A public hearing was held to discuss a pre-annexation agreement concerning a five-acre property owned by Kathy Shiltenek, aimed at providing city water services. The meeting, attended by local residents, revealed mixed sentiments regarding the annexation process.

Larry Wernley, representing his son who resides nearby, expressed opposition to the annexation, clarifying that while his son supports the provision of city water, he does not agree with the annexation of the neighborhood. This sentiment was echoed by other residents, including Doris Kearl, who sought clarification on the implications of the annexation for their properties. Kearl questioned why they were notified about the annexation if it only pertained to a property that does not adjoin theirs.

City officials clarified that the pre-annexation agreement is necessary for the property owner to access city water, as their well had failed. They emphasized that the agreement does not immediately annex the property but allows for future annexation if the city expands its boundaries. The agreement is set for a duration of 20 years, during which the property usage will remain unchanged.

Concerns were raised by residents about the necessity of annexation for access to clean water, with one resident questioning the fairness of requiring annexation for such basic services. City representatives explained that the annexation process is tied to the infrastructure costs associated with extending water lines to rural areas.

The hearing concluded without further comments from the public, and the council emphasized the importance of maintaining decorum in future discussions. The meeting highlighted ongoing tensions between residents and city officials regarding annexation policies and the provision of essential services.