Council reviews annual master fees and charges; staff proposes dual escalators and clearer schedule

At a Springfield City Council work session, staff presented the city’s annual master fees and charges review and proposed a schedule that ties many labor‑intensive fees to a 5.5% labor escalation and other fees to a 2.4% materials-and‑services index.

The proposal, presented as a draft for council guidance, would apply two primary escalators depending on how a fee is driven: a labor-driven escalator (5.5%, reflected in the FY26 compensation schedule) and a materials/services escalator (2.4%). Staff said each fee was reviewed individually by the department that administers the service and that some fees would not change because the escalator did not apply or the fee is already set at a practical level.

The council was told the update is meant to consolidate fee proposals across departments and make the fee schedule easier to read. Staff said Tatiana, identified in the packet as the community development budget manager, compiled the materials and worked with department staff to produce tables and shorter explanations for each fee so residents can more easily see “what it costs for what service.” Jeff Paschal (presenter listed on the agenda) framed the review as an opportunity for council direction before a scheduled public hearing on June 2.

Council discussion focused on clarity, administrative practicality and customer impacts. Councilor Rodley praised the presentation format: “I really appreciate all the tables and how simplified it is.” He asked staff to check and, where appropriate, round fractional increases to the nearest whole dollar for small business license/operator fees, rather than carry cents like $9.85. Staff said they could perform that “sense check” and return numbers rounded where administratively feasible.

Councilor Doyle pressed staff on recently adjusted historic‑district fees. Doyle noted those fees had been heavily discounted in earlier councils and that some historic review fees jumped from around $80 to $2,000 when staff re‑priced them to cost of service; she asked whether it made sense to apply another 5.5% increase so soon. Staff responded that the December fee changes were based on the best available FY25 numbers and that the FY26 budget uses updated compensation assumptions; the council could direct staff to hold historic‑district fees flat this year if it preferred.

Councilors also asked about parity with neighboring jurisdictions for some fees (for example, whether the city should match Eugene on particular permit rates). Staff said they would return with that comparison before the public hearing. Councilors and staff discussed the fire and emergency transport fees and whether applying the 5.5% labor escalator across that fund aligns with actual cost recovery; staff said they would gather department‑specific labor/cost data and report back.

On enforcement and compliance, staff described code enforcement as primarily complaint‑driven and said the city emphasizes education first to gain voluntary compliance, reserving fines and penalties for unresolved cases. Staff noted some safety‑critical items (for example, improperly signed ADA ramp closures) require immediate action when observed.

Staff asked for council guidance and said the draft fee schedule will return to council for a public hearing on June 2, 2025. Councilors offered several pieces of guidance during discussion: ask departments to round small fees for admin simplicity, return a comparison to Eugene where appropriate, provide department‑level cost inputs for transport/fire fees, and consider leaving historic‑district fees at current levels for another year.

The work session concluded without a formal vote; staff will revise the proposal and present it at the scheduled public hearing.