Login with username, password and session length
Thank you providing the facts i.e. the latest idiotic scheme. I and friends will be atthmeeting the 17th.Dick
• The lovely trees that make Rumsey Park such an enjoyable cool place to enjoy will be gone and replaced with buildings and paved parking.• The ramadas where groups and families enjoy gathering will be gone.• The free children’s playground will be gone.• The free dog park will be gone.• The skate park, one of the only places in Payson where teens can go at no cost, will be gone. (The batting cages and miniature golf facilities did not get enough support to survive.)• The shady walking paths where many people walk to improve their health and the health of their dogs will be gone.• The pickleball courts, tennis courts, basketball area and horseshoe pits will be gone.• The use of the soccer field and the baseball fields by the Payson schools will be gone.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¶2 For several years, the City has considered pursuing acommercial development project known as the Avondale City Center(“City Center”). Among other things, the project would require the Cityto obtain financing and acquire several parcels of real property.¶3 The City began discussing City Center with developerWinners Development (“Winners”). In July 2011, the City and Winnerssigned a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”). The City andWinners later signed a Letter of Intent and Understanding (“LOI”) inOctober 2011.¶4 Winners arranged for a form of financing through NationalStandard Finance (“NSF”) and worked with Tiffany Construction(“Tiffany”) to obtain construction cost estimates. Winners also obtainedcontracts to purchase necessary parcels of real property from theMortensen Trusts, the Allison Trust, Byrd, and Avondale Boulevard(collectively, “the Landowners”).1 Our recitation of the facts is based on the first and second amendedcomplaints. See Logan v. Forever Living Products Int’l, Inc., 203 Ariz. 191,192, ¶ 2 (2002) (when reviewing dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), we assumetruth of well-pleaded facts).2 McGuire’s spouse is also named as a defendant. References to“McGuire” in the singular are to Andrew McGuire. Gust Rosenfeld andthe McGuires are referred to collectively as “the Lawyer Defendants.” 3 MORTENSEN v. GUST ROSENFELD, et al. Decision of the CourtCity’s Economic Development Director advised Winners that the City hadobtained appraisals of the properties and that the appraised values “werebelow what the City was to pay for them.” According to Appellants,McGuire provided these appraisals to the City Council, which thereafterrejected the purchases of the Landowners’ properties. Appellants allegethat the City-obtained appraisals were “knowingly based on falsepremises and did not remotely state the fair value of the assembledparcels.”¶7 On January 23, 2012, Winners filed a notice of claim againstthe City pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-821.01,demanding $62,793,824. On February 1, 2012, the City Manager sentcorrespondence to Winners stating that the City had determined the CityCenter project was “not feasible as contemplated in either the MOU or theLOI” and that the City wished “to terminate the MOU and the LOI.”¶8 Winners filed the original complaint in this matter in May2012. An amended complaint was subsequently filed that added theremaining plaintiffs and several causes of action (“amended complaint”).With leave of court, Appellants later filed a first amended complaint(“FAC”).
Dear Mr. Garrett, It is my understanding that the Town maintains financing for the Rec Center / Rumsey Park is using “private financing.” All revenue bonds are “privately financed.” I am not concerned about the “placement.” I am concerned about the debtor and guarantor of the debt. Will you, as the town manager, provide a concise, unequivocal, statement that any bond issued will NOT contain a backstop or combination feature in the indenture agreement that would draw on general funds in the event the private entity is unable to make the payments? While I have your attention, can you explain how the town can honor an invoice for work completed 06/21/17 to 09/21/17 in the amount of $25,000.00 when the project was not authorized until 09/21/17 and the invoicing party was not in existence until 07/27/17? I had requested input from Ms. Barber, but to date I have not received the courtesy of a response. Thank you in advance, Jeffrey S. AalPayson, AZ
Mr. Aal,From the beginning this was envisioned to be a Public-Private partnership with private financing. The planning team has never considered using revenue bonds or any other bond that would be backed by the Town. The final decision on how we proceed will be made by the Town Council but I would not recommend moving forward if there is undue financial risk to the Town. Any project the Town undertakes has a certain amount of financial risk but this project is to be revenue neutral to the Town.Concerning the contract, any contract must be negotiated prior to recommending it to the Town Council for approval. The Scope of Work for this contract was negotiated between June and September. The items paid for on the 1st invoice were items included in the approved Scope of Services. The Scope of Work items completed by CCP prior to September 21st were done at their risk. If the contract was not approved, they would not have been paid for the work they had completed.LaRon G. Garrett, P.E.Town ManagerTown of Payson928-472-5041
Mr. Garrett, Thank you for the response. Assuming no bond, and assuming a PPP, the most logical would be a DBFOM arrangement. As a practical matter that will require that Varxity have significant control over a public asset (Rumsey Park) via lease, typically long term in nature. That scenario has been implied by Mr. Chambless, however not explicitly stated. Will you be addressing that at the meeting tonight? As a long term lease has significant risk, will the full financials of the proposed partner, Varxity, be made public for review? Again assuming a DBFOM, (Or any variation of the DB, DBOM etc.) the town will be a “revenue stream” for Varxity, and that stream will have a significant value. Will the PPP partner be subject to the Town Procurement policy of RFP / RFQ? If so, why was that not done? Again assuming a DBFOM, and assuming the private partner defaults, will that change the “risk /revenue neutral” equation and if so, how will the DBFOM contract be resolved? Assumption? Via what mechanism? Thank you in advance for the clarification.
Mr. Aal,The meeting tonight is to discuss the Rumsey Park Master Plan and to get input from those in attendance on their ideas for the master plan. This meeting is not to discuss the potential financing of this project. The project financing options will be available to the public once they have been determined. Until then, there is nothing to discuss.LaRon G. Garrett, P.E.Town ManagerTown of Payson928-472-5041