars , a s Complainan t argues . Repl y a

t 8 . Eve n i f

i t di dno t us e illegall y obtaine dfund s t o mee t thos e payments , th e fac t that a n entit y ca n pa y it s ren t doe s not mea n that

i t als o ha s fund s t o finance significan t ne w constructio n whil e continuin g t o pa y th e rent . And , a s note dabove , th e fac t that VJ C receive dadditiona l infusion s o f

illega l fund s raise s question s a s t o it s financial viabilit y i f i t wer e force dt o rel y onl y o n legitimat e source s o f income . Contrar y t o Complainant' s assertion s {id.) , th e Cit y doe s no t hav e th e burde n o f

showin g tha t

VJC' s operation s d o not generat e cas h flow. An dapparentl y eve n VJC/Receive r doe s no t believ e it s ow n argumen t tha t VJ C i s a n entit y separat e an dapart fro mth e Receivership . In it s Reply , th e Complainan t relie s o n

1 8fund s fromth e entir e Receivership , no t jus t VJC , t o assert

that VJ C ha s sufficient

fiands o n han dt o construc t

th e hangars . (Repl y at

18-19).' ^ Moreover , Complainan t als o concede s tha t th e Receiver

mus t obtai n court

permissio n befor e i t

coul dspen dan y o f

thes e fund s o n th e hangar

construction , whic h permissio n th e Receive r ha s no t ye t obtained , o r

apparentl y sought.' ^ With respec t

t o thi s Par

t 1 6 proceeding , VJ C ha s th e burde n o f showin g tha t

th e Cit y ha s unjustl y discriminate d{Se e Cit y Memorandu mi n Support at 15) , a s Complainan t implicitl y concedes . Repl y a t p . 2 , n . 2.'' ' Th e Cit y doe s no t hav e th e burde n o f

showin g that it di dno t d o so . B y failin g t o demonstrat e tha t i t ha s me t th e City' s Minimu m Standard s o r

tha t th e applicatio n o f

thos e standard s t o VJC/Receive r i s unjusti y discriminatory . Complainan t ha s faile dt o mee t

it s burdens . Complainan t

concede s tha t

th e FA A i s concerne dwith curren t compliance . Repl y a

t p . 6 . However , basedo n th e Reply , Complainan t doe s not appear t o comprehen dth e significanc e o f

thi s FA A policy . VJC/Receive r someho w believe s tha t

VJC/Nade l ha da

'^ Complainant' s contentio n that th e Cit y shoul dblindl y accep t VJ C a s a n ongoin g enterprise , separat e an d apart fro mit s unsavor y inception , continua l functionin g a s arepositor y for stole n funds , an dinvoluntar y receivershi p i s undermine db y th e federal government' s approac h t o reviewin g th e ownershi p an dcontro l o f anothe r segmen t o f aeronautica l use r

- th e airlines . FA A an dDO T d o no t regar dacompan y t o b e th e sam e entity , wit hacontinuin g righ t t o fly passenger s i n ai r

transportation , regardles s o f wh o control s th e company . I n fact DO T perform s afitnes s determinatio n o n th e prospectiv e owner s whe n the y ar e proposed , before the y ca n tak e ownershi p an dcontro l o f th e airlin e - eve n thoug hi t is , i n VJC/Receiver' s view , th e "sam e company " with continuin g right s unde r th e law . Se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 204.5 , 204.6 .

" Althoug hVJC/Receive r assert s that

thi s Part 1 6 actio n i s brough t

i n th e nam e o f

VJC , no t th e Receive r (Repl y at 6) , i t wa s th e Receiver , no t

VJC , wh o sough t

an dobtaine dcourt

approva l t o fil e thi s action . (Cit y Exhibi t 1 6 a t p . 22) . Thi s i s becaus e th e Receive r ha s assume dtota l contro l o f VJC . Complainant' s Exhibi t 1 . Tha t is , unti l it

i s sold , ther e i s n o VJ C withou t th e Receiver . Th e Receive r ha s als o threatene dth e Cit y withadditiona l lega l actio n base do n hi s myopi c vie w tha t an y actio n take n b y th e Cit y a s landlor dthat doe s no t pum p u p th e valu e o f

VJ C i s a n actio n detrimenta l t o hi s Receivershi p contrar y t o th e orde r o f th e Court . Cit y Exhibi t

3 at 1-2 . Thi s i s hardl y evidenc e tha t VJ C i s a n entit y wholl y separat e an dapar t fi-omth e Receivership .

'' * Assertin g that

th e Cit y ha s th e burde n o f provin g it s affumativ e defenses , thereb y implicitl y acknowledgin g that th e Complainan t

bear s th e burde n fo r

th e othe r issue s i n th e case . 1 9"righ f

t o buil dth e hangar s i n 200 8 becaus e th e Cit y "ha dn o knowledg e o f Mr . Nadel' s wrongdoin g a

t th e tim e VJC' s reques t

wa s originall y mad e wel l ove r ayear ag o ... " an d that thi s confer s aright

o n VJC/Receive r

t o obtai n permissio n t o buil dsuc h hangar s now , throug h"th e ver y sam e reques t that i s stil l o n th e tabl e now. " Repl y a t 8 . I n essence , VJC/Receiver' s positio n i s that VJ C dupe dth e City fair

an dsquare , an donc e duped , th e City i s obligate dt o sta y duped , eve n i f incontrovertibl e fact s castin g doub t o n VJ C (Nade l an dReceiver ) subsequentl y com e t o light . Obviousl y ther e i s n o legal suppor t for thi s position . However , becaus e th e FA A i s concerne dwit h curren t compliance , th e fact s tha t th e Cit y ha s establishe di n thi s proceedin g (man y throug h th e Receiver' s ow n swor n statements ) ar e relevan t

t o th e questio n o f

whethe r o r not th e City' s curren t

reflisal t o gran t VJC/Receive r

th e right t o buil dth e hangar s o n th e VJ C leasehold' ^ present s acomplianc e issu e when : 1 ) Th e Receive r

ha s state dtha t

h e doe s not

inten dfor

VJ C t o buil dth e hangar s whil e h e i s controllin g it ; 2 ) H e doe s no t

kno w o r ha s refuse dt o identif

y th e entit y tha t

wil l contro l VJ C an dactuall y buil dth e hangars ; 3 ) A t

n o tim e ha s VJC , unde r

th e contro l o f

Mr . Nade l o r

th e Receiver , demonstrate dfinancial capabilit y t o buil dth e hangars ; 4 ) Th e purchas e o f

VJC' s initia l asset s wa s full y funde dwith stole n money , a fac t know n t o VJC' s founder , owner , an dcontrollin g managin g member ; 5 ) A t leas t $325,00 0 i n additiona l stole n fund s wer e funnele dint o VJC , an d likel y substantiall y more ;

1 5 Se e Cit y Memorandu mi n Suppor t at 14-15 , discussin g FA A cases , suc h a s Wilson Ai r Cente r LL C v . Memphi s an dShelb y County Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-99-1 0 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , Aug . 30 , 2001 ) (holdin g tha t

pas t violation s ar e irrelevan t

t o assessmen t

o f curren t complianc e wit h gran t

assurances) . 2 06 ) Al l o f th e ne t proceed s fromth e propose dsal e o f VJ C wil l b e put

int o afund for victim s o f

th e Nade l scam- whic h belie s an y clai mthat ther e ar e fund s othe r tha n stole n fund s investe di n th e company ; 7 ) Ther e wil l b e n o benefi t t o aeronautica l user s fro mgrantin g a"blind " right t o buil dth e hangar s now , befor e an y ne w owner s o f VJ C are identified , wh o ma y see k t o buil dhangars , o r

ma y chang e th e Nade l plans , whe n the y tak e contro l o f th e company ; an d 8 ) Th e FAA-approve dAL P depict s incompatibl e future developmen t o n th e site . III . VJC/Receive r

Laclc s Standin g t o Brin g It s Clai m A s th e Cit y asserte di n it s Affirmativ e Defenses , VJC/Receive r lacks standin g t o pursu e thi s Part

1 6 matter . I

t canno t sho w that

it ha s bee n harme db y th e City' s allege d misconduct , sinc e i t

ha s mad e clear

that i t doe s not inten dt o buil dth e hangars.' ^ Cit y Memorandu mi n Support a t 54 . Thus , Complainan t

i s no t directl y harme db y th e City' s refusal t o approv e th e hanga r projec t unde r th e curren t

circumstances . Complainant' s attempt s t o conjur e u p a n injury t o itsel f onl y serv e t o underscor e it s lac k o f standing . Complainan t

assert s that

"VJ C ha s bee n directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y th e City' s infraction s i n tha t

it ha s pai dan dcontinue s t o pa y ren t an dothe r

expense s t o th e Airport... " A s pointe dout i n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support , paymen t o f ren t confer s standin g onl y fo r an allegatio n o f

revenu e diversion , whic h ha s not bee n mad e here . Cit y Memorandu mi n Support a t 55 , n . 11 .

' * I n fact , followin g VJC/Receiver' s argumen t tha t i t i s VJC , no t

th e Receiver , that

filedthi s Par t

1 6 complain t an dthat VJ C i s acontinuin g entit y separat e an dapar t fromth e Receiver , i t

i s clear tha t it i s onl y th e Receivership , an dno t an y VJ C entit y tha t

continue s afte r

it i s sol db y th e Receiver , that i s potentiall y harme db y th e City' s actions . Receiver' s theor y i s tha t failur e t o obtai n fi-omth e Cit y at present , ablanke t approva l for

hanga r constructio n wil l induc e buyer s o f VJ C no t t o pa y apremiu mt o th e Receiver , wh o seek s t o tak e that

that premiu m(alon g wit hal l othe r proceed s o f

th e sal e o f

VJC ) of f airport , leavin g th e continuin g VJ C entit y with les s resource s availabl e fo r aeronautica l developmen t o r service . Thus , i n th e absenc e o f an approva l b y th e Cit y at

thi s time , th e VJ C buye r woul dhav e mor e mone y availabl e t o pu t int o th e VJ C enterprise . Thi s i s no t

ahar mt o VJC . I n contrast , unde r VJC/Receiver' s preferre dapproach , th e Receivershi p woul db e enriched , t o th e detrimen t o f th e continuin g VJ C enterprise . 2 1VJC/Receive r further assert s tha t

VJ C ha s bee n "denie dreasonabl e acces s t o a public-us e airport

for th e purpos e o f

improvin g it s leasehol dan dprovidin g aeronautica l service s t o th e public. " Repl y at 9 . O f cours e VJ C ha s no t

bee n denie dacces s t o th e Airport , a s evidence db y th e fac t tha t i t continue s t o operat e it s busines s a t th e Airport

an d continue s t o pa y rent . VJC/Receive r i n fac t operate s an ongoin g FBO , an deve n ha s constructe dothe r

hangar s o n it s leasehold . Se e Jimsai r Aviatio n Services , Inc . v . San Dieg o Regiona l Airpor t

Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-08 , at

21 , 2 4 an dBisti Aviation , Inc . V . Cit y o f Farmington , NM , FA A Docke t No . 16-07-01 , a

t 16 . VJC/Receive r

the n claim s tha t

i t was "subjecte dt o unreasonabl e an ddiscriminator y standards. " Eve n assumin g tha t thi s assertio n i s tru e - whic h i t i s no t - i t i s insufficien t

b y itsel f t o confer standing . A genera l clai mo f discriminatio n doe s no t

demonstrat e an y injury . A s discusse dabove , VJC/Receive r ha s no t bee n harme db y an y allege d discrimination . Finally , Complainan t

claim s that

VJ C ha s bee n "negativel y affecte dan ddevalue d b y th e City' s anticompetitiv e an dmonopolisti c activitie s designe dt o imped e th e Airport' s growth. " Repl y a

t 9 . A s develope dmor e full y below . Part 1 6 i s not intende dt o addres s allegedl y anti-competitiv e an dmonopolisti c activitie s - with th e exceptio n o f grantin g exclusiv e rights t o an y entit y t o provid e aeronautica l services . Bu t here , VJC/Receive r

ha s no t identifie dan y entit y tha t ha s allegedl y bee n grante da n exclusiv e right

t o provid e aeronautica l service s at

th e expens e o f

VJC.' ^ Gran t

Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Rights , '^CityExhibi t

16atp . 20 . ' * VJC/Receiver' s allegation s tha t th e Cit y ha s sough t

t o monopoliz e th e provisio n o f aeronautica l service s doe s no t stat e aclai munde r

Par t 16 , give n th e FAA' s well-establishe dpolic y tha t airpor t sponsor s ma y exercise , bu t

no t grant , a n exclusiv e righ t t o provid e aeronautica l services . Se e Cit y Memorandu mi n Suppor t at 51 , citin g FA A Advisor y Circula r 150/5190- 6 sectio n 1.3(b)(1 ) an dJe t I Ctr. , Inc . v . Naple s Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-04-03 , a t

16-18 , 200 5 W L38921 8 (Director' s Determination , Jan . 4 , 2005) . Se e als o

2 2prohibit s th e airport sponso r fromgrantin g on e tenan t aright t o operat e o n th e airport

whil e excludin g othe r

aeronautica l tenant s fromoperatin g o n th e airport i n th e sam e manner . Complainan t

argue s tha t

it ha s bee n tryin g t o expan dit s operation s t o mee t unme t genera l aviatio n demand . Thi s statemen t i s no t sufficien t t o demonstrat e tha t

on e aeronautica l tenan t - o r agrou p o f

aeronautica l tenant s - ha s bee n grante da n exclusiv e right

o n th e Airport that Complainan t

intend s t o provide . Jimsai r Aviatio n Services , FA A Docke t No . 16-06-08 , at

21 , 24 . A t most . Complainan t

seem s t o sugges t

that withou t th e City' s approva l o f

th e hangars , VJC/Receiver' s abilit y t o attrac t ne w owners/investor s ha s bee n impaired . Bu t thi s i s no t acognizabl e clai munde r Part 16 , an dVJC/Receive r

ha s presente dn o evidenc e whatsoeve r

t o substantiat e it . Ther e i s n o marke t valuatio n evidenc e i n th e recor d indicatin g that

approva l o f

th e hangar s woul dhav e an y effec t o n th e valu e o f

VJC , o r that an y potentia l buye r

ha s mad e an offer

contingen t

o n Cit y approval . In short , VJC/Receive r i s not th e rea l part y i n interes t

regardin g th e hangar s becaus e th e hanga r projec t wil l b e built , owne dan doperated , i f at all , b y som e other , a s ye t unknown , ne w owner s o f VJC . Thermc o Aviation , Inc. , cite db y Complainant , demonstrate s wh y Complainan t lack s standing . Thermc o stand s fo r th e propositio n that

th e complainan t

mus t suffer direc t an dsubstantia l har mrelate dt o th e allege dnoncomplianc e b y th e airpor t sponsor . Thermc o Aviation , Inc. , FA A Docke t No . 16-06-07 , Director' s Determinatio n at 27-28 ; Fina l Decisio n an dOrde r

a t 24-26 . Wit h respec t

t o th e allegation s concernin g Gran t Assuranc e U.S . Aerospace , Inc . v . Millingto n Mun . Airpor t Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-98-06, at

23 , 199 8 W L108338 4 (Director' s Determination , Oct . 15 , 1998 ) ("[T]h e owne r o f apubli c us e airport

ma y elec t

t o provid e an y o r al l o f th e aeronautica l service s neede db y th e publi c at th e airport . I n fact , th e statutor y prohibitio n agains t exclusiv e right s doe s no t appl y t o thes e owner s an dthe y may exercis e bu t no t gran t th e exclusiv e righ t

t o conduc t an y aeronautica l activity.") . 2 31,5, ' 19 , an d23 , VJC/Receiver' s pleading s hav e not establishe dstandin g unde r thi s standard . In Thermco , a s her e (Repl y a t 3) , th e complainan t

claime dtha t

th e sponso r

ha d engage di n nonaeronautica l use s o f airport land , an di n Thermco , thi s wa s foun dt o b e true . Director' s Determinatio n at 28 . Bu t th e complainant' s real concern wa s losin g it s hanga r spac e a s aresul t

o f airport plan s t o demolis h th e hangar (an dno t giv e th e complainan t replacemen t

space) . Th e FA A hel dtha t Thermc o lacke dstandin g t o challeng e th e non aeronautica l us e o f

lan dbecaus e los s o f

it s hanga r

wa s no t relate dt o th e airport' s histor y o f leasin g lan dfor

non-aeronautica l purposes : Thermc o ha s faile dt o sho w tha t i t doe s no t enjo y along-ter m hangar leas e at th e Airpor t

becaus e o f

th e City' s pas t

land

us e practices . .. . Finally , Thermc o fail s t o sho w i t was denie daleas e i n favo r

o f anon-aeronautica l use . Consequently , th e Directo r correctl y exercise dhi s discretion , determinin g tha t

Thermc o ha dnot

show n that

it wa s directl y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y th e City' s failur e t o us e Airpor t propert y for

strictl y aviatio n uses . Fina l Agenc y Decisio n 25 . In additio n t o misstatin g th e rul e o f Thermco , VJ C cite s tw o othe r cases . Unite d State s Constructio n Corp. , FA A Docke t No . 16-00-14 , an dSkydanc e Helicopters , Inc. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-02-0 2 i n suppor t o f it s argumen t

tha t i t ha s standin g i n thi s matter . Neithe r o f thos e case s i s applicabl e here , however , an dneithe r stan dfor th e propositio n tha t har msuffere dnee dnot

b e cause db y o r

relate dt o th e allege dgran t assuranc e violation . I n bot hcases , th e FA A hel dtha t denia l o f reasonabl e acces s t o th e airport for th e purpos e

Complainan t

appear s t o hav e abandone dit s clai mwith respec t t o Assuranc e 5 , a s i t

mad e n o respons e t o th e City' s Motio n t o Dismis s an dMemorandu mi n Suppor t with respec t

t o that claim . 2 4o f

providin g aeronautica l service s t o th e publi c wa s sufficient t o confe r standin g o n th e complainants.'^* ^ Here , VJC/Receive r ha s not bee n denie dacces s t o th e airport . VJC/Receiver' s complain t i s that VJ C ha s bee n denie dapermi t t o buil dhangar s that , b y th e Receiver' s ow n admission , h e doe s not inten dt o buil dwhil e VJ C i s i n Receivership . Cit y Exhibi t 3 (Receive r

letter . Complain t

a t ^ 59-60) . Unde r

th e rul e o f Thermco , a s wel l a s FAA' s concern wit h curren t compliance , thi s allege dhar mdoe s no t confe r standin g upo n VJ C t o brin g aPart 1 6 matte r

o n behal f

o f som e unknow n part y wh o ma y wan t t o buil dhangar s i n th e future . IV . VJC' s Clai mI s No t Rip e Fo r

Adjudicatio n Becaus e Ther e i s N o Proposa l Currentl y Befor e th e Cit y Fro ma n Entit y Seekin g t o Construc t

th e Hangar s Despit e th e claim s o f

VJC/Receive r

(Repl y at

10) , th e variou s iteration s o f th e propose dhanga r

projec t - fromth e prio r

leaseholde r

o f th e site throug h th e variou s proposal s b y VJ C - ar e relevan t t o th e ripeness issue . Th e variou s change s sho w that , unti l ther e i s a n entit y befor e th e Cit y tha t say s tha t i t wil l buil daspecifi c hanga r project , th e cas e i s not

ripe. Moreover , VJC/Receive r acknowledge s th e FAA' s oft-proclaime d positio n tha t

i t i s concerne dwit

h curren t complianc e o f

a n airport sponsor . Repl y at

6 . Sinc e th e Receive r

ha s disavowe dan y interes t i n buildin g th e hangars , an dth e ne w owne r o f VJ C ha s not

ye t bee n identified , ther e i s n o proposa l currenti y befor e th e Cit y b y an entit y tha t

say s i t wil l buil dth e hangar

projec t a s presente db y VJC/Receiver . Therefore , thi s cas e shoul db e dismisse da s unripe . VJC/Receiver' s assertio n tha t "th e propose dconstructio n conforme dt o al l minimu mstandards " (Repl y at 10) , i s incorrec t

an dmisleading , a s th e minimu mstandard s Perhap s becaus e of

thes e cases . Complainan

t assert s tha

t it ha s been deniedacces s t

o the Airport . Repl

y a t p . 9 . Thi s i s clearly false , a s show n above a t p . 21-22 . 2 5appl y t o mor e tha n jus t constructio n standards ; the y als o includ e financial ability , obtainin g necessar y Cit y approval s for construction , locatin g facilitie s i n area s authorize db y th e City , an dcomplianc e with th e highes t ethica l standards . VJC/Receiver' s assertio n tha t "VJ C ha dal l approval s for proceedin g with construction " {id.) , i s clearl y false , an dreflect s it s refusal t o acknowledg e tha t th e Cit y Council' s approva l wa s neede dfor project s t o proceed . I f

it ha dal l necessar y approval s i n hand , i t coul dhav e commence dconstruction . I t di dno t d o so , an di t

no w seek s a

n orde r fromFA A "requirin g Responden t t o gran t VJ C th e right

t o buil dth e four

hangar s a s propose dwithi n 1 0 day s o f th e order. " Complain t

at f 107(3) . Suc h relie f

woul dnot

b e necessar y i f

VJ C alread y ha dal l necessar y approval s i n hand . Furthermore , eve n i f VJC/Receive r

ha dever y Cit y approva l i t neede dexcep t

Council' s - whic h i t

di dno t - th e fac t tha t i t ha dsecure dthos e approval s woul dnot render thi s cas e ripe for

decision . Ripenes s her e doe s not

turn o n th e presenc e o r

absenc e o f

approva l b y variou s Cit y departments . Thos e approval s d o no t alte r th e fac t tha t VJC/Receive r

i s askin g th e Cit y t o approv e apla n for

hangar s tha t

i t doe s not inten dt o construct . VJC/Receiver' s assertio n (Repl y a t 11 ) tha t i t ha s propert y rights t o buil dth e hangar s an dth e Cit y ha s attempte dt o terminat e VJC' s leas e o r purchas e VJ C "an dclos e i t altogether " wa s addresse di n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support at 41-44 . VJC/Receive r

provide s n o suppor t

for it s assertio n at

p . 11 , n . 9 that

th e City' s explanatio n o f

ho w th e Decembe r

23 , 200 8 Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL P Memorandu m ("KK RMemorandum" ) was base do n materia l fact s an dcircumstance s tha t prove dt o b e untru e (suc h a s th e presenc e o f an FB O ready , willin g an dabl e t o buil dth e hangar s wit h

2 6legitimat e fund s ) i s insufficien t t o explai n th e difference s betwee n th e KK R Memorandu man dth e City' s Memorandu mi n Support . VJC/Receiver' s Repl y contain s n o analysi s o f

th e specifi c issue s se t

fort h i n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support . A s such , i t merel y reflect s VJC/Receiver' s opinio n an dcarrie s n o weight , a s i t defie s logi c an d commo n sense . VJC/Receiver' s assertio n tha t th e Cit y shoul db e estoppe dfromassertin g argument s that allegedl y contradic t

advic e give n th e Cit y b y counse l {id. ) is , t o say th e least , anove l an dmisguide dlega l theory . Whil e apart y may , unde r certai n circumstances , b e estoppe d frommakin g argument s tha t contradic t

thos e i t ha s mad e i n aprio r

lega l proceeding , assertin g tha t

th e Cit y i s boun db y VJC/Receiver' s interpretatio n o f th e lega l advic e provide dt o th e Cit y b y th e City' s ow n lega l counse l i s abizarr e interpretatio n o f th e doctrin e o f

estoppel . Attorney-clien t communication s mad e i n th e contex t o f arespons e t o areques t for lega l advic e ar e afa

r cry frompubli c statement s mad e b y th e clien t i n alega l proceeding . Moreover , VJC/Receive r selectivel y read s th e KKRMemorandum , whic h als o state dthat , i f

th e current , FAA-approve dAL P designate s th e propose dhangar are aa s reserve dfor

other , inconsisten t

future development , th e Cit y coul dden y th e FB O th e right t o buil dth e hangars . Complainant' s Exhibi t 1 3 at 12-1 3 o f 14 . Thi s ha s turne dout

t o b e th e case .

^ ' Specifically , th e Repl y doe s no t answe r o r disput e th e City' s explanatio n that th e KK RMemorandum : (1 ) di dno t addres s th e City' s minimu mstandard s an dexplicitl y state dtha t i t wa s no t addressin g minimu m standard s (Complainant' s Exhibi t 1 3 at 16) ; (2 ) incorrectl y assume dthat ther e wa s aready , willin g an dabl e FB O that wante dt o buil dth e hangar s (id . at 17) ; (3 ) incorrectl y assume dthat th e curren t

AL P designate dth e are awher e th e hangar s woul db e buil t a s bein g availabl e fo r

"genera l aeronautica l development " {id . a t 17) ; an d(4 ) incorrectl y assume dtha t othe r FBO s ha do r

woul db e give n th e righ t t o buil dhangar s o f

th e sam e typ e desire db y VJ C {id . at 18) . Complainant' s assertio n tha t thi s explanatio n i s "unpersuasive " becaus e o f unrelate dfactor s - suc ha s VJC' s allege drigh t t o buil dhangars , purporte dcomplianc e with al l minimu m standards , an dComplainant' s interpretatio n o f th e AL P issu e (Repl y at p . 11 , n . 9) i s nonsensical . 2 7Finally , VJC/Receiver' s clai mthat circumstance s hav e not

change dsinc e th e FA A AD O official provide dinformal advic e o n th e hanga r approva l issu e (Repl y at 11 ) constitute s astunnin g disregar do f th e actua l facts . A s explaine di n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support , an dabove , sinc e tha t time , VJC' s principa l ha s bee n arreste dan d throw n int o jail ; i t

ha s bee n reveale dthat

h e perpetrate dan elaborat e schem e t o defrau d investors , use dstole n mone y t o fundth e purchas e o f th e prio r FB O at th e Airport , establishe dVJ C t o hol dthat asset , an dtransferre dadditiona l stole n fund s t o VJC . In addition , VJ C ha s bee n place dint o Receivership , wher e th e Receiver : exercise s tota l contro l ove r

th e operation s an dasset s o f VJC ; ha s disavowe dan y intent t o buil dth e hangar s whil e VJ C i s i n Receivership ; an di s attemptin g t o sel l of f VJ C t o undisclose d buyer s an dtak e th e mone y fro mth e sal e of f airport . In ligh t

o f thes e significan t developments , i t

i s difficul t

t o imagin e wha t

Complainan t

ha di n min dwhe n i t

mad e th e assertio n tha t

"th e circumstance s hav e not change dsinc e thi s informa l [ADO ] determinatio n wa s made " (Repl y at 11) . V . Th e Cit y i s No t

Applyin g Unreasonabl e Minimu mStandard s i n a Discriminator y Manne r an dVJ C Ha s No t

Complie dwit h al l Requirement s Confrary t o VJC/Receiver' s clai mo n p . 1 2 o f th e Reply , demonstratio n o f financia l capabilit y i s no t

th e onl y non-complianc e with minimu mstandard s asserte db y th e Cit y i n it s Memorandu mIn Suppor t (Repl y a t 12) . Th e Cit y als o cite dapplicabl e Minimu m Standard s relatin g t o (1 ) th e requiremen t o f writte n Cit y approva l an dconsen t for an y perso n t o us e th e Airpor t o r th e person' s facilitie s for commercial , busines s o r aeronautica l

2 8activities ; (2 ) th e City' s reserve dright t o designat e specifi c area s wher e a n aeronautica l servic e ma y b e conducted ; an d(3 ) th e requiremen t tha t n o constructio n b e don e a t an y tim e withou t

th e prio r approva l o f

th e City.^' ' Th e Cit y als o cite dfailur e o f VJ C t o compl y withMinimu mStandard s relatin g t o meetin g th e highes t ethica l standard s (City' s Memorandu mi n Support a t p 43 , n.9) . Th e Cit y als o cite dcase s i n support o f th e propositio n that

airpor t operator s may exercis e thei r

proprietar y power s t o develo p an dadministe r airport lan dconsisten t

with th e public' s interest , rathe r

tha n consisten t

with th e wishe s o f

an y on e aeronautica l user.^^ Th e cite dMinimu mStandard s an dcas e la w demonstrat e tha t th e Cit y intende dt o exercis e it s proprietar y power s t o direc t th e cours e o f

airport developmen t

o n an ongoin g basi s - an d di dno t ced e tha t authorit y t o VJ C merel y b y signin g alease . Complainan t ha s no t responde dt o th e additiona l Minimu mStandard s provision s an drelate dauthorit y that wer e cite db y th e City , thus , effectivel y concedin g th e City' s position . Complainan t

ignore s thes e clear

reference s t o othe r

provision s o f

th e Minimu m Standard s an dfocuse s instea do n onl y on e provision , th e requiremen t t o sho w financial capability . Eve n o n tha t

specifi c issue , however . Complainan t garble s th e fact s an d

^ ^ Minimu mStandard s §5 , Complainant' s Exhibi t 4 at p . 6 o f 17 , cite di n City' s Memorandu mi n Suppor t a t p.42 . Minimu mStandard s §3.C , Complainant' s Exhibi t 4 at 2- 3 o f 17 , cite di n City' s Memorandu mi n Support at p.43-44 ; thi s requiremen t i s als o reflecte di n Sectio n 1 0 o f th e FB O Minimu mStandards , whic h state s tha t a n FB O ca n construc t

hangar s "i n alocatio n satisfactory t o th e City. " Complainant' s Exhibi t 5 at § 10 . ^ Minimu mStandard s §3.C , id. , cite di n Cit y Memorandu mi n Suppor t at p . 44 ; thi s requiremen t

i s als o reflecte di n Sectio n 8 o f

th e FB O Minimu mStandards , whic h state s tha t n o constructio n shal l b e don e withou t th e prio r approva l o f

th e City . Complamant' s Exhibi t 5 at § 8 . ^ ' City' s Memorandu mi n Suppor t at 44-45 , citin g Pacifi c Coas t Flyers , Inc . v . County o f Sa n Diego , FA

A Docke t No . 16-04-08 , 200 5 W

L 190051 5 (Director' s Determination , Jul y 25 , 2005 ) at *29 , whic h cite s an d quote s Sant aMonic aAirpor t Associatio n v . Cit

y o f Sant aMonica , FA A Docke t 16-99-2 1 Fina l Decisio n an d Orde r (Feb.4 , 2003) . 2 9misinterpret s th e requirements . Althoug h Complainan t assert s that

"[t]h e deman dt o sho w financial capability wa s mad e for th e first tim e i n approximatel y May o r Jun e 2009 " (Repl y at 12) , i n fact , th e Cit y Counci l raise dthi s concern a t it s Marc h 10 , 200 9 Meeting . City' s Memorandu mi n Support a t p . 10-11 , citin g Cit y Exhibi t 11 . Th e Complainan t

agai n seek s t o cas t

aspersion s o n th e City' s investigatio n o f whethe r th e Nade l fraud, whic h fiandedhi s purchas e o f th e existin g FB O tha t

h e assigne dt o th e compan y (VJC ) h e create dspecificall y t o acquir e tha t asset , invalidate dth e City' s leas e withVJC . A s th e Cit y ha s alread y argued , i t was perfectl y reasonabl e for th e Cit y t o investigat e thi s issue.^ ^ Se e City' s Memorandu mi n Support at 10-11 , 14 , 21 . Callin g Mr . Nadel' s frau d"unrelated " (Repl y a t 12) , whe n i t

was instrumenta l i n th e ver y creatio n an d continue dfundin g o f

VJ C i s abi t

odd . Moreover , dismissin g a s amer e "pretext " {id. ) consideratio n o f

an issu e (financia l capability ) that th e Associat e Administrato r for Airport s ha s indicate di s alegitimat e issu e for th e Cit y t o conside r

(Cit y Exhibi t

4 ) i s downrigh t peculiar . A s discusse dbelow , th e Complainant' s assertion s tha t th e financia l viabilit y condition s d o no t

apply , ar e unreasonable , an dwere , i n an y case , me t b y VJ C ar e al l incorrect .

