Folsom City Council
May 28, 2024

1 Agenda
City Council Regular Meeting
Folsom City Hall | City Council Chambers, First Floor
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630
May 28, 2024, 6:30 PM

Welcome to Your City Council Meeting
We welcome your interest and involvement in the city’s legislative process. This agenda includes information about topics coming before the City Council and the action recommended by city staff. You can read about each topic in the staff reports, which are available on the city website and in the Office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk is also available to answer any questions you have about City Council meeting procedures.

Participation
If you would like to provide comments to the City Council, please:
 Fill out a blue speaker request form, located at the back table.  Submit the form to the City Clerk before the item begins.  When it’s your turn, the City Clerk will call your name and invite you to the podium.  Speakers generally have three minutes, unless the presiding officer (usually the mayor) changes that time.

Reasonable Accommodations
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a person with a disability and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 461-6035, (916) 355-7328 (fax) or [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two full business days before the start of the meeting.

How to Watch
The City of Folsom provides three ways to watch a City Council meeting:

In Person Online On TV

City Council meetings take place at
City Hall, 50 Natoma Street
Watch the livestream and replay past
meetings on the city website,
www.folsom.ca.us
Watch live and replays of meetings on
Sac Metro Cable TV, Channel 14

More information about City Council meetings is available at the end of this agenda

2 City Council Regular Meeting
Folsom City Hall | City Council Chambers, First Floor
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA 95630

www.folsom.ca.us
Tuesday, May 28, 2024 6:30 PM

Mike Kozlowski, Mayor

Sarah Aquino, Vice Mayor YK Chalamcherla, Councilmember Rosario Rodriguez, Councilmember Anna Rohrbough, Councilmember

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:

Councilmembers: Rohrbough, Aquino, Chalamcherla, Rodriguez, Kozlowski The City Council has adopted a policy that no new item will begin after 10:30 p.m. Therefore, if you are here for an item that has not been heard by 10:30 p.m., you may leave, as th e item will be continued to a future Council meeting.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:

Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item within the Folsom City Council's subject matter jurisdiction. Public comments are generally limited to no more than three minutes. Except for certain specific exceptions, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.

AGENDA UPDATE
SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS:

1. City of Folsom Resolution of Commendation Celebrating 25 Years of Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary Volunteer Service by Docent Sue Spielman

2. Presentation by the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District

3. Presentation of the City Manager’s FY 2024-25 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for the City of Folsom, the Successor Agency, the Folsom Public Financing Authority, and the Folsom Ranch Public Financing Authority

3 CONSENT CALENDAR:

Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion.

Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion.

4. Approval of April 23, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes

5. Approval of May 14, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes

6. Ordinance No. 1344 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3.50.020,

3.50.040 and 3.50.050 and Repealing Section 3.50.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Cost Recovery of Certain City Services (Second Reading and Adoption)

7. Ordinance No. 1345 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Folsom Amending Sections

3.20.020, 3.20.063, and 8.32.140(A)(2) of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Billing for Municipal Utility Services (Second Reading and Adoption)

8. Resolution No. 11201 - A Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento Consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election, and Establishing Policies for Candidates’ Statements

9. Resolution No. 11202 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Chrisp Company for the Roadside Safety Project PW2404, HSIPSL-5288(051)

10. Resolution No. 11203 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Change Order with Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. for the On-Call Concrete and Asphalt Maintenance Project (Contract No. 174-21 21-073) and Appropriation of General Fund Contingency Budget and Measure A Funds

11. Resolution No. 11206 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement Between the City of Folsom and Folsom Post No. 6604 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, a California Nonprofit Corporation for the Lease of City Property Located at 1300 Forrest Street

12. Resolution No. 11208 - A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit a Grant Application to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District for the 2024 Sacramento Emergenc y Clean Air Transportation Program Funding Round for the Purchase of Five Light Duty Battery Electric Vehicles

13. Resolution No. 11209 – A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Non- Professional Services Agreement with Belfor Restoration Services for Stucco Repairs at the Folsom Public Library and Appropriation of Contingency Funds PUBLIC HEARING:

