Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Golf Course Lighting Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates $3,000 settlement with neighbors over golf-range lights after months of complaints
Summary
City attorney presented a settlement to reimburse $3,000 in attorney fees to neighbors who sued over driving-range lighting and to implement engineering fixes; the proposal drew sharp objections from some council members who said the city had behaved badly and should fully cover residents' costs.
City attorney Nathan Williams presented a proposed settlement resolving a lawsuit filed by Joseph and Karen Flynn over lighting installed at the city's golf course driving bay. Williams said the city had already contracted Wright Engineering to study the lights and had been implementing recommended shielding and settings; the Flynn lawsuit sought compliance and attorney fees.
Williams described the settlement as a practical resolution. He said the Flynn family requested reimbursement of past attorney fees (initially about $7,000 as represented to council; parties negotiated down to $3,000) and asked for a written report documenting the work. Williams told the council settling the case would provide "clarity, certainty and finality" and that continuing litigation would likely cost the city far more than the negotiated fee payment.
Several council members expressed strong views. One council member urged rejecting the settlement and paying the full legal fees, calling the situation an instance of government behaving badly and arguing the city had been slow to respond to the neighbors' complaints. Other members thanked staff and golf-course employees for their work to implement shielding and improvements and cautioned against conflating unrelated complaints with the Flynn matter.
Council members asked for a timeline of when the initial complaint and subsequent responses occurred; staff said the notice of claim and light study began in late summer/early fall and that implementation work and follow-up inspections occurred over subsequent months. Staff also confirmed the settlement includes a clause preventing the plaintiffs from re-litigating the same claims.
What happens next: staff will place the settlement on the council's Thursday agenda for a formal vote. The working-session discussion did not produce a final vote; council members signaled differing positions ahead of the formal meeting.
