Mantua council approves interlocal wastewater agreement with Brigham City

The Mantua Town Council on Aug. 25 approved a resolution and an interlocal cooperation agreement with Brigham City to use Brigham City wastewater services for Mantua discharge of wastewater.

Council members and staff said the agreement sets procedures for collecting impact and hookup fees, requires Mantua to notify Brigham City of land‑use and building permit applications, and references the Utah Governmental Immunity Act for liability between governmental entities. The council voted to approve the documents by voice vote.

The agreement and related resolution were discussed at length before the votes. Council members and staff described two substantive revisions from earlier drafts: the indemnity language was changed so each governmental party remains responsible for claims arising from its own employees and officers under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act, and collection procedures for hookup/impact fees were clarified so Mantua would issue receipts and Brigham City would receive funds when applicable.

Officials said Mantua staff—identified in discussion as Ron and Angela—will notify Brigham City of received land‑use applications, including building permits for new structures, before Mantua issues approval. Several council members expressed concern about the breadth of the notification requirement as drafted, noting that Brigham City appears to request notice for a wide range of permit types (for example, new driveways, roof or patio work) and asking the town attorney to clarify the meaning of “structure” in the section that triggers notification.

Council members and staff also discussed the agreement’s schedule and special provisions. The draft includes an overage‑charge waiver tied to an earlier letter of intent; text in the agreement waives overage charges until a December 2026 date tied to that LOI. Council members noted inconsistent date references in the draft and asked that the effective date in the agreement be set to the date the town signs, and that the term language be corrected so the intended two‑year hold and the longer term in the agreement align.

Officials emphasized that Mantua cannot retroactively charge permits already in process; the council was told the fee schedule change would apply only to new permits after the effective date. The council directed staff to update the town’s fee schedule and bring a cross‑reference of Mantua ordinances and Brigham City ordinances to a future meeting for comparison.

During discussion a council member reported a rough industry estimate that building a municipal sewer plant could cost roughly $12,000,000; the participants did not adopt any motion to pursue a local plant and characterized that figure as a general estimate mentioned during the conversation.

Actions taken - The council adopted a resolution to enter into an interlocal agreement with Brigham City to use Brigham City wastewater services (voice vote; mover and seconder not recorded in the transcript). The motion passed. - The council approved the interlocal cooperation agreement for wastewater services with Brigham City (voice vote; mover and seconder not recorded in the transcript). The motion passed.

What’s next Town staff were instructed to: notify Brigham City of land‑use applications going forward; update Mantua’s impact‑fee and hookup fee schedule at the next regular meeting or by an emergency meeting if needed; ask the town attorney to interpret or clarify the scope of “land use application” and “structure” in the agreement; and not to attempt to collect fees retroactively for permits already in process.

Background The documents discussed include an earlier letter of intent (LOI) between Mantua and Brigham City, the interlocal cooperation agreement presented to the council on Aug. 25, and an implementing resolution the council adopted at the meeting. The agreement treats both parties as governmental entities and refers to the Utah Governmental Immunity Act for allocation of liability between the parties.

No ordinance or fee amounts beyond those already discussed in the LOI were adopted at the meeting; council members agreed to provide a revised fee schedule for formal consideration at a subsequent meeting.