Subcommittee weighs code change to address lots adjacent to city water lines outside Prescott city limits

Prescott’s water resources staff on Sept. 2 presented a possible revision to city code 2.10.8, the section that governs water service outside city limits, and asked the City Council subcommittee on water issues whether to advance the topic to the full council for further consideration.

Water Resources Manager Brian Reese outlined a cleanup exercise that began with a GIS analysis of city-owned mains outside municipal boundaries. The mapping identified 262 parcels that already have city water service agreements, and 213 parcels adjacent to city water mains that do not have water service agreements. Of those 213 parcels, staff found 73 are already accounted for in the city’s Designation of Assured Water Supply (DAWS), meaning the city previously assumed it would serve that demand in ADWR filings.

Reese proposed a conservative approach that would create a snapshot in time of mains adjacent to lots and allow limited connections for existing lots adjacent to mains, subject to technical checks (pressure/capacity), abandonment of on-site wells and payment of impact fees and a 30% surcharge that the city applies to outside-city service. For the parcels identified in the staff exercise, Reese said the city would set aside 36 acre-feet of supply; 12 acre-feet of that total already appears in the DAWS.

Residents of Vista Del Cerro and other neighborhoods urged the subcommittee to act. David Shingledecker, president of the Vista Del Cerro Lot Owners Association, said the subdivision has water mains, meter boxes and a pump station and that owners purchased lots “with the understanding there would be city water.” He told the panel that two escrows already collapsed after owners were told lots no longer qualify for city water. Several other owners said property values fell and that long-time owners had relied on the expectation of future city service.

Public commenter Howard Mechanic urged the city to consider the net water-accounting effects of adding customers without effluent recovery. “If we don't get effluent from a property, we're losing the water,” he said, urging equitable exchanges for any city accommodation. He also noted that using effluent for recharge multiplies effective water availability compared with one-time deliveries to properties without sewer.

Council and staff discussion focused on practical constraints and precedent. Council members raised these concerns: extending service without sewer systems could increase unrecoverable effluent; the costs to extend sewer across fractured granite terrain in some subdivisions could be “millions of dollars;” and approving connections selectively could set expectations for all neighboring parcels. Several council members endorsed further work on annexation as an alternative means to extend full municipal service to neighborhoods that want it, and asked staff to examine whether impact-fee revenues or other financing tools could help fund sewer extensions.

Outcome: The subcommittee did not vote to adopt a code change. Instead, members directed staff to refine the GIS exhibits, vet historic water-service agreements, identify parcels that might be appropriate for annexation, and return with draft code language and financial/implementation analysis. Reese said he would re-run the mapping, tighten the parcel counts and prepare draft language for a future meeting.

Why it matters: The question sits at the intersection of property expectations, municipal resource accounting and long-term aquifer sustainability. Any change to the city’s outside-service rules affects groundwater allowances reported to ADWR, impact-fee revenues, and whether reclaimed effluent can be captured and returned to the aquifer.