UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C Venic e Je t

Center , LLC . Complainant , Cit y o f Venice , Florid a Respondent . FA A DOCKE T NO . 16-09-0 5 c' u

c: 3

CIT Y O FVENICE' S ANSWE RAN D AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S T O COMPLAIN T Respondent , City o f

Venice , Florid a("City") , b y an dthroug hth e undersigne dattorneys , hereb y files it s answe r

an daffirmativ e defense s t o th e Complain t filedb y Complainant . 1 . Th e City admit s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h1 o f

th e Complaint . 2 . Th e Cit y admit s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 o f

th e Complaint . 3 . Th e City denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 o f

th e Complaint . 4 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 o f

th e Complaint , th e City admit s onl y tha t Ms . Lan g was electe dt o th e Venic e Cit y Counci l i n November , 2007 , that sh e i s currentl y Vic e Mayo r

an dtha t sh e i s apas t

presiden t

o f th e Venic e Neighborhood s Coalitio n Inc. , an organizatio n that ha s oppose dcertai n effort s t o expan dth e Airport , that sh e live s approximatel y on e mil e fi-omth e Airport an dotherwis e denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 . 5 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t Mr . Marti n wa s electe dt o th e Venic e City Counci l i n November , 2007 , that h e i s currentl y Mayor , tha t

h e live s approximatel y on e mil e fromth e Airport an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f

Paragrap h5 .6 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 o f

th e Complaint , th e City admit s onl y tha t Mr . Zavodnyi k

wa s electe dt o th e Venic e Cit y Counci l i n November , 2007 , that h e i s currentl y amembe r

o f th e Venic e Cit y Council , that h e i s amembe r

o f th e Venic e Neighborhood s Coalition , Inc . an dth e h e live s approximatel y tw o mile s fi-omth e Airport , an d otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 . 7 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 o f

th e Complaint , th e City admit s onl y tha t Mr . Moor e wa s electe dt o th e Venic e Cit y Counci l i n 200 2 an dreelecte di n 200 8 an d tha t h e i s currentl y amembe r o f th e Venic e Cit y Council , an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 . 8 . Th e assertion s i n th e first tw o sentence s o f

Paragrap h8 o f

th e Complain t

ar e statement s o f

law t o whic hn o respons e i s required . Th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e FAA' s authorit y i n thi s matte r

i s establishe db y Congres s an ddenie s al l allegation s o f Paragrap h8 that ar e inconsisten t

withth e FAA' s lega l authority . Th e City specificall y denie s th e allegation s o f th e las t sentenc e o f

Paragrap h8 becaus e th e Complain t ha s faile dt o stat e aclai mfo r relie f unde r Part 1 6 a s se t

fort hi n greate r

detai l i n th e City' s Motion t o Dismis s an dsupportin g Memorandu mo f

Point s an dAuthoritie s an dothe r paper s filedtogethe r

withthi s Answer . 9 . Th e Cit y admit s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h9 o f

th e Complaint . 10 . Th e City admit s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h1 0 o f

th e Complaint . 11 . Th e assertion s o f

Paragrap h1 1 o f

th e Complain t

ar e statement s o f

law t o whic h n o respons e i s required . Th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t i t ha s receive dAI P ftinds an dfiinds fi-omth e Florid aDepartmen t

o f Transportatio n fo r

Airpor t plaimin g an ddevelopment . 12 . Th e Cit y admit s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h1 2 o f

th e Complaint . 13 . I n respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h1 3 o f

th e Complaint , th e City admit sonl y that Paragrap h1 3 correctl y summarize s th e ren t provision s o f

th e VJ C leas e an dthat

ther e i s aprovisio n i n th e Minimu mStandard s incorporate dint o th e Leas e betwee n th e Cit y an dVJ C relatin g t o commercia l aeronautica l activity , an dtha t th e Leas e an dMinimu mStandard s spea k fo r themselve s i n thei r

fiill contex t

an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h13 . 14 . Th e Cit y admit s that Paragrap h1 4 o f

th e Complain t

correctl y summarize s certai n o f th e term s an dcondition s o f th e Minimu mStandard s incorporate dint o th e Leas e betwee n th e Cit y an dVJ C an dassert s that th e Leas e an dMinimu mStandard s speak for themselve s an d otherwis e denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h14 . 15 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h1 5 o f

th e Complaint . 16 . Th e Cit y admit s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h1 6 o f

th e Complaint . 17 . Th e Cit y admit s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h1 7 o f

th e Complaint . 18 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h1 8 o f

th e Complaint . 19 . Th e Cit y denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h1 9 o f

