Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fee Schedule Septic Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews land‑use fee schedule and explores annual maintenance charge for septic tracking
Summary
Staff presented the 2021 fee schedule, workload metrics and options to recover costs for system maintenance tracking; the committee asked staff to return with a formal proposal, including a possible $5–$7 annual per‑system charge.
Get email alerts on the Fee Schedule Septic Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff presented a review of the Dunn County land‑use fee schedule Sept. 3, showing current permit volumes and plumbing system inventories and asking the committee whether to adopt changes to recoup costs associated with inspections and long‑term maintenance tracking.
Planning staff noted current permit volumes average about 300 zoning permits and 200 sanitary permits annually and that the county has roughly 10,500 septic systems recorded in its database. Staff said current fees primarily cover review and inspection time and suggested the committee consider a small annual maintenance charge to fund follow‑up on required maintenance notices and the new database work. “We're going to be sending roughly 5,000 notices out every year,” staff said while explaining the operational burden of tracking responses and enforcing maintenance requirements.
Options discussed Staff presented comparative fees from neighboring counties and said a small annual special assessment — $5 in some counties, $7 on average — could produce meaningful revenue for maintenance follow‑up without imposing large costs on individual property owners. Committee members asked whether fees may exceed costs; staff responded that state statute limits fees to recouping actual costs for the service. The committee also discussed logistics: whether the maintenance charge should be a special charge added to property tax rolls or billed directly by the county, and whether towns have authority to levy such charges.
Committee direction Members asked staff to quantify revenues from several percent‑increase scenarios and to return with a formal proposal, including implementation logistics, cost estimates, and public outreach. Staff advised implementation on a tax roll would likely not meet the current calendar deadlines for 2025 and would be phased in later (committee discussion referenced a potential 2027 start if added as a special charge). Committee members also emphasized the need for outreach and a clear plan for enforcement before imposing any new recurring charge.
Ending The committee did not change fees at the meeting but asked staff to prepare a detailed recommendation and revenue estimate for a future meeting. Staff said they would include the analysis in the next packet and suggested public outreach along with any resolution the county board would need to adopt.

