Summit County Board of Health approves increases to water concurrency fees

The Summit County Board of Health voted April 13 to raise annual Water Concurrency Program fees for public water systems, increasing the charge for nonexempt systems from $2,750 to $3,300 and establishing a $750 annual fee for systems previously exempt from the charge.

Nate Brooks, the staff presenter, told the board the increases are intended to cover rising costs charged by a third‑party contractor that performs concurrency calculations and data evaluations for the county. "We're not paying anything, so we're increasing that to $750 annually," Brooks said when describing the fee for exempt systems; he said the nonexempt fee was raised by the same three‑year average used to estimate program costs.

Brooks explained the distinction between system types: nonexempt systems have remaining development capacity and require more engineering and calculations to determine concurrency, while exempt systems are built out and require less analysis. He said the proposal was discussed at a water concurrency meeting last fall, reviewed with affected water companies, and that participants at that meeting were "in support" of the change.

During the meeting's public comment period, Mike Folkman, assistant general manager of Summit Water, stated his utility supported the fee changes. "We're the ones that's gonna affect and we have no issue with it," Folkman said.

After public comment, a board member identified by the chair as Alyssa (referred to as Dr. Golding by the chair) moved to approve the fee changes; the motion was seconded and, after a call for ayes, the chair announced the motion "passes unanimously." The transcript and meeting audio do not provide an explicit roll‑call or exact vote tally; the chair also noted that two board members were not present, naming Tanya Hanson and a second member whose name was unclear in the recording (variously referenced as "Heidi" and "Hannah Taylor").

Brooks told the board no public comments were received during the 30‑day public comment period prior to the meeting. The board adjourned shortly after the vote.

Implementation details and an effective start date for the new fees were not specified in the meeting record.