I 

## OC T - 1 200 9 M UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPCJRT^TIO N "y^i\tS ^ FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N • • AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA

L WASHINGTON , D C 

### L LAW , AGC-60 0 Venic e Je t

Center , LL C Complainant , V . FA A Docke t No . 16-09-0 5 Cit y o f Venice , Florid a Respondent . — J COMPLAINAN T VENIC E JE T CENTER . LLC' S REPL Y T O CIT Y O FVENICE'S ^ ANSWER . AFFIRMATIV E DEFENSE S AN D MOTIO N T O DISMIS S g Complainan t

Venic e Je t

Center , LL C ("th e VJC") , b y an dthroug h th e undersigne d counsel , hereb y files it s Repl y pursuan t to Title 14 , Cod e o f

Federal Regulations , Par t 16.23(e ) t o th e Responden t Cit y o f Venice' s ("th e City " o r "Respondent" ) Answe r

an d Affirmativ e Defense s an dMotio n t o Dismis s ("Motio n t o Dismiss") , an di n suppor t thereof , state s a s follows' :

' Al l evidenc e submitte dherewit h i s rebutta l evidenc e filedpursuan t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(g) . T o th e exten t

that matter s herei n ar e addresse dfo r th e first time , th e FA A may properl y conside r the mbecaus e th e Cit

y wil l hav e a

n opportunity t o respond . Aircraf t Owner s an d Pilot s Assoc . Member s v . Cit y o f Pompan o Beach , FA A docke t No . 16-04-01 , 200 5 WL 3722717 , *3 0 ("Whil e th e Complainant s di dno t rais e ANC A o r

Part 16 1 noncomplianc e i n thei r [ ] Complaint , the y di ds o i n thei r [ ] Reply . Fo r

reason s o f

administrativ e efficiency , th e FA A wil l generall y conside r issue s raise dfo

r th e first tim e i n arepl y onl y i f

th e opposin g part y ha s ha da

n opportunit y t

o respond.") .I . Introductio n Th e VJ C initiate dthi s Par t 1 6 proceedin g becaus e th e City ha s repeatedl y engage di n discriminatory an danti-competitiv e behavio r in attempt s to abrogat e th e VJC' s propert y rights . Specifically , th e City ha s violate dfedera l la w an dregulation s in connectio n wit h it s refiasa l t o allo w th e VJ C t o construc t hangar s o n vacan t

Venic e Municipa l Airport (th e "Airport" ) lan dlease db y th e VJC . O n o r abou t Septembe r

2 , 2009 , th e City move dt o dismis s th e Complain t (th e "Motio n t o Dismiss" ) contendin g th e disput e i s unripe , th e VJ C lack s standin g an dth e claim s ar e insufficientl y pled. ^ Th e factua l backgroun dprovide di n support o f th e City' s argument s i s largel y comprise do f irrelevan t

informatio n designe dt o distrac t th e FAA' s attentio n fi-omth e tru e cru x o f thi s dispute : th e City' s expresse ddesir e t o preven t expansio n o f th e Airport

—an dt o actuall y constric t it s activitie s —an dth e consequen t unlawful treatmen t o f th e VJC . A s discusse di n th e Complaint , an da s th e FAA' s staf f ha s already observed , th e City ha s engage di n a n on-goin g pattern o f

conduc t whic h violate s it s federa l obligation s i n orde r

t o reac h it s goal . In furtheranc e o f it s goa l t o preven t

a n increas e o f aeronautically-relate dactivitie s a t th e Airport , th e City ha s already :

• openl y oppose di n local publication s an y airpor t classificatio n that

woul dencourag e large r je t an dplan e traffi c a

t th e Airport

{Se e Compl . Composit e Ex h 6) ; Th e City als o asserte dtw o affirmativ e defense s i n respons e t o th e VJC' s Complaint : lack o f standin g an dfailur e t o stat e arip e claim . Th e burde n o f provin g thes e affirmativ e defense s lie s with th e City . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.229(c) .• violate dth e Publi c Record s Ac t an dth e Florid aGovemment-In-The-Sunshin e La w b y destroyin g publi c record s an dusin g liaison s an dprivat e communication s t o surreptitiousl y discus s ho w to slo w developmen t o f th e Airpor

t {Se e Compl . Exh 9) ;

• dissolve dth e Airport Advisor y Board("AAB") , whic h wa s establishe dto advis e th e City Counci l o n issue s pertainin g t o th e Airport an dwhic h advocate dtha t th e Airport retai n it s curren t

C-I I AR C classification , contrary t o th e City' s wishe s to downgrad e th e Airport

t o aB-I I classification ^ {Se e Compl . \27) ; an d

• develope da

n alternativ e Airport

Layou t Plan ("ALP" ) consisten t with aB-II , rathe r than th e presen t

C-I I classificatio n {Se

e Compl . Ex h 9) . In th e sam e vei n an dwith th e sam e goal i n mind , th e City i s presently :

• allowin g cost-fi:ee , municipal us e o f airport property for

non-aeronautica l purpose s accordin g t o arecen t

Lan dUs e Inspection , whic h i s attache dheret o a s Exhibi t 1 ;

• permittin g th e non-aeronautica l usag e o f Airport property withou t

prio r FAA approval {Se

e Compl . Exh . 18) ;

• allowin g "th e majority o f it s runway s an dtaxiways " t o remai n i n "poor " conditio n accordin g t o th e Airport' s 200 0 Maste r Pla n attache dheret o a s Exhibi t 2 ;

• refusin g federal fundin g (approximatel y $ 5 million ) that th e FAA previousl y allocate dt o repai r

runway 04-2 2 an dallowin g that runway t o deteriorat e int o apoo r conditio n tha t

prevent s large r

aircraf t firomutilizin g i t

{See Exhibi t

3 , f 8) ; an d

• seekin g approva l o f

aComprehensiv e Plan that woul ddevelo p Airport

lan di n th e Southern Gatewa y corrido r fo r non-aeronautica l an dnon-revenu e producin g purpose s withou t FA A approval {Se

e Exhibi t 4) .

3 Th e City seek s t o downgrad e th e Airport' s Airport Referenc e Cod e ("ARC" ) i n orde r t o limi t th e type s o f

aircraf t serviced . Th e reclassificatio n fromaC-II t o aB-I I Airpor t woul d diminis h aviatio n service s provide dt o th e publi c a t larg e but woul dbenefi t

asmal l numbe r o f resident s locate di n neighborhood s adjacen t t o th e Airport , includin g Counci l Membe r Lang , Counci l Membe r

Zavodnyik , an dMayo r

Martin .Agains t thi s backdro p o f

repeate dan dconsisten t conduc t designe dno t

onl y t o hinder expansion , bu t

als o t o actuall y reduc e th e Airport' s AR C classification , th e Cit y ha s activel y sough t t o preven t

th e VJ C fi-omconstructin g hangar s o n it s leasehol dthat ar e larg e enoug h t o servic e medium-size daircraf t (th e "hangars") . Th e City' s dela y tactic s take n to preven t th e VJ C frombuildin g thos e hangar s include :

• denyin g th e VJC' s reques t t o construc t

4 bo x hangar s in Jul y 200 8 eve n thoug h th e propose dconstructio n complie dwit h al l applicabl e plannin g an dbuildin g cod e provision s an dme t

al l Minimu mStandard s fo r th e Venic e Municipa l Airpor t and Fixe dBase dOperation s (th e "minimu mstandards") ;

• denyin g th e VJC' s reques t t o construc t

hangar s in Augus t

200 8 an drequirin g th e VJ C t o submi t a"concep t

plan, " eve n thoug h th e VJ C ha dno t previousl y bee n require dto produc e aconcep t

plan whe n i t

buil t it s first hangar s o n th e leasehold ;

• misrepresentin g t o th e FAA i n Septembe r 200 8 tha t th e reaso n th e VJC' s reques t wa s denie dwa s tha t

th e VJ C i t

mad e n o forma

l reques t t o buil dth e hangars ;

• seekin g lega l advic e a s t o whethe r th e City coul dterminat e th e VJC' s lease ;

• ignorin g thre e separat e letter s firomth e FA A encouragin g approva l o f th e VJC' s hangar s projec t

an dwarnin g that

denyin g th e reques t

woul db e contrary to federa l gran t assurances ;

• ignorin g advic e receive dfiro mth e City Attorne y an dit s outsid e counsel , tha t warne d th e City woul dlikel y b e expose dt o liability i f i t continue dt o den y th e VJC' s reques t to buil dth e hangars ;

• denyin g th e VJC' s writte n reques t date dFebruary 2 , 200 9 t o buil dth e hangars ;

• assertin g for

th e first tim e o n February 4 , 2009 , that th e curren t

ALP prohibite d constructio n i n th e are asough t t o b e improve dan dthe n ignorin g th e FAA' s communicatio n indicatin g th e AL P presente dn o suc h barrie r t o th e projec t

an dagai n encouragin g th e City t o approv e construction ;

• denyin g th e VJC' s writte n reques t date dFebruary 25 , 200 9 to buil dth e hangars ;• formall y denyin g th e VJC' s reques t on Marc h 10 , 200 9 a

t aCity Counci l meetin g and contendin g th e VJC' s leas e wa s voi dbecaus e th e compan y i s i n receivership ;

• seekin g 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 ;

• ignorin g it s outside counsel' s opinio n that th e VJC' s leas e remain s vali dan d enforceabl e an dareasonabl e constructio n o f th e leas e permit s additiona l hangars ; and

• denyin g th e VJC' s reques t t o buil dhangar s on th e basi s tha t th e VJC' s Receiver' ' di d no t demonstrat e financial capability despit e th e fact that : (1 ) th e VJ C hadno t previousl y bee n require dt o demonstrat e financial capability to buil dhangars ; (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 financial capability requirement . Th e outrigh t

refiisal s o f

th e propose dconstructio n an dstal l tactic s implemente db y th e City t o preven t

th e constructio n ar e take n i n derogatio n o f federa l obligation s becaus e th e City i s subjectin g th e VJ C t o unreasonabl e an ddiscriminatory 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 that s necessary t o mee t

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

t th e Airport . 11 . Th e VJ C I s Th e Tru e Part y A t Issu e A s a n initia l matter , th e City attempt s t o distrac t th e FA A fromth e merit s o f th e VJC' s Complain t

b y focusin g o n Arthu r

Nadel' s activitie s an dth e Receiver' s goal t o sel l th e VJC . Bu t th e Cit y fail s t o cit e an y law , regulation , o r othe r cognizabl e basi s that

show s thos e Burto n W . Wiand , wa s appointe do n January 27 , 200 9 i n th e Unite dState s Distric t Court , Middle Distric t

o f Florida , Tamp aDivisio n t o serv e a s th e Receive r ove r anumbe r

o f entitie s previousl y owne do r

controlle db y Arthu r

Nade l ("Nadel") . Nade l utilize dcertai n o f thes e entitie s t o perpetrat e afraudulent investmen t

scheme , but

th e VJ C wa s no t

on e o f them . Th e VJ C wa s place di n receivershi p o n January 29 , 2009 .item s ar e relevan t t o adeterminatio n o f

th e matter s i n th e Complaint . Th e partie s agre e that th e FAA' s rol e i n aPar t 1 6 proceedin g i s t o determin e whethe r th e Airpor

t sponso r i s currenti y violatin g it s federa l obligations . Accordingly , "[c]onjecture s o r statement s abou t thing s that

may o r ma y no t happe n contingen t

o n som e futur

e event ar e no t german e to thi s investigation . " Thermc o Aviation , Inc . v . Count y o f Lo s Angeles , FA A Docke t No . 16-06

