Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Encroachment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff outlines options for a no-encroachment policy as council weighs grandfathering and leases
Summary
City staff presented evidence of private encroachments into Clive's greenbelt and asked the council whether to adopt a strict no-encroachment policy or a phased approach allowing limited grandfathering, leases or licenses; council members signaled interest in a targeted public engagement plan and a staff-return with options.
Clive City staff introduced a planned encroachment policy after documenting repeated private use of city-owned greenbelt land.
Richard (parks staff) told the council staff had categorized encroachments into four types—simple mowing, semi-permanent landscaping (paths, rock work, fire pits), destructive alteration (cutting trees, regrading) and permanent attachments (fences, sheds). He said staff marks boundaries with galvanized posts and educational stickers and that roughly 80% of residents comply when asked to remove encroachments identified during park or trail projects. Staff asked the council whether it preferred a strict ban or a more flexible policy with grandfathering or license arrangements for existing encroachments.
Council members emphasized trade-offs. Several councilors said a hardline “no encroachments” rule is simple and equitable but noted it could be costly and time-consuming to enforce for historic cases where subsequent owners inherited improvements. Others suggested a tiered approach: require removal of new encroachments, permit limited grandfathering or a license for long-standing nonstructural changes, and use leases or license agreements (with liability and maintenance provisions) where permanent features are already in place and removal would be expensive. Staff warned that complex cases could require legal and surveying work and that the city would need to budget staff and legal hours for enforcement and remediation.
Council members also debated public engagement. Some said a broad town-hall could be dominated by the most affected residents; others recommended targeted outreach to neighborhoods along the greenbelt and one-on-one meetings with homeowner associations.
Staff concluded the discussion by proposing to return with a phased policy proposal that: defines the gray zone for mowing and low-impact maintenance; describes permit or license terms (fees, liability, maintenance obligations and revocation for future public projects); and outlines a public engagement plan. The council asked for clearer cost estimates and legal options for enforcement before adopting firm language.
The council did not take a vote; staff will draft options and an engagement plan for future council consideration.
