Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vallejo council presses staff to rethink user‑fee changes after consultant recommends broad increases
Summary
Consultants told the council Vallejo recovers about 60% of analyzed service costs and could raise $1.4 million annually by adjusting fees; council members asked for equity safeguards, incentives for development, targeted subsidies and phased implementation before approving major increases.
Consultants from MGT presented a citywide user‑fee study at the Sept. 2 Vallejo City Council meeting that recommended updating dozens of fees across fire prevention, planning and building, and water services to align charges closer to the full cost of service. Ricardo Seppin, director at MGT, said the analysis of FY24–25 budgets and staffing showed the city currently recovers roughly 60% of costs for the fees analyzed and that implementing the consultant’s policy targets could lift overall recovery to about 83%, producing an estimated $1.4 million a year in additional revenue.
The study proposed department‑level targets (for example, 100% cost recovery for fire prevention and water; 80% for building; 62% for planning) and recommended a mixture of new fees and phased increases, with some items implemented over three years to reduce sudden household impacts. Seppin told council the methodology used fully burdened hourly rates, departmental time estimates and a peer‑benchmark comparison with six California cities.
Council debate focused on residents who would be most affected by higher fees. Vice Mayor (recorded) asked whether staff had searched for internal efficiencies before proposing fee increases; Planning Director Kristen Pollard and consultant Alan Parks said the study measured current staff time and cost and that management or process efficiencies would be a separate operational study. Chief Building Official Bill Collins explained higher fees for heat‑pump water‑heater inspections reflected additional electrical and plan‑review time compared with routine water‑heater inspections.
Public commenters and several councilmembers urged the city to pair any fee increases with a clear, needs‑based waiver or subsidy program and to identify fees that disincentivize key economic outcomes — for example, lower permitting fees for targeted industries named in the Economic Development Strategic Plan. Councilmember Matias asked for scenario‑based analysis showing effects of fee changes on representative households and on development decisions; several members recommended adding expedited review options or premium “fast‑track” fees as an alternative revenue source that could also improve responsiveness to developers.
Following public comment, the council did not adopt the full set of proposed fee changes. Instead members unanimously directed staff and the consultant to return with follow‑up work that includes: (a) a residential‑equity review and proposals for income‑based waivers or subsidies; (b) scenario modeling showing the impact of fee increases on typical households and developers; (c) a targeted review of fees that affect economic competitiveness and potential incentive options for priority industries; (d) a phased implementation schedule for building/planning fees, and (e) proposals for expedited service options tied to optional higher fees. Staff said they will return with a report and refined proposals, and councilmembers suggested November as a near‑term touchpoint for progress updates.
