Garfield County commissioners meet their lawyers on Skeleton Creek, a month after the appeals court reversed the county's win

The Board of Garfield County Commissioners met Tuesday morning in the courthouse basement in Enid with two closed sessions on its agenda, the first of them on the zoning lawsuit over the Skeleton Creek Energy Center that a state appeals court sent back to district court last month.

The agenda, posted by the county clerk's office for the 9 a.m. meeting at 114 W. Broadway, lists the session under Title 25, Section 307(B)(4) of the Oklahoma statutes, the provision that allows a public body to meet privately with its attorney about pending litigation. The case is CIV-2024-140 in Garfield County District Court.

What the record says

The agenda names the plaintiffs in full: 30 people, several of them also as trustees of family trusts, against Skeleton Creek Energy Center LLC, NextEra Energy Resources LLC, Enid City Manager Jerald Gibert and Mayor David Mason in their official capacities, the City of Enid, and the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County. Items 5 through 8 cover the session: a vote to convene, a vote to acknowledge the return to open session, and "discussion and possible action" on what was discussed.

Oklahoma Energy Today reported on Aug. 4 that the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals had reversed District Judge Tom Newby's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. According to that report, the opinion by Judge E. Bay Mitchell III, joined by Judges Prince and Swinton, found that the northern portion of the project sits inside the three-mile band around Enid's city limits that falls under the Garfield County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, and that a road maintenance agreement between the county and the developer "is a contract, not a legislative enactment" and cannot supersede zoning regulations. The case was remanded to district court for further proceedings, the outlet reported.

The second closed session, items 9 through 12, concerns Thomas and Sherry Cassody, as special administrators of the estate of Weston Cassody, against Sheriff Cory Rink and Brant Bishop, Case No. CIV-24-595-SLP in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The agenda describes both sessions in the same terms: public disclosure "would seriously impair the ability of the Board and its attorney to properly process and defend this litigation."

The open business that follows is routine in form. Items 22 through 27 are six letters of appointment to the Board of the Garfield County Fairgrounds Trust Authority: John Estill, Mark Sneary and Jeff Baker from District 2, and David Henneke, Keith Dillingham and Jerry Ott from District 3. Item 17 is the deed and transcript from a commissioner sale held Sept. 1. Items 18 through 21 set maximum monthly highway expenditures, including the County Bridge and Road Improvement and County Improvements for Roads and Bridges accounts. Item 16 amends Resolution 26-79, a contract between Amergis and the Garfield County Health Department; the same amendment appeared on the Aug. 31 agenda as item 10. Item 15 is the state and federal aid schedule for auditors for the fiscal year that ended June 30.

What it means for the county

Per the appeals court as reported by Oklahoma Energy Today, the northern part of the roughly 2,472-acre project was built in violation of county zoning, and the question of what follows from that returns to the district court. The county is a named defendant, so the board's session with counsel Tuesday is the county's first posted step since the ruling.

The fairgrounds appointments seat six of the trust's board members at once, three from each of two districts, according to the agenda.

What the record does not say

The agenda does not say whether the board will take any action after either closed session; "possible action" is the standard wording. The county's posted record does not include the appeals opinion, a remand date, or any filing since the ruling. The Amergis amendment appears on two consecutive agendas without a posted explanation. The commissioner sale of Sept. 1 is identified only by its deed and transcript; the property and price are not on the agenda.

What happens next

The board's posted meetings fall on Mondays at 9 a.m. in the Commissioners Meeting Room in the courthouse basement; Sept. 7 was Labor Day, and the agenda set this week's meeting for Tuesday. Minutes of Tuesday's meeting come back for approval at the next regular meeting, which by the board's pattern falls on Sept. 14. The district court docket for CIV-2024-140 is the record for what happens on remand.