1998 AGN FEB 03 I27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ARGUMENT AGAINST: • Fees perceived as double taxation. Requiring participants to pay for recreation services and facilities is perceived by some as double taxation. Haven't they already paid for facilities and programs through their tax dollars? According to state law, fees are not taxes. If the fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service or facility, they are legal. There can be no double taxation if tax dollars no longer support the delivery of specific services that the public demands. • Fees discriminate against certain users. It has been suggested that fees and charges restrict usage by many of the people who most need the services and facilities. Exclusion is not the intent of user fees. In some instances, due to a reduction of funds, the only alternative to a fee is closure of a facility, which means no one uses the facility. Fee programs serving a special clientele are not a tax burden on anyone. • Fees transform a City into a business where the profit motive is paramount. This concern is constantly raised during meetings where fees are an issue. If a city were run entirely on business principles, the concern would be justified. However, cities differ from private sector business and these differences create a distinctly public perspective. Unlike the private sector enterprise, which must produce a profit in order to survive, city facilities and programs can be subsidized. OPTIONS EXPLORED TO ADDRESS THE FEE WAIVER ISSUE: As Council is aware, on May 7, 1976, Council asked the Parks and Recreation Commission to study and develop a set of criteria, for fee waivers. The Commission has met on several occasions regarding this issue, and has explored several possibilities regarding fee waiver requests. Some consideration have been: • Define differences in the fee structure • Local groups vs non -local groups • Waive fees on a case by case basis • Adjust fee structure according to the financial status of the user group • Allow extended payment schedules • Consideration of labor donated towards a city facility by the user group • Do the fees charged recover the costs of the services provided • Estimate the annual revenue generated from fees Presently the Commission is still working towards the directive of the Council, (establishing a uniform criteria for the waiver of fees). Fee waiver material has been received and studied from the League of California Cities; Colton City Attorney; surrounding communities; California Parks and Recreation Society. The Commission acting in its capacity as directed by Council (hearing requests for fee waivers), and in the absence of a Council adopted fee waiver guideline, the Commission established an interim criteria formula. User groups are asked to pay only 20% of the total fees assessed, until such time as an official criteria is approved by the City Council. As of this date, Commissioners and staff have met with youth sports league officials to discuss the issue of fee waivers. Staff has addressed both sides of the issue, and acknowledges that the "social content question is looming". Staff has investigated: