Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Sale Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents Press Board for Release of Competing Bids in High‑school Land Sale
Summary
At the Sept. 9 work session residents demanded the school board release competing offers tied to a private sale of district land and questioned litigation costs and the selection process; district staff said the sale was a private offer process, reviewed by a judge, and that some proposals are being withheld while negotiations continue.
Sept. 9, 2025 — Residents at a North Bend School District work session urged the board to release competing offers for a parcel of district land tied to a developer’s purchase, saying the public has a right to see all proposals and questioning the use of legal funds in related litigation.
Public comment callers Jason Lanier and Yanni Lamboros spoke during the audience-of-citizens portion, saying competing offers are public record and asking why the board accepted a lower offer from Pulte rather than a higher proposal. “There’s no secretive information as to why… Anybody who wants to bid on this project could easily go log on and find that,” Lanier said.
The question matters, residents said, because the transaction involves public land and taxpayer resources. Lanier cited what he said were roughly $500,000 in legal costs tied to lawsuits over the sale and asked the board to make competing proposals public. Lamboros, identifying himself as a licensed realtor, said selling large tracts for development differs from a typical home sale and that the community deserves an explanation for why a higher offer was not accepted.
District leaders and counsel responded that the sale followed a private-offer process, not a public auction. Superintendent Dr. Bauer said the district had two basic paths for selling property and that “this went to a private sale.” He added that the district obtained an appraisal and that the accepted offer was “substantially more than it was appraised at.”
Dr. Bauer and the board clarified why the district is not releasing all of the other offers while negotiations continue. He said some prospective buyers who submitted offers might be asked to submit new proposals if the current transaction does not finalize. “The other 7 is what we don’t want to share publicly in case the the other deal is not finalized,” he said, adding that Pulte was “doing their due diligence and finalizing some things, and we’ll know soon.”
A commenter asked whether the matter had been reviewed by a judge; a board member and the district confirmed the sale and the district’s decision-making process had been reviewed in court. One board member told the audience the judge approved the sale and the hearing had been publicly noticed.
There was no formal board vote on releasing competing offers during the meeting. No board motion was made to compel disclosure, and staff said they were continuing negotiations and legal processes tied to the sale. Residents said the lack of release and ongoing appeals left taxpayers with unanswered questions about process and cost.
Background and next steps: The district stated it followed the private-offer sale process and produced an appraisal showing the accepted offer exceeded appraised value. District counsel and staff said they would continue due diligence and negotiations with the buyer. Residents requesting public release of competing proposals can expect follow-up through district channels; the board did not adopt a resolution at the Sept. 9 work session to change disclosure practices.
