Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Summit Pipeline Puc Counsel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McPherson County tables hiring of outside counsel for Summit pipeline PUC matter after conflict disclosed
Summary
Board members discussed a conflict of interest by a member with land tied to the Summit pipeline, reviewed options for outside counsel, and voted to delay any hiring until a joint meeting with a landowners' attorney next week.
McPherson County board members on a remote call on an unspecified date delayed hiring outside counsel to handle impending Public Utilities Commission (PUC) proceedings related to the Summit pipeline after a board member disclosed a financial conflict tied to family property.
Austin Hoffman, a board member, said his family farm has an easement and a signed setback waiver with Summit and that the pipeline route crosses his property. "Our farm certainly has a financial interest in that project," Hoffman said, adding that because he is an elected official with a financial interest, "I have a conflict of interest really with anything involving Summit." He told the board he had been served a set of interrogatories and requests for production and had supplied those documents to the commissioners.
The county discussed several attorney options. Hoffman said Josh Feiner, who has represented the county previously on Summit-related matters, cannot represent two counties on the same PUC proceedings but that an associate in Feiner’s office, Ryan Vogel, told Hoffman he would be willing to represent McPherson County. Hoffman relayed a fee figure from Ryan Vogel’s message: "$2.75 an hour." Hoffman said Brown County has retained external counsel on similar matters and that the volume of work for the PUC response would exceed what could be handled in-house by part-time county attorneys and staff.
Board member Sid reported contacting Brian Jordy, an attorney who represents landowners in the area, and said Jordy agreed to join the board for a Zoom meeting early next week so the board could speak with him together. After discussion, a motion to table hiring of additional counsel until the Zoom with Jordy passed. The board emphasized there are 15 days to reply to the interrogatories and agreed to schedule the meeting promptly.
Board members referenced how other local counties handled similar PUC work: Drew Denner of Brown County told the board his county put a law firm on retainer and has been billed on a case-by-case basis. Board members said they would use the planned Zoom with Jordy and a separate meeting with prospective county counsel to decide next steps.
The board did not take any formal hiring action at the call; members voted to defer the decision pending the attorney consultations. Hoffman said he would recuse himself from decisions on Summit-related matters because of his disclosed conflict.
Ending The board set up follow-up steps: arrange a joint Zoom with Brian Jordy and the county’s prospective attorneys early next week and revisit counsel retention and any formal responses to the PUC interrogatories at a subsequent meeting within the 15‑day window. No contract or retainer was approved during the call.
