Council approves first reading of ordinance to adopt state's nonfunctional‑turf rules; some council members and residents warn of costs
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
On first reading the council amended the municipal code to incorporate 2024–25 state restrictions on nonfunctional turf for commercial, institutional, HOA common areas and multifamily developments; one council member voted No and residents raised concerns about compliance costs and redevelopment triggers.
The Fountain City Council voted on Oct. 20 to approve on first reading an amendment to Title 17 of the Fountain Municipal Code that implements state law restrictions on nonfunctional turf and related definitions.
Planning Manager Christy Martinez told the council the ordinance incorporates statutory language from House Bill 24005 (2024) and Senate Bill 251113 (2025). Martinez said the state—s definitions distinguish functional turf (playing fields, playgrounds, parks and other civic recreational uses) from nonfunctional turf (medians, parking lot perimeters, right‑of‑ways and other turf that is not recreational). She said the local amendment adopts the state—s definitions and the statute—s compliance triggers for new development and for redevelopment that disturbs more than 50% of landscaped area.
"Functional turf as defined by the state is turf in recreational or civic areas which include playgrounds, sports fields, picnic grounds, parks and golf courses," Martinez said during the presentation.
During public comment, resident Connie Weisenhunt and other speakers asked whether existing turf in parks would be required to be removed; Martinez said the statute does not require removal of existing nonfunctional turf but redevelopment or repair that disturbs more than 50% of the landscape could trigger compliance. Council members pressed staff for clarity on triggers and small‑business impacts; staff said they will provide guidance to prospective developers about threshold triggers during development review.
Councilmember movement and votes were recorded on the ordinance—s first reading. The motion passed on first reading with one recorded No vote from Mayor Thompson; council instructed staff to provide handouts and to return with any additional guidance at future meetings.
The ordinance does not require removal of existing turf immediately, but it will apply to new development and redevelopment subject to the statute—s thresholds. Planning staff said they will prepare materials to help businesses and property owners understand when replacement or alternative landscaping is required.