Meridian — Council members spent the bulk of a workshop session on Oct. 21 reviewing a city finance proposal to update municipal fees using a full cost‑recovery model.

Finance staff presented a citywide analysis that recalculated the direct staff time and materials required to process dozens of permits and transactions. “For us to do this job, this is how much it cost,” finance staff said while describing the method used to calculate fees.

Council debate focused on the magnitude of some percentage increases — one example repeatedly cited was a steep rise in temporary event permit fees. Several members described “sticker shock” and urged a phased approach. “I will not be in favor of it,” Councilman Kavanagh said of the package as first presented, citing a “2700% increase” on a single fee that he said needed additional context. Other council members said many fees were corrections and that net revenue impact would be small: finance staff estimated the overall proposal would generate about $45,000 in new annual revenue against a roughly $90 million city budget.

Council members asked staff for several follow-ups: produce segmented reports (by department) and show only those fees that fall below an agreed threshold for automatic adoption; produce a separate report listing the roughly 10 to 12 fee transactions that would exceed a proposed cap (Council members discussed a 130% cap as one option); and convene department directors to explain large deviations and provide sensitivity analysis about likely behavioral effects (for example, whether higher special-event fees would deter users).

Finance staff said their policy role is to present the “full cost recovery” numbers and noted the council can set fees lower than that recommendation. Staff also said they had not done elasticity or market‑behavior analysis across fee categories and recommended council direction on tolerances and implementation timing.

Council directed staff to return with a two-track approach: (1) a packet of fees that are below a conservative threshold that could move forward more quickly and (2) a focused workshop on the roughly 10–12 transactions that exceed the proposed cap so the council can decide whether to phase them in over time. Several council members said they favored a phased implementation rather than adopting all increases immediately.

No ordinance or fee schedule was adopted at the Oct. 21 meeting; council members asked staff to prepare revised materials and to make department directors available to answer questions at upcoming meetings.