Norwalk adopts updated user and regulatory fees, effective July 1, 2025

The Norwalk City Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution No. 25-12, updating and establishing user and regulatory fees for fiscal years 2025 and 2026. The council approved the resolution during a public hearing after presentations from finance staff and the city's consultant on the fee study.

City staff said the update aims to better match fees to the cost of services and reduce pressure on the general fund by increasing cost recovery where there is a direct beneficiary. Jennifer Hernandez, senior management analyst in the finance department, summarized the study and its timeline, saying the effort began in June 2023 and that the city's last full study occurred in February 2007.

The consulting firm ClearSource noted that the package proposes several changes including consolidated fixed fees for commonly requested minor permits, a credit-card processing fee passed through only to card payers, and a methodology that scales fees by project complexity. Brian Brown, the consultant, told the council the proposed schedule is broadly in the mid-range compared with neighboring jurisdictions and estimated the city would recover about $1.4 million in additional annual costs if the council adopted the schedule as proposed.

Hernandez and Brown said the study distinguishes development-related regulatory fees'which typically target full cost recovery'from recreation and social service fees, which the city will continue to subsidize. Brown said Norwalk currently budgets about $9 million annually for recreation services while collecting about $900,000 (roughly 10%) in program fees, and about $2 million annually for social services with low cost recovery from fees.

Councilmembers discussed enforcement and the scope of the changes. Councilmember Rick Ramirez said the fee schedule is extensive and asked whether failure to report required work (for example plumbing or HVAC) could lead to fines or penalties. Brown replied that punitive fines and penalties are outside the scope of the current fee study and would require municipal code changes coordinated with the city attorney. "Those are items that would have to be coordinated with the city attorney as well as modify municipal code," Brown said.

Councilmember Marguerite Rios raised the broader concern about vacant or underused properties and whether fees or other measures could encourage redevelopment. Brown cited Oakland's recently discussed tax on vacant commercial property as an example of an approach other cities have tried but warned that administration and enforcement present challenges. "How do you tell whether there's a tenant? You have to have somebody going out there and actually doing physical inspections," he said. Rios suggested staff revisit the city's 2022 property-maintenance ordinance to explore incentives or penalties; staff said they would look into options.

Staff recommended, and the council adopted, language that would make the new fees effective July 1, 2025, and include an annual inflationary (CPI) adjustment so that interim years do not erode purchasing power before the next full study. No members of the public provided comment on the item during the hearing.

The council recorded a unanimous roll-call vote in favor of Resolution No. 25-12 (Ramirez: Aye; Rios: Aye; Valencia: Aye; Vice Mayor Jennifer Perez: Aye; Mayor Tony Ayala: Aye).