In a surprising turn of events, the Santa Barbara City Council balked at approving new outdoor dining fees on Tuesday.

The council voted 5-1 to wait two weeks to give staff time to evaluate reduced fees for restaurants to have outdoor dining.

Tuesday’s vote was on the “consent calendar,” which is usually reserved for routine, noncontroversial items. However, Councilwoman Alejandra Gutierrez called for a delay and won over council support.

“I would rather have everyone come together in agreement, instead of government telling the community what to do,” Gutierrez said. “We can’t be divided in this decision. I really want to respect the business owners.”

Mayor Randy Rowse cast the sole opposition vote. He showed outward frustration with Gutierrez and the council’s backpedaling from a Jan. 12 vote in favor of the new outdoor dining fees.

“I am just frustrated because once again it looks like we are being a very indecisive council,” Rowse said. “To rehash this yet again, and we will, are we going to make a decision next time? I am not confident. I am a little disappointed in the way this discussion has gone.”

Rowse said consent calendar items are for “up or down” votes, and not an opportunity to renegotiate. The council already set its direction in January, he said.

“There’s been three years of use of the public right-of-way with zero rent,” Rowse said. “And that’s our fault. No one else can do billing than us.”

The 4-2 vote in January was in favor of a “variable design,” under which rates for outdoor dining would vary based on the designs of the structures.

For example, restaurants that have their outdoor dining structures portable or at grade level would pay less than those who don’t.

The rates would vary widely, but the standard rate would be:

• $5 per square foot up to 100% of business frontage

• $7.50 per square foot for 100% to 200% beyond frontage

• $10 per square foot for 200%-plus beyond frontage

A portable setup with a platform and no roof would cost $4 a square foot. Structures that are not portable and have no roof but have a platform would be $4.50 a square foot, and structures not portable with a roof would be $5 a square foot.

At the meeting, Gutierrez proposed $3.50 per square foot up to 100% of business frontage.

The city closed State Street in the summer of 2020 to vehicles and allowed restaurants to have outdoor dining. State mandates at the time banned indoor dining because of the high transmission rates of COVID-19.

For the past 18 months, the city has been looking to charge fees for the outdoor dining spaces but has been unable to come to a decision.

City finance staffers estimate that the cost of daily, weekly and monthly cleaning, along with staffing and equipment, would be about $515,000. The costs would be expected to rise in fiscal year 2024 to about $675,000, which would include adding a code compliance officer for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, design and other regulatory requirements.

The variable rate structure assumed a 25% rate of attrition, with an estimated annual revenue of about $610,000.

Councilman Eric Friedman asked a question of where the money would come from to pay for parklet and downtown cleaning if the rates were reduced.

“It would either be general fund or downtown parking funds,” City Manager Rebecca Bjork said. “Downtown parking is running a deficit.”

Bob Stout, owner of the Wildcat Lounge and co-chair of the Downtown Association’s Food and Beverage organization, said he represents about 25 businesses on State Street and that the rate structure is unfair. He said the estimated $675,000 for cleanup of the promenade is too much to put on the backs of the restaurants with outdoor dining.

“Tourists and locals alike just love eating outside,” Stout said. “Speaking on behalf of everyone, there’s a general sense of unfairness. Most parklet business owners clean their own parklets really well.”

Stout supported a $3.50 a square foot fee across the board for outdoor dining space.

“I continue to have significant discomfort with the rent that is being charged,” Councilwoman Meagan Harmon said. “I certainly would agree that more discussion is warranted.”

The council is set to tackle the item again on April 25. Originally, the city had wanted the new fees to go into effect by May 1.