Agenda - 05-14-1996 - X-A - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LIBRARY We reviewed the current fee structure with the Library Director. The Library has limited fee potential, because with the exception of copies and faxes, all other revenue areas are related to fines for overdue books and video tapes. Current fees/fines have been in place for a number of years and when compared to other area libraries can be slightly adjusted upward to the current market. We propose adjustments that will generate a small amount of additional revenue. About $2,000 in fines for overdue books and tapes can be generated by increasing the fine for overdue books by 5 cents per day and overdue video tapes by 25 cents per day. We should also review the amount of outstanding library fines and determine if we should pursue more aggressive collection procedures. REGISTER OF DEEDS Nearly all of the fees assessed by the Register of Deeds are regulated by the North Carolina General Statutes. There is potential to assess fees for the conversion of optical images to 8mm tape, but consistent with the public records law policies, this should be designed just to recoup the cost of reproduction. We propose establishment of a fee of $10 per tape. PLANNING Our most detailed review of any departmental fees was conducted with regard to planning and inspection fees,which offer significant revenue enhancement potential, and which have not been adjusted since a 1989 consultant fee study performed by David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG). We found the general methodology employed by DMG to be sound, and recommend that an overall fee increase of approximately 35%be applied to recover the increased costs of planning and inspection functions since 1989. We estimate that the fee increases we propose would generate an additional $100,000 - $125,000 in revenue to offset the department's operational expenses. In most cases in the Planning Department, recouping full costs would require much more significant increases in fees than those proposed. Although we would not recommend pursuing further cost recovery at this time, we should review these fees on an annual basis to determine if additional adjustments would be appropriate. Our comparisons to fees in surrounding jurisdictions (Wake,Durham, Chapel Hill)revealed that in some cases, even fees that reflect the increases we propose would be considerably lower than those in the other jurisdictions.