Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants recommend cut to West Linn sanitary‑sewer SDCs after methodology update
Summary
Financial consultants told the council the city's sewer system‑development charges (SDCs) can be reduced under the updated methodology: eligible project costs and reimbursements produce a bottom‑line SDC of about $10.94 per meter‑capacity equivalent, leading to lower charges on the fee schedule and a recommendation to index SDCs periodically.
City staff and consultants from FCS presented a methodology update for West Linn’s sanitary sewer system development charges. Doug Gabbard and his team walked the council through the statutory basis for SDCs, how SDCs separate reimbursement and improvement fees, and how they applied that framework to the city’s project list.
Key numbers the consultants cited: the city has about 13,974 meter‑capacity equivalents (MCEs) of existing capacity with a peak wet‑weather flow of about 20.17 million gallons per day; build‑out flow was presented as roughly 23.68 million gallons per day. After reviewing the project list (initial total ~$35.7 million) and applying eligibility percentages, the consultants identified about $3,600,000 of eligible improvement cost and a reimbursement fee basis of roughly $401,000. Adding a compliance provision (approx. $145,000) produced a total cost basis the consultants used to divide by growth in capacity, which yielded a calculated SDC of about $10.94 per MCE.
As a result of the updated methodology and fund‑balance adjustments, many fee lines in West Linn’s SDC schedule would be lower than current charges. Consultants recommended continuing to index SDCs to hedge price risk and suggested revisiting the schedule after any master‑plan changes or roughly every five years. Staff said the proposed SDC schedule is on the Sept. 8 adoption agenda.
Council asked about maintaining flexibility if growth resumes in the future; consultants said recalculation triggered by master plans or significant rezoning would capture major changes and that routine five‑year reviews are prudent.