- 07 , p . 22 . It

is , therefore , irrelevan t

whethe r th e party that

currentl y control s th e VJC , th e Receiver , sell s th e VJ C for maximu mprofi t

o r keep s th e compan y i n receivershi p an d construct s th e hangars. ^ Th e Complainan t i s no t th e Receiver , but

th e VJC , a

n entity tha

t i s separat e an dapart

fromth e Receive r

(an dthat wa s separat e an dapar

t fromNadel) . I

t i s a fundamental tene t

o f law that acorporat e entity possesse s it s ow n rights an dstand s separat e an dapart fromit s owner s o r

operators . Tha t

fac t that th e VJ C i s part

o f afedera l equity receivershi p doe s no t

affect it s rights. See , e.g. , Schole s v . Lehmann , 5 6 F.3 d750 , 75 4 (7t h Cir . 1995 ) (notin g tha t

eve n i f areceivershi p entity i s a"roboti c tool " o f th e perpetrato r

o f a Ponz i scheme , i t

nevertheles s i s aseparat e legal entity with it s ow n rights).^

^ O n multipl e occasions , th e VJ C ha s communicate dt o th e City that al l potentia l purchaser s o f th e VJ C hav e state dapproval o f th e hangar s projec t

an dth e ability t o buil dth e hangar s ar e materia l t o thei r

determinatio n o f

whethe r t o purchas e it . Se e e.g. . City' s MT D Exh . 3 . Th e VJ C ha s receive dn o interes t frompotentia l buyer s wh o d o not desir e t o buil dth e hangar s o r wh o lac k th e financial mean s t o d o so . Regardless , unti l ther e i s a n agreemen t

t o sel l th e VJC , what

aprospectiv e purchase r ma y seek

t o d o o r no t d o i s irrelevan t

t o th e FAA' s determination . Wha t

i s relevan t

i s th e City' s imprope r interferenc e wit

h th e VJC' s continuin g effort s t o obtai n permissio n t o buil dhangars . ^ Se e als o I n r e Insilc o Technologies . Inc. , 35 1 B.R . 313 , 32 2 (D . Del . 2006 ) ("It i s a n axio m o f corporat e law that

th e corporatio n i s a

n entity , distinc t

fromit s stockholder s . . . .") ; American Capita l Corp . v . Federa l Deposi t Insuranc e Corp. , Al l F.3 d85 9 (Fed . Cir . 2006 ) (" A basi c tene t

o f America n corporat e law i s that th e corporatio n an dit s shareholder s ar e distinc t entities") ; Dol e Foo dCo . v . Patrickson , 53 8 U.S . 468 , 47 4 (9t h Cir . 2003)(same) .Here , th e VJC , no t th e Receiver , i s th e tenan t wh o entere dint o aleas e agreemen t wit h th e Cit y an dha s sough t

t o buil dhangar s o n it s lease dspace . Whethe r th e Receive r

sell s th e VJ C to anothe r

party wh o wil l buil dth e hangar s o r decide s t o kee p th e VJ C i n receivershi p fo r additiona l tim e an dconstruc t th e hangar s himsel f

i s completel y irrelevan t becaus e th e VJC' s rights a s acorporat e entity ar e no t affected ; i t

ha s th e right

t o construc t

hangar s o

n it s leasehol dregardles s o f

wh o control s i t

o r wh o want s t o bu y is , an dha s solicite dth e Cit y fo r approval t o d o so . Likewise , th e City' s length y discussio n regardin g Nadel' s misconduc t i s irrelevan t

to thi s proceedin g an daclassi c red-herring . Contrary t o th e City' s assertions , th e VJ C wa s no t use db y Nade l t o perpetrat e hi s fraudulent investmen t

schem e an dwa s no t

Nadel' s "alte r ego. " Th e Cit y doe s no t identif y an y evidenc e t o th e contrary . Rather , th e VJ C i s in receivershi p becaus e Nade l use dth e proceed s o f hi s schem e t o purchas e th e VJC . Th e Cit y doe s no t provid e an y authority eve n suggestin g th e VJ C los t any rights a s aresul t

o f that . Th e VJ C i s a

n independen t

commercial entity an dit s activitie s —a s afull-servic e Fixe d Bas e Operato r

—wer e an dare entirel y legitimate . Th e VJ C a t al l times ha s "adhere dto th e highes t ethica l an daviatio n servic e community standards" ^ an dth e City ha s provide dn o

Whil e Nadel' s fraudcaimo t b e condone di n an y manner , th e City' s Motio n t o Dismis s ignore s it s ow n Counci l Members ' questionabl e conduc t i n violatin g th e Publi c Record s Ac t an dFlorid aGovemment-In-Th e Sunshin e Law b y purposefull y holdin g privat e meeting s to discus s Airport

busines s an db y desfroyin g documentary evidenc e o f suc h meetings .evidenc e to th e contrary . A s i s th e cas e wit h an y corporatio n wit

h arogu e manager , employe e o r

stakeholder , th e rights o f th e corporatio n remai n intact. ^ Finally , th e City' s argumen t tha t i t justifiabl y denie dth e VJC' s reques t t o buil d hangar s because , i n retrospect , th e VJ C allegedl y woul dhav e use dtainte dfund s fo r th e projec t i s abackwards , illogical an dunsupporte dargument . Eve n assuming , arguendo , it wa s true , th e City doe s no t cit e an y authority suggestin g that woul dhav e any bearing o n thi s matte r i n ligh t o f th e City' s lac k

o f knowledge . Th e City ha dn o knowledg e o f Nadel' s wrong-doin g a

t th e tim e th e VJC' s reques t wa s originall y mad e wel l over ayea r ag o —th e very sam e reques t

that i s stil l o n th e tabl e now . Th e City was presente dwit h aproposa l tha

t me t al l minimu mstandards , woul denhanc e aviatio n service s t o th e public , andfo r whic h a nee dwa s shown . Th e City denie dth e reques t ou t o f hand ; i t di ds o no t

becaus e o f

any fraudulent

activitie s b y Nade l but

becaus e i t

di dno t wan t to facilitat e hanga

r constructio n that woul dinevitabl y lea dt o mor e an dlarge r plane s o n Airport

property . And , i n an y event , th e City ha s mad e n o showin g whatsoeve r that 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 fromNadel' s imrelate dinvestmen t scheme . Indeed , th e City ha s no t pointe dt o an y misse d renta l o r othe r payment s b y th e VJ C o r an y othe r

evidenc e that

th e VJC' s operation s d o no t generat e cas h flow . Likewise , an y argumen t relatin g t o "VJC/Nadel " o r "VJC/Receiver " i s intende da s a distraction , a"shin y object " t o turn th e FAA' s attentio n away fromth e tru e issu e a t hand , whic h is : th e City' s refusal t o gran t th e VJC' s reques t

t o buil dhangar s involve s violation s o f it s federa l obligations , it s ow n minimu mstandards , an di s jus t anothe r tacti c take n b y th e City t o limi t

aeronautica l activitie s a

t th e AirportIII . Th e VJ C Ha s Standin g T o Brin g Thi s Actio n Th e City contend s th e Complain t shoul db e dismisse dbecaus e th e VJ C lack s standin g t o assert it s claims . Th e City i s wrong . An y entity tha t i s directl y an dsubstantiall y affected b y an y allege dnoncomplianc e b y a n airpor t sponso r ma y file acomplain t

with th e FAA . 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23 ; Thermc o Aviation . Inc. , FAA Docke t No . 16-06-0 7 a

t 27 ; Unite dState s Constructio n Corp . v . Cit y o f Pompan o Beach , FA A Docke t No . 16-00-14 , p . 1 9 (Director' s Determination) , aff'd , FA A Docke t No . 16-00-1 4 (Final Agenc y Decisio n Jul y 10 , 2002) ; Skydanc e Helicopters . Inc . v . Sedon aOak-Cree k Airport Authority , FA A Docke t

No . 16-02

- 0 2 (Mar . 7 , 2003) , 200 3 W L 1524500 , *2 8 ("[A ] perso n directi y an dsubstantiall y affecte db y an y allege dnoncomplianc e may file acomplain t wit h th e Administrator.") . Th e VJ C ha s allege di t i s bein g directl y andsubstantiall y affecte db y th e City' s infraction s in tha t i t ha s pai dan dcontinue s to pay ren t an dothe r

expense s to th e Airport

an dha s been : (1 ) denie d reasonabl e acces s t o apublic-us e airpor t for th e purpos e o f

improvin g it s leasehol dan d providin g aeronautica l service s t o th e public ; (2 ) subjecte dt o unreasonabl e and discriminatory standards ; an d(3 ) negativel y affecte dan ddevalue db y th e City' s anticompetitiv e an dmonopolisti c activitie s designe dt o imped e th e Airport' s growth . Indeed , th e FA A suggeste dth e VJ C file aPart 1 6 Complain t

i f th e City faile dto "realiz e th e importanc e o f

thei r federal obligations " an dinformal resolutio n wa s unattainable . In short , th e VJ C ha s adequatel y ple dth e "directl y an dsubstantiall y affected " standar dan dha s standin g t o procee dwith thi s matter .IV . Th e VJC' s Clai mFo r Relie f I s Rip e Fo r

Adjudicatio n A . Th e Curren t

Proposa l O n Th e Tabl e Th e City' s Motio n t o Dismis s include s alength y bu t irrelevan t

discussio n o f

th e alteration s mad e t o th e propose dhanga r constructio n pla n prio r

t o th e dat e th e VJ C sought City Counci l approval o f th e project . Regardles s o f whethe r th e VJC' s initial proposal t o buil dhangar s involve done , two , five, o r te n hangars , th e final proposa l submitte dt o th e Cit y i n Jul y 200 8 was fo

r fou r hangars . Thi s proposa l (th e curren t proposal ) wa s submitte dto th e City department s wit

h jurisdictio n ove r

constructio n an dreceive dal l necessary approvals , includin g on e fromNanc y Woodley , th e City' s Enginee r a t th e time , an don e fromJac k Stevenson , th e Fir e Marshall . Se e City' s MT D Exh . 8 . Th e propose dconstructio n conforme dt o al l minimu mstandard s an dapplicabl e plarmin g an dbuildin g cod e provisions . Se e City' s MT D Exh . 9 . Further , th e Southwes t Florid aWate r

Managemen t

Distric t ha d issue daconstructio n permi t for th e hangars . Se e City' s MT D Exh . 9 . In short , th e VJ C had al l approval s fo

r proceedin g wit

h construction . Th e Cit

y Council , however , wa s determine d t o bloc k th e constructio n an ddemande dt o revie w aconcep t plan prio r

t o allowin g th e constructio n t o proceed . Accordin g t o th e City Manage r a t th e time , Marti n Black , th e concep t pla n woul db e reviewe dfo r an y "fatal technica l flaws." Se e City' s MT D Exh . 18 . O n Augus t

26 , 2008 , th e VJC , alon g wit h it s architec t

an dengineer , mad e a presentatio n o f

th e concep t

pla n a t ameetin g befor e th e City Council . N o discussio n o n th e sit e pla n followe dth e presentatio n an dn o vot e wa s taken , althoug h Counci l Membe r Lan g indicate dapproval woul dno t b e give n unles s th e VJC' s leas e was re-negotiated . Se e Compl . T l 22 ; Exh . 10 . It

wa s clea r th e City ha dn o intentio n o f approvin g th e construction , wit h or

