This meeting went a little over 8 hours, so I’m going to not be as thorough as usual! Here’s the amendments and what happened and discussion.
I skipped the first 2.5 hours which includes the other items on their agenda and the public testimony. There are many alders around the table who are “ex officio” members and can participate in discussion but not vote. Alders on the Finance Committee are the only ones who can submit amendments. This is why you see Alder Bidar, the council president, introducing amendments for non-Finance alders as a “courtesy”. The people on the Finance Committee are: Mayor Rhodes-Conway, Shiva Bidar, Barbara McKinney, Mike Verveer, Rebecca Kemble, Donna Moreland and Keith Furman. The amendments are in three sections:
- Budget neutral
- Reductions
- Additions
There will be two more parts to this blog and I will link here once I post.
BUDGET NEUTRAL AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT ONE
Title: Gift Cards for WIC Recipients to offset Vehicle Registration Fee
Sponsors: Alders Bidar, Lemmer
Amount: ($100,000)
Narrative: Appropriate $100,000 in Direct Appropriations to administer a program providing $40 gift cards to WIC recipients to offset the cost of the proposed Vehicle Registration Fee. The program will be administered by Public Health.
Decrease the General Fund subsidy to Metro Transit by $100,000; and decrease funding for consulting services by $100,000.
Analysis: The proposed amendment provides funding for 2,500 gift cards to be distributed to WIC recipients to offset the cost of the proposed Vehicle Registration Fee. The amount was determined based on WIC enrollment trends, in 2019 PHMDC served 2,495 unduplicated families.
The proposal will be funded by decreasing the General Fund contribution to Metro Transit by $100,000 and eliminating a portion of funding for studies in Metro’s 2020 budget.
The 2020 Executive Budget assumes revenue from a $40 Vehicle Registration Fee. Per State requirements, funds from the fee must be used for transportation purposes. As proposed in the Mayor’s Budget, revenue from the fee will be applied directly to Metro’s budget. As a result Metro’s General Fund subsidy was decreased by a corresponding amount. A portion of funding from the new fee was used to fund studies aimed at preparing for the implementation of BRT. The studies include a route analysis ($1.0 million), mobile ticketing feasibility study ($50,000), and organizational study ($100,000). If this amendment is adopted, Metro will either decide how to realize savings in the assumed amount or eliminate one of the studies.
Motion: Bidar moves adoption, Kemble(?) seconds.
Questions of Staff:
Barbara Harrington-McKinney asks where will this rest? Will people bring documentation to you? How will it be monitored
Janel Heinrich from Public Health introduces Katrina Harwood (sp?) the WIC supervisor. They are fully committee to figuring out how to administer this, they don’t have it fully mapped out yet. They have ample experience with communicating and tracking things of this nature. They will ask for registration, inventory it and provide regular updates to track the utility of that for their clients.
McKinney asks if that will include tracking in proportion to people who actually paid the $40 and compare to those that didn’t have access to purchase it. How will you measure the effectiveness of the initiative and if that dollar amount would be sufficient.
Harwood says the total number you see is the total unduplicated amount of families served in Madison. That is from their data. They would use that to track and they can track the number of families that do receive the gift card. They can also track those who did not receive it but might have been eligible.
McKinney asks if the $100 [sic] would equate to how many household families with a car.
Heinrich says the $100,000 is based on their case load and what they anticipate who will be eligible. They do not know how many families actually have vehicles, so they based that number on the total number of participants. And clarifies that the gift card is the same as the wheel tax ($40).
Shiva Bidar says they have 4,295 unduplicated families and multiplied that times $40 and that is how they got to $100,000. That assumes everyone has a car and will come with their payment of the vehicle registration fee and request reimbursement. She says they talked about quarterly updates about who takes advantage of the program and they agreed to do that. She says they will work internally to communicate the availability of the program. Heinrich agrees to all of the above.
Mike Verveer asks how they will decide which gift cards they will use? Visa/Mastercard credit card? Heinrich says they will keep it as simple as possible so the family can use it for what they deem appropriate for their needs.
Verveer asks what type of gift cards they will use. Heinrich says that they have experience with different types of grocery gift cards or Visa/Mastercard. Verveer asks if they have experience with other gift cards. She says yes. Verveer asks for her too elaborate. Heinrich says they have used them for communicable disease and tuberculosis clients where they identify that given their disease status and need to not be working for periods of time and they provide reimbursements in the form of gift cards.
