Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Developer seeks cuts to Cash Meadows impact fees; Hyde Park council approves roads reduction, denies stormwater waiver
Loading...
Summary
Developers asked Hyde Park City Council to reduce several impact fees for a proposed 120‑bed skilled‑nursing facility. The council approved a transportation/roads reduction recommended by staff, denied a stormwater credit request, and asked for more data on parks, water and wastewater before acting further.
A developer seeking to build a 120‑bed skilled‑nursing facility in Hyde Park urged the City Council on March 25 to reduce several development impact fees, saying the city’s standard residential-based calculations overstate the project’s true impact on roads, water and sewer.
“My request here for reduction is not me trying to make a simple money grab,” said developer Tyler Howland, who identified himself to the council and asked staff and the developer’s engineers to negotiate a fair plumbing‑fixture‑unit (PFU) analysis with the city’s engineering consultant. He said his team already performed traffic and usage studies and that the facility’s operations would generate different impacts than single‑family residences.
City staff (Marcus) told the council staff had reviewed the developer’s request and recommended approving only the roads/transportation reduction. Marcus said staff asked Sunrise Engineering to base the city’s impact‑fee calculations on data from three comparable facilities in North Logan, rather than strictly on Hyde Park’s ERU (equivalent residential unit) numbers, and that engineers agreed the roadway/trip‑generation adjustment was appropriate.
Council members debated each fee category line‑by‑line. Councilmember Brouwer and others stressed caution about blanket reductions, saying some fees — notably wastewater and water — were likely to reflect real ongoing costs such as laundry and food service at a nursing facility. Marcus explained that the city’s stormwater fee is acreage‑based and already assumes on‑site retention, so staff recommended denying any stormwater reduction.
The council voted to accept staff’s recommendation on transportation/roads impact fees (motion carried by voice vote). The council also voted to deny the requested stormwater reduction. On parks, councilmembers asked staff and the developer for more analytical detail, and the council voted to continue consideration of parks impact fees to the next meeting to allow staff to pull the underlying spreadsheet and for the developer to provide supporting data. For culinary water and wastewater, the council elected to hold the fees at staff‑recommended levels after discussion and a motion to do so.
Marcus said he would coordinate with Sunrise Engineering and the developer’s engineers to reconcile PFU and ERU calculations for water and wastewater and produce a staff memo for the next meeting. The developer acknowledged the urgency — “we are breaking ground very soon” — and urged quick follow‑up.
By the end of the meeting staff summarized: roads reduction approved; stormwater denied; parks to be revisited with additional data; culinary water and wastewater remain at staff‑recommended amounts pending any new analysis.
What’s next: The developer was invited to submit engineering details for City staff and Sunrise Engineering to review; parks impact‑fee calculations will be re‑examined and placed on the council’s next agenda.