Sanitary engineer proposes permit fee increases for new water connections; commissioners appoint advisory panel to review

County sanitary engineering staff told commissioners they are losing money on new‑service permit fees and asked the board to approve increases for new connections and larger meters, and to adjust charges for fire lines and hydrant rentals.

Why it matters: Engineers said meter hardware and installation costs have risen and current permit fees do not cover direct costs for new customers. Staff said existing customers would not be affected; the proposal covers new connections only. Commissioners expressed concern about timing and directed staff to brief a soon‑to‑be‑appointed advisory panel before final action.

Details: Sanitary Engineer Gary Newbrough presented proposed permit increases that vary by meter size and by whether a meter pit is required. Examples given: a 3/4‑inch residential tap without a meter pit would move from $429 to $475; a residential connection requiring a meter pit was cited rising from about $3,700 to $4,950 to reflect installation costs. Large commercial meters (for example, two‑inch meters) were noted as especially underpriced and could cost the county thousands more than recovered under current fees.

Fire‑line and hydrant meters: The county also reviewed a separate proposal to raise monthly fire‑line charges and to increase hydrant‑meter rentals. Staff said only about 17 accounts use fire lines (commercial/industrial) and proposed a graduated fee structure modeled on city comparisons. Hydrant meters used by contractors were historically rented at $50; staff proposed raising the rental to $250 or $500 and increasing the charge per thousand gallons from $10 to $15.

Advisory panel and timing: Commissioners asked that the newly formed advisory panel on utility rates review permit fee proposals, fire‑line rates, and hydrant meter changes. Commissioners agreed to pull items 16, 17 and 18 from immediate vote and have the advisory panel review them; staff was asked to prepare materials for the panel’s first meeting within a month and to propose an effective date and grandfathering approach for projects already in process.

What was said: “We are losing money on the existing customer… this is all new water permit,” Gary Newbrough said. Commissioner discussion emphasized not rushing changes and recommended giving in‑progress projects a grace period or grandfathering to the prior fee schedule.

Ending: Staff will prepare detailed cost breakdowns and a recommended effective date and will place the fee proposals before the advisory panel at its first meeting; the commissioners left the items tabled pending that review.