Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council grants narrow exception to water‑service policy for single lot amid policy‑map limits
Summary
Tucson mayor and council voted May 6 to grant a single, limited exception to the city’s 2013 water‑service boundary policy so one unincorporated lot could receive a city water connection.
The mayor and council heard an appeal May 6 from owners of a one‑acre parcel at 3635 W. Camino Cristi in unincorporated Pima County who said a 2013 Tucson area water‑service policy prevented a buyer from obtaining a water meter. The parcel, the owners said, sits amid streets where Tucson Water mainlines and meters already exist on two sides; the owners argued the 3‑sided rule in the water‑service map rendered the lot functionally worthless.
Policy background: The city’s water‑service area policy (adopted 2013) limits extensions into unincorporated Pima County: under the so‑called “three‑sides” rule a parcel in the expansion area is eligible for a meter only if three bordering sides already have city water service. Staff said the rule is meant to limit unplanned growth of city services where regional water management needs require restraint.
Appeal and council action: Property owners described mortgage debt remaining on the lot and said earlier attempts to sell failed because buyers could not obtain service under the policy. Legal counsel and staff confirmed the policy application but told council the mayor and council retain authority to grant exceptions on a case‑by‑case basis. Council discussed precedent risk and the importance of preserving the policy as a water‑management tool, but concluded the parcel’s specific circumstances and proximity to existing mains warranted a narrow exception.
Outcome: Council voted to grant relief in this one case and directed staff to prepare a written resolution setting out the limited, fact‑specific rationale. Staff emphasized the decision was a case‑specific grant of relief and not a rewrite of policy; the three‑sided rule remains in force for the broader map.
Why it matters: The decision shows how council can resolve one‑off disputes where policy and individual hardship intersect. Staff said future applicants should not expect automatic relief; council requested the resolution returned in formal, documented form so the record clearly limits the scope of the exception.