Verveer asks why the decision to use only WIC eligible families for reimbursement. He says they presumed they worked long and hard to figure out how to work with this statute to receive reimbursement. It’s Women, Infants and Children, can you explain why you aren’t covering people who aren’t eligible for WIC but not others.
Bidar says that the reason she picked the WIC recipients along with Alder Lemmer is because we all have heard from our constituents that $40 is significant of money and as she was trying to think of a program to ease the burden for fixed or low income without creating a program with expenses – the need for staff to manage a new program and do verifications of income, which would create an additional costs for the city. 2500 family units impacts a pretty significant group of residents. That was a group that was already having monthly basis with the Health Department and didn’t need to have an extra trip to apply for the program and have already been deemed eligible for a federal program. It wasn’t about not having a larger number, but ti was a group she could identify that wouldn’t create additional expense for the city or burden to prove they were eligible. She is aware that this is not every resident of the city that will need assistance. She also thought if they start the program and see successes they can think about how to reach others that would be impacted. She says the Mayor attempted to do this in her budget by carving out programs people would be eligible for, such as the bus passes for youth. They are trying to carve out different populations.
Sheri Carter asks about seniors and other low-income families or individuals who are not on the WIC program but Bidar just answered that.
Bidar says she would be happy to work with her colleagues to find other ways, they had a short time to work on this. She would be more than willing to talk about this.
Rebecca Kemble asks how this looks in the spreadsheet. It looks like a negative expense in the final column and for other items there are numbers in the first three columns and nothing in the last column.
Finance staff says in this case its $0 on the general fund and net neutral because we are decreasing the general fund subsidy to Metro and increasing an appropriation to fund the expense. So this is net neutral. On the Metro side it is “other funds” and they are reducing revenue and offsetting the reduction in revenue by reducing the number for funding for studies that was included in the executive budget. Overall the numbers in the general fund won’t change if the amendment is approved, but Metro’s budget would be $100,000 less.
Verveer asks Metro staff how they will absorb the $100,000 cut to the studies. He says it will reduce from $1.5M to $1.4M but he was involved with the RESJI fee. He says that the study showed it wasn’t the most underserved that are impacted, because they don’t own vehicles. It’s the ones that are lower income and own a vehicle that are disproportionately impacts. He says that wile its less money for BRT but the results of the RESJII analysis came up with measures similar to this to offset the impact on the residents. He feels like its an appropriate measure to address the regressive nature of the vehicle registration fee.
Verveer says he appreciates it but that wasn’t his question. Not whether he supports the amendment but have the staff discussed how they would absorb the proposed cut that specifically talks about the three studies. Staff says that the studies may have to draw from the following year’s funds and it may depend upon when the fee is enacted. If it is enacted Feb 1 or march 1 they won’t get the full amount of the funding in the budget and some of the studies may need to be fiscally phased into the following year.
Verveer asks if it would be the studies on the chopping block. They says the route optimization study will take some time to develop the scope and understanding it and the process associated with that could easily expand into two years. That would be the study that would be spread out.
McKinney asks about the study taking more time. Was the $100,000 the maximum amount that could be pulled out of Metro. If they can spread the study over a 2 year period, what is the impact. The Mayor says the study will cost what it costs regardless of what year they start it in. McKinney asks what that means, when would it start? Staff say that they say it will cost about $1M to do a full route and if $750,000 was available because the vehicle registration fee starts late and this amendment passes. Then they would phase the study to have 3/4 funded this year and 1/4 funded next year. Right now $1.5M is going towards preparation but it will go towards operating funds. When they apply to Small Starts they have to identify how they will pay for the operating costs. If the operating costs are $3-5M. This provides 1/3 to 50% of the operating costs. He says before 2023 its to prepare for BRT but also bolster services that tend to impact the underserved disproportionately, particularly weekend and even hours. And people who need, the “transit dependent”, evenings and weekends. The BRT funding before 2023 will bolster transit to those who need it and the staffing studies. Once BRT starts that money will go to BRT and the route structure would be in play then and they would seek to get higher services levels for transit dependent people in frequency, evenings and weekends.
Discussion:
Alder Marsha Rummel thanks the alders who proposed this, thinks it’s thoughtful. She has a bigger policy question. She says when people to have licenses there is a lot of collateral damage and they are put in more poverty jeopardy. She says this may happen, that people may choose not to pay this thing.
Vote: Passes on a voice vote with only Alder McKinney being heard saying no.
AMENDMENT TWO
Title: K9 Donations
Sponsors: Mayor Rhodes-Conway
Amount: $0
Narrative: Increase Donations by $90,500 for two additional K9 vehicles.
