Thursday, February 19, 2015

Town Of Oro Valley Opposes Stay --- Seeks $21.5 Million Bond

The Town Of Oro Valley filed its response to TOOTHINOV.ORG's request for a stay of the purchase of the El Conquistador Country Club.

The town requested the Arizona Appellate Court to deny the motion or limit to limit the stay to the final closing on the property "...but expressly permit the town to continue negotiations."

The town also requested that the plaintiffs post a $21.5 million bond to cover any damages that the town alleges it will occur "by the lost opportunity to purchase the El Conquistador Country Club."
"Just as the Town faces economic risks as a result of this litigation, so too must Arrett and Lamonna. However, unlike the Town, if Arrett and Lamonna prevail in the merits of the case, they will be refunded the entire amount of the bond. They are in a position to evaluate the strength of their appeal and whether it justifies their monetary investment. There is no reason to absolve them of this element of their participation."
"In short, time is of the essence to complete the deal. While the Town is unlikely to be able to close the sale before mid-March when this Court is anticipated to issue a ruling, the Town should not be barred from taking steps in furtherance of the purchase while this Court considers this case," the town asserts.

The filing includes an affidavit of truth from Town Manager Caton in which he asserts:
"Since the mid-1990's, the Town of Oro Valley has had the development of a community and recreation center as part of its long term plans. Cost estimates for Oro Valley to build a brand new community center with meeting facilities and a restaurant are approximately $20 million with an additional $7 million for bonding costs."
The town's filing also observes that a stay should not be granted because the lower court did not grant a stay.

Other town assertions include that there will be no irreparable damage to the plaintiffs if the purchase takes place and that the harm to the town from not proceeding is far more significant that harm to the plaintiffs.

No comments: