Douglas County amends eminent-domain takings to finish Mueller Parkway; Park Ranch objects

The Douglas County Board of County Commissioners on Nov. 20 approved an amended resolution (2025 R-043A) that expands the legal descriptions and proposed takings tied to the Mueller Parkway project to include additional right-of-way and drainage easements needed to complete two lanes of roadway.

County staff told the board the amendment clarifies meets-and-bounds descriptions the court found insufficient earlier this year and adjusts acreage totals to reflect survey work and corrected flood-model interpretation. “The total estimated cost to acquire the property and the associated easements is approximately $635,000,” County Manager Jennifer Davidson said during the presentation.

Why it matters: the change affects a narrow strip of agricultural land owned by Park Ranch Holdings and adds roughly 3.54 acres of fee acquisition adjacent to the existing roadway alignment plus about 6.77 acres of nonexclusive drainage easements, according to staff. County engineers say the acquisitions are necessary because the constructed roadway, built partially above existing grade, will redirect flood flows in some 100-year events and that some areas meet the county’s code definition of an “adverse impact” (12 inches or more increase in base flood elevation).

What county officials said: Deputy District Attorney A.J. Hames and County Engineer Jeremy Hutchings told commissioners the amendments stem from a court hearing where judges and the landowner raised questions about the clarity and scope of the county’s initial eminent-domain filings. Hames summarized the situation as a legal and practical tension: the county has a 2019 development agreement with Park Ranch that obligates it to construct two lanes of Mueller Parkway within a set timeline; staff said delaying construction would not resolve the underlying technical issues and that full upstream flood infrastructure would cost an estimated $67 million.

What Park Ranch and its advisors said: Nicole Scott, counsel for Park Ranch Holdings, told the board staff materials “were replete with errors” and that the county’s original filing understated the area affected. Scott said acreage estimates increased from “just under 2 acres” in earlier filings to more than 10 acres in the amended complaint and argued the county’s appraisal substantially undervalues mitigation needs. Park Ranch’s consulting engineer, Rob Anderson, showed incremental flood-depth maps based on the county model and warned that even smaller-depth increases below the county’s 12-inch adverse-impact threshold could require costly mitigation and change development feasibility on Park Ranch property.

On compensation and legal process: Park Ranch urged the board to pause and negotiate; Scott said a high-level mitigation estimate to restore the property to pre-taking conditions could be in the millions and that the county’s appraisal did not reflect those costs. County counsel emphasized that the board’s vote was not a final determination of compensation — a court or future negotiations would determine fair market value — and framed the agenda item as clarifying the county’s legal descriptions so the eminent-domain litigation could proceed.

Public reaction: More than a dozen residents and experts spoke during extended public comment, with opinions split. Some urged the board to exercise caution and avoid setting a precedent for taking agricultural land; others supported completing the road as a regional transportation and safety improvement. Several speakers urged more transparent flood-mitigation planning and more information on projected downstream impacts.

Board action and next steps: Commissioner Tolbert moved to approve the amended resolution; Commissioner Tarkanian seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The board directed staff to continue negotiations with Park Ranch and to return with any further required clarifications to the court. The county also retains the option to pursue compensation through eminent-domain proceedings if voluntary agreement is not reached. The court previously gave the county until Nov. 30 to correct legal descriptions in the eminent-domain complaint.

What remains unresolved: Park Ranch continues to press inverse-condemnation claims and disputes the county’s modeling and appraisal methodology. County staff say some of the most extensive mitigation — upstream storage and regional projects — remain unfunded and would not be feasible without additional investment. The board’s approval clarifies the parcels the county seeks but does not finalize compensation or engineering mitigations.

The board adjourned after brief announcements and said staff would pursue negotiations and pursue additional technical review where needed. The amended resolution will be filed with the court as part of the ongoing eminent-domain proceeding.