Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscape Incentive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pleasant Grove staff to draft code change to boost Utah Water Savers rebates for new homes
Summary
City staff recommended adopting Utah Water Savers standards that would increase landscape rebates for new residential construction (lawn replacement to $3/sq ft; switch‑to‑drip to $1/sq ft) while limiting turf and setting minimum planting‑strip widths; councilors directed staff to draft code language and prepare FAQs ahead of Planning Commission review.
Pleasant Grove — City staff told the Pleasant Grove City Council at a work session that local residents already qualify for the Central Utah Water Conservancy District’s Utah Water Savers landscape incentives, and recommended the city adopt the district’s model standards so homeowners building new residences could receive higher rebates.
Director Daniel Cardennis showed councilors the program website and said current rebates are $1.50 per square foot for lawn replacement, $0.50 per square foot to switch existing planting beds to drip irrigation, and $50 per tree. Cardennis said adopting the district’s standards into city code would increase the lawn‑replacement rebate to $3 per square foot and the switch‑to‑drip rebate to $1 per square foot; the $50 tree payment would remain the same. “Right now, Pleasant Grove residents can go apply,” Cardennis said as he walked through eligibility and the district’s guidance.
The district’s recommended standards presented to council include minimum planting‑strip width requirements (no less than 8 feet at the narrowest point), prohibitions on turf in park strips and on slopes over 25 percent, and a cap that front‑ and side‑yard turf not exceed 50 percent of total landscape area on new residential construction. Staff said those limits apply to new construction and would be enforced through building‑permit reviews and inspections; remodels would not be retroactively required to comply.
Council members raised equity and sampling questions after Cardennis displayed aerial examples of local homes and explained how the 50 percent threshold would affect typical new lots. Council Member Williams asked whether Cardennis’s examples disproportionately represented larger or higher‑end homes; Cardennis replied the guidance is intended for future development and that many existing homes would already qualify under the 50 percent rule.
Councilors asked staff to prepare a short FAQ for residents and to bring draft ordinance language to the Planning Commission for review. There was informal council consensus to proceed; staff said it would begin drafting the code amendment and outreach materials and return with formal proposals. The discussion focused on how to market the program now (residents can apply under current rates) while notifying the public that a local code amendment under consideration could double rebate amounts for qualifying future projects.
The work session did not include a formal council vote on the ordinance; staff said they will present the draft to Planning Commission and then to council for any formal action.
