Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Soda Springs businesses protest $6,000 Main Street water and sewer hookup charge
Summary
Small-business owners told the City Council that a combined $6,000 charge for new water and sewer service lines tied to the Main Street project has caused lost revenue and confusion; city staff said the fees follow city code and offered to provide a more detailed cost breakdown and pursue grant mitigation.
Several Main Street business owners told the Soda Springs City Council that a combined $6,000 charge for water and sewer service-line replacement tied to the city’s Main Street project has cost them revenue and was not adequately communicated in advance.
"The $6,000 bill that the city is trying to make the business pay is out of line," Tamara Hanish, owner of Main Street Diner, said during the council’s public-comment period. Hanish told the council the diner lost customers and closed multiple days while work was underway and estimated a $23,000 drop in revenue compared with the prior year. She said she also paid a plumber $2,500 to prepare for the installation.
City staff and council members said the city followed its municipal code in asking property owners to pay for service-line replacement. Alan Skinner, who spoke for city project staff, told the council that the bid line items list water and sewer service-line replacement and that contractors’ unit pricing averaged roughly $58.20 per foot for water and $63.30 per foot for sewer (plus or minus about 20 percent). Skinner said the city can provide the bid documents if property owners request them.
The disagreement stems from how costs were presented and how the project was communicated to affected businesses. Hanish said business owners were not given a clear written notice that they could face thousands of dollars in hookup charges; she told the council she first heard a much lower estimate earlier in the process and was surprised by the final figure.
Council members and staff described attempts to lessen the burden. Council members said the city applied for multiple grants to offset costs; one county grant application was partially successful and the county awarded about $18,000 toward related work and offered to coordinate with the city to share funds for affected property owners. City staff said larger grant applications were denied. The council said it would provide businesses a more detailed written breakdown of the service-line charges and promised to improve project communication in future work.
Council members also emphasized that the city’s ordinance places responsibility for service-line replacement on property owners in specific circumstances. During the meeting a city speaker referenced municipal provisions (recorded in the meeting as sewer: section 13.12.06 and water: section 13.08.16) as the code basis for assessing costs to customers.
No formal vote was taken to change the fee policy at the meeting. Council members acknowledged communication failures during the Main Street project and asked staff to return with clearer cost breakdowns and options to mitigate the impact on small businesses.
The council did not adopt a new fee schedule or direct full absorption of the charges by the city; instead members asked staff to provide more detail and to keep pursuing grant or county assistance to reduce the amount borne by individual business owners.
