READ AUGUST 4, 2026 LETTER FROM ATTORNEY JOSEPH A WHITE, FRIED BONDER WHITE, ATLANTA, GEORGIA TO ST. AUGUSTINE AIRPORT AUTHORITY RE: AUGUST 12, 2026 8 AM AIPORT AUTHORITY MEETING. (BELOW)
What's going on with our government-owned ST. AUGU$TINE AIRPORT AND POSSIBLE CORRUPTION?
WHO IS NOW INVESTIGATING COUNTY COMMISSIONER SARAH SALLEY ARNOLD'S CORPORATE LAWYER-HUSBAND, CASEY WILLIAM ARNOLD RE: AIRPORT ACTIVITIES?
WHAT'S NEXT?
NOW, WILL AN OUTSIDE PROSECUTOR FROM GAINESVILLE, APPOINTED BY OUR FLORIDA SUPREME COURT TO PROSECUTE THE FRAUDULENT VOTER GUIDE CASE AGANST COMMISSIONERS SARAH ARNOLD AND CHRISTIAN WHITEHURST, NOW BE ALSO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE ANY CRIMINAL CASE INVOLVING CASEY ARNOLD AND THE AIRPORT?
You tell me.
FRIED BONDER WHITE
JOSEPH A. WHITE
JWHITE@FRIEDBONDER.COM
August 4, 2026
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Nick Primrose, Chair [nap@flynf.org]
Mario Dipola, Vice Chair [mad@flynf.org]
Michelle Cash-Chapman, Secretary/Treasurer [mchapman@flynf.org]
Jerry Dedge, Member [ghd@flynf.org]
Daniel Bean, Member [dkb@flynf.org]
St. Augustine – St. Johns County Airport Authority
4796 US Highway 1 North
St. Augustine, Florida 32095
Re: Notice in Advance of the Board’s August 12, 2026 Meeting
Dear Members of the Board:
As you know, this firm represents Volato, Inc. (“Volato”). We write in advance of the Board’s August 12, 2026 meeting. As we understand it, pursuant to the direction given at the meetings of May 13, 2026, and July 15, 2026, the Board may take up at the August 12th meeting what has been described as a “ratification” and restatement of the Infinity Aviation and Old City Jets leases. As of the date of this letter, the Authority has not posted an agenda for the August 12th meeting.
Volato therefore does not know which matters the Board will in fact take up at that meeting and, thus, relies on the Board’s stated direction at the May 13th and July 15th meetings. If the August 12th agenda does not reach a particular premises addressed below, this letter stands as notice for whenever the Board takes up that premises.
Volato takes no position on how the Board should vote on the Infinity Aviation and Old City Jets leases. However, because the contemplated actions have been described as potential “ratifications,” Volato considers it imperative that, when the Board votes, it do so with full knowledge of all facts material to the issues before it. Indeed, for a ratification to be effective, the law demands as much. See Branford State Bank v. Howell Co ., 88 Fla. 493, 495 (1924) (“No rule of law is better settled than this: That the ratification of the act of an agent previously unauthorized must, in order to bind the principal, be with fullknowledge of all the material facts; [i]f the material facts be either suppressed or unknown, the ratification is invalid because founded on mistake or fraud .”) (emphasis added); ABC Salvage, Inc. v. Bank of Am ., N.A ., 305 So. 3d 725, 729 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) (“Ratification cannot occur unless the principal has ‘full knowledge of all material facts and circumstances relating to the unauthorized act or transaction at the time of the ratification.’”) (emphasis added); see generally Restatement (Third) of Agency § 4.06. A vote taken in disregard of the material facts – including, in this instance, who the tenant of record is (or whether one exists at all); what use the lease permits; whether any operating agreement is in force; whether the leasehold taxes on the premises have been paid, etc. – will be vulnerable to the objection that any purported ratification is legally ineffective.
Thus, the purpose of this letter is to provide the Board with certain material facts that do not appear to have been previously brought to its attention. These facts are all readily verifiable, as they are drawn from the Authority’s own executed instruments and the public records of St. Johns County. Volato asks that the Board, in accordance with its duties, address these facts, on the public record, before it takes any vote on the Infinity Aviation or Old City Jets leases. See Art. II, § 8, Fla. Const.; Section 286.011, Florida Statutes.
PART I — 151 GUN CLUB ROAD: THE NAMED TENANT DISSOLVED IN 2012
1. The tenant named on the lease dissolved in January 2012. As you know, the Board’s directions of May 13th and July 15th addressed the leaseholds at 151 Gun Club Road. As to that premises, there is no tenant nor any lease instrument capable of “ratification.”
