Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fee Waiver Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff lays out proposed fee-waiver policy to add transparency and guardrails
Summary
City staff presented a proposed fee-waiver policy that would formalize eligibility, require committee review, set a $35,000 council approval threshold for large waivers, and require an annual report of all waivers; council members gave input and asked staff to return a revised draft.
City staff on Thursday presented a draft fee-waiver policy that would create a formal application and scoring process for waiving certain municipal fees, require documentation of funding sources for waived impact fees and an annual public report, and reserve council approval for large waivers.
Sherry, a city staff member, told the Grantsville City Council work group the policy was drafted “for transparency” and to ensure waivers “will be done in a group. It won't just be 1 single person making the decision.” The draft lists eligible uses—including nonprofits, affordable-housing projects, economic development and public-benefit projects—and limits waivers to specified fee types such as building permits, development impact fees, utility connections and planning and zoning fees; the draft excludes fines, penalties and third-party review fees.
The policy would require applicants to complete a form, have an initial review by planning staff, and be scored by a committee before any waiver is approved. For impact fees, the draft adds a new requirement that the city identify the funding source to cover waived fees—an item staff said was not always done under previous informal practices.
The draft sets a standard that waivers exceeding $35,000 must be approved by the full city council. Council members questioned whether $35,000 would be high enough for large industrial projects but were told Grantsville's procurement rules already generally send items above $35,000 to council review; members indicated they were comfortable keeping the threshold at that level or applying council review in particular circumstances.
Sherry also described accountability provisions: waivers could be revoked if recipients later ceased to meet eligibility and staff would compile an annual waiver report. She told the council staff intends to synchronize that report with another annual financial report, with an anticipated timing in August. The work group asked staff to refine scoring criteria and to solicit input from an experienced peer (identified in the meeting as Bill) before the policy returns for formal consideration.
Council members welcomed the clarity the policy would bring but raised concerns about competitive impacts and the administrative workload of publishing fee schedules paired with a waiver policy. Sherry said the policy is intended to make fee practices defensible by documenting the staff time and processes used in the underlying cost study.
The work group took no formal action on the policy; staff said they will revise the draft, incorporate council feedback and bring the proposal back to the council for a future public agenda.
