Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />revenues in the recommendation based on proposed fees. He said the <br />subcommittee could request additional scenarios during its examination of <br />whether expenses were appropriate. Responding to questions from Mr. Bennett, <br />Mr. Gleason said maximum building permit fees were established by State code, <br />which the City then administered. Mr. Gleason added that most other permits <br />were not regulated, and he said swimming pool fees usually allowed recovery of <br />about 30 percent of costs, because of the marginal cost curve. <br /> <br />Mayor Obie asked about the rationale for including fee adjustments in the <br />annual budget process. Mr. Gleason said he thought an annual adjustment of <br />fees when dealing with financial issues would be preferable to "catching up" <br />by raising fees every few years. He said he wanted to establish policy <br />guidelines for departments to use in setting fees. <br /> <br />Members reviewed the council IS policy responsibilities in items A.1, 2, and 3. <br />Mr. Rutan said he thought the responsibilities should include consideration of <br />whether services should be provided by the public, as well as examining the <br />extent and scope of services. Responding to Mr. Rutanls question, staff said <br />a spay and neuter clinic was operated by the City. Mr. Rutan said he had <br />received a comment from a citizen that the City was losing money on the clinic <br />and that the service should be provided privately. Mr. Rutan said he thought <br />such factors should be included in the policies. Mr. Gleason said the <br />proposed policies would allow concerns about specific fees to be addressed as <br />separate work items. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett asked about the direction to be given the Budget Committee. Mr. <br />Wong said the council could identify fees or categories of fees, and staff <br />would present i nformat i on from the cost-of-servi ces study and management <br />report for a determination of subsidies or exemptions. Mr. Miller asked about <br />the degree of involvement expected from the Budget Committee and noted that <br />more involvement would require efforts to inform Budget Committee members. <br />Ms. Ehrman said she thought Budget Committee members were well-informed about <br />decisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett asked how the levels of fees were determined. Mr. Gleason said a <br />cost-of-services study and a comparative analysis was made, special <br />characteristics and product quality and scope were considered, and a <br />recommendation was made. He said efforts now were becoming more systematic <br />than they had been in the past. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer said he favored a resolution as proposed by staff with one <br />amendment in the area of administrative implementation. He suggested that the <br />report of changes to be given to the council one month prior to fee or charge <br />adjustments (Item B.1) also include the reasons for those changes. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan asked for councilors. thoughts about including in policies review of <br />the appropriateness of some services and their scopes. Mr. Miller said he <br />agreed with allowing review. Ms. Wooten said she thought it was inappropriate <br />to review the function of services during discussions about fee levels. She <br />said she thought service reviews should be part of departmentsl programming <br />processes. Ms. Schue said she agreed that review might be appropriate, but <br />she was not sure that review could be included in the policy framework. Ms. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--City Council Lunch/Work Session <br /> <br />February 11, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br />