Fairfield water director presents data as commission narrows proposed ordinance; town to send revised water ordinance to council

The Fairfield Planning and Zoning Commission heard a detailed presentation from the town’s water director on proposed revisions to the town water ordinance, discussed numeric water‑right proposals for residential, commercial and industrial lots, and voted to send the ordinance to the town council for the next step in the review process.

Tyler, Fairfield’s water director, told the commission the town has collected more meter data in recent years and that the draft ordinance proposed by the town’s engineering consultant contained water‑quantity values substantially higher than the town’s historical usage. “If you look at the chart … in 2024 we used 5,400,394 gallons total,” he said. “Our average consumer consumed 163,648 gallons that year. Our highest consumer was just shy of 800,000.” He described wide variation between customers and urged the commission toward realistic, data‑driven requirements rather than inflated numbers used to deter development.

Key numbers discussed by staff and commissioners:

- Connection fee (meter and setter): currently cited at about $1,300; staff said it should be updated to reflect current costs. - Impact fee (share of prior infrastructure cost): staff described a recovery calculation that produced roughly $15,600 per hookup (based on an estimated $1.2 million infrastructure cost divided by available hookups). - Proposed baseline for light industrial (as discussed for the Fairfield Industrial Park and similar zones): commissioners discussed 0.9 acre‑feet of water per lot for phase 1 as a practical baseline, to be revisited and credited for measured lower usage in later phases. - State residential benchmark referenced by staff: the state’s guideline figure of 0.45 acre‑feet for a residential lot and the consultant’s draft that would have produced higher totals after adding drought and reliability margins.

Tyler walked commissioners through seasonality and user examples: winter system usage was about 911,000 gallons versus summer usage of roughly 4,000,489 gallons in the dataset he showed. He also gave examples of measured annual usage from several commercial accounts: a gas station (without car wash) used about 1.736 acre‑feet; a restaurant used about 5.837 acre‑feet; a car wash consumed about 19 acre‑feet in a year. He said those commercial examples illustrate the range and the need to evaluate commercial and industrial uses on a case‑by‑case basis.

Commission reaction and policy direction

Commissioners discussed three recurring themes: (1) how to set minimum water‑right requirements that are neither excessive nor insufficient; (2) whether to allow reductions from the minimum where an applicant provides engineering-based demand estimates; and (3) how to treat existing residents who might connect to the system (including past questions about waivers of impact fees).

On impact fees for residents already served by the main line, commissioners debated whether to waive or reduce fees for long‑time residents whose property lies within the waterline. Legal counsel warned that flat waivers could create liability and suggested that the town could lawfully reduce fees in certain circumstances but that blanket waivers may be problematic.

The commission agreed on several practical items to include in the draft forwarded to council: allow the town council discretion to reduce required water rights when applicants provide professional demand analysis; require developers to transfer water shares into a town‑held bank (the town would hold the water rights so that town staff can apply them to phases as lots are built); and keep a per‑lot baseline requirement in the ordinance while permitting adjustments during development approvals and by council discretion.

Wells, mainline tie‑ins and line‑extension thresholds

Staff said updated cost estimates made the existing tie‑in threshold (the distance at which property owners must connect versus drill a private well) worth reviewing. The staff analysis showed a rough parity at about 600 feet—i.e., a 600‑foot extension of mainline piping could cost roughly the same as drilling a private well in many locations. Commissioners agreed to move the ordinance language toward a 600‑foot tie‑in threshold while allowing staff discretion to assess specific project quotes.

Metering, irrigation shares and source protection

Tyler told the commission the town will not accept irrigation shares as culinary water without state conversion; the town will only accept shares that are approved by the Division of Water Rights as culinary. He also said the town had attempted metering of hydrant fills and construction water but had mixed technical results and would continue working on a reliable meter program.

Public comment and airport/overlay discussion

Several members of the public, including airport representatives, commented on unrelated items later in the meeting (airpark overlay). On the water ordinance, public speakers raised concerns about fairness for small commercial users (storage units, hangars) and asked that the town rely on fixture counts or engineering assessments where appropriate.

Outcome and next steps

After discussion and public comment, the commission voted to forward the draft water ordinance to the town council for council consideration. The commission asked staff to: (1) update connection and impact‑fee numbers to current costs; (2) include language enabling council discretion to reduce required water rights upon submission of credible engineering demand estimates; (3) require that banked water rights be held by the town; and (4) set a 600‑foot mainline tie‑in threshold as the starting point for the ordinance while allowing project‑level exceptions.

The council will consider the commission’s recommendation and the updated draft ordinance at its upcoming meeting. The commission also scheduled a follow‑up planning meeting to continue work on the airport overlay and other items.