Advisory committee recommends council adopt maximum water and wastewater impact fees with 50% collection credit

The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on July 22 voted to recommend that the city council adopt the calculated maximum allowable water and wastewater impact fees but apply a 50% collection credit, a move committee members described as balancing the need for growth to pay for new infrastructure with protecting current ratepayers.

Committee member Alina Rogers urged caution in adopting full maxima while signaling support for increases: “At this time, I do support increasing the impact fees as recommended, but not necessarily to the maximum amount possible,” she said, proposing a range for the smallest residential connection of roughly $16,000 to $20,000 instead of the full calculated ceiling.

Consultant Ishita Nishida, who presented the impact-fee tables included in the meeting packet, told the committee the packet contains the technical calculations and the legally permissible maxima: “These are the calculated maximum allowable numbers, based on the projections and the CIP project cost and the math that has been done to get to these numbers. You can recommend any number that is this or below. You cannot recommend anything above this number.”

The consultant and staff reviewed the mechanics: impact fees are charged per meter size (connection) and apply only to new connections. The packet lists, for a 0.75‑inch meter, a water portion of roughly $5,458 and a wastewater portion of roughly $19,937 (a combined calculated maximum around $25,395). The committee noted the city currently collects a lower combined fee (reported in the meeting packet as about $9,504.48) and that past council action in 2021 adopted a 50% collection of the calculated maximum.

Matt Lawson pressed the consultant and staff on the underlying growth and cost assumptions used to calculate maxima, calling some projections and unit costs aggressive and asking that the committee confirm prior assumptions before finalizing a recommendation: “I struggle with the assumptions… If the basis of the assumptions are wrong, then the result is gonna be wrong.” The consultant said the study used developer-provided equivalency and documented how reservations and existing agreements were excluded where appropriate.

After discussion about policy options — whether to send council a specific recommended number or a percentage of the calculated maximum — Alina Rogers moved and Matt Lawson seconded a motion recommending the council adopt the maximum allowable water and wastewater impact fees and apply a 50% collection credit. Staff recorded the committee’s recommendation as having passed during the meeting with three affirmative votes. The advisory committee’s recommendation is nonbinding; the city council will consider the consultant’s technical analysis and the committee’s recommendation when it takes the formal decision.

The committee asked staff and the consultant for a written recommendation letter to the council reflecting the group’s direction and for documentation that clearly identifies which developments (for example, those with existing development agreements or in MUDs) were excluded from the fee calculations. The committee will provide a signed recommendation letter, and the matter will move to the council for action.