1 0withou t revie w o f

th e concep t

pla n o r any "fatal technical flaws." Sinc e tha t meeting , th e City ha s invente don e excus e afte r anothe r t o hinde r th e construction , goin g t o grea t length s t o findsom e way t o undermin e th e VJC' s property rights, terminat e th e VJC' s lease , o r even purchas e th e VJ C an dclos e i t altogether . Se e e.g. , Compl . ^ 38 , 40 , 48 , 49 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 63 . A s th e recor ddemonstrates , th e FAA ha s alread y informall y conclude dthat th e City' s action s ar e restrictin g aeronautica l acces s t o th e Airport an dru n contrary t o federal gran t assurance s an dSurplu s Property Dee drestrictions . Se e Compl . Exh . 12 , 14 , 16 . Regardles s o f whethe r th e VJ C i s no w i n receivership , th e circumstance s hav e no t change dsinc e thi s informa l determinatio n wa s made. ^ Th e VJ C continue s t o seek approval an dth e City continue s to unjustifiabl y den y it . B . Th e City' s I s Applyin g Unreasonabl e Minimu mStandard s I n A Discriminator y Manne r And , Regardless , Th e VJ C Ha s Complie dWit h Al l Requirement s In th e City' s lates t

iteratio n o f

it s suppose dreason s for denyin g approval , it

assert s tha t i t i s justifie di n refusin g to approv e th e hanga r constructio n becaus e th e VJ C ha s no t

^ No r hav e th e circumstance s change di n an y materia l respec t sinc e th e City' s counse l i n thi s cas e previousl y opine dtha t "[a] n airport

sponsor' s prim e obligatio n i s t o operat e th e airpor t for aeronautica l use , includin g th e opportunit y fo r leaseholder s t o develo p airpor t property for aeronautica l use " an d"[t]h e fac t that th e City ha s allowe dothe r tenant s t o buil dan dleas e ou t hangar s woul dmak e th e Cit y vulnerabl e t o charge s o f unjus t discriminatio n i f

i t denie d [th e VJC ] th e right

t o buil dhangars. " Se e Compl . Exh . 13 . Th e City' s Motio n t o Dismis s include s alength y purporte dexplanatio n o f wh y th e City' s counse l no w assert s position s i n litigatio n that

ar e diametricall y oppose dt o thos e asserte di n it s pre-litigatio n analysis . Thei r explanatio n that

th e opinio n was base do n circumstance s othe r tha n th e actual fact s i s unpersuasiv e because , a s discusse dherein , th e VJ C ha s aright t o buil dhangars , th e propose d constructio n meet s al l minimu mstandard s an dth e curren t AL P doe s no t

operat e t o ba

r th e construction . Accordingly , th e City shoul db e estoppe dfromassertin g th e contradictory arguments .

1 1demonstrate d"financial capability. " Notably , tha t i s th e onl y non-complianc e wit h th e minimu mstandard s asserte db y th e City i n it s Motio n to Dismiss." ' Th e deman dto sho w financial capability was mad e fo r th e first time i n approximatel y May or Jun e 2009 , afte

r th e City solicite dalegal opinio n a s t o whether : (1 ) th e VJC' s leas e wa s vali dan denforceabl e an dpermitte dconstructio n o f additional hangars ; (2 ) th e City coul dterminat e th e leas e becaus e o f

Nadel' s unrelate dfraud; an d(3 ) th e City coul drequir e th e VJ C t o provid e evidenc e o f

it s financial capability t o construc t th e propose dhangars . Se e Compl . Exh . 19 . Afte r it s counse l —th e sam e counse l representin g th e Cit y i n thi s proceedin g —advise dth e leas e wa s indee denforceabl e andvali dan dthat i t coul dno t

b e terminate dbase do n Nadel' s actions , th e City fell-bac k o n it s onl y possibl e pretex t lef t t o defea t th e hangar

project : financial capability . A s discusse dbelow , however , thi s pretex t fail s t o support

th e City' s refusal t o permi t

hangar constructio n fo

r thre e independen t

reasons : (1 ) unde r

th e plai n languag e o f

th e minimu mstandards , th e City ha s n o basi s t o mak e approval o f th e VJC' s reques t conditiona l o n th e VJC' s proo f o f financial capability ; (2 ) eve n i f i t could , i t i s a n unreasonabl e an ddiscriminatory standard ; an d(3 ) eve n assumin g that requiremen t

i s permitte db y th e leas e an di s no t unreasonabl e an ddiscriminatory , i t ha s bee n satisfie db y th e VJC .

Th e City doe s no t

assert , fo r example , that

th e VJ C i s i n breac h o f

it s leas e obligation s o r tha t th e curren t

pla n for constructio n fail s t o mee t applicabl e codes .

1 21 . Th e requiremen t o f demonstratin g financial capability doe s no t appl y unde r th e expres s languag e o f

th e lease . Th e Cit y assert s that

it may requir e proo f

o f financial capability pursuan t to th e minimu mstandard s whic h ar e incorporate dint o th e VJC' s leas e b y reference . Th e onl y arguabl e support

fo r that assertio n i s aminimu mstandard s provisio n entitle d"Leas e Information, " whic h state s tha t alesse e mus t

mee t th e minimu mstandard s i n order to "expan dit s operation s o r becom e a

n Operator, " tha

t an y Operato r

"desirin g t o exten dit s operation s int o additiona l categorie s o r discontinu e operations " mus t provid e awritte n reques t fo r authorization , an

dthat th e City may requir e "[e]videnc e o f pas t experience , financial capability an dtechnical ability . . . . " In othe r words , a

t bes t fo r th e City , th e minimu mstandard s authoriz e th e City t o reques t proo f o f financial capability onl y if th e Operato r seek s t o exten dit s operation s int o additional categories . Se e Compl . Exh . 4 , p . 6 . Th e VJ C i s acurren t

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

parties. " Se e Compl . ^17 . Thus , it s desire to construc t additiona l hangar s an dto leas e thos e t o othe r partie s a s wel l i s no t

a n attemp t to "exten dit s operation s int o additional categories. " Thi s i s no t asituatio n i n which , fo r instance , a

n entity that

sell s aviatio n fue

l i s seekin g t o expan dit s service s an doperat e aflight schoo l o r buil dhangar s an dleas e them . Thus , unde r th e plai n languag e o f

th e VJC' s leas e an dth e incorporate dminimu mstandards , th e City i s no t authorize dt o conditio n approval o f

" Indeed , th e VJ C entere dinto th e leas e agreemen t with th e City an dinveste din th e Airport' s developmen t

relyin g o n it s right

t o continu e developmen t o f it s lease dland .

1 3th e VJC' s reques t t o construc t

additiona l hangar s o n it s demonstratio n (t o th e City' s subjectiv e an dundefine dsatisfaction ) o f financial capability . 2 . Th e requiremen t o f demonstratin g financial capability i s a n uru-easonabl e standar dtha t th e City ha s applie din adiscriminatory marmer . Eve n assumin g th e Cit

y ha dan y basi s fo

r requestin g proo f

o f financial capability , it coul dno t

d o s o becaus e th e requiremen t i s unreasonabl e an dha s bee n applie di n a discriminatory manner . Wit h respec t t o definin g what

constitute s "financial capability " o r otherwis e providin g an y guidanc e o n th e applicatio n o f that requirement , th e minimu m standard s merel y not e tha t th e City "may " requir e evidenc e o f financial capability to perfor m service s an dthat : [t]h e City o f

Venic e shal l b e th e sol e judg e o f wha t constitute s adequat e finances an dth e procedur e to bas e financial information . If th e Operato r

doe s not , i n th e opinio n o f th e Cit y o f Venice , exhibi t

adequat e financial responsibility t o undertak e th e propose dservices , th e Cit y o f Venic e may den y th e requeste dactivity . Se e Compl . Exh . 4 , §8 B a t p . 7 . Thi s vagu e an darbifrar y language , whic h doe s no t defin e "adequat e finances" an dleave s approval t o th e sol e discretio n o f th e City render s tha

t requiremen t

unreasonabl e an ddiscriminatory o n it s face.' ^ Impose dminimu mstandard s mus t "[b] e fair , reasonabl e an dno t unjustl y discriminatory . The y mus t b e relevan t

t o th e propose dactivity , reasonabl y attainable , an d uniforml y applied. " Centennia l Expres s Airline s v . Arapaho e Count y Publi c Airport Base do n th e languag e o f Sectio n 8 B o f

th e minimu mstandards , no t eve n th e FAA woul d hav e an y parameter s o r

othe r guidanc e fo

r determinin g whethe r

a n applican t

ha s "adequat e finances" t o undertak e aproject .

1 4Authority , FAA Docke t No . 13-95-03 , 199 8 WL 1083382 , * 6 (citin g FAA Orde r 5190.1A , Para , lie. ) (emphasi s added) . Further , "[m]anipulatin g th e standard s solel y to protec t [or undermine ] th e interes t

o f a n existin g tenant , o r

tenant s [ ] i s unacceptable. " Id . a t *7 . An "[u]nreasonabl e requirement , o r any requiremen t

applie di n a

n unjustl y discriminatory manne r coul dconstitut e th e grant o f a n exclusiv e right." Skydanc e Helicopters , Inc. , 200 3 W L 152450 0 a

t *17 ; Centennia l Expres s Airlines , 199 8 W L 108338 2 a t * 6 (citin g FA

A Orde r 5190. 1 A , Para . lie) . Becaus e th e City may , i n it s sol e discretion , decid e t o impos e th e financial capability requirement , o n it s fac e th e standardi s no t "fair, " "uniforml y applicable, " o r "reasonabl y attainable " an di s unreasonable . Indeed , th e City ha s no t uniforml y applie dth e requiremen t o f demonstratin g financial capability , an dinstea dha s don e s o i n adiscriminatory fashion . I n fact , th e belo w evidenc e indicate s that requiremen t

ha s uniforml y no t

bee n applied . A s to th e VJC , th e City ha s neve r

previousl y sough t

proo f o f financial capability before allowin g i t to procee dwith a

n Airport developmen t

project . Eve n wit

h respec t t o constructio n o f

th e specifi c hangar s a

t issu e i n thi s case , th e City requeste dproo f o f financial capability fo

r th e first tim e onl y recently . Th e evidenc e indicate s th e VJ C i s th e ver y first entity th e City ha s eve r

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

project . Exhibi t

3 , fi f 4-6 . Neve r

onc e sinc e 1960 , whe n th e first constructio n a

t th e Airport

occurred , ha s propose dconstructio n require danythin g othe r than abuildin g permi t

fromth e City Buildin g Department . Exhibi t

3 , % 4 . Unti l th e VJC' s reques t t o buil dhangars , propose dconstructio n di dnot eve n requir e th e City Counci l t o first giv e permissio n t o th e Buildin g Departmen t fo r

1 5issuanc e o f th e buildin g permit . Exhibi t 3 , % 4 , 6 . Indeed , th e VJ C wa s no t require dto demonstrat e financial capability whe n it 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 foot bo x hangars . Exhibi t

3 , ^ 4 , 5 . Non e o f th e followin g Airpor

t tenant s wer e require dto demonstrat e financial capability , o r

eve n obtai n Cit

y Counci l approval , t o construc t hangar s o n th e Airpor t property :

• A.C . Schmiele r

erecte da2,50 0 square-foo t hangar o n hi s leasehol da

t th e Airpor

t and wa s no t require dt o demonstrat e financial capability ;

