Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Irrigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Pleasant work session considers refundable irrigation lot-split fee to ensure connections after splits
Summary
Council and staff discussed drafting an ordinance requiring a refundable deposit for irrigation lot splits, steps to verify irrigation work and contacting the county to improve notice when parcels are recorded.
Mount Pleasant officials discussed creating an irrigation lot-split fee and process intended to ensure irrigation connections are completed after parcels are split.
Speakers at the work session said lot splits have left irrigation service intact for the original parcel while new parcels either do not register for irrigation service or are blocked from connecting to existing risers. A staff member raised the existing ordinance requirement that new lots have one year from the lot split to install irrigation and said that has not prevented gaps in service.
The discussion focused on an approach similar to the town’s excavation permit: require a sizable refundable deposit at the time of lot split, hold back a small portion to pay for inspection, and refund the remainder once irrigation is verified and billed to the new lots. One staff member suggested holding back money “for Colter and his team to go out and inspect” and to put irrigation billing into the new lot owners’ names when the refund is released.
Participants also discussed better coordination with the county. Several speakers proposed contacting the county recorder to see if the city can receive notice when lot splits are recorded; staff said county recording sometimes happens without municipal planning staff awareness, which prevents the city from tracking new owners who should assume irrigation billing.
The group discussed enforcement details including whether to require the irrigation split before lots are recorded, the appropriate rebate timeline, and inspection responsibilities. A figure of $23,000 was mentioned by one participant as an example deposit large enough to motivate completion; the transcript records that number as a speaker suggestion rather than a settled amount. Staff also noted the current irrigation assessment is based on a per-quarter-acre rate and that mis-sized or duplicate h-lines can complicate service.
The work session concluded with direction to start drafting an ordinance or fee schedule, to contact the county about recording notifications, and to develop an inspection and refund process to be returned to the council for review.
