By JAMES BELL
Hays Post

VICTORIA — Over the weekend, the Victoria City Council released a letter composed at a special meeting last Tuesday, explaining why water from the city has been so far denied to Kevin and Laura McCarter, who live just outside of the city limits.

While the meeting was held to ease tensions in the city, tempers flared and many in the audience felt the reasons behind the failure to vote on a measure that would have allowed the McCarter’s access to Victoria’s water supply were not fully addressed.

But after the nearly yearlong process with the city, a solution for the McCarters to get water to the home has been offered.

Despite being initially denied water access by the Post Rock Rural Water District due to its proximity to the city – approximately 1,700 feet away – the District later agreed to let the McCarters have access, after Victoria failed to act.

 

The full letter released to Victoria residents this weekend follows:

 

Dear Citizens of Victoria:

We, the members of the City Council, would like to take this opportunity to address some of the questions and issues stemming from the question of annexation of the Kevin McCarter property.

Working with our city attorney, several requests were made of the McCarters’ attorney that were NOT responded to in a timely fashion. These included the following:

• Copies of letters of rejection from Trego Co. and Post Rock Rural Water;
• Proof of conversations showing that the McCarters had actually talked with the Kippes and Dreiling families regarding alternative well sites;
• Information regarding hazardous materials; (this later proved not to be a problem).

In addition, Council was also faced with the following items for consideration:

• Questions about how this property, if it were annexed would be zoned, in light of the fact that McCarters operate a business out of their home;
• Whether there would be a need to install a loop, as opposed to a direct service line;
• Trying to ascertain whether the McCarter property would be brought into compliance with all city codes;
• Consideration about the need for fire and police protection;
• The question of ‘island annexation’ and any precedent that would set if it were to occur;
• The concern about the McCarters being able to ‘opt out’ of certain requirements expected of citizens living within the city limits;
• The fact that Council was informed that the McCarters’ water WAS treatable; (it was later disclosed that their current septic system could not handle the volume of waste water);
• The question of whether the city would be able to guarantee both the quality and/or pressure to the residence.

It is clear that this question of annexation has been difficult for all involved and has unfortunately created tension and division within our community. It is our hope that the reading and consideration of these items will provide more information with which to understand the complexity of this issue. As a Council, we made our decision based upon what we believed was the in the best interest of the city and its citizens.