^ * It i s unclear

wh y VJC/Receive r

assert s tha t

th e counse l that

provide dth e lega l opinio n concernin g th e validit y o f

th e VJ C leas e i s "th e sam e counse l representin g th e Cit y i n thi s proceeding. " Repl y at 12 . Th e reference dopinio n wa s issue db y Icard , Merrill , Cullis , Timm , Fure n & Ginsburg , P.A . o n Ma y 18 , 2009 , an d i s attache dt o th e Complain t a s Exhibi t

19 . Counse l for

th e Cit y i n thi s proceedin g i s Kapla n Kirsc h & Rockwel l LL P (KKR) , whic h provide dan opinio n o n differen t issue s o n Decembe r

23 , 2008 , whic h opinio n i s attache dt o th e Complain t a s Exhibi t

13 . Th e KK Ropinio n explicitl y state dtha t i t di dno t addres s issue s relatin g t o th e leas e (Complainant' s Exhibi t 1 3 at 1 o f 14) , an dwa s th e subjec t o f earlie r discussio n i n th e Repl y at p . 11 , a9 . 3 0A . Th e Requiremen t o f Demonstratin g Financia l Capabilit y Applie s Unde r th e Expres s Languag e o f th e Leas e an dth e Applicabl e Minimu mStandard s Incorporate db y Referenc e int o th e Leas e Complainan t

wrongl y assert s that , unde r th e plai n languag e o f

th e minimu m standards , th e Cit y ha s n o basi s t o conditio n approva l o f VJC' s reques t

o n VJC' s proo f

o f financial capability . Repl y at 12-14 . Th e subjec t

languag e i n question , a s cite db y th e City , i s tha t

"Propose do r

existin g Operators , ma y b e require dt o provid e evidenc e o f pas t experience , financia l capabilit y an dtechnica l abilit y t o performth e propose dservices. " Complainan t

Exhibi t 4 a t p . 6 o f 17 , cite di n City' s Memorandu mi n Support at p . 43 . Complainan t

insist s tha t

thi s provisio n applies t o existin g Operator s onl y i f the y exten dthei r

operation s int o additiona l categorie s (Repl y a t 13) , but thi s i s no t

an dha s no t bee n th e City' s interpretatio n o f th e provision . First , th e cite dsentenc e standin g alone , provide s n o suc h limitation . Second , th e first sentenc e o f

th e sectio n provide s tha t "An y perso n o r Operato r wil l mee t

th e Minimu mStandard s a s se t fort h herei n pe r

th e categorie s t o expan dit s operation s o r becom e an operato r

at th e Venic e Airport. " Complainan t Exhibi t 4 at p . 6 o f 17 . Th e proposa l t o construc t ne w hangar s i s unquestionabl y a n attemp t b y VJ C t o "expan dit s operations. " Th e "propose dservices " for whic h existin g operator s ma y b e require dt o provid e evidenc e o f experience , financial capabilit y an dtechnica l abilit y ar e no t

limited , a s Complainan t claims , t o extendin g operation s int o additiona l categories . Nothin g i n Sectio n 8 A tie s th e requirement s o f th e las t sentenc e onl y t o th e intermediat e sentence s cite db y VJC/Receiver ; instea dth e las t sentenc e i n 8 A relate s t o th e

3 1first

sentenc e i n th e sectio n a s muc h a s i t doe s t o th e othe r

sentences . VJC/Receiver' s attemp t t o conflat e th e provisions , whil e perhap s clever , i s fa r fromdispositive.^' ' Moreover , th e City' s interpretatio n o f it s ow n Minimu mStandard s i s entitle dt o deference . "[DJeferenc e i s owe dt o amunicipa l body' s statutor y interpretatio n o f it s ow n rule s an dregulation s s o lon g a s it s interpretatio n i s base do n apermissibl e construction. " Am . Civi l Libertie s Unio n o f Florida , Inc . v . Miami-Dad e County Sch . Bd. , 55 7 F.3 d1177 , 122 8 (11th Cir . 2009 ) (interna l quotatio n omitted) . "[CJourt s ordinaril y gran t deferenc e to th e zonin g board' s understandin g o f it s ow n ordinanc e because , a s agenera l matter , governmenta l agencie s ar e entitle d'grea t weight ' i n thei r

interpretatio n o f

legislatio n the y ar e charge dt o enforce. " Broussar dv . Zonin g Bd . o f Adjustment

o f Cit y o f Pittsburgh , 90 7 A.2 d494 , 50 0 (Pa . 2006) . "I f ther e i s ambiguit y i n th e languag e o f th e statute , areviewin g court i s t o giv e deferenc e t o amunicipality' s interpretatio n o f it s ow n ordinance. " Walsh Const . Co . o f

Illinoi s v . Cit

y o f Detroit , 25 7 F . Supp . 2 d935 , 93 8 (E.D . Mich . 2003) . Thus , eve n i f Complainant' s interpretatio n o f th e Minimu mStandard s i s considere dplausible , FA A shoul ddefer

t o th e City' s interpretation . B . Contrar y t o Complainant' s Contention , Requirin g FBO s T o Demonstrat e Financia l Capabilit y I s No t a n Unreasonabl e Standard , an dth e Cit y Ha s No t Applie dI t

I n aDiscriminator y Manne r VJC/Receive r

complain s tha t

th e proo f o f financial capabilit y provisio n i n th e Minimu mStandard s i s "vagu e an darbitrary " an d"leave s approva l t o th e sol e discretio n o f

^ ^ Complainan t

als o base s it s argumen t

o n th e premis e tha t

"VJ C i s acurren t

FB O tha t

ha s alread y bee n permitte dt o buil dhangar s i n th e pas t an dcurrentl y lease s hangar spac e t o othe r

parties. " Repl y at

13 . Whil e th e partie s agre e tha t

VJ C di dreconstruc t

th e hangar s a s require db y it s lease , ther e i s n o evidenc e i n th e recor dthat

VJ C lease s ou t

hanga r spac e t o other s fo r

th e storag e o f

aircraft , a s oppose dt o storin g it s ow n aircraf t i n th e hangars . Eve n i f

i t di dleas e ou t

hangar space , however , thi s fac t woul dno t

overcom e th e City' s reasonabl e interpretatio n o f it s ow n Minimu mStandard s an dth e applicatio n o f thos e standard s t o th e unusua l circumstance s currentl y surroundin g VJC . 32th e City. " Repl y a t 14 . Complainan t

claim s that

thi s make s th e requiremen t "unreasonabl e an ddiscriminator y o n it s face. " Id . Th e Repl y doe s not eve n attemp t

t o explai n ho w thi s languag e make s th e provisio n discriminator y o n it s face , an dthi s allegatio n shoul dtherefor e b e disregarded . A s t o th e clai mo f unreasonableness , an importan t facto r t o kee p i n min di s tha t

ther e i s n o allegatio n o r

evidenc e tha t

th e City ha s applie dth e standar di n awa y tha t i s impossibl e - o r

eve n particularl y difficul t - t o satisfy . Rather , Complainan t

ha s simpl y chose n no t

t o eve n attemp t

t o satisf y it , excep t

for makin g th e mos t cursory , unsupporte dassertion s that i t ha s th e resource s availabl e t o complet e th e project . Unde r

n o reasonabl e standar dcoul dth e Receiver' s conflicting , unsupporte d representation s b e considere dsufficien t t o satisf y th e financial capabilit y requirement ; perhap s realizin g this . Complainan t attempt s t o assert

tha t th e requiremen t

itsel f i s unreasonable . However , eve n i n th e even t tha t th e languag e cite db y Complainan t i s considere dt o giv e to o muc h discretio n t o th e Cit y i n decidin g wha t informatio n i s sufficien t

t o satisf y th e financial capabilit y requirement , th e FAA , an dacourt , woul dhav e t o loo k at whethe r th e Cit y ha s exercise dthat

discretio n unreasonably . A s note di n th e Icar dmemo , whic h Complainan t

ha s state dth e Cit y shoul dfollo w i n interpretin g th e Wi C leas e (Repl y at 5 , 12) , Florid acourt s imput e areasonablenes s o r goo dfait h standar dt o serv e a s achec k agains t unfettere ddiscretio n tha t coul db e abused.^ * Complainant' s Exhibi t 1 9 (Icar d

^ * Unde r Florid alaw , th e exercis e o f discretio n b y apart y t o acontrac t i s subjec t

t o astandar do f

"commercia l reasonableness. " Se e Fernande z v . Vazquez , 39 7 So.2 d1171 , 1173-7 4 (Fla . Dist. Ct . App . 1981 ) (discussin g th e "well-accepte dconcept " tha t " aleas e i s acontract , an da s such , shoul db e governe db y th e genera l contrac t principle s o f

goo dfait han dcommercia l reasonableness") . On e establishe dcontrac t principl e cite d i n Fernande z i s that

aparty' s goo dfait

hcooperatio n i s a n implie dconditio n preceden t t o performanc e o f

a contract . Id . "Wher e tha t cooperatio n i s unreasonabl y withheld , th e recalcitran t part y i s estoppe dfi-om availin g hersel f

o f he r ow n wrongdoing. " Id . A s th e Minimu mStandard s ar e incorporate dint o th e VJ C lease , t o th e exten t

tha t ther e i s excessiv e discretio n provide dt o th e City , applicatio n o f tha t discretio n i s 3 3Memo ) a t 9-10 . Thus , th e standar dwil l no t b e stricken , bu t

wil l b e evaluate do n a

n "as

applied " basis . I

n ligh t o f th e fac t tha t VJ C ha s no t

provide dconsistent , verifiabl e informatio n t o satisf

y thi s standard , ther e can b e n o doub t concernin g th e reasonablenes s o f th e City' s applicatio n o f

th e standar dt o VJC . Instead , here , it

i s clear tha t VJC/Nade l neve r

provide dan y informatio n o n financial capability , an dindeed , Mr . Nade l coul dno t provid e an y truthfu l informatio n demonstratin g VJC/Nadel' s capabilit y t o fundth e hangar s wit h legitimat e funds . I t i s likewis e clear

tha t VJC/Receive r

ha s refuse dt o provid e th e Cit y with an y financial information , excep t for th e unsupporte dassertio n tha t h e ha d$ 4 millio n i n cas h o n han davailabl e for

th e project , whic h i s contradicte db y both th e attachmen t h e submitte dalon g with hi s assertio n (Cit y Exhibi t 3) , an dth e Reply , whic h assert s that throughou t

th e Receivership , h e ha s $3. 3 million , an dh e woul dhav e t o ge t court approva l t o spen dan y o f

thes e fund s t o buil dhangar s o n th e VJ C site.'^ ^ Repl y at

18-19 . I n fact , th e Receive r

ha s asserted , i n th e contex t o f apotentia l Cit y bi dfor

VJC , that th e Cit y woul dhav e t o sig n aconfidentialit y agreemen t - i.e. , agre e no t

t o disclos e informatio n abou t

VJ C - i n orde r

t o se e VJC' s finances , knowin g full wel l tha t th e Cit y wa s subjec t

t o th e Florid aSunshin e Ac t provision s tha t

woul dno t

allo w i t t o ente r int o suc ha n agreement .

governe db y thi s Florid acontrac t principl e o f

an implie dcovenan t

o f goo dfaith . Thus , th e Cit y doe s no t hav e "imfettere ddiscretion " t o appl y th e Minimu mStandard s i n a n unreasonabl e wa y o r i n ba dfaith . Se e Complainant' s Exhibi t

1 9 at p . 3-8 . ^ ' Th e Complainan t

trie s t o hav e i t

bot hways : fnst , it

assert s that

VJ C i s separat e an ddistinc t fro mth e Receivership , an dshoul dno t b e evaluate dbase do n eithe r th e action s o f

it s past , notoriou s manager , o r it s statu s i n Receivershi p (Repl y at 6-7) , the n i t

assert s that

Receivershi p asset s ar e no t segregate dan dindicate s tha t th e Receive r

ha s non-VJ C fund s availabl e t o buil dth e hangar s o n th e VJ C site . Repl y at 18-19 . 3 4VJC/Receiver' s unsupporte dassertio n that unidentifie dpotentia l bidder s ma y hav e th e resource s availabl e (Repl y a t p . 6 , n . 5 an dp . 19 ) certainl y doe s no t provid e sufficien t informatio n t o satisf

y arequiremen t

o f proo f o f financia l capabilit y unde r an y reasonabl e standard . Complainant , i n essence , ask s FA A t o findtha t th e Cit y canno t

legall y requir e VJ C t o demonstrat e tha t

i t ha dth e financial resource s availabl e t o complet e th e projec t unde r th e existin g circumstance s - wher e VJ C i s i n Receivershi p a s aresul t o f th e Receiver' s assertion s that : (1 ) VJ C was establishe da s aresul t o f th e purchas e o f

th e predecesso r

FB O with stole n funds , (2 ) a n additiona l $325,00 0 i n stole n fiands was plowe dint o VJC , an d (3 ) th e Receive r

suspect s tha t

additiona l input s o f

stole n fund s wer e transferre dt o VJC , bu t h e hasn' t bee n abl e t o uncove r

the myet . Precludin g a

n inquir y int o VJC' s financial capabilitie s unde r thes e circumstance s i s a n absur dposition , an dther e i s n o suppor t for i t i n an y applicabl e law o r standard . I f

an airport canno t requir e ademonstratio n o f financia l capabilit y i n thes e circumstances , th e FAA' s traditiona l polic y o f allowin g - an dencouragin g - suc h requirement s wil l b e kille d of f Se e Skydiv e Monroe , discusse dbelow , at p . 41 . Simpl y put , it

i s reasonabl e for

th e Cit y t o impos e th e requiremen t o f demonstratin g financia l capabilit y t o carr y out th e propose dproject , an dVJ C ha s no t com e clos e t o makin g th e necessar y showing . In tryin g t o bolste r

it s argument . Complainan t make s aclums y an dsomewha t oufrageou s attemp t

t o conformth e FAA' s guidanc e an ddecision s o n Minimu mStandard s t o wha t VJC/Receive r

want s i t t o say , eve n thoug h i t

actuall y say s th e exac t

opposite . FA A ha s articulate dalong-establishe dconcer n tha t Minimu mStandard s not b e manipulate dt o

35kee p ou t ne w aeronautica l servic e provider s an dprotec t th e incumben t

servic e providers . Thus , FA A state di n Centennia l Expres s that "[mjanipulatin g th e standard s solel y t o protec t th e interes t

o f an existin g tenant , o r

tenant s []i s unacceptable. " Centennia l Expres s Airline s V . Arapaho e Count

y Publi c Airpor t

Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 13-95-03 , 199 8 W L 1083382 , * 7 (citin g FA A Orde r 5190.1A , Para . 1 Ic) . Perhap s recognizin g that

thi s principl e doe s not

hel p a n existin g tenant , suc h a s VJC , Complainan t

simpl y add s ane w concep t t o thi s principle , distortin g it s o that i t say s "[mjanipulatin g th e standard s solel y t o protec t [o r undermine ] th e interes t

o f an existin g tenant , o r tenant s []i s unacceptable. " (Repl y a t 15 ) (emphasi s added) . Th e fac t tha t VJC/Receive r

fel t compelle dt o distor t

th e FA A guidance/holdin g b y addin g "[o r undermine] " t o includ e asuppose dconcer n tha t an airport

sponso r i s no t sufficientl y favorin g an existin g tenan t i s evidenc e tha t

th e actua l guidance/holdin g doe s no t suppor t VJC/Receiver' s position.^ ^ Complainant' s assertio n tha t th e financia l capabilit y requiremen t i s not fair , uniforml y applicable , reasonabl y attainable , an dunreasonabl e o n it s face , i s thu s unsupported .

' " Neithe r o f th e case s Complainan t

cite s provid e suppor t

for it s arguments . I n bot h Centennia l Expres s (involvin g aba n o n schedule dpassenge r service ) an dSkydanc e Helicopter s (involvin g areftisai t o giv e th e complainan t

th e sam e 30-year

leas e term s that

othe r commercia l operato r

tenant s ha dfor

th e purpos e o f constructin g ahanga r

an doffic e an doperatin g it s helicopte r tou r business ) th e airport' s action s completel y denie dth e complainant s acces s t o th e airport . Centennia l Expres s Airlines , FA A Docke t No . 16-98-05 , 199 8 W L 108338 2 at

11 . Skydanc e Helicopters , FA A Docke t No . 16-02-02 , 200 3 W L152450 0 at *2 . N o issu e o f lac k o f unifor mapplicatio n wa s presente dto , o r addresse dby , th e FA A i n Centennia l Express . An di n Skydance , th e FA A determine dthat th e complainan t

wa s mor e similarl y situate dwith on e grou p o f operator s (wh o obtaine dlong-ter mlease s t o buil dhangar s an doffic e facilities ) tha n othe r sceni c tou r

operator s (wh o ha dshor t ter mlease s becaus e the y di dno t nee dt o amortiz e capita l facilities. ) Here , VJC/Receive r canno t demonstrat e tha t

i t i s similarl y situate dwit h an y othe r airpor t tenant s - becaus e VJC' s circumstance s ar e uniqu e an dit s treatmen t

b y th e Cit y doe s no t

rais e an y issu e o f

unjus t discrimination . 3 61 . Complainant' s Clai mtha t th e Minimu mStandards ' Financia l Viabilit y Requiremen t

Has Neve r

Bee n Applie dBefor e i s Unsupported , and , i n An v Event , Misguided . Complainan t

assert s that

"VJ C i s th e ver y first

entit y th e Cit y ha s eve r

require dt o demonstrat e financial capabilit y befor e pursuin g a n Airport developmen t

project. " Repl y a

t 15 . The n Complainan t

state s that

"[i]ndeed , th e VJ C was no t require dt o demonstrat e financial capabilit y whe n i t originall y entere dint o it s leas e with th e City , demolishe dthen

existin g facilitie s o n th e site , an dconstructe dtw o 10,00 0 squar e foo t bo x hangars. " Id . at 16 . Complainan t

als o list s a s a

n exampl e o f

"lessee s wh o wer e permitte dt o undertak e som e for mo f constructio n an dwer e no t require dt o eithe r

demonstrat e financial capabilit y o r obtai n Cit y Counci l approva l i n advanc e o f constructio n . . .Th e VJ C tor e dow n an d completel y reconstructe dit s FB O buildin g .. . [and ] th e VJ C mad e improvement s t o it s FB O building. " I d Thus , VJC/Receive r

appear s t o b e makin g anove l argumen t tha t th e Cit y ha s discriminate dagains t

VJ C i n favo r

o f VJC . Whil e amusing , thi s argumen t doe s no t advanc e Complainant' s position . Th e fac t tha t VJ C ha s not

bee n require di n th e pas t t o demonstrat e fineincial capabilit y befor e bein g allowe dt o undertak e significan t constructio n o f aeronautica l facilities , bu t i s require dt o d o s o now , demonstrate s tha t th e Cit y ha s no t discriminate dagains t

VJ C at all ; rather , whe n VJ C wa s apparentl y similarl y situate dwit h othe r airport tenants , i t

was treate dth e sam e a s othe r airpor t tenants . Whe n th e unusua l an d questionabl e natur e o f

VJC' s financia l arrangement s cam e t o ligh t - largel y throug h th e effort s o f th e Receive r

- th e City , prudentl y an dreasonably , sough t assurance s a s t o it s financial capabilities . Thi s i s no t unjus t discriminatio n - rather , i t i s differen t

treatmen t

o f th e sam e compan y base do n th e differen t circumstance s a s the y wer e revealed . A s

37discusse dabove , th e Cit y i s no t awar e of , no r ha s Complainan t

pointe dout , an y othe r tenan t that ha s sough t

t o construc t

facilitie s a

t th e Airport

unde r circumstance s similar

to , o r eve n approaching , th e circumstance s no w know n t o surroun dVJC . VJC/Receive r

include s tw o list s purportedl y showin g airport tenants ' constructio n project s for

whic h th e Cit y di dno t

requir e ademonstratio n o f financial capability . First , neithe r th e list s no r

Complainant' s Repl y Exhibi t 3 , fromwhic h th e list s wer e drawn , provide s an y evidenc e tha t an y o f th e tenants ' project s wer e know n t o involv e extraordinar y financial circumstances , suc h a s thos e surroundin g VJ C an dit s curren t effor t t o secur e approva l t o construc t th e hangar s i n question . Thus , th e fiindamental poin t mad e above , tha t

th e Cit y ha s not

unjusti y discriminated , i s no t a t al l rebuttedb y Complainant' s argument/evidence . Second , th e "evidence " consist s solel y o f alis t o f project s i n adeclaratio n b y on e o f VJC' s lawyer s - who , althoug h h e doe s not represen t th e Complainan t

i n thi s proceeding , ha s represente dbot h VJC/Nadel^ ' an dVJC/Receiver.^' ^ Th e declaratio n consist s solel y o f unsubstantiate dstatements , withou t an y supportin g evidenc e o r discussio n o f

th e circumstance s surroundin g th e projects . Third , th e Airpor t

Minimu mStandards , a s show n o n thei r fac e (Complainant' s Exhibi t 4 a t cove r page) , wer e adopte do n Januar y 26 , 1999 . Th e Cit y coul dnot hav e bee n expecte dt o appl y the mt o an y constructio n project s prio r t o tha t date . O f th e 2 4 project s liste di n th e Boon e declaration , 1 5 ar e liste da s occurrin g prio r t o 1999 . ^

^

' ' Se e Cit y Exhibit s 6 , 7 , 17 , an dD . '^SeeCityExhibhll . ^ ^ Thos e 1 5 pre-199 9 project s (lettere da s i n th e Boon e Declaration ) ar e a s follows : (b ) Vincen t Fett e (FB O buildin g radi o sho p constructed , 1960) ; (c ) Joh n Ingri m(secon dfloo r adde dt o FB O building , 1978) ; (d ) 3 8Tw o additional project s ar e liste da s occurrin g i n 1999.^' * Complainan t provide s n o evidenc e a s t o whe n i n 199 9 thes e project s wer e constructe do r approved . In th e absenc e o f an y suc hevidence , i t

woul db e unreasonabl e t o assum e that the y wer e approve do r constructe dsubsequen t

t o th e adoptio n o f

th e Minimu mStandard s o n Januar y 26 . Thus , it appear s tha t

1 7 o f th e 2 4 project s wer e constructe do r approve dprio r

t o th e adoptio n o f

th e Minimu mStandards,^ ^ an dthe y provid e n o evidenc e whatsoeve r that th e Cit y ha s applie d th e Minimu mStandard s i n an unjustl y discriminator y manner . O f th e remainin g seve n (7 ) projects , thre e (3 ) involve dVenic e Je t Center . A n additiona l projec t

involve dTripl e Diamon dEnterprises , th e FB O whos e facilitie s Mr . Nade l purchase dan dtransferre dt o VJC^^ an dwhos e premise s wer e incorporate dint o th e VJ C leasehold . Thus , four ou t o f seve n o f th e project s eithe r

directl y involve dVJ C o r project s that

wer e incorporate dint o VJC' s leasehold , t o VJC' s benefit . A fifth projec t involve dth e Sarasot aCount y Sheriff

- apubli c agenc y that provide s publi c safety service s Stanle y Huffman (improvemen t t o FB O building , 1991) ; (f ) Vincent Fett e (tw o hangar s built , I960) ; (h ) Fligh t Dec k Restauran t

(tw o floor s constructed , 1989) ; (i ) Venic e Flyin g Service , Inc./Harol dHage n (FB O buildin g constructe d1978) ; (m ) Am e Kruethof/Technica l Advanc e Grou p d/b/ aFlorid aFligh t Maintenanc e Cente r hangar constructed , 1997) ; (o ) Dunca n Enterprises , Inc . (hanga r # 1 constructed , 1982) ; (p ) Dunca n Enterprises , Inc . (hangar

# 2 constructed , 1984) ; (r ) Shamroc k Enterprises , Inc./NEC , Inc . (1 2 T-hangar s constructed , 1983) ; (t ) Mountai n Laurel , Inc./Superio r Aircraf t Hangars , Inc . (1 4 T-hangar s constructed , 1980) ; (u ) Pau l R . Theen , Inc./Swif t Group , Inc . (1 4 T-hangar s constructed , 1983) ; (v ) Sharkey' s Restauran t o n th e Gul f

(restauran t

built , 1986) ; (w ) Sharkey' s Restauran t (adde dconstruction , 1998) ; an d(x ) Lak e Venic e Gol f

Cours e (2 7 hole s total ) an dGol f Cours e Clubhouse/Car t

Ba m(built , 1960) . Complainant' s Repl y Exhibi t

3 , ^ 5 .

'' * Projec t (j ) Wass-Air , Inc . FB O Buildin g an dProjec t (n ) Buz z Mill s hangar

construction . Id .

' Thre e o f

thes e project s concer n non-aeronautica l construction , t o whic h th e minimu mstandard s woul dno t apply , n o matte r

whe n constructed : project s (v ) Sharkey' s Restauran t o n th e Gulf

, (w ) Sharkey' s Restauran t adde dconstruction , an d(x ) Lak e Venic e Gol f Cours e an dGol f

Course/Clubhouse/Car t

Bam . Id .

' * Project s (e ) Venic e Je t Cente r (complet e renovatio n t o FB O building) , (g ) Venic e Je t Cente r (two hangar s tom-dow n an dreconstmcted) , an d(1 ) Venic e Je t Cente r (improvement s mad e t o FB O building) . Id . ^ ' Cit y Exhibi t

B (Nadel/Tripl e Diamon dPurchas e Agreement )

' * Complainant' s Exhibi t 3 (VJ C Lease ) at

p . 1 3 9t o th e surroundin g area . Th e Boon e declaratio n provide s n o informatio n concernin g th e

tw o remainin g project s beyon dth e following : Car l Burr hangar buil t 200 0 (n o indicatio n o f whe n i t wa s approved ) an dA.C . Schmeile r hangar constructe d2003 . Complainant' s Repl y Exhibi t 3 a t Para . 5 . Take n together , neithe r th e Boon e affidavi t

no r th e Complainant' s discussio n o f

th e informatio n containe dtherei n (Repl y a t 15-18) , provide s an y evidenc e o r persuasiv e argumen t

tha t th e VJ C was unjustl y discriminate dagains t i n th e applicatio n o f th e City' s Minimu mStandar drelatin g t o financial capacit y t o carr y ou t aconstructio n projec t a t th e Airport . A s note dabove , th e fact s o f thi s cas e ar e unique , an dcertainl y justif y discretionar y applicatio n o f

arequiremen t

t o demonstrat e financial capability . T o th e City' s knowledge , VJ C i s th e onl y entit y a

t th e Airport

no w know n t o hav e bee n establishe dan dcapitalize d withstole n funds ; subsequentl y funde dwith additiona l stole n funds , an dforce dint o receivership . In ligh t

o f thes e circumstances , th e Cit y i s certainl y entitle dt o inquire : Wha t fund s currentl y i n VJ C are , i n fact , VJCs ? Wha t fund s ar e currentl y availabl e t o VJ C i n it s curren t for mt o buil d th e hangars ? I f VJ C i s an entit y separat e an dapar t fromth e receivershi p an dMr . Nadel , wha t

doe s VJ C consis t

o f an dwh o control s it ? Wh o i s th e purchase r

o f VJC ? Wha t financial resource s wil l b e availabl e t o th e purchase r o f VJ C t o construc t th e hangar s after

consummatin g th e purchase ? Wil l th e financial viabilit y o f th e ne w purchase r

b e enhance do r diminishe di f

i t pay s apremiu mt o th e Receive r for th e sal e o f

VJ C base do n apre-approva l o f aright t o buil dhangar s wher e th e Cit y doe s not kno w wh o wil l actuall y ow n VJ C o r buil dth e hangars ?

4 0Finally , Complainan t assert s tha t

i t ha s bee n denie dacces s t o apubli c us e airport , despit e th e fac t

that th e Complainant' s ow n exhibit s {see . e.g. . Complainant' s Exhibi t 3 (VJC' s Lease)) , Statement s b y th e Receive r (City Exhibit s 3 a

t p . 20-2 1 an d1 6 a

t p . 21

- 22) , an dothe r

Complainan t

argument s demonstratin g that VJ C ha s aleas e a t

th e airport

an d ha s operate da

n FB O facility throughou t bot h th e Nade l an dReceive r regimes . Complainant' s peculiar

clai mma y b e a

n attemp t t o shoehor n it s desir e t o construc t hangar s int o principle s announce db y FA A that appl y t o situation s wher e aprospectiv e tenan t i s denie daleas e (Repl y a

t p . 18) , bu t

th e evidenc e i n thi s proceedin g simpl y doe s no t support aclai mo f

denia l o f acces s t o a

n airport . Se e contrastin g case s cited , abov e a t p . 12 . 2 . Eve n i f

th e Financia l Capabilit y Requiremen t Wer e No t Containe di n th e Airport

Minimu mStandards , a n Airport Proprieto r

ha s a n Inheren t

Righ t t o Satisf y Itsel f o f th e Financia l Wherewitha l o f an Entit y Constructin g Aeronautica l Facilities . FA A cas e la w an dpolic y recogniz e tha t airport sponsor s hav e legitimat e reason s t o wan t t o ensur e that

aeronautica l user s an dservic e provider s hav e financial resource s t o construc t propose dfacilities . Th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support (a t pp . 45-46 ) cite d severa l case s tha t

suppor t thi s common-sens e proposition , an dComplainan t ha s not attempte dt o distinguis h o r explai n awa y thos e cases . Moreover , th e Associat e Administrato r for Airport s ha s indicate dtha t i t i s u p t o th e Cit y t o satisf

y itsel f o f VJC' s financial abilit y t o carr y out th e propose dproject . Cit y Exhibi t 4 . Thi s positio n wa s not tie dt o an y requiremen t

tha t th e Airport' s Minimu m Standard s contai n suc h aprovision . I n addition , th e City' s reques t that VJ C mak e ashowin g o f financia l capabilit y i n thi s contex t

i s not unjustl y discriminator y - rather , i t i s entirel y justified . I n asimilar

4 1situation , th e FAA ha s hel dtha t airport sponsor s (I ) ar e no t

onl y entitled , but

expecte dt o protec t themselve s fromfinancia l burden s that coul dharmth e airport

o r negativel y impac t othe r airport users ; an d(2 ) ma y facto r litigatio n involvin g prospectiv e airport tenant s int o thei r decision-makin g processes . Skydiv e Monroe , Inc . v . Cit y o f Monroe , FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-02 , 200 7 W L105845 0 a t * 13 , 1 4 (Director' s Determination , Marc h 30 , 2007) . I n Skydiv e Monro e th e FA A foun dn o unjus t discriminatio n whe n a

n airpor t sponso r denie da n airport tenan t aleas e o n term s similar

t o thos e offere dt o othe r tenants , base do n concern s abou t th e viabilit y an dfinancia l future o f th e operato r

seekin g alease . Id . Specifically , th e FA A agree dwith th e sponso r tha t th e complainan t

i n th e cas e wa s not

similarl y situate dt o othe r tenant s a t th e airport

becaus e o f

litigatio n concernin g ownershi p o f th e complainant' s operation . Th e complainant , seekin g along-ter mleas e for aspecifi c hanga r

at th e airport , was embroile di n a

n ownershi p disput e an dpendin g litigatio n tha t coul dresul t

i n liquidatio n o f al l o f th e complainant' s assets . Id . at *11 . Th e airport

ha dterminate dth e complainant' s tenancy-at-wil l o f

th e hanga r

an dha dlease di t

t o ane w tenan t

with ales s risky busines s future wh o agree dt o pa y ahighe r leas e rate . Id . Defendin g itsel f agains t th e charg e tha t

i t ha dunjustl y discriminate dagains t th e complainant' s skydivin g operation , th e Cit y argue d tha t th e complainan t

wa s no t similarl y situate dt o th e othe r on-airpor t

tenants : "non e o f

th e othe r Airport tenant s ar e i n th e mids t

o f an ownershi p disput e tha t ha s dragge do n for

years , an dno w threaten s th e sal e o f compan y asset s b y acourt-appointe dspecia l master. " Id . at *11 . Th e FA A agreed , holdin g tha t unde r th e fact s o f

th e case , "Respondent' s action s with regar dt o denyin g Complainan t multi-yea r

leas e term s wer e no t

unreasonabl e sinc e

42Complainan t i s no t similarl y situate dt o othe r on-airport

tenant s an dResponden t

wa s protectin g itsel f

fromth e potentia l effect s o f Complainant' s interna l litigation. " Id . a t 13.^^ Similarl y here , th e Cit y o f Venice' s requiremen t

that VJC/Receive r

demonstrat e financia l capabilit y t o construc t an doperat e th e hangar s i s justifie db y th e peculiar circumstance s surroundin g VJC' s financial an dlega l status . Althoug h othe r tenant s wer e not require dt o demonstrat e financial capability , t o th e City' s knowledge , n o othe r tenant s hav e bee n establishe dan dcapitalize dwith stole n funds , an dnon e hav e bee n force dint o receivershi p a s aresult . In addition , n o othe r tenant s sough t

permissio n t o buil dhangar s tha t the y ha dn o intentio n o f

building , an dprovide dn o specifi c informatio n a s t o th e potentia l buye r

wh o migh t

actuall y buil dthe mi n th e fiiture . A s i n Skydiv e Monroe , VJ C i s no t similarl y situate dt o othe r tenant s seekin g t o buil do n thei r leaseholds , an dth e Cit y i s bot hentitle dan dexpecte dt o protec t it s ow n interest s an dthos e o f othe r airport users b y proceedin g wit

h cautio n i n th e fac e o f

abusines s funde db y stole n fiands an dcurrentl y i n Receivership . Th e Cit y ha s not denie dVJ C acces s t o th e airport - VJ C i s stil l operatin g o n it s leasehold . Bu t

give n th e circumstances , th e Cit y i s no t obligate dt o engag e i n th e fictio n tha t VJ C i s similarl y situate dt o othe r airpor t tenant s i n evaluatin g potentia l expansio n b y VJC . C . VJC/Receiver' s Claim s tha t i t ha s Satisfie dth e Financia l Capabilit y Requiremen t ar e Unsupporte db y th e Evidenc e A s discusse dabov e (a t

p . 12 ) an di n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support (a t pp . 46

- 48) , th e Receive r

ha s not provide dan y reliabl e evidenc e o f availabl e fiands t o construc t th e propose dfacilities . Th e Receiver' s flat assertions , contradicte db y documentar y evidenc e

^ ' Notin g that

th e Cit y coul dno t

completel y den y th e Complainan t acces s t o th e airport , th e Directo r hel d that , whil e th e Responden t wa s no t i n violatio n o f

it s gran t assurance s fo r

havin g decline dt o offer aleas e o n term s simila r

t o thos e o f

othe r airpor t tenants , i t

migh t wan t t o continu e offerin g tenancy-at-wil l agreement s fo r som e othe r

availabl e on-airpor t

space . Id . at

*15 . 43h e supplie dt o th e City an dals o submitte dt o th e Court overseein g hi s Receivership , an db y subsequen t

assertion s i n th e Reply , ar e simpl y no t reliable . Th e fac t

tha t th e Receive r

ha s bee n unabl e o r

unwillin g t o provid e an y persuasiv e evidenc e i n thi s proceedin g further demonstrate s that

th e City' s positio n i s not unreasonable . Moreover , th e Complainant' s assertio n tha t buildin g hangar s i s a"fundamenta l componen t

o f th e VJC' s busines s plan " i s unsupporte db y an y evidenc e i n th e record , an d it s assertio n that

approva l o f

th e hangar s i s an importan t par t o f th e VJC' s valu e i n th e activ e biddin g proces s for it s sale " i s o f

n o federal concern . Repl y at 19 , citin g Cit y Exhibi t 3 (Lette r o f Receive r t o Cit y Attorney) . A s state di n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support at pp . 5-8 , th e fac t

i s that th e constructio n proposal s for th e site hav e change d significantly , fromth e origina l leaseholde r that intende dt o construc t

t-hangars , t o th e differen t proposal s offere db y VJC/Nadel . Whil e Complainan t call s thes e fact s "irrelevant " (Repl y a t 10) , i n fact , the y ar e relevan t t o consideratio n o f

whethe r th e ne w owner s wil l actuall y construc t

th e hangar s a s currentl y propose db y VJC/Receive r o r put fort h ane w proposa l for

th e City' s consideration . Th e Cit y canno t b e expecte dt o approv e aproposa l tha t i s no t pu t fort h b y th e part y tha t

actuall y intend s t o carry ou t th e project . And , o f course , th e FA A shoul dhav e n o interes t i n pumpin g u p th e valu e o f VJ C s o tha t

th e Receive r can tak e th e proceed s of f airpor t for anon-aviatio n purpose . Complainant' s assertio n tha t "ai l prospectiv e bidder s desir e t o construc t th e hangars " (Repl y a

t 1 9 (emphasi s i n original) ; se e als o id . at p . 6 , n.5 ) i s unsupporte db y an y evidenc e i n th e record ; i n fact , th e Receive r ha s provide dn o evidenc e t o th e Cit y tha t ther e ar e an y prospectiv e bidders , wh o the y are , o r wha t the y ma y o r

ma y not inten dt o buil do n th e site .

4 4VJC/Receive r further contend s tha t

wha t i s hinderin g th e constructio n o f th e hangar s i s "th e clear

wil l o f th e Cit y Counci l t o foi l th e project , frustrat e th e sal e o f th e VJ C an ddevalu e it s leasehold. " Repl y a t 19 . Again , VJ C provide s n o evidenc e i n th e recor d that th e Cit y Counci l ha s aclear wil l t o foi l th e project . At most , VJ C ha s provide d evidenc e tha t

som e individua l counci l member s d o no t support th e project . Moreover , th e assertio n tha t

th e Counci l ha s aclear

wil l t o frustrat e th e sal e o f th e VJ C {id. ) ha s n o basis . What th e Receive r

claim s i s a

n effor t t o frustrat e th e sal e i s th e Council' s reluctanc e t o gran t t o a n unknow n entit y with unknow n credential s th e right t o construc t

a n aeronautica l facility o n th e Airport . However , th e Counci l ha s n o obligatio n t o d o so . Finally , th e assertio n that th e Counci l ha s aclear

wil l t o devalu e th e VJ C leasehol d i s premise do n th e incorrec t notio n tha t

VJ C alread y ha s th e unfettere dright t o construc t th e hangar s withou t

complyin g withth e Cit y requirements , an dthat an y attemp t

b y th e City t o ensur e tha t

it s requirement s an dprocesse s ar e adhere dt o constitute s an interferenc e with VJC' s presume dright. Ther e i s n o basi s fo r thi s contention . In fact , adraf

t leas e tendere dan dsigne db y Mr . Nade l o n behal f o f VJ C containe da provisio n entitle d"Constructio n o f Improvements, " that

woul dhav e expressl y authorize d VJ C t o construc t

hangar s i n additio n t o th e one s i t wa s require dt o tear

dow n an d reconstruct . "Lesse e i s grante dpermissio n t o erec t on e o r mor e ne w hanga r

building s o n it s lease dpropert y t o th e eas t o f th e presen t

two-stor y buildin g at

40 0 Eas t Airpor t Avenue. " Cit y Exhibi t

E (Draf t Leas e Tendere db y Mr . Nadel ) a t p . 5-6 , ] | 4 . However , th e Cit y rejecte dthi s provision , an dth e paragrap h i n th e final, execute dleas e tha t addresse s th e demolitio n an dreconstructio n o f th e existin g hangar s doe s not contai n permissio n t o buil d an y additiona l hangars . Complainant' s Exhibi t 3 at p . 25 , ^ 45 .

