Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses board on LVOS contract price cuts; attorney says legal advice limits comment
Summary
A public commenter asked why the LVOS (LVN suite) contract price was reduced and whether the board negotiated with another governing body; the board attorney said developer negotiations with a governing body drove changes and that legal advice limited what could be disclosed; the chair noted contract documents are posted online.
During public comment, John Haros asked the board to explain why the pricing of a contract with LVOS (referred to in the transcript as the LVN suite) had been reduced and whether the board had participated in negotiations with another governing body in the county.
Haros said the lots in question were "premium" and estimated their value at around $1,000,000 each, observing that the current price appeared to be about $600,000 per lot and suggesting that the reduction could represent a substantial difference when multiplied across 21 lots. "My opinion is that 1 lot in our town ... is worth probably 1000000 dollars. But right now, it seems they're going for around $600,000," Haros said.
The board's attorney responded that discussions took place between the developer and the other governing body and that the addendum the board approved reflected those discussions. The attorney said legal advice limited how much detail they could discuss in the public meeting: "I don't know how much more we can talk about with respect to the legal advice that was provided to the board...As the attorney, I can't respond." The attorney also said the board had not negotiated with Ship Bottom on the substance of the addendum, though there were meetings where the developer and that governing body were involved.
Chair noted that contract documents are publicly available on the district website. The exchange ended without a formal board action on the question; the item was taken as public comment rather than a board motion. Members of the public suggested the district could have solicited broader market input; the attorney declined to opine on potential market valuation.
No formal motions or votes were recorded on the LVOS/LVN contract during the public-comment exchange; board members and staff said contract materials appeared on the district website for public review.
