Ivins continues sewer master-plan update; staff recommends repair-and-replacement trust

Ivins City Council continued a June 19 work-session discussion on updating the city’s master plan, impact-fee facilities plan and sewer repair-and-replacement (R&R) cost estimates, as consultant Chuck presented a multi-decade life-cycle model using the city’s GIS data.

The model, Chuck said, is based on an inventory that assigned an installation age to every sewer pipe. “52.6% of the system was installed in the nineties,” he said, and he projected replacements and rehabilitations across decades using a 75‑year average life assumption. Using a $100,000,000 system replacement value and conservative financial assumptions — 2.5% inflation and a 5% fund investment return — the model found that setting aside 0.826% of replacement value now would translate to roughly $834,000 per year under those assumptions.

The proposal is conceptual: the model runs in decades for 200 years to show long-term behaviour rather than to precisely predict year‑to‑year budgets. “We never have to save that much money in the future if as long as we start saving that money right now,” Chuck said, describing how interest earnings reduce future annual requirements in the model.

Why it matters: the council emphasized that much of the sewer network is aging and replacement or rehabilitation costs will arrive over future decades; a dedicated R&R fund would spread costs across current and future users and reduce the scale of future bonds. Council members also raised governance questions about how to protect a fund from future policy changes or from being borrowed against.

Key technical and fiscal assumptions discussed

- Asset age: Chuck reported 52.6% of pipes installed in the 1990s; staff said the model uses three decades of installation data to project needs. - Life-span: the model uses a 75‑year average expected life for pipes and manholes. - Inflation and return: 2.5% annual inflation and a 5% fund investment return (a 2.5% real return in the model). - Rehab vs. replacement: the model assumes 50% of needs will be rehabilitation and 50% full replacement, and that rehab costs are about 50% of replacement costs. - Replacement-value basis: the analysis was run on a $100,000,000 system replacement-value baseline provided for reporting.

Governance, legal protections and intergovernmental alignment

Council and staff discussed whether the R&R money should be held as a dedicated account inside the enterprise fund or as a legally restricted fund. City Manager/Attorney Dale and other staff noted the difference: a council can dedicate funds by policy or ordinance but a future council can change that; legally restricted accounts may be subject to state rules and different protections. Council asked staff — including Brian — to research state law that governs restricted funds, whether there are statutory limits or spending triggers if a restricted account grows above a certain threshold, and what legal form would best protect R&R balances.

The council also discussed coordination with Santa Clara because some projects and cost shares are intergovernmental. Chuck said Santa Clara had sent a memo that may require adjustments to cost allocation; staff said they will review the memo and warned that if changes are significant the city might delay the public hearing now planned for July.

Other items mentioned

- The transportation master plan update will be funded 100% by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); staff said the MPO funds cannot be spent until August but the MPO will pay for the study. - Staff recommended documenting the city’s R&R funding philosophy in the master plan, an appendix or in annual financial reports to help future councils understand intent; councilmembers discussed whether an ordinance would better preserve the policy.

Next steps

Staff will: (1) review the Santa Clara memo and identify any cost-allocation changes that would affect the July hearing timeline; (2) research legal options (dedicated vs restricted account) and any state rules about restricted fund thresholds; and (3) return with a finalized report for the public hearing. No formal vote or ordinance was taken at the June 19 meeting.