• Th e Sarasot aCount y Sherrif f s Departmen t

constructe da7,00 0 square-foo t hanga r i n connectio n wit h it s leas e a t th e Airport

an dwa s no t

require dto demonstrat e financial capability ;

• Buz z Mills , whos e leasehol di s no w owne db y Le e Johnson , EdWarringto n an dPeter Fous , buil t

a10,00 0 square-foo t

hangar an dwa s no t

require dt o demonstrat e financial capability ;

• Carl Bur

r buil t a3,00 0 square-foo t

hangar an dwa s no t

require dt o demonstrat e financial capability ;

• Vincen t

Fett e buil t

tw o 10,00 0 square-foo t hangar s i n connectio n with hi s FB O operation s an dwas no t

require dt o demonsfrate financial capability ;

• Am e Kruethof' Technica l Advanc e Grou p d/h/a J Florid aFligh t

Maintenanc e Center buil t alarg e hangar , whic h may excee d10,00 0 square-feet , an dwa s no t require dto demonstrat e financial capability ;

• Duncan Enterprises , Inc . buil t tw o hangar s tw o year s apar t an dneithe r

require da demonstratio n o f

financial capability ;

• Shamroc k

Enterprises , Inc. /

NEC , Inc . buil t

1 2 hangar s o n it s leasehol dan dwa s no t require dt o demonstrat e financial capability ;

1 6• Mountai n Laurel , Inc. / Superio r Aircraf t Hangars , Inc . buil t

1 4 Hangar s on it s leasehol dan dwa s no t

require dto demonstrat e financial capability ; an d

• Pau l R . Theen , Inc. /

Swif t Group , Inc . buil t

1 4 Hangar s o n it s leasehol dandwa s no t require dt o demonstrat e financial capability . Exhibi t 3 , ^ 5 ; Se e als o Exhibi t

5 . Builder s o f

hangar s wer e no t

th e onl y Airport

lessee s wh o wer e no t

require dto sho w financial capability . Th e followin g list s Airport lessee s wh o wer e permitte dto undertak e som e for mo f constructio n andwer e no t require dt o eithe r

demonstrat e financial capability or obtai n City Counci l approval in advanc e o f construction : Vincen t Fett e buil t

a n FB O buildin g an dradi o shop ; Joh n Ingri madde dasecon dfloor t o hi s FB O buildin g (previousl y Vincen t Fette' s leasehold) ; Stanle y Huffma

n mad e aconstructio n improvemen t t o hi s FB O buildin g (previousl y Joh n Ingrim' s leasehold) ; Th e VJ C tor e dow n andcompletel y reconstructe dit s FB O building ; Harol dHagen/

Venic e Flyin g Service , Inc . buil t a n FB O building ; Th e Fligh t

Dec k Restauran t

wa s buil t

nex t t o Venic e Flyin g Service , Inc.' s FB O building ; Wass-Air , Inc . buil t

a n FB O building ; Tripl e Diamon dEnterprises , Inc . mad e constructio n improvement s to it s FB O buildin g (previousl y Wass-Air , Inc.' s leasehold) ; Th e VJ C mad e improvement s t o it s FB O buildin g (previousl y Tripl e Diamon d Enterprises ' leasehold) ; an d Sharkey' s Restauran t

on th e Gul f

was buil t

o n it s leasehol dan dsubsequentl y mad e significan t constructio n improvements . Exhibi t 3 , ^ 5 ; Se e als o Exhibi t

5 .

1 7A s thi s abundan t evidenc e indisputabl y establishes , th e Cit y ha s applie dth e financial capability "requirement " i n a n unreasonabl e an ddiscriminatory fashion . Th e FAA ma y mak e a n officia l determinatio n regardin g th e relevanc e and/o r reasonablenes s o f

minimu m standard s whe n th e effec t o f astandar ddenie s acces s t o apublic-us e airport . Skydanc e Helicopters , Inc. , 200 3 W L 152450 0 a t *17 ; Centennia l Expres s Airlines , 199 8 WL 108338 2 a t *6 . A s th e City' s unreasonabl e an ddiscriminatory applicatio n o f th e financial capability requiremen t

ha s resulte di n preventin g th e VJ C fromimprovin g it s leasehol dan dofferin g much-neede dhanga r

service s t o th e public , th e VJ C i s bein g denie dacces s t o apublic-us e airport . Th e FAA , therefore , shoul dofficiall y determin e that : (1 ) th e financial capabilit y standar di s unreasonabl e an dresult s i n a n attemp t t o creat e a

n exclusiv e right, an d(2 ) th e VJC' s allege dfailure t o demonstrat e financial capability t o th e City' s satisfactio n may no t serv e a s abasi s fo r

denia l o f

th e requeste dconstruction . Se e Skydanc e Helicopters , Inc. , 200 3 WL 152450 0 at

"^17 ; Centennia l Expres s Airlines , 199 8 W L 108338 2 at *6 . 3 . Th e VJC' s ha s demonsfrate dfinancial capability . Finally , eve n assuming , arguendo , th e financial capability requiremen t applie s and th e City ha s no t

applie di t

i n a n arbitrary , unreasonable , an ddiscriminatory manner , th e VJ C ha s satisfie dtha t

requirement . Th e Receive r ha s provide dth e City tw o Interi mReports , whic h hav e bee n filedi n court , that illusfrate th e VJC , a s par t o f areceivershi p estate , ha s ampl e fund s availabl e t o construc t th e hangars . Se e City' s MT D Exh . 3 , 16 . Indeed , th e receivershi p fun

dha s increase dsinc e th e las t Interi mRepor

t wa s provide dto th e City . Currentiy , th e receivershi p ha s $3. 3 millio n availabl e i n cas h o r cas h equivalents an dover a doze n separat e rea l propert y holdings . Thes e fund s are no t segregated , contrar y t o th e City' s

1 8contentions , an dar e availabl e to assis t wit h constructio n o f

th e VJC' s hangar s upo n cour t petition . Bu t eve n i f th e VJ C di dno t

hav e th e financial capability t o construc t th e hangars , th e City' s purporte d"concerns " woul dno t materialize . I

f th e VJ C wa s seekin g approval to construc t th e hangar s bu t

di dno t hav e th e financia

l capability o r

th e wil l to undertak e th e project , th e hangar s woul dno t b e constructe dan dth e VJC' s leasehol dwoul dremai n a s is . Mor e critically , however , buildin g th e hangar s i s afundamental componen t o f th e VJC' s busines s pla n an di s a

n importan t

part o f th e VJC' s valu e i n th e activ e biddin g proces s fo r it s sale . Se e e.g. . City' s MT D Exh . 3 . A s th e Cit y contends , i t

i s tru e that

th e Receive r

desire s t o sel l th e VJ C t o th e highes t bidder . Bu t

i t i s likewis e tru e that

al l prospectiv e bidder s desir e t o construc t

th e hangar s and , indeed , wil l no t purchas e th e VJ C i f

th e Cit y continue s t o interfer e wit

h it s right

t o improv e it s leasehold . I n othe r words , wha

t i s hinderin g constructio n o f

th e hangar s i s no t

alac k o f financial capability but

th e clea r wil l o f th e Cit y Counci l t o foil th e project , fhisfrat e th e sal e o f

th e VJ C an ddevalu e it s leasehold . C . Th e City' s Attemp t T o Hid e Behin dTh e AL P Als o Shoul dFai l Th e City als o contend s that i s was justifie di n refusin g th e VJ C permissio n t o buil d th e hangar s becaus e th e propose dare afor thei r constructio n wa s designate dfo r othe r aeronautica l us e o n th e curren t ALP . In thi s regard , th e City disagree s wit h th e positio n outline di n th e Orland o Airport Distric t Office' s ("ADO" ) correspondenc e t o Cit y Attorney , Robert Anderson , date dFebruary 23 , 2009 . Se e Compl . Exh . 16 . I n that correspondence , th e FA A assure s th e City tha t th e curren t

ALP doe s no t

preven t th e hangar s frombein g constructe di n th e propose dare aan dreiterate s that th e City shoul dforwardplan s fo r th e

1 9constructio n t o th e FAA withou t delay . Id . Th e City argue s th e FAA "doe s no t buil d airports " o r

"tel l sponsor s ho w to ru n thei r airports " an d"canno t

forc e a n airpor t t o see k a revisio n t o it s AL P t o allo w constructio n o f hangars."' ^ City' s MTD , p . 19 . Accordingly , th e City contend s that

permittin g th e constructio n o n th e VJC' s leasehol dwoul dconflic t wit h designation s o f

th e curren t

ALP , whic h th e City refuse s to amen do r alte r eve n thoug h there i s aclea r nee dfor hangar space.'' * Se e Exhibi t

6 . B y placin g th e AL P designation s ahea d o f th e Airport' s needs , th e Cit y clearl y demonsfrate s it s disagreemen t wit h th e FAA' s pronouncemen t

that asponsor' s primar y concer n shoul db e operatin g th e Airpor t fo r aeronautica l use . Se e Unite dState s Construction , FAA Docke t No . 16-00-1 4 a

t p . 2 1 (emphasi s added) . In an y event , th e City misconstrue s th e ADO' s lette r a s suggestin g th e City shoul d permi t constructio n that

conflict s wit

h th e ALP . Th e letter , i n fact , ask s th e City t o forwar d th e plan fo

r th e hangar

constructio n s o that

th e 200 0 ALP ca

n b e amende dan dstate s tha t a "pe n an dink " chang e t o th e ALP incorporatin g hangar s i n that vicinit y ha s already bee n processed . Se e Compl . Exh . 16 . Essentially , th e lette r communicate s t o th e Cit y tha t if th e constructio n plan s ar e sen t t o th e FAA , th e FA A wil l likel y approv e th e constructio n an dth e AL P ca n b e amende daccordingl y t o comport with th e approve dconstruction . Th e Cit y O f course , i f

th e City i s concerne dthat th e FA A i s attemptin g t o "force " i t t o revis e it s AL P an dpermi t

th e construction , thi s i s no t th e prope r

proceedin g to mak e such a n argument . Part

1 6 "[i] s th e appropriat e foru mfor complaint s agains t

federall y assiste d airports , no t

agains t th e FAA. " Se e Boc aAirpor t Inc . v . Boc aRato n Airpor t Authority , FA

A Docke t No . 16-00-10 , 200 1 W L 438619 , *23 .

'' * Accordin g t o th e Airport' s "T-Hangar Waitin g Lis t

Policy, " ther e ar e currenti y 7 3 peopl e waitin g t o ren t

hangar space .

