Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant outlines options for recovering water and sewer capital costs
Summary
An Ehlers consultant walked trustees through connection fees, impact fees and special assessments and recommended a two-pronged approach: continue sewer connection fees where appropriate and use special assessments for local main extensions while preparing for water impact fees tied to a public facilities needs assessment.
John Cameron, a consultant with Ehlers, presented an informational memo to the Village of Harrison board on options for recovering capital costs for water and sanitary sewer facilities. The presentation traced the village’s historical approach, explained how connection fees and impact fees work under state law, and recommended a mixed strategy that would preserve existing sewer connection zones while using special assessments for area-specific projects.
Cameron said the memo was “really informational at this point” and aimed to give trustees context and options for future decisions. He described connection fees as a one-time charge tied to building permits that can be used broadly by utilities and noted they were last updated for the village’s sewer system in 2023. “Connection fees are another source of revenue in addition to user fees to help offset the principal and interest payments,” he said.
For water service, Cameron explained the Public Service Commission’s role and why municipal water connection fees are effectively constrained under current PSC practice. He outlined impact fees as a more prescriptive alternative that requires a public facilities needs assessment and said that, if pursued, water impact fees would need careful documentation and public hearings.
Cameron recommended a two-pronged approach for both systems: continue a connection-fee model for regional sanitary facilities (lift stations and oversizing of mains) while using special assessments for smaller, area-specific main extensions; on the water side, plan toward water impact fees for large supply or storage projects and rely on special assessments or developer-funded extensions for more localized work.
Trustees asked procedural and implementation questions; Cameron said impact fees carry an eight-year use or refund requirement and demand active management and regular updating of the needs assessment. He characterized his presentation as “food for thought” and offered to return with more detailed modeling if the board wants to pursue specific fee or assessment options.
The board did not take an immediate vote on policy changes; staff indicated next steps would include scoping a public facilities needs assessment and coordinating with the PSC if the village moves toward a water impact fee.
