Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enterprise Funds Overview topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outlines enterprise funds, proposes regular fee review and RFP for study
Summary
Council received an overview of city enterprise funds, staff explained permitted uses and limits, and said an RFP for a comprehensive fee study will be issued in the next 2–3 weeks to establish a regular review cadence.
City staff opened a budget work session by defining enterprise funds and asking the council to consider a regular cadence for reviewing user fees and charges. Matthew Lew, a city budget staff member, said enterprise funds must generally cover capital, maintenance and operations for the services they provide and are not intended to subsidize general government functions such as police or parks.
Lew said enterprise revenues must be tied to delivery of the specific service and warned that improper uses can trigger audit issues under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) standards. He said the city’s code of ordinances or charter contains operational guidelines for enterprise funds and noted the council may appropriate year-end surpluses under specific rules.
Why it matters: enterprise funds (transportation and utilities in Columbia’s presentation) hold the city’s revenue streams for services paid by users; how the city sets and reviews fees affects service sustainability, capital planning and whether future budgets require transfers from sales taxes or other sources.
In the session staff described two enterprise fund groups: transportation (airport, parking, transit, railroad, transload) and utilities (water, electric, sewer, stormwater, solid waste). Lew and other staff said transportation funds rely more heavily on transfers and grants; utility funds receive most revenue from service charges.
Council and staff discussed whether administrative cost allocations and security at facilities can be paid from an enterprise fund; staff said those are typically considered allowable as part of self‑sustaining activities but that the city’s ordinances and internal policies control specifics. Several councilmembers pressed for a formal schedule for fee reviews; staff said they will issue a request for proposals in the next two to three weeks to determine whether to do the study in-house or hire an outside consultant and to set a recurring review calendar.
The session produced direction but no formal action: staff will circulate a scope and proceed with the RFP process, report back on whether studies can be done in-house or require consultants, and fold fee-change proposals into the budget/public‑hearing schedule as appropriate.
