Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water And Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Surf City advances water‑plant contract work and schedules public hearing on new system development fees
Summary
Town staff asked council to move forward on a final design contract amendment for a 5.2 MGD water plant (including PFAS removal technology) and to set a public hearing (Aug. 4) on a system development fee study that would raise allowable fees; staff said the study’s maximums would total roughly $25,000 per household for combined water and sewer tap fees.
David Price, presenting the utilities program, asked the council to authorize a contract amendment that would bring engineering and contract oversight to a total of $4,500,000 for final design of a proposed 5.2 million‑gallon‑per‑day water plant sited at the town’s existing water‑plant location. Price emphasized the major driver for the increase: adding PFAS removal technology. “This would be the final contract on this particular project,” Price said, describing the increase and the conservative approach to emerging PFAS regulation.
Price told council the town’s testing program has not found PFAS in local water samples but recommended building treatment capacity now to address anticipated regulatory changes: “We do not have PFAS in our water currently,” he said, “but it’s better to be precautious and go ahead and get ahead of it.”
Why it matters: the amendment covers final design and oversight and moves the project toward construction. Price said the PFAS treatment technology proposed would be among the first in the country for the specific approach described.
System development fee study and public hearing: linked to capital funding, staff presented a statutorily required system development fee analysis (citing general statute section 1, chapter 162A, article 8 as the governing authority). The study uses a combined buy‑in and incremental methodology and reports example fee values for a 0.75‑inch meter; staff reported study numbers including a reported maximum water fee of $9,410 and a maximum sewer fee of $15,770, which staff said would together total a little more than $25,000 per household under the maximum scenario. Staff recommended setting a public hearing for August 4 so the council can consider adoption after public comment.
Council direction and next steps: Council signaled consensus to move forward with the contract amendment and to set the August 4 public hearing on system development fees. Staff noted implementation details: fees may only be charged at the time a building permit is applied for or service is committed, and developers’ previously built infrastructure and grant‑funded assets cannot be counted toward buy‑in credits.
Open questions and protections: staff explained the law permits a buyback/refund provision if projects listed in the CIP are not completed and developers have a claim within a defined period. Council requested additional breakout details (for example, how much of the proposed fee comes from buy‑in versus new CIP investment) and staff agreed to provide that in follow‑up materials prior to public hearing.
What the council did not do: the meeting recorded consensus to proceed and to hold a public hearing but did not adopt a new fee schedule during the session.