2 0refuse dto sen dth e plan s an drefuse dt o seek approval o f

a n amende dALP . Thi s refusa l run s contrary to FA A polic y underlyin g th e requiremen t o f acurren t ALP . I t i s tru e that

th e City i s require dto kee p a n up-to-dat e AL P tha

t reflect s existin g facilitie s a s wel l a s propose dstructures . Se e Compl . Exh . 2 , Gran t Assuranc e No . 29 . Th e polic y supportin g th e maintenanc e o f acurren t an daccurat e ALP demonstrate s that ALP s are regularl y subjec t

t o revisio n o r

modificatio n an dth e amendmen t o f a n ALP , wit

h FA A approval , i s encourage dt o promot e th e safety , utility , an defficienc y o f th e airport . Se e Boc a Airpor t Inc. , 200 1 W L 43861 9 a t *2 4 ("[A]irport

owner s commonl y reques t revision s t o thei r ALP s t o reflec t

mor e nearl y th e curren t

developmen t

plan s o f th e airport.") . A s th e City i s resistin g plan s t o enhanc e th e Airport an dprovid e additiona l aeronautical service s t o th e public , it i s likewis e resistin g amendmen t o f th e ALP . Th e City' s " 1 don' t wan t to , s o I won't " attitud e contravene s it s primar y responsibility t o provid e neede daeronautica l service s t o th e public . In short , th e ALP mus t reflec t and , i f necessary , b e amende dt o reflec t th e Airport' s needs , s o thos e need s mus t dictat e th e ALP . Instead , th e City improperl y seek s t o revers e thos e prioritie s an dus e th e AL P a s ashiel dt o sto p th e Airport fromachievin g it s necessary development . V . Th e City' s Contentio n Tha t Th e VJ C Ha s No t

Sufficientl y State dA Clai mI s Withou t Meri t Whe n initiatin g aPar

t 1 6 complaint , th e VJ C mus t provid e aconcis e bu t

complet e statemen t o f fact s relie dupo n t o substantiat e th e allegation s an dal l supportin g document s the n availabl e i n th e exercis e o f reasonabl e diHgence . Se e 1 4 C.F.R . § 16.23(b)(2) , (3) . Th e VJ C ha s me t

thi s initial burden . Th e VJ C ha s provide dnotic e o f th e relevan t

timefram e o f th e allege dviolations , th e event s an dunderlyin g fact s constitutin g th e allege dviolations , th e

2 1relie f

sought , an dasubstantia l documentary record , whic h i s futhe r supplemente db y th e document s attache dhereto . Th e VJ C ha s se t fort h i n detai l th e monopolistic , anti

competitiv e an ddiscriminatory action s take n b y th e Cit y to restric t

aeronautica l service s t

o th e publi c a

t th e Airport

and , therefore , ha s sufficientl y state daclai mfo r th e City' s violation s o f

it s federa l obligations . A . Th e VJ C Ha s State dA Clai mFo r Violatio n O f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 22 . Gran t Assuranc e No . 2 2 implement s th e provision s o f 4 9 U.S.C . § 47107(a)(l)-(6) , and , i n pertinen t

part , state s a s follows : [Th e sponsor ] wil l make th e airpor t availabl e a s a

n airpor t for publi c us e o n reasonabl e term s an dwithou t unjus t discriminatio n t o al l types , kind s an d classe s o f aeronautica l activities , includin g commercial aeronautica l activitie s offerin g service s to th e publi c a t th e airport . [Assuranc e 22(a) ] Th e sponso r

may establis h suc h reasonable , an dno t unjustl y discriminatory , condition s t o b e me t

b y al l user s o f

th e airpor

t a s ma y b e necessar y fo r th e saf e an defficient

operatio n o f

th e airport . [Assuranc e 22(h) ] Th e sponso r

may no t

prohibi t o r limi t an y give n type , kin do r clas s o f aeronautica l us e unles s suc h actio n "i s necessary fo r th e saf e operatio n o f

th e airpor t o r necessar y to serv e th e civi l aviatio n need s o f th e public. " [Assuranc e 22(i)] . Th e Cit y i s i n violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e No . 22(a ) because , a s discusse din Sectio n I above , i t

i s discriminatin g agains t a"kin do r

clas s o f aeronautical activity " (medium-size d aircraft ) b y preventin g th e VJ C fromconstructin g hangar s o n it s leasehol dto provid e aeronautica l service s t o th e publi c an db y takin g affirmativ e step s t o downgrad e th e Airport' s AR C classification . Se e e.g. . I n r e Cit y o f SantaMonica , FA A Docke t No . 16-02-08 , 200 9 Therefore , subsectio n (i ) operate s a s e n exceptio n t o th e general rul e that th e sponso r

mus t no t discriminate .

2 2WL 2152086 , * 2 ("Althoug h airpor t owner s ma

y exercis e authority i n aviatio n regulatio n unde r thei r proprietary powers , tha t authority doe s no t

exten dt o aba

n o n classe s o f aircraft...") . Th w City i s als o violatin g Gran t Assuranc e No . 22(h ) b y applyin g unreasonabl e minimu mcondition s (i n th e for mo f City Counci l approval o f propose dconstructio n an d requiremen t

o f ashowin g o f

financial capability ) in adiscriminatory fashio n agains t th e VJ C {Se e supra . Sectio n 1V(B)) . Further , th e City ha s no t demonstrate dthat

it s limitatio n o n th e kin do r clas s o f aeronautica l us e a

t issu e her e (buildin g hangar s t o facilitate medium-size d aircraft ) "i s necessary fo r th e saf e operatio n o f

th e airport

o r necessary t o serv e th e civi l aviatio n need s o f

th e public. " Id . ("In thi s case , th e discriminatory restrictio n agains t operator s o f

Categorie s C an dD aircraf t i s unjus t an dno t necessary fo

r th e sam e operatio n o f th e airport.") . Th e VJ C has , therefore , state daclai mfo r violatio n o f

Gran t Assuranc e No . 22 . B . Th e VJ C Ha s State dA Clai mFo r Violatio n O f

Gran t Assurance s Nos . 2 3 Andl . Gran t Assuranc e No . 2 3 implement s th e provision s o f 4 9 U.S.C . § 47107(a)(4 ) an d states , asponso r

"[sjhal l permi t

n o exclusiv e right

fo r th e us e o f

th e airpor

t b y an y perso n providing , o r

intendin g t o provide , aeronautica l service s t o th e public. " Thi s Grant Assuranc e "[w]a s intende dt o prohibi t 'anti-competitive , monopolisti c behavio r a t airport s receivin g Federa l fund s . . . . " Id . a t *23 . Th e provisio n i s designe d"[t] o prohibi t monopolie s an dcombination s i n resfraint o f frade o r commerc e an dt o promot e an d encourag e competitio n i n civi l aeronautic s . ... " Id . a t *\\ . (citin g 4 0 U.S . Op . Atty Gen. , a t 7 2 (1941)) . Th e City ha s a n affirmativ e obligatio n unde r Gran t Assuranc e No . 2 3 t o preven t

2 3monopolisti c results . Id . a t *2 . Whil e a

n airpor t sponso r ma y impos e minimu mstandard s on thos e engage di n aeronautica l activities , "[a] n unreasonabl e requirement , o r an y requiremen t applie di n a

n unjustl y discriminatory manne r coul dconstitut e th e gran t o f a n exclusiv e right," Skydanc e Helicopters , Inc. , 200 3 WL 152450 0 a t *17 ; Centennia l Expres s Airlines , 199 8 W L 1083382 , a

t *6 . Th e City i s i n violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e No . 2 3 b y imposin g th e minimu m standard s i n a

n unjustl y discriminatory manne r agains t th e VJ C an ddenyin g i t

th e right t o improv e it s leasehold , a s discusse dabov e in subsectio n VI(B)(2) . Th e recordreflect s tha t th e VJC' s hangar s projec t

i s th e first

propose dconstructio n that ha s eve r require dCity Counci l approval i n advanc e o r

proo f o f financial capacity . Exhibi t 3 , * ^ 4-6 . Al l othe r

tenant s discusse dabove i n subsectio n 1V(B)(2 ) hav e bee n permitte dt o improv e thei r leasehold s b y constructin g hangar s o r

othe r facilitie s withou t

demonstratin g financial capacity o r receivin g prio r City Counci l approval . Exhibi t 3 , ^ ^ 5-7 . Further , th e recor dreflect s that th e City i s i n th e proces s o f

buildin g additiona l hangars , whic h i t wil l leas e i n competitio n wit h th e VJC . Exhibi t 3 , \7 . Suc h anti-competitiv e behavio r amount s t o a

n attemp t t o monopoliz e th e marke t for providin g hangar

service s an dviolate s Sectio n 2 o f th e Sherman Ac t

an dGrant Assuranc e No . 23 . Th e City' s relianc e o n Boc aAirport , Inc . v . Boc aRato n Airpor t Authority , FA

A Docke t No . 16-04-02 , t o conten dthat aviolatio n o f

federa l antitrus t law s doe s no t

fall withi n th e purvie w o f

th e City' s federa

l gran t assurance s i s misplaced . In Boc aAirport , Inc. , th e FA A clarifie dthat

th e FA A ha s n o jurisdictio n t o adjudicate claim s o f violation s o f

crimina l laws . Id . a

t p . 11 . (Briber y cas e i n whic h Complainan t allege dth e Authority' s Chairman

2 4accepte dillega l gratuities ) (emphasi s added) . Unlik e Boc aAirport , Inc. , th e VJ C ha s no t

allege dan y violatio n o f

crimina l law but

ha s allege dth e City i s engagin g i n monopolistic , anticompetitive , an

ddiscriminatory behavio r i n violatio n o f

th e civi l provision s o f th e Sherman Act , specificall y 1 5 U.S.C . § 2 . Th e lis t o f authoritie s unde r

Gran t Assuranc e No . 1 , "Genera l Federal Requirements, " i s explicitl y non-exhaustiv e andth e City i s boun dt o compl y with it s assurances , som e o f whic h ar e clearl y intende dt o prohibi t anti-competitiv e an dmonopolisti c behavior . Th e City i s arecipien t o f federa l fundin g an di s operatin g and developin g th e Airpor

t with th e assistanc e o f

stat e an dfedera

l funding . A s previousl y discussed , i t

i s doin g s o i n adiscriminatory , anti-competitive , an dmonopolisti c fashion . Th e FAA , therefore , may properl y adjudicate th e VJC' s clai mfo r violatio n o f

federa l antitrus t law s an dGran t

Assuranc e No . 1 . Th e City' s contentio n tha t i t i s immun e fromliability unde r th e federa

l antitrus t law s ha s n o merit . Tha t

contentio n i s based , i n part , o n th e Loca l Governmen t

Antitrus t Act . Se e 1 5 U.S.C . § § 35(a) . Th e Local Governmen t Antitrus t Ac t onl y cover s antitrus t

claim s fo

r damages , an dno t

antitrus t claim s seekin g injunctiv e relief ' Here , th e VJ C i s no t assertin g a n antitrus t clai mfo r damage s and , thus , th e statut e ha s n o application . Se e Compl . ^ 107 . Further , th e City i s not

immun e fromth e VJC' s requeste dinjunctiv e relie f pursuan t to th e stat e actio n doctrine . Immunity pursuan t t o that doctrin e doe s no t

appl y t o municipalitie s o r othe r politica l stat e subdivision s unless : (1 ) th e stat e ha s create daclearl y articulate d

' ^ "N o damages , interes t o n damages , costs , o r

attorney' s fee s may b e recovere dunde r sectio n 4 , 4 A o r

4 C o f th e Clayto n Ac t

(1 5 U.S.C . 15 , 15 ao r 15c ) froman y local government , o r

officia l o r employe e thereo f

actin g i n a

n officia l capacity. " Se e 1 5 U.S.C . § § 35(a) .

