Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors debate event permit fees and enforcement; no immediate policy change
Summary
Board members debated whether repeat promoters should pay higher permit fees or a small per-ticket charge to address perceived fairness and revenue shortfalls. Staff warned collection and auditing would add administrative burdens; the board deferred substantive changes for this budget cycle.
During the same special meeting, supervisors debated changes to county event and permit fee structures after a committee member (speaker 2) raised fairness concerns about promoters who run multiple revenue-generating events.
The committee member argued repeat promoters who run several events should pay more than one-off community events: “If you're gonna throw multiple events, it should be the increase in the fee every time.” Morris (speaker 3) suggested an alternative — a small per-ticket charge so larger events contribute proportionally: “I guess that…5¢ a ticket…it's fair to everybody.”
Staff member (speaker 5) and other board members responded that current rental and permit fees are very low and do not cover county costs to open, inspect and clean facilities: “our facility rental fees cover our costs…these fees are…not sufficient.” Staff also warned that a per-ticket collection system would require the county to audit businesses and collect small amounts, which adds enforcement overhead and could deter existing events.
Board members expressed concern about unintended consequences. Chair (speaker 1) said the proposal needs more detail and is likely too late to implement for the current budget cycle: “I think that idea needs a whole lot more fleshing out…Personally, I would be in favor of keeping them the same” for this year. The board requested that staff provide current fee schedules and return with more information so the matter can be reconsidered at a later meeting.
No substantive fee policy change was adopted at the meeting; the transcript records a motion to authorize publication of required legal notices related to fee changes presented in the staff packet, but board members emphasized that substantive fee decisions will follow further study and public comment.