Analysis: The Executive Budget includes $59,500 for one K9 vehicle. The Police Department has been notified that anticipated donations for 2020 from Capital K9s will be sufficient to purchase three vehicles. The proposed amendment increases the Donation budget and related supplies to purchase and equip two additional vehicles. Equipment costs are lower for the additional vehicles because much of the equipment can be transferred from old vehicles.
Motion: Moves adoption
Questions of Staff: None
Discussion: None
Vote: Passes on a voice vote, seemingly unanimous
AMENDMENT THREE
Title: COPS Grant Application
Sponsors: Alder Verveer
Amount: $0
Narrative: Add the following Budget Highlight: The Police Department is authorized to apply for a COPS Hiring grant to create additional positions should the opportunity arise in 2020.
Analysis: The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) is part of the U.S. Department of Justice and provides grants for community policing efforts. The COPS Hiring Program (CHP) Program is a competitive solicitation, open to all state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies with primary law enforcement authority.
The application period for COPS grants is normally in July. However, due to legal issues surrounding scoring advantages to sanctuary cities, the application process for 2020 has been on hold. After a favorable court ruling, the COPS Office is working on FY2020 solicitations for the COPS Hiring Program (CHP) and the Community Policing Development Microgrants Program, which could be announced late in 2019.
MPD has received three COPS Hiring grants since 2011.
- 2011 – 2 Special Investigations Unit (SIU) detectives and 1 SIU intelligence officer
- 2014 – 1 Community Outreach Research Education (CORE) Team sergeant and 2 CORE officers
- 2015 – 3 CORE officers and 1 use-of-force sergeant
COPS grants provide funding to hire and re-hire entry level career law enforcement officers in order to preserve jobs, increase community policing capacities and support crime prevention efforts. The grant period is usually three years with the grant funding progressively decreasing over the grant period. The local jurisdiction fully supports the positions at the end of the period, and must keep funding the position a minimum of one year after the grant ends.
The proposed amendment authorizes MPD is apply for a COPS grant once the application period is open. COPS Hiring Grants allow departments to apply for up to 15 officers for community policing-related initiatives. The solicitation has historically listed community policing focus areas which will receive priority consideration, which are not known at this time.
The Executive Budget does not include any funding for a local match to a COPS grant if awarded.
Motion: Verveer moves adoption, McKinney seconds.
Questions of Staff:
Bidar asks the police department how the COPS grant process works for the new alders, how is this changed from the way you usually do this.
Vic Wahl says that they added quite a bit of their staff through COPS grants. The federal government covers about half of the costs of the officer on a sliding scale over a three year period. The first year there is a minimal cost to the city and that will grow and the 4th year the City will incur the total costs. They typically pursue special officers and special units when they pursued COPS grants in the past based on how they prioritize funding. Madison in terms of just getting patrol officers is not very competitive so we have to rely on our reputation for innovation and community policing. They did try a couple years ago to get patrol officers through the COPS grant and were unsuccessful. Typically we come to the council with a stand alone resolution once we receive a COPS grant award that would explain the award and seek authorization for the additional positions and the funding necessary to cover them.
Bidar says when they come with the resolution there is a fiscal note that tells us what portion of the City funds are over the period of the grant. Wahl says at that point they can break that down to precise numbers during the three year transition period.
Bidar says they put a bit of a stop the COPS grants based on sanctuary city. It seems they are restarting the COPS grants in 2020 but we don’t know what parameters they are going to be using for the COPS grants. There were jurisdictions that challenged the restrictions placed on them, those issues weren’t issues for us because we don’t run a jail, but it did hold up the larger process. They thought the 2020 announcements would be out by now.
Bidar asks how long between when you receive notice the grant is open until when you have to submit the grant. About 6 weeks.
Keith Furman asks if the department knows how many officers they will be asking for? Wahl says that they will ask for an amount and they can award the full amount, a partial amount or none. They haven’t settled on a final request at this point.
Furman asks if the council could not take the whole grant? They have that ability but its not helpful in the long run. It’s not helpful to turn down a grant because they have had a good relationship with the COPS grant office. They have talked about staggering the new positions that might be an option. But this is ultimately up to the council and mayor to approve the new positions.
Donna Moreland asks if there was just one year where they didn’t get a COPS grant or were there other years? He says there were a number of years where they didn’t apply or applied and didn’t get it.
