It's easy (and a defensive reflex) to blame "the city's automated software," as Finance Director Kong is quoted as doing above. But that's culpable evasive nonsense. "Software" merely executes rules put into it explicitly by humans. People under City pay set up the software, tested it, and approved it (including choosing to neglect sending the necessary initial notices; including choosing the now-regretted phrasing of the "final-warning letters").

How about stop playing blame-the-computer (a gambit that's really getting stale, after more than 50 years) and own up honestly to shoddy work and/or flawed process?

The City of MV is slow as molasses and sloppy. Remember this poor woman overcharged for her water bill? What happened to her? The City in that case, said it was a 'mystery' why she was overbilled. Web Link
If these types of errors happened in private industry someone would be held accountable, not so for public servants. Reminds me of 'Who's on First' Web Link

"The new fee being levied on all businesses comes as part of new state legislation intended to increase disability access."

QUESTION MV VOICE:
What, specifically, is the City of MV going to do with the roughly $4000/year it collects for this purpose?
How are they going to increase disability access with that amount of money?

Like many others I got a "2nd final notice" about the $3 fee. Like others, I had my license in hand. So I called and a very polite woman explained and apologized. As annoying as things like this can be, let's keep things in perspective. I paid the $4.25 as fast as I could. I've got bigger and better problems to struggle with. Having consulted to public sector for years, I can tell you that their work is incredibly complicated and constrained by regulations from every agency in this corner of the galaxy. This was frustrating, but not fatal. The City owned their part in the problem and took steps to fix things. So let's move on. And, please, let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. Let's save the vitriol for something really serious.

City staff seems to have little or no accountability. Unless it is a new apartment building or hotel, everything else takes forever or not at all. They are moribund in regulations and due process. We are a small city we should be able to do better. The council needs to manage the city manager better, demand goals, metrics and benchmarking. Underperforming staff needs to be counseled out.

It would be cheaper for the city to appropriate the $$$ out for the city budget compared to staff time billing and collecting such a small amount.

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]

@Jerry,

In 2016 signed and mailed the yearly form stating I was no longer in business. I keep getting billed regardless. And this is in spite of the fact that there is no legal requirement to tell the city you are no longer in business.

Have fun in the land of marsh mellows, cream pies and lollipops, but from my many experiences as a business owner the bottom line is the city is run mostly by incompetent and over paid employees. Case at point, the city just applied an insecticide at Monta Loma park's baseball field. The sign read for the area of application: "Litlle Leage out fild and Big Fild to"
Don't believe me, head over and check it out.

Effectively, they raised the business license fee retroactively.

Considering the money spent to mail out the delinquency notices and the apology letters, they could not have made much money. Seems like it would have been better to not charge the $3.

The business license fees are due on Dec 1 for the following year. If they had been due on Jan 1, that would have given the city an extra month to print the correct fees on the license renewal forms.

#iDontBelieveYouPattyKong!

Like @Jerry of North Whisman, I've always found the Finance Department, under Patty Kong's direction, an efficient government service provider. She (IMO) is very good and has, along with her employees, tried to run a TRANSPARENT process (the MV Budget process is wonderful).

So - everybody gets an occasional (very occasional) big error, IF they fix it quickly. I think the MV Finance Director has done this satisfactorily.

The biggest unanswered question is how much is it costing the city to collect this $3 for the state? Just the two letters sent out to date clearly cost more than $3 in printing, postage, and administrative costs. What should have happened is the city should have simply paid out the $10K or so to the state out of their $50M surplus OR just add the $3 to next year's business license renewals. Myself, I refuse to pay a retroactive fee like this, no matter how large or small. Let's see how much the city spends to collect $3 from me......