Ormond Beach Airport Project

The City Manager of Ormond Beach (Ms. Shanahan) said in the Daytona Beach News Journal (2-29-12) that the Company's proposal relies on "publically issued industrial development bonds to fund their project." Is that true?

We have never said and do not anticipate any funding input from the City, other than as part of possible economic incentives that the City may offer during lease negotiations.

If a bond issue is determined to be beneficial to the project, the Company anticipated the exploration of industrial reveue bonds where the City would act as a pass-through or conduit entity only, and would not be responsible for interest and principle payments on the bond itself.

As detailed in our response to the Request for Proposal, 70% of the funds required for this project could be composed of any combination of traditional financing and bridge loans, Industrial Revenue Bonds, and other bond instruments. The other 30% of the funds would come from capital contributions from the private sector (investors).

The City Manager of Ormond Beach (Ms. Shanahan) said in the Daytona Beach News Journal (2-29-12) that the Company's proposal "was based on using 135 acres of airport property, instead of the 87 acres in the city's request." Is that true?

No. The City claims that 25 acres, comprising the former nursery site, did not have direct airside access. Therefore, it had not been included in the Request for Proposal. But in fact, during the May 2, 2011 City Commission meeting, the Economic Development Director (Mr. Mannarino) told the City Commission during his presentation that: "There is a parcel to the west called the Nursery Site which we used for nursery and a mulching facility...it's about 21 or more acres, we felt because it does not have any airside access or runway connection that we would set that piece aside for use by the Master Developer should they need it..."

In fact, the RFP allowed a selected master developer to utilize the nursery site, as part of their plans beyond the ten-year build-out period of the Southwest Quadrant of the Airport. And during the initial Selection Committee Meeting, the Economic Development Director commented that "the applicant projected building out the 87 acres as requested by the RFP, with the additional ten years for land that could be included in the project in the future."

In a 2-29-12 Daytona Beach News Journal article titled "Ormond Airport Expansion Proposal Stalls", City Economic Development Director Joe Mannarino said the bidder "really has no assets or experience working on airports." Is that true?

No. Despite multiple Sunshine Requests made to the City, the City failed to provide any information, written, oral or recorded relating to the Company's assets or experience working on Airports. The record clearly demonstrates otherwise.

Arnie B. Green, President of Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. has over 28 years experience working at airports and management. Mr. Green is thoroughly familiar with the aviation world and he has over 14,000 flying hours. And Mr. Green is a qualified and current Florida State Certified General Contractor.

Mr. Green head's up a Florida-based management team with members having significant construction and development, financing, legal experience, and airport design and development experience at airports such as: Tampa International, FL; Indianapolis International, IN; Palm Beach International, West Palm Beach, FL; Cleveland Hopkins International, OH; and Gainesville Regional Airport, FL.

Rarely has more a professional team been assembled for a project at an airport the size and scope of Ormond Beach.

Why is Team Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. claiming that there has been a five (5) year delay in any negotiations for the project by the City of Ormond Beach?

The City was first made aware of our interest in developing airport land for economic development use in July 2007. The Economic Development Director (Mr. Mannarino) himself directly responsible for the airport insisted at that time, that the City would not enter into negotiations, because any negotiations leading to an eventual lease on the Southwest Quadrant of the Airport had to be accomplished after the City completed a competitive bidding process through an RFP.

However, documents subsequently obtained by us from the City through Sunshine Requests show the City didn't previously require anyone else who wanted to develop land on the Airport to participate in a RFP process as a prerequisite to starting lease negotiations as required by FAA regulations.

What the record shows is that for the past five (5) years, the City: (1) refused to negotiate with us in 2007, instead opting to draft an RFP; (2) established a noise abatement task force further delaying the publishing of the draft RFP; (3) failed in its RFP process; and (4) to date has refused to negotiate with us in violation of FAA regulations.

The City's by and through its actions and inaction, has clearly demonstrated its "hesitancy", if not direct obstruction to any aeronautical use economic development at the Airport.

It is unreasonable for the City to be 'hesitant' to develop this Federally-obligated facility for aeronautical and economic development use, since the land was given to it from the United States of America for this very purpose, to promote business, growth and jobs.

The City Attorney says that requests for proposals are required under the city's purchasing code for service related projects at the airport relating to your proposal to develop the Southwest Quadrant of the Airport. Is that true?

The City Attorney erroneously draws the conclusion that the Company's Proposal was providing a "services related component" to the City. The Request for Proposal did not ask for a third party to provide development, construction and operation of an Fixed Based Operation under a contract for compensated services. The Company was not bidding on a "services-related" contract.

While the City is entitled to use a competitive procurement process to contract for certain development and professional services, it is also obligated to negotiate in good faith with parties seeking entry onto the airport to commence aeronautical services at the Airport.

The City should acknowledge that no Federal law, FAA rule, Florida state law, or municipal code removes its Federal grant obligation to negotiate with the Company and any interested party for the provision of Fixed Based Operation services and other aeronautical or non-aeronautical services at the Airport. In fact, the City has done so in the past with other parties outside the competitive procurement process.