Council debates traffic cameras, cruise-ship fees and other revenue options as budget priorities

City staff presented a compiled list of revenue options raised by council members at a prior meeting and organized them into short-term (implementable within two years), long-term (more than two years) and items staff recommended for no action (items requiring legislative change). The items prompted debate and several formal council directions. Traffic cameras: Council members disagreed on whether traffic-camera enforcement should be pursued as a revenue source. Staff reported a funded capital project (TRO-0919) for a traffic camera safety program already included in the city's Capital Facilities Plan and recommended moving it forward as planned. Council Member Navaro objected to treating cameras as a revenue generator; Council Member Lindsay said the original CFP language emphasized traffic safety and school-zone compliance, not revenue. A motion that the city not use traffic cameras as a revenue source while continuing the CFP project as a traffic-safety measure was introduced and then approved by a majority of the council members present. A separate attempt to table the item until police and traffic staff could attend failed on a tie vote; council recorded continuing disagreement about the project’s equity and enforcement impacts. Cruise ship fees and ball-field partnerships: Staff said a cruise-ship agreement is up for renewal and that staff expect to present a revised contract with higher fees to council; council directed staff to continue that work. Council also directed staff to examine existing ball-field and similar use agreements for opportunities to align fees with city costs when agreements are renewed. A motion to include ball-field partnerships and cruise-ship fee adjustments among revenue sources for the 2026 budget passed unanimously. Long-term and legislative items: Staff recommended exploring tax increment financing (TIF) and a regional fire authority later, noting both require extensive studies, public briefings and, in TIF’s case, state review. Items the city cannot implement unilaterally — payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to the city, changes to sales-tax sharing, tourism impact fees and increases to lodging-tax percentages — were recommended for the city’s next legislative priorities briefing rather than immediate budget action. Why it matters: Council is balancing multiple near-term revenue options against longer-term structural choices and state-level limitations. The traffic-camera debate illustrated the council’s concern with equity and unintended consequences of enforcement-based revenue; cruise-ship and ball-field fees are being pursued as nearer-term revenue options that can be adjusted by local contract or agreement renewal.