Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Substation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richfield Council delays decision on state parcel sale to Rocky Mountain Power for substation
Summary
After technical presentations from Rocky Mountain Power and extended council discussion about wording and community impacts, Richfield council voted to table a resolution on the state sale of a remnant parcel for a new substation to allow staff and legal to reword the measure and gather more information.
Richfield's City Council on an unspecified December meeting night delayed action on a resolution related to the state's disposition of a remnant parcel being pursued by Rocky Mountain Power for construction of a new electrical substation.
City staff introduced the item as Resolution 20 26 - 1 and explained the parcel is a remnant tract the state sometimes offers to municipalities after highway projects. Tyson Barber, Rocky Mountain Power regional business manager, told the council the site was chosen because it lies within about a mile of an existing 138 kV transmission line, which reduces the need for new long transmission circuits and lowers overall cost compared with other candidate sites.
Council members pressed staff and the utility on technical and fiscal details, including redundancy for the town's circuits, estimated project cost ranges discussed by speakers (participants referenced figures from roughly $14 million to as much as $20–30 million when distribution and related work are included), and the timeline for property acquisition and construction. Several council members said they had received numerous constituent calls and wanted clearer language in the resolution so the city was not unintentionally committing to beyond a procedural first‑refusal decision.
A central point of contention was the resolution's wording. Some members said the council's clear intent was to register that the city "has no public use" for the parcel (allowing the state to proceed with a sale), while the draft resolution as read included language indicating support for Rocky Mountain Power's acquisition and construction — language several members said implied policy support beyond accepting the state's disposition process. Council members asked legal staff to redraft the paper to remove inadvertent policy commitments and to clarify downstream zoning or permitting implications.
Rather than adopt the version presented, a council member moved to table the resolution for two weeks to allow staff and the city attorney to revise the wording and return with additional technical and legal information. The motion to table was seconded and the council voted in favor; the item was continued to the next meeting.
The council did not take final action on the sale or on any zoning or permitting items related to the substation; Rocky Mountain Power representatives left with a request to provide clarifying technical documents and cost timelines for the council's review.
