Fresno council delays master fee schedule after questions about resident impacts

The Fresno City Council voted Jan. 29 to postpone consideration of the city’s annual master fee schedule after several council members said they needed clearer details about how proposed increases would affect residents.

Councilmember Miguel Arias led the questioning, pressing staff for concrete dollar amounts and examples of how the changes would affect routine services. “I want actual numbers,” Arias said during the debate, arguing members and the public had not had adequate time to review the proposal. The council ultimately approved a motion to delay the measure to the Feb. 19 meeting on a 4-3 vote.

City Manager (speaking on behalf of administration) said the master fee schedule normally sets fees that take effect with the new fiscal year, and that many proposed increases are driven by higher labor and operational costs. “This master fee schedule generates tens of millions of dollars,” the City Manager said, adding that fees ensure users of specific services bear the cost of delivery rather than subsidizing them through the general fund.

Directors described several specific proposals that prompted public and council concern. Alma Torres, director of the Fresno Animal Center, explained two new deposit-based charges intended to reduce no-shows for adoptions and foster sterilization appointments: a $25 adoption hold deposit and a $50 foster-to-adopt deposit that is refundable when the adopter follows through with the required spay/neuter appointment. Torres said the center had limited veterinary capacity and intended to expand it with per-diem veterinarians so the shelter can also issue health certificates for animals transported to out-of-state rescue partners.

Other contested items included modest increases for special-haul trash pickups and changes to meeting-room and facility rental rounding. Staff and directors said some decreases appear where rounding rules were changed from nearest $5 to nearest $1, which can produce small downward adjustments for a handful of rental rates.

Council supporters of postponement argued the public and council need clearer, itemized figures for fees that materially affect residents — such as animal-center costs — and the chance for staff to brief individual council members before a vote. Councilmembers who opposed the delay said the city regularly updates fee schedules to match costs and that failure to adopt them could create a budget shortfall.

The postponement does not change the administration’s stated deadline for the new budget cycle; staff said they will meet with council members and report back prior to the February meeting.