th e Complaint . 20 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 0 o f

th e Complaint . 21 . Th e City denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 1 o f

th e Complaint . 22 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 2 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that VJ C mad e apresentatio n o n Augus t 26 , 200 8 t o th e City Council , an dtha t n o vot e wa s take n at th e meetin g relatin g t o th e VJ C proposal , an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h22 . 23 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 3 o f

th e Complaint . 24 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 4 o f

th e Complaint . 25 . Th e Cit y admit s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 5 o f

th e Complaint . 26 . Th e Cit y admit s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 6 o f

th e Complaint .27 . Th e City denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 7 o f

th e Complaint . 28 . Th e City denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 8 o f

th e Complaint . 29 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h2 9 o f

th e Complaint . 30 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 0 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e quote s speak

for themselve s i n thei r

fiill an dcomplet e contex t an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f

Paragrap h30 . 31 . Th e City denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 1 o f

th e Complaint . 32 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 2 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e complain t

attache da s Exhibi t

9 t o th e Complain t

was filedagains t

th e defendant s name dtherei n an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 2 an dspecificall y denies th e validit y o f

th e claim s mad e i n suc hcomplaint . 33 . Th e City denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 3 o f

th e Complaint . 34 . Th e Cit y denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 4 o f

th e Complaint . 35 . I n respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 5 o f

th e Complaint , th e City admit s onl y tha t ther e i s awaitin g lis t

for T-Hangar s at

th e airport

an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h35 . 36 . I n respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 6 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t Mr . Nade l o f

behal f o f VJ C filedan informa l complain t withth e name dFA A official a t th e loca l Airport s Distric t Office , whic hinforma l complain t speak s for

itsel f Th e City specificall y denie s th e substanc e o f tha t informa l complaint . 37 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 7 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t th e informal complain t

submitte db y VJ C speak s for itsel f Th e Cit y specificall y denie s th e substanc e o f

that informal complaint .38 . I n respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 8 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that an official i n th e local FAA AD O forwarde dth e informal complain t t o th e City , that

th e City responde do n Septembe r 15 , 200 8 an dthat

th e City' s respons e speak s for itsel f Th e City otherwis e denie s al l allegation s o f Paragrap h3 8 that

ar e inconsistent

withth e expres s term s o f th e City' s response . 39 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h3 9 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t th e Decembe r

4 , 200 8 lette r

fi-omRebecc aHenry , Plannin g Specialist , Orland o Airport s Distric t

Office , FAA , speak s for

itsel f an ddenie s al l allegation s o f Paragrap h3 9 that

are inconsisten t

withth e expres s term s o f that letter . 40 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 0 o f

th e Complaint , an dwithou t waivin g an y privilege , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t i t sough t alega l opinio n regardin g it s authority regardin g VJC' s reques t

t o buil dhangars . 41 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 1 o f

th e Complaint , an dwithou t waivin g an y privilege , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e term s o f

th e opinio n speak

for themselve s base do n th e assumption s mad e at tha t tim e an dotherwis e denie s al l allegation s o f Paragrap h41 . 42 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 2 o f

th e Complaint , an dwithou t waivin g an y privilege , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t th e term s o f

th e opinio n speak

for themselve s base do n th e assumption s mad e at that tim e an dotherwis e denie s al l allegation s o f Paragrap h42 . 43 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 3 o f

th e Complaint , an dwithou t waivin g an y privilege , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t th e term s o f

th e opinio n speak

for themselve s base do n th e assumption s mad e a t that tim e an dotherwis e denie s al l allegation s o f Paragrap h43 . 44 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 4 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that , after

receivin g th e reference dopinions , th e Cit y di dnot approv e VJC' s reques t

t o buil dhangars .

45 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 5 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that Rebecc aHenry , aPlannin g Specialis t at th e local FA A AD O wrot e alette r t o Mr . Ar

t Nadel , o f VJC , an dtha t

th e term s o f

th e lette r

speak fo r themselve s an dotherwis e denies al l allegation s o f

Paragrap h45 . 46 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 6 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e term s o f

th e lette r

from aPlannin g Specialis t a t th e loca l FAA AD O speak for themselve s an dotherwis e denie s al l allegation s o f Paragrap h46 . 47 . Th e Cit y admit s onl y that after Mr . Wian dwas appointe dReceive r ove r VJC , h e ha dsevera l contact s withCit y representatives , includin g b y correspondence , telephon e calls , an d appearanc e befor e th e Cit y Counci l concernin g th e issu e o f constructin g hangar s o n th e VJ C leasehol da

