Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation Risk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners weigh litigation risks, potential bond and existing developer lawsuits as they consider challenging SB 686
Summary
Legal staff warned the board that filing to enjoin or challenge SB 686 could require posting a civil bond and would add exposure given four existing lawsuits against the county from developers; commissioners debated whether litigation is prudent.
County legal staff told commissioners that pursuing an injunction or constitutional challenge to SB 686 could require the county to post a civil bond and that litigation would add to the county’s existing legal exposure.
"There's a possibility of having to post a civil bond," the county attorney said when asked whether the county might be required to post bond when seeking an injunction. Another commissioner noted the county is already defending four separate developer lawsuits arising from project denials and cautioned against adding more fiscal risk without a clear legal strategy.
Commissioner (speaker 9) summarized the risk: the county is "being sued by 4 different developers currently from having denied projects," and those matters could expose taxpayer dollars if the county loses. Commissioners discussed the difference between filing a complaint and securing an emergency temporary injunction — which requires a court order and is not guaranteed — and sought a cost estimate and viability memo before authorizing any suit.
The board ultimately directed legal staff to consult outside counsel and provide an estimate of potential costs and bond exposure so the commission could make an informed decision.
