Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Fees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Yuba City council approves 2% debit and credit card transaction fee

Yuba City Council · May 6, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Yuba City Council voted unanimously May 5 to impose a 2% processing fee on debit and credit card payments after a public exchange about affordability and cost recovery; staff said cash payments remain accepted at the customer-service window and California law permits cost recovery.

The Yuba City Council on May 5 voted unanimously to approve a 2% transaction fee on debit and credit card payments, including utility bills.

The decision came after resident Gabriella Danetta urged the council to reject the fee, saying it would hurt fixed-income households and noting that water and wastewater operating revenues total roughly $35 million with an approximate $3 million net surplus. "I implore you today to vote no on this resolution which will further financial burdens to an already struggling community," Danetta told the council during public comment.

Mayor Mark Boomgard and other council members said the city must balance fairness to all customers with cost recovery. The mayor noted that California law allows municipalities to collect processing fees and that customers can avoid charges by paying in cash at the city's customer-service window. City staff confirmed that debit and credit card payments would incur the 2% fee under the approved resolution.

Council member Kchner moved to approve the measure and Council member Shaw seconded. The council voted in favor by voice vote, with the item passing unanimously.

Why it matters: Council members said the fee shifts the processing cost to those who choose card payments rather than to all ratepayers. Residents opposing the fee argued it would disproportionately affect people on fixed incomes and those without access to alternative payment methods.

What the city said: Staff noted the city incurred about $95,000 in card-processing costs in fiscal year 2024–25 and described a range of alternatives for customers, including paying by cash at the city window, paying by bank transfer, or arranging other noncard payment methods. The council asked staff to ensure customer-service staff inform residents of ways to avoid the fee.

Next steps: The ordinance/order implementing the fee will be processed administratively following the council's vote; staff will continue to provide customer-service guidance and track revenue and cost-recovery results.