Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Vector Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monte Vista staff report sparks debate over mosquito spray policy and no‑spray list
Summary
Public works staff asked council whether to change a 1978 ordinance that requires the city to pay for mosquito control. Staff said a longstanding no‑spray list has caused conflicts and the city will begin charging some out‑of‑town residents who receive service.
Monte Vista — City staff asked the Monte Vista City Council to consider whether to change a municipal policy that implements a 1978 ordinance declaring mosquitoes a nuisance and authorizing city‑paid eradication service.
Public Works staff explained the city has sprayed insecticide using malathion this season and that removing the previous "no‑spray" courtesy list this year triggered community complaints. The public works presentation noted the ordinance dates to 1978: "The ordinance itself is quite old. It's '78," the director said.
The director told council that the volunteer ambulance service’s response times can be lengthy and that fast intervention for certain medical emergencies—such as severe allergic reactions or cardiac events—was rationale for continuing a city spray program in earlier public outreach. Staff said the city conducted two public meetings two years ago and an online and mail survey; the survey results were reported as "overwhelming in favor of continuing the spray," but views remain split among residents.
Councilors and staff discussed pollinator concerns and the no‑spray list. The director said the no‑spray list had become a source of conflict because neighbors on the list expected the city to forgo spraying even when adjacent properties received treatment. He said members of the public who live outside city limits in the Pine and Spruce area had not been charged for service in recent years due to staff turnover and that staff would begin billing that area starting in June at the rate discussed in the meeting, about $13 per month for those outside city limits compared with $6.50 for in‑city customers.
The director asked whether the council wanted any change to process or policy; councilors indicated they were not prepared to act immediately and suggested further discussion might be appropriate.
Nut graf: The discussion highlighted a tension between a decades‑old municipal ordinance requiring mosquito control and contemporary concerns about pollinators and residents’ preferences. Staff urged the council to decide whether to change the policy or continue enforcement under current code while noting financial and enforcement implications.
Next steps and context: The public works director said staff made procedural adjustments to spraying in recent years and that the city will continue to evaluate the chemical choices; he also asked whether council wanted to alter the no‑spray process or consider policy changes. Council did not adopt an immediate policy change at the meeting.
