Spring City holds public hearing on proposed water impact fee increase; no vote on adoption

Spring City held a public hearing on proposed increases to impact fees for culinary water tied to recently financed water and wastewater projects. City staff and a Sunrise Engineering consultant described an analysis the council commissioned to ensure new development contributes its share of growth-related infrastructure costs, and residents questioned the size of the proposed increase and its distributional effects.

City staff said Sunrise Engineering produced an initial draft in July and staff spent several months reviewing eligible capital costs so that new development would help pay down bonds on the projects. Staff described the water project as necessary to address capacity, pressure and fire-flow needs and said the project was sized for about 20 years of future growth. According to staff, the analysis posted on the city website lists the city’s current culinary water impact fee (the draft shows “1,274”), and staff described a per-connection calculation discussed in the meeting as increasing from “$12.74” to “$42.44” in the staff’s verbal summary during discussion. Meeting comments repeatedly characterized that change as roughly a 350% increase. Staff emphasized that impact fees apply only to new connections or new homes and are intended to ensure new development pays a proportionate share of infrastructure costs rather than shifting the full burden to current residents.

Several residents asked detailed questions. John Stewart asked how many connections would be needed to justify the bond spending and calculation assumptions; staff replied the question depends on how growth is distributed and reiterated the project’s justification. Staff said the project would allow roughly 580 additional equivalent residential connections (ERCs), though they emphasized ERCs must be sited and distributed appropriately, and noted there are roughly 99 buildable lots inside the city limits. The meeting record includes an anecdote from a resident, Bill Morris, who said, “I paid $28,000” when describing his recent experience building a house, a comment used by other speakers to illustrate local development costs.

Staff also cited state law constraints, saying the city cannot impose an impact fee unless there is a project (a bonded/loaned improvement) associated with the fee; they noted that if the council were to approve a new or increased impact fee, state statute requires the fee wait at least 90 days before taking effect. No ordinance, resolution, or formal adoption of a fee schedule took place at this hearing.

Public reaction included concerns over affordability and the magnitude of the percentage increase; staff and the consultant argued impact fees vary widely by community because they are tied to eligible capital improvements and proportionate cost allocation. The consultant noted neighboring communities can show higher or lower fees based on their projects and eligible costs and cautioned comparisons must consider what improvements were counted.

The public meeting concluded without a decision on adopting the proposed fee. Council made a procedural motion to adjourn the public meeting; the motion passed in a voice roll call (affirmative recorded for Randy; Martin McCain; Ben/"Ken" Croke; and Courtney). The record does not show any subsequent vote to adopt or change the impact fees during this session. The posted analysis remains the public reference for the draft numbers and staff indicated next steps would follow the council process and any statutory notice periods.