By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
The Mona City Water Agreement with Three Peaks
Development, L.C., a Utah corporation, was approved and
signed as it was written and proposed at the Jan. 25 council
meeting.
"I also talked to Phil Lowery (city attorney) and he
doesn't know what we are haggling about. There is no
difference in the two paragraphs," said Mayor Bryce
Lynn.
He had checked with him after the discussion which
prevented a vote being taken in January.
All council members, excepting Quinton Kay, voted in
favor of accepting the agreement in spite of the
controversial item number three which deals with what can
happen to the outside-use irrigation water if irrigation
company shares are ever quantified.
Kay wanted the third paragraph of the agreement to be
replaced with a paragraph he had obtained from Waddingham
& Peterson, attorneys at law, which reads: "Only if the
company itself determines that lots can be serviced with
less than one-fourth share of stock will the company alter
its requirements."
The original paragraph only differs in that it states
that if the water is every quantified then Painter's
homeowner's association could take advantage of the
quantification.
Cory Squire, council member, has been working on the
water agreement between Pat Painter and the city for several
months. He said he had contacted Phil Lowery, the city
attorney, and he said that the agreement, as written and
approved by both Painter's attorneys and by Lowery,
essential said the same thing and provided the same
protection.
"The agreement doesn't say that he (Pat Painter) will
quantify the shares," said Squire.
If and when the shares are quantified, either by
judgment or by quantification, then, and only then, can
Painter's homeowner's association take advantage of any
savings.
If the water, for example, were quantified as being
worth one-eighth share of stock rather than one-fourth
share, as is now the case, would Three Peaks Development,
L.C., be able to take advantage of the share
improvement.
"I faxed to Phil Lowery the changed number three,"
said Kay. "The difference (between the paragraphs) is that
if the irrigation company changes the policy, then we are
not involved. We are not dictating to the irrigation
company."
It did not matter which paragraph number three was
used, said Lynn.
"Phil Lowery said either one would meet our ordinance.
Either one would protect the company and the town," said
Lynn.
Harry Newell, council member who has supported the
stand taken by Kay, decided he would vote for the agreement
as written since, in Lowery's opinion, either paragraph
three would serve the same purpose.
Painter's attorneys and Lowery were in agreement with
the document being presented for the mayor's signature.
Kay said he thought the city should coordinate its
policies with the company to make sure that all lots in the
city have the required amount of company stock to be served
with the company's secondary system.
Lynn said the discussion had continued for several
months and he thought it was time to put it to rest.
Allen Pay, city water master, said the only issue
involving the city would be that the city is requiring
irrigation water be dedicated to the lot for outside use.
The city should not be involved otherwise.
"I think we should stop spending money (on attorney
fees)," said Newell. For that reason, he said, he was
willing to vote in favor of signing the agreement.
The vote was Squire, Rory Nielson, and Newell in favor
of accepting the agreement as written and Kay opposing it.
Kay still held out for substituting the paragraph three with
the version he proposed.
|
