Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bastrop hears wastewater expansion options as consultants show potential fee hikes
Summary
Consultants presented two wastewater expansion scenarios and accompanying impact-fee calculations that would raise maximum allowable wastewater impact fees from about $5,089 to roughly $8,503 per 3/4-inch equivalent meter under a 4-MGD plan; council asked for phasing and outreach while a resident warned of affordability impacts.
Consultants from NewGen Strategies told the Bastrop City Council on Oct. 22 that growth-driven wastewater costs are prompting a review of the city's impact fees and two plant-expansion scenarios.
Richard Campbell described the legal framework (Texas Chapter 395) and a methodical 10-year planning window for impact fees, noting the city used a conservative 4% growth factor in its forecasts. NewGen presented two plant options: a 4-million-gallons-per-day (MGD) expansion and a 6-MGD expansion. After applying a 50% revenue-credit approach, the firm calculated a maximum allowable wastewater impact fee of about $8,503 per equivalent 3/4-inch meter under the 4-MGD scenario; NewGen identified the city's current wastewater impact fee at roughly $5,089, producing a difference of about $3,400 per residential-equivalent meter if the full maximum were adopted.
Campbell stressed that the figures are the statutory maximums municipalities may adopt and that the council and staff decide how to apply credits and whether to adopt the maximum. He also noted the calculation is driven largely by which portion of a multi-phase plant is includable in the 10-year CIP; under the 4-MGD plan NewGen allocated a little more than $52 million to the 10-year window and then derived per-service-unit fees.
Council members pressed for details. Councilmember Meyer asked how the 4% growth factor was derived; Campbell said it is conservative and based on historical engineering growth projections. Councilmember Foster asked about options to phase an adoption over multiple years; consultants said phasing is possible and has been used elsewhere, but the remainder of needed revenue would then fall to ratepayers. Councilmember Lee asked whether wholesale (wholesale customers) would pay the same impact fees; staff and consultants said future wholesale agreements must be written to address impact-fee adjustments.
A resident, Tom Leibovitz, told council the fee increase under consideration (about 70% of the current figure, per his comment) could be burdensome and reduce housing affordability for seniors and people downsizing.
Next steps outlined to the council included further public notice documents, additional analysis, and a plan to return to the council in January with adoption still to be scheduled. No adoption vote occurred on Oct. 22.
Sources and caveats: Fee amounts and project-cost figures were reported in the council presentation by NewGen Strategies; the consultant characterized many numbers as "maximum allowable" under state law and subject to council discretion. Where figures were numeric in the presentation they are attributed here to Richard Campbell and NewGen Strategies.
