Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges moratorium on ITC language, warns of eminent-domain risks seen in Georgia
Summary
A Peosta resident urged the council to pause work on ITC-related ordinance language that could grant long-term easements, citing recent eminent-domain cases in Georgia and asking for legal review; council said attorney comments were pending and no moratorium was adopted.
Corey LaGrange, a resident who identified his address to the council during public comment, urged Peosta leaders to pause and reconsider language in a proposed ITC ordinance that he said could effectively grant utilities long-term easement or eminent-domain-type authority.
"We’ve already seen the ITC has applied eminent domain right here in Dubuque County," LaGrange told the council, and he cited a high-profile project in Georgia where hundreds of properties were affected and some homeowners were facing condemnation or permanent easements. LaGrange urged the council to consider a moratorium on the ordinance while the city seeks clear legal answers: "Is this really what we want for this community — to offer somebody that’s worth billions of dollars 25 years of eminent domain to just come in and do what they want?" he asked.
Council members and staff said the city had already submitted comments to the utility and received the utility’s attorney response that day; staff said those comments would be forwarded to the city attorney for review. The mayor and staff said there was not an immediate need to declare a moratorium: staff noted the city already has a moratorium in place for data centers that covers some related concerns and that no ordinance has been approved that would immediately grant the authority LaGrange warned about.
Staff — and council — said they would have the attorney (Doug) review the utility’s response before any final action. "We had our questions in with him and went back to them," a staff member said. No formal moratorium or ordinance vote was taken; the council directed staff to continue the review process and report back.
Why it matters
LaGrange’s comments raise legal and property-rights concerns about long-term franchise or easement language in agreements with utilities. The city’s response — legal review before action — reflects a common municipal practice of seeking counsel input when potential eminent-domain or franchise issues arise.
Next steps
Staff will forward the utility and attorney comments to the city attorney for review and return recommendations to council at a future meeting or work session. LaGrange’s request for a moratorium was not adopted during the session.