45Th e realit y i s that th e Receive r

seek s t o artificiall y increas e th e valu e o f th e VJ C leaseholdt o sel l it

of f t o th e highes t

bidde r (Repl y a t 19) , an dtak e th e profit s of f airport t o b e use dfor

non-airport

purposes . Th e Complainan t regard s an y failur e t o assis t th e Receive r i n hi s effor

t t o pum p u p th e valu e o f th e leaseholda s a

n effor t t o devalu e th e leasehold . Complainan t

i s wrong . Complainan t

ha s pointe dt o n o federal requiremen t o r polic y that

woul dobligat e th e Cit y t o gran t

ablanke t approva l t o a

n unknow n entity , wit

h unknow n resource s an d technica l capabilitie s t o buil dhangar s o n th e VJ C site . No r ha s VJC/Receive r

pointe dt o an y federal requiremen t

o r polic y tha t

indicate s tha t

th e federal interest s secure db y th e airport gran t obligation s woul dsomeho w b e bette r serve di f VJC/Receive r

receive dsuc h blanke t approval , allowin g Receive r t o inflat e th e pric e o f

th e leasehol dan dobtai n a premiu mi n th e sale s pric e whic h woul db e take n of f airport . Unde r

that scenario , th e ultimat e buye r

o f VJC , havin g pai dapremiu mt o th e Receiver, woul dhav e les s fundin g availabl e t o mak e airport improvement s ~ improvement s for whic h it coul dhav e secure d approva l fromth e Cit y withou t havin g t o pa y Receive r

apremium . VI . Th e Conflictin g Designatio n o n th e AL P fo r Termina l Are aan dApro n i s aSufficien t

Reaso n t o Tur n Dow n th e Hanga r Projec t In it s discussio n o f

th e AL P issu e (Repl y at 19-21) , VJC/Receive r

demonstrate s a fundamenta l misunderstandin g o f th e functio n o f

th e ALP.'**

^ However , th e FAA' s recentl y issue dAirpor t

Complianc e Manual , FA A Orde r 5190.6 B (09/30/2009) , reiterate s th e agency' s long-standin g policy :

^ Complainan t

als o misunderstand s th e City' s position , a s evidence db y it s peculia r assertio n that

aPar t 1 6 proceedin g i s no t

th e prope r

proceedin g i n whic ht o argu e that th e FA A canno t

forc e th e Cit y t o revis e it s AL P an dpermi t

constmctio n o f

th e hangars . Repl y a t

p . 20 , n . 13 . Rathe r

than makin g acomplain t agains t th e FAA , a s implie db y Complainant , th e Cit y wa s merel y arguin g that th e FA A shoul dfollo w it s existin g guidance , whic hth e Cit y cited , i n reachin g adecisio n i n thi s case . Tha t i s aperfectl y appropriat e poin t t o mak e i n aPar t

1 6 proceeding . 4 6FA A approva l o f th e AL P .. . reflect s th e agreemen t betwee n th e FA A an d th e sponso r

regardin g th e propose dallocatio n o f airport area s t o specifi c operationa l an dsupport

functions . . . . [T]h e approve dAL P become s a n importan t instrumen t

fo r controllin g th e subsequen t developmen t

o f airport facilities . Complianc e Manual a t ^7.18 . In th e contex t

o f thi s FA A polic y guidance , i t i s peculiar , indeed , fo

r VJC/Receive r t o clai mthat

it i s imprope r

for th e Cit y t o assert

tha t th e AL P control s airport developmen t (Repl y at 21) . Complainan t

instea dclaim s tha t

th e Cit y mus t

amen dth e AL P i f

atenan t believe s tha t

neede daeronautica l service s can b e provide dt o th e publi c from aparticula r site . Id . However , acontrollin g agreemen t betwee n FA A an dth e airport sponso r mean s tha t bot hpartie s mus t

agre e t o achang e befor e i t can b e implemented . Th e fac t that th e FA A ma y approv e achang e i f propose dby th e airpor t

sponsor , doe s no t obligat e th e airport

sponso r t o propos e tha t

change . Thi s i s particularl y tru e i n thi s instance , wher e th e FAA-approve dAL P depict s a n are ao n th e othe r sid e o f th e taxiwa y tha t i s availabl e for

hanga r construction . Thi s i s no t a n instanc e i n whic h th e AL P doe s no t designat e an y acceptabl e locatio n for th e developmen t

for whic h VJC/Receive r

seek s approval . Complainan t

ha s not demonstrate dtha t

th e desire dhangar s coul dnot b e buil t i n th e are ath e Cit y ha s designate dfor hangar developmen t

o n th e approve dALP." " Moreover , FA A ha s hel dtha t a n airpor t sponso r i s unde r n o obligatio n t o develo p an airport i n th e wa y that

an individua l tenan t

believe s i s best . Se e Cit y Memorandu mi n Support at 44-45 , citin g Pacifi c Coas t Flyers , Inc . v . County o f Sa n Diego , FA A Docke t No . 16-04-08 , 200 5 W L1900515 , at *2 9 (Director' s Determination , Jul y 25 , 2005) , quotin g Sant aMonic aAirpor t Associatio n v . Cit

y o f Sant aMonica , FA A Docke t 16-99-2 1

^ ' I n it s Memorandu mi n Suppor t (p . 17 , n . 3) , th e Cit y mistakenl y state dthat th e AL P attache da s Cit y Exhibi t 1 3 wa s no t

signe db y th e FAA . I n fact . Cit y Exhibi t 1 3 i s th e approve dALP , a s demonstrate db y th e FA A signamre , date d10/25/2000 , o n p . 1 o f Cit y Exhibi t

13 . 4 7(Final Decisio n an dOrder , Feb . 4 , 2003 ) ("[A ] sponso r i s no t require dt o develo p an y an d al l parcel s o f

lan di n amanne r

consisten t

wit h th e wishe s o f

an y on e party , bu t

rathe r ma y exercis e [its ] proprietar y rights an dpower s t o develo p an dadministe r th e Airport' s lan di n a manne r consisten t

with th e public' s interest " an dtha t "i s exactl y wha t

th e Count y i s doin g at CR Q consisten t

with it s FAA-approve dAirport Layou t Plan.") . I t i s th e Complainant , no t

th e City , tha t

seek s t o revers e th e role s o f th e AL P an dth e developmen t

o f airport facilities . Th e Cit y ha s addresse dComplainant' s othe r argument s that i t repeat s i n th e Repl y i n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Support a t pp . 18-20 . Finally , althoug h VJC/Receive r assert s tha t

th e Cit y mus t

follo w th e advic e conveye db y outsid e counse l concernin g gran t assuranc e complianc e (Repl y a t p . 11 , n . 9) , VJC/Receive r

ignore s th e fac t

that outsid e counse l specificall y advise dth e Cit y tha t i f th e AL P depicte dfiiture developmen t o n th e sit e inconsisten t

with th e developmen t

o f hangars , th e Cit y woul db e unde r

n o obligatio n t o approv e th e hangar s o n tha t site . Complainant' s Exhibi t 1 3 at p . 12-13 . Vn . VJC/Receive r

Ha s No t Sufficientl y State dClaim s i n it s Complaint , an d It s Repl y Doe s No t

Cur e Thi s Fundamenta l Defec t Despit e it s recitatio n o f

th e relevan t

Part 1 6 rul e (Repl y at

21) , VJC/Receive r apparentl y believe s tha t

th e Part 1 6 proces s involve s th e typ e o f "notic e pleading " tha t occur s i n federal courts . I t assert s tha t

"VJ C ha s provide dnotic e o f th e relevan t

timefram e o f th e allege dviolations , th e events an dunderlyin g fact s constitutin g th e allege dviolations , th e relie f sought , an dasubstantia l documentar y record , whic h i s fiirther supplemente db y th e document s attache dhereto. " However , th e "substantia l documentar y record " attache d t o th e Complain t

consist s largel y o f

irrelevan t

newspape r

article s an demail s relatin g t o subject s suc h a s potentia l appointment s t o variou s advisor y board s an dcomment s o f on e 4 8City Counci l member , whic h ar e legall y unrelate dt o th e allegation s o f violation s b y th e City containe di n th e Complaint . {Se e City' s Memorandu mi n Support a t p . 22-23) . A . Complainan t

Doe s No t

Disput e Tha t

I t Ha s Faile dT o Stat e a Sufficien t Clai mFo r

A n Allege dViolatio n o f Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an dPower s Complainan t

doe s no t eve n attemp t

t o rebu t th e City' s assertio n that

i t ha s faile dt o stat e asufficien t

clai mfor

aviolatio n o f

Assuranc e 5 . Cit y Memorandu mi n Support at 32

- 33 . Thus , FA A shoul dhol dthat th e Complainan t

ha s abandone dthi s claim . Coun t II , (Complain t

a t p . 16) , an dFA A shoul ddismis s it . B . Complainan t

Ha s Faile dT o Stat e a n Adequat e Clai mfo r Violatio n o f

Assuranc e 22 , Unjus t

Discriminatio n VJC/Receive r

assert s for

th e first tim e tha t th e City i s "discriminatin g agains t ' a kin do r clas s o f aeronautica l activity ' (medium-size daircraft) " no t onl y b y preventin g th e VJ C fromconstructin g hangar s o n it s leaseholdbu t als o "b y takin g affirmativ e step s t o downgrad e th e Airport' s AR C classification. " Repl y a t 22.'^ ^ Eve n i f th e Cit y wer e t o downgrad e th e airport' s ARC , whic h it ha s no t done , th e cas e cite db y VJC/Receive r doe s no t suppor t it s position , for

tw o reasons . First , Sant a Monic astate s tha t

eve n i f a n airport ha s acertai n AR C designation , i t canno t prohibi t operation s o f

aircraf t tha t excee dth e specification s i n tha t AR C designation . I n th e Matte r o f th e Cit y o f Sant aMonica , FA A Docke t No . 16-02-08 , 200 9 W L3176873 , a t * 3 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , Jul y 8 , 2009) . Second , althoug h VJC/Receive r cite s Sant aMonic afor

* ^ Whil e thi s sectio n respond s t o Complainant' s failur e t o stat e aclaim , i t i s wort h notin g tha t

VJC/Receive r ha s provide dn o evidenc e tha t th e Cit y ha s take n affirmativ e step s t o downgrad e th e Airport' s ARC . A t most , i t ha s provide devidenc e o f remark s b y on e Councilmember , whic h ar e no t legall y significant , a s th e Cit y Counci l act s onl y a s acollectiv e body . Se e City Memorandu mi n Suppor t at 22-23 . 4 9th e propositio n tha t a n airport canno t ban classe s o f

aircraft . Complainan t

ha s no t asserte d that th e City ha s banne dan y aircraf t fromth e Airport.'* ^ A s t o th e assertio n tha t

th e Cit y i s discriminatin g agains t a'"kin do r

clas s o f aeronautica l activity ' (mediu msize daircraft), " suc h aircraf t ar e no t akin do r clas s o f activity . Therefore , th e allege dviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 2 2 i s no t

properl y pleaded . Thi s i s n o mer e semanti c point , a s ther e i s n o evidenc e provide db y VJC/Receive r tha t suc haircraf

t ar e not allowe dt o operat e a

t th e Airport

(whic h i s a

n activity ) o r

d o not , i n fact operat e a

t th e Airport . Th e fac t

tha t th e Cit y ha s no t

allowe dVJ C t o buil dadditiona l hangar s o n it s leaseholddoe s no t discriminat e agains t

thi s clas s o f

aircraft , an dVJ C ha s provide dn o evidenc e t o support thi s contention . VJC/Receive r

als o assert s tha t

th e Cit y "i s als o violating " Gran t Assuranc e No . 22(h ) b y applyin g unreasonabl e minimu mcondition s (i n th e for mo f Cit y Counci l approva l o f propose dconstructio n an drequiremen t o f ashowin g o f

financial capability ) i n a discriminator y fashio n agains t th e VJ C . . .. " Complainan t ha s not identified , muc h les s demonstrated , th e allege dbeneficiary o f th e suppose dunjus t

discriminatio n benefits . Thus , Complainan t

ha s no t properl y state do r

documente dthi s clai mpursuan t t o Part 1 6 Rules . I n it s Repl y an dattache dExhibits , Complainan t attempt s t o perfec t

it s clai mby , for th e first time , identifyin g other s who mi t claim s hav e receive dmor e favorabl e treatmen t tha n VJC . I

t i s imprope r

t o offe r argumen t

an dintroduc e evidenc e for th e first tim e i n a repl y o n a

n essentia l elemen t

o f aclaim . Unde r

Part 1 6 Rules , th e complainan t mus t submi t al l argumen t

an devidenc e o n whic h i t relie s with it s complaint . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23 ;

* ' Complainan t

ha s no t provide dan y evidenc e tha t th e Cit y ha s banne daircraf t an dit cannot , becaus e th e Cit y ha s not , i n fact , banne dan y aircraf t fromth e Airport .

5 0Se e City Memorandu mi n Support at pp . 15-16 . Mor e importantly . Complainan t doe s no t sho w ho w thes e othe r

entitie s ar e i n th e sam e clas s a s VJC/Receiver , an dthu s shoul dno t hav e bee n treate ddifferently . Se e discussio n a t pp . 36-39 , above . Finally , Complainan t

make s th e City' s poin t

b y includin g i n it s lis t

o f thos e receivin g preferentia l treatmen t VJ C itself

- whic h ha dbee n allowe dt o demolis h an d reconstruc t

othe r hangar s a s require db y it s lease , an dmak e improvement s t o it s FB O buildin g withou t

demonstratin g financial capabilit y t o d o so . Obviously , th e Cit y canno t hav e discriminate dagains t VJ C i n favo r

o f VJC . Thus , th e unjus t

discriminatio n clai mi s not properl y pleaded . Accordingly , Coun t IV (Complain t

a t pp . 17-19 ) shoul db e dismissed . C . Complainan t Ha s Faile dT o Stat e A Cognizabl e Clai mFo r Violatio n o f

Assuranc e 23 , Exclusiv e Right s Complainan t

claim s that

th e Cit y ha s grante dan exclusiv e right, but ha s no t identifie dth e entit y t o whic h th e Cit y ha s supposedl y grante dsuc h right. A s such , it ha s faile dt o stat e acognizabl e claim . Jimsair , FA A Docke t No . 16-06-0 8 at

2 4 ("Complainan t

provide s n o evidenc e th e Authorit y ha s grante danothe r airpor t tenan t th e exclusiv e right

t o offer an y servic e th e Complainan t want s t o provid e whil e denyin g Complainan t

th e sam e right."). VJC/Receive r

assert s tha t

th e Cit y ha s applie dth e Minimu mStandard s i n a discriminator y manne r

agains t VJC , bu t fail s t o identif

y an y entit y tha t

th e Cit y i s discriminatin g i n favo r

o f A s discusse dabove , th e lis t o f entitie s tha t

supposedl y di dnot hav e t o demonstrat e financia l fitness canno t constitut e th e allegedl y favore dparties , becaus e i t

include s VJC . A clai mtha t th e Cit y discriminate dagains t VJ C i n favo r

o f VJ C

5 1- o r

grante dVJ C a

n exclusiv e right, t o th e detrimen t o f VJC , i s incomprehensibl e an di s not properl y pleaded . Complainan t

als o state s tha t

th e Cit y ha s a

n obligatio n t o preven t

monopolisti c behavior , bu t

ha s no t identifie dan y entity o r

entitie s that

hav e bee n abl e t o establis h monopolie s o r

engag e i n monopolisti c behavio r a s aresul t

o f th e City' s actions . "Evidence, " first

supplie dwith th e Reply , that th e Cit y i s operatin g an dbuildin g t hangars , doe s no t

sho w anti-competitiv e o r monopolisti c behavio r

(nor , o f course , doe s "evidence " demonstrat e tha t aclai mwas properl y pleaded , i n an y event) . First , a s a n airport proprietor , th e Cit y ma y exercise , bu t no t gran t a n exclusiv e right, s o an y pleadin g relatin g t o th e City' s ow n aeronautica l activitie s canno t suppor t aclai mo f

th e illega l grantin g o f

a n exclusiv e right.'*'' Second , althoug h th e Cit y operate s an dma y buil d additiona l t-hangars , VJ C seek s approva l for bo x hangars , whic h ar e no t th e sam e a s - an d ar e targete dtoward s adifferen t segmen t o f aircraf t tha n - t-hangars . Becaus e Complainan t

ha s not properl y pleade daclai mo f Violatio n o f

Assuranc e 2 3 (Exclusiv e Rights) , Coun t V (Complain t

a t p . 19-20 ) shoul db e dismissed . D . Complainan t

Ha s Faile dT o Stat e A Clai mCognizabl e Unde r Par t 1 6 Fo r Violatio n o f

Assuranc e 1 , Complianc e wit h Al l Law s Complainan t

ha s allege dtha t

th e City' s refusal t o gran t VJC/Receive r

permissio n t o buil dadditional hangar s o n VJC' s leasehol di s a n illega l restrain t

o f trad e i n violatio n o f federa l antitrus t

law , an dtherefor e aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 1 . In it s Memorandu m

'*'' Se e Cit y Memorandu mi n Suppor t a t p . 51 , citin g FA A Advisor y Circula r 150/5190- 6 sectio n 1.3(b)(1) . http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/media/150-5190-6/150_5190_6.pdfandye/ 1 Ctr. , Inc . V . Naple s Airpor t

Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-04-03 , at

16-18 . Se e also , U.S . Aerospace , Inc . v . Millingto n Mun . Airpor t

Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-98-0 6 at

23 . ("[T]h e owne r

o f apubli c us e airpor t

ma y elec t t o provid e an y o r

al l o f th e aeronautica l service s neede db y th e publi c at th e airport . I n fact , th e statutor y prohibitio n agains t

exclusiv e right s doe s no t appl y t o thes e owner s an dthe y ma y exercis e bu t no t gran t th e exclusiv e righ t

t o conduc t

an y aeronautica l activity.") .

5 2i n Support , th e City demonstrate dthat Complainan t

faile dt o stat e aclai mthat th e Cit y ha d violate dGran t

Assuranc e 1 for

four independen t

reasons : (1 ) Gran t

Assuranc e 1 doe s no t appl y t o federal antitrus t

laws ; (2 ) eve n i f

Gran t Assuranc e 1 applies , th e Cit y i s immun e unde r th e antitrus t

stat e actio n immunit y doctrine ; (3 ) eve n i f Gran t assuranc e 1 applie s an d th e Cit y i s no t

immune . Complainan t

ha s faile dt o articulat e aclai munde r th e antitrus t laws ; and , (4 ) eve n i f

VJC/Receive r

coul dovercom e al l o f

thos e hurdles , it

faile dt o se t fort hfact s t o support

it s claim . Memorandu mi n Support a t p . 24-32 . Th e Repl y provide s n o legal o r

factual basi s t o suppor t

th e validit y o f

it s clai munde r

Gran t Assuranc e 1 . 1 . Part

1 6 I s No t

Th e Prope r

Foru mFo r

Adjudicatio n o f

A n Allege dViolatio n o f

Federa l Antitrus t

Law s B y A n Airport Proprietor . Gran t Assuranc e 1 provide s tha t th e Airport

Sponso r "wil l compl y with al l applicabl e Federa l laws , regulations , executiv e orders , policies , guidelines , an d requirement s a s the y relat e t o th e application , acceptanc e an dus e o f Federa l fund s fo r

thi s projec t includin g but

no t limite dt o th e following : [lis t omitted] . . . . " Complainant' s Exhibi t 2 a t p . 1 (emphasi s added) . O n it s face . Gran t Assuranc e 1 require s tha t th e federal la w allegedl y violate d"relat e t o th e application , acceptanc e an dus e o f Federa l funds " for

a specifi c project . Th e Repl y completel y fail s t o demonstrat e ho w an y allege dviolatio n o f th e antitrus t law s a s aresul t

o f th e City' s allege drefiisal t o approv e VJC/Receiver' s purporte dhanga r projec t i s i n an y wa y relate dt o th e City' s "application , acceptanc e an dus e o f Federa l funds " for

an y Airpor t

project . Complainant' s theor y i s tha t becaus e th e Cit y ha s receive d federal funds , an allegatio n tha t th e Cit y ha s violate dafederal la w automaticall y fall s

5 3withi n th e scop e o f Gran t Assuranc e 1 . Repl y a

t 25 . Th e Complainan t

i s simpl y wrong , a s th e plai n languag e o f

Gran t Assuranc e 1 make s manifest . Th e onl y argumen t

VJC/Receive r

make s base do n th e languag e an dpurpos e o f Gran t Assuranc e 1 , i s t o clai mtha t th e lis t o f statute s include di n Gran t Assuranc e 1 i s non exclusive . Unde r

thi s straine dtheory , thi s mean s tha t th e antitrus t

law s ar e implicitl y include di n th e lis t

o f law s tha t coul db e subjec t

t o Gran t Assuranc e 1 . O f

course , b y thi s logi c an y violatio n o f

an y federal law b y an y airport proprieto r

tha t accepte da

n AI P gran t woul dconstitut e aviolatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 1 . Thi s i s obviousl y overbroad . Critically , Complainant' s theor y simpl y ignore s th e plai n languag e o f Gran t Assuranc e 1 tha t

restrict s th e scop e o f

Gran t Assuranc e 1 t o violation s o f la w relate dt o "th e application , acceptance , an dus e o f

Federa l fund s fo r

thi s project. " Tha t

is , eve n i f

al l federa l law s ar e deeme d adde dt o th e list , i n orde r t o properl y plea daclaim , th e Complainan t woul dhav e t o stat e ho w th e law relate dt o federal fundin g for aproject . Complainan t

ha s faile dt o d o so , an d Coun t I shoul db e dismissed . I f accepted , VJC/Receiver' s theor y woul dexpan dGran t Assuranc e 1 fa

r beyon dth e antitrus t laws ; i t woul dturn th e Part

1 6 proces s int o aforu mt o adjudicat e an y violatio n o f an y federal law , regulation , executiv e order , policy , guideline , o r requiremen t

b y a n airport proprietor . Thi s woul dconver t th e FA A int o th e d e fact o enforcemen t agenc y for

a n almos t limitles s rang e o f

federal statutes , rule s an dorder s issue db y ever y federal agency , department , burea u o r

official tha t

migh t appl y t o som e aspec t

o f a n airport proprietor' s

5 4conduct . Ther e i s n o support i n Gran t Assuranc e 1 for

suc h atheory , no r

i s ther e asoun d polic y basi s for

th e FA A t o constru e Gran t Assuranc e 1 s o broadly . "^ ^ Th e FA A itsel f

ha s rejecte dthi s overbroa dreading o f Gran t Assuranc e 1 i n Boc a Airport , Inc . v . Boc aRato n Airpor t Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-04-02 , 200 4 W L 528475 1 (Final Decisio n an dOrder , Novembe r 29 , 2004) . VJ C attempt s t o avoi dthi s decisio n b y tryin g t o limi t it t o it s specifi c fact s an darguin g tha t Boc aAirpor t

stand s for th e limite dpropositio n that Gran t Assuranc e 1 doe s no t

encompas s crimina l laws , bu t impliciti y encompasse s ever y civi l law , regulation , executiv e order , policy , guideline , o r requirement . VJ C Repl y a t 24-25 . Althoug h th e specifi c issu e Boc aAirpor t di drelat e t o a n allege dviolatio n o f

crimina l law , th e principl e that th e FA A reliedupo n i n Boc aAirpor t i s equall y applicabl e t o civi l law s lik e th e Sherma n Act . Th e FA A hel dtha t [t]h e statute s Boc aAviatio n seek s t o appl y for th e allege dviolation s o f gran t assuranc e 1 ar e simpl y not include di n th e lis t

o f FA A jurisdictiona l authorit y for

aPart 1 6 proceeding , no r

arequiremen t

for an y progra mo r activit y receivin g Federa l financia l assistance . Boc aAirpor t

a t 13 . Similarl y here , th e Sherma n Ac t i s not include di n th e lis t

o f FA A jurisdictiona l authorit y for

aPart 1 6 proceeding , no r

i s complianc e with th e Sherma n Ac t arequiremen t fo r an y progra mo r

activit y receivin g federal assistance . Th e mer e fac t tha t a n entit y tha t receive s federal fund s ma y als o b e potentiall y subjec t t o othe r federa l law s for

conduc t unrelate dt o it s us e an dmanagemen t o f thos e federal fund s doe s not brin g thos e law s withi n th e FAA' s jurisdictio n o r th e scop e o f

Gran t Assuranc e 1 . A s discusse dbelo w an di n th e City' s Memorandu mi n Suppor t at p . 24-32 , moreover , antitrus t claim s ar e ofte n highl y comple x an dtur n o n economic , lega l an dbusines s issue s tha t ar e wel l beyon dth e traditiona l expertis e o f

th e FAA . Mor e t o th e point , thos e issue s bea r n o relationshi p t o th e application , acceptance , an d us e o f federa l gran t

funds . Th e federa l courts , th e Departmen t o f Justic e an dth e FT C hav e successfull y administere dan dadjudicate ddispute s unde r th e antitrus t

law s for acentur y o r

so , an dth e FA A doe s no t nee d t o tak e o n thi s ne w comple x are ao f regulation . 5

5Here , Complainan t ha s faile dt o explai n ho w th e allege dviolatio n o f th e Sherma n Ac t relate s t o th e City' s application , acceptanc e o r us e o f federal fiands for

an y project . Adjudicatio n o f

antitrus t claim s i s beyon dth e jurisdictio n o f aPart 1 6 proceedin g pursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.1 . Accordingly , Coun t 1 shoul db e dismissed . 2 . Eve n I f

Complainant' s Antitrus t Clai mWer e Withi n Part 16' s Jurisdiction . VJ C Has Stil l Faile dT o Stat e aVali dClai m Unde r Th e Sherma n Ac t Eve n i f VJC/Receiver' s federal antitrus t clai mi s deeme djusticiabl e i n aPart 1 6 proceeding . Coun t

I mus t stil l b e dismisse dbecaus e (1 ) th e Cit y i s immun e fromsui t unde r th e stat e actio n immunit y doctrine ; an d(2 ) Complainan t ha s faile dt o establis h an y violatio n o f

an y antitrus t

law . Despit e th e City' s direc t challeng e tha t

VJC/Receive r

ha d faile dt o articulat e wit h an y precisio n wha t it s antitrus t

theory is , an dfaile dt o provid e an y proo f tha t coul dsupport

an y antitrus t

theory . Complainan t

fail s t o se t

out with th e precisio n require dunde r

th e antitrus t

law s th e legal element s o f it s clai m(i n additio n t o failin g t o offer an y ne w evidenc e t o suppor t it s claim) . Th e Repl y consist s o f incorrec t lega l argumen t regardin g th e applicabilit y o f th e stat e actio n immunit y doctrin e an dth e simpl e statemen t tha t VJC/Receive r

i s pursuin g aclai munde r Sectio n 2 o f

th e Sherma n Act . That i s insufficien t

t o mee t Complainant' s burde n o f proo f i n aPart 1 6 proceeding . First , th e stat e actio n immunit y doctrin e generall y shield s fromantitrus t liabilit y action s b y stat e an dloca l government s actin g unde r th e authorit y o f

stat e law . Cit

y o f Columbi av . Omn i Outdoo r Advertising , Inc. , 11 1 S.Ct . 1344 , 135 3 (1991 ) (quoting//oove r V . Ronwin , 104 S.Ct . 1989 , 199 5 (1984) ) ("an y actio n that qualifie s a s stat e actio n i s 'ips o facto ' .. . exemp t

fromth e operatio n o f

th e antitrus t

laws." ) A s th e Cit y demonstrate di n it s Memorandu mi n Support , Florid ala w specificall y authorize s th e Cit y t o leas e lan do n

5 6airports , t o gran t th e privileg e o f

aconcessio n for

airport use s an dt o adop t

rule s an d regulation s limitin g th e us e o f a n airport . Fl . Stat . § § 332.08(2)(a ) & 332.08(3) . Memorandu mi n Support a t p . 26-29 . Court s hav e determine dthat simila r grant s o f authorit y hav e bee n sufficient t o confe r

antitrus t immunit y o n airport

proprietors , a s th e Cit y pointe dout . Id . Complainan t

attempt s t o evad e thi s principl e b y relyin g o n a n overl y narro w constructio n o f

th e stat e actio n immunit y doctrine , arguin g that delegation s o f

authorit y that ar e "neutral " with respec t t o competitiv e impac t

an dar e mer e delegation s o f operatin g authorit y ar e insufficien t

t o confe r immunity . Repl y a

t 26 . VJC/Receive r

relie s o n Capita l Cit y Ca b Serv. , Inc . v . Susquehann aReg' l Airpor t Auth. , 47 0 F.Supp.2 d46 2 (M.D . Pa . 2006) , t o support

thi s argument . Bu t

th e "neutral " rul e doe s not mea n tha t

statut e mus t expressl y gran t

th e authorit y t o limi t

competition . Th e authorizin g legislatio n mus t b e specifi c enoug h tha t

it i s foreseeabl e tha t

th e exercis e o f

that authorit y coul dlimi t competition , eve n i f

th e statut e i s silen t

regardin g th e competitiv e impac t o f suc h actions . Omn i Outdoo r

Advertising , 11 1 S.Ct . at 135 0 (quotin g Hailli e v . Ea u Claire , 10 5 S.Ct . 1713,1718(1985)) . Capita l Cit

y Cab , cite db y Complainan t (Repl y a t 26) , i s not

t o th e contrary . Th e issu e ther e was whethe r

th e bal ddelegatio n o f

th e powe r

t o ente r int o acontrac t

wa s sufficien t t o immuniz e th e airport

proprietor' s awar do f

an exclusiv e contrac t

for tax i cab servic e at th e airport . Becaus e th e bar e authorit y t o ente r int o acontrac t

di dnot sugges t an y particula r

typ e o f contract , th e cour t

foun dthat

enterin g int o a

n anticompetitiv e confrac t wa s no t foreseeable . Therefore , th e court foun dth e airport

wa s not entitle dt o immunity .

5 7Here , i n contrast , th e Cit y relie s not jus t o n th e powe r

t o leas e propert y a

t th e airport , bu t

o n it s powe r

t o adop t rule s an dregulation s relatin g t o th e us e o f th e Airport

an d t o gran t th e privileg e o f

concession s regardin g th e us e of , an dth e provisio n o f

service s at , th e Airport . Fl . Stat . § § 332.08(2)(a ) & 332.08(3) . ft i s cleari y foreseeabl e that rule s restrictin g th e us e o f

th e Airport , o r

th e grantin g o f

concession s t o specifi c entities , coul d suppres s competition . Unde r Omn i Outdoo r

an dth e majority o f

case s addressin g th e issue , tha t i s sufficient . Se e Memorandu mi n Support at 26-29 . Cit

y Ca b involve damor e genera l gran t

o f authorit y an di s not

controlling . Accordingly , Complainan t ha s faile dt o sho w tha t th e Cit y i s not

entitle dt o immunit y fromit s antitrus t claim s unde r

th e stat e actio n immunit y doctrine."* ^ Second , VJC/Receive r

ha s stil l faile dt o articulat e aviabl e antitrus t clai mo r alleg e fact s tha t coul dsupport

an y suc h claim . Complainan t ha s attempte dt o overcom e th e inheren t vaguenes s o f

it s clai mb y statin g for

th e first tim e tha t it i s assertin g aclai munde r Sectio n 2 o f

th e Sherma n Act . Repl y at 25 . In orde r

t o prov e aviolatio n o f

Sectio n 2 o f th e Sherma n Act , VJC/Receive r woul dhav e t o prov e "(1 ) th e possessio n o f monopol y powe r i n th e relevan t

marke t an d(2 ) th e willfii l acquisition , maintenanc e o r us e o f tha t powe r for anticompetitiv e o r

exclusionar y purposes. " Aspe n Skiin g Co . v . Aspe n Highland s

* ^ Complainan t

als o argue s for

th e firs t tim e tha t becaus e th e Cit y i s a"marke t participant, " it

ma y no t tak e advantag e o f

th e stat e actio n immunit y doctrine . Repl y at 26 . However , th e parameter s o f th e so-calle d "marke t participan t

exception " hav e no t

bee n clearl y articulate db y th e courts . Susquehann aAre aReg' l Airpor t Auth. , 42 3 F.Supp.2 d472,48 2 n . 1 6 (M.D . Pa . 2006) . What i s clear , however , i s tha t th e applicabiht y o f th e exceptio n turn s o n whethe r th e Cit y acte di n agovernmenta l capacity , a s oppose dt o amor e commercia l capacit y a s amarke t participant . Id . at

483 . Here , th e City wa s clearl y actin g i n it s governmenta l capacit y b y enforcin g th e Airport' s Minimu mStandard s an dothe r City ordinances . Th e allegation s relevan t t o th e Complainant' s anti-trus t claim s involv e action s o f th e Cit y Counci l actin g i n publi c sessio n an dCit y official s actin g i n thei r

official capacities . Complainan t doe s no t alleg e asingl e ac t

o f th e Cit y regardin g th e hanga r projec t that coul db e considere dcommercia l i n nature . Eve n i f on e coul dcredi t

VJC/Receiver' s allegation s that

th e Cit y acte dwit haselfis ho r corrup t motiv e t o gai n acommercia l advantag e - whic h it mos t certainl y di dno t

- suc hallegation s woul db e insufficien t t o convert

th e City' s exercis e o f

it s governmenta l authorit y int o th e action s o f amarke t participant . Id . at

483-84 . 5 8Skiin g Corp , 47 2 U.S . 585 , 598 , 10 5 S.Ct . 2847 , 285 4 (1985) . Thi s require s ashowin g o f

specifi c inten t

to monopolize . Id . a

t 602 , 10 5 S.C t

2857 . Moreover , t o b e improperl y exclusionary , ther e mus t

b e evidenc e o f

ho w th e actio n affecte dconsumer s an dcompetitio n i n general , no t

jus t it s effec t o n VJC/Receiver . Id . a

t 605 , 10 5 S.Ct . 2859 . Cleariy , VJC/Receive r

ha s no t presente dan y evidenc e tha t coul dpossibl y support

thes e elements . No r doe s VJ C respon dt o th e City' s argument s that th e antitrus t

claim s ar e unsupportabl e o n th e merits . City' s Memorandu mi n Support a t 29-32 . At most . Complainan t

suggest s tha t

th e Cit y violate dth e antitrus t law s b y denyin g it s bo x hangar

projec t i n orde r t o promot e aCit y monopol y o n hangar service s with a differen t typ e o f hangar facility - t-hangars.'' ^ Repl y at 24 . Bu t VJC/Receive r

offer s n o proo f tha t th e Cit y ha s obtaine do r

coul dobtai n amonopol y o n hangars , tha t ther e ar e n o othe r FBO s offerin g hangar s o r indee dtha t

VJ C itsel f

coul dno t

provid e hanga r

service s withit s existin g hangars . Ther e i s simpl y n o suppor t for Complainant' s broadassertions . Moreover , unde r

federal law , an airport

ma y exercise , but

no t grant , a n exclusiv e right

t o provid e aeronautica l services."* ^ Thus , eve n i f th e Cit y ha dsough t

t o monopoliz e th e provisio n o f

hangar s - whic h it

di dnot - i t i s specificall y authorize dunde r federal law t o d o so .

