MONTICELLO – A two-sided discussion unfolded during the Village of Monticello’s Wednesday night board meeting as officials debated how to calculate mitigation fees tied to the Spring Hills project’s connection to the Route 17B pump station.

At the center of the discussion was how much the Spring Hills development, a planned 204-unit residential development on Route 17B and Hamilton Road, should contribute toward upgrades to the village’s sewer infrastructure, and whether that cost should be based on projected system usage or only on the additional expense created by the project.

Village engineer Glenn Smith said an initial estimate was developed using a flow-based model, which allocates costs proportionally based on the amount of wastewater each user is expected to contribute to the system.

Under that model, the village, the town and the proposed development would each account for roughly one-third of the total flow into the pump station.

“That was a simple method we started with… just to get some idea of where we were,” Smith said.

However, members of the board questioned whether that approach fairly reflects the developer’s impact.

Deputy Mayor John Barbarite argued that the developer should only be responsible for the additional cost required to accommodate the project, rather than paying a portion of the entire infrastructure upgrade.

Estimates discussed at the meeting suggested the pump station project would cost approximately $3.8 million on its own, increasing by about $400,000 if the Spring Hills project is included. That additional cost would cover upgrades such as a third pump and modifications to control systems and related equipment.

“To me, it’s simple … it’s $400,000 extra to make that pump station accommodate Spring Hills,” Barbarite said, maintaining that the developer’s contribution should be limited to that amount.

Trustee Theodore Hutchins raised concerns about consistency, noting that in other parts of the village, developers have been required to fund broader infrastructure improvements when their projects place additional demand on municipal systems.

“If we do it for one, then you open the door: we do it for everyone,” Hutchins said, emphasizing the need for consistent standards across projects.

Hutchins also cautioned that if the developer’s contribution is limited to only the additional cost, the remaining expense could fall on village taxpayers.

Officials also discussed potential long-term revenue from water and sewer billing once the development is completed, as well as separate contributions toward water system upgrades mentioned during the meeting.

The scale of the project was also raised during the discussion. Hutchins noted the development could include hundreds of housing units and questioned whether the proposed contribution would reflect that scope.

Despite differing viewpoints, Smith reiterated his support for the proportional method.

“I still stick with that third, third, and third,” Smith said. “That seemed like a fair way to do it.”