HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/04/11 - Minutes - Adjourned April 11, 1991
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Workshop
A. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned workshop of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met on
Thursday, April 11, 1991 in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at
10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called
to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout.
Present were Councilmembers: William J. Alexander, Charles J. Buquet II, Diane
Williams, Pamela J. Wright, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City
Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner;
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Joe
O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Jerry Grant, Building
Official; Joe Schultz, Community Services Director; Kathy Sorensen, Recreation
Superintendent; Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director; Susan Neely, Finance
Officer; Jim Frost, City Treasurer; Chief Dennis Michael and Deputy Chief Lloyd
Almand, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Sgt. Ted Housely, Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department; and Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk.
B. ITEM OF DISCUSSION
B1. DISCUSSION OF COST ALLOCATION AND USER FEE PLAN (0401-12 FEES)
Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director, stated that at the March 20, 1991
City Council meeting staff presented the cost allocation and user fee study for
first review, and asked for direction on how to proceed, and the Council decided
to have a public workshop to receive input on that study. He stated once all of
the discussion and study was done, staff would present a complete package to the
Council based on the philosophy determined by the Council. He stated their goal
was to have this process completed in June so that it could be made part of the
fiscal year 1991/92 budget process.
Councilmember Alexander left the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 2
Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director, outlined the types of charts
contained in the Executive Summary. He stated staff contacted the Chamber of
Commerce, the Building Industry Association (BIA), Lewis Homes and the William
Lyon Company, provided them with a copy of the Executive Summary, and asked for
any input prior to the meeting. He stated the BIA was the only group that
responded, and that information had been provided to Council. He then introduced
Brad Wilkes and Erin Payton from David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG), who
would go over the Executive Summary for the Council.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, referred to the packet that was previously delivered to the
Council dated 4-11-91, which consisted of the fee schedules from the Executive
Summary. He spoke about the costs used in their calculations and reviewed the
methods used for determining cost allocations and full costs. He referred to the
Decision Tree chart on the first page and explained its use, and how they used
that chart in their cost analysis.
Councilmember Wright asked if the use of the Decision Tree could be viewed as a
science, or was it subjective to the philosophical bent of each Council.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated it was bent according to the thought process of the
individual, but in general most of the time an activity could be categorized
either to the left or right, so it was not an exact tool but it could be used to
help in the decision making.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, then went on to page 15, the detailed summary sheet for the
Planning Department, and explained the layout of the chart. He felt the
community development activities of Planning, Engineering, and Building and
Safety, would basically benefit an individual and not the community, and would
recommend they try to aggressively recover costs, though not necessarily 100% of
the costs depending on the category. He also stated there was an addendum to the
Planning Department's chart, which had recommended changes from what was shown
on the charts.
Councilmember Alexander returned to the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmember Wright asked about the Planning Appeal Fees.
Erin Payton, DMG, stated Item 3 on the Addendum requested direction from the
Council regarding those fees, as the Planning Department felt they could not or
should not attempt to recover the costs involved in processing appeals.
Councilmember Wright stated sometimes the community might be the beneficiary of
an appeal instead of just the developer. She asked if it would be possible to
differentiate the fees for the different users.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he felt it could not be broken down as to the
type of class or individual, that the fee would have to be the same for all.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 3
Brad Wilkes, DMG, then referred to page 17, and stated in general for the
Planning Department they were recommending aggressive cost recovery, especially
for commercial and industrial users, and less for the homeowners and individuals.
He then covered the total costs for user fee activities shown on page 19.
Councilmember Buquet stated he had asked at the previous meeting about staff
costs for the Commissions, and asked where that was in the study.
Erin Payton, DMG, stated the staff costs for preparing for and attending
Commission meetings have been included in the different applications listed on
the summary sheets.
Councilmember Alexander asked if there was a way to break out some of that cost.
Erin Payton, DMG, stated that was shown on the detailed sheets submitted by
staff.
Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director, stated they could go back over the
work sheets and draw out the information for the Commissions.
