Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses right-of-way personal property, sprinkler damage and mowing rules; no final action
Summary
Committee members debated how to handle irrigation lines, invisible fences and other personal property placed in public right-of-way, existing code provisions and possible code amendments on maintenance duties and mowing, but tabled final changes pending staff follow-up.
The Admin & Public Works Committee discussed recurring claims for damage to irrigation systems and other personal property located in the public right-of-way and considered proposed code changes clarifying maintenance responsibilities for property owners adjacent to public rights-of-way.
Staff said Section 2.10.49 of the city code already prohibits placement of personal property in the right-of-way, but members noted the placement still occurs and property owners may not be aware of the prohibition. Staff asked for guidance on whether to compensate property owners for repair costs when city contractors or crews damage irrigation or similar systems during maintenance or construction.
Key discussion points: Council members and staff explored several options: (1) require permits for any installation in the right-of-way, (2) adopt an explicit code clause holding property owners responsible for maintaining the area adjacent to their property (including mowing limits), (3) require contractors to repair damage they cause while working for the city, and (4) adopt a cost-split or 50/50 reimbursement policy for late-reported damages that cannot be tied to a contractor.
Staff explained practical constraints: sprinkler systems are often discovered damaged months after city work or tree plantings because owners shut systems off for the winter and learn of damage in spring. Staff noted common repair costs are usually in the hundreds of dollars and that concrete-street projects and tree-planting projects typically generate the most claims.
Outcome: Committee did not adopt a final policy. Members asked staff to return with clearer recommendations including: an inventory of where the city currently mows or maintains right-of-way on behalf of HOAs, a legal check on permit and liability processes (including county backflow/permitting for irrigation), and recommended language that would be consistent across residential and rural areas (for example, exemptions for parcels over a stated acreage).
