The Douglas County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday approved an amended resolution to clarify and expand the county’s eminent domain filing for the Mueller Parkway project, a move county staff said is necessary to complete two lanes of the planned roadway and preserve options for future drainage work.

The 5-0 vote (moved by Commissioner Tolbert, seconded by Commissioner Tarkanian) approved Resolution 2025 R-043a, which updates meets-and-bounds descriptions and increases the acreage and associated appraisal offers the county says it needs to acquire for road construction, fill slopes and nonexclusive drainage easements. County staff presented an appraisal-based estimate of roughly $635,000 to acquire approximately 3.54 acres of fee title and 6.77 acres of drainage easements tied to the project.

“Earlier this year in April, the board authorized the use of eminent domain for a legitimate public purpose — the Mueller Parkway Project,” County Manager Jennifer Davidson told the commission during the staff presentation. Davidson and county counsel framed the amended resolution as a technical and legal clarification the court requested during ongoing litigation and said it preserves the county’s ability to pursue a voluntary settlement with Park Ranch.

Deputy District Attorney A.J. Hames said the amendment responds to a court observation that the county’s original complaint did not clearly describe all of the parcels that could be impacted. Hames also reiterated the county’s position that the development agreement with Park Ranch required the county to build two lanes within a six-year timetable and that staff has sought access and negotiated in good faith.

Park Ranch’s legal team and technical consultants strongly disputed the county’s account of impacts and costs. Nicole Scott, counsel for Park Ranch, said staff materials contained “egregious errors” in April and that the revised filing nonetheless understates how much land and what mitigation will be necessary. “We’ve gone from just under 2 acres to approximately over 10 acres,” Scott said, challenging the county’s appraisal comparables and approach to mapping flooded areas.

Rob Anderson, a civil engineer retained by Park Ranch, told commissioners that county modeling of post-construction flood depths shows additional inundation that will reach areas intended for development under the Buckeye Farm specific plan. Anderson testified that even flows of a few inches can create practical problems for future yards, fences and lot usability and estimated the cost to fully mitigate many of the incremental impacts could be in the millions. Park Ranch’s presentation included a high-level mitigation estimate it said would approach $10 million to restore lands to pre-construction conditions in some scenarios.

Park Ranch owner David Park told the commission he had participated in mediations and, at one point, told staff he would consider selling a much larger parcel for $13 million; he said he declined the county’s earlier appraisal because it was far below his valuation. “I said $13,000,000,” Park said when recounting prior offers. He urged the board to continue negotiations rather than approving expanded takings.

The county’s staff and multiple commissioners reiterated that eminent domain is a last resort. Jeremy Hutchings, county engineer, described project status: Phase 1 (the roundabout near Buckeye) and parts of Phase 3 are substantially complete; Phase 2 is under construction but was delayed by FEMA permitting. Hutchings and staff explained why the county converted some temporary construction easements into permanent acquisitions — citing maintenance and access needs for shoulders, culverts and future improvements.

On flood thresholds, staff noted county code defines an “adverse impact” as a 12-inch or greater increase in base flood elevation in code language, while FEMA typically triggers studies at 12 inches and the county uses a 6-inch threshold for when to require a FEMA study. Commissioners asked for clarity about how those thresholds affect both legal takings and planning choices.

Public comment stretched for hours. Dozens of residents, engineers, former planning commissioners and other stakeholders offered testimony both for and against the county’s approach. Some residents urged approval to advance the road — citing traffic relief and obligations under the development agreement — while a number of nearby landowners, ranching neighbors and Park Ranch’s experts urged the board to pause, negotiate or require more mitigation and a larger compensation offer.

Commissioner remarks highlighted the tension between honoring the county’s contractual obligation to construct two lanes of Mueller Parkway and the clear distrust and contentious history between the county and Park Ranch. “We are not here today to revisit the decision to initiate eminent domain,” Commissioner Gardner said in remarks supporting the amendment; he added the board needed clearer legal descriptions to satisfy the court and protect taxpayers. Commissioner Rice said he opposed initiating eminent domain in April but supported the technical amendment now before the board because it does not itself authorize compensation — it clarifies legal descriptions and keeps negotiation open.

After discussion, the board voted unanimously to approve Resolution 2025 R-043a and directed staff to continue negotiations with Park Ranch’s representatives. The county emphasized that approval of the resolution does not fix final compensation amounts — those remain subject to negotiation, appraisal review and any judicial determination should the parties not reach a settlement.

The next procedural step is for county staff to file the amended complaint and legal descriptions with the court per the judge’s timing; staff also said they will continue negotiating with Park Ranch in parallel. A court hearing on the eminent domain action and Park Ranch’s inverse-condemnation claims remains pending.

What the resolution does: it authorizes staff to correct and expand the legal property descriptions in the county’s eminent domain complaint related to Mueller Parkway and to proceed with the acquisition process as described in Resolution 2025 R-043a. It does not itself set a final compensation amount or direct immediate physical use of the land beyond enabling legal acquisition and settlement negotiations.

The full project and litigation remain active. County staff said regional flood infrastructure — including upstream storage projects identified in county planning materials — would substantially reduce long-term flood risk but would cost tens of millions of dollars and are not currently funded. The board scheduled follow-up steps and closed the agenda item before moving on to routine announcements and adjournment.