The committee debated proposed revisions to development fees and mercantile licenses. A comprehensive list of fees was scrutinized, focusing on categories that included application, escrow, and fire prevention fees. A proposed ordinance reflecting these changes is set to be presented at the next council meeting for public consideration. A participant sought clarification on why certain fees, such as the $100 tent permit, were omitted from the proposed changes, leading to a broader discussion on the overall fee agenda. It was noted that some fees were removed entirely and consolidated under a general business category. For instance, the dry cleaning plant fee of $213 was eliminated as a standalone fee and merged into a general business fee.

Concerns were raised about reducing fees for residential rentals, particularly larger properties like the “Mig Mansion,” which saw a $200 reduction. The rationale provided was that the city incurred no additional costs in processing these permits, leading to a reassessment. However, there was concern that lowering fees for properties with historically low compliance rates might send the wrong message. The discussion then moved to future modifications involving a shift to a bedroom-based pricing model, with some members advocating for immediate adjustments to avoid delays.

The committee also reviewed compliance regarding existing mercantile licenses, noting many properties had active licenses or were in the process of rectifying deficiencies. The importance of regular evaluations of fees was emphasized, with the committee encouraging ongoing reviews instead of one-time assessments. This included fees related to land use development, tent permits, and restaurant seating fees.

The conversation shifted to compliance checks for restaurant seating capacities and outdoor seating permits. The committee examined whether annual cross-references of reported seating numbers with original site plans should be implemented, though it was noted that this would be a substantial task. Distinctions were made between official outdoor seating and flexible arrangements where outdoor seating counts against indoor capacity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, establishments could transfer seating outdoors but not increase their total number of seats. The committee suggested examination of fees associated with mall permits and other related revenue sources to ensure the city is appropriately compensated.

The development fee ordinance was briefly discussed, with one member expressing a need for clearer communication during meetings. The committee acknowledged the increasing value of mall property rentals and proposed requesting businesses to provide site plan approval dates when applying for mercantile licenses. This would aid in tracking compliance. Additionally, the need to assess off-street parking availability in relation to mercantile licenses was stressed, linking it to the city’s parking challenges.

The topic of discounted beach tags for seniors was also discussed. Seventy-five percent of New Jersey towns offer such discounts, and the proposal suggested allowing seniors to purchase tags at a lower price. However, concerns about the timing of the proposal were raised, as implementing it would require an ordinance, taking at least a month to process. With tags for the upcoming season sold starting in December, the earliest potential implementation would be in 2026. The committee highlighted the importance of analyzing revenue from the previous season before making any decisions.

The review of ordinance 544, focusing on application and escrow fees, revealed that existing fees were outdated. It was noted that fees should not exceed the costs of providing services. A member commended the city for removing a section on administrative fees that had caused frustration among citizens. The committee discussed establishing a system to record the dates of fee changes to ensure alignment with expenses over time.

The financial status of the city, particularly the surplus and debt service, was a point of discussion. The surplus had grown from $4 million in 2016 to $14 million in 2023. The committee debated the rationale behind conservative revenue estimates, necessary for unexpected costs, and the importance of maintaining a “rainy day fund.” Detailed graphs illustrated the city’s surplus generation, and discussions highlighted the unique revenue structure of Cape May, with 40% of revenue from property taxes.

Concerns about the reliability of the city’s revenue, particularly related to tourism, were acknowledged. There was a proposal to fund certain capital projects directly from surplus to mitigate future interest payments. The committee agreed on the necessity of developing a clearer policy regarding surplus management.

Lastly, the importance of addressing surplus management at the beginning of the budget cycle was stressed. Participants suggested involving the Chief Financial Officer and an external consultant in further discussions. The committee plans to compile questions for the CFO and continue focusing on surplus, bonding, and data analysis in upcoming meetings.