Planning commission forwards revised water ordinance to Town Council after extensive debate on usage and fees

The Fairfield Planning Commission voted Sept. 2 to forward proposed revisions to the town water ordinance to the Town Council for approval, after a detailed presentation by the town’s water director and more than an hour of public and commission discussion about water quantities, connection rules, fees and water banking.

Tyler, Fairfield’s water director, told the commission that consultants had proposed higher water‑quantity requirements than the town currently uses and said the town’s historical standard — 1 acre‑foot of water per 1‑acre residential lot and 1.25 acre‑feet for larger lots — aligns more closely with local usage data than the consultant’s higher proposals. He briefed commissioners on system metering data, annual consumption by example users, and the cost tradeoffs of drilling wells versus extending mains.

“In the ordinance that we're living by at the moment, we require 1 acre foot of water for a 1 acre lot of land,” Tyler said during the presentation. He cautioned that consultant recommendations (which the town reviewed) had produced numbers “pretty high” for residential and commercial uses and that the state’s standard of roughly 0.45 acre‑feet per residential unit did not map neatly onto local conditions.

Tyler described the town’s 2024 service data, showing wide variation between individual connections — from about 5,000 gallons for a low‑use residence to nearly 800,000 gallons for the highest consumer — and demonstrated why allocating a single per‑acre number is challenging for commercial and industrial users. He reviewed sample annual uses for several commercial operations (gas station without car wash ~1.736 acre‑feet; restaurant ~5.837 acre‑feet; collision repair ~1.144 acre‑feet; car wash ~19 acre‑feet) to illustrate the range of demand.

The commission discussed multiple policy issues: whether to require 0.9 acre‑feet per lot for light industrial phase 1 (an option raised for a nearby project), whether commercial and industrial minimums should be expressed as a per‑lot standard or derived from project‑specific engineering studies, how to treat properties with existing wells and irrigation shares, and whether the town can legally waive impact fees for long‑time residents. Commissioners left language giving the Town Council discretion to reduce water‑rights requirements on a case‑by‑case basis if applicants supply professional analyses showing lower demand.

The draft ordinance also includes items the commission debated at length: (1) an option to allow residents lawfully in town as of 2025 to connect without paying the full impact fee while still covering connection costs and transferring adequate water rights, (2) a requirement that banked water rights be transferred to Fairfield (not held privately by developers) so the town controls available water, and (3) a tie‑breaker distance for forced connections — staff recommended 600 feet as the threshold used for comparing the cost of mainline extension vs. drilling a private well.

Commissioners and the public raised operational concerns about metering of hydrant/stock water usage, the frequency of system flushing during low‑use months, how to price water in nonstandard lot sizes, and the legal exposure of the town if it selectively waived fees. Several residents, developers and business owners urged project‑specific engineering analysis for commercial users rather than a single conservative per‑lot standard.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to forward the water ordinance revisions to Town Council for approval/denial; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously with recorded votes of Kelvin (yes), Kyla (yes), David (yes), Jamie (yes) and Wayne (yes).

Why it matters: the ordinance governs how much water new lots and developments must bring to the system, who pays the town’s past infrastructure costs (impact fees), whether existing well owners can connect without full fees, and how developers bank or transfer water rights — all issues that affect growth, public safety (fire flows), and the town’s long‑term water reliability.

Provenance: Water Director Tyler’s presentation and data examples led the commission’s discussion; the commission voted on a motion to forward the ordinance to Town Council following public comment and commissioner debate.

Ending: The Town Council will next take up the revised water ordinance; commissioners asked staff to refine the draft language on banked water, forced‑connection distance, impact‑fee reductions and the council’s discretionary reduction process before that hearing.