Bonneville Int’l Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 858 P.2d 1045, 1048 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Morton Int’l Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 814 P.2d 581, 590 (Utah 1991)). Furthermore, the term “may” is generally construed to be “permissive and not mandatory” and is generally not interpreted to limit options, but, rather, to clearly define some of those options. See Salt Lake On Track v. Salt Lake City, 939 P.2d 680, 681 (Utah 1997) (noting statute providing city “ ‘may by ordinance grant franchises to railroad and street railroad companies ... ’ empowers a city to grant a franchise [but] is not the exclusive means by which a city may permit a third party to install a railroad on city streets”); Banberry Dev. Corp. v. South Jordan City, 631 P.2d 899, 901 (Utah 1981) (<HOLDING>); Dehm v. Dehm, 545 P.2d 525, 528 (Utah 1976)
holding that the legislature clearly intended that authority over water quality not be exercised in a manner that significantly compromises the appropriative rights of present or future water users holding statute providing city may collect water fees in the same manner as  for the collection of sewer fees  is permissive not mandatory and poses no statutory prohibition against the collection of a water connection fee in different manner recognizing a partys right to receive postjudgment fees for collection when the original judgment awarded that party attorney fees holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially holding defendant liable for attorneys fees when the guaranty contract at issue provided for the payment of collection costs and expenses