Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer and council discuss waterline reimbursement, well timing and park ownership for industrial development
Summary
Developers and town staff updated councilors July 16 on a proposed development agreement for an inland-port industrial area: the developer paid for a water line and expects reimbursement from the Inland Port Authority within months, but well financing, park ownership and road-dedication terms remain unresolved.
Representatives for a proposed industrial development briefed the Fairfield Town Council July 16 on progress toward a development agreement and outstanding infrastructure questions tied to the Inland Port Authority.
Cal, a development representative, told the council the developer had paid to install a water line and expects reimbursement from the Inland Port Authority but that the authority's financing plan was not finalized. "They're telling me... 4 to 6 months from now before we can get paid back," Cal said on the record. Councilmembers and the developer discussed alternatives to accelerate the well installation, including bonding or waiting until the PID/bonding process is in place.
Cal said a private party originally considered funding a well but declined because of cost; council and staff discussed structuring the development agreement so the well is drilled when financing is available and/or when reimbursement for the water line is received. Todd (town legal/planning) said he could draft contract language specifying reimbursement and timing options and that the council should discuss bonding and the Inland Port Authority's reimbursement schedule before final approval.
The developer also presented options for a small park or stormwater amenity that could include recreational features for workers (pickleball court or basketball) and retention for stormwater. Parties discussed ownership: the developer preferred the town own the underlying property while the association would handle day-to-day maintenance, or the town could accept ownership and maintenance. The council and developer discussed liability concerns: private ownership of a publicly accessible park could raise insurance costs; municipal ownership carries different liability rules.
Other items discussed included power availability (developer reported Rocky Mountain Power requests remained pending) and road ownership: a proposed south road could remain private until the additional half is built; the development agreement should include language giving the town the right to require dedication at fair market value or when improvements meet town standards.
No final council action was taken; staff were directed to continue drafting the development agreement with clear language on waterline reimbursement, well timing and road-dedication terms, and to consult with the Inland Port Authority and lenders about bonding and reimbursement timing.