T o th e exten t

tha t VJC/Receive r

assert s that

th e Cit y intend s t o buil dt-hangars , suc h hangar s provid e storag e facilitie s for

differen t aircraf t tha n VJC' s propose dbo x hangars . T o th e exten t that VJC/Receive r assert s tha t

th e Cit y intend s t o buil dbo x hangars , thi s directl y contradict s Complainant' s clai mtha t th e City' s denia l o f permissio n for

VJ C t o buil dbo x hangar s i s base do n apurporte doppositio n b y th e Cit y t o th e operatio n o f

large r aircraf t tha t woul db e house di n suc hhangars . Repl y at 5 . VJC/Receiver' s argument s simpl y d o no t

han g together . ^ ^ Se e Cit y Memorandu mi n Suppor t at p . 51 , citin g FA A Advisor y Circular 150/5190- 6 sectio n 1.3(b)(1) . http://vvTvw.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/media/150-5190-6/1505190_6.pd f an dJe t 1 Ctr. , Inc . V . Naple s Airpor t

Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-04-03 , at

16-18 . Se e also , U.S . Aerospace , Inc . v . Millingto n Mun . Airpor t

Auth. , FA A Docke t

No . 16-98-0 6 at

23 . 5 9In summary , th e onl y ne w legal authorit y o r factual support

VJ C ha s offere dfor

it s antitrus t clai mi s it s statemen t

tha t i t i s pursuin g aclai munde r Sectio n 2 o f

th e Sherma n Act . Bu t tha t bal dassertio n i s insufficient ; VJ C mus t plea d(an dultimatel y prove ) specifi c element s t o support

tha t claim . I t ha s faile dt o d o so . Accordingly , eve n i f VJ C ca n overcom e th e jurisdictiona l andimmunit y bar s t o it s claim . Coun t I shoul db e dismissed . E . Complainan t

Lack s Standin g an dFail s T o Stat e aPrope r Clai m Fo r Violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 19 , Operation s an d Maintenanc e Althoug hComplainan t

state s tha t

i t "Ha s State daClai mFo r Violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 19 " (Repl y a t 27) , i n fact , i t

state dn o suc h clai mi n it s Complaint . I t generall y allege daviolatio n o f thi s assurance , but

provide dn o informatio n whatsoeve r - muc hles s an y documentatio n - o n ho w th e Cit y supposedl y violate da n assuranc e relate d t o operatio n an dmaintenanc e o f existin g facilities . Unde r th e Part 1 6 rules , complainant s ar e require dinclud e al l argumen t an devidenc e t o support th e allegation s i n thei r complaints . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(b) . VJC/Receive r faile dt o d o s o i n thi s case , an dit s Coun t III , relate dt o Assuranc e 19 , shoul dtherefor e b e dismissed . In it s Reply , Complainan t identifie s for

th e first tim e a n issu e tha t

relate s t o th e maintenanc e o f

existin g facilities : th e allege d"failur e t o maintai n runwa y 04-2 2 i n asaf e an dserviceabl e conditio n an di n accordanc e with th e minimu mstandards. " Repl y a t 2 7 (interna l quotation s omitted) . Allowin g complainant s t o put "placeholders " allegin g violation s o f

gran t assurances , withou t

more , i n thei r

complaints , an dthe n perfectin g thei r claim s b y describin g th e fact s an dcircumstance s relatin g t o th e allegatio n onl y i n thei r

6 0replie s woul dturn th e Part 1 6 proces s insid e out , an dFA A shoul dno t condon e suc h sleigh t o f han di n Part

1 6 pleadings."* ^ 1 . Complainan t

Lack s Standin g t o Assert aClai mRelate dt o th e Deterioratio n o f

aRunwa y a

t th e Airport . First , Complainan t

lack s standin g t o mak e thi s clai mi n aPar t 1 6 case . Althoug hit claim s that

"VJ C i s direcU y an dadversel y affecte db y th e City' s conduc t becaus e th e runwa y dissuade s potentia l client s o f th e VJ C fromusin g th e airport " {id.) . Complainan t fail s t o provid e an y informatio n t o support thi s contention . Th e recor di s completel y devoi do f evidenc e o f

an y suc h impac t

o n prospectiv e users . Moreover , a s evidenc e o f th e supposedl y poo r

runwa y condition , VJC/Receive r include s a199 8 report

that wa s include d i n th e Septembe r

200 0 Maste r

Plan . Complainant' s Repl y Exhibi t 2 at p . 3 (Figur e 2-1) . What VJ C fail s t o note , however , i s that , sinc e that report was issued , adifferen t

runway . Runwa y 13-31 , was reconstructe dwith federal AI P gran t participation . Cit y Exhibi t F (Documentatio n o f

AI P Gran t

for Reconstructio n o f

Runwa y 13-31) . Th e reconstructe d runwa y wa s re-commissione do n Decembe r 5 , 2006.^^ ^ Cit y Exhibi t

G . A t alength o f

500 0

^ ^ Complainan t

assert s that

matter s addresse dfo

r th e first tim e i n it s Repl y ma y properl y b e considere db y FAA , becaus e th e Cit y will hav e an opportunit y t o respond . Repl y at p . 1 , n . 1 . Complainan t

cite s apreviou s FA A decision , whic hstate d"Fo r reason s o f

administrativ e efficiency , th e FA A will generall y conside r issue s raise dfo r th e first tim e i n arepl y onl y //th e opposin g part y ha s ha dan oppormnit y t o respond. " Aircraf t Owner s an dPilot s Assoc . Members , v . Cit y ofPompan o Beach , FA A docke t No . 16-04-01 , 200 5 W L 3722717 , *3 0 (emphasi s added) . Complainan t read s thi s languag e t o mean that FA A wil l allo w ane w issu e t o b e raise di n aRepl y j/th e othe r sid e ha s achanc e t o respond . However , "i f

doe s no t mean "onl y if " "Th e phras e 'onl y i f describe s anecessar y condition , no t a sufficien t condition.. . . [wherea s t]h e wor d'i f describe s asufficien t

condition. " Townshi p ofTinicu mv . Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportation , 200 9 W L291448 8 (C.A.3 ) at *5-6 . Here , Complainan t include dagenera l allegatio n o f aviolatio n o f

Assuranc e 19 , bu t

provide dn o specific s o r evidence , despit e th e fac t tha t th e informatio n cite di n it s Repl y wa s clearl y availabl e at th e tim e i t

filedth e Complaint . Complainan t

doe s no t provid e an y explanatio n o r justificatio n for

no t includin g th e informatio n with it s Complaint . I n thes e circumstances , FA A shoul dno t findth e City' s opportunit y t o respon dt o b e sufficien t t o allo w Complainan t

t o attemp t

t o perfec t

it s clai mi n it s Reply . ^ ^ VJ C wa s establishe di n 2006 , an dit s leas e a t th e Airpor t

wa s execute di n Ma y 2006 . Complainant' s Exhibi t 3 a t p . 1 , 25 . It

i s inconceivabl e tha t

a n FB O at

th e Airpor t

woul dno t

kno w that

Runwa y 13-3 1 ha d bee n reconstructe dwithi n 7 month s after i t signe dit s lease , o r

that th e reconstructe drunwa y coul dhandl e al l 6 1ft.,'' with load-bearin g capacitie s o f 30,00 0 lbs . (singl e wheel) , 63,00 0 lbs . (doubl e wheel) , an d100,00 0 lbs . (dua l tandem) , thi s runwa y i s capabl e o f handlin g an y aircraf

t tha t coul d operat e o n Runwa y 4-22,^ ^ i f th e latte r wer e reconstructed . Cit y Exhibi t H . Give n that

th e Airport

doe s no t handl e alarg e volum e o f aircraf t operations,^ ^ on e runwa y i s sufficien t

t o handl e al l operation s a t th e Airport

with virtuall y n o delays . Thus , ther e ha s bee n n o limitatio n o n "th e amoun t an dtype s o f

plane s that

can tak e of

f o r lan da t th e Airport, " an d"i f

potentia l client s o f

th e VJ C ar e dissuade dfro mutilizin g th e Airport " (Repl y a t 27) , i t i s no t becaus e o f

th e conditio n o f

Runwa y 4-22 . Moreover , th e runway s at th e Airport

ar e intersectin g runway s {Se e Complainant' s Repl y Exhibi t

2 a t p . 3 , City Exhibi t

1 3 (ALP) . Thus , th e runway s ar e no t use d simultaneously , s o tha t

on e runwa y naturall y handle s al l o f th e aircraf

t operation s i n an y give n perio do f

time . Finally , give n th e performanc e characteristic s o f th e je t traffi c targete db y VJC , Runwa y 13-3 1 can handl e al l operation s o f suc h aircraf

t i n th e sam e win d condition s a s Runwa y 4-22 , i.e. , virtuall y al l o f th e time . Thus , Complainan t ha s not , an d

o f th e operation s o f

aircraf t that woul dus e tha t

FBO' s facilities . Moreover , i f both runway s at

th e Airpor t wer e i n poo r

conditio n i n 1998 , an dth e failur e t o reconstruc t bot h o f the mwoul dlea dt o a"direct , advers e impact " o n th e FBO , it

woul db e irrationa l for

VJ C t o purchas e th e asset s o f th e former

FB O unles s on e o f

th e primar y runway s woul db e reconstructed . I n an y event , VJ C mus t

hav e bee n wel l awar e o f th e poo r runwa y conditio n at

th e tim e it

purchase d th e forme r

FBO' s asset s an dsigne dth e leas e withth e City . Finally , Complainan t relie s o n th e declaratio n o f alawye r wh o say s h e wa s involve di n representin g Airpor t client s sinc e I96 0 (Complainant' s Repl y Exhibi t 3 at 113), wh o purport s t o b e familia r withconstructio n project s at th e airport

fro mthat

tim e throug h th e presen t {Id . at 1[5) , an dwh o claim s t o kno w th e detail s o f th e allegedl y proffere dAI P fundin g tha t wa s no t accepted , an dth e openin g o f

constructio n bids i n Ma y 2007 , for th e proposed , bu t

neve r implemented , reconstructio n o f Runwa y 4-2 2 (id . at

^ 8) . It i s inconceivabl e that

thi s individua l di dno t

kno w tha t

Runwa y 13-3 1 wa s reconstructe dan dcommissione dfive month s earlie r - yet VJC/Receive r

di dno t includ e informatio n o n th e reconstructio n o f

runwa y 13-3 1 i n it s Reply . Instead , VJC/Receive r assert s that

potentia l client s ar e dissuade dfro moperatin g at th e Airpor t

an dusin g VJC' s facilities . Repl y at 27-2 8

^ ' Runwa y 13-3 1 i s 5,00 0 ft. an d15 0 ft. vdde . Se e Cit y Exhibi t 1 3 (ALP) .

" Runwa y 4-2 2 i s 5,00 0 ft. an d15 0 ft. wide . Id .

" Preliminar y traffi c dat aindicate s that ther e wer e approximatel y 20,00 0 operation s fo r th e 6-month perio d fro m3/1/0 9 t o 8/31/09 , a n averag e o f approximatel y 11 0 operation s pe r day . Cit y Exhibi t

I . 6 2cannot , sho w ho w i t i s "directl y an dadversel y affected " b y th e allege dfailur e t o maintai n runway 4-2 2 an dtherefor e lack s standin g t o brin g thi s claim .

2 . Eve n I f

It Ha dStanding , Complainan t Fail s T o Stat e aPrope r Clai mfor A Violatio n O f

Assuranc e 19 . Complainan t

als o fail s t o understan dth e actua l obligatio n containe di n Assuranc e 19 . Thi s assuranc e require s airport sponsor s t o ensur e that

routin e maintenanc e i s provide d for al l aeronautica l facilities , includin g runways , t o kee p the mi n asaf e operatin g conditio n throughou t

thei r usefii l lives . Th e obligatio n not t o "discontinu e maintenanc e o f a runway . . . remain[s ] i n forc e throughou t th e usefu l lif

e o f th e facility , bu t

n o longe r

tha n 2 0 year s ... " Airpor t

Complianc e Manual , FA A Orde r 5190.6 B (09/30/2009 ) a t p . 7-2 , t7.2.b . Complainan t

ha s no t pleade d(an dha s no t

shown ) tha t

Runwa y 4-2 1 ha s bee n constructed , reconstructed , o r rehabilitate dwithi n th e pas t 2 0 years.^' * Thus , it

ha s not pleade do r

demonstrate dthat

Assuranc e 1 9 i s stil l i n effec t for Runwa y 4-22 . A s aresult , ther e ca n b e n o violatio n o f th e Assurance , an dCoun t III shoul db e dismissed . Moreover , FA A ha s mad e i t clear tha t "Th e federal obligatio n t o maintai n th e airport doe s not exten dt o majo r

rehabilitatio n o f

afacility that

ha s becom e unusabl e du e t o norma l an dunpreventabl e deterioratio n o r throug h act s o f

God " {id . a

t p . 7-6 , T}7.7.a) , an d that "airpor t sponso r federal obligation s d o not includ e th e complet e resurfacin g o f a runwa y unles s i t

i s th e resul t

o f obviou s neglec t

o f routin e maintenanc e ove r time. " Id . Thus , i n assertin g aviolatio n o f Assuranc e 19 , Complainan t onl y allege s tha t

th e Cit y faile dt o undertak e exactl y th e typ e o f runwa y reconstructio n projec t tha t FA A

' ^ Complainan t

canno t d o so , becaus e n o suc hwork ha s bee n don e o n Runwa y 4-2 1 withi n th e pas t twent y years . Se e Cit y Exhibi t

J (FA A lis t

o f AI P project s fo r

th e Airport) . Th e onl y projec t show n withi n th e pas t 2 0 year s fo r

Runwa y 4-2 2 wa s a200 4 gran t for Desig n Onl y fo r

th e rehabilitatio n o f

th e runway . Cit y Exhibi t K . Thi s projec t

wa s close dou t

i n 2007 . Id .

6 3explicitl y state s tha t a n airport sponso r i s not obligate dt o undertak e unde r th e Assurance . Complainant , therefore , ha s stil l faile dt o stat e aclai munde r Coun t III (Complain t

a t p . 16

- 17) , eve n after

it s inappropriat e attemp t t o perfec t

th e clai mi n it s Reply . Whil e "[fjailur e t o performday-to-da y airport maintenanc e .. . ma y hav e a cumulativ e effec t

resultin g i n majo r

repair s an dreconstructio n that wil l fall unde r

th e sponsor' s federal obligations " (Airport Complianc e Manua l a

t p . 7-6 , ^ 1.1.d) . Complainan t

ha s no t asserted , an dcertainl y ha s provide dn o evidence , that th e Cit y ha s not performe dth e typ e o f

routin e maintenanc e o n Runwa y 4-2 2 describe di n th e Airport Complianc e Manua l a s necessar y t o compl y with Assuranc e 19 . Simpl y put . Complainant' s clai mi s tha t th e runwa y was i n poo r

conditio n i n 199 8 an dth e Cit y ha s not reconstructe di t

sinc e tha t

time . Thi s doe s no t

stat e agran t

assuranc e violation , an dCoun t III o f th e Complain t

shoul db e dismissed . Complainan t

assert s that

th e Cit y "ha s allowe dth e dilapidatio n o f runwa y 4-22 , despit e th e fac t

tha t th e Cit y ha dpreviousl y requeste dfundin g t o repai r th e runwa y an dth e reques t wa s granted. " Repl y a

t 27 . Complainan t

assert s tha t

"FA A allocate dapproximatel y $ 5 millio n t o th e Cit y t o re-construc t th e runway , but

after th e curren t

Cit y Counci l wa s elected , i t decide dt o refias e th e fianding an dallo w th e runwa y t o remai n i n poo r condition. " Id . VJC' s positio n i s somewha t remarkabl e i n tha t

th e actio n o f

whic h VJC/Receive r complain s (City' s failur e t o us e AI P fund s t o reconstruc t th e runway) , woul db e perpetuate db y th e relie f

VJC/Receive r

seek s (withholdin g o f

AI P gran t

fund s fromth e City) . Complain t

at p . 21 . I t i s als o wort h notin g tha t Complainant' s assertion s an devidenc e with respec t t o th e gran t fundin g ar e incorrect . FA A neve r offere da$4. 7 millio n gran t t o th e Cit y t o

6 4reconstruc t Runwa y 4-22 . Th e reaso n FA A di dnot d o s o was becaus e FA A ha dno t mad e aRunwa y Safety Are adeterminatio n that demonstrate dtha t

Runwa y 4-2 2 woul dmee t th e FAA' s enhance drunwa y safety are arequirements . Complianc e with suc h requirement s i s aprerequisit e for

AI P fundin g for

arunwa y pavemen t

project . I n th e Matte r

o f Complianc e wit hFedera l Obligation s by th e Cit y o f Sant aMonica , California , FA A Docke t No . 16-02

- 08 , 200 8 W L 6895776 , at *2 3 (Director' s Determination , Ma y 27 , 2008) ; I n th e Matte r o f th e Cit y o f Sant aMonica , FA A Docke t No . 16-02-08 , 200 9 W L3176873 , a t * 5 (Fina l Decisio n an dOrder , Jul y 8 , 2009) . Becaus e FA A was abl e t o mak e th e require dRS A determinatio n with respec t t o Runwa y 13-31 , th e Cit y decide dt o procee dwith reconstructio n o f

tha t runwa y first. Runwa y 13-3 1 safel y handle s al l aircraft , an dth e pilot s an dpassenger s o n board , that can us e th e Airport . Th e Cit y ha s restricte dth e us e o f Runwa y 4-2 2 t o aircraf

t belo w 15,00 0 lbs . (singl e wheel ) an d24,00 0 lbs . (dua l wheel ) (Cit y Exhibi t H) , s o th e aircraft , an d th e pilot s an dpassenger s o n board , wh o us e tha t runwa y ma y d o s o safely , an dth e runwa y pavemen t i s no t overstressed . Thi s conform s t o FA A guidance . "I f th e airport

pavemen t deteriorate s an dth e sponso r i s not prepare dt o strengthe n th e pavement , the n th e sponso r mus t limi t th e pavement' s us e t o aircraf t operation s tha t

wil l not overstres s th e pavement. " Airport Complianc e Manua l at

p.7-6 , \l.l.h . Thus , contrar y t o th e Complainant' s assertions , th e Cit y i s no t disregardin g th e safety o f pilot s an dpassenger s wh o utiliz e tha t runway . Instead , th e City' s action s promot e th e safety o f

al l wh o us e th e Airport' s runways . I n fact , ha dth e Cit y no t impose daweigh t limi t o n Runwa y 4-2 2 unde r

thes e circumstances , i t

coul dhav e jeopardize dpotentia l futur e AI P fundin g t o reconstruc t th e runway . After

notin g th e sponsor' s obligatio n t o limi t

6 5pavement' s us e t o aircraf t operation s tha t

wil l no t overstres s th e pavement , FA A state s that "Shoul dfailur e occu r

becaus e th e sponso r

faile dt o tak e timel y correctiv e actio n after bein g advise do f

th e pavemen t

limitations , restoratio n o f th e faile dpavemen t

t o asatisfactory conditio n ma y no t

b e eligibl e for

AI P funding. " Id . Th e City was unde r

n o obligatio n t o reconstruc t Runwa y 13-31 , ye t

i t di dso . I t i s not unde r a n obligatio n t o reconstruc t Runwa y 4-22 , ye t

i t i s hopefu l it

wil l b e abl e t o wor

k ou t th e RS A issue s wit h th e FA A an dd o so . In an y event , all o f th e City' s action s with respec t t o th e runwa y pavemen t issue s hav e bee n i n full complianc e with FA A guidance . Complainan t

ha s faile dt o stat e aclai mo f violatio n o f

Assuranc e 1 9 an dfaile dt o provid e an y evidenc e o f

an y violation , an dCoun t III o f th e Complain t

shoul db e dismissed . CONCLUSIO N VJC/Receive r

seek s t o avoi dth e fact s an dcircumstance s surroundin g VJC' s inception , initia l an dcontinuin g funding , an dReceivershi p i n thi s proceeding , becaus e the y ar e s o devastatin g t o it s case . But neithe r th e Cit y no r

th e FA A nee daddres s th e hangar issu e a s atheoretica l abstraction ; i t i s area l worl ddecision , i n rea l - thoug h highl y unusua l

- circumstances . Simpl y put , ther e i s n o fundamental FA A o r federal aviatio n interes t

serve db y forcin g a n airport t o approv e developmen t o f hangar s s o tha t

an entit y tha t

wa s create dou t o f illegall y obtaine dfiand s ma y hav e it s valu e increase dan db e sol dof f a t apremium , s o tha t mor e mone y i s take n of

f airport . Fo r th e reason s se t

fort h above , an di n th e City' s Answer , Motio n t o Dismiss , an d Memorandu mi n Support , th e Complain t shoul db e dismissed .

6 6t h Respectfiill y submitte dthi s 28' " da y o f October , 2009 :

Robert Anderson , Esq . Cit y Attorne y Hal l & Anderson , P.A . 131 4 Eas t Venic e Ave. , Suit e E Venice , F L 3428 5 Telephone : (941 ) 480-099 9 Facsimile : (941)480-144 6 Thoma s Devin e W . Eri c Pils k KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LLP 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 90 5 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-5600X56 8 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6

Arthu r P . Ber g KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave . Suit e 140 9 New York , N Y 1002 2 Telephone : (212 ) 328-951 5 Facsimile : (646)514-544 0 Counse l fo r Responden t

Cit y o f Venice , F L

6 7CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t 1 hav e thi s da y serve dth e foregoin g Responden t Cit y o f Venice , Florida' s Rebutta l t o Venic e Je t Center' s Reply , o n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addresse s b y overnigh t Federa l Express : Offic e o f th e Chie f

Counse l Attn : FA A Part

1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Roo m92 5 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Origina l an d3 copie s Gianluc aMorello , Esq . Dominiqu e Pearlman , Esq . Fowle r Whit e Boggs , P.A . 50 1 E . Kenned y Blvd. , Suit e 170 0 Tampa , F L3360 2 Fax No . (813)229-831 3 On e Cop y

Date dthi s 28'* ' da y o f

October , 200 9 Thoma s R . Devin e

6 8UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C .

VENIC E JE T CENTER , LLC , Complainant , FA A Docke t No . 16-09-0 5 V . CIT Y O FVENICE , FL , Respondent . EXHIBI T LIS T TO : RESPONDEN T CIT Y O FVENICE , FLORIDA' S REBUTTA LT O VENIC E JE T CENTER' S REPL Y (Exhibit s A-K ) Robert C . Anderson , Esq . City Attorne y Hal l & Anderson , P.A . 131 4 Eas t Venic e Ave. , Suit e E Venice , FL 3428 5 Telephone : (941 ) 480-099 9 Facsimile : (941)480-144 6 Thoma s R . Devine , Esq . W . Eri c Pilsk , Esq . KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL P 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 90 5 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-5600X56 8 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6 Arthu r P . Berg , Esq . KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL LLL P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave . Suit e 140 9 Ne w York , N Y 1002 2 Telephone : (212 ) 328-951 5 Facsimile : (646)514-544 0 Counse l fo r Responden t

Cit y o f Venice , F L

## 1 EXftNb .

A B 

## c D E F G H 1 J K DESCIUPTIO N Settlemen t

Stipulatio n - Sunshin e Ac t Lawsui t Asse t Purchas e Agreemen t Article s o f

Organizatio n o f

Venic e Je t

Center , LL C Excerpt : Venic e City Counci l Meeting : 1/13/0 9 Draf t Leas e Documentatio n o f

AI P Gran t

fo r Reconstructio n o f

Runwa y 13-3 1 Document s Relate dt o Recommissionin g o f Runwa y 13-3 1 Loa dBearin g Capacit y o f Runway s Preliminar y Traffi c Dat a- Marc h - Augus t 200 9 Lis t o f AI P Grant s for

Venic e Municipa l Airpor t Documentatio n o f

AI P Gran t

for Desig n Wor

k for Rehabilitatio n o f

Runwa y 4-2 2Exhibi t A

I N THE CIRCUIT COURT O FTH E TWELFT H JUDICL^. LCIRCUI T I N AN D FO RSARASOT A COUNTY , FLORID A CITIZEN S FO RSUNSHINE , INC. , a Florid anot-for-profit

corporation , an d ANTHONY LORENZO ,

Plaintiffs , V . CAS E NO. : 200 8 C A 810 8 S C CITY O FVENICE , et

al. . Defendants . /

SETTLEMEN T STIPULATIO N Th e Plaintiff

s andth e Defendant s hereb y stipulat e an dagre e a s follow s for th e purpose s o f settlin g al l issue s regardin g thi s litigation : 1 . Defendant s ED MARTIN , SUZANNE LANG , JOHN SIMMONDS , NICHOLA S CARLUCCI , ROBERT BARTANOWICZ , SUSAN BALSINGER , an dFRE D HAMMET T shall b e droppe da s partie s t o thi s action . 2 . Th e Defendant , CIT Y O FVENICE , acknowledge s violation s o f Chapter s 11 9 an

d 28 6 o f th e Florid aStatues , otherwis e know n a s th e Govemment-in-the-Sunshine-La w an dth e Publi c Record s Act , a s allege di n portion s o f th e Correcte dFourt

h Amende dComplaint . 3 . Th e Defendant , CIT Y O FVENICE , ha s take n al l action s necessary t o cur e thes e violations , an dtherefore , n o officia l action s nee db e voide da b initio . 4 . Th e Defendant , CIT Y O FVENICE , acknowledge s th e nee dt o compl y with Chapter s 11 9 an d28 6 o f

th e Florid aStatutes , otherwis e know n a s th e Publi c Record s Ac t an dth e Govemment-in-the-Sunshine-Law . 5 . Th e Defendant , CIT Y O FVENICE , shal l conduc t a n annual mandatory trainin g sessio n for

Councilmember s an dth e member s o f all cit y boards , commissions , conunittee s an d tas k force s regardin g th e Govemment-in-the-Sunshine-Law an dth e Publi c Record s Act , including , bu t

not limite dto , th e us e o f

liaison s an dth e discouragemen t o f th e us e o f

positio n papers . 6 . Th e Defendant . CIT Y O FVENICE , shal l maintai n a n e-mai l syste mtha t assign s a cit y e-mai l accoun t

t o eac h Cit

y Councilmembe r

an dt o eac h membe r

o f acit y board , commission , coirunitte e o r tas k force , an dth e Defendant , CIT Y O FVENICE , shal l requir e eac hsuc hmember t o us e onl y hi s o r

he r officia l city e-mai l accoun t

whe n transactin g ofHcia

l busines s an dt o otherwis e comply wit h th e Cit y o f Venic e Informatio n Technolog y Usag e Policy . 7 . Th e Cit

y o f Venic e acknowledge s that Plaintiff s are entitle dt o a

n awardo f attorney s fee s an dcost s under both Chapter

11 9 an dChapter

28 6 of th e Florid aStamtes , otherwis e know n a s th e Publi c Record s Ac t an dth e Govemment-in-the-Sunshin e Law , i n a n amount t o b e determine da

t a n evidentiar

y hearing . 8 . Th e Partie s agre e t o jointl y reques t that th e Cour t vacate al l order s imposin g sanction s previousl y entere di n thi s matter . 9 . Th e Defendant s withdraw al l request s t o ta x o r awardattorney s fee s an dcost s i n thi s matter . 10 . Thi s settlement

i s afull an dfinal settlemen t of al l issue s regardin g action s take n b y th e Defendant , CIT Y O FVENICE , it s publi c officials , employees , agents , an d representatives , andth e Defendants . ED MARTIN , SUZANNE LANG , JOH N MOORE , JOHN SIMMONDS , NICHOLA S CARLUCCI , ROBERT BARTANOWICZ , SUSAN BALSINGER , PAULHOLL O WELL , an dFRED HAMMETT , throug h th e dat e o f th e final judgmen t

describe d i n paragrap h 11 , whether

suc h issue s are raise di n th e Correcte dFourt h Amende dComplain t

o r not , an dwhether

suc h issue s are know n o r

unknow n t o th e Plaintiff

s an dthei r

legal representatives . 11 . A final

judgmen t shal l b e entere dapprovin g th e term s an dcondition s o f thi s settlement stipulation , droppin g th e Defendant s ED MARTIN , SUZANNE LANG , JOHN SIMMONDS , NICHOLA S CARLUCCI , ROBERT BARTANOWICZ , SUSAN BALSINGER , an dFRED HAMMET T a s partie s t o thi s action , an ddirectin g th e Plaintiff s an dth e Defendant , CITY O FVENICE , t o compl y v^rit h th e term s an dcondition s o f th e settlemen t

stipulatio n an d dismissin g thi s actio n wit

h prejudice . 12 . Th e Partie s agre e that th e Cour t shal l retai n jurisdictio n t o enforc e th e term s an d condition s o f

thi s settlement

stipulation .

ANDREA FLYNNfMOGENSEN , ESQUIRE Florid aBa

r #054968 1 20 0 Sout h Washingto n Blvd. , Suit e 5 Sarasota , F L3423 6 (941)955-106 6 ROBER T C . ANDERSON , ESQUIRE Florid aBa

r #31028 1 HAL L& ANDERSON , P.A . 131 4 Eas t Venic e Avenue , Suit e E (941)480-099 9 Dated : 3 

### ll2^}o ' Dated : 

## ^-y^-^- ^

# feu^

MATTHE WA.XEIS H Florid aBa

r No. : 005401 4 AM Y LEIGH CARSTENSEN Florid aBa

r No. : 002240 2 CARLTO N FIELDS , P.A . Corporate Center

Thre e a t International Plaz a 422 1 Wes t

Bo y Scout

Blvd. , Suite 1000 Pos t Office Bo x 323 9 (33601 ) Tampa , F L 33607-573 6 Tel. : 813.223.700 0 Dated : 

### >/i//0 ?

### Exhibi t B Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 1 o f 1 2 ASSE T PURCHAS E AGREEMENT



# J f , 2005 , betwee n TRIPL E DIAMON

D ENTERPRISES , LLC , aHond aLimite dLiabilit y Company , whos e addres s i s Pos t

Offic e Bo x 1967 , Nokomis , Florida , 3427 4 (herein th e "Seller" ) an d Arthu r Nade l and/o r permittedassigns , 161 8 Mai n Street , Sarasota , F

L3423 6 (herein the "Buyer") . (Buye

r an dSelle r herein ar e sometime s referredt

o a s th e "Parties" ) WHEREAS , Selle

r conducts afixedbasedoperation know n a s 'Tripl e Diamon

d Je t Center " locateda

t 22 0 Airpor

t Avena e an dotherbttstnesse s locate da t 460-Airpor

t Avenu e a t the Vearc e Airport , Venice , Florid a(hereinafte r collectively th e "Business") ; an d WHEREAS , Selle

r desire s t o sell , an dBuye r desire s t o purchas e substantially al

l o f the assets o

f the Business ; NOW , THEREFORE , i n consideration o f the above recitals , andthe muUia l promise s mad

e herein , an

di n consideration o

f th e representations , warranties , an d covenants herein contained , Selle r an dBuye r hereby agree a s follows : Sectio n 1 . Purchas e an dSal e 1. 1 Agreemen t

t o Sel l an dPurchas e Assets . Subject to th e term s an

d condition s ^z.'

i fort h in thi s Agreement, Selle

r shall sell , transfer, convey , an ddelive r t o Buyer , an dBuye r shall purchase , acquir

e an daccept fro mSelle r al l of Seller' s right, title an dinteres t i n an dt o the following assets : (a) ^ The fixedbas e operatio n of the Business5*iPPPMlWBJRiBWWMft | f thos e certain Leas e Agreement s betwee n Selle r an dTh e Cit y o f Venice , an dthos e certain hangars , on

e wit h approxbnately 10,00

0 squar e feet , andth e othe

r 2,500 squar e feet ; (b ) Wor

k i n Progress . A

H o f Seller' s Wor

k i n Progres s relate dt o the Busines s existing a t the tim e o f th e Closing Date ; (c ) Inventories . All o

f Seller' s item s heldfo

r resal e i n th e Business , in each cas e whereve

r locate dincludmg , without

Umitation , a

U item s liste di n Schedul e 1.1(a) ; (d ) Office andOthe

r Equipment . Al

l equipmen

t relatin g to th e Cockpit

Caf e an dfixedbas e operation , offic e furniture , office equipment , telephones , pagers , computers , compute

r peripherals , compute

r software , an

doffice suppHe s which ar

e used i n th e Busines s mcluding , bu t not limite dto , thos e item s liste di n Schedul e 1.1(b) ; (e) Othe

r Contracts . A

U Selle r contract s relate dt o the asset s sol dherein including , but

not limite dto , the leas e agreemen t wit h Hert z an dother lease s in force a

t the time of th e executio n o

f thi s Agreement ; (1 ) Custome

r Records , Busines s Records . A U dataandrecord s relate dt o the operation s of

the Business , including clien t an dcustome r hsts , referra

l sources , servic e Pag e 1 o f 1 2 EXHIBI T C AU(3-5-a00 5 FR I 01:2aP M ID : PAGE: 2Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 2 o f 1 2

an dwarrant y records , equipmen

t logs , financial an

daccounting records , advertising materials , correspondenc e an dother simila r documents an

drecord s an

dcopie s o f all personne l records ; (g ) Trad

e Names . Th e trade name "Cockpi t Cafe" , an dall titl e andinteres t

i n an dt o sai dtrade name , an

da U existmg telephone numbers , an dtelephon e fistmgs relating t o th e Business ; (h) Permits . Al

l rights of Seller i n or relatedt o permits primarily relatedt o the Busines s o

r one o r mor e o f th e asset s acquired , t

o the exten t suc h rights ma

y b e lawfull y transferredt

o Buye r o r are necessar

y fo r operation o

f the Business ; (i ) Equipmen

t Leases . Seller' s interes t

in the lease s of

asset s Uste

din Schedule 1.1(c

) an dSeller' s rights unde

r an y lease s o f assets no t Uste din such Schedule whic h ar e usedi n the Business , including , bu t not limitedto , th

e weathe r servic e lease ; an d (j ) Other . A

U othe r propert y u f Selle r describedin Schedul e i . 1(d) . 1. 2 Buyer' s Option . Buye r sha U have the option , whic h shal l b e exercisedo

n or befor e the en dof th e Du e Dihgenc e perio dreferre dto hereinafte

r i n Paragraph2.1 , t o purchas e the restaurant premise s formerl

y knovr aas the 44'* ' Aer

o Squadron , locate da

t 22 2 Airpor t Avenue , Venice , F

L ("Restauran

t Premises" ) fo

r th e additiona l consideration (exclusiv e o f th e Purchas e Pric e se

t fort h i n Paragrap h 1.4.1 ) of the su mo f Fiv e HundredThousandan dNo/10 0 Dollars ($500,000.00) . 1 3 Exclude dAssets . Notwithstandin g anything t o the contrar

y containe di

n Paragr^ h 1, 1 or

elsewher e i n thi s Agreement , th e foUowin g asset s (coUectively , the "ExcludedAssets" ) ar

e not par t of th e sal e andpiurchase contemplatedhereunder an dar e excludedfro

mth e assets to be sol dan

dsha U remain the propert

y of SeUe r afte r Closing : (a ) An y an dall airplane s owne db y SeUer , Lacludiu g lo g book s fo

r sai d airplanes , an

da U part s fo r sai dairplanes . 1.4 Purchas e Price , 1.4. 1 Th e aggregat e consideratio n fo

r th e Assets set

fort h i n Paragraph 1. 1 (the "Purchas e Price" ) shal l b e Tw o MiUion , Seve

n Hundre dan dNmet y Fiv e Thousandan

dNo/0 0 DoUar

s ($2,795,000.00) , payable t o th e Selle r a s foUows : (a ) A n earnes t mone y deposi t i n th e su mo f On e HundredThousan dDoUar s ($100,000.00 ) sha

U b e due an

dpajrabi e contemporaneously wit h the executio n o

f thi s Agreement , t o b e heldi

n escrow b y Dooley & Drake , P.A. ; (b ) O n th e Closuig Date , as se t

fort h herei n i n Paragraph 1.8 , th e balanc e o f th e Purchas e Price , Tw

o MUUon , Si x Hundre dNinet

y Fiv e Thousandan dNo/0 0 DoUar s ($2,695,000.00 ) sha

U be deUvere

db y Buye r t o Seller , b y cashier' s chec k o r immediately avaUabl e fiind s t o th e SeUer' s bank account ; Pag e 2 of 1 2

flLK3-5-E005 FR I 01:a8P M ID : PAGE: 3Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 3 o f 1 2 1.4. 2 I n th e even t Buye r exercise s the option to purchas e the Restauran t Premise s i n accordanc e wit

h Paragrap h 1.2, on th e Clostug Date , a n additiona

l Fiv e Hundre dThousandan

dNo/100 DoUais ($500,000.00 ) sha U b e deUvere

db y Buye r t o Seller , b y cashier' s check

o r immediatel

y availabl e fund

s t o the Seller' s ban

k account . 1.5 Assumptio n o

f Liabilities . Buye

r shall no t assum e or discharg e or

b e habl e fo r an y debts , UabUifies , o

r obUgations o

f SeUer , including , wit

h ou t Umitation : (a

) an y UabiUtie s o r obUgaUon

s o f SeUe r t o creditor s o

r shareholders a s suc

h or a s creditors ; (b) an y UabiUtie s or obUgations o

f SeUe r wit h respec t to transaction s occurring afte r th e Closing ; (c) an

y obUgatio n o f SeUe r wit h respec t to incom e ta x o r othe r ta x measuredo

n incom e incurredor

arism g ou t o f the sal e of the Assets ; (d

) an y contmgen

t UabiUties o

r obUgation s o f SeUer. Furthermore , prio

r to o r a t closmg , SeUe

r shall retain , or

otherwis e satisf y the foUowin

g UabiUties : (a ) Trade Payable . An

y trad e accoun t payable arising in th e Busines s tha t remains unpaida s o

f th e Closing Date . (b ) Employe e Benefits . An y UabiUt y t o Seller' s employee s fo

r accrue dbonus , vacatio n hours , sick

pa y an daccme dbenefit s unde

r an y othe r existiu g employee benefi

t plan . (c ) Warrantie s t o Customers . An

y UabiUties fo

r warrantie s give

n by SeUe r t o it s customers i n th e ordinar

y cours e o f busines s prio r

to the Closing Date . (d) Custome

r Contracts . An

y UabiUt y to SeUer' s customer s incmre dunde r an y contract describe di n Schedule 1.

