A $15,000 feasibility study says five properties in Manila township should be annexed to Cedar Hills, but Pleasant Grove officials appear determined to force the issue into court.
The Utah County Boundary Commission failed to resolve the matter Monday when a motion by George Brown failed to get a second from other commissioners. Brown's motion was to allow Cedar Hills to complete the annexation, which has been contested since January.Brown predicts the matter will likely end up in court.
The commission still has 20 days under the law to resolve the issue. Commissioners hope to meet again within that time frame.
The commission has to sort out whether the annexation petitions submitted to Cedar Hills in January 1997 should be approved over the protest of Pleasant Grove. Pleasant Grove officials say the properties are not contiguous to Cedar Hills and do not meet the annexation statute requirements passed by the 1997 Legislature.
Cedar Hills officials maintain the five households in question are having to bail water to drain bathtubs, are dealing with sewer backups in their basements and are limited to taking showers or flushing toilets - but not both at the same time.
Pleasant Grove officials say the sewers from the residences go into Pleasant Grove drains along with the costs.
Manila township spokesmen say the majority of residents there ultimately want to be annexed to Pleasant Grove and fear the Cedar Hills annexations threaten that possibility.
Hired by the commission to conduct a feasibility study, Bill Peperone of Hubble Engineering of Lehi said it is very appropriate for the properties to annex to Cedar Hills.
Peperone said issues such as the validity of the Manila township, the legality of annexations approved prior to the requests from those currently under consideration and pending litigation should not be factors that affect this decision.
He said the annexations "chip away at the county island" that already exists within the heart of Cedar Hills in a manner that's typical when communities begin to grow and fill in unincorporated areas.
Essential services - water, sewers and roads - could be most readily provided by Cedar Hills, said Peperone. "It's more beneficial and logical," he said.
Peperone's findings came under fire from residents of Manila and Pleasant Grove and the city attorney for Pleasant Grove, Gordon Duval.
Duval said the water to Cedar Hills is supplied by the Manila Water Co., which he said is neither rated nor recognized by the State Division of Drinking Water.
Cedar Hills Mayor Elisabeth Johnson said that isn't true. Manila Water Co. official Kent Wells said the company is in good financial shape and only suffers from a problem of inadequate storage space. That problem will be rectified in the spring when a 5 million gallon storage tank is built, he said.
Duval attacked the costs, telling the commission the true costs have not been told to petitioners for annexation because they don't include impact fees.
He said the land involved is in every case "not contiguous" to Cedar Hills unless the commission considers a roadway between properties as a shared boundary.
"It's feasible but illegal (to annex the five parcels)," he said.
Johnson said the situation represents years of bitterness that stem from a development land grab years ago.
"We, in the town, regret the sorry state of affairs," said Johnson. "If we could fix it, we would. We are good neighbors, but at some point, true principles should win out over old grudges."
Duval and Pleasant Grove Mayor Lloyd Ash said the city has never wanted to force anyone to become part of Pleasant Grove if they don't wish to.
"The only reason we're here is to prevent a peninsula. This is a case of classic piece-mealing," said Duval.
Ash said if Cedar Hills and Manila would sit down and decide what to do, Pleasant Grove would wholly support them in whatever they choose.
After Brown's motion failed, the commission closed the lengthy public hearing and voted to reconvene Dec. 30 at 6 p.m. in the Utah County Building.