Fee-Band Clean-Up and Standard Application of the Schedule

Review how current fee bands are being applied in practice and correct routine underbilling caused by wrong bands, outdated turnover proxies, weak evidence standards, or legacy informal arrangements. The aim is not a full policy redesign. It is simply to make sure the existing schedule is being applied as intended to the businesses already in the system.

• Known businesses appear to be paying less than the written schedule suggests.

• Legacy practices have become more powerful than the formal fee rules.

• Revenue is suspiciously flat across businesses that are clearly very different in scale or use.

The city must have access to the approved fee schedule and the authority to correct accounts under it. If needed, issue a short internal rule on how corrections will be reviewed and approved.

Use a targeted sample of accounts first, keep a corrections log, require supervisor sign-off for re-banding, and use standard notice language so businesses can understand what changed and why.

• There is no credible information on business size, activity, or operating basis, so corrections would be guesswork.

• Political leadership is not willing to touch the better-connected cases where underbilling is concentrated.

Start with sectors where underbilling is obvious and easier to defend publicly.

Review how current fee bands are being applied in practice and correct routine underbilling caused by wrong bands, outdated turnover proxies, weak evidence standards, or legacy informal arrangements. The aim is not a full policy redesign. It is simply to make sure the existing schedule is being applied as intended to the businesses already in the system.

• Sample accounts from sectors most likely to be under-banded and compare what is being charged against the written schedule and any supporting evidence.

• Define a correction workflow that requires documentation, supervisor approval, and a standard explanation to the business.

• Re-band and rebill the clearest cases first so the city learns where disputes arise and how strong the evidence needs to be.

• Use the findings to prepare a wider clean-up plan, beginning with sectors where the revenue effect is material and the legal basis is strongest.

The city must have access to the approved fee schedule and the authority to correct accounts under it. If needed, issue a short internal rule on how corrections will be reviewed and approved.

Use a targeted sample of accounts first, keep a corrections log, require supervisor sign-off for re-banding, and use standard notice language so businesses can understand what changed and why.

• Known businesses appear to be paying less than the written schedule suggests.

• Legacy practices have become more powerful than the formal fee rules.

• Revenue is suspiciously flat across businesses that are clearly very different in scale or use.

• There is no credible information on business size, activity, or operating basis, so corrections would be guesswork.

• Political leadership is not willing to touch the better-connected cases where underbilling is concentrated.

• The main operational risk is uneven treatment. Similar businesses should not be reclassified differently because different officers handle them.

• Where politically connected firms are part of the problem, start with sectors where the legal evidence is strongest and the public case is easiest to defend.

• Start with sectors where underbilling is obvious and easier to defend publicly.