4 (e) . (e) Al l loca

l an dstat e taxe s o n th e Busines s an

doperation s o

f SeUe r shal l b e pai dan dcurren t a s of closing . 1. 6 Allocatio n o

f Purchas e Price . Th e Partie s agree t o aUocat e th e Purchas e Pric e amon

g th e acquire dasset s i

n accordanc e wit

h th e aUocatio

n se t fort h i n Schedul e 1.6, The Partie s sha

U consistentiy foUo

w such aUocatio

n fo r a U ta x purpose s an

din a U filings, declaration s andreports wit h the Interna

l Revenue Service , includin g th e report s requiredto b e filedunde

r Section 106

0 of th e Interna

l Revenue Cod

e o f 1986 , as amended . I n an y proceedin g relate dto th e determinatio n o f an y tax , neithe

r Buye r no r SeUe r sha U contendo r

represen t tha t such aUocatio

n i s no t acorrec t aUocation . 1.7 Sale s an dTransfe r

Taxe s an dFees . A

U appUcabl

e sales , transfer , documentary , use , filing, an dothe r taxe s andfee s tha

t ma y b e du e or

payabl e a s aresult o f th e conveyance , assignment , transfer , o r deUver y o f th e Asset s a s provide dherei n whethe r leviedon Buyer

o r SeUe r shall b e hom e b

y Buyer . 1. 8 Closing , Th e purchas e an dsal e provide dfo

r i n thi s Agreemen

t (the "Closing" ) sha

U take plac e a

t th e office s o

f Doole y & Drake , P.A. . upo n th e approva l o f the assigiunen

t o f th e lease s fro

mThe Cit y of Venic e (which approva

l sha U b e a conditio n t o suc h closing) , an

dwithin thirt

y (30 ) day s firomth e expiratio n o f th e Du e Dihgenc e Perio dreferre dto hereinafte r i n Paragraph 2. 1 (unles s terminate dby Buyer) , or suc h othe r dat e a s th e SeUe

r an dBuye r ma y mutmdl y determine (the "Closin g Date") , Pag e 3 of 1 2 ( ^ flUG-5-e005 FR I 01:34P M ID : POfiF: ?Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 4 o f 1 2

1. 9 Closin g ObUgations . In additio n t o any othe r document s t o b e deUvere d unde r other provision s o f

thi s Agreement , a

t Closing : (a) SeUe

r sha U delive r t o Buyer : (i ) abi

U o f sal e for a U o f th e Asset s that

ar e tangibl e personal propert y (th e "BU

I o f Sale " execute db y Seller) ; (ii ) a n assignmen t

o f a U o f th e asset s that

ar e intangibl e persona l property ; (iii ) assignment s o f

a U iatellectua l propert y assets , i f any ; (iv ) Suc hothe r

deeds , biU s o f

sales , assignments , certificat e o f title, document s an dothe r

instrument s o f

transfe r an dconveyanc e a s may reasonabl y b e requestedb y Buyer , eac hi n for man d substanc e satisfactory t o Buye r an dit s lega l counse l an d execute db y SeUer ; (v ) Assignmen t

o f th e leas e agreemen t

withth e Cit y o f

Venic e fo r ± e premise s at

40 0 Airport

Avenu e an d22 0 Venic e Aycnue , Venice , Florid a34285 , execute db y SeUer ; and , (vi ) A certificat e execute db y SeUe r a s t o th e accurac y o f

th e representation s an dwarrantie s a s o f di e dat e o f

thi s Agreemen t an da s o f th e Closin g i n accordanc e withParagrap h8. 1 an da s t o it s complianc e wit

han dperformanc e o f

thei r covenant s an d obUgation s t o b e performe do r compUe dwithat

o r befor e Closin g i n accordanc e withSectio n 5 . (b ) Buye r

sha U deUver t o Seller : (i ) Th e remainin g balanc e o f th e Purchas e Pric e i n th e su mo f Tw o MiUion , Si x Hundre dNinety Fiv e Thousan dan dNo/O O Dollar s ($2,695,000.00 ) b y cashier' s chec k o r immediatel y avaUabl e funds ; an d (ii ) I n th e even t

Buye r shal l hav e exercise dth e optio n t o purchas e th e Restauran t

Premise s i n accordanc e withParagrap h1.2 , Fiv e Hundre dThousan dan dNo/10 0 DoUar s ($500,000.00 ) b y cashier' s chec k

o r immediatel y avaUabl e funds . 1.1 0 Prorations . Tangibl e persona l propert y taxe s o n th e equipmen t include d i n th e Asset s sha

U b e prorate dbetwee n SeUe r an dBuye r

a s o f th e Closin g Date . Sectio n 2 . Inspection s 2, 1 Du e Diligence . Ther e sha U b e aDu e DiUgcnc e Perio dbeginnin g o n di e executio n dat e o f

thi s Agreemen t

an dendin g o n th e dat e tha t i s sixt y (60 ) day s thereafter . Durin g th e Du e Dihgenc e Period, Selle r sha U provid e Buye r

witha U reasonabl e acces s t o th e book s an drecord s o f th e busines s (define da s Operatin g Statements , leases , servic e contracts , tifle insuranc e poUcie s and/o r surveys) , an dan y an d Pag e 4 o f 1 2 fflJ(3-5-E005 FR I 01:34P M ID : PflGF: 3 

# (2 ^Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 5 o f 1 2

a U documentatio

n relatedthereto , a s we

U as physica

l acces s t o the premise s durin

g ordinar y busines s hours . 2. 2 AS-IS . EXCEP

T FO RTH E WARRANTIE

S SE T FORT H D ^ THIS AGREEMEN

T TH E DvlPROVEMBNT

S AN D PERSONA

LPROPERT

Y AR E BEIN G SOL D AN D PURCHASE

D J N THEI REXISTING"AS-IS " CONDITION , WIT H AL L DEFECTS AN

D FAULT S AN D WITHOU

T AN Y WARRANTY . EXPRES S O R IMPLIED , A

S T O MERCHANTABILITY , HTNES S ORUSE FO RA PARTICULA

R PURCHASE . O

RWORKMANSHff

. Section 3 . Representation s an dWarrantie s o f Seller . Selle r hereby represent s an

dwarrant s t

o Buye r a s foUows : 3. 1 Organizatio n an dGoo dStanding . Tripl e Diamon dEnterprises , LLC , i s duly organized , vaUdl

y existin g an

di n goo dstanding unde

r the law s of

the Stat e o f Rorid aan dha s al l requisit

e powe r an dauthorit y t o carr y o n it s busines s as it

i s presently conducted . Tripl e Diamon

dEnterprises , LLC , ha s no subsidiarie s and , further, ha s n o direct or indirect interest , eithe

r b y wa y o f stoc k ownershi p o r otherwise , i

n an y othe r form, corporation , association , o r business . 3.2 . Authority . Tripl e DiamondEnterprises , LLC , ha s all requisit e powe r an d authorit y unde r appUcabl e corporat e la w to execut

e an ddelive r thi s Agreemen

t an dto perfor mthe transaction s contemplatedhereby . The execution anddeUver y o f thi s Agreemen t an dthe consummation of

th e transaction s contemplatedhereb y hav e been dul y authorizedby Paul E . Hostetler , managing membe r or Tripl e DiamondEnterprises , LLC , an dno other approva l i s necessar

y fo r the execution , deUver

y andperformanc e of thi s Agreement . Thi s Agreemen t constitute s alegal , vaU

dan dbinding obUgatio

n of SeUer , enforceable agains t

SeUe r i n accordanc e wit

h it s terms . 3. 3 Managin g Member . Paul E , Hostetier , i s the managing membe r o f Tripl e Diamon

dEnterprises , LLC , 3. 4 N o Conflicts , The executio n an ddeUver y of thi s Agreemen

t b y SeUe r an dth e consummation of

the transaction s contemplatedhereb y do not an dwU l not : (a ) requir e SeUe r to file an y notic e wit

h o r obtain an y consent , approval , authorizatio n or exemptio n firoman

y governmenta

l agenc y or

private person , (b ) violate an y appUcable lega l requhemen

t or order , o r (c ) constitot

e adefaul t o r breach unde

r any contrac t

t o whichSeUe

r i s apart y o r by which SeUe

r o r an y of the purchase dasset s ar

e bound . 3. 5 Titl e t o th e Assets . SeUe r ha s goodan

dmarketabl e tide t o the Asset s and th e Businesse s bem

g sol dt o Buye r pursuant to thi s Agreemen

t an da U of th e Asset s an

d the Businesse s wU

l b e fi«e an

dclea r o f a U Uen s an dencumbrances , excep t

fo r tangibl e persona l propert y taxe s fo r 2005 , a t closing . The furniture , fixhares, an dequipmen

t arc i n goo dconditio n andrepair

except fo r reasonable wea

r an dtear . 3. 6 Complianc e with La w an dOthe r Instruments . Th e Seller

i s no t i n violatio n of

an y ter mo r provisio n of

an y charter , bylaw , mortgage , indenture , contract , agreement , instmment , judgment , decree , order , statote , rul e or regulation, an dth e Pag e 5 of 1 2

ftUG-5-a005 FR I 01:35P M ID : PAGE: 4Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 6 o f 1 2

execution an

ddeUver y o f an y performance an

dcompUanc

e wit h thi s Agreemen

t wU l not resul t mthe violatio n of

, o r be i n conflict with , or constimt e adefaul t under , an y suc h ter mo r provision o

r resul t i n th e creation of

an y mortgage , lien , encumbrance , o r charge upo n an y o f di e propertie s o

r assets o f an y SeUe r pursuan t t o an y suc h ter mo r provision 3. 7 Taxes . SeUe

r ha s properl

y complete dan

dfUed , witiiin th e time an

dmthe manne r prescribe db y law , a

U loca l an dstate requiredta

x return s an

dothe r documents requiredt o b e fUe di n respect t o th e Businesses , an

da U suc h returns an

dothe r documents ar e tme , correc t

an dcomplet e i n a U materia l respects . Selle

r has , within the time an

di n the manne r prescribe db y law , paida

U taxe s tha

t ar e du e an dpayable . I

f required , SeUe

r ha s establishe dreserve s o

n it s book s tha t are adequat

e fo r the paymen

t o f al l taxe s no

t ye t due an dpayabl e o

r tha t ar e bein g contestedi n goo dfaith . Ther e ar e n o encumbrance s o

r Uen s o n an y of the Assets tha

t aros e o n connectio n wit

h an y faUur e (or aUege dfaUure ) t o pa y an y tax . an dSeUe r ha s no knowledge of

an y basi s fo r assertion of

an y claim s attributable to taxe s which , i f adversel y determined , woul

dresxUt i u an y suc h encumbrance o r

Uens . 3. 8 Insurance . SeUe

r maintain s such poUcic s o

f insuranc e covering th e Assets , including coverag e fo r persona l UabUit y an dothe r coverag e a s SeUe

r beUeves ar

e adequat e fo r th e conduct

o f the Businesse s i n accordanc e wit h th e Businesse s pas t practice . Suc

h insuranc e i s sufficien

t to comply wit

h a U appUcabl

e lega l requirement s an

d all agreements to which Selle r i s aparty . A

U such poUcies ar

e i n fu U force an deffec t an d the premium s hav e bee

n pai dwhe

n due . There ar

e n o claims , actions , suit s o r proceeding s arisin g ou

t o f or basedupo n an y o f such poUcies o

f insuranc e and , t

o the knowledge o

f SeUer, no reasonable basi s fo r an y such claim , action , suit

or proceeding exists . SeUe

r i s not i n defaul t wit h respect t o any provision s containedin an y such insuranc e poUcie s and , to th e knowledge of SeUe r ha s no t faUe dto give an

y notic e or presen t an y materia l claimunde

r an y such insuranc e poUc

y in due an

dtimely fashion . 3. 9 Representation s Tru e an dCorrect . N o representation or

warrant y mad e b y SeUe r in thi s Agreemen

t (including an

y Schedul e o

r Exhibit hereto) , o r i n an y docimien t deUvere din accordanc e wit

h thi s Agreement , contain s o r wi U contain an

y unCru e statemen t of amateria l fac t or omit s o r wi U omi t to stat e an y materia l fac t (o f whic han y SeUe r ha s knowledg e o r

notice ) necessar

y to mak e th e statement s contained herein or therei n not

misleaduig . Sectio n 4 . Representation s an dWarrantie s o f Buyer . Buye r represents an

dwarrants to SeUe

r that :

. 4. 1 Organization , Goo dStanding , Buyer' s permitte dassignee i s a l^-i''Cl ' T^^^

y organized , vaUdl

y existing an

di n goo dstandin g unde

r the law s of

the State o

f /^.,^rU-/ ^ . whic h ha s all requisit e powe r an dauthorit y to own , leas e andoperat

e it s propertie s an

dasset s an

dto conduct

the businesse s a s currentiy conducted . 4. 2 Authority . Buye

r ha s a U requisite powe

r an dauthorit y imde r appUcabl e corporat e la w t o execut

e an ddeUve r thi s Agreemen

t an dt o perfor mth e transaction s contemplatedhereby . Th e execution an ddeUver y o f thi s Agreemen

t andth e Pag e 6 o f 1 2

flUG-5-2005 FR I 01:36P M ID :Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 7 o f 1 2

consummatio

n o f th e transaction s contemplatedhereb y hav e bee n dul y authorizedb

y a U requisite membershi

p action o n th e par t o f Buyer , an dno othe r approva l o n the par t o f Buye r i s necessar

y unde r applicable la

w fo r th e execution , deUver

y an dperformance o

f thi s Agreement . Thi s Agreemen t constitute s alegal , validan dbinding obUgatio

n o f Buyer , enforceable agams t

Buye r in accordanc e wit

h it s terms . 4. 3 N o ConfUcts . Th

e execution an

ddeUver y o f thi s Agreemen

t b y Buye r an d the consummatio

n of th e transaction s contemplatedhereby d o not an dwU l not : (a ) requir e Buye r t o file an y notic e wit

h o r obtain an y consent , approval , authorization or exemptio n fro man y person , (b) violat

e an y cour t order , judgment , law , rul e o r regulation o r (c ) constitut

e adefaul t o r breac h unde r an y contrac t to whic h Buye r i s apart y o r by whic h it o r an y o f it s propertie s ar

e bound . 4. 4 Representation s Tru e an dCorrect , N o representatio n or

warrant y mad e b y Buye r i n thi s Agreemen

t (iucluding an

y Schedule o

r Exhibit hereto) , o r i n an y documen t deUvere di n accordanc e wit

h thi s Agreement , contain s o r wi U contain an

y untru e statemen

t o f amateria l fac t o r omit s or wU l omi t t o stat e an y materia l fac t (o f whic h an y Buye r ha s knowledg e o

r notice ) necessar

y t o mak e the statement s contained herein o r therein not

misleading . Sectio n 5 . Covenant s o

f SeUe r Prio r t o Closing. . 5. 1 Conduc t

of th e Business , Excep

t a s otherwis e contemplatedb y thi s Agreemen t pending th e Closmg ; (a ) SeUe r wi U conduct an dcarr y o n di e Busines s mthe ordinar y an dregular cours e consisten

t wit h pas t practic e except

tiiat SeUe r sha U b e permitte dto us e SeUer' s bes t effort s to coUec t a U accounts receivable s arising prior t o th e Closing . (b ) Selle

r wi U us e it s reasonable efforts to preserv e th e Asset s (excep t a s providedi n Paragraph 5.1(a

) above an di t being understoo dtha

t SeUe r wi U bea r the risk o f any loss , damag e o r

destruction o

f the Assets unti l th e Closing) , th e Busines s an d SeUer' s relationship s wit

h employees , customers , suppUers an dother s haviag busines s relationship s wit

h th e Business . (c ) SeUe

r wi U no t seU , lease , mortgage , pledg e o r otherwis e dispos e o

f an y materia l amoun t of th e Asset s (othe

r tha n the ExcludedAssets ) use din connection wit h the Business , excep t

th e item s disposedo

f ar e replacedwit

h simila r item s o r ar c no longe r neededfo r th e operation o f

th e Business . (d ) SeUe r wi U no t ente r into , or becom e obUgate dunder , an

y contract or indebtednes s wit

h respect to th e Business , except

in th e ordinar

y cours e o f busines s o

r a s contemplatedb y thi s Agreement . (e ) SeUe

r wi U no t change , amend , terminat

e o r otherwis e modif

y an y contrac t include din th e Assets . (f ) SeUe

r wi U us e a U reasonabl e efforts to maintain i n fu U force an deffec t poUcie s o f insuranc e o

f th e sam e type , characte

r andcoverag e a s th e poUcie s o f msuranc e Pag e 7 of 1 2

ftU6-5-2005 FR I 01:37P M ID : PAGE: 6Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 8 o f 1 2

witi i respect to th e Busines s i n effec

t on the dat e of tiiis Agreemen

t an dwi U give Buye

r prompt writte n notic e o f an y an da U change s tha

t ma y occu r betwee n th e dat e hereof an d the Closing wit

h respect to th e insuranc e coverage s thereunder , providedtha t SeUe r wU l no t b e obUgate

dt o maintai n an y msuranc e wit

h respect to th e PurchasedPropertie s or tiie Busines s afte

r the Closiag . 5. 2 SeUer' s Bes t

Efforts . SeUe

r sha U us e it s bes t

effort s t o caus e al l o f the condition s t

o SeUer' s obUgatio

n to consummat

e th e Closing t o be satisfied , an di n an y cas e wi U no t intentionaU

y tak e an y action , or

intentionaU

y bring abou

t an y circumstance , whic h woul dpreven t suc h aconditio n fro

mbein g satisfied . Sectio n 6 . Covenant s o

f Buye r Prio r t o Closm g 6. 1 Completio n of

Du e Dihgence . Buye r shall hav e timely completed it s du e diUgenc

e o f th e Business , providedtha

t SeUe r sha U have compUe

dwit h the term s o f th e Due DUigence Period . Thereafter , i f Buye r ha s not tenmnate dth e agreement , i t acknowledge s tha

t i t wU l hav e ha dfu U acces s to a

U relevan t information wit

h respec t to the finances an

doperation s o

f the Busines s an

dha s ha da n opportunit

y t o consult wit h suc hexperts a s it

deemedappropriat

e unde r the circumstances . Buye

r furthe r acknowledge s that , basedupon it s du e dUigence , i t i s i n aposition to mak

e apruden t judgmen t concerning the purchas e of the Asset s an

dtha t SeUe r make s no representations, warrantie s o

r guaranties , expressedor

impUed, wit

h respect to the continuedsucces s of the Businesses . 6. 2 ConfidentiaUty . All dataandinformation receivedby Buye r pursuan t t o Section 4 , a

s we U a s a U information an

ddataheretofor

e furnishedto Buye

r i aconnectio n wit h thi s transaction , wU

l b e heldi n confidenc e by Buyer , andBuye r will not directiy or indirdstiy (a

) reveal , report , pubUsh , disclos e or transfe r an y of the confidentia

l infor r lation obtainedfro

mSeUer , including without

limitatio n the name s an

daddresse s of Se ] ler' s customers , t o other s (other tha n counsel , accountant s an

dother representative s o f Buye r engagedin connection wit

h thi s transaction , wh

o wU l b e subjec t to tiie provision s o

f thi s Paragraph 6. 2 or

(b ) us e suc h information fo r an y purpos e (includin g withou t limitatio n t

o soUci t an y customer s o

f SeUer ) othe r tha n i n connectio n wit

h thi s transaction , excep t

wit h written permissio n of

SeUer. 6 J Buyer' s Bes t

Efforts . Buye

r sha U us e it s bes t

efforts to caus e a

U o f th e condition s to Buyer' s obUgatio n to consummat

e th e Closing t o b e satisfied , an dmany cas e sha U no t intentionaU

y take any action , o

r intentionaU

y brin g abou

t an y circumstance , which wouldprevent

such aconditio n frombeing satisfied . Section? . Terminatio n 7. 1 At an y time durm

g th e Du e DiUgence Period , Buye r ma y giv e written notic e o f terminatio n o

f thi s agreemen

t a s provide di n Paragraph 9.4(a) , fo r an y or n o reason , an dth e escro w agen

t designate dherein sha

U prompU y refundt o Buye

r the Earnes t mone y deposit in accordanc e wit

h Paragraph 1.4.1(a) . 7. 2 Except

a s otherwis e agree di n writing b y th e parties , if any conditio n t o die Qosin g set

fort h i n Section 8 i s not

satisfiedb y the Closing Date , then a t an y tim e Pag e 8 of 1 2

flLJG-5-2005 FR I 01:38P M ID : PAGE : 7Cas e 8;09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 9 o f 1 2 thereafte r SeUe r ma y terminat e thi s Agreemen

t b y giving writte

n notic e of termination t

o di e othe r party , providedsuc

hterminating part

y i s not i n materia l defaul t imde r thi s Agreement . TTi

e foregoin g right of termination wi

U b e i n additio n to , an

dno t in Ue u of , an y othe r rights an dremedies avaUabl

e unde r thi s Agreemen

t or unde r appUcabl e la w wit h respect t o an y breach by the non-terminating party . I n th e even t termination o

f thi s Agreemen t by Selle r i s atuibuiable t

o Buyer' s failur

e to perfor mit s obUgation s Selle

r sha U be entitie dto kee

p th e eanies t mone y deposit heldi n escrow pursuan

t to the Escro

w Agreement . Except

as otherwis e providedi n thi s paragraph , termination o f thi s Agreemen t wi U terminat

e a U o f th e parties ' rights an

dobligation s hereunder , othe r tha n th e provision s of

Paragraph s 6. 2 an

d9.1 , whic

h wi U remain in efiect . Sectio n 8 . Condition s t o Closing . 8. 1 Condition s Preceden t t o Buyer' s Obligatio n t o Close . Buyer' s obUgatio n t o purchas e th e Asset s an

dt o tak e th e othe r action s requiredt o b e take

n b y Buye r a t th e Closin g i s subject

t o th e satisfactio

n a t o r befor e th e Closing , o

f each o f th e followin

g condition s (an

y o f whic h ma y b e waivedb y Buye

r i n whole o r

i n part : (a ) Representation s an

dWarranties . The representations an dwarrantie s o

f SeUe r containedin Section 3 sha

U hav e been tru e in all materia l respect s a s o

f the dat e o f tiiis Agreemen

t an dsha U b e tm e in a U materia l respects a s o

f th e Closing a s though mad e as o f th e Closing . (b ) Performance . SeUe

r sha U hav e performedan

dcompUe di n a U materia l respects wit

ha U covenants requiredb y thi s Agreemen t t o b e performedor

compliedwit

h b y SeUe r or th e Owne r a t o r befor e th e Closuig . 8. 2 Condition s Preceden t t o SeUer' s Obligatio n t o Close . SeUer' s obUgatio n t o se U th e Asset s an

dt o tak e the othe r action s requiredt

o b e take n b y SeUe r a t th e Closing i s subject

t o th e satisfactio

n a t o r befor e th e Closing , o

f each o f th e foUowin

g condition s (any o

f whic h ma y b e waivedby Buye

r i n whole or

mpart) : (a ) Representation s an

dWarranties . The representations an dwarrantie s o f Buye r containe di n Section 4 shall hav e been tru e in a U materia l respects a s o

f th e dat e o f thi s Agreemen

t an dshall be tm

e i n al l materia l respect s a s o

f the Closing a s though made a s o f th e Qosing . (b ) Performance . Buye

r sha U hav e performedan

dcompUe din a U materia l respect s wit

hall covenant s requiredt o b e performedor compUe dwit h b y i t o n o r prior to th e Closing . Sectio n 9 . Obligation s Afte r th e Closuig . Excep t a s otherwis e provide di

n th e Agreement , Ui

e Partie s agree t o di e following additiona l covenant s which sha

U surviv e th e Qosin g 9. 1 Surviva l o

f Representation s an dWarranties , The representation s and warrantie s mad e b y th e partie s i n thi s Agreemen t o r an y certificat e deUvere dpursuan t t o thi s Agreemen

t wU l surviv e the Closing .

Pag e 9 of 1 2 ftUG-5-8005 FR I 01:38P M ID : PAGE: 8Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 1 0 o f 1 2

Sectio n 10 . IVGsceUaneous . 10. 1 Partie s Bound . Buye r ma y no t assign tiiis Agreemen

t witiiou t the prior writte n consen t of th e SeUer , an dany such prohibitedassignmen t sha U b e void ; provided , however , tha

t Buye r may , withou

t th e prio r writte n consen t of Seller , assig

n thi s Agreemen

t a t o r befor e die Qosm g t o an

y entit y whoU y owne db y Arthu

r Nadel , providedhowever , an

y assignmen

t o f th ? Agreemen

t sha U not reUev e Buye r o f Buyer' s UabiUt y hereunder . Subject

to th e foregoing , thi s Agreemen t sha U b e bindin g upon an

d intur e t o the benefit

of th e respective lega

l representatives , successors , permitte dassigns , hens , an ddevisee s o

f th e parties . < 10. 2 Cost s an dExpenses . Whethe r or not the transaction s contemplate dby thi s Agreemen t ar e consummated . Buye

r wU l pa y it s ow n expenses , an

dSeUe r wi U pa y it s ow n expenses , i n connectio n wit h the negotiation , execution , deUver y an dperformanc e o

f thi s Agreement, includin g withou t limitation the expense s o

f it s counsel , accountant s an d othe r experts . 10 3 Othe r

Agreement s Superseded ; Waiver an dModification , Etc . Thi s Agreemen t supersede s all prior

agreement s or

understandings , writte

n o r oral , amon

g an y o f th e partie s relatin g t o th e subject matte r hereof , andtogethe

r widi th e agreement s contemplatedhereb y incorporate s th e entir e understanding o

f the partie s wit

h respect t o suc h subjec t matter . Thi s Agreemen

t ma y b e amended , supplementedor waivedonl

y b y a writte n instrumen

t signedb y the parties . 10. 4 Recovery of

Litigatio n Costs . I

f an y lega l action or any arbitratio n o

r othe r proceeding i s brough

t fo r th e enforcemen

t o f thi s Agreement , o r

becaus e o f a n aUege ddispute , breach , defaul

t or misrepresentation i n connection wit h an y provisio n o

f thi s Agreement , th e successfiil or prevailin g part

y shall b e entitie dt o recover reasonabl e attorneys ' fee s andother

cost s incurredin tha

t action o r proceeding , i n additio n to an y othe r relief to whic h i t

ma y b e entitled . 1 0 J Notices . An

y notic e unde

r o r relating t o thi s Agreemen

t sha U b e give n in writing an dsha U b e deemedsufficienti

y give n an dservedfo r a U purpose s whe

n personaU y deUvere d2 busines s day s afte

r awriting i s depositedi

n th e Unite dState s maU

, certified , firs t

clas s postag e or

other charge s prepai dan

dregistered, addresse da s foUows ; (a) If to Buye r Arthu r Nadel 161 8 Ma mStreet Sarasota , F

L 3423 6 (b ) I f t o Seller : Jame s G . Beach , Jr . Pos t Office Box 196

7 Nokomis , Florid a3427 4 Pag e 1 0 of

1 2

ALJG-5-200 5 FR I 01:39P M ID : PAGE: 9Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 1 1 o f 1 2 10. 6 Governin g Law an dVenue . Thi s Agreemen t sha U b e construedi n accordance wit

h an dgovernedb y th e law s o

f the Stat e o f Horida . Venue fo

r an y action undertake n t o enforce th e terms an

dcondition s o

f thi s Agreemen

t or an y disput e arising ou t o f the consummation o

f thi s Agreemen

t sha U be brough

t solely in th e Circuit

o r Count y Courts i n an dfo r Sarasot aCounty , Florida 10. 7 Partie s i n Interest . Nothing i n thi s Agreement , expres s or impUed, i s intende dt o confe r an y right s or remedie s unde

r o r b y reason o f thi s Agreemen

t o n an y perso n othe r tha n the partie s to i t

an dthe h respective permittedsuccessor s an dassigns , no r i s anything i n thi s Agreemen t intendedto reUev

e o r discharg e an

y obUgatio n o f an y thir dperso n t o an y part y heret o or giv e an y thir dPerso n an y right o f subrogatio n o

r actio n ove r agains t an y part y hereto . 10. 8 Fai r

Construction . Thi s Agreemen t has been negotiate dandprepared jointi y b y a U parties , an

dsha U not b e construedfo

r o r agains t any part y but shal l be give

n afai r an dreasonable constmctio n in accordanc e wit h the intentio n o

f th e parties . 10. 9 Captions , References , Date . The section heading s i n thi s Agreemen

t ar e providedfo

r convenien

t referenc e only an

dar e not t o b e consideredin the interpretation o f thi s Agreement . A

U reference s herein t

o Sections , Schedules , etc . refer t o th e designatedSection , Schedule , etc . o f thi s Agreement . 10.1 0 SeverabiUty , I

n th e even t tha t an y o f th e provision s containedi n thi s Agreemen t shaU, fo r an y reason , b e declaredo

r heldt o b e unreasonable , imlawful , tmenforceabl

e or otherwis e invaU

din an y respect, suc

h ter mor provisio n sha

U b e deeme

d modifie dto th e exten t necessar y to mak e it enforceable , andi

n n o even t sha U suc h declaration o

r holding affec

t th e vaUdit

y o f an y othe r provisio n of

thi s Agreement , a

U o f whic hprovision s sha

U continue i n effec

t in accordanc e wit

h their terms , 10.1 1 Counterparts . Thi s Agreemen t ma y b e execute dman

y numbe r of counterpart s o

r usin g separat

e signatur e pages . Bac

h suc h executedcounterpar t andeac h counterpar t to whic h such signatur

e page s ar e attachedwi

U b e deemedt

o b e a n origina l instrument , an

da U such counterpart s togethe r wU l constitut e on e an dthe sam e instrument . 10.1 2 Gender . A

U persona l pronoun s use

din thi s Agreemen

t sha U include the othe r genders whethe

r usedin th e masculine o

r feminin e o r neuter gender , andth e singula r sha U include th e plura

l wheneve r an da s ofte n a s ma y b e appropriate . THIS SPACE USfTENTIONALL Y LEF T BLANK

Pag e 1 1 of

1 2

PlUG-5-200 5 FR I 01:40P M ID : PAGE : 1 0Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 4 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 1 2 o f 1 2

10.1 3 Exhibits . An

y exhibit s o r

schedule s attachedt

o thi s Agreemen

t ar e specificall y incorporatedherei

n b y referenc e as i

f the sam e wer e full y set fort h herein . I N WITNES S WHEREOF , th e partie s hav e executedo

r cause dtiiese presents to be execute dthi s Q ^ da

y of QytyiA-^fi

^ y^2Q05 . SELLE R BUYE R

^ TRIPL E DIAMO : By : PAULHOS ' As : Managin

g M ( 

# A^/ ^ U^AL^UUIJ^ ^ :RPRISES . LL C ARTHU RNADE L

Pag e 1 2 of 1 2

flUG-5-2005 FR I 01:41P M ID : PAGE:1 1Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TBTs 4 Documen t 16- 5 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 1 o f 6 . 

# iKo% ooooouio y

(Requestor' s Name) (Address ) (Address ) (City/State/Zipff'hon e # ) (~ 1 PICK-U P Q WAI T Q MAI L

(Busines s Entit

yName) (Documen t Number

) Certifie d Copies . Certificate s o f Statu s Specia l Instruction s t o Filin g Officer : 

# f^ ' LUN T EXAMINE R

Offic e Us e Onl y 

# 20011955919 2

•vN' a 't^\ ^

• O C O C/>3 3 I r-O i S^- * C O 5 > CJ l 

# o

EXHIBI T DExhibi t C Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 3 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 2 o f 7 p,P^~iB-200 6 14'B 2 . NORTO NHflWERSLE Y^' ^ 

### _H060001035_41 3 _. ^ . ARTICI.B S O F ORGANISATIO N

O F VENIC E iXBl

T CENTER , LL C Th e undersigne dperson / actin g a s t:h e organize r o f VENIC E JE ^ CENTER , LLC , vuide r th e Floridi aIiimita dLiabilit y Compan y Act , Chapte r 608 , Florid aStatutes / adopt s th e iollowitv g Artiole s o f OrgaA/lzatlon : ><.- . <= > Th e nam e o f

thi s limite dliabilit y compan y is ; y'. r a o | — V6NIC B JE T CENTER

r LL C -r- - = c ' ' '=^~.i t o iUlTICL E H - CCaffldEHCEMRK T M P PgRATIO H QFEXISTEHG&^r i — Th e existenc e o f

th e cpaipan y wil l commenc e o n th « daiz e thas e Article s o f

Organizatio n ar e file dwit hth « Florid aDepartmen t o f Stftte , An dth. 0 existenc e o f th e c^ozopatiy shal l b « perpetual * ARTICL E II I " pgaPQS E Tb » compan y ma y transac t an y o r

al l lawfu l businta s fo r whic h alittiltc dliabilit y compan y ma y b e organize dunda r th e Florid a Limite dLiabilit y Compan y Act .

ARTICLE I V - INITIA LKEOISrERE D AgSN T JUT O OFFIC E Th e fitraat

addres s o f

th e initia l registere doffic 6 o f th e Gojopxti y i e 161 8 Mai n Street / Sarasota , FL 34236 , wa dth e nam e o f t h e company' s initia l registere dagen t a t tha t addres s i s ARTHUS . t9AD£I/ . i 

### H06000103541 3Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 3 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 3 o f 7 t-10-200 S 14:0 3 P P S ftPR'-10-200S 14:0 3 . NORTO NHfiM^ERSLE

Y "^' ^

ARTICL E V

- PLAC E O F BUSINES S Th e tnailin

g addres s and th e stree t addres s o f th e principa l offic e o f th e compan yi s 161 8 Mai n Street / Sarasota , F L 34236 .

flRTICLS V I - ADKISSIO NO F ADDITIONA L MEMBER S Th e righ t o f th e member s t o adai t additiona l member s an d tii e term s an d condition s o f th e admission s shal l b e restricte d solel y t o thos e nieiaber

s approve d b yth e writte n consen t o f a majorit yi n interes t o f th e then-existin g taewber s an d upo n suc h term s an d condition s a s shal l b e set : fort h i n it s regulations .

ARTICL E VI I - MANAgEMEN ? B Y MEMBER S

• " • •ii" i • • I • • m, mwm t ^^S^^ — —-' • -.ril l Th e busines s o f th e compan yshal l b e manage d b yth e member s i n proportio n t o thei r ccntrlbution e t o th e capita l o f th e company , a s adjuste d fro mtin e t o tim e t o properl yreflec t an yadditiona l contribution s o c withdrawal s b yth e meiobers . ARTICL E VII I " REGULATION S Th e powe r t o adopt / alter ^ amende o r repea l th e regulation s o f th e compan yi s veste d exclusivel yi n th e member s o f th e company . ARTICL g I X - ORGANIZJE R Th e nam e an d stree t addres s o f th e organize r executin g thes e Article s o f organizatio n is ; AKTKO R NADE L 16i a Mai n Stree t Sarasota / T

L 3423€ '

( 41IC- 7 0««a.Mai.BOOri ] 

### H06000103541 3Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 3 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 4 o f 7 P 0 4 fiPR-i8-2085 14:0 3 NORTO N H(WERSL£Y 

### _.H06q001p354l3 ^ -

JtRTICL S X - TEPMimiTIo yO F MEMBEI^HI P INTERES T Th e coapanyshal l no t b e dissolve d upo n th e death / retiroaent / resignation , expulsion / bankruptcy , o r dissolutio n o f a membe r o r th e occurrenc e o f anyothe r even t whic h terminate s th e continue d membershi p o f a membe r i n th e company ,

ARTICL E X I - JRMEMCMEtT T O F ARTlCLB g Q

V OROAyiZATIO M An yamendmen t t o th e Article s o f Organizatio n shal l b e approve d b ya majorit yi n interes t o f th e aejjnber s an d shal l b e a s prescribe d b yth e Secretar yo f Stat e o f th e Stat e o f Florida .

DATED : Aj^f ^

t L ( g " , 2006 .

(I n accordanc e wit h Sectio n fiOS.^oeO)/ Florid a Statutes / th e e2c«kCUtio n o f thi s documen t constitute s a n affimatio n unde r th e penaltie s o f perjur ytha t th e fact s state d herei n ar e true. )

ARTH mNADEL , Membe r

( 4X(5- T eaoi*3oa.t>Qe,x }Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 3 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 5 o f 7 P.0 5

. fSPfi-l&-2i m 14:0 3 NORTO WmWERSLE Y H06000lp354l3

_.

ACCEPTAHC S O FRgGISJERE D AGSMI T

Pursuan t t o sectio n 60$.41£ , Florid a Statutes , th e follofrrin ? i s submitted ; Tha t VENIC E iJE

T CENTER , LLC , desirlng f t o organiz e a s a limite d liabilit ycompan yunde r th e law s o f th e stat e o f Florid a wit h it s initia l registere d office , a s indieuited i n it s Article s o f Organization , a t 161 B Mai n street , Sarasota , W h34236 , ha s name d ARTKU R IstADE

L a s lt d agen t t o accep t servic e o f proces s withi n th e Stat e o f Florida . Havin g bee n name d t o accep t servic e o f proces s fo r VENIC E CCEI T CENTER , LL C a t th e plac e designate d i n thi s document , th e undersigne d agree s t o ac t i n tha t capacit yan d t o compl ywit h th e provision s o f th e Florid a Limite d Liabilit yCon\pan yAct , a s amended , relativ e t o keepin g ope n th e registere d office . Th e undersigne d i s f&mlia r with , an d accept s th e obligation s of . Sectio n 608,415 / Florid a Statutes . 

