This past Tuesday, April 20, 2021, there was a calm, thoughtful and productive conversation about providing sewer to Rooney Valley. The best meeting in a long time. Counsel Timmons, who has dominated prior meetings was absent. The change was demonstrable.
Director Hanagan again expressed her position that the board should
1.) provide sewer service outside its boundary to the Rooney Valley developers and
2.) provide the sewer service through another IGA.
Director Hanagan also pressed the other board members to make a commitment at the meeting as to their position.
The remaining directors stated they would not make a commitment and had not made a decision yet. They wanted to hear from the public first.
And they did. The public expressed a preference not to provide service outside the boundary and move forward with the litigation. But, if the board decided to go ahead and provide service outside the district, the public expressed a preference to do it through an IGA.
Right now there are three ways to do it through an IGA:
1.). An IGA with Big Sky and set Big Sky up as the new sanitation district for Rooney Valley, similar to the May 8, 2018 IGA that was terminated.
2.) An IGA with each developer separately, similar to the Solterra arrangement.
3.) An IGA with Mt. Carbon, the sanitation district that was created to provide sanitation to the Rooney Valley developers (the Rooney Valley developers had to formally exclude themselves from Mt. Carbon before they could knock on Green Mountain’s door). Mt. Carbon is an established sanitation district already providing sewer service to the new Red Rocks Centre development that is currently under construction in Rooney Valley – immediately to the south of Cardel and CDN/Big Sky. The Mt. Carbon pipes already go into CDN/Big Sky.
Scott Gessler, the attorney hired by Counsel Timmons was present later in the meeting. He explained that he worked first for Counsel Timmons (she hired him) and second, for the the board.
He explained that there had already been “substantial discussion” with the plaintiffs about settlement.
Yet, the majority of the board has not reached a consensus or voted on a settlement position, never mind a settlement offer.
Hard to negotiate a settlement without talking to the client about it first. Having divided loyalty between working for Counsel Timmons and working for the client might explain why there have been substantial settlement discussions before the client is ready. And the fact that Ms. Timmons has been adverse to a majority of the board further complicates the dual loyalty conundrum.
Mr. Gessler assured the board repeatedly that he would “get with” Counsel Timmons to respond (again) to the board’s requests.
The board majority again stated they were going to use a decision tree, outlining the options to help them frame the discussion about what to do. They are meeting again Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 6:00 pm to begin that process.
Here is the agenda and board packet that contains two different decision trees:
Here are the two decision trees:
The board is moving forward.
They have heard from the community regarding the options. Do we want to provide service outside the district boundary. We don’t have to. If we do, should it be by Inclusion or an IGA. There are pros and cons each way. If an IGA, who will the IGA be with and what will be the terms.
The board has the framework to decide these questions and it appears will be making a decision soon based upon their assessment and best judgment about what is in the best interests of the district, defined by the board, not the Rooney Valley developers.
Then they can give direction to their legal counsel to begin the settlement negotiations, if any.
John Henderson
Although I am not comprehensively informed about all the details associated with Green Mountain Sanitation District negotiations with Rooney developers, I do have a concern based upon prior conduct of some of the developers in the valley. Those of you living in Soltera are likely be better informed than I, and I solicit your responses to this concern. Here is my initial issue and it is not one with a purely legal context. Do we think that, regardless of any type of agreement(s) that may be entered into with these developers, they will be willing to act in good faith to fulfill their obligations under any such agreements? You in Soltera have been living under agreements with developers. What have been your experiences with this? Some proponents of entering into legally enforceable agreements with developers think it may avoid further litigation. I am concerned, due to my skepticism about the potential credibility of these developers (or lack thereof) that it just provides another layer of legally entangling agreements that could (and possibly will) lead to more litigation (or threats thereof).
My personal opinion, as a corporate attorney of many years, is that you should not seek to enter into contractual obligations with any party that you can not trust to act in good faith under the terms of an such agreement(s). If you do this, you likely are just “buying more litigation” with all of its attendant consequences.
Although I am not comprehensively informed about all the details associated with Green Mountain Sanitation District negotiations with Rooney developers, I do have a concern based upon prior conduct of some of the developers in the valley. Those of you living in Soltera are likely be better informed than I, and I solicit your responses to this concern. Here is my initial issue and it is not one with a purely legal context. Do we think that, regardless of any type of agreement(s) that may be entered into with these developers, they will be willing to act in good faith to fulfill their obligations under any such agreements? You in Soltera have been living under agreements with developers. What have been your experiences with this? Some proponents of entering into legally enforceable agreements with developers think it may avoid further litigation. I am concerned, due to my skepticism about the potential credibility of these developers (or lack thereof) that it just provides another layer of legally entangling agreements that could (and possibly will) lead to more litigation (or threats thereof).
My personal opinion, as a corporate attorney of many years, is that you should not seek to enter into contractual obligations with any party that you can not trust to act in good faith under the terms of an such agreement(s). If you do this, you likely are just “buying more litigation” with all of its attendant consequences.