Finance committee recommends fee schedule changes and an amendment to historic-district ‘after-the-fact’ approval fee; committee discusses parking vendor, trash

The Finance Standing Committee voted to favorably recommend the annual fee and fine resolutions, with committee amendments that included a higher “after-the-fact” fee for historic-district certificates and several other technical changes.

Historic-district fees: Planning staff told the committee a clerical error left after-the-fact certificate fees unchanged in the draft schedule. Director Chris Jakubiak proposed an amendment to raise the after-the-fact public-hearing fee from “1% of estimated cost, minimum $50, maximum $2,000” to “1.5% of estimated cost, minimum $350, maximum $5,000.” Jakubiak said the increase reflects staff time and effort required to process cases where work occurred without prior approval. The committee voted to favorably recommend that amendment for the full council.

Outdoor dining and sustainable-mobility fees: Committee members discussed new fees created by recent legislation to fund a Sustainable Mobility Fund (referenced in code as Title 6.16.0020 and related sections). Finance said it had not yet received proposed fee amounts and needs to coordinate with Planning and the transportation director to establish a defensible nexus between fees and administrative costs. Planning staff said there are two fee streams: café/sidewalk fees (administratively set) and a more complex private-parking fee tied to zoning in-lieu arrangements. Staff said a memo with recommended fee levels would be circulated to council members the following week.

Metered-parking and vendor issues: The committee revisited a previously proposed change to how meter violations are charged. A sponsor described replacing the current $50 unpaid-meter citation with a $25 fee plus the parking charge and a $5.25 processing fee when a driver attempted to start a session but underpaid. Finance staff warned Premium (the city’s concessionaire/vendor) does not currently operate in a way that can process that billing model; implementing it could trigger change orders, vendor-system upgrades, or other costs that the city might ultimately bear if the vendor seeks reimbursement. The city attorney warned there are several possible outcomes, including litigation, collection challenges, or invoices from the vendor for system changes. Finance staff said citation revenue from issued citations is about $350,000 annually but actual collections may be materially lower (Finance estimated a 50% collections rate would mean roughly $125,000 net).

Refuse/trash fees and contracts: Committee members raised concern about a roughly $40 per-unit increase shown in the fee schedule for refuse collection. Staff said the increase appears driven by contract terms that allow the vendor to pass through cost increases. The acting city manager and public works contacts were asked to report back on what degree of price flexibility exists under the current contract and whether negotiations could limit the increase.

Committee action: The finance committee moved and seconded a favorable recommendation on the fee-and-fine resolutions (including the Jakubiak amendment to the historic-district after-the-fact fee). The motion passed by voice vote.

Next steps: Staff will circulate the planned sustainable-mobility fee memo, the city attorney will follow up on whether fee authority and schedule updates can be bundled in single legislation, and city procurement/finance will report on contract flexibility for refuse and for the parking concessionaire’s systems.