Although we are disappointed that this meeting is being held in mid-summer when a significant number of residents are away, we are pleased to have the opportunity to contribute written questions, comments, and viewpoints. We ask that these be shared with meeting attendees and made part of the official meeting minutes. It would also be helpful if you would put meeting minutes on the city website for the benefit of all who are unable to participate in these early steps of the charrette process. Because we do not have the benefit of knowing what topics have been discussed, what questions have been asked, and what points of view have been expressed, bear with us as we try to cover our most important airport-related concerns.

General Confusion Issues
Research shortcomings: We were confused from the outset with formatting and presentation techniques beginning with the study itself. For example, it is formatted as one study, but it turns out to be two. The most significant matters pertaining to the airport study is that there is so little raw data used and the questionable validity of what is used (airport takeoff and landings, for example). And attempts to explain away these shortcomings have left us more confused.

When, if ever, was the last raw data count of takeoffs and landings done at VMA?

If it was unreasonable to prepare an actual count of takeoffs and landings, why wasn’t a sampling procedure recommended by the consultant? The preparation period covered a two-year period, enough time to develop a modest sample even if results were used only as a check on the accuracy of reported figures. Regarding the rentals of hangar space, are these figures compiled from actual counts? How often? By whom? Or are they too based on projections? While it is the city’s responsibility to report factual information to the consultant, the consultant is hired to provide expert advice and be alert to possible information errors.

Please explain not only how the F1050 figures are arrived at but how they are justified as true, valid data?

If we remember correctly, statistics indicate that about 40 percent of takeoffs and landings at VMA are training-related. Are there actual counts available either from airport records or the records of the two training schools stationed there? If so, they perhaps could have been another source of raw data for the Airport Study.

Who is responsible for the counting or miscounting problem—the city, the consultants, the FDOT or the FAA? What checks and balance procedures like site visits were in place? Or is this situation one of those bureaucratic problems beyond control? Is an “everybody does it this way, so it’s o.k.” philosophy being applied? If so, is it any wonder there is a “culture of pork” in federal, state, and local budgets?

We need answers. The City officials could do much to restore credibility about the actual use of this airport by beginning a physical count of takeoffs and landings NOW and providing hangar rental information on a month-to-month basis.

Airport Classification: Another topic of concern and confusion is Airport Classification. There are various opinions available as to how, when, and if the airport is a CII airport. Can it be or was it ever a BII or any other classification?

Safety
Yes, we agree, as do most if not all residents, safety standards are necessary and should be in place for every plane flying in and out of VMA. But there are two ways of solving this problem: The first is extending current airport boundaries to accommodate safety areas and longer runways for larger, more powerful planes and possibly adding a tower. The second is restricting use of the airport to planes that can safely use the current or slightly modified runway configurations that will not impact on the Venice Municipal Golf Course or other important sites in the area. That choice depends on costs (which are not yet available to the public) as well as what one wants the city of Venice to be in the year 2025.

Communication and Interaction Between the City and the Public
One thing we all have learned from this serious disagreement is that Venice residents have not been listening carefully enough to their elected representatives and responding to their actions. These same legislators have failed to sense or carry out the wishes of the majority of their constituents.

I have been reviewing the VGA lease, FAA Investigation of 2002, and FAA Consent Order of 2004. This has been in connection with the pending impacts of the 4-22 runway project which includes fence work that will remove part of the lease area from the golf course. I have attached a copy of my letter to FAA Orlando asking for the fence work to be deleted from the 4-22 project so the runway work can proceed.

I have come up with the following observations and would ask for you to take a look at them and then refer them to City Attorney Bob Anderson for a legal opinion.

Within the current VGA lease on the golf course property I could find no provisions for removing portions of the land area from the lease other than condemnation or eminent domain (Article 25) nor are there any provisions for relief to the lease holder in the event the land area is reduced other than through the previously mentioned methods of condemnation or eminent domain. Consequently, the City, as the holder of the lease would not seem to have the authority to remove any of the land
area from the current lease except through the lengthy and controversial procedure of condemnation or eminent domain. One would conclude that the land area as covered by the lease is essentially frozen for the term of
the lease.

Article 28 provides for airport protection with respect to the "right of flight for the passage of aircraft in the airspace above the surface". However, this article pertains to vertical obstructions to the airspace which are covered by FAA, Part 77 Regulations and the terms of the lease make no allowance for relief either for the City or VGA in the event of non compliance with Article 28.


