"You'll pay. Believe me, you'll pay"*
Monday's City Council agenda includes a request from acting City Manager Lori Sassoon's office to raise several city fees.
It's too soon to report when the fees could go into effect. I found out in the middle of typing this that a decision is likely to be delayed until another date. Sassoon wrote in an email that the council is not expected to vote until its May 18 meeting.
The fee hikes are projected to lead to collections of $770,000 during the fiscal year that begins July 1. Department managers were asked to look for potential fee revenues as a means to balance the city's budget.
Proposed fee increases include the following
- Animal Control's apprehension fee would rise from $40 or $80 (for altered or unaltered animals, respectively) to $100.
- Code Enforcement's weed abatement administrative fee would rise from $19.50 to $100. The weed abatement fee for vacant lots would rise from $110 to $275. These fees have remained static since 1996.
- Code Enforcement's tow release fee would rise from $215 to $240.
- Development Services would charge a new a inspection fee for temporary certificates of occupancy. The fee would be set at $541.50
- Facilities Management's fine for illegal commercial vehicle parking would rise from $65 to $260.
- Police Department's fine for false robbery alarms would rise from $100 to $200. Subsequent false alarms would generate higher fees.
*Bonus point to anyone who knows the source of the quote in the headline.
The list of proposed fee hikes can be viewed online.




Well, the problem is you can't fight off an army of blood-thirsty Vikings with a shenai, it's illogical.
*Bonus!
The city can do what they want with fines because they are punative however the raise in administrative fees sounds fishy. These sound more like taxes to raise revenue not administrative fees....
Councilperson McCammack has been very vocal about raising fees to fund the budget.
The city has to prove that the administrative costs meet the cost of the fees.....otherwise these are taxes.
Taxes have to be voted on by the citizens so maybe the city should rethink their little scam on balancing the budget and get wiser on how they spend the money to begin with - remember Prop 13.
Sorry, but that wasn't the reference.