Waterwise landscaping ordinance
Ordinance 2026-28 sets landscaping and irrigation standards for new development, including park strips and medians and an expanded plant list, aimed at saving water and qualifying residents for state incentives. Passed 3-2 on Oct. 5, 2026 with the mayor breaking a tie.
Approved
- Type
- Code change
In brief
Waterwise landscaping ordinance appears on one recorded agenda: the City Council meeting of October 5, 2026.
On record, it was approved once.
The most recent decision was approved (3-2) at the City Council meeting of October 5, 2026, with Councilmember Derek Dalton, Councilmember Jeff Williams voting no.
Follow the money and project delivery
Waterwise landscaping ordinance
- Council action
Approved: Ordinance 2026-28: waterwise landscaping standards · Approved minutes Record → · Oct. 5, 2026
- Money in the record
No itemized amount linked in the records collected.
- Signed agreement and payments
Execution and project-level disbursements are not verified by this tracker. They require separate records; meeting approval alone does not establish either.
- Work and operating costs
Check the linked records for completion and recurring operating costs; this tracker does not verify them. Record →
Every hearing and vote
October 5, 2026 · City Council
Ordinance 2026-28: waterwise landscaping standards
Approved · 3-2
The ordinance amends Chapter 9 of the land use code on landscaping, irrigation, park strips, medians and approved plants. Moore said it applies to new development, not existing homes, lets residents qualify for state waterwise incentives and could cut water dedication requirements, citing about eight acre-feet saved on a 50-lot subdivision of half-acre lots. Councilmember Jake Thomas supported it; Dalton preferred incentives to requirements and Williams questioned the need, noting some developers already use such landscaping. Mayor Hammond raised concerns about weeds, maintenance and no process for exceptions. The vote tied 2-2 (Skinner absent) and the mayor voted yes to pass it 3-2. Two residents spoke at public comment: one opposed the rules, saying residential use is small next to agriculture, and one supported them as reasonable for drought.