t th e Airport , an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 7 o f

th e Complaint . 48 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h4 8 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e term s o f

th e lette r

speak for themselve s an dotherwis e denies al l allegation s o f Paragrap h48 . 49 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f th e Paragrap h4 9 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t

th e Cit y sough t

guidanc e fromMs . Rebecc aHenry o f th e local AD O a s t o whethe r constructio n o f

th e hangar s woul db e inconsisten t withth e Airport

Layou t Pla n an d otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h49 . 50 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 0 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e term s o f

th e lette r fromMs . Henr y o f

th e AD O speak

for themselve s ain

dotherwis e denies al l allegation s o f

Paragrap h50 . 51 . I n respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 1 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit sonl y that th e term s o f

th e lette r fromMs . Henry o f

th e AD O speak

for themselve s an dotherwis e denie s al l allegation s o f

Paragrap h51 . 52 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 2 o f

th e Complaint , th e City state s that Ms . Henry' s lette r

di dnot provid e guidanc e o n th e specifi c issu e addresse dt o her , an dthat th e City doe s no t

agre e withth e opinion s expresse db y Ms . Henry o n othe r issue s i n th e letter , an dthat th e City ha s not

approve dne w hangar s o n VJC' s leasehold , an dotherwis e denies th e allegation s o f

Paragrap h52 . 53 . I n respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 3 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e Receiver

for VJ C sen t alette r t o th e Cit y date dFebruary 25 , 200 9 an dthat th e term s o f th e lette r

speak for themselves , that

th e Cit y ha s no t

approve dne w hangar s o n VJC' s leasehold , an dotherwis e denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h53 . 54 . I n respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 4 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that an official a

t th e FAA' s AD O wrot e alette r t o th e Airport

Manager date dMarc h3 , 200 9 an dthat

th e term s o f

th e lette r speak for themselves . Th e Cit y specificall y denie s tha t it ha s violate d"FA A law " o r

an y othe r

la w an ddenie s al l othe r

allegation s o f

Paragrap h54 . 55 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 5 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that o n Marc h10 , 200 9 th e receive r appeare di n publi c sessio n o f th e Cit y Counci l t o see k approva l o f

it s propose dhangar

project , th e Cit y Counci l di dno t approv e amotio n t o permi t VJ C t o construc t

additional hangar

spac e o n it s leasehol da s depicte do n th e conceptua l pla n an d that consensu s was reache dt o see k legal advic e regardin g th e validit y o f VJC' s leas e an dothe r matters , an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h55 . 56 . I n respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 6 o f

th e Complain t

an dwithou t waivin g an y clai mo f

privilege , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t i t sough t alega l opinio n regardin g th estatu s o f

VJC' s leas e i n ligh t

o f th e receivershi p an dthat th e term s o f

th e legal opinio n speak

for themselves . Th e Cit y denie s al l othe r allegation s o f

Paragrap h56 . 57 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 7 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e term s o f

th e legal opinio n spea

k for themselve s an ddenie s al l othe r allegation s o f Paragrap h57 . 58 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 8 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e receive r

ha s informe dth e Cit y that h e i s intereste di n sellin g VJC , bu t th e Cit y i s withou t sufficient informatio n t o admit

o r den y th e remainin g allegation s o f Paragrap h58 . 59 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h5 9 o f

th e Complaint , th e City admit s onl y that i t i s awar e tha t

Receive r intend s t o sel l VJ C an dthat th e Cit y informe dth e receive r that , inte r alia , i n accordanc e withth e term s o f th e Leas e an dth e City' s Minimu mStandards , th e City coul dapprov e constructio n o f an y hangar s onl y i f

ther e wer e ashowin g that whoeve r seek s approva l t o buil dth e hangar s ha s th e financial abilit y t o d o s o an dthat th e hangar s otherwis e compl y withth e City' s Minimu mStandard s an dothe r requirements , an dotherwis e denie s tha t allegation s o f

