Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears staff briefing on state water funding study, possible new fees that could affect local rates
Summary
City staff briefed the council on a state-led water infrastructure planning effort (House Bill 280) and on a separate division proposal that could impose a new per-connection fee; staff warned the proposed fee levels could significantly increase bills if enacted and encouraged public engagement with legislators.
Layton City staff briefed the council Oct. 16 on a state-level water-infrastructure planning effort created by House Bill 280 and on a draft Division of Drinking Water proposal that would impose new fees on community water systems.
Tracy (staff) and other presenters told council members that lawmakers created a unified water infrastructure plan and a coordinating council to prioritize and allocate large state and federal water grants. The state asked municipal and other water providers to submit project lists; staff said 3,600 projects from 255 entities were submitted statewide.
City staff also described a separate Division of Drinking Water proposal to impose a consumption or per-connection fee to replace declining federal funding. Staff estimated that, under the division's proposed approach, Layton's residential households could face a new per-connection monthly fee and that the state proposal overall could shift a disproportionate share of costs onto larger municipal systems. The presentation included several staff calculations and scenarios; staff repeated that the numbers are estimates and that the legislative process is ongoing.
According to the staff presentation, the division's draft fee scenarios include a $16.32-per-connection-per-month option (presented as an example in staff's slides) and per-thousand-gallon charges under other scenarios. Staff said the division is forecasting a multi-year revenue need and that some interim committees are working through the proposal, and they urged council members to discuss the issue with state legislators.
Council members asked staff whether Layton receives commensurate services for the proposed fee level and raised equity concerns about a structure that would charge very small systems a flat low amount while requiring large systems to provide a large share of revenue. Staff said the city submitted formal comments to the division and that the proposal remains subject to the legislative process and further public review.
No formal council action was taken. Staff said the issue will continue to be monitored and that the city will engage in the interim legislative conversations and public comment process.
