Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Baker City council adopts annual fee schedule with targeted airport and fuel-tax adjustments
Summary
Council approved the annual fee resolution, keeping most rates unchanged but adding or increasing several airport and fuel-related fees, updating TNC licensing capture, and reinstating a short-term dog license discount.
The Baker City Council voted April 8 to adopt the city's annual fee resolution and fee schedule, a yearly housekeeping action that sets rates charged by city departments ahead of the budget season.
Staff summarized the proposal as a general freeze across most services while inserting targeted changes to address specific department shortfalls. "The rates we're looking at are set at an appropriate level at this point," the presenting staff member said, adding that the city had "quite a few raises across the board last year" and that a broad freeze would limit further increases this year.
Key changes included a new monthly firefighting operations fee for single-engine airtankers that use the airport, an expanded hangar-fee schedule to allow higher rates for newly constructed hangars compared with older facilities, and an increase to the airport fuel tax to help the airport move toward solvency. Staff also said the fee schedule now captures TNC license fees for Uber and Lyft consistent with earlier taxi code changes, updates fire-department fees in light of upcoming 9-1-1 backup operations, reinstates liquor-license renewal fees (previously removed), and restores a dog-license discount for the first two months of each year.
Why it matters: the airport department is currently drawing on the general fund, and the changes aim to increase revenues for airport operations without an across-the-board rate increase.
Councilor Gold moved approval and Councilor Bruin seconded. After brief discussion, the motion passed with no recorded opposition.
Staff said the adjustments were limited in scope and intended to bring specific departments closer to cost recovery rather than impose new blanket charges. The council did not amend the proposal; the resolution was approved as presented.
