
Decision delayed on condemnation proceedings along proposed power line route
Apr. 14—EPHRATA — Grant County Public Utility District commissioners will delay a decision on beginning condemnation proceedings for property along the route of a projected power line between Wanapum Dam and Quincy for six weeks. Commissioners voted to table a resolution that would've started the condemnation proceedings at the April 8 meeting, following testimony from residents along the proposed route.
John Rylaarsdam, one of the property owners, said in a later interview he told commissioners that from his perspective, the selection process was flawed and there have been additional problems with the process since.
"My main frustration is the fact that they have other options, and they're unwilling to look at those. That's extremely frustrating for me," he said.
The new line, known as Route 4b, will provide additional power from the dam to customers in the Quincy area, and PUD planners evaluated a number of options during the selection process about two years ago. The route chosen crosses land that's mostly in crop production between Frenchman Hills Road and George.
The PUD is in negotiations with property owners along the route for easements for the power lines and access to them. Utility district employees requested permission from commissioners to start condemnation proceedings for properties where landowners have refused access to determine where poles might be placed.
Commission Chair Terry Pyle said commissioners don't want to vote on a condemnation resolution, according to a PUD press release on the meeting. The vote originally was scheduled for late April. The six-week delay will push it to May 27.
Rylaarsdam said he thought he and his neighbors received inadequate notice about the selection process.
"There were four choices then, and 4b wasn't even an original choice," he said. "That was kind of an add-on (to the original options), and they made that decision very late in the game. We were all unaware of it until after they had already made the decision."
In a letter issued in February, commissioners said the PUD had provided what they considered adequate notice throughout the selection process.
The easements will take about 4.4 acres of his property, Rylaarsdam said, and the PUD offer is about $20,400. Rylaarsdam said PUD policy limits the payment to about 20-25% of the property value for an easement. He thought that was inadequate, he said, given the terms of the proposed easement.
"Also, in their documentation in the contract, it frees them from any indemnification. If something happens there, they're indemnified from it," he said.
In their February letter, commissioners said the PUD is willing to work with landowners to reduce the intrusion as much as possible. Pyle said during the meeting that it's difficult to proceed until PUD officials have the information they need to determine the actual placement of power poles, which requires access to the proposed route.
"Without understanding where the poles go, we have nothing to talk about," he said. "It's not going to do us any good to negotiate an easement without having an idea where those poles are."
Commissioners will talk about the power line and the options at a workshop at 1 p.m. May 20 at the PUD headquarters, 30 C St. SW, Ephrata.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge sides with city of Austin in lawsuit involving former American-Statesman site
A judge this week ruled in favor of the city of Austin in a case involving the former American-Statesman site just south of downtown along Lady Bird Lake. The ruling denied a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental watchdog group. The lawsuit alleged that the Austin City Council violated key provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act in 2022 when it approved a special type of zoning known as a planned unit development, or PUD, for the former Statesman site. The lawsuit sought to void the council's Dec. 2, 2022 vote to approve the PUD, based on the alleged open meetings violations. The Statesman moved several years ago from the site at 305 S. Congress Ave. to a new location near the airport. In arguing their case before District Judge Jan Soifer on May 15, Save Our Springs attorneys Bobby Levinski and Bill Bunch contended that the council granted the PUD zoning in violation of two key mandates of the Texas Open Meetings Act: proper public notice, and a reasonable opportunity for the public to speak before the vote was taken. Levinski said today that the Save Our Springs Alliance might appeal the ruling. "Given the importance of this case for governmental transparency and proper enforcement of the Texas Open Meetings Act, we'll be evaluating our options for appeal," Levinski said. "This case ultimately impacts the ability of residents to weigh in on important matters that affect their community, including the relocation of the Hike and Bike Trail and removal of the natural, tree-lined aesthetic of the Lady Bird Lake shoreline. Every case has its challenges, and we may need to work on it a little longer to ultimately prevail." More: Lawsuit seeks to halt planned redevelopment of former Statesman site on Lady Bird Lake Casey Dobson and Sara Wilder Clark represented the landowner, the Cox family of Atlanta, along with Austin-based Endeavor Real Estate Group. The