Muller Parkway saga takes new turn

After a district court ruling rejecting an effort to prevent Douglas County from building Muller Lane Parkway, county officials said they plan to move forward with construction.

“The county is currently under contract for phase one of this important construction project and will proceed as planned,” according to a statement issued on Wednesday. “For those portions of the project that are within the floodplain or require review by FEMA, the county has, and will continue, to comply with FEMA requirements. The Muller Parkway extension will be a vital enhancement to the county’s transportation infrastructure, and we look forward to its completion.”

District Judge Tod Young denied a request for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit that would have prevented construction of the Parkway.

“Based on the court’s commentary at the hearing and other public meetings, we anticipated that this ruling would allow the county to proceed with Muller Parkway construction based on flawed plans that will indisputably harm surrounding property and Douglas County residents and first responders,” David Park said on Thursday. “While we are disappointed by the order, Park Ranch will continue to fight to enforce our rights under the law and the development agreement by vigorously pursuing our claims against Douglas County through the courts.”

On Monday, Park challenged the application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is required to build the second phase.

In a letter to the agency, Park is seeking an audit of Douglas County Floodplain Administrator Tom Dallaire, claiming he is “willfully refusing to enforce the local floodplain ordinance … that a floodplain development permit be obtained before the county constructs Muller Parkway.”

At issue is a 2019 development agreement between the Park family and the county that approved a 2,500-unit development in exchange for the right of way to build the Parkway.

Young found that while the agreement refers to improving drainage as a goal, it doesn’t discuss how that would be done.

The year after the development agreement was approved, Park sold the property that is proposed for Ashland Park. The agreement included allowing the developer to “divert water from subject property into adjacent Park Ranch Holdings property,” the judge observed.

The county permitted plans that would raise the Ashland Park segment of Muller Parkway so the road would act as a levee, diverting water onto Park Ranch lands, removing the project from the floodplain, according to the ruling.

Over the summer of 2023, Park exercised its option to build the Parkway.

“At this time, Park Ranch was aware that the county’s proposed plans included the diversion of certain floodwater to Park Ranch’s agricultural land and other land not intended for residential development,” Young wrote. “Moreover, Park Ranch was aware that the proposed plans showed some encroachment on Park Ranch’s property.”

Young said there’s a difference of opinion between the parties on what happened on Valentine’s Day when Park Ranch objected to the plans and turned the work back over to the county.

That’s when the county started revising the plans and bid out the road project, which occurred earlier this year.

“There is no provision of the development agreement relating to ‘this’ section of the parkway which gives Park Ranch the authority to demand prior written approval of the design criteria or design itself of the parkway,” Young wrote. “While there ‘may’ be a provision of that nature in the development agreement, the impact of such provision relates specifically to a different section of the parkway concerning Ashland Park.”

Young also denied a county request for a motion of summary judgment, pointing out that there are still factual questions at issue that would have to be resolved at trial, which is scheduled for April 2025.

Under the agreement the county has until December 2025 to complete two lanes.