Council begins overhaul of pressurized-irrigation rules, weighing culinary option and exemptions

Council members spent substantial time on a review of the city
pressurized-irrigation ordinance (Title 6, Chapter 5), identifying inconsistencies between what the written code requires and how staff has administered permits and escrow requirements. The ordinance currently requires subdivisions and commercial sites to provide pressurized (secondary) irrigation connections and, in many cases, to turn in water shares or escrow funds as part of development approvals.

Council members raised several recurring questions: why the provision sits under health and sanitation rather than land use; whether all commercial properties should be forced to turn in water shares even where landscaping will be zeroscape or rock; whether culinary water should be allowed as an alternative when the culinary district and backflow protections permit; and how the exemption process operates in practice. Staff noted the code language includes an exemption for minor subdivisions "unless exempted by the city administrator" but that the city has seldom applied it.

Darren (city staff/attorney) advised the council that staff can draft alternative ordinance language and that moving the irrigation rule to Title 10 (land use) would bring future changes to the planning commission for review. Council directed staff to prepare draft code amendments that would: clarify when developers must escrow funds vs. provide actual water shares; define who has authority to grant exemptions and the application process; and consider separate standards for commercial versus residential developments.

The council also discussed broader water-policy implications, including long-term cost comparisons between paying for secondary shares versus culinary water service, and potential grant or district coordination to ease developer costs. No formal ordinance was adopted; staff will return with specific language for future hearings.