UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OT' TRANSPj 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRA 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Venice Jet Center, LLC 

Complainant, 

V. FAA Docket No. 16-09-05 

City of Venice, Florida 

Respondent. 

/ 

SWORN DECLARATION OF DONALD MARTIN KRETCHMAN 

Under penalties of perjury, I swear that the following is true and correct: JSj 

1. I am the managing director of Instate Aviation Group of Floada LI 

("Instate"). 

2. On December 29, 2009, on behalf of Instate, I met with City of Venice officials 

at City Hall around 10 a.m. to informally discuss the hangar dispute (among other issues related 

to Instate's becoming the lessee under the lease between the Venice Jet Center, LLC and the 

City of Venice). Present at the meeting on behalf of the City were Isaac lumer, Nancy 

Woodley, Jeff Snyder, and Wayne Hall (filling in for Bob Anderson, city attorney). Possible 

resolutions to the hangar dispute were discussed in good faith but the dispute was not resolved. 

The hangar discussions concluded with my telling the City of Venice that Instate intended to 

build the hangars in their originally planned location. 

3. The quotes from the short excerpts from the meetings cited by the City of Venice 

in their Memorandum of Points and Authority dated February 18, 2010 ("Memorandum") are 

taken out of context. 
4. My response to Sue Lang's comment (Exhibit II to the Memorandum) related to 

the financial pro formas. I was trying to get across the point that the business was viable even 

without the new hangars using current traffic levels, as the City seemed very hung up on how 

we'd make it work where others had failed. While trying to be amenable, I never once said I 

didn't intend to build the hangars. In response to her comment that hangar demand was down, I 

said "I want to leave the possibility (to build hangars) open" because I hadn't done any 

"independent evaluation". 

5. In response to the mayor's comment (Exhibit III to the Memorandum), I 

responded in reference to Mr. Mckeon's comment. Ihe other council member made the point 

that they weren't there to discuss hangars, they were there simply to approve or deny the lease 

transfer. My remark "I don't have any intention to break ground tomonow" and "it's a very 

linear process" was intended to say "let's talk about this when the time comes." Something that I 

see is omitted from the City's exhibits, obviously, is the comment I made to the mayor in the 

same meeting where I said (paraphrasing from memory) "if the lease transfer is contingent on a 

response regarding the hangars, then we'll discuss it further" to which they responded by quickly 

moving on and consentmg to Iristate becoming the lessee. 

6. Thus, Iristate is now the lessee vmder the lease and has every intention to build 

the hangars as proposed. Ihe City of Venice's continuing refiisal and failure to allow the 

hangars to be built (and generally violating various FAA grant assurances arising from the City's 

diversion of airport revenue and its failure to properly maintain the airport) is causing harm to 

Iristate. Please see attached statement which was stated to the City of Venice at a council 

meeting on February 9, 2010, which includes an admonishment of the City for refusing to allow 

Iristate to build the hangars. 
Sworn this 21" day of February, 2010. 

Afc 

DOlULDfJfeSiRTI iJSlSiflMR' N KRETCHMAN 
Mr. Mayor, City Council Members and City Staff. 

My Name is Marty Kretclnman and I represent Tristate Aviation Group, the 

owner and operator of Suncoast Air Center at the Venice Municipal Airport. 

I have been party to and observer of the happenings here over the last 

several months, and I speak today not on any one specific topic but on a 

variety of issues I feel council should give serious consideration. 

Since taking over the facility less than 30 days ago, I have seen a lot of misinformation and ''half-truths" being propagated to council members and city 

staff regarding the direction that council should take, strategies to 

implement, and even engineering advice by a vocal but very small number 

of local residents. 

These few individuals have targeted their time in an effort to consume Staff 

resources, provide information deemed as "expert" and to misguide this 

council into a false sense of security and knowledge of the real truth about 

the operations, the aircraft counts, the conditions and the future direction of 

this tremendous asset to the residents of Venice. 

Today, I pose for your thought and consideration simple statements of fact 

and additional information. Whenever there is a half truth, as in many of 

those statements provided to you, there is always an equal and positive 

component that is essential to understanding the entire issue and not just a 

small number of individual's attempts at painting a certain picture. 

First, I would like to ask the following question: 

As Staff and Council have taken much of their direction from only a few 

vocal opponents, how does one know for certain this accurately represents 

the feelings of a majority of city residents? 

As Staff and Council have been provided with numerous recommendations 

and comments of fact from these individuals, are these people, in fact, 

qualified to provide this information? 

If, based on FAA records, they have not been active pilots for many years, 

then how could they be deemed the best source for a current condition 

report for RWY 4/22? If they are not current Aviation specialty engineers, 

then how can they provide you with recommendations as to how best to fix 

the runways? 
I pose that when information was presented to you from a website, 

fliQhtaware.com. which a resident used in an email to quantify the C-2 

counts, it is a half truth. A large number of C-2 (and larger) aircraft have 

made requests to the FAA to have their tail numbers blocked from the 

public's view on sites such as this. This means that there are aircraft who 

come in and out of Venice each week that do not show up on these flight 

trackers. 

I pose the question, if you are relying on these types of mis-information, 

when the FAA rejects your request again for a downgrade and you have 

spent hundreds of thousands more of the local community funds, who is 

liable? Is it the residents who have taken this initiative? Or is it the council 

members and staff who were so easily swayed by the information that they 

accepted it as fact and are now putting their neck on the line for it? 

My personal thought is that when the hatchet comes down, these vocal few 

offering input will not be defending their position to the lawyers and 

residents. 

My comments to council are to listen to your hired experts, who have the 

errors and omissions insurance policies to protect you from liability, and not 

to those who appear to have little if any qualifications from which to guide 

you, who have no personal liability for any actions or inactions based on 

their recommendations, and who likely are not supported by the majority of 

the community. 

