Baldwin’s water-and-sewer ordinance remains under scrutiny over annexation applications

Baldwin’s Water & Sewer Use Ordinance #2024-10152 remains unresolved in one important respect: nearly 10 months after the City Council approved it, a resident raised concern that an annexation-related rule still had not been eliminated. At the Aug. 5, 2025, meeting, the mayor said he needed time to work with the parties involved, including legal counsel and city staff. The minutes record that response, but not a follow-up decision, amendment or interpretation settling the concern.

The dispute matters because the ordinance governs access to city water and sewer service, an essential service, for owners whose land is contiguous to Baldwin. In approving its second reading, council changed Section 1.13(e) so that such owners must apply for annexation, while annexation itself is no longer mandatory. That distinction can shape the steps a property owner must take to seek service and whether residents believe the city delivered the policy change they expected.

The ordinance moved through council in October 2024. The Oct. 15 agenda scheduled its first reading, beginning the public legislative process. A second-reading consideration was then placed on the Oct. 28 agenda. At that meeting, according to the official minutes, the council approved the ordinance 4-0 after reviewing language previously addressed at the first reading and modifying the provision dealing with contiguous properties and annexation applications. The later August 2025 complaint put the practical meaning of that revision back before city officials.

Council’s documented position in October 2024 was expressed through its unanimous approval of the second reading and the Section 1.13(e) modification. Woodmaster reviewed the ordinance at that meeting, the minutes say. The resident who spoke in August 2025 took the opposing view on the remaining annexation-related requirement, saying it had not been eliminated. The mayor did not announce an immediate policy answer; instead, he said he would need time to work with the parties involved, legal counsel and city staff.

One point is settled in the public record: the council completed and approved the ordinance’s second reading on Oct. 28, 2024. The later concern was discussion, not a recorded repeal, amendment or new council vote. The resident’s assertion establishes that the rule was contested, but the minutes cited here do not resolve whether the ordinance was being applied as intended or whether any legal change was required. Nor do they document a subsequent official action following the mayor’s planned review.

The next concrete public step is a city record showing what, if anything, followed the mayor’s review: meeting minutes, an ordinance amendment, a staff recommendation or another formal council action. Until that occurs, residents and contiguous-property owners are left with an ordinance that requires an annexation application for service seekers but does not mandate annexation itself, alongside an unresolved objection to that arrangement. What remains undecided is whether Baldwin will clarify the language, change it, or leave the 2024 rule in place.