Paragrap h59 . 60 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 0 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that th e receive r

ha s tol dth e Cit y that

h e ha s th e financial abilit y t o buil dth e hangars , tha t h e claim s th e receivershi p ha s ove r $1 0 millio n i n asset s an dapproximatel y $ 4 millio n i n cas hi n ban k accounts , withou t

providin g evidenc e t o support suc hclaims , an dals o that h e doe s no t inten dt o buil dth e hangars . Th e Cit y otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h60 . 61 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 1 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t Mr . Wian dsen t

alette r t o th e Cit y o n Ma y 4 , 2009 , tha t th e term s o f

th e lette r speak for themselves , an dtha t

th e Cit y ha s not

approve dne w hangar s o n VJC' s leasehold , an dotherwis edenies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h61 . 62 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 2 o f

th e Complaint , th e City state s onl y tha t th e statement s o f

Counci l Membe r

Lan g a s state di n Composit e Exhibi t 6- H spea k for themselve s i n thei r

fiill an dcomplet e context , an dth e Cit y otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h62 . 63 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 3 o f

th e Complaint . 64 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 4 o f

th e Complaint , th e City state s onl y that th e natur e an dscop e o f

it s assurance s t o compl y withla w i s alega l conclusio n t o whic h n o respons e i s necessary , an dth e City otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h64 . 65 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 5 o f

th e Complaint , th e City state s onl y that th e Ms . Henry' s Ma y 18 , 200 9 correspondenc e t o Mr . Wian dspeak s for itsel f an d otherwis e denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h65 . 66 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 6 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y that i t ha s me t withMr . Wian do n several occasion s i n whic hh e ha s sough t approva l for

th e hangar bu t otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h66 . 67 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 7 o f

th e Complaint , th e City admit s onl y that th e City Manage r

an dCit y Attorne y me t withMr . Wian do n Jun e 19 , 200 9 an d informe dhi mthat

the y ha dn o authorit y fromth e Cit y Counci l t o mak e aproposa l for a resolutio n an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h67 . 68 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 8 o f

th e Complaint . 69 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h6 9 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s onl y tha t VJ C ha s pai dth e ren t a s du e o n it s leas e but state s that

i t i s withou t

sufficient informatio n t o admi t

o r den y th e amoun t

VJ C ha s spen t

i n "developmen t

costs, " an dotherwis edenie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h69 . 70 . I n respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 0 o f

th e Complaint , th e City admit s onl y that portion s o f

th e Airport

wer e conveye dt o it

pursuan t t o aquitclai mdee dandtha t th e term s o f that dee dspeak

for themselves . Th e scop e an dnatur e o f th e City' s obligation s unde r that dee dar e alega l matte r

t o whic hn o respons e i s required , an dth e Cit y otherwis e denies th e allegation s o f

Paragrap h70 . 71 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 1 o f

th e Complaint , th e City admit s onl y that i t i s asponso r

for AI P grant s an dthat

th e term s o f

thos e grant s speak

fo r themselves . Th e scop e an dnatur e o f th e City' s obligation s thos e grant s ar e legal matter s t o whic hn o respons e i s required , an dth e City otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h71 . 72 . Th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 2 o f

th e Complain t

ar e lega l i n natur e t o whic hn o respons e i s require dan dth e City otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h72 . COUN T I Violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 1 : Sponsor' s Violatio n o f Federa l La w 73 . Defendan t

incorporate s it s response s t o paragraph s 1 throug h7 2 a s i f fully se t fort hherein . 74 . Th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 4 o f

th e Complain t

ar e lega l i n natur e t o whic hn o respons e i s require dan dth e Cit y otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h74 . 75 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 5 o f

th e Complaint . 76 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 6 o f

th e Complaint . COUN T I I Violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 5 : Preservin g Right s an dPower s 77 . Defendan t

incorporate s it s response s t o paragraph s 1 throug h7 2 a s i f fiilly se t fort hherein .

1 078 . Th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 8 o f

th e Complain t

ar e legal i n natur e t o whic hn o respons e i s require dan dth e Cit y otherwis e denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h78 . 79 . Th e City denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h7 9 o f

th e Complaint . COUN T II I Violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 19 : Operatio n an dMaintenanc e 80 . Defendan t

incorporate s it s response s t o paragraph s 1 throug h7 2 a s i f fiill y se t fort hherein . 81 . Th e allegation s o f Paragrap h8 1 o f

th e Complain t

ar e legal i n natur e t o whic hn o respons e i s require dan dth e Cit y otherwis e denies th e allegation s o f Paragrap h81 . 82 . Th e City denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h8 2 o f

th e Complaint . COUN T I V Violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 22 : Economi c Nondiscriminatio n 83 . Defendan t

incorporate s it s response s t o paragraph s 1 throug h7 2 a s i f fiill y se t fort hherein . 84 . Th e allegation s o f Paragrap h8 4 o f

th e Complain t

ar e legal i n natur e t o whic hn o respons e i s require dan dth e Cit y otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h84 . 85 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h8 5 o f

th e Complaint . 86 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h8 6 o f

th e Complaint . 87 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h8 7 o f

th e Complaint . 88 . Th e allegation s o f Paragrap h8 8 o f

th e Complain t

ar e legal i n natur e t o whic hn o respons e i s require dan dth e Cit y otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h88 . 89 . Th e allegation s o f Paragrap h8 9 o f

th e Complain t

ar e legal i n natur e t o whic hn o respons e i s require dan dth e Cit y otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h89 . 90 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h9 0 o f

th e Complaint .