What were the reasons for not being awarded, not being enough money to go around? He says the most recent round was where they applied for patrol officer that weren’t assigned to a specialty unit or community policing initiative. Typically when COPS is looking at general funding, they are looking at cities where they laid officers off, that are in economic dire straights or when very high levels of crime. That is why they do innovative community policing focus.
Carter asks how many police departments apply for the COPS grant and how difficult the competition is. He says 100s, its very competitive, the last round there were 4 police officers added in the entire State of Wisconsin. They are hopeful that since there has been a delay there may be some funding build up and they may have more flexible in awarding funds.
Bidar asks about the past resolutions, has there ever been a time when timing was an issue to come before the council to request it? He says not that he can recall.
Discussion:
Verveer says that in prior year budget presentations there has been a mention of COPS applications in the budget, this year this is not the case. He thought it was important to this. The mayor is supportive of a future COPS grant application and he thought it was important that this is noted in the budget to show council support. He says it was never his intention that there would not be normal resolutions by the council. The budget highlight isn’t intended to bypass that normal process.
Amendment to Amendment: He offers an amendment to provide comfort to the committee. He moves that a sentence be added that says “Final authorization of grant application must be adopted by Common Council resolution” No objections to the amendment.
Discussion: Verveer says that whatever priorities they COPS grant has will determine if the council supports the resolution when it comes to council.
Vote: Passes on a voice vote, one no – sounded like Rebecca Kemble.
AMENDMENT FOUR
Title: Parking Enforcement Highlight
Sponsors: Alders Verveer, Harrington-McKinney
Amount: $0
Narrative: Update the budget highlight pertaining to Parking Enforcement to read:
“Transfers the full cost and funding of parking enforcement from the Police Department to the Parking Utility. Parking enforcement will remain within the Police Department organizationally. During 2020 a study will be conducted to analyze the organizational impacts and feasibility of potentially transferring Parking Enforcement from Police to Parking.”
Analysis: The proposed amendment is a narrative change and does not have an operating impact.
Motion: Verveer moves adoption, McKinney seconds.
Questions of Staff: None
Discussion:
Verveer says this is the amendment he said he’d bring forward to soften the language in the Mayor’s budget about moving the parking officers from Police to Parking Utility. He says you can compare the language on page 226 of the Executive Budget and see that it is a significant softening of the language that would only study the efficacy of moving the staff. There is no budget impact. He says there was very emotional testimony at the public hearing and unanswered questions about the tools available to them. He hopes the study would address all those questions.
Bidar asks about the paragraph he proposed, does it substitute the entire paragraph or just the first two sentences of the language.
Verveer says its just the first two sentences.
Vote: Passes on a voice vote, seemingly unanimous.
AMENDMENT FIVE
Title: Create Stormwater Engineer Positions
Sponsors: Mayor Rhodes-Conway, Alders Verveer, Bidar, Skidmore, Evers, Furman
Amount: $45,000
Narrative: Create 2 Stormwater Engineer positions within the Stormwater Utility.
Analysis: The proposed amendment adds two Stormwater Engineers anticipated to be created as Engineer 1. Salaries and benefits for the engineers will be funded through both the capital budget (70%) and operating budget (30%). The amounts presented in the amendment reflect only the anticipated costs that will be charged to the operating budget and do not include anticipated charges to capital. The budget for the capital portion of the proposed amendment is included in various projects in the capital budget.
This amendment will be funded through the Stormwater Utility rate and have no impact on the General Fund. The Executive Budget assumed Stormwater rates would increase by 9% in 2020. The final rate increase (set in spring of 2020) will reflect costs associated with this positions. If approved, the estimated impact on the average residential Stormwater Utility customer is $0.68 per year.
These engineers would assist with the increased workload for the Stormwater Utility following the flooding in the summer and fall of 2018. The specific responsibilities of these Engineers include conducting watershed studies for the remainder of the City and identifying green infrastructure projects that may resolve stormwater issues.
Motion: Bidar moves adoption, McKinney seconds.
Questions of Staff: None
Discussion: None
Vote: Passes on a voice vote, unanimously
AMENDMENT SIX
Title: Remove Language Regarding Graffiti Removal
Sponsors: Alder Verveer
Amount: $0
Narrative: Remove language from the Streets Division-Roadside Cleanup service referencing decreases to graffiti removal services.
Analysis: The proposed amendment removes language from page 314 of the 2020 Executive Operating Budget regarding decreases to graffiti removal services.
