Mona City Council tables water fee change after residents in non‑irrigated subdivision raise equity concerns

The Mona City Council opened a public hearing on Resolution 2025-5, a proposed update to the city—ee schedule that would lower the culinary water base usage threshold from 15,000 to 12,000 gallons and raise the surcharge for usage above the threshold. The council heard more than a dozen public comments from residents of a subdivision that lacks secondary (irrigation) water, then voted to table the resolution for two months for further study.

Why it matters: Council staff said the change would align Mona with state conservation direction and with many other Utah cities that have reduced base allotments. Residents from one subdivision told the council the proposed threshold would disproportionately affect about 25 to 30 households there because those properties were built without access to irrigation water and thus must use treated (culinary) water to irrigate lawns.

At the hearing, residents repeatedly told the council they had been promised irrigation by the developer but never received it. Katrina Long, a Mona resident and former council member, said, “this is going to affect the 25 to 30 people directly in our subdivision and not really hardly anybody else in the city.” Several speakers urged the council not to apply a blanket change without a plan to address pockets of the city that lack secondary water service.

Residents asked whether the city could require a larger citywide rate increase instead of penalizing one neighborhood, pursue secondary-water hookups for the subdivision, or pursue other mitigation such as temporary financial help or a phased approach. Brett McAfee asked why that neighborhood should “pay extra just because we don't have this secondary water.” Cooper Corless and other speakers said they were frustrated that earlier developers or previous councils had allowed the situation to occur and that current residents are bearing the costs.

City staff told the hearing the change is partly driven by state conservation expectations and by the state—all for communities to "slow the flow"; staff also said officials are preparing a state-required 20-year water plan. Staff described one practical effect of the proposal: the city would impose a surcharge of about $3 per 1,000 gallons for consumption above the 12,000-gallon threshold, which staff estimated would raise the typical single-family customer's bill by roughly $9 per billing period.

Council discussion focused on options to reduce the subdivision—urden, such as exploring legal or rate design alternatives (tiered pricing, exemptions, averaging annual use) and re-engaging Mona Irrigation Company and state agencies. Several public speakers urged the council to seek grant funding or community fundraising to build irrigation infrastructure. City staff said the city has tried negotiating with the irrigation company in the past and that the company currently controls secondary service boundaries.

After public comment, a council member moved to table the resolution for two months. Another council member seconded. Council member Amy voted "Aye," followed by other council members saying "Aye," and the motion to table passed. The council directed staff to explore legal and rate-design options, continue discussions with Mona Irrigation Company, and report back at the resumed hearing.

What was not decided: The council did not adopt the fee schedule change at this meeting. The council did not set a new threshold or adopt a specific exemption for the affected subdivision; those options will be part of staff follow-up.