1 191 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h9 1 o f

th e Complaint . 92 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h9 2 o f

th e Complaint . 93 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h9 3 o f

th e Complaint . 94 . Th e City denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h9 4 o f

th e Complaint . 95 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h9 5 o f

th e Complaint . COUN T V Violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 23 : Exclusiv e Right s 96 . Defendan t

incorporate s it s response s t o paragraph s 1 throug h7 2 a s i f fiilly se t fort hherein . 97 . Th e allegation s o f Paragrap h9 7 o f

th e Complain t

ar e legal i n natur e t o whic hn o respons e i s require dan dth e Cit y otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h97 . 98 . Th e allegation s o f Paragrap h9 8 o f

th e Complain t

ar e legal i n natur e t o whic hn o respons e i s require dan dth e Cit y otherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h98 . 99 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h99 , th e Cit y admit s onl y that i t provide s for

leas e t o th e publi c 14

4 T-Hangar s an dotherwis e denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h 99 . 100 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h10 0 o f

th e Complaint . 101 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h10 1 o f

th e Complaint . 102 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h10 2 o f

th e Complaint . 103 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegafion s o f Paragrap h10 3 o f

th e Complaint . 104 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h104 o f

th e Complaint . 105 . Th e Cit y denie s th e allegation s o f Paragrap h10 5 o f

th e Complaint . LIS T O FEXHIBIT S 106 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h10 6 o f

th e Complaint , th e Cit y admit s 1 2onl y that th e reference ddocument s ar e attache dt o th e Complain t bu t otherwis e denies th e allegation s o f

Paragrap h106 . CORRECTIV E ACTIO N 107 . In respons e t o th e allegation s o f Paragrap h107 o f

th e Complaint , th e City state s that , for th e reason s se t

fort hi n thi s Answer , i n th e Motio n t o Dismis s an dsupportin g Memorandu mo f

Point s an dAuthoritie s an do n th e basi s o f th e recor dtha t

wil l b e develope di n thi s proceeding . Complainan t i s no t entitle dt o an y o f

th e relie f

i t ha s requeste dno r

an y othe r relie f o r correctiv e action . Sectio n 16.2 1 Certificatio n 108 . In respons e t o VJC' s Sectio n 16.2 1 Certification , th e Cit y state s tha t th e recor d wil l sho w th e effort s th e partie s hav e mad e t o resolv e thi s issu e amicably. Th e Cit y specificall y denie s VJC' s assertio n i n th e thir dsentenc e o f Paragrap h10 8 tha t

th e City' s effort s t o resolv e thi s matte r

hav e bee n anythin g les s tha n i n goo dfaith . Th e City specificall y assert s tha t i t ha s a t al l time s acte dproperly , i n goo dfait hi n thi s matter , an dwithcomplet e transparency . Th e City agrees , however , that

th e effort s o f

partie s hav e not

ye t resulte di n aresolutio n o f th e matter . AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S Firs t Affirmativ e Defens e Complainan t

ha s faile dt o stat e aripe clai mfor relie f Secon dAffirmativ e Defens e Complainan t

lack s standin g t o challeng e th e City' s action s regardin g th e propose d hangars . Respectfiill y submitte dthi s 2 dda y o f September , 2009 ,

1 3Thoma s Devin e W . Eri c Pils k KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LLP 100 1 Connecticu t

Av e NW , Suit e 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-560 0 Facsimile : (202 ) 955-561 6 Robert Anderson , Esq . Hal l & Anderson , P.A . 131 4 Eas t Venic e Ave. , Suit e E Venice , FL3428 5 Telephone : (941 ) 480-099 9 Facsimile : (941)480-144 6 Arthu r P . Ber g KAPLA N KIRSC H & ROCKWEL L LL 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 t o th e Cit y o f

Venic e

1 4CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t 1 hav e thi s da y serve dth e foregoin g Cit y o f Venice' s Answe r an dAffirmativ e Defense s t o Complaint , o n th e followin g person s at th e followin g addresse s b v 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 VI A Federa l Expres s No . 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 VI A Federa l Expres s No . Date dthi s 2"*

^ da y o f September , 2009 : Thoma s R . Devin e