Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Capital Improvement Charge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saugatuck council reviews proposed water capital improvement charge tied to state asset‑management plan
Summary
City staff presented Ordinance No. 240708‑A and Resolution No. 240708‑A proposing a dedicated water capital improvement charge to fund mains and lead service line work; Baker Tilly estimated $331,680 annually from a $20/month charge per meter‑equivalent unit, and the council deferred any vote after public comment.
City Manager Cummins presented Ordinance No. 240708‑A and Resolution No. 240708‑A at the July 3 workshop, saying the measures implement recommendations from the city’s Drinking Water Asset Management Plan (AMP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) submitted to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE).
Cummins told the council that Baker Tilly’s scenario analysis estimates annual revenue of $331,680 if the city adopts a $20 per month charge per meter equivalent unit (MEU), defined in the presentation as a customer with a 5/8‑inch meter; customers with larger meters would pay proportionally more. The proposal would create a separate line item on water bills to provide a dedicated funding source for future water‑main and lead service‑line replacements and reduce pressure on the general fund. Staff presented the fee to take effect Jan. 1, 2025 if adopted.
Cummins framed the change as responding to three needs: aging infrastructure, new environmental compliance requirements and long‑term financial stability for capital projects. He said the user‑pay principle underlies the recommendation and that the ordinance would amend water regulations while the resolution would update the city’s fee schedule.
Several members of the public raised related fiscal concerns during the public‑comment period. Richard Williams challenged the STR statistics discussed elsewhere on the agenda and said a proposed $50 per homeowner water service charge would be excessive, suggesting instead that the city consider selling airport property to raise funds; the presentation to council did not include a $50 homeowner charge as part of the Baker Tilly scenario. No council vote on the ordinance or resolution occurred at the workshop.
The council has three formal options on the Planning Commission and staff recommendation: accept (with or without changes) and direct staff to prepare ordinance language and fee schedules for adoption, reject the recommendation entirely, or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. Staff noted some implementation details remain open, including meter‑class calculations for nonstandard accounts and how the dedicated revenue will be tracked and reported.
