Home/property, which is more than 2 miles outside municipal limits, has been
serviced by municipal water service for many years. This is the only
property on water service past the municipal well site. Because of this
property, the test point for the water is at a point where the water tends
to test high in some restricted aspect.

If the test point was moved to the other side of the wells, where the water
mixes with water from other wells, the water always tests clean.

So the municipality/public works authority wants to terminate water service
to the property and pay part or all of the cost of a water well to serve the
property.  The resident/property owner is fine with this.

This seems like the right thing to do, but I am having trouble articulating
a justification for the expenditure of municipal funds (trust authority or
municipality) to provide the non-citizen with a water well.  The
municipality wasn't obligated to provide the water in the first place, so
why would they pay for the water now?  (The property owner did not pay any
of the expense to run the line to the property.)

I think this expense will be less than $10,000.

I'd appreciate all thoughts.

Thank you,

Kim Spady

Correction -- they aren't certain whether the property owner paid for the
line to the property or not.  It would have been many years ago and before
the current owner bought the property.

From: Kim@spadylaw.com Kim@spadylaw.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 2:04 PM
To: oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] Water well for property outside municipal limits

Home/property, which is more than 2 miles outside municipal limits, has been
serviced by municipal water service for many years. This is the only
property on water service past the municipal well site. Because of this
property, the test point for the water is at a point where the water tends
to test high in some restricted aspect.

If the test point was moved to the other side of the wells, where the water
mixes with water from other wells, the water always tests clean.

So the municipality/public works authority wants to terminate water service
to the property and pay part or all of the cost of a water well to serve the
property.  The resident/property owner is fine with this.

This seems like the right thing to do, but I am having trouble articulating
a justification for the expenditure of municipal funds (trust authority or
municipality) to provide the non-citizen with a water well.  The
municipality wasn't obligated to provide the water in the first place, so
why would they pay for the water now?  (The property owner did not pay any
of the expense to run the line to the property.)

I think this expense will be less than $10,000.

I'd appreciate all thoughts.

Thank you,

Kim Spady