Board approves exclusive negotiating agreement with developer for district property; agreement does not commit district financially

The Ashland School Board on June 12 approved an exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) and associated property access agreement (PAA) with a development partner identified through a prior RFP process. Superintendent Joseph Hatrick told the board the ENA gives the developer exclusivity to study feasibility but “provides exclusivity to the developer while they determine feasibility of the project” and, he emphasized, “puts absolutely no responsibility on the district.”

Background: The district previously entered a master services agreement with Sunstone to facilitate an RFP. Sunstone released the RFP and Edlund and Company was selected as the developer. Under the ENA and PAA the developer has a six-month period (with an option to extend) for site investigation, feasibility analysis and to develop terms; the district does not commit funds by approving the ENA.

Public input: The board read a submitted public comment from Alan DeBoer urging the board to remove agenda item 16B (the ENA and related documents) to allow more public review time. The superintendent and multiple board members responded that the ENA is a limited step intended to yield answers to the community’s outstanding questions and that any binding commitments would come later through a negotiated development agreement subject to further board approval.

Conflict of interest disclosure: Board member Dan Ruby (served on the Sunstone advisory board) said he consulted the Oregon Government Ethics Commission and received written guidance that his unpaid volunteer role did not create a disqualifying conflict under state ethics law; he said the commission advised that when no disqualifying conflict exists, board members have a duty to participate. He stated he would vote on the ENA.

Board discussion and vote: Board members discussed that the ENA repeatedly notes the parties will operate in “good faith” and that the agreement is designed to allow answers on feasibility, public benefits and project terms before any binding district commitment. After discussion the board voted unanimously to approve the ENA and PAA.

Why it matters: Approving the ENA starts a formal feasibility period that will produce the technical and financial information necessary for the board and community to evaluate any potential development proposal. It does not by itself approve design, financing or a final sale or lease; those steps would require future board decisions.

Next steps: The ENA’s feasibility work is expected to proceed over an initial six-month timeframe with the possibility of extension. Staff said the community will have additional opportunities for questions and public input after developer studies are complete and before any binding district agreement is proposed.