New fee schedule has some surprises New fee schedule has some surprises (June 09, 2004)

By Michael A. Lambert

To those unaware, the Menlo Park City Council is dealing with the budget once again and there will be a public hearing on a new master fee schedule at the June 8 council meeting.

This item will deal with changes and additions to fees involving administrative services, library, community services and police, and I feel that our community should be aware of what seems to be a shift in philosophy of our council and administration.

The city is facing shortfalls between revenue and expenses and is attempting to bolster its finances to avoid reducing city services, but in some instances officials seem to be setting some very unsettling "pay for services" precedents.

Police services are possibly the most important services offered to our community because they potentially touch everyone. We pay taxes willingly to support our police department, but now there is a new "pay for services" component in the proposed police department fee schedule.

I find it troubling that there appears to be a philosophy of determining whether added fees will be palatable to our community rather than living within the limits set by the taxes we already pay. For example, the police department proposed a $25 per week fee for garage sales, but on April 27 the council voted this down, largely because of a feared community reaction.

There is also a new alarm registration fee that is a subset of the false alarm program. A penalty for a false alarm is justified but a fee for registering an alarm system is not. The proposed $35 per year recurring fee is ostensibly to cover cost of police staff time in registering a commercial or residential property owner's burglar or fire alarm system.

Aren't our taxes intended to support police administrative services like registering a system? And, why a recurring fee when the system is only registered once? What the police department is proposing and the City Council is supporting seems to represent logic that I do not quite understand.

Think about this. If a resident elects to take a greater amount of responsibility for securing his property and protecting its inhabitants by installing an alarm system, he should be applauded, not penalized. A monitored alarm system not only benefits the property owner, but benefits both the police department and fire district. These systems promote quicker reaction by both police and fire personnel to incidents requiring their services, which potentially reduces the magnitude of the problems that they must deal with. Both the property owner and the city "win" with the installation of these systems, and they should be encouraged, not discouraged by this added fee. But more importantly, we all pay taxes that are meant to fund complete and comprehensive police services because they are essential. There is an expectation that your taxes cover the cost of contacting the police department, and not that there are basic services and then there are special services, for which there is to be an additional cost. This is like going into a bank and being charged for having a discussion with the teller.

Michael A. Lambert lives on San Mateo Drive in Menlo Park.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.