It's here And I wish this letter had been sent months earlier, for it actually addresses some of the concerns with Juniper Ridge Partners("JRP") and the Disposition and Development Agreement("DDA") the City has been negotiating with them.
To many it seems as JRP has been trying their damndest to get a sweetheart deal covering the next 25 years. Case in point: the only binding part of the Memorandum of Understanding" signed between JRP and the City back on Sept. 6, 2006 is the part that guarantees JRP at least $2.5 million.
The important part, you know.
11.5 For a period of the greater of (a) one year after the date of this MOD or (b) six months after the expansion of the UGB and end of any appeal periods, the parties agree to exclusively negotiate, in good faith, terms and conditions for the disposition and development of the Property (the "Exclusive Negotiation Agreement"). The City and the Agency agree not to solicit any other proposals or negotiate with any other private developer regarding the Property during the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. At the end of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, if a DDA is not executed, the City Council will vote to either (a) extend the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for a mutually agreeable period, or (b) terminate the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. If Developer negotiates in good faith but a DDA is not executed and the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement is terminated, the City will reimburse Developer and Investor 75% of their master planning, design, legal, marketing and related expenses, up to a maximum reimbursement of $2,500,000. By separately initialing this paragraph 11.5, the parties further agree that this, and only this, paragraph 11.5 of the MOD shall be binding on the parties. The remaining provisions of this MOD are non-binding and shall be given no force and effect, pursuant to paragraph 11.2. If this paragraph is not separately initialed,So, it doesn't guarantee them $2.5M, it says 75% of expenses up to $2.5M. Big difference. Yet, $2.5M is the amount listed on the "Detail of Juniper Ridge Costs Through FY07-08".
there shall be DO binding exclusive negotiation obligations on any of the parties.
When I read this memo from Garzini, I was struck by how many of the issues he raised should have been raised long ago. Like this one:
At certain junctures throughout the twenty-five year term, the City needs to be able to evaluate the project, including the performance of the developer and the investor, to determine whether the City wishes to continue the arrangement. We need to modify the term and add provisions to provide for scheduled review and potential termination (and related remedies if the City elects to terminate the DDA because such termination is in the public interest or is pursuing termination because of developer or investor default).Now put this into the context of this part of the MOU:
MANAGEMENT; OPERATION; KEY PERSONNEL.I mean does any sane organization commit to 25 years of the same crew, with no performance guarantees?
The parties acknowledge and agree that Developer was selected by City to develop the Project because of Developer's unique qualifications and proposal for development. Because of the scope and nature of the Project and the relationship between the City, the Agency and the Developer, the qualifications, key personnel and identity of the Developer are and 'will continue to be of particular concern and importance to the Bend community and its City representatives. For these reasons, the parties agree that subject to the terms of the DDA, the Developer) by and through Ray Kuratek and Jeff Holzman, will be involved in the Project through the build-out period.
Yet our City's negotiators, whether staff or council members, seem to have wanted to. Why? That's one of my big questions.
I have an open records request in for all communications between Garzini and JRP, as well as any payments to JRP. To be continued...