Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
River Fork Ranch development agreement postponed to June 9; developer warns of financial harm
Summary
A development agreement for River Fork Ranch was postponed to the board's June 9 meeting after county legal review was requested. The applicant's attorney and developer said the delay threatens seasonal construction, could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and jeopardizes crews and utility scheduling.
Amy Holmes, an attorney for Lake Fork Ranch, told the Valley County Board of Commissioners at a May 27 meeting that the county postponed a planned vote on a development agreement for the River Fork Ranch project and that the delay is causing harm to the applicant.
Holmes said the development agreement was negotiated with county staff and had been ready to come before the board; she asked the commissioners not to postpone the item for another two weeks because the delay harms the landowner. “This development agreement has been negotiated actually already, in September,” Holmes said, adding that the conditional use permit (CUP) for the project had been issued and that the applicant had complied with requirements.
Developer Dave Callister said the delay threatens the project timeline and finances. “We’ve already committed a million dollars in advance. We’ve hired crews to prepare for the season,” Callister told the board. He said the project must progress this construction season or the owner risks losing crews and scheduling with Idaho Power, and that a postponement could cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
County staff and the board said the item had to be held to allow legal counsel to finish review; the chair explained the next meeting is June 9 and that, because the agenda had already been adjusted earlier that day, the item could not be acted on until that meeting. The board made no final decision on the development agreement at the May 27 session.
Holmes described procedural history: the project had been before planning and zoning and the board multiple times over the previous months; she said neighbors filed a petition for judicial review and that the court stayed only the administrative record-gathering, not the effectiveness of the CUP. Holmes asked the commissioners to allow the parties to finalize the development agreement so the applicant could proceed with the project in this construction season.
The board did not vote; staff said the matter will be taken up at the June 9 meeting, and legal counsel will be involved in the intervening period.
