Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Cip Sdfs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County utilities outline multi‑year wastewater and water capital plan; system development fee changes explained
Summary
Utilities staff presented an enterprise fund budget and a multi‑year water/wastewater CIP that includes large transmission mains, pump‑station rehabilitation and a regional biosolids facility; staff also outlined proposed SDF adjustments tied to statutory limits.
County utilities staff presented the preliminary enterprise fund budget and a multi‑year capital improvement plan that lays out major water and wastewater projects and associated funding sources.
Staff said projected water revenues and customer growth are being conservatively budgeted, and recommended personnel and equipment additions for both water and wastewater operations. On capital, planned projects across two fiscal years include transmission mains, regional plant expansions, Bell Swamp pump‑station rehabilitation (staff said that pump station dates to the 1980s and requires significant rehabilitation), northwest and southeast transmission improvements, and a proposed biosolids processing facility. The wastewater CIP includes several projects with multi‑million‑dollar price tags; staff estimated hundreds of millions in combined projects over the next two to three years and noted that these capital needs drive the longer‑term funding outlook.
Staff reviewed proposed changes to system development fees (SDFs) and transmission recovery fees, explaining statutory constraints: state rules limit SDF recovery to a maximum of 75% of eligible project cost, and the county has phased prior increases with an additional step to reach what staff described as 90% of the calculated maximum (leaving a small margin for refunds if overcollection occurs). Staff recommended a rate study be completed in coordination with project cost confirmations so any rate adjustments can be sequenced with final project scopes and debt proceeds.
Commissioners asked for additional detail on how SDFs and pay‑go transfers interact with pay‑as‑you‑go capital and developer contributions; they also discussed whether to accelerate or delay additional SDF phases. Staff reminded the board that a proposed SDF policy change is a policy decision for the board and that a formal rate study would provide the technical basis for any changes. No fee ordinance or rate change was adopted at the meeting; staff were asked to return with refined schedule and updated project cost figures.
