Monument council reviews user-fee study as plannersand businesses raise concerns

Monument—inance Director Jennifer Phillips presented the council with an initial analysis from a third-party user-fee study, explaining that the study calculates a "fully burdened rate" by adding salaries and benefits, operating costs, indirect departmental support and facility overhead to determine the true cost of delivering a service. "Fees are different from taxes," Phillips said, adding that local governments "are not allowed to make a profit," so the town may set fees lower but cannot charge more than cost.

The presentation prompted detailed questioning from council members about specific fee categories. Councilors pressed staff on special-event permitting (application, maintenance and service fees), park reservation and damage-deposit calculations, and whether penalties should be treated separately from service fees. Phillips responded that maintenance fees reflect consumable and staffing costs and that refundable damage deposits are calculated from likely damage costs, though the council retained discretion to set higher deposits.

Council discussion focused heavily on planning and permitting fees, where the study recommended large increases for some permits. One councilor warned that a sharp jump in planning fees could deter businesses and said the council should consider competitiveness and a phased approach. Staff noted the planning department does more complex review for large PUDs and that time spent does increase with project size, but not always linearly; the council asked planning staff to propose stepped or percentage-based increases to soften the immediate impact on applicants.

The council also examined administrative charges such as credit/debit transaction fees (staff reported a 74-cent pass-through fee from Express Bill Pay and noted state limits for card surcharges), return-check charges tied to banking NSF fees, and notary charges (the Colorado statutory maximum is $15). Members asked for greater uniformity where feasible but staff explained that "fully burdened" calculations produce different costs across departments because of salary and workload differences.

Other items raised included fees for temporary uses (food trucks), business-license renewals and farmers-market licensing; staff agreed to explore annual permit options or discounts for frequent vendors. A councilor noted inconsistencies between cemetery open/close and disinterment fees and the fee for sexually oriented-business licensing; staff said the consultant lacked application data for some categories and would refine recommendations.

Council direction to staff: bring back refined recommendations with options to phase increases, fill in several blank (yellow) boxes on the fee packet with recommended amounts or alternatives, and consider a stepped approach for planning fees and an annual or discounted permit option for frequent temporary vendors. No fee schedule was adopted at the meeting; the study will be finalized and returned to council for adoption alongside ordinance or resolution language when appropriate.

The council emphasized balancing full-cost recovery with economic competitiveness and community priorities and asked staff to present clearer, department-level recommendations and a timeline for staged implementation.