This is a follow-up to my previous post.
The city council first voted unanimously to reconsider their previous vote in favor of annexation (as was expected). Then they heard from a few people in the audience and voted to go into executive session so they could discuss the options with the city attorney. When they came out, they simply voted to give the city attorney 30 days to find an alternative solution to resolving the lawsuit - i.e. find some other land for the pension fund to develop, or more specifically, ask the county to find some other land they could trade with the developer or just buy this parcel outright. OK.
Seems to me that if that option was on the table in the first place the county wouldn't be asking the city to refuse annexation and water service to the developer. And that's pretty much what the county administrator says in the article. So 30 days from now we'll have another round of political theater, except this time the final act will be the council seeking forgiveness because their backs were really against the wall on this one and the only thing they could do was to cut a deal with the developer. But hey - they tried right?