The lease for 151 Gun Club Road is the Hangar Lease dated April 16, 2004. The named tenant on that lease is Infinity Aviation, Inc. (“Infinity, Inc.”), a Florida profit corporation, document number P98000046434.
• The 2004 Hangar Lease in favor of Infinity, Inc. commenced on June 1, 2004 and ran for a term of 240 months. It therefore expired by its terms on or about May 31, 2024, more than two years ago.
• On January 12, 2012, during the term of the 2004 Hangar Lease, Infinity, Inc. filed Articles of Dissolution with the Florida Department of State under Fla. Stat. § 607.1403. The Articles stated that the corporation’s shareholders authorized dissolution on December 31, 2011. The corporation’s President, Alan J. Green, signed the Articles, a copy of which are attached as Exhibit “A.” The Department of State’s records currently list the corporation’s status as “inactive.”
• Under Section 607.1405, Florida Statutes, a dissolved corporation continues only for the purpose of winding up its affairs and liquidating its assets. It may not carry on business as a going concern, and it cannot take on new leasehold rights. See, e.g., Allied Roofing Indus., Inc. v. Venegas , 862 So. 2d 6, 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (“Under current Florida law, administratively dissolved corporations continue their corporate existence after dissolution, but may not carry on any business except that necessary to notify claimants and to wind up and liquidate business by collecting assets, disposing of properties, discharging liabilities and taking related actions . . .”) (emphasis added). Thus, Infinity, Inc., the listed tenant on the 2004 Hangar Lease, lacks the legal capacity to enter into a lease extension – or a lease agreement of any kind.
• Infinity Aviation, LLC (“Infinity, LLC”) — Florida document L14000094577 — is an entirely separate legal entity from Infinity, Inc. Infinity, LLC was not organized until June 12, 2014, two years and five months after Infinity, Inc. filed its Articles of Dissolution. Infinity, LLC is a distinct legal entity from Infinity, Inc., as the Authority’s own counsel acknowledged on the record during the Board’s May 13, 2026 meeting.
2. What is proposed for these premises is not a “ratification” at all. It is a new lease.
Based on the records available to Volato, it does not appear that there has ever been a lease between the Authority and Infinity, LLC. Nor does there appear to be any assignment of – or Authority approval of any assignment of – Infinity, Inc.’s lease to Infinity, LLC. In sum, nothing in any record available to Volato shows that Infinity, LLC has ever held a leasehold interest granted by this Authority.
That being the case, there is no previously granted leasehold interest, or any extension of such interest, for the Board to “ratify.” A principal may ratify an unauthorized act that an agent previously undertook. See Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines, Ltd ., 462 So. 2d 1178, 1185 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985) (“It is a fundamental proposition of the law of agency that a principal may subsequently ratify its agent's act, even if originally unauthorized, and such ratification relates back and supplies the original authority.”). A principal cannot, however, ratify an action that was never undertaken. Here, by voting in favor of an “amended and restated lease” for Infinity, LLC, the Board would not be “ratifying” a prior unauthorized agreement; it would be granting a new lease to a new tenant with whom no prior agreement exists.
3. The Authority must follow its own Lease Policy – which it has heretofore disregarded.
Section 8.2 of the Lease Policy provides that “proposed leases of property and any modifications thereto shall be subject to approval of a majority vote of the Authority.” The Executive Director’s authority to act without such a vote is limited to two, and only two, circumstances: (1) leases of T-hangars, box hangars and tie-downs; and (2) leases “of 2500 sq. ft. or smaller at prevailing market rates.”
The corporate hangar at 151 Gun Club Road is not a T-hangar, a box hangar, or a tie-down. Nor is it an aviation office space of 2,500 square feet or smaller. It thus falls outside both exceptions to the majority vote requirement. Accordingly, the Executive Director lacks authority under the Lease Policy to execute, extend, or modify the lease without a Board vote — which is what the Authority’s own counsel explained to the Board on May 13, 2026. (The same is true of East Corporate 8 and 9, as discussed in Part II, below.)
2
Section 8.2 of the Lease Policy further requires that a commercial lease proposal “be subject to an initial Authority Review prior to su[b]stantive negotiations being accomplished by the Executive Director.” The Review is to include a determination of public benefit consistent with Section 6.2.1, a review of likely impacts on existing infrastructure and operations capability, and an evaluation of the applicability of any additional lease-related fees.
