Gloucester County to advertise public hearing on higher water and sewer connection fees

The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors voted to advertise a public hearing July 15 on proposed increases to water and sewer application and development fees, and on a suite of related service charges.

The changes — presented by Katie Legg, director of public utilities — include steep increases in some connection charges (an option the staff labeled “option 2” would raise application fees and substantially increase development fees), a proposal to raise discontinuance and after‑hours reconnection charges, and a new equipment‑tampering fee to cover meter and meter‑box replacements.

Legg told the board that the county’s connection revenue has fallen from earlier peaks and that nearly all new connections use three‑quarter‑inch meters: “That’s going to be the one you know, those are the homes that are being built. So that’s going to have some pushback,” she said, arguing higher application fees could be used to support capital and maintenance needs rather than ongoing operating costs. Legg also said the county’s current connection fee schedule has not changed since 2011.

The board weighed competing goals: several supervisors said raising fees could help pay for crossing points and other capital work needed to extend service, while others cautioned that higher development fees ultimately get passed to buyers and could slow growth. Supervisor Bezani urged a larger increase in development fees to build a fund dedicated to expansion; other supervisors said a higher application fee aimed at maintenance might be preferable.

The county staff modeled three options before the board. Using Gloucester’s adopted FY‑26 budget as a baseline, staff estimated the three packages would yield, roughly, an additional $76,000 (moderate increase), $130,000 (more aggressive increase), or $56,000 (alternative mix) in annual revenue if realized. Staff cautioned that connection revenue fluctuates with construction activity and that the county has previously budgeted revenues that did not materialize.

The board voted on a motion to advertise a public hearing on the higher package as presented in the packet (the board’s motion referenced the staff’s “option 2” package with a clarified master‑meter surcharge). The clerk called a roll: Doctor Orth, Mister Hudson, Mister Smith, Mister Krisco, Mister Bezani, Mister Nikosha, and Mister Gibson voted yes; the motion carried.

If adopted after the public hearing, the fee changes would affect new connections and any property that elects to connect after the ordinance change; the county will continue to describe how development fees are restricted to system expansion and how application fees could be directed toward capital maintenance. The public hearing will give developers, residents and other stakeholders an opportunity to comment before the board makes a final decision.