The Environmental Services Commission (ESC) meeting is today, June 18th, at 6:30pm, so here is the quick update (I was able to get some clarifications from staff yesterday).
Proposal #1: No more DFCCs to cover the costs of system expansions such as sewer extensions. There are also separate latecomer agreements that are not within the scope of this change.
Big clarification here: While eliminating the localized charge will mean that some new buildings which are easy to connect to the system will somewhat subsidize projects that would have paid more for a system extension to reach them, this is not a blank check for super ambitious connection projects (I was worried about subsidizing growth in our newly upzoned Critical Areas like wetlands and steep slopes). The city’s Utilities team doesn’t go around adding extensions in every place growth is happening, and they have discretion for prioritizing projects that make sense, which might just be a small stub to provide service for a group of existing homes. Many DFCCs are actually in places like Downtown, BelRed, and Wilburton. If there is a place where a builder wants to have service reach a previously undeveloped area, they’d pay that cost and then could ask neighboring properties to reimburse them with latecomer charges once those connect using the extension as well.
Proposal #2: Simpler Calculation using pipe diameter at the meter instead of calculating a Single-Family Equivalent based on the number of sinks and toilets, etc.
My primary question about the annual fiscal impact is still unanswered, and since the ESC meeting is today, I don’t think we’ll have a number in time for the ESC vote (though we can still say it’s no more than $5M a year). This can probably be calculated before City Council makes a final decision on the policy, at least. From one perspective, the financial impact of Proposal #2 is just a rounding error, but the budget is pretty massive, so that statement alone doesn’t really clarify the scale for me. There are various ways to come up with a fair distribution of system cost, and much of the expense is in the distribution network, even more than the reservoir expansions that we will be spending several million on (to add capacity for Wilburton, etc). Part of that distribution network cost is having larger pipes to handle peak flows, fire suppression capacity, etc.
I’m still not convinced that a group of homes in a neighborhood is more peaky/variable than an equivalent number of toilets, sinks, and showers in an apartment building, but staff also points out that the average usage per fixture is slightly higher in a single family setting than an apartment setting. This will also raise the portion paid by businesses such as a car wash, which might only have one bathroom or a small number of sinks that would have been factored into the old calculation; now they will pay a greater share to connect when a new carwash is built or a carwash’s supply line size is upgraded to a larger diameter. Even though the CRC typically brings in several million dollars a year, this is money they don’t count on for the budget, since there could be a downturn in construction at any time and it’s important to be conservative.
I’ll follow up with the fiscal impact question, and appreciate having gained this additional background on how it could be argued that the change in CRC calculation is fair.
Proposal #3 Pay Once Upfront – instead of being added to the utility bill over a span of ten years, have the charges paid at the time of permitting – this should not discourage development if paired with a cut in the fees per Proposal #2, and will eliminate surprise costs for new residents.
A disclosure requirement neatly solves the surprise bill issue without discouraging housing production or displacing the burden onto other utility customers. This is not solely a utilities question, since I think it’s important for potential tenants to know what costs they can expect. Again, this would cover a wide range of potential expenses that may be related to “valet” trash pick up, mail/package delivery, utility usage for common areas, technology/connectivity fee, doorknob/lock operation fee, keyfob issuance and replacement fees, pet fees, payment portal fees, tenant portal fees, lease renewal fees, credit bureau reporting fee, lease name change fee, and the duration and cost of the utility connection fee.
If you are interested in learning more about Utilities in Bellevue, you can attend the Environmental Services Commission meeting at City Hall (in-person where parking is free, or virtually) and there is an opportunity for public comment at the beginning of the meeting. There is an email where you can send written comment, but as noted in my last post, you probably have to get your comment in the week before the meeting if you want them to see it (and that’s tight when the agenda materials may only come out the week before). I’d also recommend this recording of the Community Meeting on the Utilities Budgets and Rates, which was held last week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6skhCoahhbs
I’ll be following other developments, as we can expect some additional changes due to the changes in meter reading – it makes monthly bills feasible, and this may also allow a change in which months are used for the winter baseline estimate. This ESC meeting will also include an update on the expected cost increases; utility charges are expected to go up 54%, sewer by 79%, and stormwater utility charges by 42% in the 2027-2032 timeframe.
Leave a Reply