Because the purported “ratification” and restatement of the 151 Gun Club Road necessarily constitutes the grant of a new lease (to new tenant Infinity, LLC), the Section 8.2 requirements must be observed. Counsel advised this Board on May 13, 2026, however, that discussions with the tenants have already been under way for some weeks, and an instrument has. since been prepared. Thus, it appears that “substantive negotiations” have occurred prior to the Authority Review required by
Section 8.2. Volato therefore asks the Board to establish whether and when each step of the required Authority Review occurred. Further, to the extent any such Authority Review did occur, it apparently overlooked that the named tenant on the Hangar Lease – Infinity, Inc. – had been dissolved more than a decade ago. The Board should establish how, why, and when that was missed.
4. What the Board should establish before it votes.
Before the Board votes, it should determine what instrument the current occupancy of 151 Gun Club Road purportedly rests on — the expired 2004 lease, an assignment of that lease, some later extension, or nothing at all. If an assignment or extension exists, the Board should further determine who executed it, in whose favor, on what authority, and when.
Volato asks that the agenda materials for the August 12th meeting include a section-by-section comparison of the existing instrument (if any) and the “amended and restated” lease. That way, the Board and the public can see which provisions are being “ratified” and which are being granted for the first time. Volato does not see how the Board can possibly know which of the two it is doing absent such a comparison.
PART II — THE SAME PATTERN AT EAST CORPORATE 8 AND 9
As you know, the May 13th direction addressed the premises at East Corporate 8 and 9 together with the premises at 151 Gun Club Road. Additionally, the same counsel appeared for both “tenants,” and the issues that exist with the proposals for both lease instruments are the same. Volato thus addresses East Corporate 8 and 9 in this letter. If the agenda for the August 12th meeting does not include East Corporate 8 and 9, then please allow this portion of Volato’s letter to serve as notice whenever the Board addresses that premises.
1. What the Board actually approved was a five-year tenancy. It has become an approximately thirty-year tenancy without a further Board vote.
At its regular meeting on November 18, 2019, the Board took up Business Item 8.C, agendized as “Commercial Hangar Lease – JaxJets.” The Executive Director presented that Business Item in these terms:
“[T]he proposed tenant is JaxJets, Inc. … They operate a FAR Part 135 charter operation. Proposing to operate that out of Hangar 8, Hangar Number 8 on the east side corporate area. It would be a two- yearlease term with a three- year option after that . Rent’s at $5.50 a [square foot].”
(November 18, 2019 Minutes, Item 8.C, pp. 82–83) (emphasis added). The maximum tenancy the Board authorized was therefore approximately five years, with the tenancy expiring around December 2024.
The Executive Director thereafter took the following actions with respect to the premises without the involvement or approval of the Board:
Date Term Authorized by
Nov. 18, 2019 2 years + 3-year option → ~Dec. 2024 Board vote
July 15, 2020 amendment adds East Corporate 8; extends to
12/31/2025; one 5-year option → ~2030
Executive Director
signature
3
January 2023 amendment adds four consecutive 5-year options → ~2050 Executive Director signature
As to the 2020 amendment, Volato’s counsel has reviewed every set of board minutes in its possession — including the complete 2020 set published by the Authority – for the meetings of January 22nd, March 2nd, June 8th, July 13th, September 3rd, September 14th, October 19th and December 7th (there having been no April, May, August or November 2020 meeting). Neither “JaxJets” nor “Old City Jets” appears in any set of minutes after the November 18, 2019 meeting.
The 2020 amendment was executed two days after the July 13, 2020 meeting, at which the amendment was not presented.
And it did not come before the Board at any later meeting that year.
As to the 2023 amendment, the Authority’s own lease counsel advised the Board during its May 13, 2026 meeting, in substance, that: the 2023 amendment required Board approval; the then-Executive Director executed it unilaterally; and it had therefore not been authorized by the Board.
In addition to these deficiencies, Volato notes a discrepancy with the original 2019 lease that the Board should resolve: the Business Item approved on November 18, 2019 covered Hangar 8, while the lease executed on December 10, 2019 covered Hangar 9. Hangar 8 was added to the lease only by the (unauthorized) 2020 amendment.
2. The lease prohibits occupancy by any party other than the tenant, and declares any such occupancy void.
Section 15(a) of the December 10, 2019 lease provides:
“Tenant shall not, without the prior written consent of Landlord, assign or hypothecate this Lease or any interest herein or sublet the Hangar or any part thereof, or permit the use of the Hangar by any party other than Tenant. Any of the foregoing acts without such consent shall be void and shall, at the option of Landlord, terminate this Lease. This Lease shall not, nor shall any interest of Tenant herein, be assignable by operation of law without the written consent of Landlord which may be withheld for any or no reason.”
Three features of that clause matter here. It reaches not only assignment and subletting but the distinct act of permitting use by a non-tenant. It makes such an act void rather than voidable. And it extends to transfers by operation of law, which reaches a change in control of the tenant entity.
3. The permitted use forecloses aircraft management.
Section 8 of the same lease provides that the tenant’s use “shall be limited to the following aeronautical uses: FAR Part 135 Aircraft Charter Business for aircraft under exclusive use contract.” It further provides that: “No other use is permitted.
No commercial aviation activity shall be conducted utilizing Premises.” Additionally, it requires the tenant to “promptly provide
Landlord with a copy of the title or lease demonstrating Tenant’s ownership or rights as a Tenant of any aircraft stored at the Premises at the time the aircraft is located on the Premises.”
4. The operating agreement expired on July 31, 2025.
A separate Commercial Operating Agreement executed on June 24, 2019 authorized JaxJets, Inc. to use the Airport for “the sole and expressed purpose of on-demand FAR Part 135 Charter Services” using one identified aircraft, “N519LH Cirrus aircraft with 4 seats.” It further expressly states that “no Aircraft Management Services or Brokerage Services are authorized at SGJ.” The Operating Agreement ran for a one-year term beginning on July 1, 2019, and automatically renewed for five one-year periods, “expiring on July 31, 2025.”
5. No assignment could have released JaxJets, Inc.
The purported July 15, 2020 amendment — which added Hangar 8, extended the lease term to December 31, 2025, and granted one additional five-year option — provides that “[n]either the Lease or this Amendment may be assigned in such a way as to equate to a novation or other form of release that would release or relieve Tenant from liability under the Lease or this Amendment.”
The Authority’s tenant of record therefore remains JaxJets, Inc. Florida corporate records show that control of that corporation changed between its annual reports filed April 25, 2022 and April 24, 2023. It is now administered through a commercial registered agent in St. Petersburg, Florida, with a mailing address in Waterford Township, Michigan, where it remains an active Florida corporation.
The Authority is already aware of this issue. At its April 8, 2026 meeting, aviation counsel advised the Board, on the record, in substance, that the current occupant of that hangar has no current lease agreement with the Authority, and that the lease had been extended in writing but never approved by the Board.
6. What the Board should establish before it votes.
• Does the Authority contend that the tenant of record at East Corporate 8 and 9 is any entity other than JaxJets, Inc.? If so, under what executed instrument?
• Did the Authority ever give prior written consent under Section 15(a) to use of these hangars by any party other than JaxJets, Inc.?
• Has any operating agreement been in force for these premises since July 31, 2025?
• Has the Authority ever collected the per-aircraft title or lease documentation Section 8 requires? If so, whose aircraft are in these hangars?
• Which entity is named as tenant on the January 2023 amendment, and who executed it on that entity’s behalf?
Moreover, as to these premises, the same “ratification” problems exist and should be addressed by the Board. At the Board’s May 13th meeting, counsel described the instrument to be prepared as an amendment and restatement, carrying two five-year renewal options and permitted-use language covering aircraft management as well as Part 135 operations. If those terms appear in the document presented on August 12, 2026, then each purported modification will constitute a new grant of authority rather than a purported “ratification”:
• A different tenant. If the restated lease names an entity other than JaxJets, Inc., the Board is not ratifying an amendment. It is consenting to an assignment it never approved, under a lease that – per Section 15(a) – renders an unapproved transfer void.
• A broader permitted use. Section 8 of the December 10, 2019 lease limits use to FAR Part 135 charter foraircraft under exclusive-use contract and states that no other use is permitted and that no commercial aviation activity shall be conducted on the premises. Aircraft management is not within the scope of permitted uses.
Adding it would not effect a “ratification”; it would grant a right the Authority has never given at these premises. And it would dissolve, rather than enforce, the same category of obligation — the lease’s permitted-use restriction — on which the Authority premised its termination of certain leases of Modern Aero, LLC.
• A longer term. The Board authorized a tenancy of approximately five years in November 2019, running to about December 2024. Two further five-year options would extend it into 2036.