The 2020 Executive Operating Budget proposes an $11,000 reduction to the supplies for the Streets Division Roadside Cleanup service. This reduction was targeted towards shifting graffiti removal services to a complaint-based system. The Streets Division indicated that it will still provide the current level of graffiti removal services with the $11,000 reduction to supplies for this service.
Motion: Verveer moves adoption, McKinney seconds
Questions of Staff: None
Discussion: None
Vote: Passes on a voice vote, seemingly unanimous
AMENDMENT SEVEN
Title: Technical Adjustments
Sponsors: Mayor Rhodes-Conway
Amount: $0
Narrative: Incorporate the following adjustments in the Executive Budget:
- Decrease hourly wages for the Attorney Office by $55,185
- Increase the General Fund subsidy for Public Health by $55,185
- Increase interpretation services in Civil Rights by $10,000
- Decrease State transportation aid by $132,000
- Increase the property tax levy by $142,000
- Transfer $248,363 from Cable Franchise Fees to a new Video Service Provider Aid line item (within Intergovernmental Revenue)
Analysis: The proposed amendment makes a series of technical changes to the Executive Operating budget. The changes in total are net neutral to the General Fund and do not impact the remaining levy authority. The changes are explained below:
- Attorney Hourly Wages: The reduction corrects an error in the amounts in the Executive Budget
- Public Health Subsidy: The increase funds the anticipated employee pay increase funded in the County Executive’s budget for County Employees
- Civil Rights Interpretation Services: The increase corrects an error in the amounts in the Executive Budget
- GF Revenue-State Transportation Aid: Decrease the assumed revenue based on the final anticipated amount
- GF-Levy: Increase the projected levy based on the final tally of property tax refunds. This calculation was finalized after publication of the Executive Budget due to the number of delinquent payments from the prior year
- GF Revenue-Video Service Provider Aid: This change reflects an updated State law prohibiting municipalities from charging a franchise fee of more than 5% and provides state aid to offset the lost revenue.
Motion: Bidar moves adoption, McKinney seconds
Questions of Staff: None
Discussion: None
Vote: Passes on a voice vote, seemingly unanimous
REDUCTIONS TO THE BUDGET
AMENDMENT EIGHT
Title: Reduce Funding for Goodman Pool
Sponsors: Alder Henak (sponsored as a courtesy to allow on Finance agenda by Council President Bidar)
Amount: ($15,250)
Narrative: Reduce funding for the Goodman Pool by $15,250.
Analysis: The proposed amendment reduces funding for Goodman Pool. In order to be meet the reduced budget, the Parks Division would close the pool one week earlier than previous seasons and drain it two weeks earlier than normal. The 2019 season for the Goodman Pool was Thursday, June 13 – Monday, September 2 (Labor Day).The proposed schedule is consistent with surrounding communities.
Motion: Bidar moves to place on file, Kemble (?) seconds
Questions of Staff: None
Discussion:
Alder Zach Henak explains that looking at the budget and where we are at we have some issues. Looking at the last 5 years the cost to live in the City of Madison has gone up $1,000 plus looking at the increases in municipal services, its gone up 34, almost 35%. And when we are looking at this, he doesn’t see people taking into account ways that you can shift your priorities on to things that really matter to our residents. Looking at Goodman Pool, Monona closes a week earlier, Middleton closes a week earlier. They see a significant drop in participation the last week of the pool being open. Due to the design of the pool it requires a significant number of life guards to be on duty whether there is a significant population in the pool or not. He thought this was a good place to look at what is being utilized and it would allow for some of the other endeavors that the city has prioritized.
Vote: Motion passes, this reduction is not included in the package of amendments that goes to the council.
AMENDMENT NINE
Title: Reduce Hourly Wages for Lifeguards
Sponsors: Alder Henak (sponsored as a courtesy to allow on Finance agenda by Council President Bidar)
Amount: ($30,000)
Narrative: Reduce Hourly Wages and related benefits by $30,000 for Lifeguards.
Analysis: The Parks Division has 12 beaches in the system, eight of which are staffed with lifeguards. The proposed amendment eliminates lifeguard coverage at five beaches and reduces coverage at three beaches.
Reductions:
- BB Clarke – reduce from daily coverage to 4 days per week
- Tenney – reduce from 5 days per week to 4 days per week
- Vilas – reduce from daily coverage to 5 days per week
Eliminations:
- Olbrich – reduce from 5 days per week to no coverage
- Bernie’s – reduce from 3 days per week to no coverage
- Esther – reduce from 3 days per week to no coverage
- Spring Harbor – reduce from 3 days per week to no coverage
- Warner – reduce from 3 days per week to no coverage
Motion: Bidar moves to place on file, Kemble (or Moreland?) seconds.
