Victor Rescinds Evans Wastewater Land

VICTOR. The Victor City Council rescinded the Evans wastewater land deal at a special meeting, repealed the January annexation, and adopted an ordinance to exclude the parcel from the city limits. The City Attorney's April 29 staff report says the city and the seller "have agreed in principle to terminate" the contract; the rescission agreement includes de-annexation as a term. The council voted unanimously.

The action settles the April 30 closing deadline for the Evans wastewater land and moots the pending court challenge to the January annexation. It does not settle the two other matters that govern whether Victor's $35 million wastewater facility moves forward: a breach-of-contract suit against the City of Driggs and a pending judicial-confirmation hearing on the city's authority to borrow.

A challenge to the annexation

Kirchner Farmhouse LLC and a group of neighbors sued the city in March (CV41-26-0091), seeking to set aside the January 14 annexation. An amended petition filed April 9 catalogs the procedural grounds.

The petition alleges the city skipped a Property Development Plan that Victor's municipal code (Chapter 13.1) requires before any annexation or rezone, including the grading plan and traffic impact analysis the chapter mandates. It alleges the council made no findings on the three approval criteria in Victor Code 14.7.14.B: that service providers can serve the new development, that traffic can be accommodated, and that natural resources will not be harmed. It alleges that the rezone of the eastern 40 acres failed to meet the nine criteria in Code 14.7.12.B, including conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, which designates the parcel as Open Space.

It alleges the city did not amend its Comprehensive Plan as required by Idaho Code § 67-6525, did not assess the zone change's effect on service delivery as required by Idaho Code § 67-6511(a), including impact on Teton School District 401, and did not produce a reasoned statement meeting the standards in Idaho Code § 67-6535. It alleges the city's classification of annexation as a quasi-judicial process, which barred public contact with councilors outside formal hearings, conflicts with Idaho case law holding that annexations are legislative acts.

Ashley Coletti joined as a plaintiff in April, using documents from a separate public-records dispute, the council addressed on April 22.

Curing the deficiencies identified in the petition would require commissioning engineering studies, traffic modeling, environmental analyses, and service-capacity assessments before re-annexing the parcel. That is substantial pre-work the city has not committed to undertake while the court calendar remains open.

A borrowing authority not yet confirmed

Victor's path to financing the $35 million plant runs through the Idaho Judicial Confirmation Law, Idaho Code § 7-1304, which requires a state district court to confirm by judgment that proposed revenue-pledged debt is an "ordinary and necessary expense" of the city. The city's petition (CV41-26-0046) is before Judge Steven Boyce, who opened the hearing in April 2025. A motion for reconsideration is set for May 19, and the three-day confirmation hearing is scheduled September 9-11. Until the court confirms, the city has no authorized borrowing instrument for the plant.

A breach-of-contract suit against Driggs

City of Victor v. City of Driggs (CV41-26-0062), the breach-of-contract suit Victor filed March 5 and ratified April 22, has a motion for change of venue set for May 29 before Judge Clark. Mediation between the two cities is paused.

A memo from Sunrise Engineering's Robert Worley to the council on April 10 projected that a one-year delay could cost Victor more than $2 million at 6 percent construction inflation, applied to a roughly $33 million construction baseline.

What the agenda does

The April 30 agenda lists three action items: mutual rescission of the purchase and sale agreement with Paul and Theone Evans, repeal of the January annexation and initial zoning, and adoption of Ordinance O652, "An Ordinance of the City of Victor Excluding Certain Lands (De-annexing) from the City of Victor." The meeting opens with an executive session under Idaho Code 74-206(1)(c) and (f), covering real-property acquisition and communication with legal counsel.

Ordinance O652 invokes Idaho Code § 50-225, the state's exclusion-of-territory statute, to remove 80.81 acres in Government Lots 3 and 4 of Section 2, Township 3 North, Range 45 East, from the city's corporate limits. The ordinance recites that the Evans wastewater land is not under an active development permit, has not been platted or filed for subdivision, and is not served by city roads, water, or sewer. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of the ordinance with the Teton County Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor.

Two staff reports for the meeting, both dated April 29 and presented by City Attorney Herb Heimerl, describe the rescission as an authorization step for an agreement the parties have already reached. The first notes that "the City and the seller have agreed in principle to terminate the PSA" and that mutual rescission "would release both parties from remaining contractual obligations and return each to their pre-contract positions." The original Purchase and Sale Agreement was executed on August 29, 2025; the council approved a First Amendment on March 25, 2026.

