South Gate council adopts updated master fee schedule, holds code-enforcement fees for review

The South Gate City Council on Sept. 9 adopted a resolution establishing an updated master fee schedule for city services for fiscal year 25/26, approving a baseline 7% increase on most fees and directing staff to leave proposed code-enforcement fines at their current levels pending further review.

The change responds to the city’s widening gap between operating costs and fee revenue; administrative services staff calculated a 16.3% net increase in the consumer price index since October 2021 and proposed a measured 7% adjustment as the baseline. City staff told the council the fee changes would take effect 60 days after adoption and conservatively are expected to increase general-fund revenue by about $500,000 based on FY 23/24 activity.

The master fee schedule compiles permit, license, facility rental and other transactional charges that recover service costs for specific users rather than the general public. Administrative Services Director Louis Frosto told the council the proposed schedule is an interim step; a consultant contract to perform a deeper, fee-by-fee cost study is scheduled to begin in about a month and staff will return to council after that review.

Council discussion focused on fairness and targeted exemptions. Council member Hurtado moved to approve the schedule with the specific exception of changes to code-enforcement fines; the motion passed on a roll-call vote. Hurtado and other council members asked staff to review definitions of “repeat offense” for enforcement fines so that repeated complaints on the same property are treated equitably and don’t impose unnecessary field visits on staff. City Manager Rob Houston and Frosto said staff will study that policy question and bring options back as part of the consultant-backed fee review.

Staff presented a midrange revenue breakdown tied to the proposal: permit fee increases would yield roughly $118,000, an increase in fines and forfeitures (largely parking citations) about $100,000, and increases across other fees and charges about $280,000. Frosto said some fees are set by statute or voter approval and could not be changed.

Members of the public and emailed correspondents pressed for targeted changes: resident Ruiz on Kauffman offered reluctant support for the increases but urged the council to permit in-person record review as a low-cost alternative to fees for public records requests; an email from Mario Dominguez urged elimination of fees for emailed public-records requests and called for some other fee changes. Several speakers including sports‑program volunteers warned against raising facility fees that partner organizations rely on.

Staff emphasized the adoption is not final pricing for every fee, and the consultant study will reexamine cost recovery for specific permits and services. The resolution rescinds the city’s prior fee resolution (Resolution No. 2021-51 CC) as part of the update. The new schedule becomes effective 60 days after the council’s action.

Votes and implementation details are a matter of record; staff said they will publish the adopted schedule and return with consultant results and any recommended changes that arise from the targeted review.