Questions of Staff: None
Discussion:
Henak says this is similar. He says that they don’t see a significant participation in a number of their beaches. The proposal would allow for each of the lakes to have one beach that is significantly utilized. Having a life guard at a beach doesn’t prevent people from utilizing it. He thought this was a good place to look. It was proposed by Parks in their 2.5% cut.
Kemble says that she is voting to place this and several other amendments on file, but this one in particular. Several of these proposed cuts are really out of step with the direction the city has taken, that the direction the city has decided to take and decisions we have already made to commit to certain things. This one will affect Warner Beach which kids in her district have been working on for 2 years to redesign so they can swim there and it can be better. The county and the city have entered into agreements around filtration barriers and this and several other amendments are “really, really deaf” to the work that many of us alders and the mayor and staff have been doing to promote our shared values.
Henak mentions that one other issue in Parks is that they struggle to fill life guard positions.
Vote: Motion passes on a voice vote, seemingly unanimous. This will not be included in the package of amendments that goes to council.
AMENDMENT TEN
Title: Increase Clerk License Fees
Sponsors: Alder Verveer
Amount: ($15,000)
Narrative: Increase various Clerk license fees and add budget highlight to require Clerk’s Office to study publication fee level.
Analysis: The proposed amendment would raise a variety of Clerk’s fees for licensure. The specific fee levels would be determined and presented as a Madison General Ordinance amendment for the Common Council’s consideration and approval. This would generate an estimated additional $35,000 general fund revenue annually.
The proposed amendment also adds a budget highlight requiring the Clerk’s Office to conduct a study regarding the appropriate level of the publication fee for alcohol and entertainment licenses. The fee is currently set at $100, and covers the notification costs associated with applications for alcohol and/or entertainment licenses. The fee must be negotiated with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and set based on actual costs.
Motion: Alder Verveer moves adoption. McKinney seconds.
Questions of Staff:
Alder Moreland asked what specific licenses they would be increasing the fees for.
Clerk isn’t there, Mayor calls on Verveer or Finance staff to answer.
Verveer says that this is an area that he has paid particular attention to during his tenure. The specific amendments to the ordinances that he would propose if the amendment is adopted involve a variety of licenses. In alphabetical order, everything from adult entertainment licenses to Secondhand Dealer licenses. He worked with the finance department staff, Steph is hovering if you want to ask her the specific, but he worked with her to look at when the fees were last increased and several of the ones that he will bring as an ordinance that is required to raise the fees, are fees that have not been raised in a decade, in 10 years. Other areas relate to the pawn broker program where he worked with the Police Department to get a position. The police department requires the pawn brokers to register electronically all the transactions from their shops. It was supposed to be a self-funded program paid for by the industry but we haven’t kept up with what we charge the industry to pay for the program, the on-line subscription to the national company that provides the software and the program assistant in the police department. Those are the areas he is looking at, the major increases are in that area for second hand dealers and pawn brokers. And the other one is entertainment licenses because of the number of the licenses. Steph has the details if anyone is interested.
Bidar wants a couple examples, what was the calculations.
Verveer says a couple off the top of his head were:
- Pawn broker $7,500 -> $10,000
- Theater licenses each go up by $100
- Each of the licenses not raised in 10 years go up by $100
- Entertainment licenses, they went back and forth between raising it $50 or $100, they are currently $300 a year
Finance staff say:
- Theatre licenses range based on capacity from $300 to $600 and will increase to $100 to $300
- Amusement devices – this is based on the number of devices in a facility – $55 for 1 device to $2475 for 45 or more. Increases are $20 for one device to $900 for the 45 or more.
- Solicitors permit is $110, would increase by $40
- Transient merchant fee is $100 would increase by $50
- The auto salvage junk dealer is currently $500 would increase by $250.
- Scrap and recycling business is currently $2,000, would increase by $5,000
- Motor vehicle salvage is $2,000, would go up $500
- Solid waste hauler is $2,000, would go up $500
- Second hand dealers which includes pawn brokers, flea market, precious metal dealers, licenses vary from $100 to $7500. The pawn broker is $7500 and it would go up by $2500.
- Public passenger vehicle, for taxi cabs would not change
He says that is the bulk of them. Tree trimming we don’t even have a license holder for that, it would go from $50 to $250. Most of it is in amusement devices and second hand dealers.
Discussion: None
Vote: Seemingly passes unanimously on a voice vote
