Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rates And Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Water Environment Services board advances rules clarifications for reimbursement districts and billing
Summary
The Water Environment Services board voted 4-0 on June 10 to advance a set of rules-and-regulations updates for public hearing, including clarified definitions for reimbursement districts, a proposed 3% construction-cost interest standard for reimbursement charges, and new apportionment provisions.
The Water Environment Services (WES) board on June 10 voted 4-0 to advance proposed updates to its rules and regulations for a future public hearing, directing staff to finalize language and begin the required county-counsel review and public comment period.
Ron Wearingga, deputy director of Water Environment Services, told the board the majority of edits are housekeeping but highlighted three policy clarifications: tightening the definition of a "specially benefiting property" for reimbursement districts; standardizing the interest applied to 10-year reimbursement charges; and adding a process for apportioning reimbursement charges when parcels subdivide or when a single connection would otherwise bear the full charge. "We're proposing 3% based on construction costs," Wearingga said, explaining staff used a long-term engineering construction cost index to reach the figure.
The change to the definition of a specially benefiting property would make explicit that eligible properties must be outside the applicant's common-plan development and able to connect directly to qualifying off-site infrastructure. Wearingga said that change aims to prevent applicants from including their own development and infrastructure as part of a reimbursement district, which was not the intent of the 2023 rules.
On apportionment, Wearingga described scenarios that motivated the wording: a property with frontage that later subdivides, and a rural parcel whose septic system fails and that would be unduly burdened by a full reimbursement charge for a single connection. He said county counsel had recommended clarifying language to allow adjustments on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioners asked about administrative burden and cost recovery. Commissioner Helm asked whether the district recovers its staff time; Wearingga said application fees recover a portion of costs and that staff has not completed a full cost-recovery analysis. After the vote staff told the board the current application fee in the county fee table is $3,490 for a reimbursement district application.
Director Helm moved and Director Shrader seconded the motion to advance the updates as presented; the clerk called the roll and Directors Savis, Shrader, Helm and Chair Roberts voted in favor. The board recorded the motion as passing 4-0. The rules remain a draft, and staff said they will return with final language after county-counsel review and a public comment period followed by a public hearing for ordinance adoption.
The board did not adopt the rules today; advancing the package places the draft into the formal public process. Staff said they expect to bring a final hearing to the board in the coming months after completing the review and public-notice steps.
