City offers $100,000 to stop lawsuit
*Correction and Update: Published in an earlier version of this article the story referred to three separate lawsuits against the city. A correction was submitted by City Manager Ben Reeves clarifying the lawsuit is one single suit involving the three separate parties.
In a special session held last Friday, Santaquin’s city council moved to offer a settlement of $100,000 to Keith Broadhead, Kenyon Farley, and Bill Ferguson in order to stop litigation currently halting the construction of a membrane bioreactor (MBR) sewer facility in Santaquin.
All three men were allegedly* part of a pending legal suit against Santaquin City. The suit, an election contest filed by Keith Broadhead, was dismissed over the weekend by Fourth District Court Judge Sam McVey at the request of attorneys from both sides.
Farley and Ferguson are long-time farmers in the town of Santaquin and own a large portion of orchard land on the north end of the city. Kenyon Farley Orchards, Valley View Orchards, and Ferguson Fruit Orchards are just a few of the orchards owned and operated by the two men and their families.
After two executive closed-door sessions, one last Wednesday and one on Friday afternoon, the city council passed a motion to offer a special settlement to cover the claims of the lawsuit.
The offer included $100,000 and the creation of an advisory committee if the plaintiffs would, in return, drop all pending lawsuits against the city regarding the MBR’s construction.
Language taken from the official council minutes when the motion was made suggests that the claims* of Farley and Ferguson were challenging the MBR’s construction in order to protect their fruit production. In the settlement offer, the city has determined that a special “advisory committee” be established to “mitigate adverse effects of the facility on the Global Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) Compliance.”
GLOBALG.A.P, a private sector body that sets voluntary agricultural production standards, was designed to “reassure consumers about how food is produced on the farm.” Several major retailers like McDonald’s and Walmart are members of GLOBALG.A.P that purchase produce based on the group’s production standards.
Some fear the MBR’s construction on the north side of town would affect the orchards in proximity of the facility and possibly have negative affects on the Orchards’ GLOBALG.A.P standings, which in turn could affect the orchards’ sales to GLOBALG.A.P retailers like Walmart.
The city’s offer to put together an advisory committee to work with local farmers is an attempt to address concerns regarding GLOBALG.A.P and the MBR facility.
A deadline to accept the offer was set for 12:00 p.m. On Wednesday, but City Manager Benjamin Reeves has said that the legal counsels of those in opposition (to the MBR) have asked for an extension of that deadline.
An emergency meeting of the city council was called by Santaquin Mayor James DeGraffenried to discuss the request for extension.
City officials could not speak on the record as to the reason for the exact terms of their settlement offer and discussion concerning the offer was conducted in the closed-door executive session.
More details as this story unfolds on inSantaquin News…
Update: After tonight’s executive session the council has not taken action regarding the extension of the deadline.
*Correction submitted by Keith Broadhead’s legal council warranted the inclusion of the word “alleged” in one sentence, and the replacement of the word “lawsuit” with the word “claims” in another sentence.
Facebook
Twitter
We, the citzens of Santaquin City must be lucky to have extra monies in this economy. Or maybe we just have been paying to much on our sewer bills. I find it hard to believe we have a $100,000. just sitting in the bank.
I agree Judy. Considering the Mayor’s past performance of awarding contracts to his cronies without the benefit of competitive bids, we must really have a lot of money!
It’s a shame that a sitting council member would be on the receiving end of a lawsuit against the city he is supposed to represent. I understand the concern of the farmers, but no finacial settlement should go to a member of the same council who is being sued. Pick a side and step away for Pete’s sake.
If I understand the money was offered to Kenyon Farley. It was offered to him because no longer will he be able to sell his fruit to Payson Fruit Growers. If the sewer facility is within one quarter of mile of a orchard.
I find it interesting that nobody has noticed the orchard that is in close proximity to the current sewer treatment facility. According to Global GAP, producing fruit within a quarter of a mile of a sewage treatment plant is a minor must requirement. To those that are not Global GAP savvy, a grower must comply with 90 percent of minor musts requirements. As a owner/operator of said orchard that currently markets all of the tart cherry crop grown on that orchard through our co-op Payson Fruit Growers, I disagree that Kenyon will no longer be able to sell his fruit through Payson Fruit Growers. However, Global GAP requirements continue to change. As a fruit growing industry, our hands are tied as to what new rules our customers (Walmart and others) require us comply with to market our product. I hope that what ever the city decides to do with their sewage, they will take into account all of the fruit growing industry.
It seems to me that if the city does anything that would put a fruit grower at odds with the minor musts requirements (or any other thing that would or could affect his business), that fruit grower would be damaged and entitled to some sort of compensation – whether or not he could still sell his fruit.
I fully agree with Loretta and would like to add that it should be a conflict of interest for any elected official to be able to sue the same city he was elected to help make decisions for. He should resign and if not, then there should be an investigation into why he was able to run for office knowing he was suing the city. For those who voted for him, I hope you understand his motivation know. ($$$) I own a business in Santaquin and know my tax dollars are going to pay off an individual like this.
James, this has been going on for some time!! Everyone new what side of the fence Mr. Broadhead was on when he was elected. And as far as anyone making money, wake up!!!
It cost over $80,000.oo so we the citizens could have the opertunity to vote on this issue! Plus the cost of this Law suit! Do you really think somebody is going to make a buck here??? Come on are you that nieve?? I dont know how long you have been in business here, but im sure you could learn alot of these great men. As for me, THANK YOU VERY MUCH for giving me the opertunity to VOTE! oh, Im sorry for the spelling too.