Councilmember Buquet stated it was not just the Planning Commission he was asking
about, that he was interested in the cost to support all of the Commissions, and
not necessarily in relation to user fees.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, then covered pages 20 and 21, and explained how they tried to
set up a system for items that could not fit into a "base fee" structure.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, then went on to the Engineering Department fees on page 26, and
explained the difference between the non-fee and fee categories. He also
explained about the items that were showing a unit volume of one, and that they
were calculated on a total cost and not a unit cost.
Mayor Stout asked how long it had been since the fees had been adjusted.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated it would depend on the department, that the Building
Department had recently raised their fees.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the last time was in 1984, and they were adjusted
only on a basis of per sheet value, there was not a comprehensive study done at
that time. There have been some inflationary adjustments made since then, but
no major changes.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated that activities showing zero in the current fee column
would be new fees that have never been charged for in the past, and they show
what they have calculated for a fee.
Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director, stated that Engineering is an area
where he felt the philosophy of the Council needed to be determined before they
could actually determine a unit cost for preparing a resolution.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 4
Councilmember Wright asked if they had a breakdown on fees where they are
recommending a substantial increase, so that the Council can analyze the impact
it would have on the current users, because she thought it might inhibit building
in City.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated a way to do that would be to take a recent project and
run the cost of the user fees using the old and new amounts, and then you could
see the impact on a real project.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated another way to look at it was that about twelve
years ago when the City first set up a fee schedule, it was considered the
highest in the County, but they also had the highest issuance of building permits
so it did not inhibit growth at that time. Since then several cities have gone
through various changes in regards to cost recovery, and now some of the highest
fees are charged by the County. He stated the whole philosophy in local
government has changed so that those areas that benefit the individual should be
recovered, and how much should be determined by the policy makers.
Councilmember Wright was concerned that they would be able to determine what the
impact of their decision to recover costs would be, and how they would affect
other areas.
Councilmember Buquet felt it was important to keep in context that if the Council
decided to not raise the fees, there would be a subsidy factor involved which
would create a shortfall.
Councilmember Wright stated she thought they might be halting development by
increasing the fees, and thus hurting themselves in the long run, though she felt
development should be paying its way.
Mayor Stout felt the issue was more complex than whether user fees were
increased. He stated they were dealing with a market economy which had a lot to
do with what other cities charged, and if they were all charging approximately
the same fees, then no one would be developing any where based upon that fee.
He felt if you artificially lowered the fees below what it costs and subsidize
development with the general taxpayers' money, the pricing of the product is
still based on the market and you are putting additional profit in the pockets
of the developer. He stated several bankers have advised him that fees have very
little to do with the amount of development, it is based on whether or not
developers can get financing for their projects, and that the fees were a
minuscule portion of the cost.
Councilmember Wright felt if their philosophy has been that development pays its
way in Rancho Cucamonga, they have not been doing that, but she wanted to have
more detailed information before making a decision on the amount to increase the
fees.
Mayor Stout asked about the Flood Hazard Letter, if it was the letter homeowners
request to get out of the FEMA situation.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated that was correct.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 5
Mayor Stout stated he would like to have that item looked at also, because he
felt that should not be charged at such a high rate.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, then went on to page 30 with the Building and Safety Department
fees, and went over how the fees were analyzed per program. He stated they are
the department that most closely recovers their costs since their fees were just
revised a few months prior.
Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public input on this section. Addressing the
City Council were:
Frank Williams, BIA, stated he had noticed the absence of comparisons with
surrounding cities in some of the fees, and was concerned that along with
the increase of these fees, was the stacking of other fees such as
transportation, park development, etc. He felt this affected the
affordability of homes for the consumer. He hoped the Council would be
reasonable when it came to an increase of any fees, and asked if the
reason they were increasing fees was to control growth.
Mayor Stout stated that was never the intent of the City.
Councilmember Buquet stated that might have been a consideration several years
ago, but felt they had a lot of standards in place now and were not intimidated
by growth. He felt the Council was looking at this issue from a business
perspective.