Safety continues to be our number one priority and the City's lack of 

attention to the seriously deteriorated condition of RWY 4/22 is concerning 

to all in the aviation community as well. 

This runway in its present condition is a safety hazard that exposes the City 

to additional future financial losses resulting from damage to aircraft and 

possibly life. Ms. Lang, as you sat in my conference room with my assistant 

and I, we watched a video of an aircraft on runway 4/22 after which you 

stated that you agreed that it was in need of immediate repair. 

The airport is operated solely from the airport enterprise fund and receives 

no money from the city's general fund. Money for the enterprise fund comes 

from the airport's land leases which obviously includes ours. 

We suggest that money being spent out of the Airport Enterprise Fund to 

downgrade the airport and contest the FAA's position is illegal according to 

49 use 47133. "Restriction on use of revenues". Being in conflict with 49 

use 47133 potentially places the city in a position of being subject to the 
assessment of civil penalties under 49 USC 47107(n). 

The City is also in violation of a number of its grant assurances which were 

given at the time it received the airport property 

Reclassification of the Airport as B-II would diminish, rather than develop, 

aviation services provided by the Airport to the public and would significantly 

undermine the value of Tristate's lease. 

According to calculations, the City has now spent over $700,000 (including 

the proposed sums to DY before your review today) of which over $300,000 

is for fighting the Part 16 complaint over the hangars which are our right to 

build. 

Now, the City proposes spending hundreds of thousands of dollars more to 

prepare and submit a plan to the FAA which your paid consultants have told 

you will not be approved. And yet council and certain members invite 

additional litigation. At what cost? If you wesre personally paying these bills, 

would you still choose the path you are on? 

The time to stop this pattern of misguided attempts and devastation of the 

airport is now, not when you have cost the local residents, the airport fund 

and the city's coffers all of its resources. 

Hopefully, you will accept my aforementioned personal comments in good 

faith. They were submitted simply to give you basis to question and verify 

all the facts before you act and obtain your direction from qualified groups 

who possess the current experience, the history and the integrity to give you 

unbiased truths that are the whole picture and not just part. 

According to Einstein, the definition of Insanity is "doing the same thing, 

over and over again, and expecting different results." 

The FAA will not back down, the City will lose and at the end of the day, 

what is the real cost of that loss? Is it your reputations, your personal 

exposure? I pose that the cost is far greater than any trivial benefit you 

stand to gain. 
Exhibit "B" 

(November 12,2009 Newspaper article quoting Tristate's stated position regarding the 

hangars) 
Venice Jet Center's sale has a few hurdles 11 HeraldTribune.com http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091112. 

ii#[lerai(lTribune.coiii 

This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready 

copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool 

that appears atxive any article. Order a reprint of this article now. 

Printed on page BNi 

Venice Je t Center's sale ha s a few hurdle s 

A judge must approve the sale, and the hangars' fate is unclear 

By Kim Hackett 

Published: Thursday, November 12,2009 at 1:00 a.m. 

The Venice Jet Center's potential new owner has vowed to be a good neighbor and mend 

relations with the city, but numerous hurdles remain before the company gets the keys to the 

controversial facility. 

"It's not signed, sealed and delivered," said Marty Kretchman, vice president of The TriState 

Group, which operates flight centers at the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport and 

across the country under the Volo Aviation name. 

"We've worked on a national level and spent time researching the issues" in Venice, he said. 

Kretchman announced Tuesday that his company is the mystery buyer referred to by federal 

receiver Burton Wiand in publicly disclosing the Jet Center's pending sale. 

Wiand spurned overtures by another buyer and the city to purchase the Jet Center, once 

owned by Art Nadel, who is accused of running a Ponzi scheme. 

Neither Wiand nor Kretchman would discuss how much TriState would pay for the Jet Center, 

in a deal that must be approved by a federal judge. 

The company will operate in Venice as Suncoast Aviation Center of Florida if the deal is 

approved. 

Wiand said he plans to present the offer by TriState to Judge Richard Lazzara this week. Then 

the City Council will have to approve the sale. 

"We're trying to be very transparent about this," Kretchman said. "We're just a bunch of guys 

who loved airplanes as kids." 

J of 9 2/21/2010 8:48 P)V 
I 

yenic§ Jet Center's sale has a few hurdles 11 HeraldTribune.com http://www.heraldtribune.coni/apps/pbcs.dll/articIe?AID=/20091112... 

Kretchman has been general manager of Volo Aviation Sarasota. Other executives include 

Brian Ciambra, chief executive officer and president of TriState, and Henry Paulino, chief 

operating officer. Ownership includes private investors that Kretchman would not disclose. 

Unresolved is the fate of the four hangars for which Wiand has fought with the city for 

approval since taking over the Jet Center early this year. 

Kretchman said the hangars will have to be built where they are designated on Nadel's plans. 

Some council members have insisted that they be located farther from a residential area near 

Airport Avenue. 

We "have to have hangar access from the street," Kretchman said. "The value is not the same if 

they are built in the interior" of the airport. 

Kretchman plans to attend a 2 p.m. workshop today at City Hall, where some of the most 

contentious airport issues are to be discussed. Topics include whether the city should alter the 

facility to meet FAA regulations or try to downgrade the airport so safety areas do not impede 

on a residential area and a golf course. 

Airport administrator Fred Watts will not attend. City Manager Isaac Turner placed Watts on 

administrative leave until at least Dec. 1 following Watts' arrest last weekend on domestic 

abuse charges. 

Next week the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector (jeneral, which is auditing 

airport operations, is scheduled to visit. 

This story appeared in print on page BNi 

Copyright © 2010 HeraldTribune.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only. 

2 of 2 2/21/2010 8:48 PV