Contact: Laurie Leone PH: 781-286-8110 FX: 781-286-8199 lleone@revere.

org October 29, 2002 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of the Mayor City of Revere 281 Broadway Revere, MA 02151

Inspector General Commends Citys Approach to Remarketing Surf Site In an October 15, 2002 Report, the Massachusetts Inspector General (IG) Gregory Sullivan commended the City of Revere for its approach to the remarketing of the Surf Site. The IG prepared the report in direct response to Mayor Ambrosinos request for the IG to review the City of Reveres 1997 disposition and its 2001 reacquisition of the Surf Site. Especially noted in the IGs Report was the Citys willingness to learn from the failed 1997 Surf Site disposition, which ended with the parcel undeveloped and muddled with easements granted by third parties. In May of this year, the city prepared a request for Proposals (RFP) for development of the 87,997 sq. ft. lot, known locally as the Surf Site. The site, located on the southern end of Revere Beach on Ocean Avenue, has long been hailed as prime real estate. The Mayor and his Administration worked hard to develop an RFP with the expectation of attracting the best possible development, consistent with the Citys long-term vision for development on Revere Beach. While the initial responses to the 2002 RFP were promising, with over twenty inquiries and three proposals submitted, no proposals have yet been able to meet the Citys development standards. Although some have criticized the Citys RFP< the Inspector Generals Report was complimentary, state To its credit, the City, in the recent 2002 Request for Proposals to dispose of the Surf Site, inserted objective standards to rate proposals received and allow for meaningful comparisons. The Mayor responded to criticism, stating, While it may appear to some that the City is too rigid in its requirements for developers interested in this site, it is imperative that we avoid the unfortunate results we realized in the wake of the 1997 Surf Site failure. It is better that development be delayed than to repeat the mistakes of the past or even worse, all the wrong kind of development just because it is the only offer on the table. In 1997, the City first attempted to market the Surf Site. Although the 1997 RFP was well intentioned, it generated only one proposal of $200,000, which the City accepted. Just over a year later, the new owners resold the parcel to a second developer for $2.842 million, resulting in a $2.642 million profit. There were no protections in place to allow the City to benefit from this resale. Further, parking easements now burdened the parcel. Again, the City had nothing in place to prohibit such easements.

-Page 1 of 2-

In 2001, the City regained ownership of the undeveloped parcel, now hindered by previously granted parking easements. The Ambrosino Administration moved forward to remarket the parcel and to pursue litigation to remove certain of the easements. Both efforts continue. With a steadfast objective to protect the City from repeating previous problems, Mayor Ambrosino included specific language in the 2002 RFP that would not only allow for effective evaluation of potential developers, but also would protect the City from past mistakes. The 2002 RFP, and the proposed Development Agreement forwarded to developers pursuant to that 2002 RFP, contained numerous protective components, including: 1. Stipulations that, if the property was transferred before final occupancy, the City would receive half the profits; 2. A strict time frame for project completion; 3. Restrictions that would prevent further encumbrances on the property; and, 4. Requirements for substantial cash deposits to discourage speculators and encourage timely development. Despite the frustrations resulting from a soft economy and withdrawal of some initial proposals, the Mayor remains committed to marketing the Surf Site and avoiding the mistakes which plagued previous development efforts. It is my firm belief, said Mayor Ambrosino, that the only way to ensure the most desirable development is to have in place and adhere to strict guidelines that will protect the Citys interest. If a developer fails to meet or otherwise disregards these guidelines, we have no choice but to reject the proposal. Otherwise, we risk repeating the sins of the past. ######

-Page 2 of 2-