Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County delays vote on Clay Lacy John Wayne Airport financing after hours‑long hearing
Summary
After more than two hours of testimony and debate, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to continue consideration of a proposal that would let Clay Lacy Aviation use tax‑exempt private activity bonds to finance a $120 million expansion at John Wayne Airport. Supervisors demanded further protections on default and revenue terms and set a deadline for staff and the applicant to return with proposed changes.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday continued debate over a proposal that would allow Clay Lacy Aviation to use tax‑exempt private activity bond financing to build fixed‑base operator facilities and a new sheriff’s air support facility at John Wayne Airport.
Proponents, including representatives of Clay Lacy and advisers from Wells Fargo and the California Municipal Finance Authority, described the financing as a market‑standard structure that would not obligate taxpayers. Kevin Carney of Wells Fargo said the proposed issuance would be a tiny fraction of the national municipal market and “would have 0 impact on Orange County” borrowing or other issuances.
Opponents on the board raised concerns about transparency and public policy. Supervisor Don Wagner said the proposal effectively “picks winners and losers” by giving one private vendor access to tax‑exempt financing not available to other businesses, and criticized the proposed use of layered limited liability companies designed to make the project “bankruptcy remote.” “If Clay Lacy can do this deal, they should do it and stand behind it, not build bankruptcy barriers,” Wagner said.
Several supervisors pressed staff and the applicant for clearer protections in case of default, including tighter control over any trustee‑appointed assignee and stronger county veto or RFP language so the county can ensure an acceptable replacement operator. Deputy county counsel Mark Sanchez told the board the lease includes assignment provisions and that the board retains consent authority and can withhold approval of an assignee for stated reasons; he said lease language could be strengthened if the applicant agreed.
Clay Lacy and their bond counsel explained the common market practice of forming a single‑purpose LLC to isolate the project for investors; bond counsel Michael Thomas said that structure is intended to create “bankruptcy remoteness” so the facility is shielded from unrelated corporate creditors. The applicant also offered that the finished buildings would revert to county ownership under the ground‑lease terms used in similar prior county projects.
Supervisors requested additional written detail about the proposed entity structure, the practical mechanics of a default and assignment, and options for revenue sharing or reappraisal of ground rent once the improvements are complete. The applicant previously agreed to reimburse the county about $210,000 for the county’s costs to date related to structuring and public hearings.
After extended discussion the board voted to continue the item for further negotiation and review (motion passed; board instructed staff and the applicant to return with proposed amendments and additional analysis up to 90 days). The public hearing record remains open for that return date.
What happens next: County staff said they will draft potential lease and financing language changes for the board to consider — including stronger assignment veto language, clearer default remedies, and options for reappraising ground rent or adjusting percentage rent to secure additional county benefit. The applicant said it would work with the county on clarifications and hoped to move the financing to market once the board’s concerns were addressed.
