Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Irrigation Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident accuses Grantsville of 'revenue grab' as staff corrects irrigation billing error
Summary
A public commenter alleged the city improperly assumed irrigation shares and moved to bill residents under Resolution 2025-42; staff later acknowledged a calculation error, apologized and announced a corrected annual charge of $206.28 with credits for those overcharged.
Kevin Casey, a resident who addressed the Grantsville City Council during public comment on Sept. 17, urged the council to halt enforcement of Resolution 2025-42 and demanded transparency about the city’s claimed irrigation shares. “This is nothing more than a revenue grab by the city starting on October 1,” Casey said, asserting that residents already paid developers and are being denied shareholder rights by the Grantsville Irrigation Company.
Council staff responded later in the meeting after reviewing the billing computation. A staff member acknowledged an error in the original calculations and apologized, saying, “I did make a mistake, and I would like to apologize.” The staff member told the council the corrected annual charge for residents would be $206.28, to be assessed monthly, and said the city will credit those who already paid the higher amount.
Officials discussed why the city is moving forward with billing. Casey cited Utah Code 11-36a (the Impact Fees Act) and Grantsville City Code 12-1.1, arguing the city may only collect impact fees when it builds or maintains the facility the fees support and that Grantsville Irrigation Company (GIC) continues to own and operate the irrigation system. Council members and staff said they will provide residents with a letter explaining the corrected rate, include a graphic showing the timing of assessments (a six-month “water year” explanation), and, if needed, revisit the resolution.
City staff said the correction will be handled administratively because it reduces the amount charged; the city attorney/administrator stated the staff has the authority to correct downward errors but that the council can amend the resolution if it wishes. Staff also said they will attend upcoming GIC board meetings and report back to the council on representation and share status.
The council did not take a formal vote to rescind or amend Resolution 2025-42 during the meeting. The council directed staff to send the explanatory letter and to follow up with the irrigation company and the public at a future meeting.
