Council denies solar lease extension request

Politicians flip-flopping in their position on a specific issue is not at all uncommon. But a 180-degree reversal in the course of less than 20 minutes may be some kind of record.

That is exactly what happened when the city council voted on a requested lease option extension for a large plot of Eldorado Valley land slated for solar development.

Councilwoman Cokie Booth originally backed the request calling an additional 90 days, “no big deal.” But a few minutes later, after outgoing Councilman Matt Fox, in one of his final acts on the council, made a motion to grant the extension. Booth seconded the motion. But then after some discussion about the value of the land, she voted with all other members of the council other than Fox to deny the request, which failed on a 4-1 vote.

Acting City Manager Michael Mays opened this portion of the meeting with an explanation of the situation.

“On Jan. 1, 2021, the city entered into an option lease for 1,100 acres in the Eldorado Valley for solar and battery development with Boulder Flats Solar LLC. The option lease was expiring at the end of 2022, and the city agreed to an amended restated option lease through December 31st of 2024. Boulder Flats Solar requested an additional year extension and that’s the reason for consideration tonight. As you heard earlier this evening, they’ve amended that request from an additional year down to 90 days.”

Mays was referring to statements made during public comment that may have been lost to many observers as the first hour-plus of the meeting was almost exclusively residents speaking about the city’s lease law and other animal issues.

In explaining why staff was recommending that the request be denied, Mays said, “Respectfully, the developers had four years to develop the project. The developer has until Dec. 31, 2024, to exercise its option to lease and still has that right if they wish to develop the project. If the developer does not choose to exercise its option to lease by that time, staff believes it’s in the city’s best interest to go out to request for proposals for the 1,100 acres to yield the greatest value to the city and our residents. Accordingly, city staff recommends that the city council direct staff to not grant the extension.”

After it was established that the developer had been paying about $200,000 per year to the city, Booth said, “My thought on it is they’ve invested $800,000 in this land. I think in fairness, to be fair to all parties basically, is to give them their 90 days. I think if they can’t do it in 90 days, then you say go away and don’t come back. But I think giving them extra 90 days isn’t the end of the world and it to me it’s fair.”

At that point, discussion basically turned to land value and it was pointed out that land values had increased sharply in the past four years and that if the city went out with a new RFP process, they could probably get a higher lease rate for the land. It was also pointed out that the city had received multiple inquiries about that plot of land from other developers.

On the developers’ part, they pointed to issues with much higher interest rates as well as supply chain issues in getting the equipment needed to begin construction.

In discussion opposing the request, Councilwoman Sherri Jorgensen said, “So, I can see both sides of this. One of my concerns is that in good faith we extended two years. That does mean that it is four years ago that that land has been appraised and if I could buy a house that was at the cost it was four years ago, wouldn’t that be lovely. I mean I would love that.”