2 5syste mo f regulatio n governin g th e restrain t o f trade ; and(2 ) th e regulatory schem e i s affirmativel y designe dt o displac e antitrus t laws . Se e Cit

y o f Columbi av. Omn

i Outdoo r Advertising , Inc. , 49 9 U.S . 365 , 370-7 2 (1990)(citin g Halli e v . Ea u Claire , 47 1 U.S . 4 0 (1985)) ; Capita l Cit

y Cab Service , Inc . v . Susquehann aAre aRegiona l Airport Authority , 47 0 F.Supp . 2 d462 , 46 8 (M.D . Pa . 2006) . If th e regulatory schem e evince s th e legislature' s inten t t o permi t th e municipa l authority to ac t i n contraventio n o f

th e antitrus t

laws , suc h tha

t anticompetitiv e conduc t

i s aforeseeabl e resul t

o f th e legislation , th e secon dpron g o f th e stat e actio n doctrin e i s met . Capita l Cit y Ca b Service , Inc. , 47 0 F.Supp . 2 da t 472 . I t i s insufficien t

that th e state' s authorizin g statut e i s neutral t o th e possibilit y o f anticompetitiv e conduct . Id . Sectio n 332.08 , Florid aStatutes , permit s amunicipalit y to establis h airport s and engag e i n th e operation , construction , enlargement , an dimprovemen t o f airports , a s wel l a s leas e ou t airport land . Nothin g i n th e statut e contemplate s amunicipality' s right t o engag e i n anti-competitiv e behavio r when undertakin g thos e activitie s an d"th e mer e delegatio n o f operationa l authority i s itsel f insufficient

t o support

afinding that

astat e intende dt o displac e th e antitrus t

laws. " Id . a

t 473 . Th e statutory provisio n "i s neutra l t o th e possibility o f anticompetitiv e conduct " an ddoe s no t evinc e th e requisit e inten t t o permi t

anticompetitiv e conduct . Indeed , a s amatte r o f law , suc h conduc t

canno t b e foreseeabl e i n ligh t

o f th e comprehensiv e federal aviatio n schem e designe dto preven t discriminatory , anticompetitiv e an dmonopolisti c conduct . Althoug h a

n Airport sponso r may exclusivel y operat e th e Airport an dprovid e service s to th e public , onc e i t

permit s aprivat e part y t o provid e an y o f thos e services , i t

mus t trea t al l (footnote cont'd )

2 6Th e stat e actio n doctrin e als o doe s no t hel p th e Cit

y her e becaus e it

doe s no t immuniz e amunicipality tha t i s operatin g a s aprivat e marke t participant . Se e Cit

y o f Columbia , 49 9 U.S . a

t 380 . B y leasin g ou t

hangar s in competitio n wit h othe r lessee s a t th e Airport , includin g th e VJC , th e Cit y i s engagin g i n commercial conduc t an dparticipatin g i

n th e marke t

place . A s aresul t

o f tha t conduct , it

doe s no t enjo y th e immunitie s extende db y th e stat e actio n doctrine . C . Th e VJ C Ha s State dA Clai mFo r Violatio n O f

Gran t Assurance s No . 19 . Th e Cit y i s currenti y als o violatin g Gran t Assuranc e No . 1 9 b y failin g t o maintai n runwa y 04-2 2 "i n asaf

e an dserviceabl e conditio n an di n accordanc e wit h th e minimu m standard s . . . . " Th e City ha s allowe dth e dilapidatio n o f runway 04-2 2 despit e th e fact tha t th e City ha dpreviousl y requeste dfundin g t o repai r th e runway andth e reques t wa s granted . Exhibi t 3 , ^ 8 . Th e FA A allocate dapproximatel y $ 5 millio n t o th e Cit y t o re-construc t

th e runwa y bu t

afte r th e curren t

Cit y Counci l was elected , i t decide dt o refus e th e fundin g and allo w th e runway t o remai n i n poo r condition . Exhibi t

3 , ^ 8 ; Exhibi t

2 . A s aresult , th e runwa y i s no t

usabl e b y large r

aircraft , agains t

whic h th e City i s activel y discriminatin g i n othe r way s a s well , includin g throug h it s reftisa l t o allo w th e VJ C to construc t th e hangars . Exhibi t 3 , ^ 8 . B y permittin g on e o f th e onl y tw o runway s a t th e Airpor

t t o fall into disrepair , th e Cit

y i s directl y limitin g th e amoun t an dtype s o f

plane s tha

t ca n tak e of f o r lan d a t th e Airport . Mor e importantly , th e VJ C i s directl 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 fromutilizin g th e Airport . partie s wishin g t o provid e competin g service s i n afai r an dnon-discriminatory manner (unles s safet

y necessitate s otherwise) .

2 7Th e City i s disregarding th e safet y o f th e pilot s an dpassenger s wh o utiliz e tha t runway in orde r t o limi t aeronautica l activit

y a t th e Airport

an dsuc h conduc t

shoul dno t

b e tolerate db y th e FAA . VI . Conclusio n B y focusin g o n Nadel' s criminal activitie s (whic h ar e distinc t fromth e operation s o f th e VJC ) an dth e contemplate dsal e o f th e VJ C b y th e Receiver , both o f whic h ar e unrelate d t o th e VJC' s reques t

fo r permissio n t o buil dhangars , th e Cit y seek s t o draw th e FAA' s attentio n away fromth e relevan t facts . Thos e facts , whic h includ e th e expresse dandwell

publicize dimprope r

motiv e behin dth e City' s refusa l to gran t th e VJ C permissio n t o erec t hangars , undisputedl y establis h th e City ha s discriminate dagains t th e VJ C an dotherwis e acte dtoward s i t

i n a n unreasonabl e an danticompetitiv e manne r i n violatio n o f

federa l regulation s an dlaws . I n short , th e Cit y ha s neve r ha dan dstil l ha s n o basi s t o sto p th e VJC' s constructio n o f

hangars . Fo r

th e foregoin g reasons , th e City' s Motio n t o Dismis s shoul db e denied .

2 8CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E 1 hereb y certif

y that I hav e serve dth e foregoin g o n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addres s b y overnigh t mai l o n ^ /

^ 0 , 2009 : Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Jonatha n Cros s Attn : FA A Par

t 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Manage r Docket , AGC-61 0 Airport s an dEnvironmental La w divisio n Roo m92 5 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Washington , D C 2059 1 Facsimil e (202 ) 267-576 9 Origina l an d3 copies b y overnigh t 1 Cop y deliver y I hereb y further

certif y that I hav e serve dth e foregoin g o n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addres s b y electroni c mai l o n '/^ , 2009 : Elizabeth J . Head Senio r Attorne y Airport s & Environmenta l La w Divisio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Elizabeth.Head@faa.go v I hereb y further

certif y that I hav e serve dth e foregoin g o n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addres s b y overnigh t mai l an delectroni c mai l o n ^ f ^ D , 2009 : Thoma s R . Devin e Kaplan Kirsc h & Rockwel l LLP 100 1 Connecticu t

Ave . NW , Ste . 80 0 Washington , D C 2003 6 Telephone : (202 ) 955-560 0 Email : tdeyine@kaplankirsch.co m 1 hereb y fiirther

certif y that I hav e serve dth e foregoin g o n th e followin g person s a t th e followin g addres s b y Unite dState s mai l o n ^ b , 2009 :

2 9Robert C . Anderso n Hal l & Anderson , P. A 131 4 Eas t Venic e Avenue , Suite E Venice , Florid a3428 5

Gianlu5a-Mt5rello , FB N 03499 7 Gianluca.Morello@fowlerwhite.co m Dominiqu e Pearlman , FB N 004413 5 Dominique.Pearlman@fowlerwhite.co m FOWLERWHIT E BOGGS , P.A . 50 1 E . Kenned y Blvd. , Suite 170 0 Tampa , F L 3360 2 Phone(813)228-741 1 Fa x (813)229-831 3 Attorney s for

th e Complainant , Venic e Je t Center , LL C

42343997v 2



### 3 0

# 1

### LAND US E INSPECTIO N REPOR T Venic e Municipa l Airpor t (VNC ) Venice , F L Augus t 10 , 200 9

Phot o Courtes y o f

Googl e Eartli ProL Repor t Prepare dBy : Willia mC . Garriso n Airpor t Program s Manage r Airport s Division , FA A Souther n Regio n Atlanta , G A n . FA A Representative s Conductin g th e Inspection : Willia mC . Garrison , Airpor t Program s Manager , Airport s Division , Atlanta , G A Rebecc aHenry , Progra mManager , Orland o Airport s Distric t Office , Orlando , F L m . Inspectio n Dat e - Ma v 20.200 9 IV . Airpor t

Owne r ReoresentativiF ? Attendin g th&. Tgapection ; Airpor t Manage r

- Mr . Fre dWatt s Airpor t Administrativ e Assistan t - Ms . Heathe r

LeDu c V . Stat e Representative s Attendin g Hi e Inspection ; Non e V L Purpos e o f

Lan dUs e Inspectio n I n respons e t o aGet^ra l Accountin g OiSic e repor t issue di n Ma y 199 9 entitle d "Unauthorize dLem dUs e Highli^ s Nee dfo r Improve dOversigh t

an d Et^brc&nent " an dlanguag e i n Senat e Repor t No . 106-55 , als o issue di n Ma y 1999 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) adopte daprogra mt o conduc t annua l land-us e inspection s a t variou s airport s wher e lan dwa s acquire dthroug h Federa l assistanc e programs . Th e dat acollecte db y thes e inq>ection s i s ocnnpile dan dinclude di n a n Annua l Airpor t Inq)rovNnen t

Progra mRqpot t

t o Congress . Thi s repor t list s airport s tha t ar e no t i n complianc e wit h gran t assurance s o r

othe r requirement s wit h respec t t o urpor t lands . Th e Venic e Municipa l Airpor t wa s selecte db y th e FA A a s on e o f th e location s t o b e inspecte di n fiscal yea r 2009 . VE L Airpor t

Bafifg^y•«* « - Th* . f/^ii»iv;nf > ;t.f»rm«*;» n ,K».. * ir^-\ r ^ ^ Uj.,^ ^ ^ ^ record s an dfiles maintaine db y th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , Orland o (ORL ) Airport s Distric t

Office :A . Lan dHistor y 1 . Jun e 10,194 7 - Quitclai mDee dbetivee n th e Unite dState s o f Americ a an dth e Cit y of

Venice . Some condition s o f th e agreemen t

are :

• Cit y wil l us e landfor

publi c airpor

t purpose s on reasonabl e term s an dwithout unjus t discriminatio n an

dwithou t grant o f a n exclusiv e right .

• Cit y wil l maintain airpor

t in goo dserviceabl e conditio n a t all times .

• Upo n breac h o f

an y o f th e reservation s o r

restriction s i n th e agreement , th e U.S . Governmen

t ha s th e optio n t o deman

dreversio n o f

th e rights tha

t wer e transferre dt o th e City .

• Approximately 72 8 - Acre s 2 . Jul y 7,194 8 - Qaitclai mDee dbetwee n th e Unite dState s o f Americ aan d th e Cit y of

Venice . • Cit y wil l us e landfo

r pubU c airpor t purpose s o

n reasonabl e term s an

dwithout unjus t discriminatio n an

dwithout grant o f a n exclusiv e right.

• Cit y wil l maintain airpor

t i n goo dserviceabl e conditio n a t al l times .

• Upo n breac h o f

an y o f th e reservation s o r

restriction s i n th e agreement , th e U.S . Governmen

t ha s th e option t o demandreversio n o f th e right s tha

t wer e transferre dt o th e City .

• Approximately 3 0 - Acre s 3 . Marc h 9,195 7 - Quitclai mDee dbetwee n th e Unite dState s o f Americ aan dth e Cit

y o f Venice .

• Cit y wil l us e landfor

publi c airpor

t purpose s o

n reasonabl e term s an

dwithout unjus t discriminatio n an

dwithout grant o f a n exclusiv e right.

• Cit y wil l maintai n airpor

t i n goo dserviceabl e conditio n at all times .

