Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />In the past, the staff has taken a number of <br /> <br />factors into account in arriving at the recommended service <br /> <br />charge. I will not reiterate those here. They are in your <br /> <br />folders under Agenda Item 3. <br /> <br />While we have gone to the effort to evaluate <br /> <br />those factors, and that evaluation has been explicit, the <br /> <br />procedure for weighing and comparing those factors has not <br /> <br />been pursuant to explicit criteria. Thus we sat down to <br /> <br />examine what we might do to improve that process to ensure <br /> <br />that it is at no time arbitrary and capricious. We <br /> <br />examined essentially four alternatives - the formal process <br /> <br />of evaluation, which is rather judgmental on the part of <br /> <br />the staff, and, secondly, we looked at the possibility of <br /> <br />developing a numerical rating system which would ensure <br /> <br />that the relevant factors were rated in a consistent manner <br /> <br />as we moved from project to project. <br /> <br />Thirdly, we examined the alternative of adopting <br /> <br />a single service charge, for example, four percent, which <br /> <br />would be applied to all projects regardless of, number one, <br /> <br />the project purpose and regardless, number two, of the <br /> <br />evaluation of any of these factors; and the fourth and final <br /> <br />alternative which we examined would be a service charge <br /> <br />which varied by project purpose; for example, three percent <br /> <br />CHARLINE K. SCOGGIN <br /> <br />CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER <br />2455 UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS AVENUE <br />BOULDER, COLORADO 60302 <br />