HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/2/2024 Item 7a, Rowley
Sandra Rowley <
To:Stewart, Erica A; Pease, Andy; Marx, Jan; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle
Cc:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Subject: Item 6a, Review and Adopt User and Regulatory Fees
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Mayor Stewart and Members of the Council,
There is so much to discuss here, but I’ll limit the comments to the cost to appeal and to noticing. With one exception,
others can speak to individual line items in the proposed Fee Schedule.
Appeal Fees
On page 10 of 179 the staff report says in part: “The policy related to user fee cost recovery indicates that the following
factors should be considered in setting fees and cost recovery levels:
3. The effect of pricing on the demand for services”
And also says: “The policy states that high levels of cost recovery are followed under the following circumstances
(emphasis added):
4. The use of the service is specifically discouraged.”
It certainly appears that discouraging resident access to the appeal process was a driving principal in deciding to raise the
appeal fees to the levels proposed. It makes no difference that the proposed fee to appeal to the City Council, $3,511, is
“only” 20% of the total; $3,511 is an enormous amount of money for residents to pay to be able to go to their elected
representatives and ask them to correct an error or omission! Even the current $797.27 is beyond the ability of a lot of
residents. And especially so since there is no ability to recoup the funds!
When the Fee Schedule was revised in 2017, one of the comments made by staff was that there were too many appeals -
an average of seven (7) per year, although there was no breakdown of applicant vs. non-applicant. This appeared to be
the rationale for raising the non-applicant appeal flat fee from $281 (no IT surcharge) to a tiered system with an appeal to
the City Council costing $623 (with surcharge). At that time residents, in public testimony and during subsequent
meetings, continued to regard the higher appeal fee as a deterrent aimed at them.
Currently, according to the staff report there are fewer than three (3) appeals per year, with no distinction between
applicant and non-applicant. Seemingly, residents were correct since this rise in cost specifically discouraged their use of
this service.
This is not right. There is supposed to be a right for people to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Not
just rich people, all people. Under this fee structure the right of appeal is limited to those who can afford to spend $694.56
to appeal a Home Occupation permit or Non-profit Special Event permit; $1,325.22 to appeal a Fence Height Exception or
Administrative Approval application; $2,133.14 to appeal an Administrative Use permit or Variance or Architectural
Review; or $3,511.94 to make an appeal to the City Council - all with no possibility of recovering those funds.
Residents do not make frivolous appeals; that would just be throwing money away. They appeal because of an actual or
perceived harm to their quality of life, that of their neighborhood, or for a precedent-setting decision that could harm them
in the future - or to address non-adherence to a specific city regulation or policy.
The City Council and the community together have always placed a high value on resident involvement. We hope that will
not change. But, if it is your intent to curtail or more severely limit individual residents ability to avail themselves of the
City’s appeal process, approving this fee structure is the way to do it. If that is not your intent, we request that you make
severe cuts to all of the non-applicant appeal fee amounts that have been proposed, keeping in mind that the Consumer
Price Index increase will still be applied yearly.
Notifications
1
The people/groups who were contacted early about this council meeting were the same as those who were contacted
early about the Study Session held in February 2024 on this topic. We were not notified, and missed, the February Study
Session. We were notified late about this meeting and, obviously, were not included in any meetings like those shown
below and, thus, did not have the opportunity to meet with staff, ask questions or give input. To our knowledge no other
resident organization was notified either.
- Developer’s Roundtable – February 14 & May 2 meetings
- REACH Building Design and Construction Group – May 8 meeting
- Parks and Recreation Commission – December 6, 2023 and June 5, 2024 meetings
- Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee – May 2 meeting
Although the Staff Report lists several forms of notification they intended to use, to my knowledge none were directed to
residents, neighborhood organizations, Save Our Downtown or even posted on NextDoor - despite the fact that residents
will be impacted by some of the proposed increases.
Staff needs to include residents/resident organizations in meetings regarding upcoming actions that clearly will effect
them. At one time this was a regular occurrence. But if they don't plan to do so, at least the Public Communications
Manager could post periodic notices/updates on NextDoor.
Individual Line Item
• Chimney repair, $1,023. This would seem to be for safety reasons, i.e., to keep sparks from escaping as a preventative
for an internal or external fire or to shore up an old chimney so it cannot be displaced in a heavy storm or strong
wind. This, also, seems like an item that would be given a minimal fee.
Summary
1. Request you make deep cuts to each of the four tiers of non-applicant Appeal Fees so that residents won't be priced-
out of being included in the appeal process.
2. Request you direct staff to revise their notification procedures to include city residents - particularly when the result of
the contemplated action/policy will have an effect on them.
3. Request reconsideration of the fee for an applicant's request to repair a chimney.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
Chairperson, RQN
2