Draft impact-fee study would more than double some electrical connection charges; city staff to seek council input

Matt LeBourcin, chief electrical engineer at ICPE, and Fred Philpott of LRB presented a draft impact-fee facilities plan and proportionate-share analysis to the Hurricane City Power Board, saying the study ties projected system growth and specific transmission and substation projects to the fees developers could be charged.

The study uses a 10-year load forecast and a capital project list to estimate costs that should be assigned to new development, LeBourcin said. "The 5-year load growth was estimated to be approximately 24 megawatts," LeBourcin said, and the firm projected about 40 megawatts of growth over 10 years from 2024 (he cited a current system peak of roughly 50.6 megawatts and a projected planning-year figure in the report). He added that about 32 megawatts of the 10-year increase are tied directly to planned developments the firm was given.

Fred Philpott, who explained the financial calculation, said the analysis values existing transmission/substation facilities at about $42,000,000 and identifies roughly $40,000,000 in growth-related capital projects in the plan. After applying project allocations, inflation, professional expenses and credits, the draft produced a cost-per-kilowatt figure that the team used to derive panel-based fees. "That produces a cost per KW of $1,001.67," Philpott said from the presentation.

Nut graf: The draft shows a substantial increase in the maximum allowable impact fee under state and local rules that limit what cities may charge; board members and staff were reminded jurisdictions frequently adopt fees below the maximum. Philpott said the legislative body may adopt something lower than the study's maximum and that any adopted increase would be subject to a 90-day waiting period before taking effect.

Among the concrete numbers presented: a sample schedule in the draft would raise a typical 200-amp residential connection charge from about $2,600 to roughly $6,653 under the study's primary assumptions. Consultants said a different demand baseline—using a longer historical span and a slightly different load figure discussed in the facilities plan—would reduce the calculated fee materially, to roughly a $6,000 charge for the same panel in the consultants' recalculation, which Philpott described as about a 32% increase instead of the roughly 56% figure in the first presentation.

Board members pressed for the assumptions behind the numbers. LeBourcin walked through the engineering inputs: a 10-year forecast, tabled development projects (Balance of Nature, Romney, Southern Dunes, Sky Mountain and others) and a set of transmission and substation projects the firm estimated would be needed to serve the forecasted load. "The largest of all those projects... assigned a projected load which is about 32 megawatts," he said.

Philpott explained key choices that drive the fee: which projects are included, the portion of each project's cost attributable to growth versus existing-system reliability, and inflation assumptions (the draft applies an annual inflation factor on future projects). Because those choices strongly affect the fee, Philpott told the board they could adopt a lower fee than the maximum—or remove projects from the capital list—to reduce the charge without shifting cost to ratepayers.

Board members and staff discussed trade-offs. Several said they wanted to avoid shifting costs from new development to existing ratepayers; others noted the political difficulty of a sudden, large fee increase for builders. One council-member–style speaker asked about the kilowatt-per-residence assumptions used in the model; LeBourcin said distribution-design assumptions ranged between roughly 5 kW and 10 kW per home depending on lot and home size, and that the study includes a column showing kW per dwelling for the modeled subdivisions.

The consultants recommended presenting the draft to the city council for public hearing and action; Philpott said the city could adopt fees lower than the maximum in the study and reminded the board of the 90-day effective-date rule on fee increases. The consulting team said they would provide an updated version showing the lower, alternative calculation (the 32% increase scenario) ahead of the council meeting.

Ending: Board members asked staff to get the revised materials into the council packet and flagged a need for clear presentation materials for stakeholders. Philpott and LeBourcin said they would present the draft at the upcoming council meeting and provide an updated schedule showing the reduced-fee scenario.