As for learning from these GREAT men, I don’t think so. Mr. Broadhead is teaching the next generation that it’s OK to run for office and once elected they shouldn’t be held to a higher standard and If you don’t agree or approve with whatever is being voted on, then its OK to sue. That is very unethical. He was voted in on promises to the people that he would stop the treatment plant where it was approved. He lost. Man up. Instead, he continued to sue. The city can’t continue, nor afford to pay the attorney fee’s, etc until it gets to court. So the city makes a settlement offer and guess what, Mr. Broadhead accepts. Now, if it wasn’t about the money, he would have dropped the suit and saved the city/citizens money. Instead, he takes the money and forgets about the promises he made to the very people that elected him, that he would stop the treatment plant in that location. If its not about the money, then Mr. Broadhead wouldn’t have accepted the money. It’s always about the money. Now, Mr. Broadhead has set a presidence for the town of Santaquin that if you don’t agree with them, sue and they will pay you off.
James, you need to read the latest article about this. Hopefully you will “man up” and apologize to Mr. Broadhead. It makes clear that he didn’t seek this settlement and isn’t after the money.
His name is mentioned as one of 3 who was suing. He in fact did take the money, weather to cover his attorney fees, etc. Who is going to pay the city’s attorney fees, etc? The citizens.
The citizens are the ones who lose. Meaning you too.
Apologize for voicing my opinion, don’t think so. That is my 1st amendment right.
Looks like James won’t “man up”!
Sorry for the misspelled words. I type to fast sometimes.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME !!#?£*!!!!!
This city council has lost it’s ever lovin mind. WOW shock and awe is all I can say. I’m even beyond words right now and anyone that knows me knows that’s hard to do.
If I can get this straight, we have a town that is proud of its orchards so the official policy is to attack the fruit farmers with sewage so they have to sue and be compensated for the damage to their orchards?
Or is this just a simple bribe? I really don’t understand this at all.
Then we can’t get a statement from the city council on this?
I guess I should have sued too. Maybe it’s not too late to get in on the action?
Was there a group of farmers that was going to sue the city if prop 1 and 2 did not pass? Or was that just a rumor? I agree with Loretta and James. Mr. Broadhead should drop his law suit.
It is interesting to me, that people can “read- into” an article whatever they like, completely miss the facts that the article presents, and come to their own conclusion. I would be personally embarrassed if I posted something and discredited someone’s character without the facts to backup my claims. First off; NO OFFER WAS EVER SOLICITED by, or in behalf of, those who filed the lawsuit to challenge the voting results recount on the MBR. The city council (in the absence of Mr. Broadhead) decided to make an offer of settlement to Keith Broadhead, Kenyon Farley and Bill Ferguson. This settlement was offered AFTER THE LAWSUIT HAD ALREADY BEEN DROPPED! As Zach mentioned in his post, the amount in the settlement will serve to put a dent in the expenses that were spent on legal fees to protect the fruit grower’s property and livelihood. NO ONE IS GETTING RICH ON THIS DEAL. To insinuate such a thing is an attack on a man’s character and makes me sick to my stomach. JAMES, you should be ashamed of yourself. It is an elected official’s responsibility to protect the interests of his/hers constituents. That includes ensuring that voting on an issue is done in accordance with our laws. That is something to applaud, not degrade. This is just another example of the hierarchy in our city’s government attacking an opposing opinion (or in this case an individual) with the most vile tactics available to them.
Thanks for the clarification Joe.
Not true. As for discrediting someones character without the facts, how do you know I don’t have all the facts? Mr. Broadhead should be ashamed for what he has done. Now, he is saying he didn’t accept the settlement and he dropped the law suit prior to the settlement offer. Not true. No one said anything about getting rich. It’s about being honest to yourself and the people that voted him in. A man’s character is what he portrays it to be and I haven’t “read-into” any articles. This information comes from facts. You might want to go to some of the city meetings and find out first hand who says what. You might have a different out look on things. And for the voting and re-counting, it was done lawfully. We as tax payers in this city, including you, are having to pay for the misrepresentation of this guy leading the people to think he is going to help the situation if he is elected as a city councilman. Now, OUR tax dollars are going to pay for his attorney fee’s, etc.
Thanks for stating the facts Joe
James, you are you sure you know the facts? I just came from council meeting , there was no money accepted by Mr.Broadhead, there was a auctioneer by the name of Reeves talking so fast everyone was shaking there head,and an apology and hand shake from the mayor. So James you should probly get your info somewhere besides your place of business,wherever that is!!
James. The TRUTH is that Mr. Broadhead did NOT except, nor did he ask for any money as a settlement. You didn’t even catch that FACT when I laid it out for you in my last post. And it appears as though going to city council meetings didn’t help you gather that little nugget of information either. The sad thing to see James, is that a citizen has to seek legal council to protect himself from the very city he lives in. What about HIS tax dollars that are used to pay the city attorney? Doesn’t seem fair does it?
James. You must be even slower on the uptake than I originally gave you credit for. The lawsuit was dropped. Keith Broadhead TOOK NO MONEY WHATSOEVER! You REALLY need to pay better attention. The 1st amendment gives you the right to speak freely. However, it does not give you freedom from the consequences your speech brings to you. You can say what you like, but eventually your lies will catch up to you. Then you’ll feel the weight of the words you choose. This post is probably wasted on you because it contains logic and truth. Two things that are without a doubt, far beyond your grasp.