McPherson County hires Yankton attorney to prepare discovery responses in Summit Carbon matter

The McPherson County Board of Commissioners voted to retain attorney Nick Moser to prepare discovery responses in the legal matter involving Summit Carbon Solutions, approving a $1,000 flat fee for interrogatories and authorizing additional work at $200 per hour.

The action, moved by Jeff and seconded by Mike, passed in a roll-call vote with commissioners Neuhart, Mike, Sid O'Hara and Mark Tomlin recorded as voting aye; the motion carried.

The hiring follows the county's decision to avoid a conflict related to an earlier selection of counsel after Commissioner Austin recused himself. Chairman Sid O'Hara said the county had initially considered other attorneys and that one suggested Moser; the county then sought to put Moser on retainer to avoid perceived conflicts. "If you would just put Nick on retainer, that would solve the problem," O'Hara said, describing the sequence that led to the request to retain Moser.

Moser, who identified his firm as based in Yankton, South Dakota, told the board he expects discovery will trigger objections and a dispute with Summit Carbon Solutions and recommended preparing responses by the deadline the county received, which he said had an extension to March 28. "My goal is, for at least the discovery phase, is we've got until that March 28," Moser said. He advised the commissioners that much of the discovery work would be similar across neighboring townships and suggested sharing the work as "good fiscal sense." Moser also said he would charge $200 per hour for work beyond preparing the interrogatory responses.

Commissioners asked that staff designate a single point of contact to coordinate with Moser; he said he preferred to correspond with a county-designated person. Chairman O'Hara specifically asked whether Moser would work with the county's zoning liaison, Mr. Neuhart, and Moser said he would communicate with whoever the county designates.

The board and members of the public also raised questions about public access to emails and the scope of attorney-client privilege. Moser cautioned that communications that the county intends to keep subject to attorney-client privilege should be limited to him and the designated county contact. "My only goal is that I preserve for you your attorney client privilege," he said, noting that general public emails about the matter are public records.

During public comment, residents asked whether the county had voted on whether it supports the Summit pipeline and how the county's ordinances affect permit decisions. Commissioners emphasized the county's stance is to require that any company follow local ordinances rather than to preemptively prohibit projects. A commissioner said the county's pipeline ordinance was adopted in 2023 and that the county's position is to enforce that ordinance if permits are sought.

The board approved the retainer structure to limit immediate expense on the discovery response while allowing for additional representation if the county decides to intervene more fully in the related Public Utilities Commission (PUC) proceedings.

Next steps the commissioners described included designating a point person for Moser to correspond with, preparing initial discovery responses timed to the March 28 deadline, and returning to the board if more extensive intervention is required.