Frank Williams, BIA, stated they wanted to pay their share and be fair,
but felt it needed to be determined what was fair. He felt they would be
pricing the small developer out of business.
Mayor Stout stated it would have been more comfortable if they had increased fees
incrementally since 1984, but they have not been recovering costs since then, and
felt the taxpayers have been subsidizing development all that time. He stated
that traditionally the small developers have not built in Rancho Cucamonga.
Councilmember Buquet felt the building industry passes along 100% of its costs
to do business. He felt the City was a corporation of taxpayers and felt they
had a responsibility of keeping within a reasonable range, and if they were not
recovering their costs in a reasonable manner, they needed to do so for the
taxpayers.
Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, asked also that the Council be
reasonable and fair. He stated he did not view the Council as being anti-
growth, and felt the City was doing a careful review in controlling their
growth. He understood that the City needed to recover their costs, and
felt it would be helpful if it could be reviewed annually.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 6
Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes, stated there was a review of the Design Review
procedure currently taking place, and asked that the increase in the fee
for that portion be postponed until that evaluation was complete. He
stated that Lewis Homes was also a major property owner in Rancho
Cucamonga, and their property taxes go into the General Fund, and hoped
their taxes would help keep fees from being increased.
There being no further response, Mayor Stout closed the public comments section.
Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director, stated that if the Council agreed
with the philosophy that has been set forth in the study, and the recommended
fees for the Planning and Engineering areas, they could direct staff to begin
putting things together in resolution form for the Council to review for the
Community Development area.
Councilmember Buquet stated he is not ready to support a 100% recovery rate at
this time, he felt there were some things that were market driven and he was not
comfortable with an across the board recovery at 100%, especially at this time.
Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director, stated Council could direct staff to
develop items based on 100% recovery, but they could choose how to implement that
structure, possibly phased in over a period of time.
Councilmember Buquet stated he would agree with an incremental phasing where they
could get caught up, but not to take it all in one step. He then suggested that
when that is accomplished, they have an annual or bi-annual review so as not to
be in this position again.
Mayor Stout felt they should recover the full cost as recommended by the
consultant, not necessarily 100%, and felt their study was very prudent with a
few exceptions. He also stated he was not in favor of an incremental approach
and have the City continue to subsidize the building community, because he felt
the fee structure would not have an affect on the amount of building done in the
community if the economy were to pick up.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated that in their experience, they have found that even
though the increase looks large on paper, when it has been calculated into the
costs of various projects, the amount of the fees was minuscule compared to the
total cost' of the project. He stated that most cities choose to increase their
fees at one time instead of an incremental approach.
Councilmember Buquet asked if staff had an estimate on what percentage the fees
would be in a project.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated they would have to research
that, but felt that would be a small factor in the cost of a house, that the cost
of land and the cost to carry would be the driving factors for the developer.
Councilmember Wright stated she would also like to see a comparison of certain
fees for some of the larger fees with other cities in the area. She stated she
also did not perceive a large amount of protest from the development community
regarding the increase, so would not be against the recommendation.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 7
Councilmember Alexander stated there might be the possibility that if they were
able to streamline their procedures they might not have to increase the amount
by 100%, and though he was not really in favor of an incremental phase in, he
would not be opposed to looking at an 80% increase while they continue to
evaluate the situation, but still leave it open to full recovery in the future.
Mayor Stout stated that on the cost recovery for Planning Commission appeals, he
agreed with the Planning Department's recommendation because he did not want to
discourage homeowners from that avenue of expressing themselves.
The Council concurred.
Mayor Stout referred to the Flood Hazard letters, and stated the homeowner will
get a letter from their insurance company stating they will be charged an
enormous amount for flood insurance because they are in a flood hazard area
unless they can get the federal government to remove them from that category.
He stated the City sends information about their flood control measures and the
government decides if they are sufficient enough to change the classification.
He stated they have not charged for it in the past, and felt they should not
charge for it now.
The Council concurred.