The Authority was told, in open session, that the forbidden use was occurring. At the May 13th meeting, the individual who appeared in support of the tenant told the Board, in substance, that the operator manages multiple twin-engine jet aircraft, that he performs aircraft management, and that there are a number of other owners like the speaker who own their own aircraft and rely on that service. He also said that he has been based here and flying out of this airport since 2019.
That is a description, given to the Board on its own record by a supporter of the tenant, of the precise activity Section 8 forbids and that the June 2019 Operating Agreement expressly excluded. The Authority’s response was not to enforce the restriction. It was to propose adding the activity to the permitted uses.
To the extent the August 12, 2026 instrument grants any of these rights, the Authority is not “ratifying” an unauthorized act. It is awarding a new commercial lease. The Authority is bound by its own Lease Policy in doing so. As discussed above, that policy requires a majority vote for any lease or modification (Section 8.2); an initial Authority Review, including a determination of public benefit, under Section 6.2.1 before the Executive Director undertakes substantive negotiations (Section 8.2); a proposal package (meeting the requirements of Section 8.1 and Exhibit 8.1); and general accordance with the approved Airport Master Plan or Airport Layout Plan (Section 5). None of these is discretionary, and the Authority is not free to apply them to one tenant and not another. Another tenant told this Board on July 15, 2026, that its lease is coming to an end and that the Authority intends to seek proposals for its premises. If the difference between the two situations rests on something other than the identity of the tenant, that distinction should be addressed at the Board meeting and appear in the minutes.
PART III — THE LEASEHOLD TAX RECORD
1. These leaseholds are assessed as taxable, with no exemption.
It is Volato’s understanding that the St. Johns County Property Appraiser carries the following Authority-titled parcels under Property Use Code 9000 — “Leasehold Interests (Govt Owned Leased by Non-Govt)” — each with total exemptions of
$0.00:
Parcel Premises Taxable value
0818960010 151 Gun Club Road Unit 6 $652,334
0747800140 171 Gun Club Road Unit 7 $1,183,692
0747800150 435 Hawkeye View Lane — “EAST CORPORATE
HANGAR AREA HANGARS #8 #9 & #10”
$1,054,080
Under Sections 196.199(2) and 196.012(6), Florida Statutes, a leasehold at a public airport used for an aviation purpose is ordinarily exempt and not assessed at all. The Property Appraiser’s assessment of the above premises at full value constitutes an independent determination by a county office that the use of these premises is not an exempt aviation use — reached apart from and without reference to anything before this Board.
2. The 2025 taxes on the Gun Club Road parcels appear to be unpaid.
Account Premises Bill 2025 amount due
081896-0010 151 Gun Club Road 95720 $9,491.43
074780-0140 171 Gun Club Road 94314 $17,376.35
It is Volato’s understanding, based on the St. Johns County Tax Collector’s records as they appeared on July 26, 2026, that the amounts listed above remain due. Volato has not obtained certified copies of these accounts, and the Board can confirm their current status directly with the Tax Collector. It is likewise Volato’s understanding that tax years 2016 through 2024 show a zero balance on both accounts, and that 2025 is the first delinquent year. Both bills are issued to the Authority, which holds title. Volato has not confirmed the current status of account 074780-0150, the East Corporate parcel.
3. The Authority’s own leases obliged it to collect this tax, and made non-payment a default.
The Authority’s form lease provides at Section 23(a) that the tenant “covenants and agrees to further pay or discharge all taxes, assessments, penalties, charges, rates or liens of any nature whatsoever.” Section 23(c) provides that where a tenant fails to comply with any governmental requirement or requirement of the Authority, “the Landlord may immediately terminate this Lease without prior notice.” The Authority invoked Section 23(c) against Modern Aero, LLC.
Consistent with the form lease, the East Corporate lease requires the tenant to pay the Authority, each month as additional rent, a sum equal to one twelfth of the annual taxes as reasonably estimated by the Authority, with an annual true-up. The Infinity Aviation lease similarly provides at Section 3.B that where such taxes are levied, the tenant “shall be obligated [to] pay such assessment.” Thus, the Authority was obliged by its own instruments to estimate, bill and collect the tax every month.
4. Either the Authority never billed the tax, or it billed it and the money did not reach the Tax Collector.
With respect to the apparently delinquent taxes identified above, it appears that the Authority either never collected the taxes, or it collected them and did not pay them over to the tax authority. Which occurred is a question that can be answered by the Authority’s own records. Thus, before the Board votes, it should establish:
• Whether the Authority ever billed or collected taxes payable under the Gun Club and East Corporate leases, and if so, what became of the funds.