### DAtTE : A^/{\L ' \% ' / 2006 .

AS5HtJK~SRCT L

XJL,:d£a\H!\A>rS\vn»0\ilB3\ 7 BU«smtnDC\VCKICZJi:'K!DnxniXC!\AftTtaLE 3 o r OBQ.Z30 O

* H06000103541 3

TOTA L P.0 5Cas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 3 File d 01/26/200 9 Pag e 6 o f 7

200 7 LIMiTE D LIABILIT Y COMPAN Y ANNUA L REPOR T FILE D Ja n 18,200 7 DOCUMENT * L0600004035 4 Secretar yo f Stat e Entit yName : VENIC E JE T CENTER , LLC Curren t Principa l Plac e o f Business : 161 8 MAI N STREE T SARASOTA , F L 3423 6 Ne wPrincipa l Plac e o f Business :

Curren t Mailin g Address : 161 8 MAI N STREE T SARASOTA , F L 3423 6 Ne wMailin g Address :

FE I Number : 20-471942 3 FE I Numbe rApplie d Fo r( ) Nam e an d Addres s o f Curren t Registere d Agent : NADEL , ARTHU R 161 8 MAI N STREE T SARASOTA , F L 3423 6 U S FE I Numbe rNo t Applicobl e ( ) Certificat e o f Statu s Desire d ( ) Nam e an d Addres s o f Ne wRegistere d Agent :

Th e abov e name d entitysubmit s thi s statemen t fo rth e purpos e of changin g it s registere d offic e o rregistere d agent , o rboth , i n th e Stat e o f Florida . SIGNATURE : Electroni cSignatur e of Registere d Agen t MANAGIN G MEMBERS/MANAGERS : Dat e AOOmONS/CHANGES : Title : Name : Address : CIty-St-Zip : ( ) Delet e Title : MGR M ( ) Chang e (X ) Additio n Name : NADEL , ARTHU R Address : 181 8 MAI N S T CIty-St-ZIp : SARASOTA , F L 3423 6 U S

I hereb ycertifytha t th e informatio n supplie d wit h thi s filin g doe s not qualifyfo rth e fo rth e exemptio n state d i n Chapte r119 , Florid a Statutes . I furthe rcertifytha t th e informatio n indicate d o n thi s repor t I s tru e an d accurat e an d tha t m yelectroni csignature shal l hav e th e sam e lega l effec t a s I f mad e unde roath ; tha t I a m a managin g membe ro rmanage ro f th e limite d liabilit ycompan y o rth e receive ro rtruste e empowere d t o execut e thi s repor t a s require d b yChapte r608 , Florid a Statutes . SIGNATURE : ARTHU R NADE L MGR M 01/18/200 7

Electroni cSignatur e o f Signin g Managin g Member , Manager , o rAuthorize d Representativ e / Dat eCas e 8:09-cv-00087-RAL-TB M Documen t 16- 3 Fjle d 01/26/200 9

200 8 LIMITE D LIABILIT Y COMPAN Y ANNUA L DOCUMENT# L0600004035 4 Entit yName : VENIC E JE T CENTER , LL C Pag e 7 o f 7 FILE D Ap r15 , 200 8 Secretar yo f Stat e Curren t Principa l Plac e o f Business : 161 8 MAI N STREE T SARASOTA , F L 3423 6 Ne wPrincipa l Plac e o f Business :

Curren t Mailin g Address : 161 8 MAI N STREE T SARASOTA , F L 3423 6 Ne wMailin g Address :

FE I Number : 20-471942 3 FE I Numbe rApplie d Fo r( ) Nam e an d Addres s o f Curren t Registere d Agent : NADEL , ARTHU R 161 8 MAI N STREE T SARASOTA , F L 3423 6 U S FE I Numbe rNo t Applicabl e ( ) Certificat e o f Statu s Desire d ( ) Nam e an d Addres s o f Ne wRegistere d Agent :

Th e abov e name d entitysubmit s thi s statemen t fo rth e purpos e o f changin g it s registere d offic e o rregistere d agent , o rboth , i n th e Stat e o f Florida . SIGNATURE : Electroni cSignatur e of Registere d Agen t MANAGIN G MEMBERS/MANAGERS : Title : MGR M ( ) Delet e Name : NADEL , ARTHU R Address : 161 6 MAI N S T City-St-Zip : SARASOTA , F L 3423 6 U S ADDITIONS/CHANGES : Title : Name : Address : City-St-2lp : Dat e ( ) Chang e ( ) Additio n

I hereb ycertifythat th e informatio n supplie d wit h thi s filin g doe s not qualif yfo rth e exemptio n state d i n Chapte r119 , Florid a Statutes . I furthe rcertifytha t th e informatio n indicate d o n thi s repor t i s tru e an d accurat e an d tha t m yelectroni csignatur e shal l hav e th e sam e lega l effec t a s i f mad e unde roath ; that I a m a managin g membe ro rmanage ro f th e limite d liabilitycompan y o rth e receive ro rtruste e empowere d t o execut e thi s report a s require d byChapte r608 , Florid a Statutes . SIGNATURE : ARTHU R NADE L MGR M 04/15/200 8

Electroni cSignatur e o f Signin g Managin g Member , Manager , o rAuthorize d Representativ e / Dat eExhibi t D

EXCERPT : VENIC E CIT Y COUNCI L MEETING : JANUAR Y 13 , 200 9 (3:59:21 ) Su e Lang : Mr . Boone , woul dyo u pleas e tel l me wh o th e principa l owner s ar e o f Venic e Je t

Center , LLC . Jef f Boone : Well , it' s alimite dliabilit y compan y an dth e amount , th e informatio n that i s containe di n th e applicatio n with th e city o f Venic e Su e Lang : I hav e aske dfo r thi s informatio n an dn o on e seem s t o b e abl e t o findi t - yo u know , peopl e hav e looke dfor thi s an dI don' t

understan dwh y thi s i s abi g secret . Jef f Boone : I' mno t

unde r oath her e today . Bu t

a s amembe r

o f th e Florid aBa

r with obligatio n t o b e hones t

an dopen , I wil l tel l yo u tha t th e onl y owiie r

tha t I a mawar e of

i s Mr . Art Nadel . Beyon dthat , I hav e n o idea . Quit e frankly , it' s non e o f my business . Th e city o f

Venic e ha s a

n obligatio n t o trea t

al l applicant s th e same , regardles s of , yo u know , not

onl y race , color , religion , creed , ethnicity , bu t als o i n acorporat e sense , there' s a n amoun t

o f informatio n tha t

i s required . We'r e playin g b y th e rules , jus t lik e everybod y else , we'r e no t askin g t o b e treate dan y differen t tha n anybod y els e an dwe'r e not , w e woul dexpec t

th e cit y woul dtrea t

u s th e sam e a s the y woul dtrea t anybod y else . Othe r discussio n here.. . (4:06:00 ) Jef f Boone : I' mgoin g t o ask, le t Mr . Dan Boon e respon dt o thi s becaus e h e was , he' s th e mos t familiar wit h th e leas e a s fa

r a s negotiatin g an dw e wan t t o mak e sur e w e giv e yo u al l th e bes t

answe r w e can . (4:06:16 ) Dan Boone : E.G . Da n Boone , I' mon e of th e attorney s for

th e Venic e Je t Cente r - le t m e bac k

u p an dsa y tha t

ther e i s n o hidde n agend aa s fa r a s wh o th e ownershi p i s o f

thi s LLC . O n fil e i n Tallahassee , anybod y ca n fin dit , it' s publi c record , i t state s an dshow s that

th e ownershi p i s Art

Nade l an dhi s wife , Pegg y Nadel . Thos e ar e th e owner s o n fil e i

n Tallahassee . It' s no t

amystery . Anybod y i n thi s roo mcoul dhav e simpl y gon e o n record , I mean , gon e o n th e compute r an dfoun dout

tha t information . There' s n o wa

y t o tr y t o ge t aroun dthat . Su e Lang : Mr . Boone , Mr . Nade l ha s com e befor e u s an dhe' s identifie dhimsel f a s eithe r th e managin g agen t

o r th e managin g partner . So , that' s wher e th e confusio n i s an d n o one' s bee n abl e t o findan y othe r informatio n beyon dthat . S o mayb e yo u ca n enlighte n m e a s to , ar e you'r e sayin g tha t beside s bein g th e managin g agen t o r partner , Mr . Art Nade l an dhi s wife , Peggy , ar e the , ar e th e owners . Da n Boone : That' s correct . Tha t i s correct .

## CIT Y O FVENIC E 40 1 W . Venic e Avenu e Venice , FL 3428 5 (941)486-262 6 Fa

x (941 ) 480-303 1 Suncom : 516-438 2 "Cit yo n th e Gulf "



### CERTIFICATIO N

I , Lor i Stelzer , MMC , Cit

y Cler k o f th e Cit y o f Venice , Florida , amunicipa l corporatio n in SarasotaCounty , Florida , d o hereby certif y a n excerp t o f averbatimtranscrip t

o f th e Venic e Cit

y Council Meetin g heldon Januar y 13 , 2009 , consistin g of

one page , attache dhereto i s atru e an d correc t copy , andwhic horigina

l i s on file in th e office o f th e Cit y Clerk' s Offic e o f

the Cit y o f Venice . WITNES S m

y han dan dth e officia

l sea l o f saidCit y thi s 27t hda y o f October , 2009 . 

# d ^ ,Cig)Cler k LoiyStelzer , MMC , (SEAL )

### Exhibi t E

LEAS E Thi s leas e i s mad e an dexecute do n th e da } o f . 2006 , b

y an dbetwee n th e CIT Y O FVENICE , aFlorid amunicipaUt)' , herei n referre dt o a s "Lessor" , andth e Venic e Je t

Center , LLC , herei n referre dt o a s "Lessee" .

WITNESSETH : THA T WHEREAS , Lesso r i s tli e ovMie

r o f certai n land s constitutin g th e Venic e Municipa l Airport , situate di n Sarasot aCount}' . Florida , andoperate s sai dAirport under certai n covenant s wit hagencie s o f th e Unite dState s o f

America ; an d W^HEREAS , th e purpos e o f thi s Leas e i s t o supercede , consolidat e an dreplac e tw o existin g airpor t

Leases ; an d WTHEREAS , on e Leas e bein g consolidate d(Huffinan A\dation , Inc. ) i s commonl y know n a s tli e "Huffina n Lease" , whic hwa s approve db y Lesso r o n Septembe r

26,1995 , an d amende do n Ma} ' 23 , 200 0 t o addacreag e an dt o increas e ren t according]} ^ an dftiriher amende don Novembe r

12 . 200 2 to ad dtie-dow n space s alon g wit hren t increase , andua s amende don Marc h11 . 200 3 t o assig n aportio n o f th e Leas e t o VA S Leasin g Company , LLC , u'it hth e Fixe dBas e Operatio n portio n o f th e Leas e assigne dt o Triple.^iainon d Enterprises , LL C alon g wit hdesignate dtie-dow n space s an dincreas e i n rent , an dwa s amende dagai n o n Augus t 26.200 3 t o ad dLInicom , remov e certai n tie-dow n space s ^^'it h ren t decreas e accordinsh' . an d

### WHEREAS , th e secon dLeas e bein g consolidate di s commonl y know n a s th e "Wass

Ai r Lease" , whic hwa s approve db y Lesso r o n Marc h23 , 1999 , an dassigne dfromHarve y B . Wasserma n d/b/ aWass-Ai r t o KR S Aviation , Inc . o n Ma y 11 , 1999 , an dassigne dfrom KR S Aviation , Inc . t o Huffma n Aviation , Inc . o n Ma y 23,2000 , an dsai dLeas e wa s assigne d fro mHuffman Aviatio n t o Tripl e Diamon dEnterprises , LL C o n Augus t 13,2002 , wit

hsai d Leas e bein g amende do n Novembe r 12,2002 , t o ad dadditiona l tie-dow n space s an dt o pay additiona l ren t

accordingly , an dfiirther amende do n Augus t

26 , 200 3 t o ad dUnico man d remov e certai n tie-dow n space s wit hth e decreas e o f rent , an damende do n Decembe r 1,200 4 t o transfe r

te n tie-dow n space s t o VA S Leasin g Company , LLC , an dt o reduc e ren t accordingly ; an d WHEREAS , th e "Huffman " Lease " terminate s o n Septembe r 30 , 2025 , unles s extended , an dth e "Was"s-Air " Leas e end s o n Marc h31 , 2029 , unles s extended ; an d WHEREAS , th e partie s desir e t o substantiall y revis e th e presen t agreement s t o reflec t th e curren t

statu s o f

th e Venic e Airpor t

Operatio n an dt o i n tur n ente r int o ane w leas e agreemen t

fo r th e mutua l benefi t

o f both parties . NOW , THEREFORE , i n consideratio n o f th e mutua l covenant s hereinafte r containe d an dth e sum s o f

mone y hereinafte r

agree dt o b e paid , th e partie s agre e a s follows :

### 1 . DESCRIPTIO N O FPREMISE S

Lessor lease s t o Lesse e andLesse e rent s fro mlessor , fo

r th e purpos e o f

conducting busines s a s aFixe dBas e Operator , andfo r n o other purpose , th e following described premise s locate di

n Venice , Florida :

Exhibi t "A " attache dhereto . A s usedi n thi s lease , th e term"premises " refer s t o th e real propert y describe dabov e an

dt o an y improvemen

t locate do n th e propert

y fromtime t o tim

e durin g th e ter

mo f thi s lease . 2 . TER M Th e initial termo f

thi s leas e shal l b e fo

r 3 0 years , commencing on , 200 6 an dendin g o

n , 2036 . A s use di n thi s lease , th e expressio n "tem i o f thi s lease " refer s t o suc hinitial ter man dt o an y renewa l o f the leas e a s outline dherein . 3 . REN T Th e tota l annual ren t

fo r th e firs t yea r o f thi s leas e shall b e $ 114,967.08 , plu s sale s ta x o f S8,O47.8 0 pe r

yea r payabl e i n equa l monthly installment s o f

$9,580.5 9 each , plu s sale s ta x o f $670.65 , i

n advance , o n th e firs t

da y o f eac hmonth . Th

e ren t shal l b e pai dto lesso r withou t notic e o r deman dan dwithout

abatement , deduction , or

setoff . A lat e charg e equa

l t o 5 % o f the rent paymen t shal l b e assesse dfo

r eac hrent paymen t pai dten or

mor e day s afte r it s du e date .

### Th e ren t

specifie dherei n shal l b e ne t t o lesso r an dal l costs , expenses , an dobligation s o f every kin drelate dt o th e lease dpropert y whic hmay aris e o r becom e du e durin g th e ter m o f thi s leas e shal l b e pai db y Lessee . Lesso r shal l b e indemnifie db y Lesse e agains t suc h costs , expense s an dobligations . Th e tota l ren t

fo r eac hsubsequen t

five year termo f thi s leas e shal l b e adjuste dbase d o n fluctuations i n th e Consume r Pric e Inde x fo r

Urba n Wag e Earner s an dClerica l Worker s a s promulgate db y th e Burea u o f Labo r Statistic s o f

th e Unite dState s Departmen t o f Labor . Th e first o f suc hadjustrhent s shal l b e mad e o n , 2011 , an dshal l b e effectiv e for

th e ensuin g five years . Eac hrenta l adjustmen t shal l b e th e resul t

obtaine db y multiplyin g th e the n existin g tota l annua l ren t b y afraction, th e numerato r o f whic hshal l b e . th e Inde x fo r

th e mont hprecedin g th e mont hi n whic hth e adjustmen t i s made , an dth e denominato r

o f whic hshal l b e th e Inde x fo r th e monthfive year s precedin g th e mont hfrom whic hth e Inde x use di n th e nmnerato r wa s chosen . I t i s th e parties ' inten t

tha t th e tota l ren t

shal l b e increase db y th e sam e percentag e amoun t a s th e percentag e increas e i n th e Inde x durin g th e five year s precedin g th e adjustment . I n n o even t shal l th e tota l annua l ren t eve r b e decreased . Shoul dth e Burea u o f

Labo r Statistic s chang e th e manne r o f computin g th e subjec t Index , th e Burea u shal l b e requeste dt o fiimis haconversio n facto r designe dt o adjus t

th e ne w Inde x t o th e on e previousl y i n use , an dadjustmen t t o th e ne w Inde x shal l b e mad e o n th e basi s o f suc hconversio n factor . Shoul dpublicatio n o f th e subjec t

Inde x b e discontinue dby

### th e Burea u o f

Labo r Statistics , the n whicheve r Inde x publishe db y th e Unite dState s Governmen t

mos t nearl y approximatin g th e discontinue dinde x shal l b e use din makin g th e adjustment s provide dfo r herein . 4 . CONSTRUCTIO N O FIMPROVEMENT S Withi n th e first

yea r o f th e termo f

thi s lease , th e Lesse e shal l commenc e t o chang e th e outsid e o f

th e presen t

FB O buildin g a t

20 0 Eas t Airpor t Avenu e fromit s existin g metal surfac e t o aNorther n Italia n them e design . Th e work t o b e don e shal l b e at

th e sol e expens e o f Lessee , includin g design , permittin g an dconstructio n work , an dth e plan s an d specification s fo r

thes e improvement s shal l b e submitte dt o th e Lesso r fo r Lessor' s approval an dpermitting , an dconstructio n shal l no t commenc e unti l th e Lesse e obtain s writte n approva l o f

th e plan s an dspecification s fro mth e Lessor . An y extensio n o f tim e shal l b e grante dfo r

goo dcaus e only . Withi n th e first

1 8 month s o f

th e ter mo f

thi s leas e th e Lesso r

shal l commenc e th e tear dow n o f th e tw o ol dhangar s a t

th e eas t en do f th e airpor t

ram p an dreplac e the mwit hane w hanga r o f Norther n Italia n desig n v^'her e see n fromAirpor t

Avenue . Th e Lesse e shal l bea r th e sol e expens e o f

tea r down , removal , an dthen designing , permittin g an dconstructin g th e ne w hanga r

building . Th e plan s an dspecification s fo r thi s improvemen t

shal l b e submitte d t o th e Lesso r

fo r Lessor' s approval , an dpermittin g an dconstructio n shal l no t commenc e unti l th e Lesse e obtain s writte n approva l o f th e plan s an dspecification s fromth e Lessor . An} ' extensio n o f

tim e shal l b e grante dfor goo dcaus e only .

### Lesse e i s grante dpermissio n t o erec t on e o r mor e ne w hanga r

building s o n it s leased propert y t o tli e eas t

o f th e presen t

two-stor y buildin g at

40 0 Eas t Airpor t Avenue . Lesse e shal l bea r

th e sol e expens e o f

design , permittin g an dconstructin g th e hanga r building(s) . Th e plan s an dspecification s for thes e improvement s shal l b e submitte dt o th e Lesso r fo r approval , an dconstructio n shal l no t commenc e unti l th e Lesse e obtain s writte n approval o f th e plan s an dspecification s fromth e Lessor . Sai dhanga r building(s ) shal l b e designe di n th e Norther n Italia n them e wher e see n fromAirpor t Avenue . 5 . WARRANTIE S O FTITL E AN D QUIE T POSSESSIO N Lesso r covenant s tha t

Lesso r i s seize do f

th e lease dpremise s i n fe e simpl e an dha s fiill right t o mak e thi s leas e an dtha t Lesse e shal l hav e quie t an dpeaceabl e possessio n o f th e lease dpremise s durin g th e ter mo f thi s lease . 6 . DELIVER Y O FPOSSESSIO N I f fo r an y reaso n whatsoeve r

Lesso r canno t delive r possessio n o f

th e lease dpremise s t o Lesse e at

th e commencemen t

o f th e leas e term , a s specifie dabove , thi s leas e shal l no t b e voi do r voidable , no r

shal l Lesso r

b e liabl e t o Lesse e for

any los s o r

damag e resultin g fro

m th e inabilit y t o delive r

possession ; i n tha t

even t ther e shal l b e aproportionat e reductio n o f ren t coverin g th e perio dbetwee n th e commencemen t o f th e leas e ter man dth e tim e when Lesso r ca n delive r

possession .

### 7 . USE S PROHIBITE D

Lesse e shal l no t

us e o r permi t th e lease dpremises , o r

an y par t o f them , t o b e use

dfor an y purpos e othe r

tha n th e purpose s fo r

whic hth e premise s ar e leased . N o us e shal l be mad e or permitte dt o b e mad e o f th e premises , o r

act s done , tha t

wil l caus e acancellatio n o f an y insuranc e polic y coverin g th e building s locate do n th e premises , o r an y par t o f th e premises ; no r shal l Lesse e sell , o r

permi t t o b e kept , used , o r

sold , in o r

abou t th e premises , any articl e prohibite db y th e standar dfor mo f fire insuranc e policies . Lesse e shall , at it s sol e cost , compl y wit hal l requirements , pertainin g t o th e lease dpremises , o f an y insuranc e organizatio n o r

company , necessar y fo r th e maintenanc e o f

insurance , a s provide din thi s lease , coverin g an y building s an dappurtenance s at an y tim e locate do n th e lease dpremises . 8 . WAST E AN D NUISANC E PROfflBITE D

- Durin g th e ter mo f

thi s lease . Lesse e shal l compl y wit hal l applicabl e law s affectin g th e lease dpremises . Lesse e shal l no t commi t o r suffe r t o b e committe dan y wast e on th e lease dpremises , o r

an y nuisance . 9 . ABANDONMEN T O FPREMISE S Lesse e shal l no t

vacat e o r

abando n th e premise s a

t any tim e durin g th e termo f thi s lease . I f Lesse e abandons , vacates , o r surrender s th e lease dpremises , o r i s dispossesse db y proces s o f

law , o r otherwise , any persona l propert y belongin g t o Lesse e an dlef t o n th e premise s shal l b e deeme dt o b e abandoned , at th e optio n o f

Lessor , excep t

suc hpropert} * a s ma y b e encumbere dt o Lessor .

### 10 . LESSOR' S RIGH T O FENTR Y

Lesse e shal l permi t

Lesso r an dth e agent s an demployee s o f Lesso r t o ente r th e lease d premise s at

al l reasonabl e time s fo r th e purpos e o f

inspectin g them , o r

for th e purpos e o f postin g notice s o f

nonresponsibilit y fo r

alterations , additions , o r repairs , withou t

an y rebat e o f ren t an dwithou t

an y liabilit y t o Lesse e fo r an y los s o f

occupatio n o r

quie t enjoyment

o f th e premises .

11 . ENCUMBRANC E O FLESSEE' S LEASEHOL D INTERES T Lesse e ma y encumbe r

b y mortgag e o r

dee do f trust , o r othe r prope r instrument , it s leasehol dinteres t

an destat e i n th e lease dpremises , togethe r wit hal l building s an d improvement s o n th e premises , a s securit y fo r an y indebtednes s o f

Lessee . Th e executio n j f an y mortgage , o r

dee do f trust , o r othe r instrument , o r

th e foreclosur e o f

th e instrumenL o r an y sal e unde r

th e instrument , eithe r

by judicia l proceeding s o r b y virtu e o f

any powe r reserve di

n th e mortgag e o r

dee do f trust , o r conveyanc e b y Lesse e t o th e holde r o f suc h indebtedness , o r

th e exercisin g o f

an y right , power , o r

privileg e reserve di n an y mortgag e o r dee do f ti'ust , shal l no t

b e hel da s aviolatio n o f an y o f th e term s o r

condition s o f

thi s lease , o r a s a n assumptio n b y th e holde r o f suc hindebtednes s personall y o f th e obligation s o f

thi s lease . N o suc hencumbrance , foreclosure , conveyance , o r exercis e o f

righ t shal l reliev e Lesse e fro mit s liabilit} ' unde r thi s lease . I f Lesse e shal l encumbe r

it s leasehol dinteres t

an destat e i n th e lease dpremises , an d i f Lesse e o r

th e holde r

o f th e indebtednes s secure db y th e encumbranc e shal l giv e notic e t o

### Lesso r

o f th e existenc e o f

th e encumbranc e an dth e addres s o f th e holder , then Lesso r

wil l mai l or delive r t o th e holder , aduplicat e cop y o f al l notice s i n writin g whic hLesso r may , fro mtim e t o time , giv e t o o r serv e o n Lesse e unde r

an dpursuan t

t o th e term s an dprovision s o f thi s lease . Copie s shal l b e maile do r delivere dt o th e holde r

at , o r a s near a s possibl e to , th e sam e tim e th e notice s ar e give n t o o r serve do n Lessee . Holde r may , a t it s option , a

t any tim e befor e th e right s o f

Lesse e shal l b e terminate da s provide di n thi s lease , pa y an y o f th e rent s du e unde r

thi s lease , o r

pa y an y taxe s an dassessments , o r d o an y othe r

ac t o r thin g require do f

Lesse e b y th e term s o f

thi s lease , o r

d o an y ac t

o r thin g tha t may b e necessary arid prope r t o b e don e i n th e observanc e o f th e covenant s an dcondition s o f thi s lease , o r

t o preven t th e terminatio n o f

thi s lease . Al l payment s s o made , an dal l thing s s o don e an d performe db y th e holde r

shal l b e a s effectiv e t o preven t aforeclosur e o f

th e right s o f

Lesse e unde r th e leas e a s the y woul dhav e bee n i f don e an dperforme db y Lessee . 12 . SUBLETTIN G AN D ASSIGNMEN T Lesse e shal l no t

assig n thi s lease , o r

an y interes t

i n thi s lease , o r

suble t th e lease d premises , o r

an y par t o f th e premises , o r

an y righ t o r privileg e appurtenan t

t o it , o r alIo\ ^ an y perso n othe r

tha n Lesse e an dLessee' s agent s an demployee s t o occup y o r us e th e premise s o r an y par t o f them , withou t

first obtainin g Lessor' s wTitten consent , whic hconsen t shal l no t b e unreasonabl y withheld . Lessor' s consen t t o on e assignment , sublease , o r us e shal l no t

b e aconsen t t o an y subsequen t

assignmen t

o r sublease , o r

occupanc y o r

us e b y anothe r

person . An y unauthorize dassignmen t o r subleas e shal l b e void , an dshal l terminat e thi s leas e a t th e

### Lessor' s option . Lessee' s interes t i n thi s leas e i s no t

assignabl e b y operatio n o f la w withou t Lessor' s writte n consent . 13 . NOTICE S Al l notices , demands , o r othe r writing s in thi s leas e provide dt o b e give n o r mad e o r sent , o r whic hma y b e give n o r

mad e o r sent , b y eithe r

part y t o thi s leas e t o th e other , shal l b e deeme dt o hav e bee n fiilly give n o r mad e o r sen t whe n mad e i n writin g an ddeposite di n th e Unite dState s Pos t

Offic e vi acertifie dmail , postag e prepaid , an daddresse da s follows : T O Lessor : Cit y Clerk , Venic e Cit y Hall , 40 1 W . Venic e Ave. , Venice , FL3428 5 T O LESSER : Venic e Je t Center , LLC , 161 8 Mai n Street , Sarasota , FL3423 6 Th e addres s t o whic han y notice , demand , o r othe r writin g ma y b e give n o r

mad e o r sen t t o an y part y mentione dabov e ma y b e change db y writte n notic e give n b y th e part y mentione d above . ' ' 14 . TAXE S AN D ASSESSMENT S a . Taxe s a s additiona l rent . A s additiona l ren t unde r thi s lease , Lesse e shal l pa y an ddischarg e a s the y becom e due , promptl y an dbefore delinquency , al l taxes , assessments , rates , charges , licens e fees , municipa l liens , levies , excises , o r imposts , whethe r

genera l o r special , o r

ordinat y o r

extraordinary , o f

every name , natur e an dkin dwhatsoever . Thi s include s al l governmenta l charge s regardles s o f name , nature , o r

kind , whic hma

y b e levied , assessed , charged , o r

imposed , o r

whic hmay becom e alie n o r charg e o n o r

agains t th e lease d premises , o r

an y par t o f th e premises , th e leasehol do f Lesse e here , th e premise s describe d

### here , an y buildin g o r buildings , o r

othe r improvement s no w o r

whic hwil l b e mad e i

n th e future , o n o r

agains t Lessee' s estat e whic hma y b e asubjec t

o f taxation , o r

o n or agains t Lesso r b y reaso n o f

it s ownershi p o f

th e fe e underlyin g thi s lease , durin g th e entir e ter mo f thi s lease , exceptin g onl y thos e taxe s specificall y excepte dbelow . b . Assessment s affectin g improvements . Specificall y an dwithou t i n any wa

y limitin g th e generalit y o f th e above , Lesse e shal l pa y al l specia l assessments , levie s o r charge s mad e b y an y municipa l o r politica l subdivisio n fo r

loca l improvements . They shal l b e pai di n cas ha s the y ar e du e an dbefor e the y becom e delinquent . The y shal l b e pai da s require db y th e ac t

£ui dproceeding s unde r

whic han y assessments , levie s o r charge s ar e mad e b y an y municipa l o r

politica l subdivision . I f th e righ t i s give n t o pa y eithe r

i n on e sumo r

in installments . Lesse e ma y elec t eithe r mod e o f payment , an dit s electio n shal l b e bindin g on Lessor . If

, b y makin g an y suc helectio n t o pay i n installments , an}^o f th e instalhnent s shal l b e payabl e afte r

th e terminatio n o f

thi s leas e o r

an y extende dter mo f

thi s lease , th e unpai d installment s shal l b e prorate da s o f th e dat e o f

termination , an damount s payabl e after suc h dat e shal l b e pai db y Lessor . A H o f th e taxe s an dcharge s unde r thi s Sectio n 1 4 shal l b e prorate da t

th e commencemen t

an dexpiratio n o f

th e ter mo f

thi s lease . c . Contestin g taxes . I f Lesse e shal l i n goo dfait

hdesir e t o contes t

th e validity o r amoun t o f an y tax , assessment , lev>' , o r othe r governmenta l charg e agree dt o b e pai dby Lessee , Lesse e shal l b e permitte dt o d o so , an dt o defe r paymen t o f suc htax o r

charge , th e validit}

- o r

amoun t o f whic hLesse e i s s o contesting , unti l final determinatio n o f th e contest , 1 1

### o n givin g t o Lesso r writte n notic e prio r

t o th e commencemen t

o f an y suc hcontest , whic h shal l b e a t

leas e te n day s prio r

t o delinquency , an do n protectin g Lessor , o n demand , b y a goo dan dsufficien t

suret} ' bon dagains t

an y suc htax , lew , assessment , rate , o r governmenta l charge , an dfro man y costs , liability , o r damag e arisin g ou t

o f an y contest . Becaus e Lesse e can no t contes t taxe s levie dwithou t

th e joinde r

o f Lessor , Lesso r

herewit hagree s t o joi n with Lesse e i n an y ta x challeng e o n th e understandin g tha t Lesse e shal l b e solel y responsibl e fo r th e prosecutio n o f

th e challenge . d . Receipts . Lesse e shal l obtai n an ddelive r receipt s o r

duplicat e receipt s for

al l taxes , assessments , an dothe r item s require dunde r

thi s leas e t o b e pai db y Lessee , promptl y o n paymen t

o f them . 15 . US E O FPREMISE S A s aFixe dBas e Operator , Lesse e ma y conduc t an y commercia l aeronautica l activit y permitte dunde r

th e Minimu mStandard s for Commercia l Aeronautica l Activitie s a t Venic e Municipa l Airpor t

an dfo r whic hi t meet s al l o f

th e genera l operationa l requirement s an dth e applicabl e minimu mstandards . A cop y o f suc hstandard s i s attache dheret o a s Exhibi t "B" . Lesse e shal l abid e b y an dconfin n i n al l laws , rules , regulations , an drequirement s applicabl e now , an da s ma y b e adopte di n th e fiiture, t o th e demise dpremise s an dt o any activitie s conducte dthereon .

1 2

### 16 . REPAIR S AN D DESTRUCTIO N O FIMPROVEMENT S

a . Maintenanc e o f

improvements . Lesse e shall , throughou t th e term s o f

thi s lease , at it s ow n cost , an dwithou t an y expens e t o Lessor , kee p an dmaintai n th e premises , includin g al l building s an dimprovement s o f ever y kin dtha t

ma y b e apar t

o f th e premises , an dal l appurtenance s t o th e premises , includin g sidewalk s adjacen t t o th e premise s i

n good , sanitary , an dnea t

order , conditio n an drepair , an d, excep t a s specificall y provide di n thi s lease , restor e an drehabilitat e an y improvement s o f an y kin dtha t

ma y b e destroye do r damage db y fire, casualty , o r an y othe r

caus e whatsoever . Lesso r shal l no t b e obligate dt o mak e an y repairs , replacements , o r renewal s o f

an y kind , nature , o r

descriptio n whatsoeve r t o th e lease dpremise s o r an y othe r

building s o r

improvement s o n it . Lesse e shal l als o jompl y withan dabid e b y al l federal , state , county , municipal , an dothe r governmenta l statutes , ordinances , laws , an dregulation s affectin g th e premises , th e improvement s on th e premises , o r

an y activit} ' o r

conditio n o n o r

i n suc hpremises . b . Damag e t o an ddestructio n o f improvements . Th e damage , destruction , or partia l destructio n o f

an y buildin g o r

othe r improvemen t

that i s part o f th e premise s shal l no t releas e Lesse e froman y obligatio n unde r thi s lease , excep t

a s expressl y provide dbelow . In cas e o f damag e t o o r

destructio n o f

an y suc hbuilding s o r

improvement . Lesse e shal l at it s ow n expens e promptl y repai r an drestor e th e buildin g o r improvemen t

t o aconditio n a s goo d o r bette r tha n tha t whic hexiste dprio r

t o th e damag e o r

destruction . Withou t

limitin g suc h

1 3

### obligation s o f

Lessee , i t

i s agree dtha t

th e proceed s o f

an y insuranc e coverin g th e damag e or destructio n shal l b e mad e availabl e t o Lesse e fo r repai r o r replacement . 17 . UTILITIE S Lesse e shal l fiilly an dpromptl y pa y fo r al l water , gas , heat , light , power , telephon e service , an dothe r

publi c utilitie s o f

ever y kin dfijmishedt o th e premise s throughou t th e ter m o f thi s lease , an dal l othe r

cost s an dexpense s o f

ever y kin dwhatsoeve r

o f o r in connectio n wit hth e use , operation , an dmaintenanc e o f th e premise s an dal l activitie s conducte do n th e premises . Lesso r

shal l hav e n o responsibilit y o f an y kin dfor

an y o f suc hcost s an dexpenses . Lesse e ma y dispos e o f

garbag e an drecyclabl e materia l in th e Lessor' s wast e disposa l container s locate dat

th e Airpor t

Maintenanc e Facility . 18 . LIEN S a . Lessee' s dut y t o kee p premise s free o f liens . Lesse e shal l kee p al l o f th e premise s an dever y par t

o f th e premise s an dal l building s an dothe r improvement s at

an} ' tim e locate do n th e premise s fre e an dclea r o f any an dal l mechanics' , materialmen's , an dothe r lien s fo r o r arisin g ou t

o f o r i n connectio n withwor k o r labo r done , service s perfonned , o r material s o r

appliance s use do r

furnishe dfor

o r i n connectio n wit

han y operation s o f

Lessee , an} ' alteration , improvement , o r repair s o r

addition s whic hLesse e may mak e or permi t o r caus e t o b e made , o r

ein y wor k o r construction , by , for , o r

permitte db y Lesse e o n o r abou t th e premises , o r

an y obligation s o f

an y kin dincurre db y Lessee . Lesse e shal l a t al l time s promptl y an dfully pa y an ddischarg e an y an dal l claim s o n whic hany lie n may o r coul db e 1 4

### based , an dshal l indemnif y Lesso r an dal l o f th e premise s an dal l building s an dimprovement s o n th e premise s agains t

al l lien s an dclaim s o f

lien s an dsuit s o r

othe r proceeding s pertainin g t o thos e liens . Lesse e shal l giv e Lesso r writte n notic e n o les s than thirt y day s i n advanc e o f th e commencemen t

o f an y construction , alteration , addition , improvement , o r repai r estimate dt o cos t

in exces s o f

$5,00 0 i n orde r

tha t Lesso r may pos t appropriat e notice s o f Lessor' s nonresponsibility . b . Contestin g liens . I f Lesse e desire s t o contes t an y lien , i t

shal l notif

y Lesso r it it s intentio n t o d o s o withi n te n day s afte r th e filing o f

th e lie n an dLesso r

agree s t o consen t t o suc hcontest . I n suc hacase , an dprovide dtha t Lesse e shall , o n demand , protec t Lesso r b y agoo dan dsufficien t suret y bon dagains t

an y lie n an dcost , liability , o r damag e arisin g ou t o f suc hcontest . Lesse e shal l no t b e i n defaul t

unde r thi s leas e unti l ten day s afte r th e final

• detenninatio n o f

th e validit} ' o f

th e lien , withi n whicl i tim e Lesse e shal l satisf y an ddischarge th e lie n t o th e exten t

hel dvalid . However , th e satisfactio n an ddischarg e o f an y suc hlie n shal l not , i n an y case , b e delaye dunti l execution s ha do n any judgmen t rendere don it , an d suc hdela y shal l b e defaul t o f Lesse e unde r

thi s lease . I n th e even t o f an y suc hcontest . Lesse e shal l protec t

an dindemnif

y Lesso r agains t al l loss , expense , an ddamag e resultin g fro mth e contest . 19 . INDEMNIFICATIO N O FLESSO R Lesso r shal l no t b e liabl e for

an y loss , injur}' , death , o r damag e t o person s o r

propert} ' whic hat an y tim e ma y b e suffere do r sustaine db y Lesse e or

b y an y perso n wh o ma}

- at an y 1 5

### tim e b e usin g o r

occupyin g o r

visitin g th e lease dpromise s o r b e in , on , o r

abou t th e premises , whethe r th e loss , injury , death , o r damag e shal l b e cause db y o r i n an y wa y resul t

fro mo r aris e ou t o f an y act , omission , o r

negligenc e o f

Lesse e o r

o f an y occupant , subtenant , visitor , o r use r o f an y portio n o f

th e premises , o r

shal l resul t

fro mo r b e cause db y an y othe r

matter o r thing . Lesse e shal l indemnif y Lesso r agains t al l claims , liabilit}' , los s o r damag e whatsoeve r

o n accoun t

o f an y suc hloss , injury , death , o r damage . Lesse e waive s al l claim s agains t Lesso r fo r damage s t o th e buildin g an dimprovement s tha t ar e no w o n o r

wil l later b e place do r

buil t o n th e premise s an dt o th e propert y o f Lesse e in , on , o r

abou t th e premises , an dfo r injurie s t o person s o r

propert y i n o r

abou t th e premises , fro man y caus e arisin g a t any time . Th e precedin g sentence s shal l no t appl y t o loss , injuiy , death , o r damag e arisin g b y reaso n o f th e negligenc e o r

misconduc t

o f Lessor , it s agents , o r

employees . Thi s undertakin g -shal l no t b e deeme dt o b e awaive r o f th e Lessee' s sovereig n immunit}' , no r shal l it constitut e aconsen t t o b e sue db y thir dparties .