ACTION: The Council concurred to approve the recommendation of the consultant,
with the exception of the Planning Appeals, which would stay at the current rate,
and to not charge for the Flood Hazard letter, and to direct staff to prepare and
ordinance for consideration.
Councilmember Alexander also felt that along with cost recovery, they also needed
to review the use of staff because he felt that could be inflating costs,
especially in relation to the Commissions, and thought they needed to review that
and cut out the unnecessary activities.
Mayor Stout called a recess at 9:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
with all members of Council present.
The Council then reviewed the summary sheets for the Fire District.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated fire departments are generally different from other
departments. He stated fire departments traditionally think of themselves in
regards to fire suppression, and do not usually think about recovery of user
fees. He stated this District has fees set up that closely recover costs, but
have not been charging them. He stated they are recommending an aggressive
recovery program on some of these fees, such as plan review processes, uniform
fire code inspections and permits, hazardous material responses, false alarms,
etc., and referred to page 40 for total amounts. He stated that user fee costs
were approximately $500,000.00, and that they currently collect about $158,000.00
because they were not charging fees that were on the books.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 8
Chief Michael, Fire District, stated that when they implemented the Uniform Fire
Code permit fees, the Board decided that the District was to only levy this
charge when a business came in instead of on an annual basis as laid out in the
ordinance. He stated the consultant was recommending this be an annual charge.
Mayor Stout asked if it was uncommon to charge those costs on an annual basis.
Chief Michael, Fire District, stated that was not uncommon.
Councilmember Buquet stated he would like to see the Plan Review process
addressed, because he felt it was a bad policy to double charge for a review by
the City and the Fire District.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the costs in this report only pertain to Fire
personnel. He stated that when they consolidate the Fire Prevention Bureau
offices at the Civic Center that will alleviate the duplicate costs, and this
cost allocation report takes that into consideration.
Councilmember Buquet also referred to page 30, Item 90, Fire Suppression, and
stated he would like to see the City find a way to recover costs from homeowners
and their insurance carriers.
Chief Michael, Fire District, stated that the majority of those calls were not
for fire suppression but for EMS.
Councilmember Buquet stated maybe they needed those figures broken out then, but
if they were responding on a fire suppression call, he felt they should be trying
to recover at least a portion of the cost.
Councilmember Wright did not agree with recovering costs for fire suppression,
that it should be a service provided as part of the taxes collected.
Councilmember Williams asked if this would apply to people that did not have fire
insurance, or were underinsured.
Councilmember Buquet stated that would be an administrative decision, but felt
those cases were few, and that most insurance companies would pay for the costs
involved.
Chief Michael, Fire District, stated that most carriers have provisions to pay
a certain amount towards fire suppression services in their policies.
Councilmembers Wright and Williams expressed concerns that the insurance
companies would start raising their rates if cities started recovering costs for
fire suppression services.
Mayor Stout felt they would need to confer with the City Attorney on who they
could charge for this, because they would have to be consistent from a legal
standpoint.
Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public comments on the Fire District fees.
There being no response, the public comment section was closed.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 9
Councilmember Alexander stated they needed to determine standards and staffing
levels for the collection of the fees, that determining fees was only half of the
procedure.
ACTION: Council concurred for staff to prepare recommended fees based upon those
submitted by the consultant, and update the resolution for adoption by the Fire
Board.
The Council then reviewed the Sheriff's Department user fee study.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated the philosophy regarding law enforcement agencies was
similar to that of fire departments in that user fee activity was a small portion
of the entire department's costs, so traditionally they have not thought about
recovering costs as aggressively as other departments. He stated their
calculated costs were similar to what the current fees for the Sheriff's
Department are, so there would not be a large increase in their recommended
amounts. He also stated these costs were drawn up when the Sheriff's were still
in the old building on 9th Street, so there would be some slight changes in the
overhead amounts.
Councilmember Buquet asked about the Special Event Pay Jobs, Item 8 on page 45,
and how they arrived at that figure.
