----------------------------Original message---------------------------- If we base our research fees on cost, the question becomes what is cost? In order to figure "cost" do you figure the initial cost or replacement value of the collection -- the staff time it took to index and arrange the collection of photos -- on-going maintenance costs -- the cost of the cabinetry and the floor space that is used to house the photo collection? Where do you stop? We stop at the value we place on our staff time. Nothing ever is decided willy nilly at a university, especially those issues having to do with the fee structure. Doubling fees is only a proposal at this point. Going onto the net and asking what other comparable institutions charge is the first step. This is not an arbitrary action. What I have learned so far is that $50.00 per hour is not unreasonable. We are not looking to make a profit and what research fee money is allocated to the map library is used to purchase more photography--not some unrelated purpose. Perhaps someone could help me understand why a national environmental information supplier would charge $95.00 for 5 xerox copies of older U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps when the same copies can be made in our map library for 25 cents. Where did the private environmental information supplier come up with the $95.00 figure? I'll bet the figure was based on true costs. Thanks for the replies that I have received from maps-l subscribers both on and off the net. Peter Stark On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, L. A. Nadybal wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > Why can't you base your fees on costs plus a reasonable profit instead of > willy nilly doubling just to raise money for unrelated purposes? Want to > pay 64-cents to mail a letter tomorrow, just because the Germans, French and > English do it? That's the parallel. > > With a price spiral like that, fairly soon we'll have the dollar buying > about what an Italian lira gets now. > > LNadybal > Washington DC >