Full opinion text
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: The City of San Antonio imposes fees on the organizers of marches on its streets, as a means of ensuring that march organizers pay for the expense of providing traffic control and cleanup for these events. See San Antonio, Tex., Code ch. 19, art. XVII, § 19 — 636(b) (2010). The plaintiffs in this case, the International Women’s Day March Planning Committee (“Committee”) and the San Antonio Free Speech Coalition (“Coalition”), assert that the assessment of these fees violates the First Amendment in several respects. San Antonio selectively exempts certain events from payment of these fees, and the plaintiffs challenge these exemptions on a number of grounds. Also, the plaintiffs assert that San Antonio does not sufficiently constrain the authority of its police department to determine the amount of these fees. They further protest that San Antonio lacks adequate venues for expression unburdened by fees. Finding these claims without support, at least on the basis of the record before us, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of San Antonio. I. On November 29, 2007, San Antonio repealed the ordinance that had regulated processions and similar activities on its streets since 1988, see San Antonio, Tex., Ordinance 66526 (Feb. 4, 1988) (the “1988 ordinance”), and replaced it with a new procession ordinance. See San Antonio, Tex., Ordinance 2007-11-29-1193 (Nov. 29, 2007) (the “2007 ordinance”). Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the present lawsuit against San Antonio under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the 2007 ordinance’s constitutionality. The Coalition is a group of organizations and individuals who periodically hold street marches in San Antonio concerning various political issues. Its co-plaintiff, the Committee, organizes the annual International Women’s Day March in San Antonio, the purpose of which is to express solidarity with all women and to educate participants and the general public about issues affecting women in San Antonio and around the world. In their complaint, the plaintiffs asserted that the 2007 ordinance violated their right to freedom of speech under the U.S. Constitution. As such, they asked the district court to permanently enjoin enforcement of the 2007 ordinance. Additionally, since the Committee was planning to hold its annual parade on March 8, 2008, the plaintiffs also sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement while this case was pending. Later, the plaintiffs also amended their complaint to add claims challenging San Antonio’s interpretation and application of its repealed 1988 ordinance. Several months after the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, on February 21, 2008, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, as it found that there was a substantial likelihood that certain aspects of the 2007 ordinance were unconstitutional. First, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, the district court expressed concern that the 2007 ordinance granted the San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) excessive discretion in assessing fees to permit applicants to recoup traffic control expenses. 505 U.S. 123, 130, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992). Specifically, the court found excessive discretion because the SAPD had no internal written policy guiding its decisionmaking. The court was also troubled that the appeals process established for the permit scheme did not clearly authorize challenges to the amount of fees imposed by the SAPD. Second, following Forsyth County’s holding that “[s]peech cannot be financially burdened ... simply because it might offend a hostile mob,” id. at 134-35, 112 S.Ct. 2395, the court disapproved of language in the 2007 ordinance suggesting that procession organizers could be charged for the cost of providing for “the safety of the event participants and the general public.” Ordinance 2007-11-29-1193, § 3, § 19-636(33). Third, following our decision in Knowles v. City of Waco, the court held that the 2007 ordinance’s exemption of funeral processions and government agencies from its permit scheme was improper, as it called into question whether the permit scheme was narrowly tailored to meet its purported goal of promoting traffic safety. 462 F.3d 430, 436-37 (5th Cir.2006). Although the district court thought it likely that the plaintiffs would prevail on these claims, it also rejected many of the plaintiffs’ other challenges to the 2007 ordinance. For example, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the ordinance’s waiver of fees for certain events demonstrated that the City was impermis-sibly engaging in viewpoint or content discrimination. However, the district court enjoined San Antonio from enforcing the unconstitutional aspects of the 2007 ordinance, thereby forbidding the City from assessing fees to permit holders for traffic control and cleanup costs. Subsequently, on March 8, 2008, while the injunction was in place, the Committee held the International Women’s Day March in downtown San Antonio. Five days later, on March 13, the San Antonio City Council amended the procession ordinance, making several changes addressing the district court’s concerns. See San Antonio, Tex., Ordinance 2008-03-13-0201 (Mar. 13, 2008) (the “2008 ordinance”). The permit scheme was amended to (i) describe in greater detail how the SAPD should determine the number of traffic control personnel and devices needed for a procession, see id. § 1, § 19-630(12), § 19-636(C), (ii) create an appeals process to allow permit holders to challenge the fees assessed for their procession, see id. § 1, § 19-636(C), (iii) provide that “[a]ny additional costs for police personnel deemed necessary to provide security due to the nature of the event will not be assessed to the permit holder,” see id., (iv) bring funeral processions and the activities of government agencies under the ordinance, see id. § 1, § 19-632, and (v) require the chief of police to develop a “written Standard Operating Procedure for issuance of permits and assessments of traffic control costs.” See id. § 1, § 19-636(C). Approximately three months later, on June 18, the SAPD released Procedure 214, a thirteen-page document providing additional guidance to officers regarding San Antonio’s permit scheme. See San Antonio Police Dep’t, Standard Operating Procedure No. 214, Processions (Parades, Runs, Walks and Cycling Events) (2008). Several days later, the City filed a motion seeking to lift the preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, challenging the 2008 ordinance, and the City countered by filing a motion seeking summary judgment on all claims raised by the plaintiffs. Eventually, on March 31, 2009, the district court lifted the preliminary injunction, having concluded that the City Council’s 2008 amendments had addressed its concerns with San Antonio’s permit scheme for processions. Finally, three months later, the court granted summary judgment for the City in a brief order, again suggesting that the City’s amendments had cured any constitutional infirmities the 2008 ordinance may once have had. The plaintiffs now appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of San Antonio. II. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to review the contours of San Antonio’s current permit scheme for processions. See Ch. 19, art. XVII. The 2008 ordinance mandates that “[n]o person shall organize any procession without having first obtained a procession permit,” id. § 19-631, and defines a “procession” as being “a group of persons moving along, by whatever means, in an orderly, formal manner on any street, alley, or public thoroughfare from a point of origin to a point of termination.” Id. § 19-630. Individuals can obtain permits by submitting an application describing the planned event and an application fee of $75 to the SAPD. Id. § .19-633(a), (e), (f). In addition to paying the application fee, after a permitted event, permit holders must reimburse the City for the cost of “[cjleaning up the procession route” and the cost of any “personnel” and “devices” needed to control traffic during the procession. Id. § 19 — 636(b).' Before each procession, the SAPD approves a traffic control plan and determines “the number of peace officers and traffic control devices reasonably necessary to control traffic in the area of the requested procession,” based on a variety of factors listed in the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214. Id. § 19 — 636(c); Procedure No. 214 at 4-5. When relevant, we will describe these factors in greater detail below. After each procession, permit holders receive an invoice within fifteen days of their procession, and payment must be made during the thirty days following their procession. Ch. 19, art. XVII, § 19-636(c). Another relevant feature of the 2008 ordinance is that it provides for the subsidization of certain processions, effectively waiving part or all of the traffic control expenses the City would otherwise expect procession organizers to reimburse. These subsidization provisions originated in the 2007 ordinance and the City Council’s 2008 amendments did not affect them. First, San Antonio provides special treatment for “First Amendment processions,” which have as their “sole or principal object ... expressive and associative activity that is protected by the United States and Texas Constitutions, including speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition, but not including commercial advertising.” Id. § 19-630. For such processions, San Antonio absorbs the first $3,000 of expenses for traffic control personnel and devices, leaving the permit applicant only responsible for traffic control expenses over $3,000 and any cleanup expenses. Id. § 19 — 636(c). In this case, it is undisputed that the International Women’s Day March qualifies as a First Amendment procession and therefore would be eligible for the City’s $3,000 subsidy. Second, the 2008 ordinance also provides special fee waivers for three annual events, the Diez Y Seis Parade, the Martin Luther King March, and the Veterans Day Parade. Specifically, the ordinance explains that: Because of its broad appeal, historic tradition, cultural significance, and other public benefits provided by the Deiz Y Seis Parade, the city shall cover the costs of traffic control personnel. Because of their broad appeal, historic tradition, cultural significance, association with a national holiday or a day given statewide recognition, and other public benefits provided by the Martin Luther King March and the Veterans Day Parade, the city shall cover the costs of traffic control personnel and traffic control devices. Id. § 19 — 636(d). Beyond these three events, the City also provides fee waivers for several other events, which will be described in greater detail below. III. With this background complete, we now address some preliminary matters that will help structure our analysis. First, we describe the standards governing our review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment and explain the First Amendment principles relevant for this case. Second, we briefly outline the plaintiffs’ claims, assess whether these claims are facial or as-applied, and determine what evidence is properly before us on this appeal. A. As noted above, the plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of San Antonio. We review a grant of summary judgment “de novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court.” Knowles, 462 F.3d at 434. Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). ‘We construe all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party when reviewing grants of motions for summary judgment.” Murray v. Earle, 405 F.3d 278, 284 (5th Cir.2005). Events like the International Women’s Day Parade are forms of expression protected under the First Amendment. See Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 569, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) (explaining that “[n]ot many marches ... are beyond the realm of [protected] expressive parades”). As such, San Antonio bears the burden of demonstrating that its regulation of this expressive activity is constitutionally permissible. See Hays County Guardian v. Supple, 969 F.2d 111, 118 (5th Cir.1992). That said, defending the constitutionality of fees like those at issue in this case is not always an impossible task. The Supreme Court has long recognized that when groups hold events on public property, municipalities may impose fees as part of a permit scheme controlling this activity, see Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 577, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049 (1941) (approving of license fee imposed on parade organizers for purpose of “meet[ing] the expense incident to the administration of the [licensing scheme] and to the maintenance of public order in the matter licensed”), as long as these fees “meet certain constitutional requirements.” Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 130, 112 S.Ct. 2395. We now explain these, requirements. Permit schemes that allow licensors to censor speech on the basis of its content are prior restraints on speech, against which there is a heavy presumption of invalidity. See Thomas v. Chi. Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 320-21, 122 S.Ct. 775, 151 L.Ed.2d 783 (2002); Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 130-33, 112 S.Ct. 2395. A permit scheme’s restrictions “based on the content of the speech must satisfy strict scrutiny, that is, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and restrictions based on viewpoint are prohibited.” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1132, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009) (internal citation removed). Given this aversion to content discrimination, permit schemes may not vest government officials with overly broad discretion in assessing fees, because “government regulation that allows arbitrary application ... ‘has the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular point of view.’ ” Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 130, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (citing Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 649, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981)); see also Thomas, 534 U.S. at 323, 122 S.Ct. 775 (“Where the licensing official enjoys unduly broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny a permit, there is a risk that he will favor or disfavor speech based on its content.”). However, a permit scheme “controlling the time, place, and manner of speech” is permissible, as long as it is not “based on the content of the message,” is “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest,” and “leave[s] open ample alternatives for communication.” Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 130, 112 S.Ct. 2395; see also Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). B. The plaintiffs assert that the fees imposed by San Antonio do not satisfy these constitutional requirements, essentially raising four claims. First, they argue that San Antonio’s payment of traffic control expenses for certain processions establishes that the City is engaging in impermissible content or viewpoint-based discrimination in assessing fees. Second, they contend that the City Council and the SAPD have excessive discretion in assessing fees, allowing them to impose fees based on the content of permit applicants’ speech. Third, they argue that the fee exemptions granted certain groups reveal that the fees imposed by San Antonio are not narrowly tailored to meeting the City’s stated goal of recouping traffic control expenses. Fourth, they claim that San Antonio’s levy of fees on permit applicants is impermissible because the City lacks other alternate venues open for unburdened expression. Before assessing these claims, we now address several interrelated issues concerning the scope of this appeal and the evidence before us. First, we find that the plaintiffs may only bring a facial challenge to the 2008 ordinance. In particular, we conclude that the plaintiffs cannot pursue an as-applied challenge against the informal waivers of traffic control fees that the SAPD granted to many processions under the repealed 1988 ordinance. Second, we determine the number of processions for which San Antonio waives fees under the 2008 ordinance. The plaintiffs have argued that San Antonio interprets the 2008 ordinance to allow for more fee waivers than it explicitly lists. We address these issues preliminarily, as they are important for a number of the plaintiffs’ claims. For example, the number of fee waivers granted by San Antonio is relevant for our analysis of viewpoint discrimination. Similarly, before assessing the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the discretion held by the City Council and the SAPD, we must determine whether San Antonio’s practices under the repealed 1988 ordinance are before us on this appeal. i. We now assess whether the plaintiffs’ claims are facial or also as-applied. To prevail on a facial challenge, a plaintiff must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which [the challenged law] would be valid,” see United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987), or at least that the challenged law does not have any “ ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’ ” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 739-40 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997) (Stevens, J., concurring)). We find that the plaintiffs may only bring a facial challenge to the 2008 ordinance on this appeal, as they never clearly raised an as-applied challenge to the 2008 ordinance in the district court. “If a party wishes to preserve an argument for appeal, the party ‘must press and not merely intimate the argument during the proceedings before the district court.’ ” Keelan v. Majesco Software, Inc., 407 F.3d 332, 340 (5th Cir.2005) (quoting New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 n. 4 (5th Cir.1996)). The record is replete with references to a facial challenge, but is bare of any explicit reference to an as-applied challenge to the 2007 or 2008 versions of the current procession ordinance. We also reject any as-applied challenge to the repealed 1988 ordinance. As noted above, in their complaint, the plaintiffs seek relief from San Antonio’s “application” of the 1988 ordinance. Also, during this litigation, the plaintiffs have asserted that the informal fee assessment “policies” of San Antonio are unconstitutional, relying on evidence concerning the enforcement of the 1988 ordinance. In particular, it appears that under the 1988 ordinance, individual members of the San Antonio City Council sometimes intervened with the SAPD to obtain informal fee waivers for particular processions, without obtaining formal city sponsorship of these processions or passing ordinances granting such waivers. For example, deposition testimony indicates that in 2005, the SAPD waived traffic control fees for thirty-two of the forty-two processions worked by the police. Based on evidence like this, the plaintiffs challenge not only the 2008 ordinance, but also San Antonio’s informal fee waiver policies under the 1988 ordinance. We fail to see how a challenge to the enforcement of the 1988 ordinance presents a live controversy, given the ordinance’s repeal. “Suits regarding the constitutionality of statutes become moot once the statute is repealed.” McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846, 849 (5th Cir.2004). Furthermore, San Antonio does not interpret the 2008 ordinance to authorize the practices carried out under the 1988 ordinance, and on this facial challenge to the 2008 ordinance, we must consider the City’s “authoritative constructions” and “interpretations” of its ordinance. Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 131, 112 S.Ct. 2395. The First Circuit has observed that “it would be pointless ... to enjoin the enforcement of a [policy] that is no longer in effect.” See New England Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. Kinton, 284 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir.2002). Given these considerations, we conclude that any as-applied challenge to the enforcement of the repealed 1988 ordinance is moot. As such, the only claim before us on this appeal is a facial challenge to San Antonio’s 2008 ordinance. ii. Having established that the only claims properly before us are facial, we now review the evidence before us concerning the number of processions that San Antonio exempts from fees under the 2008 ordinance. As already noted, when evaluating a facial challenge to an ordinance, we must consider a municipality’s “authoritative constructions of the ordinance, including its own implementation and interpretation of it.” Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 131, 112 S.Ct. 2395. Thus, if there is evidence that San Antonio provides fee waivers for more processions than are explicitly listed in the 2008 ordinance, we may consider these exemptions in our analysis. It is clear that San Antonio provides fee waivers for more events than the 2008 ordinance lists. As explained above, the 2008 ordinance explicitly establishes fee waivers for the Diez Y Seis Parade, the Martin Luther King March, and the Veterans Day Parade. See Ch. 19, art. XVII, § 19 — 636(d). Beyond these events, it is also clear that San Antonio provides fee waivers for the annual Cesar Chavez Parade and processions related to the annual Fiesta San Antonio celebration. Separate city ordinances grant financial support to these events, and the record shows that when the City Council adopted the current procession ordinance, the Council did not intend to disturb its preexisting support for these events. Additionally, in proceedings before the district court, counsel for San Antonio suggested that the City also waives fees for the annual 60 + Mardi Gras Parade, which is a city-sponsored event. In their briefing, however, the plaintiffs allege that the City also supports other processions under the 2008 ordinance, such as the annual Juneteenth Celebration and the San Fernando Easter Procession. As proof, they cite to various documents in the record. First, the record contains a March 2007 staff presentation to the City Council that suggests planned fee waivers for the San Fernando Easter Procession and