Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code 2 10 8 Outside City Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes limited cleanup to city code 2.10.8 after mapping shows pockets of unserved lots outside city limits; public urges remedy
Summary
Staff presented GIS mapping that found 262 parcels with water service agreements and 213 parcels adjacent to city water mains but without agreements, and proposed a narrow code cleanup to address long‑standing unserved lots outside city limits.
City staff presented a proposed approach Sept. 2 to revise Prescott City Code Section 2.10.8, the provision that governs water service outside city limits, after a GIS review identified multiple areas where water mains exist outside the municipal boundary but some adjacent lots lack a water service agreement.
Brian Reese, Water Resources Manager, summarized the mapping effort: GIS identified 262 parcels that already have water service agreements and 213 parcels adjacent to city water mains that do not. Of those 213, staff flagged 73 parcels that the city had already assumed in its Designated Assured Water Supply accounting. Reese said staff is considering a narrowly tailored code revision that would allow existing lots adjacent to existing city mains to petition for connection if they satisfy conditions such as abandonment of private wells and payment of required impact fees and the existing capacity and pressure are sufficient.
Multiple residents from Vista Del Cerro spoke during public comment and urged the subcommittee to correct what they called an unintended consequence of recent code changes. David Shingledecker, president of the Vista Del Cerro Lot Owners Association, said many owners bought lots decades ago with the expectation of future water access and that two escrows fell through after the March code change. “We bought our lot with the intent of developing 35 years ago… We put in 8 inch lines. We got fire hydrants. We have a city pumping station on our property to provide water,” Shingledecker said. Other speakers described lost property value and impractical costs to extend sewer in fractured granite terrain.
Several council members and staff discussed annexation as one potential pathway for bringing water and sewer service to unserved subdivisions but noted cost and topographic constraints. Reese told the subcommittee that a cleanup approach would include a snapshot in time to define which lots would remain eligible and that staff would re‑check historical records, water service agreements and DAWS commitments before drafting code language.
Howard Mechanic, a resident who spoke during public comment, urged the council to consider exchange or compensation if the city provides water to outside parcels, noting that effluent recovery differs when sewer is not present and can affect long‑term water accounting.
The subcommittee did not adopt code language; Chair Goode directed staff to re‑review the GIS exhibits, tighten the parcel counts and return with additional analysis including annexation criteria and potential use of impact fees or other funding mechanisms.
