Ormond Beach Airport Project

The City says that Team Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. is a "start-up company that would put the City at unreasonable risk." How will the Team eliminate that risk to the City?

Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. has the financial capability and resources to fully bond surety (investment equity) and performance (construction guarantees) for each phase of its proposed development project, subject to acceptability of memorandum of understandings, development and lease contract documents, bond forms and other financing.

Clearly, the Company's posting of those bonds ensure that the City and the community are protected from financial risk.

Why does Team Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. believe that the design and evaluation process of the request for proposal can only be described as a failure?

The City Selection Committee neither had the experience, nor background to design an airport RFP and evaluate any proposal that pertained to private sector business, finance, marketing, civilian and active duty military flight and ground operations and/or major economic development projects on airports.

To put that into perspective, the development team collectively has more than 800 years of expertise and experience in those skill sets, while the City Selection Committee had 23.5 years of experience.

Why does Team Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. believe that the request for proposal process was flawed?

The City demanded that the development team satisfy its incoherent, ad hoc, arbitrary and unreasonable standards, which the City didn't require any other potential lessees at the Airport to demonstrate, which violates provisions of FAA regulations.

The City used those reasons to claim that the development team was unqualified and then used that as a basis to justify its refusal to enter into negotiations.

The City Economic Development Director (Mr. Mannarino) says that the City Staff met with FAA representatives and consultants in a lengthy process to provide the framework that might bring proposals from experienced developers. Is that true?

In response to multiple Sunshine Document requests, the City failed to produce any communications, written, oral or recorded, that included any communications sent to or received from the FAA, Florida Department of Transportation or other entity relating to "a lengthy process" during the preparation of the draft and final Request for Proposal for the development of the Southwest Quadrant of the Airport.

Why did the City Selection Committee award the Team Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. proposal to develop the Southwest Quadrant of the Airport 66 out of 100 points?

We offered to repeatedly show the City Selection Committee all of our proprietary financials together with our business and marketing plans under economic confidentiality.

The proposal lost 28 points because the City Selection Committee chose to ignore and refuse each of the Company's requests to protect our proprietary information from public disclosure, even though the Florida State Statues make such records of a private corporation exempt from the Sunshine Act. The score should have been 94 out of a possible 100 points, if the City Selection Committee had agreed to confidentiality and reviewed all the details of the Company's Proposal in its entirety.

The City argues that it did not find Team Arnie B. Green Associates, Inc. and his company to be a qualified applicant. Is that true?

We disagree. The development project is well conceived and staffed by a cadre of professional advisors, all with successful track records developing similar airport projects.

In fact, the Airport Manager directly responsible for the operation of the airport himself, stated: "Arnie B. Green Associates had shown they were highly qualified based on his military experience and leadership roles in military-related organizations."

For all the City's frenzied emphasis on the Company's alleged lack of qualifications, the City has failed to demonstrate any reasonable standard for reaching that conclusion.

The City argues that the company "Green", the legal entity that would be obligated under the 30 year lease was not qualified to undertake its proposed $70 million development plan. Is that true?

We question the City's criteria, since they seem at odds with opinions of experts in the field. We contend that our team members include some of the largest and most experience airport developers in the country.

The Team is professionally qualified and has the technical ability, experience, financial capability and resources to complete and operate the facility at the airport.

The City claims that "Green lacks business experience, lack of capital, and the proposal failed to fall within the guidelines of the City's request for proposal." Is that true?

The City has demonstrated an unwillingness to negotiate and failed to look for a solution to their concerns.

Additionally, the development team strongly disputes all of the staff's assertions for rejection.

The City claims that entering into a lease with "Green is fraught with legal problems because it is a newly formed company (shell company)." Is that true?

We disagree. This statement clearly demonstrates that the City lacks both a realistic or "real world" and fundamental understanding of how economic development and construction projects of this magnitude are structured using multiple business and companies for each phase of a major development project and future business operations of a facility.

In fact, the FAA has said that a City speculating about a private company's choice in corporate organization has no bearing on the issues and these type of statements about things that may or may not happen in the future are not relevant to FAA regulations.

The City staff says the Company "didn't meet specifications outlined in the bid request - in fact the proposal was bigger than what the City sought." Is that true?

This is another gross misrepresentation since the proposal clearly responded as requested and simply added an option for future expansion.

In fact, the Economic Development Director (Mr. Mannarino) ultimately responsible for the airport himself, stated: "the applicant projected building out the 87 acres as requested, with the additional ten years for land that could be included in the project in the future."

The City is not permitted to refuse to negotiate with the Company simply because our initial proposal may need to be adjusted.

The City claims: "Green requested a taxiway and access road to be built before the project was started." Is that true?

The proposal did not require the City to construct an access road and it was not a new idea. It was already master planned by the City.

The City has yet to acquire funding for the taxiway. We requested that funding be available before the project was started.

However, there are ways around this problem through negotiations, but the City has been more interested in finding reasons not to do the project than to make it happen.