Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees Meter Based topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Smithville staff proposes meter-size impact fees to reflect actual flow
Summary
City staff proposed restructuring water and wastewater impact fees to base charges on meter capacity (flow) rather than a flat per-meter charge, and will bring revised fee schedules and comparative benchmarks to upcoming meetings.
City staff proposed changing Smithville's water and wastewater impact-fee structure to base charges on meter capacity (flow) rather than a flat per-meter fee, arguing the current approach lets some developers obtain greater capacity for the same fee.
The change would apply to new permits and is intended to align the city's one-time developer charges with the actual capacity a meter can provide.
"The purpose of the impact fees is to collect revenues from the developers to offset expansion of our infrastructure," a city staff presenter said. Staff explained that the existing schedule charges $3,100 whether a developer installs a 5/8-inch meter or a 1-inch meter, but the two meters deliver materially different maximum flows: a 3/4-inch meter runs about 23 gallons per minute and a 1-inch meter about 37 gallons per minute. Staff said multifamily developers have sometimes chosen a 1-inch meter to serve multiple units while paying the same flat fee.
"At least if we split that so that your 3 quarter inch is your base...If a developer wants to serve 2 homes off of a 1 inch line, that's great, but they should pay more than just the 3 quarter inch," the presenter said.
Staff proposed fee tiers linked to meter capacity and flow and noted similar approaches in nearby jurisdictions. They showed comparisons to Johnson County and Kansas-area cities; for context, staff cited sample fees from Olathe and Johnson County where some meter-size fees are substantially higher for larger meters (Olathe figures were provided as examples during the discussion). Staff said the proposed change would affect new permits only; permits already pulled and paid under the current schedule would not be retroactively adjusted.
Board members directed staff to prepare a formal change to the schedule of fees, include the interjurisdictional comparators, and bring the proposal to the Board in the next several meetings and with the usual July/August schedule-fees review. Staff said they would present the revised schedule for adoption alongside the budget where appropriate. No formal vote was taken at the work session.