20 . ATTORNEYS ' FEE S I f an y actio n a

t la w o r in equit} ' shal l b e brough t t o recove r

an y ren t unde r thi s lease , o r fo r o r o n accoun t

o f an y breac hof

, o r t o enforc e o r

interpre t any o f th e covenants , terms , o r condition s o f

thi s lease , o r

fo r th e recover y o f

th e possessio n o f

th e lease dpremises , th e prevailin g part y shal l b e entitle dt o recove r fro mth e othe r

party a s par t

o f th e prevailin g part}'' s costs , reasonabl e attorneys ' fee s incurre dthroug htrial andappeal , th e amoun t o f

1 6

### whic hshal l b e fixedb y th e cour t an dshal l b e mad e apar t o f an y judgmen t

o r decre e rendered . 21 . OPTIO N T O RENE W Lesso r grant s t o Lessee , subjec t t o th e condition s se t

fort hbelow , th e righ t

an doptio n to rene w thi s leas e for

aperio do f

five years , beginnin g o n , 2036 , and expirin g o n , 2041 , a t arenta l determine da s provide din paragrap h thre e abov e an dotherwis e subjec t t o an do n al l o f

th e term s an dcondition s herei n contained . Thi s optio n mus t

b e exercise db y th e givin g t o Lessor , o n o r befor e

, awritte n notic e t o exercis e thi s optio n b y Lessee , bu t Lesse e shal l i n n o even t

b e entitle dt o rene w th e termo f thi s lease , eve n thoug hnotic e i s timel y given , unles s Lesse e shal l hav e timel y performe dal l o f it s obhgation s unde r

thi s lease , an d shal l no t b e i n defaul t

i n th e performanc e o f

an y o f it s obligations , o n th e dat e o f th e expiratio n o f

th e initia l ter mo f

thi s lease . 22 . REDELIVER Y O FPREMISE S Lesse e shal l pa} ' th e ren t an dal l othe r

sum s require dt o b e pai db} ' Lesse e unde r thi s leas e i n th e aniounts , a

t th e times , an di n th e manne r provide di n thi s lease , an dshal l kee p an dperfor mal l th e term s an dcondition s o f thi s leas e o n it s par t

t o b e kep t

an dperformed , an da t th e expiratio n o r

soone r terminatio n o f

thi s lease , Lesse e shal l peaceabl y an dquietl y qui t an dsurrende r

th e premise s t o Lesso r

i n goo dorde r

an dconditio n subjec t

t o th e othe r provision s o f

thi s lease . I n th e even t o f th e non-performanc e b y Lesse e o f an y o f th e 1 7

### covenant s whic hLesse e ha s undertaken , thi s leas e ma y b e terminate da s provide di n thi s lease . 23 . REMEDIE S CUMULATIV E Al l remedie s conferre do n Lesso r shal l b e deeme dcumulativ e an dn o on e exclusiv e o f th e other , o r

o f an y othe r

remed y conferre db y law . 24 . INSURANC E Lesse e shall , a t

al l time s durin g th e ter mo f thi s leas e an dat

Lessee' s sol e expense , maintai n th e followin g insuranc e coverages : a . Genera l an dAirpor t Premise s Liability : Coverag e fo r premise s an doperations , product s an dcomplete doperations , collapse , undergroun dan dexplosio n coverage , owner' s an dcontractor' s protective , contractua l an dpersona l injury coverage , o r commercia l general liability or

comprehensiv e genera l liabilit y containin g sam e wit hlimit s n o les s than On e Millio n Dollar s ($1,000,000.00 ) combine dsingl e limit . b . Aircraf

t Liabilit y wit hlimit s n o les s tha n On e Millio n Dollar s ( $ 1,000,000.00 ) combine dsingl e limit . c . Propert y Insuranc e o n Buildings : Fir e an dCommo n "Specia l Form'^peril s wit h limit s n o les s tha n agree dvalu e o f buildin g an dimprovements . Windstor mwithlimit s n o les s the magree dvalu e o f

buildin g an dimprovements . Floo dwit hlimit s n o les s tha n agree d valu e o f buildin g an dimprovements .

1 8

### d . Storag e Tan k Liabilit y wit hlimit s n o les s tha n On e Millio n Dollar s ($1,000,000.00 ) combine dsingl e limit , provide dLesse e ha s storag e tanks . Th e policie s o f

insuranc e shal l b e primar y an dwritte n o n form s acceptabl e t o lesso r an dplace dwit hinsuranc e carrier s approve dan dlicense db y th e Stat e o f Florida . Al l policie s require dherei n ar e t o b e writte n o n an occurrenc e basi s an dshal l nam e th e lessor , it s Agent s an dEmployee s a s additiona l insured , shal l provid e fo r an y los s t o b e payabl e t o lesso r

an dLesse e a s thei r

interes t ma y appear , shal l requir e an y los s adjustment t o hav e th e writte n consen t o f lessoi r an dLessee , an dth e insurer(s ) shal l agre e t o waiv e al l right s o f subrogatio n agains t

th e lessor , it s Agent s an dEmployees . Eac hpolic y require db y thi s Agreemen t

shall : 1 . Appl y separatel y t o eac hinsure dagains t who mclai mi s mad e an dsui t i s brought , excep t

wit hrespec t

t o th e limit s o f

th e insurer' s liability . 2 . B e endorse dt o stat e tha t coverag e shal l no t

b e suspended , voided , or cancele d b y eithe r part}- , reduce di n coverag e o r i n limit s excep t

afte r 3 0 day s prio r

writte n notic e b>

' certifie dmail , retur n receip t requested , ha s bee n give n t o lessor . Th e procurin g o f

suc hrequire dpolic y o r

policie s o f

insuranc e shal l no t

b e construe d t o limi t Lessee' s liabilit y no r

t o fulfil l th e indemnificatio n provision s an drequirement s o f thi s lease . Notwithstandin g sai dpolic y o r policie s o f

insurance , Lesse e shal l b e obligate dfor th e ful l an dtota l amoun t

o f an y damages , injur} ' or los s cause dby negligenc e or neglec t connecte dwit hthi s Lease . 1 9

### 25 . PROHIBITIO N O FINVOLUNTAR Y ASSIGNMEN T

Neithe r thi s leas e no r

th e leasehol destat e o f

Lesse e no r

an y interes t

o f Lesse e under th e leas e i n th e demise do r i n th e buildin g o r

improvement s o n th e premise s shal l b e subjec t t o involuntar y assignment , transfer , o r sale , o r t o assignment , transfer , o r sal e by operatio n o f la w i n an y manne r

whatsoever , excep t

throug hstatutor y merger , consolidation , devis e o r interstat e succession . An y suc hattemp t at involuntary assignment , transfer , o r sal e shal l b e voi dan do f

n o effect . Th e wordin g o f thi s paragrap hdoe s no t

appl y t o Venic e Cit

y Counci l approve dsales , assignment s o r subleases . 26 . NOTIC E O FDEFAUL T Excep t a s t o th e provision s o f

Sectio n 1 1 o f

thi s lease . Lesse e shal l no t b e deeme dt o b e i n defaul t

unde r thi s leas e in th e paymen t o f ren t o r th e paymen t

o f an y othe r

money s require di n thi s agreement , o r i n th e furnishin g o f

an y bon do r

insuranc e polic y whe n require dunles s lesso r

shal l first

giv e t o Lesse e writte n notic e o f th e defaul t

an dLesse e fail s t o cur e th e defaul t

withi n te n days . Excep t a s t o th e provision s o r

event s referre dt o i

n th e precedin g sentenc e o f thi s section . Lesse e shal l no t b e deeme dt o b e i n defaul t unde r thi s leas e unles s lesso r

first give s t o Lesse e writte n notic e o f th e default , an dLesse e fail s t o cur e th e defaul t withi n aten-day perio dor , i f

th e defaul t

i s o f suc hanatur e that

it canno t b e cure dwithi n te n days . Lesse e fail s t o coinmenc e t o cur e th e defaul t withi n suc hperio do f

te n day s o r

fail s t o procee dt o th e curin g o f

th e defaul t

wit hal l possibl e diligence .

2 0

### 27 . DEFAUL T

In th e even t

o f an y breac ho f

thi s leas e b y Lessee , lessor , i n additio n t o th e othe r right s o r remedie s i t

ma y have , shal l hav e th e immediat e righ t o f re-entr} ' an dma

y remov e al l person s an dpropert y fro mth e premises ; suc hpropert y ma y b e remove dan dstore di n a publi c warehous e o r

elsewher e at

th e cos t of , an dfo r th e accoun t

o f Lessee . Shoul dlesso r elec t t o re-enter , a s provide di n thi s agreement , o r shoul di t tak e possessio n pursuan t t o legal proceeding s o r

pursuan t t o an y notic e provide dfo r b y law , lesso r

ma y eithe r

terminat e thi s leas e o r i t ma y fro mtim e t o time , withou t terminatin g thi s lease , re-le t th e lease dpremise s o r an y par t o f th e premise s fo r

suc hter mo r

terms , whic hmay b e for

ater mextendin g beyon d th e ten n o f

thi s lease , an da t

suc hren t

o r rent s an do n suc hothe r

term s an dcondition s a s lesso r i n it s sol e discretio n ma y dee madvisabl e wit hth e right t o mak e alternation s an d repair s t o th e lease dpremises . O n eac hsuc hre-letting : (a ) Lesse e shal l b e immediatel y liabl e t o pa y t o lessor , in additio n t o an y indebtednes s othe r

tha n ren t

du e unde r

tlii s lease , th e expense s o f re-lettin g an do f

an y alteration s an drepairs , incurre dby lessor , an dth e amoimt , i f any , b y whic hth e ren t

reserve d in thi s leas e fo r

th e perio do f

re-letting , u p t o bu t

no t beyon dth e ter mo f

thi s lease , exceed s th e amoun t

agree dt o b e pai da s ren t fo r th e lease dpremise s fo r

th e perio do f

re-letting ; o r (b ) A t th e optio n o f

lessor , rent s receive db y lesso r fro mre-lettin g shal l b e applied , first t o th e pa}'men t

o f an y indebtedness , othe r

than ren t du e unde r

thi s leas e fro

mLesse e t o lessor ; second , t o th e paymen t o f an y expense s o f

re-lettin g an do f

an y alteration s an drepairs ; 2 1

### third , t o di e paymen t o f ren t du e an dunpai dunde r

thi s lease ; an dth e remainder , i f any , shal l b e hel db y lesso r

an dapplie di n paymen t o f fiiture ren t

a s th e ren t

ma y becom e du e an d payabl e unde r

thi s lease . I f Lesse e ha s been credite dwit han y ren t t o b e receive db y re-lettin g unde r abov e optio n (a) , an dth e ren t

shal l no t b e promptl y pai dt o lesso r b y th e ne w tenant , o r

i f rental s receive dfro mre-lettin g unde r abov e optio n (b ) durin g an y monthi s les s tha n tha t t o b e pai d durin g tha t

mont hb y lesso r

unde r thi s lease . Lesse e shal l pa y an y deficienc y t o lessor . Th e deficienc y shal l b e calculate dan dpai dmonthly . N o re-entr y o r takin g possessio n o f

th e lease dpremise s b y lesso r shal l b e construe da s an electio n o n th e par t o f lesso r t o terminat e thi s leas e unles s awritte n notic e o f suc hintentio n i s give n t o Lesse e o r unles s th e tenninatio n o f th e leas e i s decree db y acour t o f competen t

jurisdiction . Notwithstandin g an y re-lettin g withou t termination , lesso r

may-a t an y tim e after

that elec t t o terminat e thi s leas e fo r an y previou s breach . Shoul dlesso r at an y tim e terminate thi s leas e for an y breach , i n additio n t o an y othe r remed y i t

may have , lesso r

may recove r

from Lesse e al l damage s incune db y reaso n o f th e breach , includin g th e cos t o f recoverin g th e premises , an dincludin g th e wort ha t th e tim e o f

th e terminatio n o f

th e excess , i f

any , o f th e amoun t o f ren t an dcharge s equivalen t

t o ren t reserve di n thi s leas e fo r th e remainde r

o f th e state dten n ove r

th e the n reasonabl e renta l valu e o f th e premise s fo r

th e remainde r

o f th e state dterm , al l o f

whic hamount s shal l b e immediatel y du e an dpayabl e fromLesse e t o lessor .

9 ?

### 28 . LESSOR' S RIGH T T O PERFOR M

I n th e even t

tha t Lesse e b y failin g o r

neglectin g t o d o o r

perfor man y ac t

o r thin g provide dfor

i n thi s lease , default s unde r thi s leas e an dth e failur e continue s for aperio do f te n day s afte r

writte n notic e fro mlesso r specify'in g th e natur e o f th e ac t o r thin g t o b e don e o r performed , then lesso r

may , bu t shal l no t b e require dto , d o o r

perfor mo r

caus e t o b e don e o r performe dsuc hac t

o r thing , enterin g o n th e lease dpremise s fo r suc hpurpose , i f

lesso r shal l s o elect , an dlesso r

shal l no t b e o r b e hel dliabl e o r

in an y wa y responsibl e for any loss , inconvenience , annoyance , o r damag e resultin g t o Lesse e o n accoun t o f i t an dLesse e shal l repa y t o lesso r

o n deman dan y expenses , includin g compensatio n t o th e agent s an d employee s o f

lessor . An y ac t

o r thin g don e b y lesso r

pursuan t t o th e provision s o f

thi s sectio n shal l no t

b e construe da s awaive r o f an y suc hdefaul t

b y Lessee , o r

a s awaive r

o f an y covenant , tenn , o r

conditio n containe di n thi s leas e o r th e performanc e o f

it , o r o f any othe r righ t o r remed y o f

lessor . Al l amount s payabl e b y Lesse e t o lesso r unde r an y o f th e provision s o f

thi s lease , i f

no t pai dwhe n th e amount s becom e du e a s in thi s leas e provided , shal l bea r interes t fromth e dat e the y becom e du e unti l pai da t th e rat e ofte n percen t

per year , compounde dannually . Th e provision s containe di n thi s paragrap hshal l appl y t o lesso r i f lesso r i s th e part y at

fault . 29 . EFFEC T O FEMINEN T DOMAI N a . Effec t

o f tota l condemnation : I n th e even t th e entir e lease dpremise s shal l b e

### opropriate do r

take n unde r

th e powe r

o f eminen t domai n by an y publi c o r quasi-publi c authorit}' , thi s leas e shal l terminat e an dexpir e a s o f th e dat e o f

th e taking , an dLesse e shal l the n b e release dfro man y liabilit y accruin g unde r thi s leas e afte r

tha t date . b . Effectiv e o f

partia l condemnation . I n th e even t aportio n o f

th e lease dpremise s shal l b e s o appropriate do r take n an dth e remainde r o f th e propert y shal l no t

b e suitabl e fo r th e us e the n bein g mad e o f th e propert y b y Lessee , o r i f th e remainde r

o f th e propert y o s no t on e undivide dparce l o f

propert}' . Lesse e shal l hav e th e righ t t o terminat e thi s leas e a s o f th e dat e o f th e takin g o n givin g t o lesso r writte n notic e o f

th e terminatio n withi n te n day s after lesso r ha s notifie dLesse e i n writin g tha t th e propert y ha s been appropriate do r taken . I n th e even t

o f partia l takin g an dLesse e doc s no t terminat e thi s lease , thi s leas e shal l continu e in full forc e an deffec t a s t o th e par t

no t taken , an dth e ren t

t o b e pai dby Lesse e durin g th e remainde r

o f th e term , subjec t

t o adjustmen t

a s provide din th e ren t

adjustmen t provision s o f

Sectio n 3 o f

thi s lease , shal l b e determine di n th e manne r provide dfor

abov e i n th e ren t

adjustmen t

provisions . Tha t

determinatio n shal l no t

effec t o r chang e th e time s a

t whic hlesso r

may requir e an adjustmen t in ren t unde r th e provisions : however , th e word s •'whic hi n n o even t

shal l b e les s tha n th e ren t the n bein g pai db y Lessee " appearin g i n th e ren t adjustmen t

provision s shal l no t

appl y withrespec t

t o th e determination , bu t shal l appl y wit

h respec t t o an y subsequen t

adjusUnent

imde r th e provisions . c . Condemnatio n award . In th e even t o f th e terminatio n o f

thi s leas e b y reaso n o f th e tota l o r

partia l takin g o f

th e premise s b y eminen t domain , then i n any condemnatio n

'> d

### proceeding s lesso r an dLesse e shal l b e fre e t o mak e clai magains t th e condemnin g o r

takin g authority o f

th e amoun t

o f an y damag e don e t o them , respectively , a s aresul t o f th e taking. I n th e even t

o f apartia l takin g o f

th e premise s an dthi s leas e i s no t terminated , the n Lesse e shal l hav e th e righ t t o mak e clai magains t

th e condemnin g o r

takin g authorit} ' i

n accordanc e wit hexistin g Florid aStatute s an dcas e la w at th e tim e o f

th e taking . Ownershi p o f al l improvement s mad e b y Lesse e durin g th e ter mo f thi s lease , o r

an y extension , remai n th e propert y o f

th e Lesse e unti l th e leas e ends .

30 . SURRENDE RO FLEAS E Th e voluntar y o r

othe r surrende r

o f thi s leas e b y Lessee , o r

amutua l cancellatio n o f thi s lease , shal l no t

work amerger , an dshall , a

t th e optio n o f

lessor , terminat e al l o r

any existin g subleas e o r

sub-tenancies , o r

may , at th e optio n o f

lessor , operat e a s an assignmen t t o i t o f an y o r al l suc hsublease s o r

sub-tenancies . 31 . DISPOSITIO N O FIMPROVEMENT S O N TERMINATIO N O FLEAS E O n terminatio n o f

thi s leas e fo r

an y cause , lesso r

shal l becom e th e owne r o f an} ' buildin g o r

improvement s o n th e lease dpremises ; persona l propert} ' excluded . 32 . WAIVE R Th e waive r

b y lesso r

of , o r th e failur e o f

lesso r t o tak e actio n withrespec t t o an y breac ho f an y term , covenant , o r

conditio n containe di n thi s leas e shal l no t b e deeme dt o b e awaive r o f suc hterm , covenant , o r condition , o r

subsequen t

breach , o r

o f an y othe r

term , covenant , o r

conditio n containe di n th e lease . Th e subsequen t acceptanc e o f

ren t unde r thi s 2 5

### leas e b y lesso r

shal l no t b e deeme dt o b e awaive r o f an y proceedin g breac hb y Lesse e o f any tenn , covenant , o r

conditio n o f

thi s lease , othe r

tha n th e failur e o f

Lesse e t o pa y th e particular ren t s o accepted , regardles s o f lessor' s knowledg e o f

thi s proceedin g breac ha t th e tim e o f acceptanc e o f

rent . 33 . EFFEC T O FLESSEE' S HOLDIN G OVE R An y holdin g ove r

afte r th e expiratio n o f

th e termo f

thi s lease , withconsen t

o f Lessor , shal l b e construe dt o b e atenanc y fro mmont ht o month , at th e sam e monthl y ren t

a s require d t o b e pai db y Lesse e for th e perio dimmediatel y prio r t o th e expiratio n o f

th e termo f

thi s lease , an dshal l otherwis e b e o n th e term s an dcondition s specifie di n thi s lease , s o fa r a s applicable . 34 . PARTIE S BOUN D Th e covenant s an dcondition s containe din thi s leas e shall , subjec t t o th e provision s a s t o assignment , transfer , an dsub-letting , appl y t o an dbin dth e heirs , successors , executors , administrators , an dassign s o f al l o f th e partie s t o thi s lease ; an dal l o f th e partie s t o thi s leas e shal l b e jointl y an dseverall y liabl e unde r th e lease . 35 . TIM E O FTH E ESSENC E Tim e i s o f

th e essenc e o f

thi s lease , an do f

eac han devery covenan Ltenn , condition , an dprovisio n o f

thi s lease .

2 6

### 36 . SECTIO N CAPTION S

Th e caption s appearin g unde r th e sectio n numbe r

designation s o f

thi s leas e ar e for convenienc e only , ar e no t apar t o f thi s lease , an dd o no t

i n any wa y limi t

o r amplif y th e tenn s an dprovision s o f

thi s lease . 37 . NONDISCRIMINATIO N Th e Lesse e fo r

itself , it s successor s i n interest , an dassigns , a s apar t o f th e consideratio n hereof, doe s hereb y covenan t an dagre e tha t

(1 ) n o perso n o n th e ground s o f race , color , o r

nationa l origi n shal l b e exclude dfromparticipatio n in , denie dth e benefit s of , o r b e otherwis e subjecte dt o discriminatio n i n th e us e o f sai dfacilities ; (2 ) that

i n th e constructio n o f

an y improvement s on , ove r o r unde r suc hlan dan dth e furnishin g o f service s thereon , n o perso n o n th e ground s o f race , color , o r

nationa l origina l shal l b e exclude dfrom participatio n in , denie dth e benefit s of , o r otherwis e b e subjecte dt o discrimination;-(3 ) tha t - th e Lesse e shal l us e th e premise s i n complianc e wit hal l othe r requirement s impose dby o r pursuan t t o Titl e 49 , Cod e o f

Federa l Regulations , Departmen t o f Transportation , Subtitl e A . Offic e o f

th e Secretar}' , Par t

21 , Nondiscriminatio n i n Federall} ' Assiste dProgram s o f th e Departmen t

o f Transportation-Effectuafio n o f Titl e V I o f

th e Civi l Right s ac t

o f 1964 , an d a s sai dRegulation s ma y b e amended . Tha t i n th e even t

o f breac ho f

an y o f th e abov e nondiscriminatio n covenants , Lesso r shal l hav e th e righ t

t o terminat e th e leas e an dt o reente r a s i f sai dleas e ha dneve r

bee n mad e o r issued . Th e provisio n shal l no t b e effectiv e unti l th e procedure s o f Titl e 49 , Cod e o f

2 7

### Cod e o f

Federa l Regulations , Departmen t o f Transportation . Subtitl e A , Offic e o f th e Secretary , Par t

21 , Nondiscriminatio n i n Federall y assiste dprogram s o f th e Departmen t

o f Transportation-Effectuatio n o f Titl e V I o f

th e Civi l Right s ac t

o f 1964 , an da s sai d Regulation s ma y b e amended . Tha t in th e even t

o f breac ho f

an y o f th e abov e nondiscriminatio n covenants , Lesso r shal l hav e th e righ t

t o terminat e th e leas e an dt o reente r a s i f sai dleas e ha dneve r

bee n made o r issued . Th e provisio n shal l no t b e effectiv e unti l th e procedure s o f Titl e 49 , Cod e o f Federa l Regulations , Par t 21 , ar e followe dan dcompleted , includin g exercis e o r expiratio n o f appea l rights . 38 . AERPOR T PROTECTIO N It shal l b e aconditio n o f

thi s lease , tha t

th e Lesso r

reserve s unt o itself

, it s successor s an dassigns , fo r

th e us e an dbenefi t

o f th e public,' aright

o f flight fo r th e passag e o f

aircraf t in th e airspac e abov e th e surfac e o f th e rea l propert y hereinafte r described , togethe r

wit hth e righ t t o caus e i n sai dairspac e suc hnois e a s may b e inheren t i n th e operatio n o f

aircraft , no w know n o r hereafte r used , fo r

navigatio n o f

o r flight i n th e sai dairspace , an dfo r us e o f sai d airspac e fo r

landin g on , takin g of

f fromo r operatin g o n th e airport . Tha t th e Lesse e expressl y agree s for itself , it s successor s an dassigns , t o restric t th e heigh t o f structures , object s o f

natura l growthan dothe r obstruction s on th e hereinafte r describe drea l propert} ' t o suc haheigh t s o a s t o compl y wit hFedera l Aviatio n Regulations , Par t 77 . 2 8

### Tha t

th e Lesse e expressl y agree s fo r itself , it s successor s an dassigns , t o preven t any us e o f th e hereinafte r

describe drea l propert y whic hwoul dinterfer e witho r adversel y affec t th e operatio n o r

maintenanc e o f

th e airport , o r

otherwis e constitut e an airpor t hazard . 39 . PROPERT Y RIGHT S RESERVE D Thi s leas e an dal l provision s hereo f ar e subjec t

an dsubordinat e t o th e term s an d condition s o f

th e instrument s an ddocument s unde r whic hth e Lesso r

acquire dth e subjec t propert y fro mth e Unite dState s o f Americ aan dshal l b e give n onl y suc heffec t a s wil l no t conflic t o r b e inconsisten t

wit hth e term s an dcondition s containe di n th e leas e o f sai dland s fro mth e Lessor , an dan y existin g o r subsequen t

amendment s thereto , an dar e subjec t t o an y ordinances , rule s o r

regulation s whic hhav e been , o r ma y hereafte r

b y adopte dby di e Lesso r pertainin g t o th e Venic e Airport . 40 . EXCLUSIV E RIGHT S Notwithstandin g anythin g containe dherei n t o th e contrary , th e privilege s an dright s grante dt o th e Lesse e unde r thi s leas e ar e non-exclusiv e an dth e Lesso r reserve s th e authorit} ' t o gran t simila r privilege s an dright s t o anothe r operato r o r t o othe r operator s on other

part s o f th e airport . 41 . FUE L FL O WAG E FEE S Th e ftiel flowage fee s t o b e pai dt o th e Lesso r shal l b e thre e cent s ($0.03 ) pe r gallon . Th e flowag e fee s ar e require dt o b e pai db y th e Lesse e t o th e Lesso r withi n te n (10 ) day s o f fue l deliver}' . Th e Lesse e agree s t o pay alat e charg e o f five (5% ) percen t

o f th e bil l i f 29

### 44 . AERONAUTICA L ADVISOR Y STATION/UNICO M

Durin g th e busines s hour s o f th e Lessee , th e Unico mmus t provid e sen'ic e t

o an y aircraf t station , upo n request , withou t discriminatio n an di s an air/groun dradi o communicatio n statio n t o provid e Airpor t informatio n a

t publi c us e airport s wher e there i s n o tower . Th e Unico mstatio n ma y provid e pilots , upo n request , wit hweathe r information , win ddirection , th e recommende drunwa y o r othe r necessar y information . It s us e i s limite d t o th e necessitie s o f

saf e an dexpeditiou s operafio n o f aircraf t and , secondarily , communication s may b e transmitte dconcernin g groun dtransportatio n requests . Th e Unico m statio n i s license dt o th e Cit y o f Venic e b y th e Federa l Communicatio n Commissio n fo r operatio n at

th e Venic e Municipa l Airport . Th e Lesse e i s assigne dth e responsibilit y an d operatio n o f

th e Unico mstatio n maccordanc e withFedera l Communicatio n Commission , U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n an dFedera l Aviatio n Administratio n Advisorj ' Circular s pertainin g t o it s ftinction o n behal f o f th e Lessor . Th e relocatio n o f th e Unico mstatio n for assignmen t

o f operatio n and/o r

responsibilit} ' ma

y b e onl y authorize db y th e Lessor . 45 . TRANSIEN T AIRCRAF T PARKIN G Parcel s "C " an d"D " a t

th e Venic e Municipa l Airpor t ar e rente dt o th e genera l publi c fo r th e purpose s o f

parkin g aircraft . Th e Lesso r ha s establishe dleas e forms , term s an d condition s for

th e renta l o f

suc hspac e an dth e Lesse e ha s personne l availabl e a t th e Venic e Municipa l Airpor t

t o execute , administe r

an dcollec t

th e ren t for suc haircraf

t parking . Therefor e i t

i s agree dtha t

Lesse e shall , o n behal f

o f th e Lessor , execute , administe r an d 3 1

### ollec t

th e ren t fo r suc haircraf

t ram p parkin g designate db y Lessor . Al l o f th e parkin g fee s shal l b e execute dan dadministere db y th e Lesse e o n appropriat e fonn s provide db y th e Lesso r an di n accordanc e wit hth e term s an dcondition s law^fiill y establishe db y th e Lessor . Th e Lesse e shal l provid e th e necessai y tie-dow n rope s and/o r chain s fo r

securin g aircraf

t a t th e aircraf

t ram p leas e locations . Th e Lesse e shal l retai n one-hal f o f al l ren t du e a s it s fee fo r service s herei n provided . Th e remainin g one-hal f o f any ren t du e t o th e Lesso r

shal l b e pai dt o th e Lesso r

b y th e fifth(5*^

) day o f eac hmonth , o r

afive percen t

(5% ) lat e charg e o f th e previou s month' s fe e shal l b e assesse db y th e Lessor . Th e Lesse e shal l maintai n a complet e recor dconcernin g al l rent s du e an dth e Lesso r shal l hav e th e righ t

t o inspec t

al l suc hrecords . Th e Lesse e shal l indenmif y th e Lesso r

fo r an y claim s o r

liabilit y resultin g from i C Lessee' s performanc e o f o r failur e t o perfor maccordingly . Tli e content s o f

thi s paragrap hd o no t

appl y t o tie-dow n parcel s "A" , "B" , "F " an d "G"a s the y ar e lease dby Lesso r t o Lesse e a s par t

o f thi s leas e an dar e include din tli e ren t pursuan t t o paragrap hthre e o f

thi s lease . 46 . IMPRO\^MENT S Lesse e ha s inspecte dth e premise s an dha s foun dthe mt o b e suitabl e for it s intende d use .

j j .

### CIT Y O FVENICE , FLORID A ATTEST : BY : DEA N CALAMARAS , MAYO R "LESSOR " LOR I STELZER , City Clerk VENICE/J;E T 

### CENTER , LL C 

# / / ^ 1 /

T BY : (AAM^'I^/UU ^ Witnesse s a s t o Venic e Je t Center , LLC : AR;i^HURNADEL , MANAGE R U ^ i "LESSEE "

rin t / JACQUELIN E BAU R ~

STAT E O FFLORID A COUNT Y O FSARASOT A I HEREB Y CERTIF

Y tha t on thi s date , befor

e me , a n office r duly authorize dt

o tak e acknowledgments , personally appeale dDEA N CALAMARA S andLOR I STELZER , wh

o ar e know n b} ' me t

o b e the person s describe di n an dwho execute dan

datteste dt

o the foregoin

g instrumen t

a s Mayo r an dCit y Clerk , respectively , o f

the Cit y o f Venice , aFloridamunicipa l corporation . Eachacknowledge dbefor e m e tha t the foregoin g instrument

was execute dan

d atteste dt o a s suc hoffice

r in th e name andon behal f o f th e mimicipa

l corporation , andtha

t the y als o affixe dtheret o th e officia l sea l o f th e Cit y of Venice , Florida. . E.xecutedandsealedby m

e a t Venice , Florida , on th e da y o f , 2006 . NOTAR Y PUBLIC Sign Stamp/Seal :STAT E O FFLORID A COUNT Y O FSARASOT A I HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t o n thi s date , befor e me , a n officer dul y authorize dt o tak e acknowledgments , personall y appeare dARTHU RNADEL , a s Manage r o f Venic e Je t

Center , LLC , wh o i s know n t o m e t o b e th e perso n describe di n an dwh o execute dan datteste dt o th e foregoin g instrumen t

a s suc h officer . H e acknowledge dbefor e m e tha t th e foregoin g instrumen t wa s execute dan datteste da s suc h office r i n th e nam e an do n behal f o f th e company , an dtha

t h e als o affixe dtheret o th e officia l sea l o f sai dcompany . Execute dan dseale db y m e a t Venice , Florida , o n th e 41 3 day o f vT\fif^Ci A 2006 . NOTAR Y PUBLI C Sign . 

### (SrjljL.Q-f^>^^ - Stamp/Seal : NOTAR Y PUBUC-SIAT I O FFLORTO A



### Le e A . Fosc o > Commission #DD37560 4 N3-I-3S9\LEAS FFR

O ^"^^ ^ ^""P"^'

- ^^ ^ ^9 , 200 8 INJ

- I_JS9\LEASE-FB O Bonde dThr u Atlanti c Bonding CO . Inc .



### 3 4 iExhibi t F

PAR T I V PROGRA M NARRATIV E (Suggeste d Format ) OEFAKTMEN T O F tRANafOlnAnO N • FEOERA k AVWnO N AOMMSntAnO H aMBN0.212IM)SS e PROJeCT : Rdhabllltat a Runwa y13^ 1 AIRPORT : Vanle a Municipa l Airpor t 1- . Objective : Rehabilitat e Runwa y13-3 1 t o provid e a functiona l an d structura l extensio n o f pavemen t lif e fo rusin g aircraft .

2 . Benefit s Anticipated : Arehabilitate d runvifa ywil l Improv e Airpor t sefe ^ an d efficiency , an d protec t th e functio n o f an d Investmen t I n primar y runwa y13-31 .

3 . Approach ; (SoaappmvedSet^ofWoii(lntln$iApplleiittoi) ) Remov e exiattn g eurfac e an d par t o f substandar d base . Replac e wit h ne wbas e an d surtace . Us e Runwa y4'2 2 fors H ai rtraffi cdurin g rehabilitation . 4 . Geographi cLocation : Ai l wor k t o b e conducte d o n th e existin g Venic e Municipa l Airpor t proper^ . 5 . I f Applicable , Provid e Addltiona t information :

6 : Sponsor' s RepreaentBtiva : (Aw^ . MMrv wa M . iw ^ Fre d Watt s Airpor t Manage r 10 0 Eas t Airpor t Avenu e Venice . F L 3428 5 (941)466-271 1 FAA Fom i 61110.10

0 (M3 ) SUPIRSSDe * FAA FOA M (lOO-lO O (••73 ) PAOe t^ 

## GRAN T AGREEMEN T

U . S , O9partm0n l o rTrenaportaHo n Padora l Aviatio n Administratio n Dat e o f Offer : Projec t Number : Recipient : Airport : Jun e 1 , 200 6 3-12-OOS2-011-200 6 Cit yo f Venic e (Herei n calle d Sponsor ) Venic e Municipa l Airpor t OFFE R T H E FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION , FO R AN D O N BEHAL F O F TH E UNITE D STATES , HEREB Y OFFER S AN D AGREE S t o pay , a s th e Unite d States ' share , ntnety-fiv e percen t (95% ) o f th e allowabl e cost s Incurre d i n accomplishin g th e projec t consistin g o f th e following :

"Rehabilitat e Runwa y13/31 , Includin g Runwa ySafet yAre a (RSA ) improvement s " a s mor e particularl ydescritie d I n th e Projec t Applicatio n date d Ma y17 , 2006 . T h e maximu m obligatio n o f th e Unite d State s payabl e unde rthi s Offe rshal l b e $3,660,322.0 0 fo rairpor t development . Thi s offe rI s mad e I n accordanc e wit h an d fo rth e purpos e o f carryin g ou t th e provision s o f Titl e 49 , Unite d State s Code , herei n calle d Titl e 4 9 U.S.C . Acceptanc e an d executio n o f thi s offe rshal l compris e a Gran t Agreement , a s provide d b yTKt e 4 9 U.S.C , constitutin g th e contractua l obligation s an d right s o f thej^nlte d State s an d th e Sponsor , UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N 

### ^>^^g ^ g Manager , Airport s Distric t Offic e ACCEPTANC E T h e Sponso ragree s t o accomplis h th e projec t I n compllano e wit h th e term s an d condition s containe d herei n an d I n th e documen t 'Term s an d Condition s o f Acceptin g Airpor t Improvemen t Progra m Grants * date d Marc h 29 , 2006 , Execute d thi s (Sea ! day^JCJUA/ ^ . 20^ ^ 

# 'W/^J - — — Attes t •

\ ^^:? V a ^ -^<£>^y^ ^ Nam e o f S : Signatur e o f Sponsor' s Designate d Officia l Representativ e Titl e ^

I. - CERTIFiCAT E O F SPONSOR' S ATTORNE Y certify : actin g a s Attorne yfo rth e Sponso rd o hereb y Tha t i n m yopinio n th e Sponso rI s empowere d t o ente rInt o th e foregoin g Gran t Agreemen t unde rth e law s o f Stat e o f Florida . Further , I hav e examine d th e foregoin g Gra m Agreenrtent , an d th e action s take n b ysai d Spo(»o r relatin g thereto , an d fin d tha t th e acceptanc e thereo f b ysai d Sponso ran d Sponsor' s officia l representativ e ha s bee n dul yauthorize d an d tha t th e executio n thereo f I s I n al l respect s du e an d prope ran d i n accordanc e wit h th e law s o f th e sai d Stat e an d Titl e 4 9 U.S.C . I n addition , fo rgrant s Involvin g project s t o b e carrie d ou t o n propert yno t ownedJjy-MWSpon^r , ther e ar e n o lega l impediment s tha t wil l preven t ful l performano © b yth e Sponsor . Further , oplnlop.-tt1a t th^'^l d Gran t Agreemen t constitute s a lega l an d bindin g obligatio n o f th e Sponso rI n

\ . thyrii>n-f , Signatur e o f Sponsor' s Attorne y Dat e

# o Orland o Airport s Distric t Offic e

• l e r^^*.*....^.* * 595 0 Haxeltln e Nationa l Or, , Suit e 40 0 U.5 . Deportmen t Orlando . F L 32822-«)0 3 o f Transportatio n Fedora l Aviatio n Phone : (407)812^33 1 AdminlstroHo n Fax : (407 ) 812'€97 8 Marc h 24 , 200 9 Mr . Fre d Watts . CM , ^ Airport Directo r'^/ f « Venic e Municipa l Airport z' ' p| ^ 15 0 Airpor

t Avenu e Eas t ^"0 $ Venica , Florid a 3428 5 Dea rMr . Watts :

RE : Venic e Municipa l Airport ; Venice , Florid a AI P Numbe r3-12-0082-011-200 6 Fina l Paymen t an d Project Closeou t Base d o n th e informatio n transmitte d b yyou rFebruar y10 . 200 9 letter , an d th e informatio n containe d i n th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) files , th e FAA ha s prepare d a Fina l Project Repor

t (enclosed ) an d ha s take n actio n t o clos e ou t thi s projec t o n Marc h 24,2009 . Base d o n thi s fina l report , th e tota l allowabl e cost s wer e detennine d t o b e $3,900,451.4 2 (Federa l Shar e $3,705,428.85. ) Yo u gran t accoun t wa s overdraw n b y$38,765.22 . W e ar e currentl yprocessin g th e reimbursemen t chec k yo u sent . Thi s project ha s bee n dose d ou t base d o n th e finding s i n th e FA A Fina l Project Report . I f th e result s o f you rsystem s audi t revea l an ychange s t o thi s report , th e projec t wil l b e reopene d an d th e appropriat e adjustment s wil l b e made . I f yo u hav e an yquestion s o rcomment s regardin g thi s matter , pleas e contac t me . Sincerely , . Krysta l G . RItchey , P. E Progra m Manage r Enclosur e 

