Victor Drops Its Driggs Lawsuit and Its Bid to Build Its Own Plant
The Victor City Council voted July 1 to drop its Driggs lawsuit and its bid for a plant of its own, both without prejudice, reopening shared-plant talks.
VICTOR — The Victor City Council voted July 1 to drop both its lawsuit against the City of Driggs and its petition to court-finance a wastewater plant of its own. Dropping the lawsuit clears the condition Driggs had set before it would reopen talks on a single plant for both cities. Both dismissals are without prejudice, so Victor keeps the right to refile.
Mayor Will Frohlich, who had backed the litigation, resigned effective July 1; Council President Stacy Hulsing is serving as acting mayor. The council took both actions at a 9 a.m. special meeting, its first since the resignation, and approved each one 3-0, with Councilor Emily Sustick absent.
The two filings had separate roots. Victor petitioned the court in January to finance a treatment plant of its own, after Driggs, exercising its discretion under the cities' service contract, notified Victor it would be cut from the Driggs plant effective January 1, 2029, according to a city staff report; without that connection, Victor would have been left without a sewer facility. The lawsuit, City of Victor v. City of Driggs, is a separate breach-of-contract case. What changed since is the plant itself: the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality rescinded its approval of a Driggs-only design, and Driggs is now drawing up one sized for both cities. A plant built for both leaves Victor no reason to finance its own, so the petition could go. The Driggs lawsuit was another matter.
On the petition, the July 1 vote approved the withdrawal and authorized counsel to file a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice "to preserve the City's legal position." That one is Victor's to drop on its own. Withdrawing it reflects that the city no longer expects to build a plant of its own soon; Victor is "not in a rush anymore," City Attorney Herb Heimerl told the council.
Dismissing City of Victor v. City of Driggs is not Victor's to do alone; a stipulated dismissal requires both cities. Driggs acted on a dismissal document at a June 30 budget meeting, out of a closed executive session, and Victor authorized the dismissal on July 1 on the terms that each city pays its own legal costs and that it is without prejudice. The final stipulation and its filing are left to the city's legal counsel. Driggs set its terms in closed session, and its dismissal document has not been made public.
Both moves are reversible and cheap. The lawsuit dismissal is without prejudice, Heimerl told the council, "meaning we could always refile it." The city is also not about to lose sewer service. Its agreement to send wastewater to Driggs runs through 2031, with two five-year extensions available at Victor's option. City staff put the fiscal impact of both actions at "minimal" and recommended no specific action, leaving the call to the council.
Dropping the Driggs lawsuit was the price of talks. Driggs would not discuss a shared plant, Heimerl told the council, "unless we remove the veil of this lawsuit." Victor's staff report describes the dismissal in the same terms, as a way "to explore a shared-facility option that could provide such long-term certainty."
The two votes end, for now, the legal phase of a wastewater dispute that had run through Victor's council for months and into court. The plan going forward is the one Driggs is already designing, a single plant to serve both cities.
What to watch: Whether Victor and Driggs open talks on sharing that plant, and whether the joint dismissal is entered by the court. The Victor City Council meets next on July 8.