The second report covers the repeal of the council's January 14 approval of Application LU2025-10, which was adopted as Ordinance O645. "The mutual rescission agreement for the Evans property includes de-annexation, and repeal of the January 14 action is consistent with the implementation of that agreement," it reads.

From the April 22 authorization to the April 30 rescission

Today's rescission unwinds an authorization the council approved eight days earlier. Paul Evans, the seller, declined to close while the litigation around the parcel and the city's borrowing authority remained unresolved. On April 22, councilors voted 3-1 to amend the fiscal 2026 appropriations ordinance by $2,625,366 and authorize Treasurer Jasmine Griffin to disburse $1,984,035.25 to Flying S Title and Escrow. Sue Muncaster, Emily Sustick, and Stacy Hulsing voted yes; Amy Ross dissented; Mayor Will Frohlich was absent. The contract did not close.

Today's vote does not put Victor back in partnership with Driggs. Driggs has set a precondition that Victor waive its claims, which the city has not done. Our analysis of the April 22 deliberation explained why "going back" remains closed.

What happens next depends on the courts. Each option carries a cost. Re-annexing the Evans parcel on a record that withstands the same procedural challenges would require commissioning millions in engineering and planning, with the petition flagged as missing. Returning to Driggs means dropping the lawsuit and going back into a plant Driggs is designing without Victor.

Driggs has its own exposure. The audit jointly commissioned by both cities found Driggs overcharged Victor under a cost-allocation method the inter-city agreement does not authorize. The likeliest recovery in Victor v. Driggs is a judgment in the millions; a settlement that returns Victor to the Driggs plant is the longer shot. Driggs faces its own deadline: the January 2025 EPA consent decree requires a rebuilt facility to be operational by December 15, 2028, and Victor's complaint alleges Driggs has already missed quarterly compliance milestones set by the decree.

That Driggs is proceeding with its rebuild without Victor strengthens Victor's judicial confirmation case. A city without a wastewater partner needs its own plant, the kind of "ordinary and necessary" expense the statute envisions. Victor's options don't truly materialize until that authority is secured, either through judicial confirmation or a bond election.

The Press Release

CITY OF VICTOR
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
City Administration
138 N. Main Street, Suite 201
Victor, ID 83455
(208) 787‑2940
[email protected]
Date: April 30, 2026

City of Victor Statement on Mutual Rescission of Evans Property Purchase Agreement

The City of Victor is providing clarification regarding the mutual rescission of the purchase and sale agreement for the Evans property.

After many months of cooperative discussions between the city and the Evans family, both parties ultimately agreed it was best not to proceed with closing. As the transaction approached its final stages, the environment around the project became increasingly contentious, and questions and allegations were raised from various outside parties. While the city was the subject of the legal challenges, the broader atmosphere inevitably affected everyone involved.

The specific personal considerations involved are private and belong solely to the property owners, and the city is committed to respecting that privacy. What matters for the public to understand is that the sellers expressed a desire to withdraw, and the city agreed that mutual rescission was the appropriate path.

It is important to be clear that this joint decision does not validate or confirm speculative claims that have been circulated. The city acted throughout in good faith and in reliance on the information and guidance available at each stage. The rescission reflects only that both parties chose not to continue under the circumstances as they evolved—not that any particular allegation had merit.

This outcome does not change the City’s responsibility to deliver a long‑term wastewater solution for Victor. The City remains subject to external deadlines and continues to move forward with that work.

The Evans parcel was one of several sites evaluated and was identified as a strong option based on engineering and siting criteria. Other viable locations remain under consideration, and the City will continue evaluating those alternatives within established legal and regulatory frameworks.

The City will provide additional updates as site evaluation progresses and remains committed to engaging the community as this critical project moves forward.

Update: This story was released before the unanimous vote happened, and was revised to reflect it. The press release was added.

What to watch

April 30, 2:30 p.m.: Special meeting, City Council Chambers, 138 N. Main Street, Suite 201. Vote on rescission, repeal of annexation, and Ordinance O652.
May 19: Motion for reconsideration in the city's judicial-confirmation petition (CV41-26-0046).
May 29: Motion for change of venue in Victor v. Driggs (CV41-26-0062).
September 9-11: Judicial-confirmation hearing on the city's authority to borrow $35 million for the wastewater project.

Victor Rescinds the Evans Wastewater Land Deal