Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the User Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses staff on user-fee study and continues hearing to June 9
Summary
After hearing Clear Source’s presentation of a comprehensive user-fee study, council members asked for clarifications on rounding errors, equity impacts for accessibility-related permits and certain deposits; the council left the public hearing open and continued the item to June 9 for follow-up information.
Council members spent more than an hour questioning a consultant’s report on a comprehensive user- and regulatory-fee study before agreeing to continue the public hearing.
David Schroeder of Clear Source told the council the city’s comprehensive review — the first full study in about five years — proposes mostly modest adjustments but includes restructuring for some fire prevention fees and 38 new line items including film/photography and short-term rental inspections. “The anticipated fiscal impact of the proposed fee schedule adoption is an estimated $380,000 in additional revenue,” Schroeder said.
Council members pressed for detail. Several flagged small math or rounding differences in the staff attachment and asked why some fees are not set to recover 100% of the calculated cost. Schroeder and staff said statutory limits, policy choices (for example to keep appeals affordable) and prior rounding choices explain many line-item discrepancies.
Council members also raised concerns about equity for residents on fixed incomes: one councilor said that accessibility ramp permits and flag-pole permits felt burdensome, and asked staff to consider exemptions or alternative approaches for low-income seniors.
A public speaker, Charles Vineyard, urged the council to reduce discretionary spending rather than raise fees, arguing city services and street repairs were not meeting expectations. “We need to tighten our belts,” Vineyard said.
At the end of the discussion council agreed to keep the public hearing open and to continue the item to June 9 so staff and the consultant can provide corrected figures, clearer cost-recovery explanations, and the department-level breakdowns requested by council members.
