Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bend Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IDB approves memorandum documenting developer's right of first refusal for Bend; members table change-of-control request
Summary
The Chattanooga Industrial Development Board approved a memorandum recording a developer's right of first refusal over Bend parcels and agreed to table a separate request about a potential change of control so counsel can review newly submitted ownership documents.
The Industrial Development Board of Chattanooga voted to authorize a memorandum documenting a developer's right of first refusal for properties in the Bend development and postponed consideration of a separate request about a recent ownership change.
Developer Jimmy White, representing Urban Story Ventures, told the board the memorandum and related guarantee documents were provided to board counsel and city staff and that he has signed the guarantees. "I am in control," White said, emphasizing that the ownership restructuring did not change who directs the project. He added that the developer has paid most outstanding taxes and that the project remains privately financed to date.
Board counsel and several members raised questions after the board received a letter dated July 7, 2026, that named a new entity, 4 James LLC (also referenced in discussion as Ivy/For James). Counsel said the letter prompted concerns about whether an indirect change of control had occurred for Bend Infrastructure LLC and whether that change would require the board's consent under the development agreement. A staff member advising the board summarized: the change-of-control provision applies to specific entities and, because some operating agreements for those affiliates do not exist or were not in the board packet, the board should have more time to review the new materials.
The board's motion approved the memorandum of right of first refusal as written — including the developer affiliates listed in the memorandum — and at the same time tabled the ownership-change request until the next meeting so attorneys can reconcile the ownership charts, operating agreements, and the language in the July 7 letter. A board member who moved to table said the board needed counsel's additional review given that several members had not seen the newly circulated documents before this meeting.
Counsel also reported a separate but related issue had been resolved on the guarantees: an earlier sentence about subordination was removed in a revised guarantee, and the document with that language removed was expected to be returned signed in the following days. The board recorded its decision to allow the memorandum to be recorded and instructed staff and counsel to provide clarifying ownership documentation and a final guarantee without the subordination sentence at the next meeting.
Next steps: the ownership-change request will return to the IDB for further review at the board's next scheduled meeting; staff and the board's counsel will circulate any revised operating agreements, ownership charts, and final guarantee language ahead of that meeting.
