Laserfiche WebLink
Howard: <br /> <br />service to three of those existing residences without the <br />requirement of annexation. The minutes of that <br />meeting are somewhat unclear but there was no <br />addressing of these two extra residences which were in <br />existence at that particular time. One of the <br />Councilmembers at that time indicated it was clear that <br />they were not going to allow service for new residences <br />and that the total number of residences that were <br />effected by this particular request were five residences <br />total. The implication from those minutes is that all <br />five residences which were agricultural properties would <br />be allowed to tap into the water line extended down <br />Paradise Lane without annexation and that has <br />continued to date. The Helms' with reliance upon what <br />transpired at that City Council meeting paid for a <br />portion of the water service line that was extended. <br />There is documentation that the Helms' relied in <br />essence on this extension without annexation. I <br />certainly understand the comments that have been made <br />by the two councilmembers about City services and <br />annexation. The Helms' feel in this particular case, <br />given the legal and factual history that it is improper for <br />them to be treated differently than their neighbors. <br />There are three other neighbors on Paradise Lane who <br />were connected to this particular line without any <br />requirements of annexation. What the Helms' propose <br />is that, indeed, if their neighbors or any other <br />landowners within this particular subdivision are <br />required to annex to the City that they would be willing <br />to do so. They are not asking to be treated any <br />differently than their neighbors, but in 1984 the City <br />Council did allow this particular extension without an <br />annexation and it is their position that it would be <br />inequitable and really illegal to now impose this <br />annexation requirement on them when their neighbors <br />are not required to do so. <br /> <br />In 1984 when the neighbors of the Helms received the <br />water tap why didn't the Helms do the same at that <br />time? That would have at least put them in exactly the <br />same position that their neighbors were in, as opposed <br />to now where the City is in a different state; different <br />Council; City is bigger; greater costs, it is no longer the <br />same City as it was in 1984. Why the delay? Given that <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />