Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bastrop council hears warning that wastewater expansion could top $100 million; impact fee study to set cost allocation
Summary
City Manager Sylvia warned that future wastewater plant expansion costs 'in excess of a hundred million dollars' and said a third‑party impact fee study will determine how much growth can pay; staff highlighted use of ARPA and bonds for near‑term rehab work and told council impact fees currently cover existing debt only.
At the Bastrop pre‑budget workshop City Manager Sylvia told council that the city’s water and wastewater capital needs are substantial and that a third‑party capital impact fee study is underway to determine what future development must pay to cover capacity increases.
Sylvia said the city’s current capital impact fees only cover existing debt and that project lists for future capacity will require higher impact fees or bond financing; she repeated an earlier engineering estimate from Friese and Nichols that preliminary costs for a future wastewater treatment plant expansion are "in excess of a hundred million dollars." The manager said the city is using ARPA funds and smaller rehabilitation projects in the short term (an ARPA‑funded rehab of the old treatment plant estimated in the $3–4 million range) while it completes impact fee work.
On a more immediate project, FY2025 budget line items include a Westside water service expansion budgeted at $2.8 million, plus other borrowings and pipe‑bursting projects already included in recent bond approvals. Sylvia said the city had sent information to third‑party impact fee analysts to calculate new fees that can legally be justified for capacity and recovery; she cautioned the council that proposed fee increases may be challenged as stifling development and that any change will require council negotiation.
Councilmembers asked whether the city can continue to serve the projected development on the West Side with current capacity; Sylvia said the existing plant is functionally operating (with some HVAC and office occupancy issues) and that the city is currently managing flows and using the old plant to buy time while funding and agreements are resolved. She also noted potential development agreements, public improvement districts or municipal utility districts as cost‑sharing mechanisms, and that some negotiations are subject to nondisclosure agreements at this stage.
Sylvia asked the council to expect more detailed impact‑fee recommendations in coming months and noted that the city will need to decide how much to rely on fees versus bonded debt and developer cost sharing.
