Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Finance Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Menlo Park staff propose broad fee increases in cost-recovery study; council flags equity and timing concerns
Summary
A consultant-led cost-recovery study proposed updated user fees and surcharges that could raise millions in revenue; councilmembers raised concerns about steep jumps for certain appeal fees, the equity impacts on residents and the tight public-notice schedule ahead of an April hearing.
City staff and a consultant presented a comprehensive cost-recovery study March 24 that recommends updates to dozens of city user fees, ranging from a proposed technology surcharge on development fees to higher appeal and permit processing charges.
Cindy Conts, the consulting director, explained the methodology: an "bottom-up" (per-unit) approach to calculate staff time and overhead, plus a comparative review of peer jurisdictions. The presentation noted the city currently recovers roughly 40to 42 percent of full service costs in many areas and that implementing the consultant's recommendations could raise recovery rates and generate several million dollars in additional revenue if all proposed changes are adopted.
Councilmembers focused on equity and the optics of large one-time increases. The discussion highlighted an example from the presentation: a high-complexity multifamily appeal that the consultant estimated could cost the city about $21,000 in staff time to process, and a lower-tier resident appeal estimated at roughly $110. Staff said the $21,000 figure represents an intensive, atypical multifamily case and is not proposed as a standard residential fee; staff also explained options to tier fees by project size and to provide exemptions or waivers where appropriate.
Councilmembers requested clearer scenarios showing which fees would increase most and how those increases would affect residents and small businesses. Several councilmembers recommended excluding library and community-service programs from steep increases, and asked staff to provide alternative scenarios and any available grant or subsidy offsets. Staff said the target schedule would require public notice in early April, a public hearing and adoption by late April to meet a July 1 effective date for many fees; councilmembers asked whether the timeline could be extended to allow more refinement.
No fee changes were adopted at the session; staff requested direction on which categories to include in the notice and asked the council for guidance on thresholds for exemption or phased implementation.
