Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surf City council backs most midyear fee changes but fault lines emerge over system development fees
Summary
Council approved consensus on parking, annexation, zoning and other midyear fee amendments. Members split over proposed increases in water/sewer system development fees tied to a large wastewater project; staff defended the recommendation as necessary to qualify for loans and protect ratepayers.
Surf City staff presented a midyear package of fee-schedule amendments and secured council consensus on most items — including a $5-per-hour standard parking rate (daily $25; weekly $100), increasing the annexation fee to $300, reinstating a $100-per-day zoning-violation fee, and corrections to sanitation cart pricing.
Kyle Brewer, presenting the package, said the changes correct omissions in the fee schedule and align Surf City with neighboring jurisdictions. He said staff recommends retaining four free parking passes for Island Town Center businesses and charging $100 for additional passes.
The most contested portion of the discussion centered on proposed increases to water and sewer system development fees (SDFs). Those fees are statutorily tied to engineering cost estimates and funding needs for planned capital projects; staff presented a rate study and recommended an intermediate rate that would help fund a multi-phase wastewater improvement program including a subsurface phase and a potential discharge project.
One council member argued in favor of charging the maximum allowable SDFs on the grounds that "development should pay for development," saying the difference could produce millions in revenue and avoid shifting costs to existing ratepayers. Another council member countered that adopting a near-maximum SDF would effectively commit the town to a major discharge project (cost estimates discussed in-session) and could function as a moral commitment to build despite remaining uncertainties about permits and rulemaking.
Staff and the town's outside engineer explained the statute allows the town to collect SDFs only at building-permit issuance, that SDFs are calculated per statutory methodology and that the Local Government Commission would review any future borrowing capacity based on user rates. Staff recommended the proposed rates while noting the council could revisit them in two years when project viability and rulemaking clarity improved.
Council gave consensus to move forward with the non-SDF fee changes and directed staff to bring the SDFs forward for public hearing and fuller presentation at the February meeting so the council and public can weigh the options.
The discussion highlighted competing priorities: limiting ratepayer subsidies versus ensuring the town does not overcommit to a large capital project without clearer regulatory and funding certainty.
