Water board recommends revised secondary‑water impact fee plan after staff corrects calculation error

The Hurricane City Water Board voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a revised Secondary Water System Impact Fee Facilities Plan and a related Secondary Water Impact Fee Analysis following a staff presentation and board discussion.

Staff presenter (Speaker 9) told the board the revision was prompted by changes in regional planning by the Washington County Water Conservancy District — including a proposed regional reuse pipeline tying the Saint George Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to local systems — and by newly available water‑right opportunities in the Gateway/Sand Hollow area. He said the changes required reworking the city’s capital facilities plan and splitting the city into three distinct secondary‑water service areas: the historic canal‑company service area, the Sand Hollow/Gateway service area, and a third ‘‘everything else’’ area the city will serve.

The presenter disclosed a drafting error in the version circulated prior to Thanksgiving. "We used the wrong table," Speaker 9 said, and staff adjusted the calculation, redistributed the corrected tables to city staff the same day, and committed to reposting the corrected draft. Board members requested the corrected tables and the citywide/current fees be placed side‑by‑side when the package goes to council.

Board discussion focused on how the revisions affect bonding credits, water rights and level‑of‑service assumptions. Staff and others explained differences between the city’s tables and Zions Bank’s impact‑fee analysis (the bank’s analysis applies a bonding credit for existing bond payments, which can lower the bank’s effective fee). Board members flagged at least one bond missing from the draft (a roughly $6,000,000 item identified during the meeting) and an NRCS‑related financing element (about $12.6 million, roughly half for pressurized irrigation) that staff said they would verify with Susie and reflect in the final credits.

Members also pressed staff on the assumptions used to calculate irrigation demand. Several places in the draft referenced 4 acre‑feet per acre; speakers noted Utah permits up to 6 acre‑feet per acre and that agricultural/canal‑company areas should preserve a higher assumption where applicable. Staff said the city used a mix of assumptions (one reference in the discussion noted primary shares equate to about 5.4 acre‑feet) and that conservation and adopted local ordinances reducing outdoor use were factors that lowered the projected per‑acre demand in some service areas.

On a voice vote, the board approved a motion to recommend to the City Council that it adopt the Secondary Water System Impact Fee Facilities Plan and the Secondary Water Impact Fee Analysis. Speaker 8 made the motion and it received a second; the chair called for ayes and the motion passed with no recorded opposition. The board directed staff to provide corrected tables, to clarify rounding and the effective planning years (staff said the adoption is expected to be effective in 2026), and to bring clear comparisons of current versus proposed fees when the matter goes to the City Council.

Next steps: the board will forward the revised plan and impact‑fee analysis to City Council for consideration. Staff also said they would recheck bonding credits (with Susie) and ensure the corrected tables and rounding conventions are explicit in materials presented to council.