Erin Payton, DMG, stated that was an administrative cost for processing the
requests for the special event pay jobs. She stated the personnel who work those
events are charged out on an hourly rate, but there was currently no recovery of
costs for the processing and coordinating of the requests.
Councilmember Buquet stated he did not support charging for having someone typing
up paperwork, especially at the low volume of requests that are processed yearly.
Councilmember Wright stated she would like Item 6 on page 45, Bicycle License
fees, to be higher to help pay for the Sheriff's time in locating stolen
bicycles.
Mayor Stout felt that bicycle licensing was a voluntary matter and this was just
to recover costs associated with the issuance of licenses.
Councilmember Wright stated she would like to develop a bicycle promotion program
through the Park and Recreation Commission, and once that was established then
she felt it would be a necessary thing to have the bicycles licensed when the
numbers used increased to help in the recovery process when they were stolen.
She felt it might not be necessary this next year but that it would be in the
future and wanted to prepare for that.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 10
Mayor Stout agreed that there should be a more comprehensive bicycle program in
the City, and felt they should ask the Sheriff's Department and Community
Services to work together on a program, but felt it was a separate issue than
what they were dealing with in the study. He felt staff could review the program
issue and bring it back in a reasonable amount of time, and then the Council
determine if they would want to adjust the bicycle license fee later on to
account for any changes in the program for recovery costs.
ACTION: Council approved the fees as recommended by the consultant with the
exception of Items 2, 3, and 4, which should be increased to $10.00 each for
reports, the deletion of Items 5 and 8, and an adjustment to the position hourly
rate figures to include overhead costs for being in the new facilities, and
directed staff to prepare an ordinance for Council's review.
The Council then reviewed the User Fees for Recreation.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated that Recreation has more gray areas when trying to
determine user fees. He stated that there are some areas where they have not
been charging fees in the past, and they were recommending the City at least
start trying to recover some of the costs. He stated they were also recommending
the City consider a 5-10% increase in youth sports and senior activities, to keep
their annual subsidies from growing. They also recommended that in the area of
adult sports, they try to aggressively recover costs.
Councilmember Williams asked if some of the larger categories could be broken
down into more detail, and has the Park and Recreation Commission looked at these
fees as far as policy setting, and were they sure they were getting the most for
their dollars on some events.
Joe Schultz, Community Services Manager, stated they lumped some of those
categories, such as off-site classes, for ease in calculating. He also stated
the Park and Recreation Commission has not reviewed the fees, and as far as the
quality of the programs, that would take further examination, but Community
Services constantly evaluates their programs for success ratios and
effectiveness. He felt the Council would be handling these fees the same as they
have for the other departments tonight, establishing their philosophy and setting
a percentage to charge.
Councilmember Alexander asked if there were children that were not able to
participate in some of the programs due to the economic conditions of their
families, and does the City address that issue anywhere.
Joe Schultz, Community Services Manager, stated there were probably people out
there in that situation, but they were trying to make it as easy as possible for
everyone to participate in classes, that the Council has established a
scholarship program to assist families that cannot afford the fees. He stated
they are having service clubs underwrite that program in order to recover those
costs.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 11
Mayor Stout stated the recreation program has expanded greatly over the years,
and asked if there was a policy that allowed recreation staff to expand the
program as much as they wanted as long as newer programs were able to recover
fees, would that work.
Joe Schultz, Community Services Director, stated that philosophy sounds good and
they have considered it, but it was possible there would be a great program they
could develop, maybe something that was new and untried, that they couldn't
guarantee full recovery of costs. He stated they could set up a programming
budget to try and recover their direct costs, but sometimes you have to offer a
program two or three times before it becomes popular in the community.
Councilmember Buquet felt there was also a philosophical approach to the
situation, and that he had a problem with charging fees for a number of services
that were listed on the studyl He felt it was the Council's charge and
responsibility to provide services, and did not feel they should have full cost
recovery on recreation programs.
Councilmember Williams felt they should continue to subsidize the senior and
youth programs.
