08/11/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---- e recognized the merit of the argument put forth in the task team's report. The study identified the proportional public/private cost for each service. Of the $4 million in services currently provided by the City, $2 million was underwritten by the public. Mr. Robinette asked how much of the component total reflected local code enforcement. Mr. Gleason estimated the total at about $300,000. Mr. Boles emphasized that the public benefit represented in siting requirements were recognized in the Developmental Services Financing Study and reflected in its recommendations. Mr. Miller maintained that the task team's report was more refined than the Developmental Services Financing Study, and suggested that the council honor the work of the task team in its strategy development. Mr. Mounts said that staff could prepare information for council regarding the cost recovery percentages realized by the BCACTT's recommendations. Mr. Boles said that the council should also review the recommendations of the Develop- mental Services Financing Study. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. MacDonald, to include Compo- nent 23A in the draft strategy, with the target established in the component to be achieved by a combination of fee increases and any cost savings identified through the BCACTT report. Mr. MacDonald asked if there was coordination of information from the Develop- e mental Services Financing Study and the task team report. Mr. Mounts said that there had been linkage between the study and task team's work, resulting in a direct relationship between the results in examination of a cost-recovery rate. He noted that the dollar figure represented in the component did not reflect fire review costs. Mr. Rutan maintained that implementation of the BCACTT report would not result in recovery of the figure identified in Component 23A due to the disagreement between the report's definition of public and private benefits and council adopted policy. He suggested that the report could be used to identify some opportunities to reach the target. Mr. Robinette asked if Mr. Boles' motion encompassed any savings resulting from changes in local ordinances. Mr. Boles said yes. He added his intent was to lower the fee increase to the degree possible while still recovering the target established in the component. Mr. Nicholson said that the approach suggested in the motion was muddled. He said any cost savings that could be realized from management efficiencies should be pursued. Mr. Nicholson said it was legitimate to re-examine the public/private cost proportions identified in the Developmental Services Financing Study for appropriateness. However, he believed that the recommen- dations of the task team's report were not relevant to the discussion. e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 11, 1992 Page 5 5:30 p.m.