Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Deannexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses de‑annexation petition after utility staff says water/sewer could be provided with upgrades
Summary
The Lynn Haven City Commission heard staff explain that while a parcel owner claims water/sewer are unavailable, city modeling shows 1,500–2,000 gpm in the area and that service could be extended if the developer funds upgrades such as a loop and upsized mains. Commissioners directed staff to meet the petitioner and consider tabling the advertised public hearing to allow technical follow-up.
Chair opened discussion of agenda item 11 after one participant needed to leave. City public‑works staff told the commission the property owner had been told a loop would be required but that staff have not yet modeled the parcel; the city’s model currently shows roughly 1,500–2,000 gallons per minute in the immediate area, above the 1,000 gpm minimum the city uses to assess fire‑flow needs.
That, staff said, means water and sewer could be extended to the parcel, but only if the developer submits plans and pays to install any required upgrades. Staff noted the county utilities are farther from the site and have not yet replied to a staff inquiry about their willingness to allow a tie‑in. The public‑works representative estimated a loop would require about 650 feet of 6‑inch main and called that a typical, achievable upgrade if the modeled demand demands it.
The commission debated the practical effects on the owner if de‑annexation succeeds: several members said a parcel that leaves the city would still be in the city’s utility service area and could face higher costs for monthly service (staff estimated a roughly 25% surcharge compared with county service). Commissioners also noted the statutory test for de‑annexation is checklist‑based and that an owner’s stated justification is separate from whether the application meets legal standards.
To avoid deciding on incomplete information, the commission agreed it could open the advertised second‑reading public hearing and continue or table it to the next meeting without re‑advertising, and instructed staff (including the planner and utilities staff) to meet with the petitioner to model required upgrades and clarify county options before returning with updated information.
Staff did not recommend denying the petition; rather, staff recommended further technical review and direct communication with the applicant so the commission can decide on the record. The commission will consider the petition again after staff follow‑up and additional modeling, or at the continued public hearing date if the commission sets one.
