Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Easement Acquisition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission considers $111,333 settlement to acquire permanent utility easements from DP 1; timing of payment and recording discussed
Summary
Daggett County commissioners discussed and moved to approve a settlement and mutual release with DP 1/Delta Plan LLC to acquire permanent utility easements, specifying a payment of $111,333.33 to be paid (via checks/wire) and recording of quick‑claim deeds and a stipulated dismissal with prejudice. Commissioners debated funding (RDA to pay, county to hold easement), payment mechanics and whether to wait for staff (Carrie) before issuing payment; the motion to approve was made and seconded but no recorded final vote appears in the transcript.
Get email alerts on the Easement Acquisition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Daggett County commissioners considered a settlement and mutual release with DP 1 and Delta Plan LLC to acquire permanent utility easements that will permit water, sewer and electrical lines (and room for future natural gas conduits). Staff described two recorded easements: a permanent 25‑foot utility easement (flexible location to accommodate existing infrastructure) and a permanent 40‑foot easement crossing back toward U.S. Highway 191/194; the easements will be recorded in the county's name as the operator of utilities.
Staff said the agreed settlement payment totals $111,333.33; the figure includes a $333.33 component noted during negotiation and was characterized as preferable to protracted litigation over valuation. Commissioners discussed that prior nearby projects affected comparable property values and that future development on the property may require system upgrades at the developer's expense. Staff explained the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) would pay the acquisition (consistent with its agreement to fund utility acquisition up to specified limits) and the recorded easements would be held by Daggett County as the system operator.
Commissioners discussed execution mechanics: the agreement calls for a stipulated dismissal with prejudice to be filed within 10 business days after payment. Staff advised that contract language specifies obligations trigger upon payment (the county's interpretation was that 'payment' is the date the check is issued, not the date of receipt) and that construction activities may commence once payment is issued. Because the staff member who normally approves payments (Carrie) was out of the office, commissioners proposed scheduling a special meeting to approve an open invoice register or wait until Carrie returned so the proper separation of duties and review could occur. Staff also noted the final payment might be made payable to a law firm "for the benefit" of the owners to simplify split ownership distributions; commissioners asked about tax consequences and asked staff to provide wire/check details for payment.
A commissioner moved to approve the settlement in the amount of $111,333.33 and another commissioner seconded the motion on the record. At the end of the transcript the commission was still clarifying administrative steps (who will cut the checks, whether the RDA will fund it and the timing of a special meeting); no final recorded vote was present in the transcript excerpt provided. The commission discussed holding a special meeting on Thursday to complete payment processing and record the closing documents if staff and the county auditor can prepare the required invoice register and wire/check information in time.
