Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer, council discuss development agreement, water, well timing and park ownership for Inland Port project
Summary
Developers and councilmembers discussed a proposed development agreement for a new industrial/commercial area tied to the Inland Port Authority, including reimbursement for a water line, timing for drilling a well, park ownership/maintenance, private vs. public roads, power availability and other infrastructure concerns.
Developers and town officials discussed July 16 the terms of a proposed development agreement for a large industrial/commercial project tied to the Inland Port Authority and agreed to continue working through financing and timing before finalizing the agreement.
Cal (developer) told the council the developer had paid to extend a water line for the project and expected reimbursement from the Inland Port Authority, but Inland Port staff told the developer that reimbursement timetables remain uncertain and could take four to six months while banking and bonding details are finalized. The developer said Sam (a developer partner) declined to pay for a well and then transfer it to the town because of the up-front cost; councilmembers discussed whether the well could be drilled sooner if bonding or PID (public improvement district) financing covered the expense.
Town staff (Todd) and the developer agreed to draft contractual language that specifies timing and reimbursement conditions so the well and associated well house can be installed at a mutually acceptable time and reimbursed by the Inland Port or by bond proceeds. Councilmembers suggested setting a conservative timetable (for example five months) so expectations align with likely reimbursement timing.
The developer and council also discussed a proposed park and stormwater basin in the development. The developers said the park’s purpose is to provide an amenity for industrial users (for adults on breaks) and suggested the town could own the underlying ground while the association or developer maintain surface maintenance; town staff noted municipalities have limited tort immunity and that ownership affects liability and insurance costs. The parties discussed possible amenities (a pickleball or basketball court rather than a children’s playground), irrigation/stormwater constraints and the possibility of the town assuming maintenance if it is practical.
Other items covered included road ownership (developers preferred private roads until such time the town wanted to accept them; council wanted a provision that if the town requires dedication in the future it would pay fair market value or require roads meet town standards before acceptance), and power infrastructure (the developer said Rocky Mountain Power has pending work on a request and the developer is preparing for on-site generation and quiet enclosures for backup power to provide three-phase service if required). The parties agreed staff and the developer would return with development-agreement language addressing reimbursement, well timing, road dedication terms, park ownership and insurance/liability issues.
No formal council vote was taken to approve the development agreement at the July 16 meeting; staff and the developer said they will circulate draft agreement language to the planning commission and council for review.
