Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press developer and legal on Steel National agreement, seek ITD clarity and CO conditions
Summary
Washington County commissioners reviewed the Steel National development agreement April 20, pressing for explicit timing and enforcement language on turn lanes, traffic studies and phased Certificates of Occupancy; the county attorney recommended adding firm deadlines or CO conditions and contacting the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for scheduling constraints.
Washington County commissioners spent a large portion of their April 20 meeting scrutinizing the proposed Steel National development agreement, focusing on who must complete traffic improvements and when.
Planning and Zoning Administrator Bridget Felmley outlined the agreement and said the developer plans phased construction. Commissioners sought clarity on whether required ingress/egress improvements and turn lanes tied to Highway 95 would have to be finished before businesses open. Commissioner Gordon Wilkerson said he wanted assurances that required work "be in place before the business starts," citing a prior local example where a required turn lane was not installed before a store opened.
Prosecuting Attorney True Pearce told the board a development agreement is a contract and the county can include timing provisions. "If that's what your agreement with them is, and that's what they agree to, then you absolutely can," Pearce said, while cautioning that the Idaho Transportation Department may control scheduling and permitting for highway work and could delay physical installation. Pearce recommended the board confirm ITD's role and timeline before locking in deadline language.
Commissioners discussed several enforcement options, including attaching completion requirements to Certificates of Occupancy (COs) so that phases cannot open until related obligations are met, requiring different due dates per obligation, or using performance bonds. Commissioner Nate Marvin suggested withholding COs until required improvements are finished. Felmley said the developer had applied to ITD for an approach and staff would contact ITD to assess timelines.
The board noted some agreement language already contemplates ITD involvement — including references to conducting studies "if and when the ITD requires" — but commissioners said that phrasing leaves open when studies and resulting work must occur. Pearce recommended specific, date-certain language or CO triggers for each obligation where feasible and suggested the board consider whether certain items must precede opening or may be scheduled during construction.
Commissioners did not sign the agreement at the meeting; they directed staff to follow up with legal and ITD, consider adding CO and timeline language, and place the item back on a future agenda.
