Ormond Beach Airport Project

The City Attorney says that Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. "draws an inference that he is entitled to negotiate a lease agreement with the City, because the City published a request for proposal, and not a bid." Is that true?

The City Attorney erroneously draws the inference, not the Company. We merely stated that the City's obligation under the Grant Assurances requires them to enter into good faith negotiations with the Company, regardless of the City Selection Committee's recommendation relating to the RFP.

Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. has never asserted nor insisted that by virtue of a response to the RFP that the Company was entitled to a lease. And there is no Federal grant assurance requirement that precludes a proposer who has previously participated in a request for proposal process from seeking additional opportunities to negotiate access to the Airport.

Team Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. proposal was evaluated during the request for proposal process and rejected by the City of Ormond Beach. What does the Team not understand about the word "rejection"?

While the City is not obligated to agree to the development teams economic development proposal, simply because our initial proposal may need to be adjusted, FAA Grant Assurances and other FAA policy do require it to negotiate in good faith with the Company, in a manner that is consistent with its Federal commitments.

There are ways around the unreasonable objections the City Staff asserted, which is through negotiations, but the City has been more interested in finding reasons not to do the project than to make it happen.

For all its frenzied emphasis on our development team's lack of qualifications, the City has failed to demonstrate any reasonable standard for reaching that conclusion. There are no reasonable grounds based on generally accepted industry standards and criteria and/or Federal and state licensing requirements for the City to claim otherwise.

The design of the request for proposal was flawed and its evaluation process can only be described as a failure.

The Deputy City Attorney (Ms. Emery) said the Company gave at least two presentations to the City Staff and Commissioners before the proposal was turned down? Is that true?

The development team was given one opportunity to give a presentation to City Staff, and it was simply an oral presentation with accompanying Power Point slides of the firm's initial proposal and we were never given the opportunity to negotiate.

Why does Team Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. think that the city staff's decision to recommend that the City Commission reject the Company's proposal preceded any determination of the Company's responsiveness to the City Selection Committee?

During the May 17, 2011 (6 months before the Selection Committee Meeting) City Commission Meeting, the City Economic Development Director (Mr. Mannarino) told the City Commission that: "we have some taxiway projects that will provide infrastructure that will give us the access to the runways and provide access to this particular land (Southwest Quadrant of the Airport)."

In fact, from December 9, 2011 to March 18, 2012, the City had been actively working to gather and analyze design and construction cost estimates to construct a "future Taxiway G" to provide airside access to parcels in the Southwest and Northwest Quadrant of the Airport.

It is clear that the City recognized the clear need for infrastructure development at the Airport ("Taxiway G") and Mr. Mannarino (Chairman of the Committee and Economic Development Director) delivered a pre-printed "speech" immediately following the conclusion of the Company's oral presentation to the Selection Committee on January 12, 2012, detailing the reasons why he was recommended rejection of the Company's Proposal.

Any declaration that the rejection of the Company's Proposal was based on its oral presentation, ability to perform, and/or responsiveness to the Committee's October 11, 2011 follow-up questions was clearly a pretense.

The Deputy City Attorney (Ms. Emery) said: "this is a $70 million project with a start-up company that would put the community at unreasonable risk." Is that true?

The team members include some of the largest and most experienced airport developers in the country and we have already worked with a major bonding insurance firm which will eliminate any risk to the community.

The FAA has said that a City speculating about a private company's choice in corporate organization has no bearing on the issues.

We find the Deputy City Attorney's statement characterization as highly misleading.

The Deputy City Attorney (Ms. Emery) said: "you don't ask someone in corporate development to fly a jet." What is the Company's response to this statement?

We don't know what Ms. Emery is talking about, but if someone in corporate project management determines that they need someone to fly a jet, they would know how to get an expert pilot.

The Deputy City Attorney (Ms. Emery) and Economic Development Director (Mr. Mannarino) said: "the Company could tie up the Southwest Quadrant of the Airport for 30 years." Is that true?

The City is its Response to the Part 13 Informal Complaint to the FAA that the Company filed, referred to a 30 year lease. The City of Ormond Beach refuses to meet and negotiate any terms of a potential lease with the Company, let alone its length.

It should be noted that the lease for the River Bend Golf Course, located on the Northwest and Southeast Quadrant of the Ormond Beach Airport "ties up" land on the Airport for 50 years, with additional two (2) 25-year "first right of refusal" extensions totaling 100 years.