• Upo n breac h o f

an y o f th e reservation s o r

restriction s i n th e agreement , the U.S . Governmen

t ha s th e optio n t o demandreversio n o f th e rights tha

t wer e transferre dt o th e City .

• Approximately 14

4 - Acre s

# o • :]; • • ' : •

U.S . Departmen t Orland o Airport s District Offic e o f TrorfiDOrtcjtto n ^^2 ° Hazeltin e Nationa l Dr. , Suite 40 0 KMT^j^,,^,^ , Orlando , F L 32822-502 4 Fodoro i Avloiio n Adminhtratio n Phone . 407-812-633 1 Augus t 11,200 9 Honorabl e E d Martin , Mayo r Cityo f Venic e 41 0 Wes t Venic e Ave . Venice , Florid a 3428 5 RE : Lan d Us e Inspectio n Dea rMr . Martin : O n Ma y20 , 2009 , Willia m Garriso n an d Rebecca Henr yconducte d a land-us e complianc e inspectio n a t th e Venic e Municipa l Airport , Venice , F L (VNC. ) Theywer e assiste d b

yMr . Fre d Watts , Airpor t Manage ran d Ms . Heathe rLeDuc , Airpor t Administrativ e Assistant . W e appreciat e everyone' s helpfulnes s an d knowledg e of airpor t matter s durin g th e visit . Th e purpos e o f thi s inspectio n wa s t o renew awarenes s o f federa l obligation s tha t th e Cit yha s accepte d throug h lan d agreement s an d Airpor t Improvemen t gran t agreements . Pursuan t t o congressiona l directive , th e FA A i s conductin g lan d us e complianc e inspection s a t a numbe ro f genera l aviatio n airport s acros s th e country . W e are require d t o prepar e a repor t t o congres s wit h finding s an d an yaction s tha t ma yb e required . Th e existin g airpor

t facilitie s an d developmen t generall yare consisten t wit h th e Airpor t Layou t Plan . I n th e enclose d report , w e not e that : (a ) Airpor t propertymap s d o no t appea rt o consistentl ydefin e th e limit s o f th e parcel s tha t wer e transferre d fro m th e U.S . Governmen t vi a th e quitclai m deed s o rth e curren t airpor

t propert yboundary . (b)Th e Cityi s allowin g cost-free , municipa l us e o f airpor t propert yfo rnon aeronautica l purposes , (c) Som e aeronautica l tenant s appea rt o b e storin g persona l non-aeronautica l propertyo n thei rleaseholds .(d ) There i s a gol f drivin g rang e i n th e approac h t o Runwa y0 4 whic h ma

yb e withi n th e runwa

ysafetyarea , (e ) There are numerou s complianc e concern s relate d t o th e recentl yexecute d leas e fo rSharkey' s restaurant . (f ) Ther e are som e unapprove d non-aeronautica l use s o f airpor t property . Th e followin g recommendation s were mad e durin g ou rvisi t tha t woul d enhance .airpor t safety : (a ) Repain t taxiwayedg e marking s o n TW-"A " an d -"B. " (b ) Repair/replac e runwa yintersectio n signs ; lighte d runwa yintersectio n sign s ar

e recommended . (c) Ad d a remar k

t o th e Airpor

t Maste rRecord , FA

A For m 5010 , tha t state s standin g wate ri s presen t o n RW-4/2 2 durin g an d afte rperiod s o f rainfall . (d ) Repain t th e centeriin e o f Repain t Centeriin e o f RW-4/22 . (e ) Repain t al l Runwa

yHol d Marking s fo rRW-4/22 . (f ) Repain t Close d Runwa yMari<ing s o n th e Close d East - Wes t Runway . I n ligh t o f th e abov e liste d complianc e concerns , we reques t tha t yo u provid e a con'ective actio n pla n tha t addresse s th e issue s discusse d i n Sectio n XI I o f th e enclose d report , withi n 3 0 days . I f yo u hav e an yquestion s o rnee d assistanc e wit h thi s request , pleas e contac t Rebecc a Henr yo f mystaff a t 407-812-6331 , ext . 122 . 

### Sincerely , Origina l Signe dB y Bar t Vernace , P.E . Assistan t Manage r Enclosure Lan d Us e Inspectio n Repor tcc : ACO-10 0 Mr . Willia m Garrison , Regiona l Progra m Manager , Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Jeff Leopold , FDOT/ 1 Mr . Isaa c Turner , Cit

yManager , Cit

yo f Venic e Ms . Nanc yWoodley , Assistan t Cit yManager , Cit

yo f Venic e Mr . Fre d Watts , Airpor

t Manager , Venic e Municipa l Airpor t

# rI l a n e IViunicipa l Airpor t 

### "lorid a

r r « p ar o c i by . L/ufresne~rienry , I 

### Montgomery Consultin g Group , In c y , Inc . ti l avitcialio n wit h

Dufrvkna-Hanry f Inc . I n BmBo«l*tla n MWH H Montaom»r y OonauNln a Or e Vanlc * Munlcip* ! Airpor t M....,P....-S.p. . 200 02.1. 3 Apron s an dAircraf t Parkin g Area s Th e apro n area s for

aircraf t parkin g ar e al l locate do n th e north sid e o f th e airport . Th e apron s ar e primaril y concret e pavemen t whic h hav e bee n resurfaced . Ther e i s approximatel y 91,60 0 squar e yard s o f pave dare afo

r aircraf t parking . Th e City o f

Venic e ha s 9 7 tie-dow n space s fo r aircraf t on th e pave dapron . Ther e ar e 5 2 othe r pave dtie-down s availabl e fro mtenant s a t th e airport . 2.1. 4 Pavemen t

Managemen t Th e Venic e Municipa l Airport , throug h aFDOT-fiinde dproject , ha s a pavemen t managemen t

syste mfor

it s airfiel dpavements . Th e pavemen t managemen t

syste mi s based , i n part , o n apavemen t analysi s performe db y Eckrose/Gree n i n July , 1998 . Th e analysi s provide dinformatio n o n th e conditio n o f

th e airfiel dpavemen t

usin g apavemen t

conditio n inde x (PCI) . Th e PC I i s ameasur e o f

pavemen t

conditio n base do n avisua l inspectio n o f th e pavement . Figur e 2- 1 illustrate s th e PC I o f th e existin g pavemen t

a t th e airport . A s i s eviden t

fro mFigur e 2-1 , th e majorit y o f th e airport' s runway s an d taxiway s ar e i n poo r

condition . Majo r

rehabilitatio n o f

airfiel dpavemen t

i s neede daccordin g t o th e PC I evaluation . Th e apro n an dth e apron-edg e taxiwa y coimectin g Runway s 2 2 an d1 3 ar e i n fai r condition . Th e taxilane s nea r th e T-hangar s wer e no t

includedi n th e PC I evaluation ; however , thi s pavemen t i s i n goo dcondition . Pavemen t rehabilitatio n desig n i s base do n aircraf t us e an dmateria l testing . Runwa y 13-3 1 i s severel y cracke dan dha s bee n deeme drepairabl e onl y b y replacemen t

o f al l asphal t

pavement . Rimwa y 4-22 wil l requir e aminimu m o f apavemen t

overla y t o brin g it s PC I t o a"good " level . 2.1. 5 Lightin g an dSignag e Bot h Runwa y 13-3 1 an dRunwa y 04-2 2 ar e equippe dwit h mediu m intensit y runwa y lights , an dth e taxiway s supportin g dies e runway s als o hav e mediu mintensit y taxiwa y lights . Runwa y En dIdentificatio n Light s (REITs ) ar e locate da t

th e en do f

al l four runways . Ther e ar e minima l guidanc e sign s a t th e Venic e Municipa l Airport . Existin g sign s ar e typicall y unlit . In addition , ther e ar e n o high-mas t light s i n th e apro n areas . Securit y lightin g i s availabl e o n th e T-hangar s an dsom e o f th e buildings . Th e electrica l vaul t i s locate do n th e eas t

sid e o f th e midfiel d taxiwa y clos e t o th e rotatin g beaco n tower . Electrica l servic e i s supplie db y Florid aPowe r

an dLigh t (FPL) . 2.1. 6 Navigationa l Aid s Th e airpor t

ha s arotatin g beaco n locate do n th e eas t sid e o f th e midfiel d taxiwa y adjacen t

t o th e T-hanga

r area . Th e airpor t

ha s on e (1 ) lighte d

Uufr s >n«-n*nry rIno . I n a»»aalatio n x^ h Montg o r n ar yOonsuHIn g Ur c M....rP.. , ilclpa l Alrpo n • S . p. . 200 0

# Figur e 2- 1

Pavemen t Conditio n Inde x

20-4 0 roo r 

### 41-9 0

Fa. r 

### 9 1

loo d

bourca l tckrosa/Oraan , Jul y i «7«7 0

Durra«n«-n*n(y , Ino . iVIonlQamar yOan«uNJrt B Uro u V*nlc « MuntclpB l Airpor t M».frPl.r , -S.pt . 200 0UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C Venic e Je t

Center , LL C Complainant , V . FAA Docke t No . 16-09-0 5 Cit y o f Venice , Florid a Respondent . /

DECLARATIO N O FE.G . BOON E E.G . "Dan " Boone, Esq . declare s a s follows : 1 . I amove r

th e ag e o f

1 8 an dI hav e persona l knowledg e o f th e matter s state d herein , an dI a

mcompeten t

to testif y thereto . 2 . I a

mapartne r

with th e law firmo f

Boone , Boone, Boone , Koda , & Frook , P.A . I hav e bee n practicing la w fo r nearl y 5 5 years . 3 . My area s o f

practic e includ e Corporat e Law , Genera l Litigation , Health Car e Law an dLitigation . Part

o f m y Corporat e Law practic e sinc e 196 0 involve s representin g Airpor t clientel e an dmor e specifically , individual s and/o r entitie s wh o desir e t o leas e spac e an d construc t facilitie s a

t th e Venic e Municipa l Airport . M y representation o f suc h client s involve s bu t i s no t limite dt o draftin g an dnegotiatin g leas e agreements , formin g corporat e entities , an d facilitatin g th e FA A approva l process . 4 . Unti l th e Venic e Je t Center , LL C applie dfor abuildin g permi t

t o construc t

th e hangar s tha t

ar e th e subjec t

o f thi s proceedin g an dwa s tol dth e City Counci l ha dt o firs t gran t permissio n fo

r issuance , n o propose dconstructio n o n th e Airport ha s eve r require danythin g othe r tha n abuildin g permi t

fromth e City Buildin g Department . Thi s i s afirst sinc e 196 0 whe nth e origina l constructio n too k plac e a t th e Airpor

t unti l th e present . N o lesse e ha s ever bee n require dto demonstrat e financial capability to undertake propose dconstruction . 5 . Th e belo w lis t

represent s Lessee s wh o obtaine dbuildin g permit s fo r constructio n on th e airport . Th e City Counci l di dno t giv e advance dapprova l fo r any o f th e constructio n liste dbelow : a) Carl Bur r (hanga r built , 2000 ) b ) Vincen t

Fett e (FB O buildin g andradi o sho p constructed , I960 ) c ) Joh n Ingri m(secon dfloor adde dt o FB O building , 1978 ) d ) Stanle y Huffma

n (improvemen t

to FB O building , 1991 ) e ) Venic e Je t

Center , LL C (complet e renovatio n to FB O building , 2007 ) f ) Vincen t

Fett e (tw o hangar s built , 1960 ) g ) Venic e Je t

Center , LL C (tw o hangar s torn-dow n an dreconstructed , 2007 ) 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 constructed , 1978 ) J ) Wass-Air , Inc . (FB O buildin g constructed , 1999 ) k ) Tripl e Diamon dEnterprises , Inc . (improvements mad e to FB O building , 2002 ) 1) Venic e Je t

