UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Venice Jet Center, LLC. 

Complainant, 

City of Venice, Florida 

Respondent. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 16-09-05 

c'u 

c:3 

CITY OF VENICE'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COMPLAINT 

Respondent, City of Venice, Florida ("City"), by and through the undersigned attorneys, 

hereby files its answer and affirmative defenses to the Complaint filed by Complainant. 

1. The City admits the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 

2. The City admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 

3. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

4. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that Ms. Lang was elected to the Venice City Council in November, 2007, that she is 

currently Vice Mayor and that she is a past president of the Venice Neighborhoods Coalition 

Inc., an organization that has opposed certain efforts to expand the Airport, that she lives 

approximately one mile fi-om the Airport and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 4. 

5. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that Mr. Martin was elected to the Venice City Council in November, 2007, that he is 

currently Mayor, that he lives approximately one mile from the Airport and otherwise denies the 

allegations of Paragraph 5. 
6. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that Mr. Zavodnyik was elected to the Venice City Council in November, 2007, that he is 

currently a member of the Venice City Council, that he is a member of the Venice 

Neighborhoods Coalition, Inc. and the he lives approximately two miles fi-om the Airport, and 

otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 6. 

7. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that Mr. Moore was elected to the Venice City Council in 2002 and reelected in 2008 and 

that he is currently a member of the Venice City Council, and otherwise denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 7. 

8. The assertions in the first two sentences of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint are 

statements of law to which no response is required. The City admits only that the FAA's 

authority in this matter is established by Congress and denies all allegations of Paragraph 8 that 

are inconsistent with the FAA's legal authority. The City specifically denies the allegations of 

the last sentence of Paragraph 8 because the Complaint has failed to state a claim for relief under 

Part 16 as set forth in greater detail in the City's Motion to Dismiss and supporting 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and other papers filed together with this Answer. 

9. The City admits the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 

10. The City admits the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

11. The assertions of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint are statements of law to which 

no response is required. The City admits only that it has received AIP ftinds and fiinds fi-om the 

Florida Department of Transportation for Airport plaiming and development. 

12. The City admits the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 

13. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the City admits 
only that Paragraph 13 correctly summarizes the rent provisions of the VJC lease and that there 

is a provision in the Minimum Standards incorporated into the Lease between the City and VJC 

relating to commercial aeronautical activity, and that the Lease and Minimum Standards speak 

for themselves in their fiill context and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 13. 

14. The City admits that Paragraph 14 of the Complaint correctly summarizes certain 

of the terms and conditions of the Minimum Standards incorporated into the Lease between the 

City and VJC and asserts that the Lease and Minimum Standards speak for themselves and 

otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 14. 

15. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 

16. The City admits the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. 

17. The City admits the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 

18. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 

19. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. 

20. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 

21. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 

22. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that VJC made a presentation on August 26, 2008 to the City Council, and that no vote was 

taken at the meeting relating to the VJC proposal, and otherwise denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 22. 

23. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 

24. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 

25. The City admits the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 

26. The City admits the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 
27. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

28. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 

29. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint. 

30. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the quotes speak for themselves in their fiill and complete context and otherwise denies 

the allegations of Paragraph 30. 

31. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 

32. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the complaint attached as Exhibit 9 to the Complaint was filed against the defendants 

named therein and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 32 and specifically denies the 

validity of the claims made in such complaint. 

33. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 

34. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 

35. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that there is a waiting list for T-Hangars at the airport and otherwise denies the allegations 

of Paragraph 35. 

36. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that Mr. Nadel of behalf of VJC filed an informal complaint with the named FAA official at 

the local Airports District Office, which informal complaint speaks for itself The City 

specifically denies the substance of that informal complaint. 

37. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the informal complaint submitted by VJC speaks for itself The City specifically denies 

the substance of that informal complaint. 
38. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that an official in the local FAA ADO forwarded the informal complaint to the City, that the 

City responded on September 15, 2008 and that the City's response speaks for itself The City 

otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 38 that are inconsistent with the express terms of 

the City's response. 

39. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the December 4, 2008 letter fi-om Rebecca Henry, Planning Specialist, Orlando 

Airports District Office, FAA, speaks for itself and denies all allegations of Paragraph 39 that are 

inconsistent with the express terms of that letter. 

40. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and without 

waiving any privilege, the City admits only that it sought a legal opinion regarding its authority 

regarding VJC's request to build hangars. 

41. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and without 

waiving any privilege, the City admits only that the terms of the opinion speak for themselves 

based on the assumptions made at that time and otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 41. 

42. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, and without 

waiving any privilege, the City admits only that the terms of the opinion speak for themselves 

based on the assumptions made at that time and otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 42. 

43. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, and without 

waiving any privilege, the City admits only that the terms of the opinion speak for themselves 

based on the assumptions made at that time and otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 43. 

44. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that, after receiving the referenced opinions, the City did not approve VJC's request to build 
hangars. 

45. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that Rebecca Henry, a Planning Specialist at the local FAA ADO wrote a letter to Mr. Art 

Nadel, of VJC, and that the terms of the letter speak for themselves and otherwise denies all 

allegations of Paragraph 45. 

46. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the terms of the letter from a Planning Specialist at the local FAA ADO speak for 

themselves and otherwise denies all allegations of Paragraph 46. 

47. The City admits only that after Mr. Wiand was appointed Receiver over VJC, he 

had several contacts with City representatives, including by correspondence, telephone calls, and 

appearance before the City Council concerning the issue of constructing hangars on the VJC 

leasehold at the Airport, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. 

48. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the terms of the letter speak for themselves and otherwise denies all allegations of 

Paragraph 48. 

49. In response to the allegations of the Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, the City 

admits only that the City sought guidance from Ms. Rebecca Henry of the local ADO as to 

whether construction of the hangars would be inconsistent with the Airport Layout Plan and 

otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 49. 

50. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the terms of the letter from Ms. Henry of the ADO speak for themselves aind otherwise 

denies all allegations of Paragraph 50. 

51. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, the City admits 
only that the terms of the letter from Ms. Henry of the ADO speak for themselves and otherwise 

denies all allegations of Paragraph 51. 

52. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, the City states 

that Ms. Henry's letter did not provide guidance on the specific issue addressed to her, and that 

the City does not agree with the opinions expressed by Ms. Henry on other issues in the letter, 

and that the City has not approved new hangars on VJC's leasehold, and otherwise denies the 

allegations of Paragraph 52. 

53. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the Receiver for VJC sent a letter to the City dated February 25, 2009 and that the terms 

of the letter speak for themselves, that the City has not approved new hangars on VJC's 

leasehold, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 53. 

54. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that an official at the FAA's ADO wrote a letter to the Airport Manager dated March 3, 

2009 and that the terms of the letter speak for themselves. The City specifically denies that it has 

violated "FAA law" or any other law and denies all other allegations of Paragraph 54. 

55. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that on March 10, 2009 the receiver appeared in public session of the City Council to seek 

approval of its proposed hangar project, the City Council did not approve a motion to permit 

VJC to construct additional hangar space on its leasehold as depicted on the conceptual plan and 

that consensus was reached to seek legal advice regarding the validity of VJC's lease and other 

matters, and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 55. 

56. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 56 of the Complaint and without 

waiving any claim of privilege, the City admits only that it sought a legal opinion regarding the 
status of VJC's lease in light of the receivership and that the terms of the legal opinion speak for 

themselves. The City denies all other allegations of Paragraph 56. 

57. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the terms of the legal opinion speak for themselves and denies all other allegations of 

Paragraph 57. 

58. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the receiver has informed the City that he is interested in selling VJC, but the City is 

without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 58. 

59. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that it is aware that Receiver intends to sell VJC and that the City informed the receiver 

that, inter alia, in accordance with the terms of the Lease and the City's Minimum Standards, the 

City could approve construction of any hangars only if there were a showing that whoever seeks 

approval to build the hangars has the financial ability to do so and that the hangars otherwise 

comply with the City's Minimum Standards and other requirements, and otherwise denies that 

allegations of Paragraph 59. 

60. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 60 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the receiver has told the City that he has the financial ability to build the hangars, that 

he claims the receivership has over $10 million in assets and approximately $4 million in cash in 

bank accounts, without providing evidence to support such claims, and also that he does not 

intend to build the hangars. The City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 60. 

61. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that Mr. Wiand sent a letter to the City on May 4, 2009, that the terms of the letter speak for 

themselves, and that the City has not approved new hangars on VJC's leasehold, and otherwise 
denies the allegations of Paragraph 61. 

62. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, the City states 

only that the statements of Council Member Lang as stated in Composite Exhibit 6-H speak for 

themselves in their fiill and complete context, and the City otherwise denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 62. 

63. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 63 of the Complaint. 

64. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, the City states 

only that the nature and scope of its assurances to comply with law is a legal conclusion to which 

no response is necessary, and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 64. 

65. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 65 of the Complaint, the City states 

only that the Ms. Henry's May 18, 2009 correspondence to Mr. Wiand speaks for itself and 

otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 65. 

66. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that it has met with Mr. Wiand on several occasions in which he has sought approval for the 

hangar but otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 66. 

67. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that the City Manager and City Attorney met with Mr. Wiand on June 19, 2009 and 

informed him that they had no authority from the City Council to make a proposal for a 

resolution and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 67. 

68. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. 

69. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that VJC has paid the rent as due on its lease but states that it is without sufficient 

information to admit or deny the amount VJC has spent in "development costs," and otherwise 
denies the allegations of Paragraph 69. 

70. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that portions of the Airport were conveyed to it pursuant to a quitclaim deed and that the 

terms of that deed speak for themselves. The scope and nature of the City's obligations under 

that deed are a legal matter to which no response is required, and the City otherwise denies the 

allegations of Paragraph 70. 

71. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, the City admits 

only that it is a sponsor for AIP grants and that the terms of those grants speak for themselves. 

The scope and nature of the City's obligations those grants are legal matters to which no 

response is required, and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 71. 

72. The allegations of Paragraph 72 of the Complaint are legal in nature to which no 

response is required and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 72. 

COUNT I 

Violation of Grant Assurance No. 1: Sponsor's Violation of Federal Law 

73. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

74. The allegations of Paragraph 74 of the Complaint are legal in nature to which no 

response is required and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 74. 

75. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. 

76. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. 

COUNT II 

Violation of Grant Assurance No. 5: Preserving Rights and Powers 

77. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fiilly set 

forth herein. 

10 
78. The allegations of Paragraph 78 of the Complaint are legal in nature to which no 

response is required and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 78. 

79. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. 

COUNT III 

Violation of Grant Assurance No. 19: Operation and Maintenance 

80. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fiilly set 

forth herein. 

81. The allegations of Paragraph 81 of the Complaint are legal in nature to which no 

response is required and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 81. 

82. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Complaint. 

COUNT IV 

Violation of Grant Assurance No. 22: Economic Nondiscrimination 

83. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fiilly set 

forth herein. 

84. The allegations of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint are legal in nature to which no 

response is required and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 84. 

85. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 85 of the Complaint. 

86. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 86 of the Complaint. 

87. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 87 of the Complaint. 

88. The allegations of Paragraph 88 of the Complaint are legal in nature to which no 

response is required and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 88. 

89. The allegations of Paragraph 89 of the Complaint are legal in nature to which no 

response is required and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 89. 

90. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 90 of the Complaint. 

11 
91. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 91 of the Complaint. 

92. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 92 of the Complaint. 

93. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 93 of the Complaint. 

94. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 94 of the Complaint. 

95. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 95 of the Complaint. 

COUNT V 

Violation of Grant Assurance No. 23: Exclusive Rights 

96. Defendant incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fiilly set 

forth herein. 

97. The allegations of Paragraph 97 of the Complaint are legal in nature to which no 

response is required and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 97. 

98. The allegations of Paragraph 98 of the Complaint are legal in nature to which no 

response is required and the City otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 98. 

99. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 99, the City admits only that it 

provides for lease to the public 144 T-Hangars and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 

99. 

100. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 100 of the Complaint. 

101. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 101 of the Complaint. 

102. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 102 of the Complaint. 

103. The City denies the allegafions of Paragraph 103 of the Complaint. 

104. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 104 of the Complaint. 

105. The City denies the allegations of Paragraph 105 of the Complaint. 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

106. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 106 of the Complaint, the City admits 

12 
only that the referenced documents are attached to the Complaint but otherwise denies the 

allegations of Paragraph 106. 

CORRECTIVE ACTION 

107. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 107 of the Complaint, the City states 

that, for the reasons set forth in this Answer, in the Motion to Dismiss and supporting 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and on the basis of the record that will be developed in 

this proceeding. Complainant is not entitled to any of the relief it has requested nor any other 

relief or corrective action. 

Section 16.21 Certification 

108. In response to VJC's Section 16.21 Certification, the City states that the record 

will show the efforts the parties have made to resolve this issue amicably. The City specifically 

denies VJC's assertion in the third sentence of Paragraph 108 that the City's efforts to resolve 

this matter have been anything less than in good faith. The City specifically asserts that it has at 

all times acted properly, in good faith in this matter, and with complete transparency. The City 

agrees, however, that the efforts of parties have not yet resulted in a resolution of the matter. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

First Affirmative Defense 

Complainant has failed to state a ripe claim for relief 

Second Affirmative Defense 

Complainant lacks standing to challenge the City's actions regarding the proposed 

hangars. 

Respectfiilly submitted this 2d day of September, 2009, 

13 
Thomas Devine 

W. Eric Pilsk 

KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 

1001 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 955-5600 

Facsimile: (202) 955-5616 

Robert Anderson, Esq. 

Hall & Anderson, P.A. 

1314 East Venice Ave., Suite E 

Venice, FL 34285 

Telephone: (941) 480-0999 

Facsimile: (941)480-1446 

Arthur P. Berg 

KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 

641 Lexington Ave. Suite 1409 

New York, NY 10022 

Telephone: (212) 328-9515 

Facsimile: (646)514-5440 

Counsel to the City of Venice 

14 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that 1 have this day served the foregoing City of Venice's 

Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint, on the following persons at the 

following addresses bv overnight Federal Express: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Room 925 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Original and 3 copies VIA Federal Express No. 

Gianluca Morello, Esq. 

Dominique Pearlman, Esq. 

Fowler White Boggs, P.A. 

501 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1700 

Tampa, FL 33602 

Fax No. (813)229-8313 

One Copy VIA Federal Express No. 

Dated this 2"*^ day of September, 2009: 

Thomas R. Devine