Hurricane City council delays decision on proposed power impact fee ordinance

Hurricane City Council on Tuesday discussed Ordinance 2025-4, a proposed power impact fee facilities plan and analysis, and voted to continue the item so the consulting team can address written questions from builders and council members.

The council heard repeated concerns from developers and the Southern Utah Home Builders Association that the fee study may assign costs for facilities outside the most relevant development window, potentially generating what one speaker called “double payment” for capacity. "It's really hard to tell from the data in the study for certain that we aren't charging to the fee payers under this impact fee for facilities that fall outside of that period," said Stacy Young, a land-use attorney and government affairs director for the Southern Utah Home Builders Association.

Fred Philpott, representing the firm that prepared the study for the city, told the council the consultant team had asked for more time to revisit questions about the percentage of project costs assigned to the different planning horizons. Philpott said the engineering team would reexamine assumptions about projects at the tail end of the 10-year planning horizon and could provide scenarios focused on a shorter, six-year or five-year window if the council preferred.

Council members repeatedly raised timing and allocation issues. Several speakers noted that impact fees recover capacity costs on a trailing basis and that major, "lumpy" projects can create large near-term capital needs even when growth appears steady. One council member asked whether a substation built in year eight could be prorated so only the portion of its capacity used within the fee horizon would be charged to new development; Philpott said that is the purpose of the fee percentages and that he would revisit the calculations with his team.

The council also discussed process questions: how the city determines when new capacity is needed, the role of the power department and the power board in identifying projects, and whether amendments or a full new study would be required if growth or costs change. The city attorney and staff explained that state law allows either amendments to the impact fee facilities plan or a full replacement study depending on how many assumptions change.

After the discussion, Councilman Hershey moved and Councilman Thomas seconded a motion to continue the ordinance. The motion passed unanimously.

The council asked staff and the consultant team to meet, provide written responses and, if needed, present updated scenarios before the council makes a final decision.