Fairfield commission debates water ordinance: impact fees, shares and minimums; refers draft to water attorney

The Fairfield Planning & Zoning Commission spent substantial time on Sept. 3 reviewing a proposed water ordinance and the policy choices it would lock in for future connections and new development. Key topics were how the town treats existing residents on private wells, the calculation and purpose of an impact fee for new hookups, minimum water‑right volumes required per lot or use, and the distance at which a developer must run town water rather than drill a private well.

Tyler, identified in the meeting as the town’s water director, presented historical usage data and explained staff recommendations for minimum water quantities. Tyler said the town’s historical meter records show wide variation, and he gave technical numbers to frame the discussion: “1 acre foot of water is 325,851 gallons,” and in Fairfield’s historical data a handful of large users drove higher annual totals while most residential users consumed well under an acre‑foot per year. Based on that analysis, staff proposed a residential standard of roughly 1.0 acre‑foot for a one‑acre lot, with modestly higher per‑lot requirements for larger parcels and higher minimums for certain commercial or industrial lots. Commissioners asked staff to justify those quantities and to get formal review from the ordinance’s consulting engineers or a water lawyer.

Commissioners debated whether longtime Fairfield residents who are currently on private wells should pay the proposed connection impact fee. One commissioner argued that such residents have already subsidized the water system’s cost and would be unlikely to give up a private well if required to pay a six‑figure or high‑four‑figure fee; others argued the principle that “development must pay its way” and that the impact fee is tied directly to the new well and water tank project. The meeting transcript shows an example figure discussed in the meeting — an impact fee of about $16,000 — but commissioners did not adopt a final policy. The body agreed to continue the debate and to consider options such as reduced fees for existing in‑town residents, a phased approach that ties shares brought to the timing of development phases, or raising general water rates instead.

The commission also examined the legal status of Fairfield Irrigation Company shares. Vern, the Fairfield Irrigation Company president, explained that the company’s shares are defined under a 1965 court decree and that a single share in the company represents “one‑fortieth” of the company’s culinary right; staff said the Division of Water publishes quantity valuations for those shares and recommended the commission has staff or counsel confirm those values as they finalize definitions in the ordinance.

Another contested technical item was the distance rule that would require a developer to tie to town water if a lot is within a fixed distance of the existing main. The current draft uses a short distance threshold (300 feet) rather than the older 1,000‑foot standard; commissioners argued for an evidence‑based cutpoint that reflects current construction and trenching costs and the town’s fire‑protection needs. Staff suggested the distance rule be set to create a fair economic equivalence between drilling a public well and extending main line, and asked the commission for direction. Commissioners generally deferred on the numeric threshold and requested a cost/comparison analysis before adopting a final distance cutoff.

The commission directed staff to send the draft water ordinance to a water‑law attorney for review; members asked that the attorney examine court‑decree implications for Fairfield Irrigation Company shares, the appropriate way to treat existing in‑town well users, and the technical bases for minimum water volumes and impact fees. The item will return to the commission after legal review.

No formal vote was taken that night to adopt changes; the commission left several open questions for staff, counsel and consultants to answer before final action.