FAA Washington may have recognized this limitation when it drafted Section 4 of the aforementioned Consent Order. That section prohibits any further lease extensions with the current lease holder (VGA) or any successor-in-interest and states that the primary purpose of Section 4 is to prevent any further delay in the reversion of title of the lease area back to the Airport Enterprise Fund. This seems to imply a degree of urgency to prohibit any further renewal of the lease so that portions of the golf course area can be freed of the lease encumbrances and revert back to the City most likely for airport related uses such as enhanced safety areas. This would tend to confirm that the configuration of the airport and LVGC are fixed for a period no later than September
30, 2028 (the latest expiration date should VGA exercise its option for a five year extension beyond the current date of September 30, 2023).

Feel free to give me a call if you think we need to discuss this matter further.

Thanks,
Mike Rafferty

From: John Moore
To: Mike Rafferty
Cc: Martin Black, Bob Anderson
08/01/07

Mike,

I am forwarding your email to City Manager Marty Black and City Attorney Bob Anderson for their information and leaving it up to them whether or not they wish to reply. I am not, however, requesting that the City Attorney give you a legal opinion on the questions you have raised about the VGA lease, FAA investigation and FAA Consent Order. The City Attorney works for the City of Venice under the direction of the Mayor
and City Council, not for individual citizens, and I don't need a legal opinion from him on these issues at this time. If you want a legal
opinion, I suggest you hire your own attorney.

I am not a licensed attorney in Florida and, obviously, can't render legal opinions on any subject to anyone. However, as a member of the Venice City Council who has reviewed these documents in the past, it is my opinion that you are substantially correct in your interpretation as set forth in your email. Eminent Domain and Condemnation essentially mean the same thing, to-wit: the right to take private property for public purposes. They are not separate and distinct rights or remedies, however.

Thanks,
John Moore

In today’s world there can be no excuse for poor communication and interaction between citizens and elected officials. This problem must be solved. The process is not for the city to decide what is best for the city in terms of the power of various “stakeholders.” It is to clearly realize the wishes of their constituents and make reasonable legislative decisions that reflect their constituents’ views.

Environmental Issues
Has the city through its consultants asked for an environmental study to conform to the National Environmental Protection Act and FAA-related guidelines? Chapter 4 of Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects is titled “Public Participation.” Why wasn’t someone representing the Venice public concerned about environmental issues involved as a stakeholder in the MEI research? Will someone be if an environmental study is done? Can the city request such a study?

Our Points of View Regarding Airport Improvement and Expansion
As 20-year resident homeowners in Venice and part-time visitors for the previous 10 years, we have come to know and love this city, forgone our residency in Ohio, and become Florida residents. Like our friends and neighbors, we have tried to use our God-given talents to serve the community. We have participated in our political processes that entrust elected officials to carry out the long-range goals and plans cited in the city charter, historical references, and city planning documents.** Based on this brief description of our lives in Venice, here are our specific points of view related to the VMA.

Venice does not need a larger airport at this point in time. If safety improvements that require modifications to the 27-hole golf course or impinge negatively on other natural assets and sites within the area, we prefer a reduction in size, classification, or other necessary modification to the airport itself. It would be the lesser of two evils.

If any of the next three Airport Master Plan Studies ( 2010, 2015, or 2020) show conclusively that growth requires a larger airport, the present location of the VMA will be inadequate and inappropriate. A larger airport should be located east of I-75 to serve not only Venice but North Port as well (which, if predictions pan out, will have significant population increases and will be one of the state’s largest cities area-wise). Probably available, undeveloped, and cheaper land for a new airport can be found in this area. It would be irresponsible to spend federal, state, or local taxpayers’ money now on VMA improvements or expansion. A decision on airport expansion is not necessary now. Maintaining the status quo or reducing airport services are feasible alternatives.

Venice should not repeat the Sarasota-Bradenton airport decision to remain within Sarasota City limits. Valuable coastal property is not necessary for an airport, and this location has caused many problems for this residential city area. The Fort Myers approach of building an airport away from residential property and near an interstate highway makes much more sense.

If possible, direct communication between city officials and FAA personnel should occur to provide clarity and objectivity about FAA grant procedures. Residents who perceive flaws in FAA methodology should be given the factual data necessary to understand the procedure and/or to report their concerns to their local, state, and national legislative representatives, who in turn, are responsible for enacting reasonable, just laws, and enforceable laws.

A referendum would be our preference for solving any unresolved issues related to airport expansion and airport land development. We like the one-man, one-vote option, and do not want to turn this important decision over to special-interest groups and consultants, none of whom are our elected officials.

________________________