Cox family hired Endeavor several years ago to create plans to redevelop the prime waterfront site. The site formerly housed the newspaper offices and printing plant. Cox sold the Statesman but retained ownership of the 18.9-acre site, a property many developers had long coveted and said was ripe for new development. Dobson did not immediately respond to an email for comment about the ruling and what it means for future plans to transform the property into a mixed-use project with high-rise buildings and other uses, which could include housing, office and retail development. Richard Suttle Jr., an Austin attorney and the spokesperson for the planned redevelopment, said he hasn't seen a final judgment yet in the case, so couldn't comment on what it might mean for the future planned redevelopment. Dan Richards represented the city in the lawsuit. Richards said Soifer's ruling, signed Monday, means "the trial court case is basically over." At last month's hearing, Richards told Soifer that voiding the PUD could jeopardize the developer's ability, in the current economic climate, to secure a new amendment offering the same level of community benefits — such as 6.5 acres of green space — at the site. At the same hearing, Dobson and Wilder Clark said the PUD zoning change was properly noticed, and the public was given sufficient opportunity to speak at nine different meetings. However, Levinski said that, while the PUD was listed on the council agenda as a zoning item, that posting was misleading because it failed to provide "full disclosure of the subjects to be discussed." The proposed PUD ordinance encompassed "numerous provisions that extend well beyond traditional zoning regulations," Levinski told Soifer. Those included "sweeping changes" to environmental protections and other city land-use codes, including a failure to disclose height limits, setbacks and the elimination of two restrictive covenants. "There are so many different parts of this (PUD) ordinance that are not zoning, yet it was sold to public as a rezoning," Levinski said. The zoning changes included modifications to the Lady Bird Lake shoreline; the relocation of the Ann and Roy Butler Hike and Bike Trail inland away from the lake; the removal of more than 90 mature trees; code waivers; and "amendments to almost every chapter of Austin's land development code," Levinski told Soifer. In arguing their case before Soifer, Leviniski and Bunch said that the Texas Open Meetings Act requires a public notice identifying these major changes to city standards and a public 'right to speak' on them before council granted the approvals. The Cox owners and Endeavor have the right to build high-rises — up to 725 feet tall — within 140 feet of Lady Bird Lake. The development would be "forever exempt from a plethora of water quality, parkland and lakeshore rules and regulations," according to the Save Our Springs Alliance. "The key here is the Statesman PUD went beyond zoning," Levinski said. "This didn't give sufficient notice to the public to say what is occurring with this zoning." Among other issues, he said the PUD included "non-zoning provisions, including items the council doesn't have authority over." There was a way the city could have described with greater detail what was occurring with the zoning case, "but they chose not to, and it's deceptive that they chose not to," Levinski said. The level of specificity "gets enhanced" when the issue involves matters of "significant public interest," Levinski said. "It's not enough to rely on the assumption that the general public may have knowledge of the subject matter." Dobson and Wilder Clark, however, told Soifer that the public notices complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act. The notices properly and adequately disclosed the subject of the PUD at various meetings on the council's printed public agenda, Dobson and Wilder Clark said. Moreover, all the details that Save Our Springs claims were lacking from the notice were available at "the click of a link" in backup materials on the council's online agenda, Wilder Clark said. "Not only did (the public) get to talk in meetings, but they got to submit written testimony," Wilder Clark said. She also noted that the council postponed meetings on the case. Showing slides of newspaper articles, Dobson said the proposed redevelopment of the Statesman site was front-page news. He said the case was "noticed out of the wazoo." "(Opponents) think this was done in the dark of night, with adequate notice to nobody," Dobson said. "In fact, the polar opposite happened." Dobson said no special notice was required, and opponents "didn't need it. They wrote letters, they spoke at length to (the city) Planning Commission and City Council. This did not take place under the shroud of secrecy," Dobson said. Countering the city's arguments, Bunch said the city "invented out of whole cloth" its position that it upheld the open meetings act, saying "there's no support for that in the entire body of open meetings cases." Early in the hearing, Dobson showed a photo of the current Statesman site "in all its glory," showing a low-slung building surrounded by a near vacant parking lot with lots of asphalt and concrete. Attorneys for the city and the developer stated that "virtually no one" opposes the proposed development, which may include condominiums, apartments, a hotel, office space and retail areas. Noting the site's popularity as a prime location for viewing the famed bat colony under the Ann Richards Congress Avenue Bridge, they emphasized the new development will enhance the bat viewing area. Additionally, they said the project has the support of bat conservation groups. Last year, the Save Our Springs Alliance won a lawsuit contesting the city's creation of a special financing district, a so-called tax increment reinvestment zone, to fund infrastructure improvements within the proposed Statesman redevelopment project. A judge ruled that financing method unlawful. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Judge rules for city in case involving former Statesman site
