Folsom council adopts updated police user fees after consultant study; two proposed alarm fees pulled

The Folsom City Council on May 13 approved an amended user-fee schedule for selected police services after a consultant presentation and staff briefing.

A study by Government Consulting Partners found the police department’s existing fee structure had not been comprehensively reviewed since 2006 and recommended new and revised charges to reflect body‑worn cameras, in‑car video and other digital media requests, officer time for crash responses and other services. Consultant Jeff Wakefield summarized the methodology: staff time estimates were multiplied by fully burdened hourly rates (including an 11% overhead apportionment) to compute the reasonable cost of each service.

The study estimated that current fees recovered about 63% of police service costs. Adopting the consultant’s recommendations (with two alarm-related fees held back) raises the projected recovery to about $202,000 annually — roughly an 83% recovery level, the presentation said. Wakefield told the council the report compared Folsom fees to neighboring jurisdictions and recommended modest changes where Folsom was out of step.

Staff and the consultant explained new categories, including charges tied to digital media and a standardized fully burdened officer‑hour rate used for state DUI crash cost‑recovery claims and special‑event staffing. Lieutenant David Canepa of the Folsom Police Department said the department needs rates that reflect staff time for fulfilling public records requests and responding to calls where digital media or significant staff labor is involved.

Council questions focused on alarm permits and implementation details. Staff clarified the proposed annual renewal fee in the report applied to commercial alarm permits; residential alarms in Folsom are not required to be permitted. Council members raised concerns about mailing/invoicing practices and customer experience with the alarm contractor; staff said they were exploring moving alarm administration to the city’s existing business‑license vendor to improve customer service.

In the final motion, the council approved the resolution adopting the amended schedule but removed two items from immediate implementation: the alarm permit late‑filing fee and the fee waiver request processing fee for false alarms. City staff said those two items could be revisited after improvements to permit administration are in place. The resolution passed on roll call.

What changed: the study identifies individual task times and calculates costs by multiplying by fully burdened hourly rates. Examples given in the presentation include adjustments to alarm permit renewal amounts (commercial), creation of a nominal fee for fee waiver requests and late filing (the latter two were withheld by the council), and a formalized hourly officer rate to support state cost‑recovery for crash responses.

Next steps: staff will implement the adopted fee schedule items, continue to coordinate alarm permit administration improvements with the city’s business‑license vendor, and return to council if they propose to reinstate the two withheld alarm fees or propose further administrative changes.

The council opened and closed the public hearing on the fee update with no public speakers on the item.

Ending: The new schedule will adjust how the city recovers selected police costs and formalizes rates for digital media and officer hours; staff will report back on implementation details and any further changes requested by the council.