Approval is no longer merely proposed: the council formally adopted the Fiscal Year 2026 Master Fee Schedule as presented. What remains unestablished is the content of that schedule—such as which city services it covers, whether any fees rose or fell, and by how much. The materials also do not state when the approved schedule became or will become effective.
Baldwin Council Approves Fiscal 2026 Master Fee Schedule in 4-1 Vote
The March 10 action adopted the schedule as presented, but the published meeting materials do not detail the individual city charges or when they take effect.
At a glance
What this means now
The story
Baldwin’s City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2026 Master Fee Schedule as presented at its March 10, 2025 meeting, settling an item that had been placed before officials as new business. Council members voted 4-1 after Alice Venter made the motion and Kerri Davis seconded it; Maarten Venter cast the dissenting vote.
The decision matters because a master fee schedule can set charges paid by residents, businesses and other users of city services. In practical terms, the council has approved a framework for those charges for fiscal 2026, but the financial effect on any particular service or customer cannot be determined from the meeting materials described here because they do not disclose the schedule’s individual amounts.
The issue first appeared publicly on the March 10 agenda, which listed consideration and possible approval of a Master Fee Schedule among the council’s new-business items. That agenda showed officials were poised to act but did not establish what would happen. The meeting minutes then documented the follow-through: a motion to approve the Fiscal Year 2026 schedule as presented carried 4-1.
The vote drew a clear division on the council. Alice Venter supported moving the schedule forward by making the approval motion, and Kerri Davis supported it by seconding the motion. Four council members ultimately backed the schedule, while Maarten Venter opposed it. The minutes establish those actions and the vote count, but do not explain the members’ reasoning or identify objections to particular fees.
Approval is no longer merely proposed: the council formally adopted the Fiscal Year 2026 Master Fee Schedule as presented. What remains unestablished is the content of that schedule—such as which city services it covers, whether any fees rose or fell, and by how much. The materials also do not state when the approved schedule became or will become effective.
The next public step is publication or review of the adopted Fiscal Year 2026 schedule itself, along with any city notice identifying its effective date. Until that text is available, residents can know the council approved the measure and that the vote was 4-1, but not the specific charges they may face or the timetable for implementation.
Arguments in the record
Positions presented publicly
Four council members approved the Fiscal Year 2026 Master Fee Schedule as presented.
Maarten Venter voted against approval of the schedule; the minutes do not state his reasons.
What happened
How this issue got here
Open any step for its supporting record. A proposal remains labeled as proposed until later evidence establishes an outcome.
Appeared on agendaproposedBaldwin scheduled a master fee schedule for consideration
Baldwin's March 10, 2025 agenda placed consideration and approval of a Master Fee Schedule on the new-business agenda.
+
Baldwin scheduled a master fee schedule for consideration
Baldwin's March 10, 2025 agenda placed consideration and approval of a Master Fee Schedule on the new-business agenda.
ApprovedconfirmedBaldwin approved the Fiscal Year 2026 Master Fee Schedule
On March 10, 2025, the council approved the Fiscal Year 2026 Master Fee Schedule as presented, 4-1, after a motion by Alice Venter and second by Kerri Davis. Maarten Venter opposed.
+
Baldwin approved the Fiscal Year 2026 Master Fee Schedule
On March 10, 2025, the council approved the Fiscal Year 2026 Master Fee Schedule as presented, 4-1, after a motion by Alice Venter and second by Kerri Davis. Maarten Venter opposed.
Still unresolved
What is not yet known
These are evidence gaps, not assumptions. They remain open until a dependable source closes them.
- The individual fees, the services covered, and the schedule’s effective date are not identified in the cited agenda and minutes.
- The cited minutes do not explain why council members supported or opposed the schedule.
Newsroom notes1 open check on the record
How the newsroom is still working this matter. These are process notes, not reported facts.
- openThe retained records do not establish the final outcomeLocate later official minutes, resolutions, contracts, payments, or implementation records that resolve the matter.
Research the record