### cc : Kriat I Smith , FDOT/ 1 Histor yFil e

# Federa l Aviatio n

Administratio n % 

# Memorandu m Subject : INFORMATION : Fina l Project Repor t Venic e Municipa l Airport ; Venice , Florid a AI P Project No . 3-12-0082-011-200 6 From : Progra m Manage r Date : Marc h 24 , 200 9 Replyt o Attn , of : RitcheyORL-ei8 ;

Ext . 13 6 To : Project Fil e Th e followin g document s relativ e t o th e subject project hav e bee n reviewe d an d are i n th e project files : Gran t agreemen t relatin g t o subjec t project . Attachment , "Projec t Summary " o f project cost s claime d an d approved . Statemen t an d Distributio n o f Projec t Costs . Engineerin g contrac t an d associate d amendments . Sponsor' s invoices . Th e approve d projec t descriptio n i s a s follows : 

### Rehabilitat e Runwa y 13/3 1 Base d o n ou rrevie w o f th e abov e documents , w e have determine d tha t th e Federa l shar e o f th e fina l projec t cost s are : $3,706,428,8 5 fo rDevelopmen t

$ 0 fo rPlannin g $3,705,428.8 5 Tota l Asummar

yo f fina l projec t cost s i s include d i n th e attache d "Projec t Summary" . Al l cost s claime d b ytii e sponso ran d determine d eligibl e fo rfina l paymen t ar e considere d necessary , reasonabl e an d withi n tti e scop e o f th e project . Paymen t o f tti e Federa l shar e o f th e fina l project cost s i s autliorlzed . Th e projec t wil l b e close d base d upo n th e findings i n thi s report . Th e project wil l b e audite d b yth e sponso rI n conjunctio n wit h th e annua l audi t o f th e sponsor' s records . Shoul d th e audi t..revea l tha t certai n cost s ar e ineligible , th e project wil l b e reopene d an d appropriat e

adjustment s wil l b e made . Al l constructio n wor k

ha s bee n satisfactoril ycomplete d i n accordanc e wit h th e approve d contract document s an d withi n th e tim e allowe d b yth e approve d contract documents . Th e sponso rha s complie d wit h th e term s an d condition s o f th e gran t agreemen t Th e followin g document s hav e bee n retaine d i n th e Histor yFil e fo rthi s project : Gran t Agreemen t Applicatio n Pavemen t Desig n Fina l Project Repor

t Fina l Paymen t Repor

t Krysta l G . Ritchey , P.E . Attachmen t c c Kri'st i Smith , FDOT/ 1 Fre d Watts , Cityo f Venic e Histor yFil ePROJEC T SUMMAR Y Descriptio n PLANNIN G Engineerin g Expense s Administratio n Expense s Preliminar

yExpense s (^Miscellaneous . TOTA L PLANNIN G CONSTRUCTIO N Administratio n Expense s Preliminar

yExpense s Engineerin a Basi c Fe e Engineerin g Othe rFe e Project Inspectio n Constructio n Land , Structures . RO W Lan d Developmen t Relocatio n Expense s Relocatio n Payment s Demolitio n & Removal . Equipmen t Miscellaneou s TOTA L CONSTRUCT . Tota l Projec t Cos t Fina l Gran t Payabl e (Federa l Share ) Les s Previou s Payments . Fina l Paymen t Overpaymen t T o B e Recovere d Maximu m Obiiaatio n Claime d Cost s

$5,080,4 4 $250,335.7 8 $75,787.5 0 $3,569,247.7 0

$3,900,451.4 2 $3.900.4S1.4 2 $3,744,194.0 7 $3,706,428.8 5 $38,765.2 2 $3,705,428.8 5 Eligibl e Cost s

$5,080.4 4 $260,335.7 8 $75,787.5 0 $3,569,247.7 0

$3,900,451.4 2 $3,900,451.4 2 $3,744,194.0 7 $3,705,428.8 5 $38,765.2 2 $3,705,428.8 5 Referenc e

Closeou t DocsExhibi t G



### \Vnicc . Florid a "('l!' , i.i' i \\-: t

(illl f ' 

# VENIC E CIT Y NEWSLETTE R APUBLICATIO N FO R TH E CITIZEN S O F VENICE . FLORID A Vol . XI I No . 1 Februar y200 7

iwatrar

- iiifcf]tnatlSn;i|-.: , ^^.,,.j^_,|r-S)?ifi5ty....~...^.,....«;^'' S :i®|iitit ^ Schedule . .i...i ^ • • ||:^jl^jai;. „ ...w...viiv..i«, P,.iSif^rjnationyoa-i»aoij^.i i •d;^:^^- ^ ii< m•Survey,„,.';l l 

# Cit y an dcount y ente r int o ajoin t

land-us e agreemen t

t o improv e plannin g fo r futur e By Marti n P . Biaci t Cit y Manage r A s th e ne w yea r

begins , Venic e Cit y Counci l prepare s t o hos t th e annua l tow n hal l meetin g o n Feb . 26 , 6:3 0 p.m. , a t Venic e Cit y Hall . We'v e identifie dsevera l critica l communit y issue s tha t shoul d receiv e specifi c focu s an dinpu t t o hel p guid e th e futur e o f

ou r community . Residents , visitor s an dbusines s owner s ar e encourage dt o reflec t o n thes e on-goin g projects , tak e advantag e o f upcomin g publi c inpu t

session s an dpro vid e Cit y Counci l wit hyou r thought s an d priorities . 1 . Th e join t

maste r pla n frame

wor k establishe di n th e interloca l servic e an dplannin g agreemen t betwee n Venic e an dSarasot aCount y i s acritica l mileston e fo r th e community . I t

create s aclea r

pictur e o f futur e lan duse , transportation , utilit y an denviroiunenta l prioritie s fo r bot hloca l government s i n th e greate r Venic e area , whic hinclude s abou t

22,00 0 acre s o f

cit y an dcount y jurisdiction . Th e agreemen t

betwee n th e cit y an dcount y i s th e first

o f it s kin di n Florida . I t represent s unprecedente ddeci

sion s b y Venic e an dSarasot aCounty , an d create s ajoin t

25-yea r blueprin t

fo r th e future . 2 . Th e U.S . 4 1 Bypas s maste r pla n stud y i s jointl y funde db y Sarasot aCount y an dVenice . Th e projec t begin s thi s mont h an dwil l includ e publi c participation . I t wil l se t forthredevelopmen t

alternative s an d desig n standard s fo r

lan duse , t o guid e futur e decision s prio r

t o an di n concer t

wit h eventua l roa dwidening . 3 . Th e Venic e Municipa l Airpor t existin g aviatio n maste r plan , includin g a busines s par k

plan , wa s las t

update di n 2003 . I t i s update dabou t

ever y fiv e years . Th e curren t

updat e proces s will revis e plan s t o eliminat e condominiu muse s an d focu s o n futur e airpor t operation s an d growth . Thi s philosoph y reflect s th e strate gi c objective s o f

th e cit y counci l an dcom munity . I t

compliment s Venice' s strength s a s adestination , retiremen t an dresort

com munity . Publi c meeting s an dreview s t o updat e th e pla n too k

plac e ove r

th e pas t year . Thi s proces s wil l culminat e i n final review s wit hopportunitie s fo r publi c inpu t at meeting s o f

th e Airpor t

Advisor y Boar d an dCit y Council . 4 . "Envisio n Venice, " th e city' s award-winnin g plannin g effort , will con clud e ove r

th e cours e o f

th e year wit h a serie s o f

final publi c meetings , an d Plannin g Commissio n an dCit y Counci l approva l t o transmi t

revision s t o th e city' s comprehensiv e pla n fo r stat e review . Th e pla n i n proces s refocuse s o n th e city' s historica l legac y o f traditiona l neighborhoods , architectura l desig n an d

Ne w Year

, continue do n Pag e 8Pag e 2 Venic e Cit y Newslette r Februar y 200 7 

# Airpor t celebrate s reconstructio n o f Runwa y

• Runwa y 13/3 1 reconstructio n i s complete .

• Runwa y 04/2 2 planne dfo r reconstruction .

• Runwa y i s sam e siz e a s befor e construction .

• Airpor t

t o remai n i n it s curren t location .

Phi l Boyer , presiden t

o r Aircraf t Owner s an dPilot s Association , speali s t o abou t

100 peopl e at

th e gran dopenin g o f

rehabilitate d Runwa y 13/31 . Whe n h e lef t Venic e t o retur n t o Washington , D.C , hi s flight wa s th e first

t o us e th e run way .

Above , aCessn aflies ove r Venic e Municipa l Airport . Right , Florid a Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Intermoda i System s Developmen t Manage r Be n Walke r

addresse s th e audience . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Souther n Regiona l Administrato r Dou g Murph y sai dthi s projec t i s an exampl e o f th e federa l an dlocal government s workin g together . Th e federa l govern men t pai dfo r abou t 9 5 percen t

of th e project , with FDO T an dth e cit y shar

in g th e remainder .

Venic e Municipa l Airpor t Runwa y 13/3 1 reopene dDec . 5 . A rib

bo n cuttin g ceremon y wa s hel dt o cel

ebrate . Th e runwa y wa s close dfo r fou r month s du e t o reconstruction . Th e airpor t

receive dagran t

o f abou t $3. 6 millio n fro mth e FAA' s Airpor t Improvemen t

Progra mfunds , an dabou t

$93,00 0 fro mth e Florid a Transportatio n Department . Th e air

por t enterpris e fun dpai danothe r $93,000 . APA C Southeas t Inc . wa s th e contractor . Th e conditio n o f

th e runwa y deteriorate dove r

severa l years . Th e rehabilitatio n include dimprovement s t o th e basi c structur e o f th e 5,000-foo t long , 150-foo t

wid e runway . Runwa y edg e light s an dothe r

safet y improve

ment s wer e included . Th e rehabilita

tio n doe s no t increas e th e siz e o f

th e runwa y o r

chang e it s use . Improvement s fo r

Runwa y 4/2 2 ar e i n th e desig n phas e an d expecte dt o b e funde dthi s year . Th e airpor t

i s owne dan d operate db y th e Cit y o f

Venic e i n com plianc e wit h federa l aviatio n regula

tion s a s par t

o f th e nation' s transporta tio n system . I t

i s funde db y th e airpor t enterpris e fund , whic h i s separat e fi-om th e city' s genera l fun dan dmus t gener at e it s ow n incom e fro msource s othe r tha n a dvalore mtaxes . Tw o year s ago , Venic e Cit y Coimci l passe daresolutio n stating , "th e existin g airpor t

wil l remai n i n it s curren t locatio n an dwil l no t b e moved. " Th e forma l actio n wa s base d o n informatio n provide di n arepor t fro mDufj-esne-Heiu y Inc. , a n aviatio n consultin g firmhire db y th e cit y t o updat e th e airpor t

maste r pla n i n th e lat e 1990s . Th e pla n i s require dt o b e update da t

regula r intervals . Th e consultan t

reporte di n 199 8 th e result s o f

aconceptua l airpor t analysi s showe dth e cos t i n 199 7 dol

lar s t o mov e th e airpor t

fro mit s exist

in g locatio n woul db e abou t $6 8 mil

lion . I n Marc h 1998 , th e counci l authorize dstaf

f t o continu e th e plan

nin g proces s o f

th e existin g airport . Resolutio n 2004-2 6 wa s passe do n Jul y 27 , 200 4 b y th e cit y counci l a s areinforcemen t o f th e deci

sio n o f th e earlie r

counci l no t

t o mov e th e Venic e airport . Continue don Pag e 3Februar y 200 7 Venic e Cit y Newslette r Pag e 3 

# 13/3 1 i n December ; anothe r on e slate dt o begi n

Amon g thos e cuttin g th e ribbo n a t th e ceremon y celebratin g th e completio n of th e rehabilitatio n of

Runwa y 13/3 1 are , fro m left , Joh n Simmonds , cit y counci l membe r

an dex-offici o t o th e Airpor t Advisor y Board ; Pau l Holloweil , chairma n of th e Airpor t Advisory Board ; Dougla s Murphy , FA A Souther n Regiona l Administrator ; Caroly n Blum , forme r FA A regiona l administrator ; Bar t

Bartanowic z an dJoh n Yurosko , Airpor t Advisory Boar dmembers ; Fre dHammett , mayor ; Joh n Moore , city counci l member ; Krysta l Hudson , ; Nanc y Detert , forme r stat e representative ; Phi l Boyer , AOP A president ; LaMon t Couch , communit y outreac hdirecto r for Katherin e Harris , forme r U.S . congresswoman ; Roxan n Lake , Krist i Smith , an dJef f Leopold , FDOT . Airport , continue dfromPag e 2 Severa l businesse s hav e indi

cate dthe y wil l b e comin g forwar dwit h proposal s for

th e developmen t

o f airpor t non-aviatio n propert y i n th e future . Communit y discussion s rang e fro ma hote l t o shops , amuseu man damarina . Th e cit y counci l wil l carefull y conside r appropriat e lan duse s fo r th e property . Lan dlease s ar e necessar y for th e airpor t

t o receiv e revenues , whic h i n tur n pa y fo r

airpor t operations . Th e airpor t

maste r plan , whic h i s update dever y five t o seve n years , call s fo r afutur e busines s par k

t o hel p brin g operationa l revenu e t o th e airport . Consultant s workin g o n th e 199 9 mas te r pla n mappe dou t

th e are awher e th e developmen t

shoul dgo . Th e curren t updatin g proces s o f

th e maste r

pla n continue s t o loo k

a t th e bes t

wa y t o develo p airpor t

propert y t o ensur e th e financial stabilit y o f

th e facility . Residentia l developmen t i s no t bein g considere dfo r

th e area . Left , Venic e Muni

cipa l Airpor t

a s it i s see n fro mth e air . Below , forme r

stat e Rep . Nanc y Deter t helpe dth e cit

y attai n stat e fund s for

airpor t improvements . Sh e wa s on e o f

th e gues t speaker s a t

th e ribbo n cuttin g ceremony .

Afte r th e ceremony , a receptio n wa s hel da t Agap e Flight s hangar , 10

0 Airpor t Ave . Agap e Flight s i s amissionar y organizatio n tha t

flies item s need

e dfo r sustenanc e t o th e Caribbean . Guest s ar e welcom e a t th e hanga r

betwee n 1 0 a.m . - 2 p.m . Contac t

the mat 488-0990 .

# t i o ^ o 

# I ^ • a s 

# ?

### o < 

# t N § pi , 

# I

o o >^ t S 0 0 

## s i s

. 2 (li 

### <- a 

# 11 1 Q ^ 

### s o w

• > t » " e g o e n g 

# 1 & E Q o

^ ^ a ; 

### ( 5 

# I

. a o

> - o c o c ^ d c

. c c d H 2 o C A Q E

. 2 r ^ C A 

# 1 E S m ^

s 

# I i

• « t t/i ^ 

# I I ' 5 S O a l w c d " S

. £ u e n '« ?

- J

. H g 

# I s C u 3

. c > 

# 1 ^ °- § i j " • 

### °f i 

# « i O

f U H • g —• & •«' • 

### id- s

3 O . 

### o J 3 r ro o ~

< * ; cd < > n o o < N fe 

# f a . —

X 

# I i

J = S i E o b X I E c d u

>Exhibi t H Pag e 1 of ] Frederic k Watt s - Weigh t

Bearin g Capacities , Updat e From : Kent

Bontrager

<KBontrager@hanson-inc.com > To : Frederic k

Watt s <fwatts@ci.venice.fl.us > Date : 6/23/200 8 5:1 5 PM Subject : Weigh

t Bearin g Capacities , Update Fred , Th e followin g weigh t bearin g capacitie s fo rRW Y 13-3 1 (base d upo n 20-y rlife) : S W - 30,00 0 lb s D W - 63,00 0 lb s D T -100,00 0 lb s Th e followin g weigh t bearin g capacitie s fo rRW Y 4-2 2 (base d upo n 5-y rlife) : S W -15,00 0 lb s D W - 24,00 0 lb s D T - N/ A Give u s a cal l i f yo u have an yquestions , Ken t Kent O Bontrager , P.E . Pro^td t En||bi«e r Haiwc m Professiona i Senrk»s , Inc . 901 S Tow n Cente rParkway , Suit e 10 5 Lakewoo d Ranidi , Fkjrki a 3420 2 mnmr n 941.MX632 1 Ext . 21 3 Fax : Ml.379.647 4 CeM: 941323.200 1 itnai : ktKHitra9er#han«on>Utc.ceM n

****** * Confidentialit yNotice : Thi s entir e e-mai l ma ycontai n confidentia l informatio n belongin g t o th e sende r whic h i s legall yprivileged . Thi s informatio n i s intende d onl yfo r th e us e o f th e individual(s ) o r entit yname d above . I f yo u ar e no t th e intende d recipien t yo u ar e herebynotifie d tha t anydisclosure , copying , distributio n o r th e takin g o f anyactio n i n relianc e o n th e content s o f thi s informatio n i s strictl yprohibited . I f yo u hav e receive d thi s e-mai l i n erro r pleas e notif yth e sende r immediatel ybye-mai l and the n delet e thi s e-mai l fro myou r system . Than k you . Mai l delivere d b

yHanso n Professiona l Service s Inc . mai l syste m ****** * file://C:\Document s andSettingsNfwattsVLoca i Settings\Temp\XPgrpAvise\485FDA3EVenic.. . 8/14/200 8

### Exhibi t I

# z

> 

# I 

# o

£I >j| S ' O '' ^ ' 3 ^ " ^ 

# O i S " c f t i *•>" • ^ T 

# 2 . O # '<|tPM I ^^ ^

-gv.-i ^

> < 

### 5

5i S o < « H Q

4 ^ M 

### i> S 3 a ^... . 

## ^ g 3 O ' •

- ? N009 N 0 ) c 3

- s

• • •May2009

• M 

# t i V ,

*^* ^ •;::'-" '

' 8 i^ ' ••

* • •J2 . ^••' H f t 

## s

• • tf) 

## o •' f

t o f-; ^ CN T : ;T — ^ <N | f — T * "

t o O T t , ( N '•

•

O < D r- _ T - - .

C O o p cs T

0 0 «o C M 

# s

• 1 " < o



# ? C M

C M

* N

- *

, •'•: .

'* t

< 0

o

« ? ^ • '



# 3 0 0 o m

C M ^

C O C O

C M 0 0

C O U )

C O C M

•

^ 

# fc ""S

o C D

O •^ r 

# s T TM

-" f C O

o r -

0 0 • *



# i: : C M « o

o T —

C M T —

o T —

C O CO

o t l - 

## 5



# ^5.: 

# s

• *

C M C M

C M

t o

C M C M

^



# 3 " *

C M

O

O

O

C M

O

•



# s •x f

• *

O

O

C M

o b

o

: • V

• . ! ^} :



# 3 • *

o

C M

Q

• • Q •

O

C M

.

X ^

(£ > oo "

• * C O

• * ^.J *

T — 9 ? c^ _ T -

C O C D N- ^ T " ' .

0 0 h ~ '( f

C M C O 0 0 «

• «» . •

. / ' "• • • • •

;, , dr!-%: i

. '^A-. . • - y 

# 1 O

h - • - - o

CO e o 

## * i C M

C M c n CO C M

1 ^ C M 0 ^

l O * - t ^ co " 

# s » rt t o

* * • 

# 5

iiy- ' ;

I S 

# 1 1 S S o C C ^ S l l

H • ^

«

C OExhibi t J 

### LAND US E INSPECTIO N REPOR T Venic e Municipa l Airpor t (VNC ) Venice , F L Augus t 10 , 200 9

Photo Courtes y o f

Googl e Eart

hPro

### Note : * Mete s an dbound s descriptio n of thes e parcel s ma

y contai n errors . * * Thi s propert

y wa s release dfor

th e establishment

o f th e IntraCoasta

l Waterway . Parce l "D " (48.0 0 Acres ) revert s t o th e Cit

y fo r airpor t purpose s onc e th e Corp s o f

Engineer s or

other governmen

t agenc y havin g jurisdictio n determine s tha

t Parce l "D " i s n o longe

r require dfo

r cana l purpose s b y th e Wes t Coas t InlandNavigationa

l Distric t or successor agency . 8 , AI P Gran t

Histor y a s of

Ma y 20.200 9 Grant s AIP-00 1 AIP-00 2 A(P-00 3 AIP-00 4 AIP-00 5 AIP-00 6 AlP-OO ? AIP-00 8 AIP-00 9 AIP-01 0 AIP-01 1 Agreemen t

Dat e 4/11/198 4 4/1/198 5 2/5/198 7 9/27/198 8 8/13/199 1 9/28/199 2 9/28/199 9 8/26/200 3 7/27/200 4 8/29/200 5 6/1/200 6 Exh . "A "

Dat e Gran t Wor k Descriptio n Conduc t Airpor t Maste rPla n Study ; Instal l Apro n Lighting ; Instal l Miscellaneou s NAVAIDS ; Instal l Runwa yVertical/Visua l Guidanc e System ; Rehabilitat e Runwa yUghtin g improv e BuOdiix) ; Instal l Apro n Lighting ; Instal l Runwa yVertical/Visua l Guidanc e Syste m

Rehabilitat e Taxiwa y RehabUltat e Apron ; Rehabilitat e Runwa y- 4-2 2 Conduc t Nois e CompatibDit yPla n Study ; Construc t Apro n Insta H Weathe rReportin g Equipmen t Rehabilitat e Runwa y-13/3 1 Instal l Penmete rFencing ; Instal l Runwa y VertlcalA/isua l Guidanc e Syste m -13/31,4/2 2

Rehabilitat e Runwa y- ATZ Z Conduc t Airpor t Maste rPla n Stud y Rehabilitat e Runwa y-13/3 1 Tota l AI P Fina l Amoun t $119,30 7 $121,39 5 $138,08 7 $68,21 3 $214,00 0 $75,90 7 $193,96 2 $450,00 0 $146,291.4 5 $328,11 5 $3,744,194.0 7 $5,599,471.5 2 

### Vni . FAA Facilitie s an dProcedure s

• Installe dandmaintain a n Remote Communication s Air/Ground(RCAG) Facilit y

• Designe dan

dpublishe dan RNA

V instrument

approac hprocedure t o RW-1 3

• Designe dan

dpublishe dan RNA

V instrument

approac hprocedure t o RW-3 1

• Designe dan

dpublishe dan ND B o r

GP S instrument

approac hprocedure t o RW-3 1Exhibi t K

APPJJCATIO N FO R

. FEDERA L ASSISTANC E Versio n 7/D 3 2 . DATESUBMITTE O AppUcaii t ldenUfl« r 1.TYP H O F SUBMISSION ; Applicatio n D CcnstnicOo n g NonrOpn^tTMSAjglL . a . DAT E RECBVE D B Y STAT E Stal e AppTicatio n kJentWe r Pre>applIe«U9 n L i Oonstnictle n 0 Won-Conttfuctloi L 4 . DAT E RECEIVE D B Y FEDERA L AGENC Y Fodora l Idonlirra r fcAPPUOAN T INFORMATIO N Lega l Name : Cir yO F VENIC E OfgiOb;atlonilUnl t Oepartmeh t VENIC E MUNICIPA L AIRPOR T Organt^Uona l DUNS : /^ G " i Z/^' ^ I Q ) OivSion T AddreaS ! iFiit " 40 1 WeSTVENICeAVeNt/ E Nam e an d telephoi wnumb« ro f p«rto n t o ti e contacte d o h maKer s Invplvln g thi s appBcgflp n (gly t iro i codt ) Prafix : Fln t Nama : ROBERT City . VSNIC E Middl e Nam e County : SARASOTA Las t Nam a HERNANDE Z State : FLORID A Zi p Cod e g4ga s SutTix : Coun ^ IS A Email : rtiacnanQft'.venioaJ.l'* C . EMPLOYE R lOENTIt^lCATIO N NUMBE R mH) ; e . TYP E O P APPIJCAT10N : Phon e N unit)e r(sl« « •(« • codv ) 641-446-271 1 Fa xNumbe r(p<v

« *(« > eeM ) 041-4e3-SM2 ' P Ne wfT) Oontinuatio n I T R«vi«lo n IfRovtebn . ente rappreprtab i btlM<« ) i n lK>x(as ) (Se a bac k

o f form fo rdescriptio n o f Mtere. ) __ Othe r(specify ) TYP E O F APPLICANT : (So o bac k O f fon n fo rApptieatio n Types } C Othe r(epecfly) •rNAM E O F FEDERA L AGENCY : Pddara l Avbtlo o Admbitsb^tio n 11 . DESCRIPTIV e TfTL E O F APPLICANT S PROJECT : Desig n onl y(o rR«tMbnitiiUe n o f Runway4/2 2 (S.OO O X150 ) a t Venlo o Munldpa i Akpor t Indudta o Admlnlstnrtlve , Gufvaylhg. ' 0«ouchn1o« i $MvioM , Enginoothi g 6«viow , S«pcineaiK)i M Oocuniant s an d Bi d DocuoMitts , Updat e OB E ooal t i n B M Alcpor t OB E Vnnipna . 10 . CATALO G OFFEOHRALDOMESTI C ASSISTANC E NUMBER : 

### (|][ol-00II ] TITL E (Nam ao f

Propnffl) : 12 . AREA S AFFfiCTE D B Y PROJEC T (Ctttos , Coaatles . Slatos , «/cJ : CfT Y O F VENIC E tEHaiECCHi'Eiiaii a 6t m Oats : 6/20/0 4 16 . ^UMATE D PUNdINd: ' Endin g Oikta : 10/2S/0 4 

### axssiMMMiin^smmm^i i {•.^»6can l l>.Pin»Joe t 7 0

« . Federa l b . Applloan t 16 . I S APPLICATIO N SinJ^OTT O JftEVIE M B Y STAI B EXEOUTIV E BRPB R 12872 PR0ffSS 7

. vL . n Ti^i s wwPU(iATi61>i/AWLteAtl6 M WA AliAbf t a . Yos , M AVAILABL E T O TH E STAT E EXEOUTIV B ORDE R 1237 2 PROCES S FO R REVIE W O N DATE : b.No . m PROGRAM' S NOTCOVERE O BY6.0.1237 2 n O R PROGRA M HA S NO TOEE N SBLECTg O B Y STAT E ^ saB M 13S,9S $ 7.77 6 aSlat s dLood l

. Sille r I Progran i inoom e 7,77f i 

# w m •9.V0VA L las^ois ' 17 . I S T>«E Afi^lfiAM t OBLtNCHi^ ydl M AM V t^io^RA L H^I V D Ye cI f "Yes * attac h a n axpbnattm . 2 . N o IS . TO TH E BES T O F W YKN0WL(l(l6 ^

A(( P BBU^ . AL L OAT X t N Vhf e /kPPUCA f i6NifPRBAP>llcAti6* f Ak S ifRU d AN D C6R;*^CT . tilf e ODCUMIEN T HA S BBE N DUL Y AUTH0RU!I6 O S YTH E GOVEItNIN O BOD Y O F TH E APPLICAN T AM D TH E APPUCAN T WI U COMPL Y WIT H TH E 'ytTACTE D AasURAHCe S I F TH E /MlSIS1|'AH0 B I S AWAftftBP . nrnwn^Trrin-nTTTwn? ; Mr . ias t Nam e mSn T Maitir t 

### mm i rrss s giacf c Sufflx

SBB M Autliortsu d lo rLoca l R«0(«duatb n lam e P . i . ToMption e NUmbd r^K ^ W M oad ^ ).Daie8ipM<r : ^ ^ ir<iiW424(R«v,ij^3 )

Pi^scrlbit f b vOM B Ofteula rA<10 2

rucncoi . 1 i. o ' 'wu M <7n'flri-rtr-n i^ 

## GRAN T AGREEMEN T 

# COP Y

U . S . Departmon t o f Transportatio n F0dorsi l Aviatio n Administratio n Dat e o f Offer : Jun e 28 . 200 4 Projec t Number : 3-12-0082-009-200 4 Recipient : Cit yo f Venic e (l-terei n calle d Sponsor ) Airport : Venic e Municipa l Airpor t OFFE R T H E FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION , FO R AN D O N BEHAL F O F TH E UNITE D STATES , HEREB Y OFFER S AN D AGREE S to pay , a s th e Unite d States ' share , ninety-fiv e percen t (05% ) o f th e allowabl e cost s Incurre d I n accomplishin g th e projec t consistin g o f th e following : 'Rehabilitat e (±5.00 0 L F x10 0 FT ) Runwa y4/2 2 (Phas e 1 - Design). " a s mor e particularl ydesorlbe d I n th e Projec t Applicatio n date d Ma y25,2004 . Th e maximu m obligatio n o f th e Unite d State s payabl e unde rthi s Offe rshal l b e $147,73 0 fo rairpor t developmen t Thi s offe ri s mad e I n accordanc e wit h an d fo rth e purpos e o f carryin g ou t th e provision s o f Titl e 49 , Unite d State s Code , herei n calle d Titl e 4 9 U.S.C . Acceptanc e an d executio n o f thi s offe rshal l compris e a Gran t Agreement , a s provide d b yTitl e 4 9 U.S.C . constitutin g th e contractua l obligations^an d right s o f th e Unite d State s an d th e Sponsor . " UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A ^ ^ FEDEFIA L AVIATIO N ADM I N l STRATIO N A6tin g Marke r^^^^liport s Distric t Offic e ACCEPTANC E Th e Sponso ragree s t o accomplis h th e projec t I n complianc e wit h th e term s an d corKlltion s containe d herei n an d i n th e documen t "Term s an d Condition s o f Acceptin g Airpor t Improvemen t Progra m Grants " date d Septemt>e r1 . 1999 . Execute d thl8^2tfida yo f K^^iy ^ 2 0 O ^

Ctr? ^

Qp - /J^i^/c ^ (Seat ) U . ^

/'SL /

" NanflS»o f Sponso r



# Q 'Sjz, — C ^j^SL ^

• • * • • < > Attes t ^

Z ^

signatur e o f sponsor s Designate d Officia l Representativ e Titl e ' Titl e CERTIFICAT E O F SPONSOR' S ATTORNE Y I . l\)O^^V\ ^ C ' Nt>i /

, actin g a s Attorne yfo rth e Sponso rd o hereb y ceriy ^ \ J Tha t i n m yopinio n th e Sponso rI s empowere d t o ente rInt o th e foregoin g Gran t Agreemen t unde rth e law s o f Stat e o f Florida . Further , I hav e examine d th e faregoln g Gran t Agreement , an d th e action s take n b ysai d Sponso r relatin g thereto , an d flrxf tha t th e acceptanc e thereo f b ysai d Sponso ran d Sponsor' s ofHola l representativ e ha s bee n dul yauthorize d an d tha t th e executio n thereo f I s I n al l respect s du e an d prope ran d I n accordanc e wit h th e law s o f th e sai d Stat e an d Titl e 4 9 U.S.C . i n addition , fo rgrant s Involvin g project s t o b e carrie d ou t o n propert yno t owne d t^

yth e Sponsor , ther e ar e n o lega l Impediment s tha t wil l preven t ful l performanc e b yth e Sponsor . Further , i t I s m yopinio n tha t th e sai d Gran t Agreemen t constitute s a lega l an d bindin g obligatio n o f th e Sponso rI n accordanc e witlvlti e term s the r signatur e o f Spdhson s Attorne y^ Dat e 

## n ~ ?n-o ^ 

# COP Y^ Orland o Alrpoit s Distric t Ofllc e , , „ , , ^

^ S950Ha2eltln « Nationa l Or. . Suit e 40 0 "•S . Deportmen t Orlando , F L 32822-600 3 o f Tfonspoftatlo n federa l Aviatio n Phone : (407 ) 812-633 1 Administratio n F« : (407 ) 812-697 8 Jul y26 , 200 7 Mr . Fre d Watt s Aiipor t Manage r Venic e Municipa l Airpor t . .;;.--' ^ 16 0 Airport Avenu e Eas t , ^^ ^ 9 < ^ '....-- > - ^ Venice , Florid a 3428 5 tP' ^ " ^ Dea rMr . Watts :

RE : Venic e Municipa l Airport ; Venice , Florid a AI P Numbe r3-12-0082-009-200 4 Fina l Paymen t an d Projec t Closeou t Base d o n th e informatio n transmitte d b yyou rJul y9 , 200 7 letter , an d th e informatio n containe d I n th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) files , th e FA Aha s prepare d a Fina l Projec t Repor

t (enclosed ) an d ha s take n actio n t o clos e ou t thi s projec t o n Jul y 16 , 2007 . Base d o n thi s fina l report , th e tota l allowabl e cost s wer e determine d t o b e $153,990.5 3 (Federa l Shar e = $146,291.45) . Al l eligibl e fund s hav e bee n drawn. Thi s projec t ha s bee n close d ou t base d o n th e finding s I n th e FAAFina l Projec t Report . I f th e result s o f you rsystem s audi t revea l an ychange s t o thi s report , th e projec t wil l b e reopene d an d th e appropriat e adjustment s wil l b e made . I f yo u hav e an yquestion s o rcomment s regardin g thi s matter , pleas e contac t me . Slnoerely , Crysta l G . Hudson , P.E . Progra m Manage r Enclosur e 

### cc : Jef f Leopold , FDOT/ 1

r\ , / n 1 J l Tl./^nonj . I i. O I 'UIJO I • TA'Cri_A7_fV l

# Federa l Aviatio n

Administratio n 

# Memorandu m Subject : INFORMATION : Fina l Project Report

Venic e Municipa l Airport ; Venice , Florid a AI P Projec t No . 3-12-0082-009-200 4 From : Progra m Manage r Date : Jul y26 . 200 7 fteply t o Attn , of : Hudso n ORL-618 ; Ext .

13 6 To : Projec t Fil e Th e followin g document s relativ e t o th e subjec t project hav e bee n reviewe d an d ar e i n th e projec t files : Gran t agreemen t relatin g t o subjec t project . Attachment , "Projec t Summary " o f projec t cost s claime d an d approved . Statemen t an d Distributio n o f Projec t Costs . Engineerin g contrac t an d associate d amendments . Sponsor' s certification . Th e approve d projec t descriptio n i s a s follows : Rehabilitat e Runwa y4/22 - Desig n Base d o n ou rrevie wo f th e abov e documents , w e hav e determine d tha t th e Federa l shar e o f th e fina l projec t cost s are : $148,291.4 5 fo rDevelopmen t

$ 0 fo rPlannin g $146,291.4 5 Tota l Asummaryo f fina l projec t cost s i s include d I n th e attache d "Projec t Summary" . Al l cost s claime d b yth e sponso ran d detennine d eligibl e fo rfina l paymen t ar e considere d necessary , reasonabl e an d withi n th e scop e o f th e project . Paymen t o f th e Federa l shar e o f th e final projec t cost s i s authorized . Th e projec t wil l b e close d base d upo n th e finding s i n thi s report . Th e projec t vA W b e audite d b yth e sponso rI n conjunctio n wit h th e annua l audi t o f th e sponsor' s records . Shoul d th e audi t revea l tha t certai n cost s ar e ineligible , th e projec t wil l b e reopene d an d appropriat e

f \ \ ir\ \

ji i •Ti-ft/>nr»i i I J-/ ^ ' 'UKJC I » f A ' OA_f\,T_ AIadjustment s wil l b e made . A s authorize d b yParagrap h 1343 . Orde r5100.35 , thi s

repor t represent s fina l cost s allowabl e fo rth e project . Th e sponso rha s complie d wit h th e temn s an d condition s o f th e gran t agreemen t Th e followin g document s hav e bee n retaine d i n th e Histor yFil e fo rthi s project : Gran t Agreemen t Applicatio n Pavemen t Desig n Fina l Projec t Repor

t Fina l Paymen t Repor

t Krysta l G . Hudson . P.E . Attachmen t 

### c c Jeff Leopold , FDOT/ 1 Fre d Watts , Cit yo f Venice - Venic e Municipa l Airpor t Histor yFil e

'lA).jr « I » T A ' eA_A T . AIPROJEC T SUMMAR Y

\ Descriptio n PLANNIN G Engineerin g Expense s Administratio n Expense s Preliminar

yExpense s Miscellaneous . t TOTA L PLANNIN G CONSTRUCTIO N Administratio n Expense s Preliminar

yExpense s Engineerin g Basi c Fe e Engineerin g Othe rFe e Projec t Inspectio n Constructio n Land . Structures , RO W Lan d Developmen t Relocatio n Expense s Relocatio n Payment s Demolitio n & Removal . Equipmen t Miscellaneou s 1 TOTA L CONSTRUCT . Tota l Projec t Cos t Fina l Gran t Payabl e 1 (Federa l Share ) Les s Previou s Payments . Fina l Pavmen t Overpaymen t T o B e Recovere d 1 Maximu m Obligatio n 1 1 Claime d Cost s 1 Ellaibl e Cost s

$105,898.6 4 $61,624.0 0

$157,522.6 4 $167,522,6 4 $146,291.4 5 $146,291.4 5

$ 0 $ 0 $146,201.4 5 $105,898.6 4

$48,092.0 0

$153,99 1 $153,99 1 $146,291.4 5 $146,291.4 5

$ 0 $ 0 $146,291.4 6 Referenc e

Closeou t Doc s Closeou t Doc s 1

Ti-OOrOi . ( i. C ' I T A I OA^A T A I