• If it never billed or collected such funds, on whose decision, and when the Authority last reviewed the obligation.
• Whether any notice of default, demand, or cure letter was issued to any tenant on account of the unpaid 2025 taxes — and if none was, why Section 23(c) was invoked against one tenant and not another.
PART IV — RELATED MATTERS: SALES TAX, RECORDING, AND GRANT ASSURANCES
1. Further matters the Board should establish before voting.
• Whether the Authority has collected and remitted the tax imposed by Fla. Stat. § 212.031 on hangar rents. The airport exemption at § 212.031(1)(a) reaches only property used at an airport exclusively for aircraft landing or taxiing, or used by an airline for loading, unloading, or fueling; hangar rental is not within it. Section 212.031(2)(a) requires the tenant to pay the tax to its immediate landlord.
• Whether the Authority has collected on any sublease of airport premises, including the arrangement Volato’s predecessor identified to the Authority in October 2023.
• Whether the Authority ever gave the ten-day lien notice contemplated by Section 11 of the Infinity lease.
• Whether the Infinity lease, its amendments, the East Corporate lease and its amendments, and the 2006/2007 three-party Assignment of Leases among the Authority, Ring Power Corporation, and Infinity Aviation, Inc. were ever recorded. A search of the St. Johns County Official Records returns no recorded instrument for Infinity Aviation or for Old City Jets, and none indexed to either Gun Club Road parcel. The Board has been urged to treat these leases as having entered the stream of commerce. Unrecorded instruments give no constructive notice to anyone.
2. Grant assurance exposure.
These matters bear on the Authority’s obligations under Grant Assurance 5 (preserving rights and powers), Grant Assurance 19 (operation and maintenance), Grant Assurance 24 (fee and rental structure and self-sustainability), and Grant Assurance 25 (airport revenues). They bear most directly, however, on Grant Assurance 22 (economic nondiscrimination).
The Authority terminated certain leases of Modern Aero, LLC for categories of defect — unauthorized instruments, use beyond the scope of the lease, and entity transfer — that its own counsel has now described on the record as present at the subject premises. “Ratifying” and restating the leases of one set of purported tenants while having terminated another over the same issues – and doing so while the taxes on those other premises remain unpaid – is exactly the type of disparate treatment that Grant Assurance 22 prohibits.
PART V — THE BOARD’S OWN STATED STANDARD, AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE TRANSACTION
1. The Board has already stated the standard, and stated it well.
At the July 15th meeting, a member of this Board read into the record Leviticus 19:15 — the verse directing that justice not be perverted, that neither partiality to the poor nor favoritism to the great be shown, and that one’s neighbor be judged fairly. He then gave direction in his own words, in substance: that the Authority be very fair in how it treats everyone; that it hold the same standard for everybody, regardless of who it is; and that there be no preferential treatment.
Volato agrees with that standard without reservation. This Part is addressed to the distance between that standard and the actions proposed to be undertaken on August 12, 2026.
2. The Board’s own counsel identified the exposure, in terms.
At the same July 15th meeting, the Authority’s outside aviation counsel advised the Board, in substance, that the conduct most offensive to federal airport principles is the commercial monetization of a private, non-commercial lease, because it competes unfairly with every operator that holds a proper commercial authorization.
He then identified the consequence of such conduct. He advised, in substance, that the Authority becomes at risk with the FAA not because a violation occurred but because it ratifies or condones a violation, or otherwise fails to enforce its rules and leases in a principled and consistent way.
He identified the exposure this letter concerns even more directly. He advised, in substance, that the greatest risk of a Part 16 proceeding arises from inconsistency of exactly the kind discussed herein. Where the Authority is put on notice of a problem and addresses it, the FAA is generally satisfied. But where the Authority is put on notice of a problem and fails to address it, or establishes a regime that is inconsistent and unfair to other similarly situated persons, the FAA may well prove sympathetic to a complaint.
That is the Authority’s own aviation counsel describing the legal effect of the vote now scheduled — and he is the person preparing the instruments to be voted on. This letter constitutes the notice he described, and the Board’s response to this notice will be critical to mitigating its potential exposure.
3. The Board has been told by the affected tenants that the standard is not being met.
At the same meeting, members of this Board acknowledged among themselves that other tenants would regard the proposed outcome as inequitable and inconsistent, and that those tenants would demand equal treatment. Tenants also told the Board so directly. One tenant, whose lease is expiring and who must re-bid, told the Board in substance that others were not following the letter of the law, that they were being given a pass, and that he expected to be put off the field at the end of the year. Another asked in substance why arrangements made outside the public process were being rewarded, and how the process had been circumvented.