Cente r (improvement s mad e t o FB O building , 2007 ) m ) Arn e Kruethof

/ Technica l Advanc e Grou p d/b/a / Florid aFlight

Maintenanc e Cente r (hangar constructed , 1997 ) n ) Buz z Mill s (hanga

r constructed , 1999 ) o ) Dunca n Enterprises , Inc . (hanga r # 1 constructed , 1982 ) p ) Dunca n Enterprises , Inc . (hanga r # 2 constructed , 1984 ) q ) A.C . Schmiele r

(hanga r constructed) , 2003 . r ) Shamroc k

Enterprises , Inc. /

NEC , Inc . (1 2 T-hangar s constructed , 1984 ) s ) Sarasot aCounty Sherif f (hanga r constructed , 2008 ) 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 ) x ) Lak e Venic e Gol f

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

Car t Barn (built , 1960 ) 6 . Th e curren t

Venic e Je t

Center , LL C hangar

reques t i s th e first

propose d constructio n o n th e Airpor t that ha s eve r require dapproval b y th e City Counci l and/o r ashowin g o f financial capability.7 . Th e Cit y o f Venic e currentl y ha s 14 4 T-hangar s that

it rent s a t th e Airport . Th e Cit y i s currentl y in th e proces s o f constructin g additiona l T-hangar s an di s determinin g whether to buil d1 2 o r

14 . Thi s ne w constructio n ha s bee n discusse da t official City Counci l meetings , a s wel l a s meeting s wit

h th e former

Airport Advisory Board , whic h I hav e attended . Th e buildin g plan s fo r thes e hangar s ar e underway , i f no t finalized . Wha

t i s holdin g u p th e lettin g o f a contrac t i s th e maste r

drainag e plan , whic h i s i n final revie w a t thi s tim e an dshoul db e don e som e tim e i

n Octobe r

2009 . Onc e th e maste r drainag e plan i s approve dth e contrac t ca n g o forwards o th e constructio n can begin . 8 . Th e bi dopenin g t o reconstruc t an drepav e Runway 04-2 2 wa s i n May 200 7 an d th e lo w bi dwa s $4. 7 millio n dollars . Th e Cit y hadever

y expectatio n t o receiv e th e federa l fundin g unti l th e curren t

City Counci l wa s electe dan ddecide dt o declin e th e funding . Th e $4. 7 millio n dollar s wa s spen t o n othe r airport s i n Southwes t

Florida . A s resul t

o f th e actio n o f

th e presen t City Council , Runway 04-2 2 ha s bee n permitte dto remai n i n poo r condition .I declar e unde r penalty o f

perjur y pursuan t

t o 2 8 U.S.C . § 174 6 tha t th e foregoin g i s tru e an dcorrec t

t o th e bes t

o f my knowledg e an dbelie f Date dthi s Z- 7 day o f

September , 2009 .

E.G . Boon eSeptembe r 14,200 9 Secretar y To mPelha m Florid aDepartmen t

o f Communit y Affair s 255 5 Shumar dOa k

Boulevar d Tallahassee , FL 32399-210 0 Reference : Cit y o f

Venice , Florid aComprehensiv e Pla n submissio n o f 2 5 August , 200 9 W e ar e tenant s an doperator s o f aircraf t at th e Venic e Airpor t

(VNC) . Th e Cit y o f Venic e ha s propose dinclusio n o f policie s i n th e recentl y transmitte dcomprehensiv e plan s tha t ar e inconsisten t

wit h stat e an dnationa l policy . W e asser t standin g a s substantiall y effecte dan dintereste dpartie s t o th e propose dcomprehensiv e pla n an das k th e Departmen t

t o formall y objec t

t o thes e provisions . W e hav e trie dt o engag e i n th e proces s o f th e developmen t

o f thi s plan . W e mad e presentation s t o th e City Plannin g Commissio n a s well a s submission s t o th e City seekin g modifications . Th e Comprehensiv e Pla n ignore s th e City' s dee dan dgran t obligation s t o th e Airport . Th e Pla n shoul doutlin e comprehensiv e plannin g initiative s tha t woul d implemen t

thos e obligations . Obligation s t o th e Venic e Municipa l Airpor t deriv e fro m dee drestriction s containe di n th e deed s o f airpor t lan dfro mth e U.S . Governmen t t o th e City o f Venice . Furthe r

th e City ha s incurre dadditiona l obligation s a s aconditio n o f Federa l grant s fo r

airpor t improvements . Nothin g ha s change dt o alte r th e City' s responsibilitie s t o th e Airport . Th e Comprehensiv e Pla n shoul dprovid e i n th e Capita l Improvement s Elemen t

provision s t o matc h Capita l need s an dproject s i n th e approve d 200 0 Airpor t

Maste r Pla n fo r afive yea r

perio dan dthe n additiona l analysi s fo r at leas t anothe r five yea r

period . Ther e shoul db e consistenc y betwee n th e approve d200 0 Maste r Plan , th e propose dComprehensiv e Pla n thei r respectiv e capita l improvemen t plan s an d th e Cit y an dAirpor t

budget . Rathe r

tha n focusin g o n marginalizin g th e airpor t th e Pla n shoul doutlin e constructiv e an dmeasurabl e "plannin g steps " t o moderniz e an dmaintai n th e airport . Whil e th e Pla n note s a n intentio n t o compl y wit h FA A regulation s i n actualit y an dt o th e contrar y th e Pla n focuse s mor e o n step s inimica l t o th e bes t interes t o f th e airport . I n additio n t o ou r

comment s an drecommendation s als o include di s acop y o f th e result s o f

a recen t FA A repor t

o n th e Cit y managemen t o f th e airpor t

t o furthe r

suppor t ou r recommendations . A s a n exampl e an di n particular , i n th e Futur e Lan dUs e & Desig n section . Polic y 15. 6 Souther n Gatewa y Corrido r Standards , Developmen t i n th e Souther n Gateway . Polic y 15.6 , su b B , 1 . Souther n Gatewa y Corrido r (pag e 4 5 o f

th e Futur e Lan dUs e an dDesig n Element ) provide s tha t

"...publi c land s shal l no t b e develope dfo r

residential , commercial , office , o r industria l purposes. " Th e Venic e Cit y Counci l specificall y reviewe dthes e provision s durin g thei r

transmitta l hearin g an dtoo k affirmativ e actio n t o includ e thes e limit s withi n th e pla n an dha s propose dapplyin g the mt o publicall y owne dpropert y wholl y withi n th e boundar y o f th e existin g airpor t

an dexistin g airpor t

maste r plan .N o othe r publicall y owne dland s by th e City o f Venic e ar e includedwithi n th e houndar ) o f th e Souther n Gatewa y s o it i s clear tha t thes e provision s ar e intende dto specificall y limi t th e us e o f

airpor t property . I n respons e t o petition s b y othe r communit y member s durin g th e transmitta l hearin g process , simila r provision s withi n othe r infil l an d redevelopmen t

area s propose db

y th e cit y wer e modifie dt o eliminat e o r modify ' thes e restrictions . Th e portion s o f

th e Venic e Airpor t

propert y include di n th e Souther n Gatewa y alon g U S Busines s 4 1 an dAirpor t Boulevar dar e unde r

leas e b y th e airpor t

t o othe r tenant s an di n us e for bot h aeronautica l an dnon-aeronautica l uses . Consequentl y upo n th e approva l ol ~ th e Comprehensiv e Pla n th e cit y ha s d e fact o take n an dseparate dthi s valuabl e airpor t propert y fro mth e airpor t fo r non-aeronautical , non-revenu e producin g purpose s withou t th e approva l o r

knowledg e o f

th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA) . Thi s i s aclea r violatio n o f

th e city' s airpor t

dee drestriction s an dgran t obligation s t o th e federal government . Th e cit y i s currentl y seekin g t o resolv e pas t issue s o f thi s natur e with th e FA A (se e attached) . Consequentl y thi s actio n i s al l th e mor e grievou s an di s an illega l propert y an drevenu e diversion . Prohibitin g al l use s excep t fo r ope n spac e o r

recreationa l us e render s thes e propertie s inconsisten t

wit h .stat

e policie s Intende dt o encourag e economi c developmen t throug h us e o f regiona l transportatio n assets , limit s th e airport' s futur e abilit y t o serv e a s astagin g are afor emergenc y operation s an dcreate s interna l inconsistencie s wit h othe r provision s o f th e propose dcomprehensiv e pla n tha t ar e prohibite db y Rul e 9J-5 , Florid a Administrativ e Code . I n addition , th e city provide dn o surveys , studies , dat ao r analysi s t o suppor t

thi s propose dchang e i n future lan dus e a s require db y Chapte r 163 , F.S . an d Rul e 9J-5 , F.A.C . Th e propose dchang e i s inconsisten t wit h th e provision s o f

H R69 7 tha t requir e al l pla n amendment s transmitte dafte r Jul y 200 8 t o encourag e energ y efficienc y an ddiscourag e urba n sprawl . Th e propose dprohibition s o f al l economi c use s o f airpor t propert y withi n th e Souther n Gatewa y d o no t represen t

an efficien t

lan dus e pattern . Principa l poin t

o f contac t fo r thi s submissio n i s Pau l Hollowell , 941-484-0718 . Sincerely , . ^ / / A.C . Schmieler , Presiden t Venic e Airpor t

Busines s Assoc . Inc . 40 0 Airpor t

Avenu e Venice , FL 3428 5 Nichola s Carlucci . Presiden t Venic e Aviatio n Society , Inc . 133 5 Horizo n Roa d Venice , F L 3429 3 Attachments : Comprehensiv e Pla n Comment s an dRecommendation s FA A Repor t

o f Audi t Result s cc : FAA , FDOT , AOPA , Brend aWillingha m- DC AT-Hange r

Waitin g Lis t

Polic y Pag e 1 o f 1 T-Hange rWaitin g Lis t Polic y

T h e followin g polic y applie s t o applicant s fo rth e t-hanga rwaitin g list : Th e applican t wil l pa y a non-refundabl e administrativ e fe e o f $25 . Thi s fee , i f no t voided , wil l b e applie d t o th e t-hanga rrenta l a t th e signin g o f th e hanga rrenta l agreement . Th e applican t wil l complet e a shor t for m providin g contac t informatio n fo rus e b y th e airpor t administrativ e office . Th e applican t wil l kee p th e airpor t administrativ e offic e informe d o f an y chang e i n contac t information . Th e airpor t administrativ e offic e wil l attemp t t o reac h to p nam e o n th e lis t o n thre e (3 ) separat e occasion s whe n fillin g a n availabl e hangar . I f unsuccessful , th e nex t nam e o n th e lis t wil l b e contacted . Th e unsuccessfu l applican t wil l b e remove d fro m th e Venic e Municipa l Airport' s t-hanga rwaitin g list . Anyon e declinin g a t-hanga rwhe n mad e availabl e t o them , wil l b e remove d fro m th e list . Th e Venic e Municipa l Airpor t ha s 14 4 individua l t-hanga runits , al l fille d a t thi s time , an d ha s a waitin g lis t o f approximatel y7 3 people .

http://www.venicegov.com/Municipal_links/Airport/waifing_list.ht m 9/18/200 9