Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes water-supply impact fee to tie new demand to reliability costs; public outreach planned
Summary
Mesa presented an approach to charge new or intensified development for additional water-supply reliability costs via an impact fee collected at intent-to-serve, tying fees to allocations and describing potential uses for collected funds; board asked for additional public engagement.
Staff proposed a water-supply "impact fee" intended to charge new or intensifying development for the marginal reliability costs their additional demand may cause. Mesa framed the fee as distinct from allocations and the intensification review already adopted: allocations set existing baseline water rights, intensification flags projects that increase demand above that baseline, and the impact fee would be the dollar charge attached to new acre-feet.
Mesa said the fee would be applied to projects that trigger the district's "intent to serve" process. Staff would place a condition in the intent-to-serve letter that requires payment of the impact fee at a defined stage of project completion (staff mentioned a collection trigger such as meter installation but said the details are to be developed). Mesa presented a timeline that contemplates additional detail in coming board meetings, a public-comment period and proposed ordinance language prior to a May adoption window; staff noted the schedule is flexible to accommodate other outreach and studies.
On the use of funds, Mesa offered options: collected revenue could prepay CAP-related debt, create a sinking fund for supplemental water purchases in drought, or serve as a dedicated sinking fund for other reliability measures. Staff emphasized the need to document the nexus between the fee and the benefit provided to new development (standard legal requirement for impact fees) and said a nexus and methodology memo would accompany any ordinance.
Directors and members of the public asked about agricultural pumping and drought dynamics. A director cited past drought experience where agricultural demand increased and residential demand decreased; staff noted that the allocations work and the GSA meter program will better quantify groundwater pumping and that the impact-fee proposal targets new or intensified demand rather than historical variation in agricultural pumping. Shirley (member of the public) urged clarity on how the fee would be calculated and how the funds would be used; she also asked whether the fee could go directly toward CAP or other reliability measures. Mesa confirmed staff will test the fee against several funding-use options and nexus justifications.
Staff will open public comment channels, prepare an ordinance and nexus memorandum, and return with proposed fee amounts and collection mechanics after additional outreach and technical work.
