Montclair reviews master fee schedule; council directs staff to return recommendations

Eric Johnson, president of Revenue Cost Specialists, told the Montclair City Council at a workshop that the firm’s cost-of-services study identified roughly $7,900,000 a year in subsidies for user-fee services and estimated the report’s recommended fee changes would yield about $6,736,000 in revenue annually.

The study, Johnson said, aims to ‘‘recast the city budget with the business orientation’’ and ties recommendations to state ballot measures that limit taxation and define permissible fees. Johnson explained the methodology: staff interviews to identify services, time allocations for positions, and fully allocated hourly rates that include salaries, benefits and departmental overhead.

The report breaks the subsidy down by sector, with community development subsidized about $640,000, public safety about $4,100,000, human services about $3,100,000, and administrative services about $60,000. Johnson emphasized that some public-safety fees, such as EMS response and false-alarm charges, are not designed to recover full program costs.

Councilmember Mendez praised the report as ‘‘very impressive’’ and called it user friendly, but said human services appeared heavily subsidized and suggested the council look more closely at recovery options given tight budgets. Marsha (city staff) noted that grants reduce the apparent cost of human-services programs—for example, more than $1,000,000 in grant funding for after-school programming—so the net service cost would be lower when those grants are excluded.

Councilmember Rhew urged caution about raising fees for residents, saying families ‘‘are struggling’’ and characterizing human-services programs as ‘‘lifelines for them.’’ Another councilmember asked whether the analysis accounted for residents’ income levels; Johnson said the firm ‘‘did break out a resident versus nonresident’’ fee structure but did not model affordability by income and suggested scholarship programs as a policy option.

A separate councilmember noted the city currently subsidizes user fees by ‘‘the tune of $8,000,000 on an annual basis’’ and said the study’s recommendations would recover only a small portion of that subsidy, arguing the council should be open to modest adjustments to reduce the overall burden on the general fund. The mayor thanked the presenters for a thorough, well-written report.

Following the discussion, a councilmember moved—and another seconded—that staff be directed to place the master fee schedule recommendations on a future city council agenda; no objections were voiced and the motion was ordered. The meeting opened for public comment; none were present and the workshop was adjourned.

The council did not adopt fee changes at the workshop; staff will return with the proposed fee schedule for formal consideration at a future meeting.