Antioch council vets user-fee study, trims some proposed increases after line-by-line review

The Antioch City Council on May 12 spent a lengthy study session scrutinizing a citywide user-fee study prepared by Weldon Financial Services with technical work from Willdan Financial Services. Acting City Manager Anna Cortez introduced the report and consultant Preeti Patel explained the methodology: staff time estimates, fully burdened hourly rates, and a cost-allocation plan used to calculate full-cost recovery for over a hundred fee lines.

The council reviewed the fee spreadsheet item by item, asking staff to clarify units, effective dates, and statutory limits. Council members pressed for ranges and minimum billing increments for police video redaction and records-production fees after staff said charges would be computed from fully burdened hourly rates and could vary widely depending on which classification performs the work. The consultant and police staff recommended adopting 15‑minute increments to avoid excessive rounding disputes.

Several community-facing fees drew pointed questions. Bicycle registration was flagged as a policy choice rather than a revenue driver: staff said current revenue from registrations is under $50 annually, and council agreed to a compromise of $10 (up from $7) rather than the consultant’s $25 recommendation to avoid discouraging enrollment. A proposed increase in the shopping-cart impound/abatement fee—driven by a recent state law raising allowable recovery—was explained as reflecting multi‑agency labor and equipment costs; staff will report back on who is billed (retailer vs. individual) and historical collection frequency.

Building and plan-check fees also prompted follow-up requests. An apparent $40,000-to-$60,000 line is a valuation threshold used to compute permit fees, not a single permit price, but council asked staff to verify several suspect values (pool plan check, re-roof unit language and large plan-check fees) and to provide clearer formatting in the master-fee schedule. Planning staff said the housing-element EIR and programmatic analyses are frequently relied on for streamlining, but that the city will verify whether a proposed project should be supported by prior environmental review.

Police and fire lines raised both equity and operational questions. Council members asked whether alarm and false-alarm language distinguishes residential and school cases and whether a 15‑minute late pickup charge for youth programming should include a stated grace period; senior center staff said a 10‑minute grace period exists in program materials and will be reflected in the fee language.

Staff told the council that fees established by statute or other bodies (for example certain subpoena costs referenced to the Evidence Code) cannot be changed and that parking citation amounts are set by council resolution; members asked staff to cite the resolution number and consider including citation amounts in the master list for public clarity.

The study session produced a mix of technical direction and policy choices. Where the consultant recommended full cost recovery, council flagged community-access concerns and asked for options: e.g., modest subsidization for low-volume or equity‑sensitive services, clearer public notice for large increases, and a shorter review cadence. Staff will return with requested clarifications, ranges, and corrected formatting prior to the May 26 public hearing and adoption vote that would set many rates effective July 1 (building-related rates have a separate 60‑day window). The council did not adopt final rates at the May 12 meeting.