by Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
The council giveth and the council taketh away.
In December, in a two against and three for vote, Mona
Council members agreed to let Pat Painter and Bart Jackson
use the contract each has with home owners associations as
compliance with the new water requirement ordinance recently
passed by the council.
In January, a new council, rescinded the vote in a three
for and two against vote.
At the center of the controversy is a ordinance the city
recently imposed which requires that water accompany and be
attached to each lot prior to a building permit being
issued.
In December, Bart Jackson, Kerry Lynn, and Pat Painter
requested the council consider the pre-agreement the
property owners had with Mona as meeting the requirement to
dedicate water to property so that it would remain with that
property in perpetuity.
"I think what I committed to do and what I have already
done suffices to meet the requirements of the ordinance,"
said Painter at the December meeting.
As a result of the vote on Tuesday, Mayor Bryce Lynn
assigned each council member to put their ideas, concerning
a new ordinance and the requirements they think should be in
place for Painter, Jackson and others like them in
writing.
Those writings were to be turned to Cory Squire, council
member over water. Squire would then compile the ideas and
would form ordinance wording for the proposal.
Mona Irrigation Company officials, Painter and Jackson
will also have input.
Then the document will be run past attorneys at the
League of Cities and Towns or by the Juab County Attorney to
make certain the wording is proper.
The result should be ready for council meeting. Then the
proper noticing will be done and the public hearing
held.
Quinton Kay, Harry Newell and Rick Kolsen voted to
rescind the agreement the council made with Painter and
Jackson. Rory Nielson and Squire voted against the
action.
When Kay made the proposal, he and Lynn, had a hearty
disagreement on the action. In fact, Kay called for the
second to the motion he made. This was done to the
aggravation of Lynn.
"You don't ask for a second," Lynn said. "I am the mayor
and that is my job."
"Would you have done it?" asked Kay. "You controlled me
last time (last meeting) and that is not right."
Kay said he had consulted with Phil Lowery, whom he
thought was the city attorney, and was told that it was
legal to rescind the previous action of the council.
That he had consulted Lowery raised the ire of Lynn who
said that Lowery was no longer the city attorney.
However, Kay persisted and said that Lowery had advised
that the motion passed was illegal.
Kolsen said he wanted the needs of Painter and Jackson
met but did not think the way the city had gone about it was
legal and, in fact, set a precedence that left the city open
to suit.
He said he thought the council needed to make an addendum
to the ordinance which will allow the developer to set up a
home owner's association which could hold the water shares
but they should be conveyed to the property in question.
"Leased water is not good," said Newell. "The water needs
to be dedicated to the lot."
"It is in the minutes that the water is being 'conveyed'
to the property," said Squire.
Squire said he thought the council should not change what
they had by rescinding a prior council decision. He thought
the council needed to have replacement wording in place
before voting to rescind the action taken previously.
Kolsen said his concern was the term 'lease,' and thought
Painter would be fine with rescinding the motion and with
replacement language conveying the water to a homeowner's
association rather than leasing the water to the
association.
The sticky part is that the replacement language is not
already in place but will be written in the near future.
Another problem is that the council may have an illegal
first ordinance.
Kay charged that the motion made was illegal and,
therefore, needed to be replaced. However, Tyler Painter, in
attendance at the meeting, said the problem is that the
whole ordinance is illegal.
He said the original ordinance was not properly noticed
since all ordinances must be printed in a newspaper of
general circulation. The ordinance public hearing was only
noticed at three public locations inside the community.
Consequently, the ordinance was not legal in the first
place.
Painter said it was also true that his father's property
should come under the grandfather clause which is part of
state code. No new legislation can affect uses already in
place.
Kay said that Lowery had advised that it was better to
keep the existing ordinance in place until a new one could
be devised to overlay the old one and this time keeping the
rules of noticing.
Under the terms of the ordinance, irrigation water coming
from Mona Irrigation Company, is transferred to the city and
dedicated to a home owner's property. The property has a
certificate of ownership which comes from Mona Irrigation
Company.
It is the irrigation company which will need to note the
proposed sale of water which has a stamped certificate and
it is the irrigation company which must block the sale.
|
