Thirteen floating home owners may be forced to pay more than $35,000 in back rent that marina officials illegally waived for seven months, according to a recommendation passed by the Berkeley Waterfront Commission Wednesday.

Construction on marina docks H and I that began in March pushed more than a dozen floating homes normally stationed there to other docks. Until September, marina officials excused the homeowners’ rent and other living fees without the City Council’s approval, a violation of local law that city officials say cost the marina almost $60,000.

The commission’s recommendation, which the council will vote on next month, would back-bill the 13 floating home owners the majority of the unpaid fees, via an 18-month interest-free payment plan. Each resident could be required to pay as much as an additional $286 per month under the recommendation.

Every month residents pay a regular berth charge–ranging from $396 to $1,086–and a $140 live aboard fee, not including additional storage and utility expenses.

Former harbormaster Cliff Marchetti, who stepped down earlier this year, initially waived the homeowners’ rent to compensate for any utility services forgone during construction, said William Rogers, director of the city’s Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Department. In fact, while the deteriorating docks were replaced, the residents had electricity and phone service, as well as sewage pump-out service at their own expense.

After stepping into Marchetti’s position, acting waterfront manager Ann Hardinger said she did not notice the violation until around August.

“It’s extremely unfortunate that it didn’t go through the process it should have, and will not happen again,” Hardinger said. “I should have looked for a council resolution … I am going to scrutinize my staff and myself.”

The staff’s recommendation passed in a 5-1 decision, with commissioner George Beier casting the dissenting vote. He said it would be unfair to charge residents for officials’ mistakes.

“It’s asking a bit much to ask (the homeowners) to question the legality of every invoice you receive,” Beier said. “You make financial decisions based upon this bill.”

Floating home owner Pat Armer, who would owe more than $2,250 under the payment plan, said the oversight was “really inept to happen in the first place.”

“It’s easy to understand if it happened for one or two months … but not to go, seven months later, ‘Oops, we made a mistake,’” Armer said. “Not all of us are in the position to just write a check.”

Rogers said marina officials violated local law when they waived the fees without council authorization. But he said the proposed payment plan is essential to recouping the losses to the marina budget, a public fund sustained by the area’s businesses and managed separately from the city.

“It’s not fair to the marina fund to say that someone’s snap decision means that the marina fund takes that kind of a hit,” Rogers said, adding that a city attorney has confirmed the city can legally back charge residents.

The Marina fund would accept the remaining lost funds, nearly $23,800, according to the recommendation. This amount is estimated to cover what homeowners spent to relocate their homes during the construction, which finished in November and cost an estimated $5 million.

In a letter to the commission, homeowners Paul and Helen Canin reported spending more than $8,000 to temporarily move their house. Under the proposed plan, the commission is charging them $5,150.21 in rent owed for the construction period.

Marchetti sent two e-mails regarding the waiver, Rogers said: one to the homeowners informing them of it, and another to the city’s finance department saying the homeowners should not be charged. Otherwise, no written documentation of the decision exists, Rogers said.

Rogers said he is looking to install stricter departmental checks and balances to prevent such a violation from happening again.

“Any decision to not charge an individual will be scrutinized,” he said.

Beier pointed out that residents had trusted officials to abide by the law.

“A person in authority made the deal with people,” Beier said. “He was the representative, he made the mistake, he’s got to honor the deal.”