Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/2/2024 Item 7a, Smith carolyn smith < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:City Council Meeting, July 2, 2024 - 6a. Fee Increases This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mayor Stewart and Council Members, I am again writing to you to please consider your neighborhood residents, many of whom barely able to make ends meet living in this city, in making the decision on these recommended fee increases. For some reason, the city systematically places financial roadblocks on residents to be able to live and improve their lives here and participate in its governance. The fee increases proposed by Staff are over the top and will basically eliminate residents' ability to apply for permits to improve their living conditions, file appeals to protect their interests, and participate in activities that have historically been affordable. It's hard for me to believe that this council, who promotes equity and inclusion, would even consider these huge increases, because it will only allow the higher income residents and/or those with commercial interests to pay these fees, excluding those who work here and/or are on limited income. So, I ask you, just how equitable and inclusive is that? The proposed administrative appeal fee increases will prevent anyone, other than developers or investors with the financial wherewithal to appeal. The appeal fees increases for various tiers range from 250% to nearly 400%. The current appeal fee is already out of range for many residents. For example, a resident, who recently wanted to appeal a Planning Commission decision that would negatively affect her home, didn't have an extra $800.00 lying around--the current fee to file an appeal--so she was prevented from doing so. I doubt any of our Staff members could even afford these increases, so it's beyond me why Staff, or this council, would want to promote these increases which will stifle residents' right to try to protect their homes. While there are a few fees on the fee schedule chart that are being recommended to be reduced, none of them are proposed to be decreased anywhere near the percentage that other fees proposed to increase. Fees should be lowered, not raised, to an affordable level consistent with many other Central Coast cities who obviously recognize and acknowledge that appealing is a right that should not be denied by fleecing their residents. Unfortunately, SLO has gained a reputation for being a city for elitists. Our housing costs are astronomical, despite all efforts to build more housing--which hasn't made a dent in reducing prices—in fact just the opposite. Additionally, the cost just to pay normal living expenses here keeps rising due to costly policies the city promotes, causing many to move to more affordable areas. As a “welcoming city,” do you really want to have the appearance that SLO is trying to create a city for only the wealthy and investors, leaving the rest of us residents to just grin and bear it? Raising these fees anywhere near to the level recommended by Staff is only going to further promote that narrative. Therefore, I implore you not to approve these outrageous fee increases. Please consider that many residents will be financially excluded from obtaining permits for much needed home 1 improvements and/or will lose their right to file an appeal of decisions that will negatively affect them or their neighborhood. I also urge you to avoid the temptation of merely reducing Staff's recommendations and then claiming you did us all a favor. The act of recommending extreme increases but then slightly cutting them down a bit is a ploy to fool residents into thinking the increase isn't as bad as it really is. The current fee schedule needs to be reduced, or at the very least, remain the same as it is now (with the exception of the appeal fees which should be lowered), since fees have been increasing over the past several years, already acting as a deterrent for many residents. Any increase would only make it more preventative for most. Thank you for your consideration of this most important issue. Carolyn Smith SLO City Resident 2