Higley board approves Salt River Project easement along Cooley property pending legal review

Higley Unified School District Governing Board · January 28, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Salt River Project requested an 8‑foot distribution easement on the south edge of Cooley school property; the board approved the easement subject to legal review of statutory notice and contract language, and SRP offered a one‑time payment of $26,500 plus closing costs.

The Higley Unified School District governing board approved a permanent 8‑foot distribution easement requested by Salt River Project (SRP) along the southern edge of Cooley school property, subject to legal review and specified contract language.

An SRP representative explained the easement would accommodate buried distribution facilities needed to meet growing electrical demand in the Southeast Valley; SRP said the facilities would be installed near the ADOT right‑of‑way and that the surface would generally remain usable. SRP offered a one‑time payment to the district of $26,500 and agreed to cover escrow and recording costs. SRP described its appraisal and pricing methodology as based on sales comps plus a commonly used 25% intensity‑of‑use factor for underground utility easements.

Board members asked whether the easement could limit future site planning (buildings, parking, landscaping), whether SRP’s internal appraisal was sufficient, and whether statutory notice requirements under ARS related to disposition of district property had been met. The SRP representative confirmed the easement is intended to be minimally intrusive and that minor shifts to Exhibit A are allowable for site conditions; the district counsel/staff and SRP agreed to work on clearer amendment language that would bring substantive changes back to the board.

Because board members sought confirmation about statutory notice and some contract language, the board approved the easement motion with the condition that the district's attorney complete legal review confirming authority and that any significant changes outside of Exhibit A return to the board. The transcript records the motion as carried (5‑0) after a brief vote‑portal glitch.

Board members emphasized protecting future site planning options and ensuring the district's legal compliance and prior notice requirements before recording the easement.