The city needs to bite the bullet and install a six-inch water line to the edge of Lawrence Hoskins’ Highway 51 South property at its own expense.

Hoskins came to Tuesday’s meeting of the mayor and aldermen to “plead his case” about their requirement that he bear the expense of installing the 450 feet of water pipe to his property where he can hook onto the pipe for enough water pressure to power a sprinkler system in the old Panco building that he is converting into an elderly day care.

Hoskins spoke his piece and was then subjected to 10 or 15 minutes of questions and comments. Though some of them were irrelevant and others downright condescending, the information that surfaced indicated that Hoskins had played by the rules. He had redrawn the plans and satisfied the planning commission. He had installed the sprinkler system to satisfy the fire code. He had applied for and received the proper permits.

Then when they dug down to the city water pipe they discovered that instead of the six-inch pipe shown on a city map adjoining the property, there was only a two-inch line.

Hoskins told the mayor and aldermen that he had made his decisions based on information the city had provided him. The information proved to be wrong, and that’s where the city’s requirement that Hoskins bring the water pipe to his property at his expense fails the smell test.

One alderman told Hoskins that he didn’t want to set a precedent by paying for private development, and that’s a reasonable concern.

But the precedent that should be set is that when the city issues a permit to property owner or developer giving him or her permission to proceed with a project, there should be no further costs or compliance requirements. The contractor/developer/business owner needs to be able to determine the project cost on the front end without back-end surprises like Hoskins has encountered.

The city in its foresight has adopted stringent codes to protect the lives and property of its citizens. It has competent personnel to enforce its codes, advise and guide developers and contractors. When, in spite of these, surprises crop up that are not the fault of the contractor but are based on erroneous information from the city, the city needs to take responsibility.