Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees. (Finance 2410)
All right. Thank you. More. Good work, everyone. So with that, we we will adjourn on item six B and we will move quickly to item six C. It's yeah, it's it's 1032. Yeah. 1030 it's 1031. So we're going to just keep a good pace. You're right. Okay. So madam quick, would you introduce item six C please. Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending master P Resolution 12191 to add and revise fees. Thank you. And, well, my temperamental iPad is around. Who is presenting this? We're putting in. Two people are the interim finance director and finance manager. I think it's Kerry's. Oh, okay. Maybe, Nancy. Okay. Miss Francine, are you. Are you presenting? Hello? You know, you're muted for some reason. Um. See? Try again. No. It's still not hearing her. Madam Clerk. Can we give our H.R. directors this interim finance director? Her voice. Well. We're showing that she's unmuted as well. Is the volume up? How does your volume. Uh oh. I could jump in. Uh, if that's helpful on this item. I don't know. All right. Sorry, Miss Bronson. I don't know what to tell you. Well, so tonight we for you, we have a recommendation, essentially updating our master fee schedule. Back in 1991, the City Council modified the municipal code to ensure that the fees would be set by City Council resolution. We do this every year, and essentially we're we're not suggesting any increases this year. We are making clarifications and making sure that our master fee schedule is up to date with all of our impact fees. And those are the changes that you would see this time around. And with that, I'll conclude a very brief staff recommendation. Thank you and thanks for jumping in. Madam, quick, do we have any public speakers on this item? We do not. Okay, Counsel. And I see Ms.. Brownstein's name appearing again. Are you are you going to try to? I'm not sure if you can. I can hear you, yes. Okay. You don't need to see me so that we got to see you. I know what you look like. All right, so, um, anything to add? No. I appreciate Mr. Bowen stepping in for me. Thank you. You too. It's teamwork around here. Okay, counsel, do we have any questions? Discussion. Vice Mayor, I am just. A real quick question. I don't think that I would want to hold up this report at all, but it does include our appeal fees. And I know at one point in time there was, you know, many years ago after the theater project, the decision was made to cap appeals fees when the appellants were served $27,000 appeals because of all the time and money that went into the appeal, which seemed a little undemocratic. However, I worry a little bit that maybe our appeals fees for certain projects that are priorities for this council and for the city, like homeless homeless services and affordable housing that we might want to look at whether or not we have a separate fee for appealing of those types. And I would just like to ask the Council to consider not necessarily adopting something tonight, but directing staff to come back at some point in the future at their own timeline that would address that issue. Thank you for raising that. Actually, I had thought of something similar and run it by the city attorney. Um, do you want to the issue of separate fees for, separate for certain types of appeals? I know the city of Berkeley has one, etc.. Yes. I'm happy to answer the question, though. I think there's somewhat two different questions. I think come to the vice mayors question having to do with these are somewhat of them, which which is what we discussed. So let me answer both with respect to field fees or essentially user fees for use of public property. The city has more latitude to set user fees because it's almost like entrance into a city zoo or city exam. State law gives the city more latitude to increase or decrease them with respect to permit fees. State law is very clear that we have to set fees that are cost recovery only. The city's not authorized to essentially make money off of permit fees and additional issue with respect to permit fees that are very important as governed by Prop 26 and Prop 18 is that we cannot court one group of payers to subsidize another group of payers permits. So in essence, we could not say group A, you pay a lesser fee and then everyone else in the city will have to subsidize and that is similarly not authorized. I hope that answers the question. Well, and was it was appeals fees you were referring to, was it not vice mayor. So so when it. Appeals. When when a project is appealed. Okay. I thought I missed hurt. I thought the vice chair said field fees as independent PR appeals trying to project appeals fees are not capped. They are they are capped. They do not collect all of the costs related to the appeal. And so I'm wondering if there's a way for us to have a different cap on the priority projects. So if you are cap so that so it's a nuanced answer. If you would like to cap a healthy generally, you could if you would like to cap fees differently based on different project types. For example, solar projects are an important project to the council and therefore the city would just like to charge less fees. And to be clear, it has to be less than full cost recovery on a particular project basis. That is fine. What what becomes problematic is if the city wishes to choose to not to charge a different set of fees based on the appellants or the applicants. That is legally problematic. But if you want to say, you know, solar is an important priority for the city and we want to do less and cost recovery for solar projects overall that is authorized by law and eventually the rest of the office and solar is an important thing. So we want the fee, the appeal fee to actually have a higher standard fee. But as long as as long as it's within cost recovery, we can what I'm hearing you say is you're going to have a different cap for fees as long as it's not more than the cost of the actual work involved. You know, I'm thinking. Unless. You do. Yeah, I think I see. There's just I wasn't as simple and straightforward as I thought. I think that this is something we can give. We can we can vote if we move to approve this, if we can come ask staff to consider that. But in fairness to staff, we should probably give a lot more detailed direction before we close this one out. But so you know what? I've lost track because we have a motion already. No, not yet. Okay. So, Councilmember Vela. So I'm going to move approval of this item as written. I think if we want to give separate direction to staff, I'm inclined to simply want to. Put some. Language forward. I'm happy to add it to my motion. Oh, okay. To do that together with the motion. Okay. That's vice foreign. I will second by motion and also recommend language to direct staff to identify how we could increase the cap on affordable housing and homeless service projects for people. Yeah. Yes. So so just to clarify the vice mayor's suggestion, it would be to look at ways to. Cover. The costs of appeals. Correct. Right. Okay. I will cover more of the actual staff costs in appeals. Right. Understood. I'm amenable to that. Okay. And affordable housing. What was the second one again? Homeless services. Yeah. All right. City manager. Levitt, did you want to add anything else to this discussion? All right. So then it was moved by Councilmember Velez, seconded by Vice Mayor Knox White. Any discussion of the motion on the table, Councilmember Desai. Is a quick point. I'll support the motion, but. But in terms of the ad on my support of the motion doesn't necessarily mean it's the support of the ADD. So we'll deal with it when it's up to the substantively comes back. That's all we're asking is for further information to come back. So thank you for that clarification. Any further discussions seeing and may we have a roll call vote with. Councilmember de sag. I. Next. Why i d i. I may as the cut. Hi. That carries by five eyes. All right. Thanks, everyone. So that ends item 60. Moving on to 60. Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution establishing integrated waste collection, ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period 19th July 2020 2nd June 2021. All right. And I see. Or I saw a car. There you are. Hello. Hello. Good evening. I'm here in memory of this evening. I am with the Court of Public Works Coordinator. To be very brief of items. Counsel to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution to set integrated waste rates for the coming fiscal year or