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge sides with city of Austin in Statesman PUD case
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A Travis County Civil Court judge sided with the city of Austin, potentially moving forward the Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the former Austin-American Statesman property. According to an attorney for the Save Our Springs Alliance (SOS), the judge 'did not provide a reason' for the ruling against the organization. The PUD was approved in 2022 for a development that would include a 275-room high-rise hotel, six towers of residential units and office space. From 2022: Some concerned about required park space in Statesman PUD conversation According to the city, PUD zoning is meant 'to preserve the natural environment, encourage high quality development and innovative design, and ensure adequate public facilities and services' and 'must be superior to the development that would occur under conventional zoning and subdivision regulations.' However, PUD zoning also 'provides greater design flexibility by permitting modifications of site development regulations.' The lawsuit that was rejected in court Tuesday claimed that Austin City Council violated the Texas Open meetings Act and the Austin City Charter when it approved the PUD for 18.86 acres along the south shore of lady Bird lake. SOS claimed that the city did not provide adequate public notice regarding 'major changes to City standards.' The attorney for SOS told KXAN they are 'considering options for appeal.' KXAN has reached out to the city of Austin for its response to the ruling. We will update this article if a statement is received. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Yahoo
Applications sought for Grant County Prosecutor
May 27—EPHRATA — Applications are being accepted through June 13 from qualified attorneys for the job of Grant County Prosecutor. Incumbent Kevin McCrae announced his resignation effective Aug. 3. In his resignation letter sent to the Grant County Commissioners, McCrae said he had decided not to run for reelection in 2026. "Due to some family issues, along with another opportunity, I feel it best to part ways with the (prosecutor's office) this summer, rather than next year," McCrae wrote in his resignation letter. The prosecutor is a partisan office, and McCrae ran as a Republican. Because of that, the Grant County Republican Party will conduct the initial applicant reviews. "We were notified that he had resigned," said Republican Party Central Committee Chair Andrew Koeppen. "Once he resigns, the Grant County Republican Party — or if he was a Democrat, it would be the Democratic Party — will have to come up with three recommendations to fill his position." Names of the three finalists are sent to the Grant County Commissioners. "(The commissioners) ultimately have the final say on which one they will choose," Koeppen said. There are qualifications for the job. "They have to fulfill the same qualifications as if they were running for the prosecutor's office," Koeppen said. That includes having a license to practice law in Washington. Applicants must include a resume detailing their professional experience and education, a cover letter explaining their interest in the job, and at least five professional references. Applications must be emailed to chair@ Applicants will be interviewed July 12. "We want to get it to the county commissioners as soon as legally possible," he said. Interviews will be conducted in open session, but no public comment will be accepted, Koeppen said. Commissioner Cindy Carter said the finalists will go through a separate interview process with the commission. "The interviews are open to the public," she said. Commissioners can discuss the candidates in executive session, but the vote will be in a public session, she said. Koeppen said he wants the selection process to be as open and transparent as possible. "This is an extremely important position. The prosecutor's office sets the tone for law enforcement here in Grant County, and we want to make sure the process is done in such a way that the community, law enforcement and every prosecutor that will work under (the new prosecutor) has full confidence this process was done openly, fairly and transparently," Koeppen said. Moses Lake Police Chief David Sands said other qualities should be considered in a new prosecutor. "I think the biggest thing for us, and I would think all law enforcement, is a good partner, someone that wants to work with us and do the right things," Sands said. "Keep the citizens of Grant County safe."