the San Antonio Marathon, among other events. This presentation is not helpful, however, as it does not reveal the current scope of exemptions under the 2008 ordinance. When San Antonio was considering repealing the 1988 ordinance, early drafts of its replacement contained fee waivers not present in the 2008 ordinance. Second, the plaintiffs also cite to spreadsheets showing the fees paid to San Antonio for traffic control personnel expenses from 2003 to April 2008. Most of the information contained in these documents is not helpful for this appeal, as it concerns the City’s practices under the 1988 ordinance or during the period when the district court’s preliminary injunction interfered with the collection of fees under the 2007 and 2008 versions of the current ordinance. That said, these documents do contain information regarding the enforcement of the current ordinance from December 9, 2007, the date it became effective, see Ordinance 2007-11-29-1193, § 8, to February 21, 2008, the date the district court entered its injunction. This evidence, however, is also not helpful for the plaintiffs, as it does not reveal that the SAPD granted any fee waivers beyond those explicitly authorized in the 2007 and 2008 versions of the procession ordinance. Thus, the record shows that San Antonio provides fee waivers for more processions than are explicitly listed in the 2008 procession ordinance, but not as many processions as the plaintiffs allege. IV. With these preliminary matters finally behind us, we now address whether San Antonio engages in content or viewpoint-based discrimination in waiving traffic control fees for a limited number of processions. As noted above, content-based burdens on speech in a public forum are subject to strict scrutiny, while viewpoint-based burdens are unconstitutional. Summum, 129 S.Ct. at 1132. The plaintiffs assert that San Antonio is impermissibly imposing viewpoint-based financial burdens on expression in a public forum, as the City waives otherwise applicable traffic control fees for certain events because of their “broad appeal, historic tradition, cultural significance, and [provision-of] other public benefits.” Ch. 19, art. XVII, § 19 — 636(d). In other words, if the Committee were not organizing the International Women’s Day March, but rather helping to organize the Martin Luther King March, the City would not charge them for the cost of personnel and devices used to control traffic during their procession. In response to the plaintiffs, San Antonio defends its waivers by claiming that its financial support for particular events constitutes government speech, which “is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny.” See Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550, 553, 125 S.Ct. 2055, 161 L.Ed.2d 896 (2005). In the alternative, San Antonio argues that it is not engaging in viewpoint discrimination, in that its provision of support for certain events does not establish that the City imposes fees on the plaintiffs because of a disagreement with their message. It also cites to Supreme Court precedent suggesting that it may selectively subsidize some private speech of its choice, as long as it does not engage in viewpoint discrimination. See Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 548-49, 103 S.Ct. 1997, 76 L.Ed.2d 129 (1983) (“[A] legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right, and thus is not subject to strict scrutiny.”). Although San Antonio has not shown that its financial support for certain events is government speech, we believe the City may selectively subsidize some processions and not others, as we conclude that it is not engaging in viewpoint discrimination. A. As an initial matter, we conclude that San Antonio has not established that its financial support for events like the Martin Luther King March and Cesar Chavez Parade constitutes government speech. The Supreme Court has held that ostensibly private speech can qualify as government speech “[w]hen the government disburses public funds to private entities to convey a governmental message” and “take[s] steps to ensure that its message is neither garbled nor distorted by the” private speaker. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995). As such, for private speech to become the government’s own, the government must exercise a high degree of control over speech, “ ‘effectively controlling]’ ” a message by “exercising ‘final approval authority’ over [its] selection.” Summum, 129 S.Ct. at 1134 (quoting Johanns, 544 U.S. at 560-61, 125 S.Ct. 2055). Thus, in Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n, the Supreme Court found that advertisements encouraging beef consumption could be classified as government speech, as the federal government had “set[ ] the overall message to be communicated and approvefd] every word that [was] disseminated.” 544 U.S. at 562, 125 S.Ct. 2055. Similarly, in Chiras v. Miller, we held that the Texas State Board of Education’s selection of certain science textbooks on the basis of its “editorial judgment” constituted government speech. 432 F.3d 606, 615 (5th Cir.2005). And more recently, in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Supreme Court held that a local government’s selection of certain permanent monuments for placement on public land constituted government speech, noting that “[a]cross the country, ‘municipalities generally exercise editorial control over donated monuments through prior submission requirements, design input, requested modifications, written criteria, and legislative approvals of specific content proposals.’ ” 129 S.Ct. at 1133 (citation omitted). Assuming arguendo that processions could in some circumstances qualify as government speech, we conclude that San Antonio has not demonstrated that its procession sponsorship is government speech. The City has made no showing that it exercises any control over the messages conveyed at its sponsored events, other than endorsing the general message of each event through its provision of financial support. Unlike the textbooks and monuments discussed above, San Antonio cannot inspect all the messages conveyed at a procession before it makes its sponsorship decision. Cf. Hurley, 515 U.S. at 569, 115 S.Ct. 2338 (noting many “multifarious” messages conveyed at Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade). In such circumstances, for sponsorship of a procession to qualify as government speech, a municipality must, at the very least, make some bare showing of organizational or planning involvement in a procession. San Antonio has not made any. Consequently, the City’s financial support for certain processions is not government speech exempt from First Amendment scrutiny, at least not on the basis of the record before us. B. However, even if San Antonio’s financial support for certain processions does not qualify as government speech, this does not mean that it is impermissible. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has suggested that as long as the government does not engage in viewpoint discrimination, it may freely subsidize private speech of its choice, while not subsidizing other private speech. See Regan, 461 U.S. at 549, 103 S.Ct. 1997 (“[A] legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe the right, and thus is not subject to strict scrutiny.”); see also Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 542, 121 S.Ct. 1043, 149 L.Ed.2d 63 (2001) (suggesting that viewpoint discrimination is improper when purpose of government subsidization is “to facilitate private speech, not to promote a governmental message”). Therefore, San Antonio’s decision to selectively subsidize a limited number of events could be permissible, as long as the City does not “discriminate invidiously in its subsidies in such a way as to ‘aim at the suppression of dangerous ideas,’ ” Regan, 461 U.S. at 548, 103 S.Ct. 1997 (quoting Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498, 513, 79 S.Ct. 524, 3 L.Ed.2d 462 (1959)), or “leverage its power to award subsidies ... into a penalty on disfavored viewpoints.” Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 587, 118 S.Ct. 2168, 141 L.Ed.2d 500 (1998). We find that San Antonio is not engaging in content or viewpoint-based discrimination, at least not by waiving fees for the limited number of events under consideration in this case. Our recent decision in Palmer ex rel. Palmer v. Waxahachie Independent School District is instructive for our analysis. 579 F.3d 502 (5th Cir.2009). In Palmer, we considered a school dress code that prohibited students from wearing shirts with messages, but had exemptions for shirts with “small logos” and “ ‘principal approved’ shirts that promoted school clubs, organizations, athletic teams, or ‘school spirit.’ ” Id. at 509. Like the 2008 ordinance, the school policy in Palmer was a generally applicable policy that, due to certain exemptions, appeared on its face to treat protected speech differently on the basis of its content. Nevertheless, we concluded that “ ‘the principal inquiry in determining content-neutrality, in speech cases generally and in time, place, or manner cases in particular, is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.’ ” Id. at 510 (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989)). Therefore, since the school district “was in no way attempting to suppress any student’s expression through its dress code,” we found that the code was content-neutral. Id. Similarly, in this case, San Antonio’s provision of financial support for certain processions does not demonstrate that it bears any animus against the viewpoints expressed by the plaintiffs in the International Women’s Day Parade or other marches. San Antonio is not singling out disfavored viewpoints for sanction; instead, it is singling out a limited number of favored messages for special treatment. Under Palmer, this is permissible. We recognize that there is some Supreme Court precedent that arguably supports the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning discrimination. For example, the Supreme Court has sometimes found statutes that grant preferential treatment to favored speakers, while equally burdening other speakers, to be content-based. See Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 460-61, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980) (striking down law that restricted all picketing in certain area, except labor-related picketing); Police Dep’t v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (same). However, more recently, the Supreme Court has suggested that when municipalities grant waivers of permit requirements to certain speakers, our focus should be on whether the pattern of waivers reflects a desire to suppress disfavored viewpoints. Furthermore, in the Supreme Court’s cases discussing government subsidization of private speech, the Court has also focused on whether the government is using its subsidies as a means of singling out disfavored viewpoints for penalty. In this context, we do not believe San Antonio is engaging in viewpoint discrimination by providing a benefit to a limited number of speakers. One might object to our reliance on the Supreme Court’s subsidization case law in these circumstances, where San Antonio is imposing a financial burden on speakers attempting to access a public forum. To the best of our knowledge, none of the Supreme Court’s cases concerning subsidization have directly involved public fora. Aso, the Court has at times justified its support for selective subsidization by explaining that “ ‘although government may not place obstacles in the path of a person’s exercise of freedom of speech, it need not remove those not of its own creation.’ ” Regan, 461 U.S. at 549-50, 103 S.Ct. 1997 (quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 316, 100 S.Ct. 2671, 65 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980) (internal brackets and ellipsis omitted)). In this case, San Antonio’s traffic control fees are an “obstacle” that the plaintiffs must surpass before exercising their speech rights; thus, one might argue that the City may not intervene to selectively subsidize payment of these fees for certain speakers. However, in our view, public fora need not be a subsidy-free zone. When a municipality imposes reasonable user fees controlling access to public fora, it does not lose its ability to provide financial support for community events held in its public fora. For example, if San Antonio were to provide a block grant to Fiesta San Antonio in recognition of its positive effect on San Antonio’s economy, and Fiesta’s organizers were to use that grant to pay fees due under the 2008 ordinance, surely this would be an acceptable use of public funds. Simply put, we will not “engage in hair-splitting by finding a constitutional difference between waiving a fee and paying it out of the City treasury.” See Sullivan v. City of Augusta, 406 F.Supp.2d 92, 113 (D.Me.2005), aff'd in pertinent part, 511 F.3d 16, 32 n. 7 (1st Cir.2007). As such, we join with the First and Sixth Circuits, which have also endorsed municipal subsidization of events held on public streets. Of course, even if San Antonio may subsidize events held on its streets, it still may not engage in viewpoint discrimination in its provision of subsidies. Velazquez, 531 U.S. at 542, 121 S.Ct. 1043. Thus, while we affirm San Antonio’s waiver of fees for a limited number of events, we stress that the City’s power in this area is not limitless. As noted above, there is disturbing evidence in the record concerning the City’s practices under the 1988 ordinance, but these are not the facts before us on this facial challenge to the 2008 ordinance. V. The plaintiffs next argue that the 2008 ordinance grants unconstitutionally excessive discretion to San Antonio’s City Council and the SAPD to waive and assess traffic control fees. First, we address whether the City Council retains unconstitutional discretion to waive fees, and then we review whether the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214 provide sufficient guidance to the SAPD in assessing fees. We find that the Council does not retain unconstitutional discretion and that the discretion of the SAPD is sufficiently cabined. A. The plaintiffs argue that the 2008 ordinance impermissibly vests discretion in the City Council to waive traffic control fees, without also providing standards to guide the Council’s exercise of that discretion. They rely primarily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969), and the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Long Beach Area Peace Network v. City of Long Beach, 574 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.2009). We find that the Council does not have unconstitutional discretion to waive fees under the 2008 ordinance. Although the City Council retains permissible legislative discretion to grant new reoccurring fee waivers, it has not reserved the right to meddle in the permit process on an application-by-application basis