Stayton delays adoption of annual fee schedule after extensive questions from council and public

Stayton’s proposed annual fee schedule (Resolution No. 25-009) was the subject of an extended March 17 council discussion. James Brand, the city’s finance director, presented the draft schedule and recommended it be adopted effective July 1 to support next year’s budget. After detailed questions from councilors and public comment, councilors asked staff for more information and agreed by consensus to table the resolution to a future meeting.

Brand said the schedule is an annual recalculation of fees meant to reflect personnel, materials and inflationary costs. "These rates will be used to calculate the city's revenues for the next budget cycle beginning in July," he said. Brand highlighted several specific changes: a 5% across-the-board increase for pool fees, modest utility base-fee increases tied to a 2024 utility rate study, a 3% increase for many flat utility charges, and several community and economic development items moved from a deposit structure to a fee structure to improve cost recovery.

Jennifer Siciliano, Community and Economic Development Director, explained the change from deposits to a fee for many land-use applications. She said the intent is to provide "more clarity and differentiation" and to charge a fee tied to the expected staff time and complexity rather than a refundable deposit whose final accounting was difficult to track.

Public commenters raised concerns about transparency and understanding of the fee schedule. John Mesa said the public lacks clarity about fee changes and said he is convening a citizen group to review fees. Terry Mesa asked for an explanation of how a transportation charge is assessed; staff said they will meet with the Mesas to review their bills. Business owners and residents urged more time to review the broad set of changes.

Councilors expressed varying concerns. Several said the packet and color-coding were overwhelming and asked for clearer side-by-side old/new amounts and the fiscal impacts in dollars. Councilor Patty proposed approving a small portion of the schedule (administrative, public records, municipal court, public works, library sections) while holding community and economic development, facility rentals, utilities and pool items; staff explained revenue forecasting needs solid numbers for the budget. Ultimately, councilors asked staff to compile missing details (including whether some fees currently charged but not listed should be added to the schedule) and to circulate a list of council questions; staff requested council members send questions to Julia or James by the end of the week.

Because the fee schedule will be used to build the upcoming budget, staff said they prefer to have final rates as soon as possible, but acknowledged the council’s requests for added transparency. The council did not take a formal roll-call vote to adopt the resolution; instead, members agreed by consensus to table the item to a later meeting so staff can provide the additional requested information.