Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates updating 'fees‑in‑lieu' policy and fee schedule; asks staff for ordinance and MSA documentation
Summary
Commissioners discussed whether fees‑in‑lieu (mitigation/mitigation fee) should apply beyond infiltration/recharge, how rates are calculated, whether fees should include maintenance costs, and whether the city should require more developer notice about flood elevations; staff will locate the MSA study and fee schedule and clarify ordinance language.
The Middleton Water Resources Commission spent substantial time reviewing the city’s fee‑in‑lieu (mitigation fee) policy, debating what standards are eligible for buyouts, whether current dollar rates reflect construction and long‑term maintenance costs, and how to ensure developers pursue on‑site solutions when feasible.
Commissioners described the fee‑in‑lieu mechanism as a tool when on‑site infiltration is infeasible for engineering or site‑constraint reasons, but warned it can become an "easy out" for developers that avoids long‑term maintenance responsibilities. One commissioner asked whether the fee calculation is binary (meet the standard or pay the full fee) and whether fees should be adjusted upward to reflect maintenance obligations over decades.
Staff said the historical fee numbers were derived from an MSA study and a city fee schedule; commissioners asked staff to locate and circulate the updated MSA report, the current fee schedule and the exact ordinance language that governs what standards are eligible for a fee‑in‑lieu. Commissioners discussed placing the numeric rate in the fee schedule (easier to update) rather than embedding it in the ordinance.
Specific points raised
• Historical rates cited in the packet included $0.20 per square foot for infiltration/recharge and $0.375 per square foot for peak‑flow fees, but commissioners said those figures appear to be from earlier studies and need updating for inflation and current construction costs.
• Commissioners asked whether fees should be used only for capital projects (construction of consolidated mitigation projects) or could also pay for studies; staff noted the ordinance currently designates a fund for future projects and that the commission can propose clarifying ordinance language.
• Several commissioners requested clearer definitions of "maximum extent practicable" (MEP) and how feasibility is evaluated so that the commission and applicants have consistent expectations.
Next steps
Staff will locate and share the MSA fee study and any updated fee schedule documents, confirm the exact ordinance language about eligible standards and fee use, and bring back options for revised fee wording and potential renaming ("mitigation fee" or "compliance fee") to avoid the 'buyout' connotation.
