By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Mona City should not get involved in an on-going
dispute.
Gordon Young, representing the irrigation company,
told council members that it was entirely inappropriate for
the mayor, Bryce Lynn, to have signed a letter which Young
alleges was written by an individual other than the
mayor.
"We have contemplated filing suit against the town for
interference," said Young.
In addition, said Young, approval for the mayor's
signature was never in the minutes because he had reviewed
them. There was not reference to allowing a signature.
"We didn't agree to pay assessments on water that we
have to pump," said Lynn. "That was the objection."
He said that the conditions of use were what the city
objected to and why the letter had been signed.
Young said he had received from the state division of
water rights a copy of a letter dated April 4, 2006, that
was sent to them from the city with the mayor's
signature.
The letter was in regard to Mona irrigation Company,
Mt. View Estates, Blue chip Investment Trust and Mona City
Change Application No. 53-110 (a310610.
"I contacted Mayor Lynn about this," said Young.
He said he contacted Harry Newell, council member,
about the letter and he said he had never seen it. Newell
then contacted a couple of other council members and they
said they had never seen the letter either.
"There was no where in the minutes that we could find
anything about it," he said.
Young said, when he discussed the inappropriate
signing of the letter, Lynn had seemed confused about the
actual content and the implications of the letter.
"According to Councilman Cory Squire, the letter was
actually written by Pat Painter," said Young.
He said he thinks the council members never saw the
letter and that it was kept hush-hush.
"Let me explain something to you, Pat Painter is not
responsible for signing change applications," said Young.
"His water rights are a part of Mona Irrigation
Company."
The interests of share holders needs to be protected,
he said.
"Mona Irrigation Company has the authority and
responsibility for filing that right to change the
application," he said.
Lynn said he did not appreciate Young's
accusations.
"We signed what we thought was best for the town," he
said.
Lynn said he did not care if the water got transferred
or not and hoped that it would not be.
"But, if it does, we don't want to get stuck with
paying assessments on water we have to pump," Lynn said.
"The change application he (Pat Painter) proposed would be
to change it and it would go into our well."
Young said he would like to have the city write and
send another letter to the state division of water rights
stating their objections being that they did not want to pay
assessment fees on water they would have to pump.
"I am asking for you to write a letter of
clarification," said Young. "The letter you signed just
muddies things up. It made it look like you objected and not
that you did not agree with just one condition."
At any rate, said Young, any assessment would not be
the responsibility of the city. He said the mayor was
mislead.
The irrigation company had worked long hours with
their legal counsel to come up with the wording and had
submitted it.
Young said if the mayor was not willing to send a
letter of clarification there must be something else on his
agenda.
"All we need to do is clarify our stand," said
Newell.
However, Lynn said the council signed the letter they
got from the state and then found there were conditions
imposed.
Young said that at the very end, the council would
still have the right to object to conditions. At this point,
a letter of clarification was needed because the letter the
mayor had signed made it look as though the city objected to
the entire action.
"We have done things according to the law," said
Young. "You were silly enough to sign the letter."
He said that, one by one, all but Squire had been
ruled out as having seen the letter or approved the
signature of the mayor.
Lynn objected to the idea that he was doing anything
on the side and resented the implication that he was not
being honorable because he had the interest of the city at
heart.
The signature had far-reaching implications and was
considered interference.
"Write down what you want to say; write down your
objections; clarify what you object to," said Young.
Squire said that he thought it would be possible to
write a letter of clarification on the way the change
application conditions are composed explaining the
objection.
They will be willing to allow the help of the
irrigation company in writing the letter of clarification
which is to state, unequivocally, that the city does not
want to pay assessments.
|