under the 2008 ordinance. In Shuttlesworth, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a parade ordinance that granted considerable power to a city commission — an entity akin to a city council — to grant or deny parade permits. Specifically, the ordinance provided that the commission would “grant a written permit” for a parade, “unless in its judgment the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require[d] that [the permit] be refused.” Id. at 149-50, 89 S.Ct. 935. The Supreme Court struck the ordinance down for granting “virtually unbridled and absolute power” to the city commission to prohibit parades. Id. at 150. The Court explained that the ordinance operated as a prior restraint, making “the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official,” who could use his or her discretion to engage in censorship. Id. at 151 (quoting Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 322, 78 S.Ct. 277, 2 L.Ed.2d 302 (1958)). More recently, in Long Beach, the Ninth Circuit struck down an ordinance that imposed permit and service fees on march organizers but allowed a city council to waive them. 574 F.3d at 1042. Under the ordinance, march organizers could write to the city council after their march and request a waiver of applicable fees. Id. at 1017-18. Relying on Shuttlesworth, the Ninth Circuit held that “in the First Amendment context, where a legislative body has enacted a permitting scheme for expressive conduct but has reserved some decisionmaking authority for itself under that scheme, that reserved authority is vulnerable to challenge on grounds of unbridled discretion.” Id. at 1042. Since the defendant city had not pointed to any “provision of the Ordinance, or to any implementing regulation, that guide[d] the City Council’s decision whether to fund or waive fees and charges,” the court struck down the ordinance. Id. at 1043. The plaintiffs argue that, as in Long Beach, San Antonio’s City Council retains discretion to waive traffic control fees for particular events, unconstrained by any guidelines. The 2008 ordinance does not explicitly grant authority to the City Council to waive fees for any events beyond the three listed in section 19-636(d). Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argue that the City Council retains power under the procession ordinance to waive fees for additional groups. There are several indications in the record that the City Council does retain such authority. First, as noted above, when the Council passed the present ordinance, it did so with the understanding that its preexisting fee waivers for Fiesta San Antonio and the Cesar Chavez Parade would continue under the new ordinance. Thus, San Antonio’s present procession ordinance does not limit fee waivers to events expressly listed in the ordinance. Second, during the preliminary injunction hearings in this case, counsel for San Antonio represented to the district court that under the current procession ordinance, “there is nothing that would preclude [groups] from coming forward and seeking Council support and seeking an ordinance, if they have a specific event, and seeking to see if they would garner” support for a fee waiver from the Council. We believe that the fee waivers condemned by the Ninth Circuit in Long Beach are distinguishable from those under consideration on this facial challenge. In Long Beach, although the Ninth Circuit held that city councils may not exercise unguided discretion in making specific permit decisions, the court also noted that city councils may still exercise “the general discretion ... to enact (or not enact) laws.” Id. at 1042. In our view, the waivers under consideration in this case more closely resemble an exercise of the City Council’s legislative authority than a specific licensing decision. San Antonio grants prospective, reoccurring fee exemptions for annual events, and the 2008 ordinance reserves no explicit authority for the City Council to waive fees on an application-by-application basis. In contrast, in Long Beach, the challenged ordinance specifically reserved waiver power for the city council, allowing event organizers to write to the council, requesting one-time waivers for particular events. Id. at 1017-18,1042. Thus, in this case, San Antonio’s City Council has not retained a role for itself in the permit application process; it has instead prospectively exempted certain annual events from paying fees under its permit scheme. Although the City Council may in the future consider creating additional reoccurring exemptions for other events, this would be a permissible exercise of the Council’s legislative authority, as long as the Council does not exempt so many events to create concerns about viewpoint discrimination, as discussed above. However, if the City Council in the future begins waiving fees for procession organizers on an ad hoc, application-by-application basis under the 2008 ordinance, we can assess this in an as-applied challenge. B. The plaintiffs also contend that the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214 do not sufficiently cabin the discretion of the SAPD in assessing traffic control and cleanup fees. The Supreme Court has held that “ ‘a law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license’ must contain ‘narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide ... licensing authority.’ ” Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 131, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (quoting Shuttlesworth, 394 U.S. at 150-51, 89 S.Ct. 935). In our view, the standards guiding the SAPD are constitutional, as they do not grant arbitrary power to assess fees, but rather provide the police with limited discretion to allocate necessary traffic control and cleanup resources. Before proceeding with our analysis, we review the standards by which the SAPD calculates fees for procession organizers. As explained above, the 2008 ordinance establishes that “[e]ach permit holder is responsible for” the cost of “[c]leaning up the procession route” and providing “traffic control personnel” and “traffic control devices for the procession route.” Ch. 19, art. XVII, § 19 — 636(b). In determining “the number of peace officers and traffic control devices reasonably necessary to control traffic in the area of the requested procession,” id. § 19 — 686(c), the procession ordinance directs the SAPD to consider: (1) The route and the identification of roadways that cross through or feed into the street of the proposed route; (2) The number of anticipated participants and vehicles in the event; (3) Identification of other roadways, or public transportation and emergency vehicle routes that may be affected by the event; (4) Length of the route and the identification of the number of intersections along the route that will require barricades or traffic control personnel; (5) Whether intersections must be individually barricaded or whether officers can be assigned to move along with the event; (6) The date and time of the event; (7) Volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic typical on and along the route for the time of day, day of the week and time of year for the proposed route. Id. Once the SAPD determines the required number of personnel and barricades, it calculates fees on the basis of the City’s collective bargaining agreement and the City’s contract with a third party barricade vendor. Id. Procedure 214 provides additional guidance for the implementation of the permit scheme. It supplies a list of factors to consider in determining the number of traffic control personnel and devices necessary for a procession, complementing the factors listed in the ordinance. It also lists five possible arrangements for providing traffic control. For the smallest processions, it recommends not stopping vehicular traffic at all, instead separating marchers from regular traffic with cars leading and following the procession. See Procedure No. 214 at 5, 12. For the largest processions, it recommends closing multiple lanes and blocking cross traffic along the procession route. See id. at 7-8, 11. The plaintiffs assert that these standards are riddled with lacunae, leaving the SAPD with excessive discretion in allocating resources for processions. The plaintiffs argue that the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214 do not clearly direct the SAPD on how to apply the lists of resource allocation factors. They complain that when the SAPD determines the resources necessary for a procession, it must consider factors not explicitly listed in the 2008 ordinance or Procedure 214, such as how much time a procession will remain on the streets. They protest that the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214 do not clearly establish when barricades are necessary for a procession. They argue that the 2008 ordinance does not explain how cleanup costs should be assessed. They complain that the possible traffic control arrangements listed in Procedure 214 do not provide sufficient guidance to the SAPD, as processions with similar numbers of marchers could fit into multiple categories. Ultimately, attacks like these must fail, for the plaintiffs overestimate the precision demanded by the Constitution in these circumstances. While “ ‘narrow, objective, and definite standards’ ” must guide an official’s exercise of discretion, Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 131, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (quoting Shuttlesworth, 394 U.S. at 150-51, 89 S.Ct. 935), standards are not impermissible simply because they leave officials with some discretion. A review of relevant ease law confirms this. To be sure, when ordinances grant officials authority to assess fees on speech, some forms of discretion are constitutionally impermissible. Generally, ordinances that grant officials discretion to impose or waive fees at will are unconstitutional. For example, in Forsyth County, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance interpreted to allow county officials freedom to adjust fees for event organizers, irrespective of the actual “administrative and security expenses” borne by the county. Id. at 131 n. 9. Also problematic are ordinances that provide vague criteria for assessing fees, unanchored in determining the scope of fees necessary to reimburse a municipality for its expenses. Thus, in Transportation Alternatives, Inc. v. City of New York, the Second Circuit invalidated an ordinance that directed city officials to consider a range of factors in imposing fees on event organizers, including “whether the applicant will impose an admission charge,” “whether the event is a charitable event,” “whether the event is held for the purpose of raising funds,” “the amount and nature of advertising, including whether the event has title sponsorship,” and “such other information as the [Parks] Commissioner shall deem relevant.” 340 F.3d 72, 75 (2d Cir.2003). However, when the police make decisions concerning the resources necessary to maintain order on city streets, they necessarily must exercise some discretion. As such, in Sullivan v. City of Augusta, the First Circuit upheld an ordinance that imposed fees on parade organizers to cover “the costs of traffic control per city collective bargaining agreement and clean up costs, as estimated by the Police Department.” 511 F.3d at 22. The ordinance did not provide further guidance to the police, but the First Circuit explained that there was value in letting the police exercise their “[e]xperienced, professional judgment” in determining the resources necessary for traffic control, since the court found it “hard to see any purely mechanical means for determining how many officers would be needed to direct traffic at the various intersections of differing routes and neighborhoods.” Id. at 36. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that permit schemes must have some play in them, since overly rigid standards and requirements could actually suppress speech in some circumstances. See Thomas, 534 U.S. at 325, 122 S.Ct. 775. In this context, for example, if the SAPD’s discretion were too limited, it could lead to tailoring concerns, as rigid standards might result in unnecessary traffic control resources being devoted to particular processions, in turn leading to the imposition of excessive fees. Viewed in the context of these cases, the 2008 ordinance is not constitutionally infirm. Like the ordinance in Sullivan, the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214 grant the SAPD discretion to determine the resources necessary for cleanup and traffic control. The 2008 ordinance actually cabins police discretion more than the ordinance upheld in Sullivan. On the other hand, unlike the ordinance struck down in Forsyth County, the 2008 ordinance does not allow fees to diverge from the amount needed to reimburse San Antonio for necessary traffic control and cleanup services. Instead, the 2008 ordinance provides that “[e]aeh permit holder is responsible for” traffic control and cleanup expenses, with the SAPD only granted limited discretion to determine what resources should be allocated for particular events. Ch. 19, art. XVII, § 19-636(b) (emphasis added). Also, unlike the ordinance invalidated in Transportation Alternatives, all the factors listed in the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214 relate to determining the personnel and equipment necessary to control traffic at processions. While the SAPD may at times need to consider certain traffic control factors beyond those explicitly listed, it is clear that the SAPD is limited to assessing traffic control fees based on its calculation of “the number of peace officers and traffic control devices reasonably necessary to control traffic in the area of the requested procession.” Id. § 19-636(c). In short, the Constitution does not demand that policing decisions be made exclusively by reference to the equivalent of actuary tables and abacuses, simply because the cost of police activities are passed on to individuals engaging in expression protected under the First Amendment. However, we stress the limited record before us in this case. We lack any evidence concerning the enforcement of the standards in the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214, as they came into effect after the International Women’s Day March took place. If in the future we were presented with evidence that the SAPD used its discretion under the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214 to charge drastically different fees for similar processions, we might reach a different con-elusion. Cf. Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 132, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (considering enforcement history of ordinance in determining whether it vested officials with excessive discretion). VI. We now address whether San Antonio’s 2008 ordinance is a permissible regulation of the time, place, and manner of speech. We have already concluded that San Antonio’s selective subsidization of certain events does not undermine the overall content and viewpoint neutrality of the ordinance. Therefore, we now address whether the ordinance is “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest” and “leave[s] open ample alternatives for communication.” Forsyth County, 505 U.S. at 130, 112 S.Ct. 2395. A. The plaintiffs assert that San Antonio’s selective fee waivers deprive the 2008 ordinance of the narrow tailoring necessary to sustain its constitutionality. It is undisputed that San Antonio has a significant interest in recouping the expenses it incurs from the processions held on its streets. See Thomas, 534 U.S. at 322, 122 S.Ct. 775 (suggesting that municipalities may permissibly impose permit requirements designed “to assure financial accountability for damage caused by [an] event”); Cox, 312 U.S. at 577, 61 S.Ct. 762 (approving of license fee imposed on parade organizers to reimburse city for expenses caused by parade). Still, if in achieving this interest, “ ‘a substantial portion of [the ordinance’s] burden on speech does not serve to advance’ ” this goal, “then the ordinance is not narrowly tailored.” Knowles, 462 F.3d at 434 (quoting Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746). We find that San Antonio’s fee exemptions for certain processions do not fatally undermine the tailoring of the 2008 ordinance. San Antonio may permissibly recoup some of its traffic control expenses, while simultaneously subsidizing certain events. In a number of eases, we have held that exemptions can render unconstitutional a regulation of speech that would otherwise be permissible. As noted above, in Knowles v. City of Waco, we recently struck down a city’s parade ordinance that granted blanket permit exemptions to government agencies, funeral processions, and groups of students under the supervision of school authorities. 462 F.3d at 436. In reaching this result, we relied on our earlier decision in Beckerman v. City of Tupelo, where we struck down an ordinance with similar exemptions, reasoning that “ ‘[b]ecause the City [was] so willing to disregard the traffic problems’ that could be caused by” the exempted groups, we “could not ‘accept the contention that traffic control [was] a substantial interest’ that justified [the City’s] parade permitting scheme.” Id. at 436-37 (quoting 664 F.2d 502, 513 (5th Cir.1981)). By analogy, San Antonio’s fee waivers could be viewed as equally unacceptable, in that they undermine San Antonio’s contention that recouping its traffic control expenses is so important that it must assess fees. Relatedly, the plaintiffs complain that San Antonio’s fee exemptions are impermissible because their effect is that the City only recovers a fraction of its traffic control expenses. The Supreme Court has held that fees on speech must have some relationship to solving the problems that supposedly justify their imposition. Thus, in Cox v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court approved of a fee that reimbursed a city for the expenses caused by a parade, 312 U.S. at 577, 61 S.Ct. 762, while in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, the Court struck down a flat fee imposed on door-to-door solicitors, as it was not “calculated to defray the expense of protecting those on the streets and at home against the abuses of solicitors.” 319 U.S. 105, 116, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943); see also Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F.2d 619, 632-33 (5th Cir.1981) (striking down flat $6 fee imposed on permit applicants, where defendant had not “demonstrate^] a link between the fee and the costs of the licensing process”). Consistent with this precedent, in Horton v. City of Houston, we found that a public access television station’s fee imposed on non-local broadcasters might not be narrowly tailored. Specifically, we expressed concern that there was a “lack of correlation between the amount charged to non-locally produced programs and [the station’s] stated justification for imposing [its] fee.” 179 F.3d 188, 195 (5th Cir.1999). The station charged a $75 to $100 fee on non-local broadcasters and used this revenue to encourage local broadcasting by “training] local producers, purchasing] production equipment, and funding its] general operations.” Id. We found that there was no evidence of whether the fee actually helped cover the cost of the station’s operations and suggested that the fee should be struck down if it failed “to make any realistic dent in the costs borne by cable subscribers for the production facilities.” Id. at 196. Thus, if San Antonio’s imposition of fees is ineffective at recouping the City’s traffic control expenses, these fees could be constitutionally suspect. Initially, we note again the limited evidence before us. Although we know that San Antonio waives fees for a limited number of events, we lack evidence of how the SAPD has assessed fees under the standards in the 2008 ordinance and Procedure 214. Therefore, we do not know the exact percentage of San Antonio’s traffic control expenses that it recovers under the 2008 ordinance. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the City incurs considerable expense in supporting its exempted events, at least some of which are large processions that require extensive traffic control resources. For example, the cost of traffic control personnel for the 2008 Martin Luther King March appears to have been over $40,000, while expenses for certain Fiesta-related events in 2008 rose as high as $170,000. Another relevant consideration is that the City waives the first $3,000 of traffic control personnel expenses for every “First Amendment” procession, see Ch. 19, art. XVII, § 19 — 636(c), further reducing the amount by which its traffic control fees actually cover the expenses borne by the City. Thus, even on the limited record before us, it is clear that there is not a perfect fit between the fees paid by procession organizers and the expenses incurred by the City. Despite this less than perfect fit, we do not believe the fee exemptions and $3,000 credit for “First Amendment” processions fatally undermines the City’s assessment of traffic control fees. San Antonio need not recoup all of its traffic control expenses for its fees to be narrowly tailored. Notably, in Horton, we suggested that the defendant public access station only needed to show that its fees for non-local broadcasters made a “realistic dent” in defraying its operating costs. 179 F.3d at 196. In this ease, San Antonio makes a “realistic dent” in its budget by protecting itself from having to bear unexpectedly high traffic control expenses for all the various marches and parades that may be held throughout a year. In effect, San Antonio is insuring its annual budget against the unexpected, and we conclude this is permissible. Similarly, San Antonio’s selective subsidization of certain processions also does not render its fees poorly tailored. San Antonio has imposed a generally applicable fee on procession organizers, but has also decided to provide financial support to particular events in the form of fee waivers. As already explained, these waivers are the equivalent of paying funds “out of the City treasury.” See Sullivan, 406 F.Supp.2d at 113. In our view, the City Council’s decision to appropriate funds to particular uses cannot undermine the tailoring of San Antonio’s overall fee scheme. We find that Knoivles, where we struck down a parade ordinance with a limited number of e