Wabasha County agrees to meeting with Plainview and developer over denied access permit, counsel cautions against informal talks

WABASHA COUNTY, Minn. — County staff said they will meet with the City of Plainview and the developer of a parcel on County Road 4 after the developer’s access permit was denied, but county counsel and risk advisers urged limited direct communication because of a potential threat of litigation.

The issue surfaced during the county’s staff updates. A county staff member told commissioners that Plainview and the developer have requested a meeting involving “some of the commissioners and our county engineer” to discuss the denied access permit. The staff member said he had notified MCIT and that, based on past practice and counsel advice, the board typically avoids informal communications when litigation is threatened.

The staff member said MCIT “doesn't provide legal advice” but, from a preliminary review, viewed the matter as a land-use decision covered by its insurance. Commission comments reflected differing views about participation: Commissioner Springer said engineers could “get in the same room and discuss this and come to a resolution instead of this email back and forth stuff,” while another commissioner cautioned that attorneys prefer communications be channeled through counsel if litigation is possible.

The board directed staff to contact Plainview and set a meeting primarily to allow engineers to try to reach an agreement; the staff member told the board he would acknowledge the meeting request and arrange for engineers to meet. He said that if the engineers cannot reach an agreement, the developer would need to pursue a formal remedy.

No formal action or final decision about participation by particular commissioners was recorded at the meeting. The board’s discussion made clear that MCIT and county counsel would remain involved as appropriate, and that the county’s engineer has already issued a recommendation related to the permit.

The matter was discussed during the administrative update portion of the meeting, before public forum and public hearings. The county did not schedule a specific follow-up action beyond arranging the initial meeting; staff said subsequent steps would depend on whether the engineers reach agreement and on any formal appeal or litigation initiated by the developer.