Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pressurized Irrigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates pressurized-irrigation mapping, grandfathering and equity between customer classes
Summary
Council members debated whether to map residential lots like nonresidential properties, possible grandfathering for currently mapped customers, and whether commercial rates should be higher to discourage culinary irrigation; staff proposed options and spot-checks.
Council members questioned staff about how pressurized irrigation (PI) charges would be calculated if residential properties were mapped the same way as nonresidential parcels. Public Works Director Sam Kelly and Finance staff explained Table 4 uses gross lot area (and assumes 50% irrigated for residential) while Table 5 bases charges on actual irrigated area. Staff recommended against routine residential mapping due to cost and complexity.
Council Member Ryan Hunter expressed concern for large-lot residential owners who keep portions of their property intentionally dry and suggested allowing mapping at the owner’s request so charges reflect actual irrigated areas. Mr. Bunker and Mr. Kelly proposed offering currently mapped residents the option to remain mapped or switch to a tiered structure, and discussed periodic renewal fees or spot audits to ensure mapped data remains accurate.
Council also discussed whether county and nonresident modifiers remain appropriate (county nonresidential base referenced as $18.50) and whether the original intent (charging certain outside users double) continues to hold. Council asked staff to model bill impacts, examine grandfathering options for the roughly 200–300 currently mapped accounts, and report back.
Ending: Staff will produce scenarios and options for mapping, grandfathering, renewal fees, and enforcement checks for Council consideration at upcoming meetings.
