Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the System Development Charges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes phased three-year jump in St. Helens water development fee, cites reservoir project
Summary
At a July 15 St. Helens City Council public hearing, city staff proposed raising the water system development charge from $3,099 toward a roughly $14,000 target over three years to fund a planned 5 million-gallon reservoir; staff recommended phasing to soften immediate impacts while a public commenter urged transparency about conflicts of interest.
City staff told the St. Helens City Council on July 15 that it recommends a large increase to the city’s water system development charge (SDC), phased over three years to help manage impacts on development and builders.
A staff presenter said the current water SDC is $3,099 and the consulting team’s analysis supports a final SDC of about $14,000. "We're asking that you consider a phasing in of that increase over 3 years," the staff member said, describing a proposed year‑one charge of $4,686 followed by additional increases before reaching the full amount.
The staff presentation identified a planned 5,000,000‑gallon reservoir as the main capital driver behind the proposed water fee increase and said the city is in the land‑acquisition phase with design to follow. A second staff speaker told councilors the reservoir is a "critical infrastructure project" the city lacks today and that its cost is the principal reason for the larger water SDC component.
Staff also recommended modest increases for wastewater — roughly a $1,100 change — and a modest reduction for stormwater based on projects in adopted master plans. Parks and transportation SDCs were not increased as part of tonight’s recommendations; staff advised updating the parks master plan and noted transportation SDCs may rise later following a transportation system plan update.
During public comment, one resident alleged a council member had an employment link to local development work and said the council should disclose conflicts. The council ran through its conflict‑of‑interest disclosure procedures and one council member announced an actual conflict and stepped aside from discussion where required by policy and state law.
Members of the public and councilors asked whether SDCs can be deferred until occupancy or handled case‑by‑case. Staff responded that the council has statutory authority to consider waivers, deferments or exceptions for particular developments, but cautioned that deferrals create cash‑flow and enforcement complications — including tracking fees through multiple ownership changes and, if unpaid, the potential need for liens to enforce collection.
Staff showed comparative charts of peer jurisdictions and said that a phased approach would keep St. Helens toward the middle of the regional range for water SDCs while still addressing capital needs. The presentation urged the council to weigh phasing to reduce immediate cost shock to builders and buyers while ensuring growth pays its share of infrastructure costs.
The council did not take a final vote on the proposal during the hearing; staff fielded questions and the hearing proceeded to additional public comment and council discussion.
