Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews wastewater facilities plan; consultant proposes $1,135.42 per-ERU sewer impact fee cap
Summary
City staff and consultant Bowen Collins presented a wastewater impact fee facilities plan that calculates a maximum allowable sewer impact fee of $1,135.42 per equivalent residential unit (ERU). Council directed staff to return the item for action at the March 12 meeting.
A consultant presentation at the Washington City Council workshop on Feb. 26 laid out a proposed update to the city's wastewater impact fee facilities plan and said the maximum allowable sewer impact fee, based on the plan's 10-year window, would be $1,135.42 per equivalent residential unit (ERU).
The briefing was delivered by Aaron Anderson of Bowen Collins, with Public Works assistant director Lester Dalton introducing the item as a follow-up to the city's capital facilities plan. Anderson said the fee calculation combines a share of already-constructed system-level improvements and the cost of new facilities needed to serve projected growth over the next 10 years. "That gets us to the 1,135.42," Anderson said during the presentation.
Anderson and Dalton told the council the calculation uses the city's ERU growth forecast from the Culinary Water Master Plan and a hydraulic model to identify capacity needs. The consultants accounted for both domestic flows and infiltration, and noted the plan assumes lower infiltration rates for new construction. Anderson said the impact fee law requires collected fees be spent or encumbered within six years, so the plan uses a 10-year planning window to match typical practice.
The presentation noted the city's impact fee covers collection-system capacity only; a separate passthrough fee covers regional treatment at St. George's facility. Anderson said the regional component included in comparisons is roughly $13.79 per ERU for St. George's collection/treatment component. The consultant also compared Washington City's computed fee to other nearby jurisdictions and placed Washington in the mid-to-high range among peers.
Council members asked about the growth assumptions and how they affect unit cost. Anderson said growth projections came from the Culinary Water Capital Facilities Plan prepared with city staff; he explained higher or lower growth typically moves both project costs and the number of ERUs proportionally, leaving the unit cost relatively stable unless a single very large, expensive project is triggered.
After questions about methodology and the timing for adoption, council members and staff agreed to return the impact fee proposal as an action item at the council's March 12 meeting. Mayor (not specified) asked if the council was ready for that schedule; a council member replied, "I am."
