Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fee Schedule 2026 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County holds public hearing on 2026 fee schedule; board narrows food-service increases and green-lights sanitarian hire funded by fee changes
Summary
County commissioners held a public hearing and approved a revised 2026 official fee schedule that increases many environmental and land‑use fees, while leaving selected small‑business food‑license fees unchanged after board amendment.
Stearns County held a public hearing on proposed changes to its 2026 fee schedule, covering zoning, shoreland and shoreline permits, sewage inspections, food and beverage licensing, and household hazardous waste (HHW) fees. County staff said the proposed changes were intended to better capture the cost of providing services and to improve program efficiency.
Sarah Uch, finance director, and Shelley Benson, environmental services director, presented the package and described department-level reviews. Benson said the department proposed a new sanitarian position to help with an increasing number and complexity of food‑service licenses and plan reviews; Mark Lateral, environmental supervisor, said increasing special‑process requests and HACCP work had added staff time. The department proposed funding the new sanitarian through higher fees in food, lodging and related permits; Benson and staff described the proposed fee increases as intended to align cost recovery with workload.
Board members questioned specific fee changes. Commissioner Clark argued small rural food establishments are central to local economies and said raising first‑tier food‑service license fees could send an unwanted signal to operators. Clark moved to approve the overall fee schedule changes but to leave six line items (identified in the discussion as items 3, 4, 8, 9, 12 and 13) at their current rates for now; Commissioner Notch seconded the motion. Clark said many small venues provide essential services in rural towns and that a modest change could have cumulative perceptual impacts, even if dollar amounts are small. Commissioner Persky and others pushed back that fee increases help cover the full cost of inspections and plan reviews. One staff member said switching the work to the state would likely increase costs for some establishments while reducing local support.
The board also discussed shoreland major vs. minor permits, after‑the‑fact permit fees (a tiered approach was retained, with higher fees for repeated noncompliance), and the addition of a $10 per-screen e‑waste fee and charges for out‑of‑county use of the HHW mobile unit. Staff estimated the environmental services fee changes would yield roughly $225,000–$275,000 in additional annual revenue and an additional roughly $22,100 for HHW (a non‑levy fund).
After debate and the Clark amendment, the board approved the revised fee schedule with Clark’s modification. Commissioners asked staff to provide the fee spreadsheets in the public packet and to provide additional analysis comparing county fees and practices with neighboring counties where practical.
