Council discusses 20% city service fee increase, refers brush and debris rules to ordinance committee

At a July 21 public hearing, the City Council discussed a proposed 20% increase to the city service fee and referred enforcement of contractor and brush/debris removal to the ordinance committee for drafting changes to the clutter ordinance. No members of the public spoke on the fee at the hearing.

A council member summarized the proposed fee change as a 20% increase, describing it as “$15 a quarter, $60 in a year” and confirming that equates to “$5 a month.” The same council member said the last fee increase took place in 2009 and argued the increase was needed “for us to maintain equipment, salaries, and things like that.”

Other council members raised enforcement and cost concerns tied to brush and tree-removal work. One member described a recent service call at Benedict Circle where a resident reported tree debris that required “4 trucks and as many people to haul it off,” and said the city charged the resident $180 but that amount did not cover the city’s costs. Council members discussed making contractors or property owners responsible for debris removal and adding explicit language covering brush, tree limbs and stumps to the clutter ordinance; the transcript records a council member saying, “we're gonna give it to the ordinance committee to include that.”

The council also discussed permit and liability questions for contractors who remove trees on private property, with council members noting that some neighboring cities do not require trade-cutting permits and that proof of contractor liability insurance is handled in private contract arrangements rather than by the city in all cases recorded in the transcript.

The transcript records a direction to include contractor responsibility and enforcement language and to add "John Lloyd" to enforcement responsibilities for the updated clutter ordinance; that referral was described as preparatory work for the ordinance committee rather than a final vote adopting new enforcement rules. The public hearing closed with a motion to adjourn; a council member moved to adjourn, another seconded, the council recorded an "aye" vote, and the hearing was adjourned with no recorded vote to adopt the fee increase in that session.

Because the hearing record shows discussion and a referral to the ordinance committee but no adoption vote on the fee, the proposed 20% city service fee increase was not recorded as formally approved in this transcript segment.