Resident challenges city billing for irrigation shares; staff says fee calculation was corrected

A Grantsville resident criticized the city’s plan to begin billing residents on Oct. 1 for irrigation shares the city now holds, and city staff acknowledged a calculation error and said they would correct billed amounts.

At the Sept. 17 Grantsville City Council meeting, Kevin Casey, a resident, said Resolution 2025-42—“which passed unanimously by this council with no discussion or debate”—authorizes the city to assume building authority for 1,615.5 irrigation shares held in the city’s name. “Under Utah Code 11-36a, the Impact Fees Act, the city may only collect impact fees when it actually builds or maintains the facility those fees support,” Casey said, adding that the irrigation system is currently operated by Grantsville Irrigation Company (GIC) and that GIC is regulated under the Utah Mutual Waters Company Act (16-4).

“Grantsville City does not own or operate the irrigation system,” Casey said. He argued several residents paid irrigation shares at home purchase but never received shareholder rights and called the city’s planned billing “nothing more than a revenue grab.”

The substance of Casey’s public comment prompted city staff to explain adjustments to the billing plan. Sherry, a city staff member, told the council she had rechecked the merchant-fee and employee-time calculations and apologized: “I did make a mistake, and I would like to apologize.” She said staff would issue a revised notice and had already directed outreach to residents who were charged the higher amount so they would receive a credit.

Sherry said the corrected annual rate the city will assess is $206.28 and that the city plans to assess it monthly to align with other utility billing. “So what the new rate is, is if they pay for cash, check, or card, it'll be 206.28 for the year. We are doing it monthly,” she told the council. Staff said merchant fees and a reduction in estimated staff time were the main reasons the original calculation was too high.

City officials also discussed timeline and governance issues raised by speakers. A council member reported the city had been invited to a GIC board meeting later this month and that GIC’s elections are in February, when a new board member representing the city may be seated. City staff said the city is fronting part of the irrigation costs and will collect the fees from residents over the billing period.

No formal council vote to change Resolution 2025-42 was recorded at the Sept. 17 meeting; staff described the adjustment as an administrative correction under previously approved fees. Staff said they would send a letter to affected residents explaining the billing period and the credit process and would provide a graphical time frame to show how October–March charges relate to the irrigation “water year.”

The council did not amend Resolution 2025-42 at the meeting; staff said they would consider whether a formal amendment is necessary but indicated they believe correcting the fee calculation falls within administrative duties.

City staff and residents asked for clearer public information. Council members suggested posting project and billing updates on the city's website and social media and ensuring someone from the city represents residents at the GIC board as the company moves toward its February elections.

For now, residents affected by the change should expect a revised notice from the city and a credit if they were charged the incorrect higher amount.