These statements are in the Authority’s own record. Volato is not informing the Board of risks of which it was previously unaware; it is reminding the Board of risks that have already been brought to its attention and which it has so far answered by simply proceeding.
4. Three relationships bear on these matters. The Board should weigh them, and address them, on the record.
Volato raises the following because each is a matter of public record, each is already visible to the tenants on this field, and because a public body’s obligation of even-handedness is measured in part by how its decisions appear to those subject to them.
First — the same counsel appeared for both tenants. At the May 13, 2026 meeting, counsel stated on the record that he appeared on behalf of both Old City Jets and Infinity Aviation. The two tenancies are otherwise unrelated: different premises, different instruments, different corporate chains. They were nonetheless taken up together, and a single course of action was directed for both.
Second — the appointments. Gubernatorial appointees hold four of this Board’s five seats. All four of those seats became vacant during 2025 — three by resignations that followed the State Attorney’s Sunshine Law investigation, the fourth by a resignation in October 2025 — and all four were filled by appointment within roughly three months. The only elected sitting member holds the fifth seat. Counsel appearing for both tenants holds a gubernatorial appointment to the Judicial Nominating Commission for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, which includes St. Johns County, with a term running through July 1,2027. His spouse was appointed by the Governor to the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners in 2021, before subsequently standing for election.
Third — the tenants’ advocate disclosed a personal interest in the outcome, and his statements should be weighed accordingly. An individual appeared in person before the Board on May 13th and spoke in support of the tenant’s principal, identifying himself as a customer and as someone who the principal taught to fly. By his own account to this Board, he has owned aircraft based at this airport since 2019, and the hangar space for those aircraft runs through the tenant whose lease is before the Board. He was thus, by his own statements, not a disinterested member of the public: he has a personal interest in the continuation and extension of the leases now before the Board. The point is one of weight: the Board should evaluate his advocacy as that of a customer with a stated personal interest in the outcome.
Apart from the customer’s own statements, none of this was stated on the record. Volato has reviewed the recordings of the May 13th and July 15th meetings. No disclosure of any relationship, affiliation, or potential conflict was made by any Board member or by the Authority’s counsel at either meeting. No recusal was sought or taken. No conflict was identified for the record.
Volato does not allege that these relationships influenced any Board action or vote, and it has no evidence that they did. That is not the point. The point is appearance — and, as to the first two relationships, disclosure. The Board cannot show that it judged everyone by the same standard if no one disclosed the relationships that bear on that question. Undisclosed connections between the tenants' representatives and the people advising or deciding create an appearance of conflict. Only disclosure can dispel that appearance, and it has not happened. The customer showed how little disclosure asks: he stated
his interest, and the Board and the public can now weigh his statements for what they are.
The standard the Board announced on July 15th demands more than the absence of proof of undue influence. Grant Assurance 22 measures outcomes, not motives. The Authority terminated one tenant's leases on the stated ground that its use exceeded its lease. It now proposes to cure the same category of defect for other tenants by amending and restating their leases — tenants whose counsel was appointed by the same authority that appointed a majority of this Board. The terminated tenant needs no proof of any private conversation to conclude that the Authority judged it by a different standard. Neither will the FAA.
Two further facts belong in the same record. A member of this Board suggested, on the record, that another member meet privately with the tenant’s principal and its advocate to hear background before the matter returned. And counsel for the tenants told the Board there had been substantial discussions with the Authority over the preceding weeks — discussions that appear in no public agenda, minutes, or meeting record. A member of this Board also reported having heard the Authority’s counsel draw a distinction between enforcing against the T-hangar tenants and enforcing against a tenant described as possibly the wealthiest and most powerful family in St. Johns County. Volato does not know which tenant or family that description concerned and does not suggest that it referred to any tenant or premises addressed in this letter. The concern is the distinction itself. An Authority that decides whether and how to enforce its rules based on who the tenant is — rather than on what its rules and leases require — is the very problem this letter describes. That such a distinction was reportedly drawn by counsel advising the Authority should itself give the Board pause.
5. What the Board can do about it, before it votes.
The appearance described above is curable, and the cure is entirely within the Board’s control:
• Disclose on the record. Each member should state whether he or she has had any communication, meeting, or relationship with the tenants, their principals, their counsel, or any person advocating on their behalf, outside of a noticed public meeting — including any private meeting of the kind suggested on May 13.
