Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Ground Lease topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council recesses into closed session over proposed Pleasure Island ground leases for wind and solar projects; no action taken
Summary
Port Arthur City Council met in executive session Feb. 11 to receive legal advice and negotiate economic development terms for proposed ground leases on Pleasure Island for wind and solar projects involving Diligent Offshore Services LLC and other developers; the council took no action when it reconvened.
The Port Arthur City Council went into a closed executive session Feb. 11 to receive legal advice and discuss economic development negotiations related to proposed ground leases on Pleasure Island for wind and solar energy generation projects. The session included references to Diligent Offshore Services LLC, Cormorant/Clean Energy LLC, Entergy and a "Project Labrador" development concept.
The council’s presiding officer announced the meeting would proceed under sections of the Texas Government Code permitting executive sessions: Texas Government Code section 551.071 (consultation with attorney), section 551.074 (personnel evaluations), and section 551.087 (economic development negotiations). The presiding officer identified the ground-lease matter as a subject for discussion under 551.071 and 551.087 and described tracts on Pleasure Island totaling, as stated in the meeting, approximately "13.79 acres, 600 acres and 1,360.5 acres" for potential development, according to the public remarks recorded before the recess to closed session.
City staff said the topics discussed would be acted on in open session only if further action were required. After returning from the executive session at about 5:51 p.m., the council’s city attorney confirmed there were no action items to bring forward. "That's correct," the city attorney said when asked whether any items required action following the closed session.
The meeting record does not contain further details of the negotiations, specific lease terms, timeline for any public proposals or approvals, or commitments by the named developers. No votes were taken at the public reconvening and the council did not adopt or direct specific measures on the ground-lease items during the open portion of the meeting.
Because the substantive negotiations were discussed in executive session under statutory exceptions for legal advice and economic development negotiations, many negotiation details are not in the public record of the meeting. The council’s statement that any needed action would occur in open session leaves open the possibility of later public agenda items or votes should staff or developers present formal proposals.
