Water impact fees assessed against businesses have drawn criticism as the local economy — and Town and County sales taxes — have declined. Some of this criticism has come from the PAWS board itself. Board member Bob Huff, recently, has expressed grave concern that the multiple fees paid by businesses — $50,000 for a medium-sized restaurant; $100,000 for a large nightclub — are making the start-up of new businesses unlikely.
After receiving a great deal of criticism and pressure from the local business community, now with less business and more time to attend meetings, the PAWS board directed Finance Director Shellie Tressler — there is a rather inexplicable “assistant” affixed in front of Tressler’s real position at PAWS — to develop an alternative impact fee program for commercial users last month. This Tuesday Tressler presented a concise (after the obligatory eyewash about the reservoir fee ‘grace period’), well-reasoned new plan for assessing commercial impact fees.
 The new method for assessing commercial water impact fees appears to be fairer — based on usage rather than measures like square feet — and to provide some genuine incentives for firms to adopt the latest technologies and practices to save water.
However, the new method does not dramatically drop water impact fees for start-up businesses, though some discounts may be realized by smartly-sized projects.
The new program dispenses with the American Water Works Association work sheet which PAWS has used since its formation. Under the AWWA sheet, business categories, such as restaurants and hotels, are assessed a certain water usage based upon criteria such as square footage which have an indirect relationship to actual water usage.
The new system, based on the Uniform Plumbing Code, will total the number of fixtures in a new business and assign a standard amount of water usage to each type of fixture.
After totaling the total usage expected from these fixtures, a new business will be charged an impact fee based upon the size of water pipe and corresponding meter it will require. The old system charged roughly $10,000 per tap (or equivalent unit), while the new pipe sizes jump in price dramatically, from $24,462 to $48,925 to $78,280 for 1 inch, 1.5 inch and 2 inch pipe/meters, respectively.
Businesses which can economize on the number of fixtures can qualify for a smaller, less expensive pipe, while those that just miss qualifying for the smaller pipe pay a real premium. Take the 2”/$78,280 pipe. It will be required of businesses whose fixture count equals a water demand of 8-15 equivalent taps. The larger the business within the scale the greater the discount. Most Pagosa businesses won’t see those savings. A 3500 square foot restaurant, for example, would see almost no savings from the new method.
Tresseler summed up the advantages of the new method, “Water demand will indicate what size of meter is appropriate and all of that wishy-washiness of the old AWWA sheet and all of the hocus pocus would be eliminated and we would be working on the Uniform Plumbing Code.”
One can be encouraged that the district is moving forward and basing charges on estimated water demand, and still be concerned that the basis of years of past decisions is characterized as “hocus pocus.”
One should also note that the “hocus pocus” is still the approach to assessing impacts of new residences, which are assessed the same reservoir fee of $7210 without regard to number of fixtures and are assessed a capital investment fee based on square footage rather than water fixtures (how much water impact does a 700 square-foot music room or library have, compared to a 10 square-foot Jacuzzi tub?)
Tressler emphasized one point: buildings which change use and require more water will be credited with the actual number of water taps they have been paying for, not for the size of whatever meter and pipes might have been installed years ago. Tressler explained that meter sizes were not the basis for fees years ago and many large meters were chosen because they were not much more expensive. “We need to keep the old stuff valued the old way,” Tressler explained.
Tressler cautioned, “Since the inception of PAWSD we have been on this AWWA worksheet. And I would be just wrong to tell you that we are not going to have some perplexities and problems. We are going to have to go to the board and get some decisions. I know that is going to happen.”
Bob Huff, both a critic of high commercial charges and a defender of the $7210 fee for residences, sought to allayed concerns about diminishing revenues by lowering commercial charges. “You raised the specter of diminishing revenues for the district. The number of business organizations that have multiple taps is pretty darn small. The vast amount of the revenue we are going to collect is going to be from that first tap on homes and businesses. What we are trying not to do is overburden those few who have to have multiple taps. This seems to accomplish that.”
Leave for another article the observation that district fees are already down over 95% from initial 2006 estimates. The question is whether the new method of assessing commercial fees “seems to accomplish that.” Huff is certainly right that the great percentage of revenue will come, if it comes, from the charges for that first water tap. But will these first taps be connected if Pagosa prices itself out of the market?
Compare the prices approved by the PAWS board for commercial users Tuesday night with comparable Western Slope communities.
Western Slope Water Impact Fees By Pipe Size:
| Town |
1” meter |
1.5” meter
|
2” meter |
Pagosa Springs
|
$24,462 |
$48,925 |
$78,280 |
| Durango |
$9,328
|
$18,020 |
$26,680 |
| Cortez |
$5,000 |
$10,000 |
$16,000 |
| Delta |
$5,400 |
$11,400 |
$20,000 |
| Poncha |
$6,000 |
$16,800 |
$22,500 |
| Cedaredge |
$9,000 |
$11,000 |
$16,000 |
| Ouray |
$5,000 |
$11,250 |
$20,000 |
| Bayfield |
$7,715 |
$17,336 |
$24,885 |
| Moab |
$1,769 |
$5,528 |
$10,946 |
| Gr Junction |
$1,250 |
$2,950 |
$4,150 |
| Monte Vista |
$3,200 |
$4,400 |
$5,700 |
Western Slope average:
1” 5,366
1.5” 10,868
2” 16,682
PAWSD charges:
1” 24,462
1.5” 48,925
2” 78,280
So, the result of this comprehensive change in the commercial assessment is a system which more accurately assesses actual usage, encourages conservation, and allows some projects to pay a lesser fee, but which still charges fees nearly 500% higher than the average Western Slope town.
The next most expensive comparable town on the Western Slope is Durango. PAWSD charges are still 300% higher.
Will PAWSD ever sell those residential and commercial first taps if downtown Pagosa Springs isn’t an attractive, prosperous and culturally vibrant place people want to settle near, but an economically depressed strip of tent vendors (no fees!) and struggling or vacant shops? |