Hawaiian Gardens reviews consultant fee study recommending higher planning recovery, new 5% technology surcharge

At a special meeting on March 19, 2026, the Hawaiian Gardens City Council reviewed a consultant-prepared fee study that recommends raising some planning and permit fees, adopting a 5% technology surcharge on permitting and planning transactions, and phasing increases for certain recreation programs.

Matrix Consulting Group project manager Khushbu Engel told the council the study evaluated more than 570 fee line items across city departments and used “typical reasonable average time” and a fully burdened hourly rate — including salaries, benefits, productive hours and overhead — to calculate a “maximum justifiable fee.” Engel said the study found the city is roughly 50% cost-recovery overall for building and planning and that the gap represents about “a $217,000 deficit,” driven mostly by planning shortfalls.

The study proposes different cost-recovery targets by service type. Community development staff presented recommendations including 70% cost recovery for routine document reviews, 50% for many accessory dwelling unit (ADU) applications to keep resident costs low, and 100% cost recovery for additions, larger nonresidential projects and several landscape or technical reviews. A commonly used, lower-cost permit — water-heater replacement — would rise by $6.40 under the consultants’ example (from $30.76 to $37.16).

Consultants also recommended a 5% technology surcharge that would be collected on top of planning and permitting fees to fund future permit-system replacements and recurring software costs. Engel explained the charge would operate as a separate “tack-on” so council could later decide whether to subsidize fee levels without affecting the technology reserve.

Department-level highlights presented at the meeting included: city-clerk fees (keep document certification at $10; add a $20 “proof of life” fee), public-works permit updates where most items moved toward full cost recovery, and recreation proposals that preserve resident/nonresident pricing while phasing up camp and program fees over three years. Recreation staff proposed new annual membership options for drop-in facilities and a proposed $45-per-year resident fee for the city’s boxing program; staff and several council members discussed phasing and alternatives to limit impacts on low-income families.

Council members raised affordability and equity concerns repeatedly. One member asked whether planning fees could be structured differently for non-owner-occupied properties; consultants and legal counsel said that while cities can set resident-focused recreation differentials, charging non-owner-occupied properties more for planning is uncommon and would likely be legally constrained — any resident subsidy usually must come from the general fund rather than by raising planning fees on others. Community development staff said roughly 60% of the housing stock is renter occupied, which complicates any owner-based distinction.

Legal staff cautioned about Public Records Act (PRA) limits on passing compilation costs through to requesters when the clerk’s office designates document fees.

Staff told the council the next formal steps are to gather additional council direction, hold the required public hearing, and adopt fees by resolution. Staff said they are targeting an implementation date of July 1 if council and the public process proceed on schedule. A communications staffer suggested the city’s public‑relations firm help message the changes to reduce confusion and emphasize which services remain subsidized.

No formal vote was taken at the workshop; staff will return with revised fee schedules and the required public-hearing materials.