Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays preliminary-plat decision after heated debate over who must pay for power infrastructure
Summary
Councilors questioned whether a 2021 development agreement obligates the city to provide off-site transmission and a substation. A developer representative said a $9 million contract covers transmission and substation; the council voted to discuss litigation in closed session and continued the item to the Nov. 6 meeting for further staff review.
Unidentified Speaker 3 (Council member) asked what, if anything, in today's presentation differed from the Planning Commission hearing where staff and the commission had recommended denial. Unidentified Speaker 1 (City Attorney) said he had not heard new facts that changed the legal analysis.
Developers' representative Unidentified Speaker 7, who identified himself as a development attorney, told the council the developer had offered a substation site and presented a $9,000,000 contract to build transmission and a substation. He argued the development agreement's text and prior approvals (project approved in 2021) supported granting a preliminary plat so the developer could proceed with engineering and final plat work.
Council members probed whether the $9,000,000 estimate included distribution lines. Speaker 7 clarified the $9,000,000 covered transmission and the substation only; distribution work was described as the developer's responsibility and not part of that figure.
Several council members and staff discussed the risk that a developer might press the city toward eminent domain if easements were not available. Multiple speakers said the council did not want to exercise eminent domain. The City Attorney said he had not found case law that would allow a private developer to compel the city to pursue eminent domain, though a developer could allege breach of obligations.
During discussion, an attendee (councilroom participant) said the hard easements on most parcels appear to be completed and that the Tocqueville Enterprises and Plum-family parcels offered potential routing without eminent domain.
Unidentified Speaker 1 advised the council that the developer's statement that a denial would result in litigation met the legal standard for —reasonably imminent litigation,— allowing the council to consider a closed session on the matter. Unidentified Speaker 4 moved to go into a closed session to discuss litigation; the motion (mover identified in the meeting as Councilman Faucet, seconded by Councilman Ellerman) passed by voice vote.
After returning from closed session, the council discussed next steps and voted to continue the matter to the next council meeting to allow staff time to review the developer's recent submissions and redlines. Unidentified Speaker 3 moved (mover identified in the meeting as Councilman Preet) and the motion was seconded (Councilman Hershey). The council set the continuance for November 6 and voted unanimously to continue.
What's next: staff will review the developer's submissions and proposed amendments to the development agreement; the council will revisit the preliminary-plat request on Nov. 6. The council did not adopt new obligations or schedule eminent-domain action at this meeting.