Councilmember Buquet felt they needed to go through and pare down the list some,
and look at the recommendations because he would not support anything that was
shown as 100% recovery. He stated he had items 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 18, 19, 20, and 25 marked as areas of concern for various reasons. He felt
they needed to revise their list to be more user sensitive, and he wanted the
recreation programs to be accessible to as many people as possible in the
community.
Councilmember Wright asked if they would be able to break down the usage on the
field lights, it they could show how much it would be for one field of lights for
a night's use.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated that in a lot of areas in the Park and Recreation
category, from a costing standpoint it was very difficult to break down the
figures more than they have, and this applies to every city he has worked in.
He stated when they have not charged for an activity in the past, such as with
the field lights, it is hard to know how much it has been used so he suggested
they might want to start monitoring the use now and determine a more accurate
cost in the future when data was available.
ACTION: The Council Park and Recreation Subcommittee, Joe Schultz, Jack Lam, Jim
Hart, and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Park and Recreation Commission to meet
and analyze the study and prepare a recommendation for the City Council.
The Council then reviewed the fee structure for the City Clerk's office.
Councilmember Wright stated she felt they should not charge for research time.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 12
Councilmember Buquet disagreed. He felt they could allow a certain amount of
time to be free, to allow for the person of honest intent to come in and obtain
information, but that if someone comes in with a request for information that
will take a large amount of research time, then that time spent should be charged
for just as it is in private business. He thought that should also apply to
things like photocopies, that you allow a certain number free, and then charge
if it goes over that.
Mayor Stout concurred with Councilmember Buquet.
Councilmember Wright felt they should charge for the cost of supplies, such as
the photocopy paper, but that the information was public information to which
everyone was entitled to, and did not want to charge for the service of locating
that information for the public. She stated it seemed like they were trying to
inhibit the public's access to government, that we would loose the concept of
public servant if they start trying to recover costs for their time.
Councilmember Buquet felt they needed to draw the line somewhere, that there was
a small percentage of the population that he felt abused the process under the
guise of "democracy" and "freedom of the press", and felt they had a
responsibility to set boundaries as to what was reasonable and what was abusive.
Councilmember Alexander asked if this research time was typically charged in
other cities in California.
Brad Wilkes, DMG, stated in their experience it was rare that research time was
charged in the City Clerk's office. He stated that when they looked at the fees
for the City Clerk's office, they did not go through a cost analysis like they
did with the other departments, they just looked at what other cities charge.
Councilmember Buquet stated maybe they could allow a "free period" that is
reasonable, because he felt 99% of the people who come in for information would
fall into that category, and then when it gets beyond that then they pay on an
hourly basis. He also felt staff should not have to drop everything to process
a request if it was extensive, that the person could fill out a request form and
staff could advise them when they could come back to review the information.
Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director, stated it was not uncommon that a
request that entails more than a quick answer be submitted in writing, and that
some cities respond with what the cost would be to research the request, and that
allows the individual making the request to decide what they really want.
Councilmember Williams felt they should research how much time is being used, and
how it is being used, and then make a decision.
Councilmember Alexander felt if took a staff member more than thirty minutes to
look something up, that was too much time.
City Council Minutes
April 11, 1991
Page 13
Councilmember Buquet felt that if you went to any business in the community and
asked for information, irrespective of your rights and responsibilities, there
would come a point where that business woul~ have to draw a line. He agreed that
maybe 99% of the time it would not be a problem, but still believed it was
appropriate to set something in place because they have encountered problems in
the past when they did not have a written policy in place when a situation came
up.
Councilmember Williams felt they needed to determine how much time was being
spent in order to make a decision.
Councilmember Buquet agreed, because he felt there were circumstances that
warranted reimbursement.
ACTION: The Council concurred with the fees as recommended. by the consultant,
with the exception of the research time.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communications were made by the public.
, , , , ,
D · ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Wright to adjourn.
unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Motion carried
Respectfully submitted,
Ja~Sutton
Deputy City Clerk
Approved: June 5, 1991