Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo draft stormwater master plan would shift impact fees from gross-acre to ERU-based charges
Summary
Consultants presented a $76.8 million stormwater capital plan and recommended replacing the city’s gross‑acre impact fee with an ERU (equivalent residential unit) fee tied to measured impervious area; staff estimated roughly $25.8 million in impact‑eligible projects and proposed an ERU fee in the low thousands per unit with annual adjustments.
Provo’s public works department and its consultants presented an updated storm drain master plan that refines basin resolution, deploys city‑specific impervious‑surface mapping, and prioritizes capital improvements. The draft plan lists $76.8 million in recommended projects, with roughly $25.8 million estimated as impact‑fee eligible.
Carlos Garcia of Provo Public Works and consultant Kason Shultz (Hansen Allen & Luce) explained how higher‑resolution drainage basins and impervious‑surface delineation improve hydrologic modeling and allow the city to identify localized flooding and prioritize capital projects. “we feed that into these models and it tells us, okay, where are we flooding? How bad are we flooding? That helps us to prioritize,” Shultz said as he described the modeling and mapping process.
The presentation proposed changing how the city charges developers for stormwater impacts. Under the current gross‑acre method, every acre pays the same fee regardless of how much impervious surface it produces. The consultant proposed an ERU (equivalent residential unit) approach, which bases fees on measured impervious area and therefore assigns a larger share of cost to developments that create more runoff. Staff estimated a preliminary ERU fee in the one‑to‑two‑thousand‑dollar range per ERU under a set of assumptions and calculated approximately 17,580 remaining ERUs to be developed; the consultant emphasized that the city plans to update fees annually to reduce revenue shocks.
Council members pressed staff on revenue stability and fairness. Some councilors asked whether a transition to ERUs could create year‑to‑year budget variability depending on the mix of residential and commercial development; consultants and staff responded that annual fee updates and a mix of gross‑acre/ERU approaches could mitigate volatility. The consultant also noted that ERU charges can incentivize on‑site retention and greener design because retention lowers assessed impervious area.
Staff did not ask the council for final action at this work meeting; councilors requested more maps, detailed revenue projections and examples of how the ERU approach would affect typical residential and commercial projects. Staff said they would return with more precise fee tables and the capital‑plan maps to support final decisions.
