Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business License Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Holiday council debates sweeping business‑license fee overhaul, consultant outlines 'disproportionate impacts' approach
Summary
A consultant presented a proposed rewrite of Holiday's business‑license schedule that separates new and renewal fees and adds category‑specific 'disproportionate' surcharges tied to police and fire calls for service. Council asked for budget‑neutral and aspirational scenarios, caps by category, and peer comparisons before deciding.
Holiday’s city council opened an extended discussion Nov. 6 on a consultant’s proposed overhaul of the city’s business‑license fee schedule that would split base and renewal fees and add targeted surcharges to cover “disproportionate” public‑safety costs.
Louis Young, a consultant working with the city, told the council the study uses a two‑pillar methodology: a personnel‑and‑overhead cost analysis and a process mapping exercise that estimates staff time per application. ‘‘We’re estimating almost $300 for a new business application and about $87 for a renewal,’’ Young said, describing how new applications require more staff time than renewals.
Young said the analysis also models a disproportionate‑impact surcharge based on calls for police and fire service. Categories that frequently exceed the citywide average for calls per business — including nursing homes, hotels, convenience and entertainment venues — would face higher surcharges in the consultant’s model. Young said applying those surcharges to the current structure could raise license revenue well above the city’s present intake.
Council members focused on tradeoffs. Staff estimates show the current combined schedule generates roughly $280,000 annually from business licenses; a full disproportionate‑fee approach as modeled could push potential revenue higher (the consultant presented scenarios that showed up to roughly $940,000, depending on choices about grouping and caps). Several councilors called the high end ‘‘shocking’’ and warned it could price out some businesses.
Options the council directed staff to return with by Nov. 20 include: a budget‑neutral scenario that keeps total license revenue near current levels; an aspirational scenario that captures a larger share of disproportionate impacts; per‑category caps to limit sudden increases for sales‑tax‑generating businesses; a phased ramp‑in to reduce short‑term shock; and comparative tables showing what neighboring cities charge.
Councilors also asked the consultant for clearer breakdowns by category, revenue impacts if the city caps fees, and examples of how other Utah cities have capped or phased disproportionate fees. Young said the study can be used as a single basis for multi‑year ramping, rather than requiring annual studies.
The council did not adopt any fee changes Nov. 6; members said they want peer comparisons and a more detailed, budget‑neutral proposal before voting.
Next steps: staff will return with two or three fee scenarios, suggested caps and comparisons with South Jordan, Riverton and Mill Creek for consideration at the Nov. 20 meeting.
