Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Hurricane City council reviews plan to raise storm‑drain fee to fund $18M in drainage projects
Loading...
Summary
City staff and consultants presented an $18 million storm‑drain master plan and recommended options including an $11 monthly storm‑drain utility fee (with a 3% annual increase), impact fees tied to ERUs, or bonding; council asked staff to return with project maps, a property‑tax comparison and public outreach materials before any adoption vote.
HURRICANE — City consultants told the Hurricane City Council that the storm‑drain master plan identifies about $18 million in capital improvements, and presented options for how to pay for them, including a proposed $11 monthly storm‑drain utility fee and a separate impact fee for new development.
"We have about 18,000,000 total here," Susie Beckers of Zions Bank said while walking council members through the rate model and project list. The model shows net operating revenues must remain positive before debt service, and that the city faces a choice of raising rates, delaying projects or issuing bonds to pay for the identified work.
Consultants and staff told councilors the $18 million breaks down roughly into three time bands: about $4.8 million to address existing deficiencies, about $7.8 million tied to growth over the next 10 years (the portion that can be charged to new development as impact fees), and roughly $5.4 million for capacity beyond a 10‑year horizon. Colton Smith of JUV Engineers said the ERU methodology used by the team treats a single‑family home as 1 ERU, a multifamily unit as about 0.37 ERU and uses 5,000 square feet of impervious area as an ERU for nonresidential parcels.
Councilors asked whether the projects are replacement, upsizing or new installations; presenters cited examples including replacements on 400 West and 1150 West, an extension on 1760 West and new pipe and outfall needs on 1300 South and 3000 South. Presenters said some work is paired with roadway reconstructions while other items are standalone trunk‑line or capacity improvements.
To pay for the plan, consultants offered scenario testing. One recommended option discussed at length would raise the monthly utility rate from the current $4 to $11 with a 3% annual escalator. "We're proposing an $11 fee per month with a 3% annual increase," a presenter said. The model shows that without rate changes the fund would run out of cash when large capital projects come online; with the $11 plus escalation the cash position is projected to remain positive under the consultants' assumptions.
Council members debated alternatives. Some favored a pay‑as‑you‑go approach to minimize long‑term interest costs; others said residents need to see projects completed and suggested bonding to accelerate construction. Susie Beckers noted that bonding could allow early projects (she offered a hypothetical $5 million bond) but would increase total interest costs over time and require maintaining standard coverage ratios for debt service.
Several councilors raised the political optics of raising rates, noting prior resident complaints when fees rose in earlier years. Staff also warned of recurring regulatory costs tied to MS4 (municipal stormwater) obligations: a staff member estimated operating costs rising substantially next year and said roughly 30% of some street crew hours are devoted to drainage maintenance, highlighting that drainage work already consumes general‑fund resources.
Comparisons to neighboring cities were reviewed informally; councilors reported quick checks showing a range of stormwater fees — local figures mentioned by a councilor included items such as $15.50, $13.80 and $7 (plus floodplain fees) in nearby jurisdictions — and staff agreed to compile an updated comparison.
Council direction and next steps: councilors asked staff to bring back a refined package that includes project maps and photos showing problem locations, a property‑tax versus fee revenue comparison (how large a mill‑rate change would be required to produce equivalent revenue), clearer project timelines indicating which projects could be started with pay‑as‑you‑go revenue or with bonds, and a public outreach plan (videos and photos) before placing an adoption item on a future agenda. Staff said the first projects under a pay‑as‑you‑go scenario would likely be in the 2028 construction year, while bonding could allow earlier starts.
The council did not vote; members asked for the additional information and said they want public notice and an open meeting before any formal adoption vote so residents can review the list of projects and ask questions.