Planning commission recommends approval of updated capital facilities and impact-fee plans

The Grantsville City Planning Commission on March 6, 2025 voted to recommend that the Grantsville City Council approve amendments to the city’s capital facilities plan and impact-fee analysis, including an updated transportation fee table (Table 1-14) in the executive summary.

The proposal, presented by city staff member Robert, keeps the planning assumption of 5% annual growth, updates equivalent residential connection (ERC) calculations, adjusts fees for water rights and wastewater projects, and lowers some drinking-water impact-fees where developer‑constructed projects were reprioritized.

Why it matters: impact fees fund growth-related capital projects such as water and sewer expansions, roads, parks and public-safety facilities. The commission’s recommendation moves the amendments to the city council for final approval; city staff said any approved fee schedule will not take effect until 90 days after council approval.

City staff told commissioners the 5% growth rate is an average based on the previous four years of impact-fee collections and residential connections and reflects a 10‑year planning period commonly used in impact‑fee studies. "We keep them lower ... because we're not seeing the impact fees being collected that based on our projections," Robert said, explaining why staff favored a conservative, average growth assumption.

Major technical changes discussed included: - Wastewater: the estimated cost for the proposed wastewater treatment facility rose from roughly $32 million in last year’s draft to about $40 million after updated estimates; the Northwest interceptor also remains a major listed project. Staff said permitting submissions were recent and bidding is anticipated in coming months. - Water/water-rights: staff said the market price for a water right used in the analysis increased to about $29,000 per acre‑foot, which contributed to higher water acquisition fees in the draft. - Drinking water: a drinking-water impact-fee decreased because a developer‑constructed well or tank was reprioritized; staff said that shift reduced the city’s fee‑funded share for that project. - Transportation: staff reduced the proposed transportation impact fee from the work‑session draft after reviewing trip patterns on Sheep Lane and estimating that a substantial share of trips on that roadway originate outside Grantsville; commissioners suggested a formal traffic study for Sheep Lane and broader connectivity analyses. - Parks and public safety: the plan adds West Street Park and maintains the citywide parks level of service; public‑safety components were adjusted after meetings with the police and fire chiefs and reflect planned building renovations and satellite station concepts. Staff noted city hall cannot be charged to impact fees.

Staff also discussed financing and grants: the city recently secured a $16 million state loan for sewer work at 0.75% interest for 30 years; staff said they continue to pursue additional state or federal funding to help cover the larger treatment-plant estimate. Staff noted some storm‑drainage and replacement projects address existing deficiencies and therefore cannot be funded by impact fees; many storm‑drainage improvements are typically constructed by developers.

Commissioners and staff agreed to continue annual reviews of the fee schedules so adjustments can be made if growth or construction costs diverge from assumptions. Several commissioners emphasized the need for updated transportation analyses and county/city coordination on connectivity projects that could shift travel patterns.

The commission’s motion recommended approval of the amendments, explicitly including the updated transportation table (Table 1-14) in the executive summary. The motion was made and seconded (mover and seconder not specified in the transcript) and passed by voice vote.

Next steps: the planning commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Grantsville City Council for final consideration; staff reiterated that, per the presented schedule, any approved impact‑fee schedule would not take effect until 90 days after council approval.