• Address recusal. Any member for whom a voting conflict exists under Fla. Stat. § 112.3143 should say so and file the disclosure the statute requires. A member with no conflict loses nothing by saying so.
• Ask the same of counsel. The Authority’s outside aviation counsel is preparing the instruments now before the Board. Whether he has any relationship or affiliation bearing on these tenants or their advocates, and whether it was disclosed to the Authority, should be established on the record rather than left to inference.
• State the basis for the difference in outcome. The Board should articulate, in the minutes, why the same categories of defect produced termination for one operator and amendment, restatement, and extended renewal options for another. If a principled distinction exists, this is the moment to record it — and it will be the
9
Authority’s best answer in any Part 16 proceeding. If none is stated, the record will show that none was offered.
Again, Volato takes no position on how the Board should vote. Volato’s position is that the Board should vote in the open, based on all the material facts, and on a record that reflects what it knew, what it was told by its own counsel, and what it chose to do about it. The point is to assure tenants and the public that a fair and nondiscriminatory process is being followed – about which doubt currently exists.
PART VI — VOLATO’S OWN PENDING REQUESTS
1. The same Lease Policy should govern Volato’s pending extension request.
On April 3, 2026, and again on May 26, 2026, Volato and its sublessee, Banyan Air Services, Inc., asked the Authority to consider a framework for extending Volato’s Hangar Master Lease. The Executive Director’s June 17, 2026 letter stated that the Authority intends to offer the premises for public bidding at the end of the term. This firm’s July 14, 2026 letter asked the Board to place the matter on an agenda, asked the Authority to confirm its procedure for doing so, and gave notice of appeal under Administrative Policy Section 1.115. As of the date of this letter, Volato has received no response of any kind.
Volato therefore renews its previous requests to: (1) place Volato’s extension request on the agenda for the August 12, 2026 meeting (or state on the record when the Board will take it up and under what procedure); and (2) confirm the status of Volato’s Section 1.115 appeal. Volato asks for nothing more than the process the Lease Policy provides — and for the same care in applying it that the Board is being asked to extend to the leases described above.
2. Preservation.
Finally, this letter serves to place the Authority and its agents on notice to preserve all records concerning the matters described above, including the executed leases, amendments, operating agreements and any consents for East Corporate 8 and 9 and for 151 Gun Club Road; all per-aircraft title documentation received under Section 8; tax notices, assessments, and delinquency or certificate correspondence; communications with the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector; communications with the tenants, their principals, and their counsel; sales tax collection and remittance records for hangar and sublease rents; all drafts of any “ratification,” amendment, or restatement instrument; and all records concerning Volato’s
April 3, 2026 extension request, the June 17, 2026 letter, and this firm’s July 14, 2026 letter. Any automatic deletion or retention policy that would destroy such records should be suspended.
Volato requests that this letter be included in the agenda materials for the August 12, 2026, meeting and made part of the record of that meeting. A copy is being delivered to the Clerk to the Authority with that request.
SINCERELY,
FRIED BONDER WHITE, LLC
JOSEPH A. WHITE
Enclosure
cc: Courtney K. Pittman, Executive Director [cpittman@sgj-airport.com]
Christopher Walker, Esq., General Counsel [generalcounsel@sgj-airport.com; cwalker@lippes.com]
Jeffrey W. Kempf, Esq., Lippes Mathias LLP [deputygc@sgj-airport.com; jkempf@lippes.com]
Chad S. Roberts, Esq. [chadrobertslaw@gmail.com]
Linda M. Santiago, Custodian of Public Records [lms@sgj-airport.com]
10
EXHIBIT A
FILED
Jan 12, 2012
Secretary o f state
ARTICLES OF DISSOLUTION
Pursuant t o section 607.1403, Florida Statutes, this Florida corporation submits the following Articles
of Dissolution:
FIRST:
The name of the corporation as currently filed with the Florida Department of State:
INFINITY AVIATION, INC.
SECOND:
The document number of the corporation: P98000046434
THIRD:
The date dissolution was authorized: December 31, 2011
FOURTH:
Dissolution was approved b y the shareholders. The number o f votes cast for dissolutior
was sufficient for approval.
317.155, Florida Statutes
Signature: ALAN J. GREEN PRESIDENT
Electronic Signature of Signing Officer, Director, Incorporator or Authorized Representative
No comments:
Post a Comment