Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Meters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cresco council opens debate on water‑meter ordinance change for multifamily units; staff to revise language
Summary
Council discussed proposed amendments to chapter 91.12 to clarify metering for multifamily residential units and landlord responsibility; members asked staff to refine language to preserve separate commercial meters and reflect Iowa lien rules before the first reading.
Get email alerts on the Water Meters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cresco City Council on July 1 opened discussion and set the first reading process for proposed amendments to City Code chapter 91.12 governing water meters, focusing on multifamily residential buildings and how meters and billing responsibilities are assigned.
City clerk Nikki explained the impetus: the city is seeing a growing number of property owners requesting multiple meters in buildings with mixed uses, and staff are seeking clearer rules to limit or standardize meter installations in multifamily settings. Nikki described three draft options in the packet and said the city attorney had reviewed state law guidance.
Council members debated whether mixed commercial‑residential buildings should allow separate commercial meters for downstairs businesses while keeping upstairs apartments on a single master meter. One council member asked whether the ordinance language would prevent a business from having its own meter; staff replied it currently does not explicitly prevent separate commercial metering and that the draft could be adjusted.
Members also raised enforcement and billing consequences when tenants fail to pay. The council noted Iowa law provides a lien exemption process and discussed adding clear language that the property owner remains responsible for payments unless a statutory exemption has been filed. Nikki said staff would update the draft to clarify the treatment of commercial storefronts with upstairs rentals, the responsibility for accounts, and the interpretation of the draft options.
Council did not adopt a final ordinance on July 1; members asked staff to revise the language and return with clarifications for the first reading and public hearing process.