14. Resolution No. 11186 – A Resolution to Adopt an Amended User Fee Schedule for Community Development Engineering and Building Services (Continued from 05/14/2024) NEW BUSINESS:

15. Resolution No. 11207 - A Resolution Submitting the Folsom Residents Public Safety and Quality of Life Measure to the Qualified Voters of the City to Add a Special Transactions and Use Tax at the Rate of One Percent (1%), Authorizing the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding the City’s Revenue Measure, and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare an Impartial Analysis for Said Measure

COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

4 CITY MANAGER REPORTS

COUNCIL COMMENTS

ADJOURNMENT

NOTICE: Members of the public are entitled to directly address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address Council on an issue, which is on this agenda, please complete a blue speaker request card, and deliver it to a staff member at the table on the left side of the Council Chambers prior to discussion of the item. When your name is called, stand to be recognized by the Mayor and then proceed to the podium. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item of interest to the public, when the Mayor asks if there is any “Business from the Floor,” follow the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three minutes or less.

NOTICE REGARDING CHALLENGES TO DECISIONS: Pursuant to all applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, California Government Code Section 65009 and or California Public Resources Code Section 21177, if you wish to challenge in court any of the above decisions (regarding planning, zoning and/or environmental decisions), you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this notice/agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.

As presiding officer, the Mayor has the authority to preserve order at all City Council meetings, to remove or cause the removal of any person from any such meeting for disorderly conduct, or for making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks, using profanity, or becoming boisterous, threatening or personally abusive while addressing said Council, and to enforce the rules of the Council.

PERSONS INTERESTED IN PROPOSING AN ITEM FOR THE CITY COUNCIL A GENDA SHOULD CONTACT A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

The meeting of the Folsom City Council is being telecast on Metro Cable TV, Channel 14, the Government Affairs Channel, and will be shown in its entirety on the Friday and Saturday following the meeting, both at 9 a.m. The City does not control scheduling of this telecast and persons interested in watching the televised meeting should confirm this schedule with Metro Cable TV, Channel 14. The City of Folsom provides live and archived webcasts of regular City Council meetings. The webcasts can be found on the online services page of the City's website www.folsom.ca.us.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a person with a disability and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 461-6035, (916) 355-7328 (fax) or [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two full business days before the start of the meeting.

Any documents produced by the City and distributed to the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available at the City Clerk’s Counter at City Hall located at 50 Natoma Street, Folsom, California and at the Folsom Public Library located at 411 Stafford Street, Folsom, California during normal business hours.

City of Folsom
Resolution of Commendation
Celebro:ting
z5 Years of Folsom City Zoo SanctultTVolunteer Senrice
by Docent Sue SPielman
wHEREAS, Sue spielman began volunteering at the Zoo Sanctu ary 25 years ago as a Docent, dedicated to our 6ducational mislion of "Teaching Responsible Behavior Toward AllAnimals;" and
wHEREAS, Sue has cumulatively donated more than 26,500 volunteer hours while consistently going above and beyond in all areas; and
wHEREAS, Sue currenily volunteers as the Docent chairperson overseeing and coordinating school toursior more than 6,500 annual participants and generating over $50,000 in revenue; and
WHEREAS, Sue currenly tracks hours and requirements for all Docents and assists with the uniform ordering Process; and
Sue has served as a Volunteer Animal Handler, Docent Council Treasurer, Vice President, and Friends Liaison; and
Sue also stepped into the suddenly vacant role of Friends of the Zoo Treasurer in 2021 and has been instrumentai in obtaining various permits for fundraising activities and overseeing preparation of the Friends annual budget and tax returns; and
Sue'S unique talents, unwavering support, vast historical zoo knowledge, and creativity to solve extreme challenges have benefited the zoo sanctuary in myriad ways; and
Sue embodies the values of integrity, dedication, and excellence, serving as a role model for her fellow volunteers; and
The Zoo Sanctuary is a better place because of Sue's tireless dedication and passion.

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,
NOW, THEREFORE, l, MIKE KOZLOWSKI, Mayor of the city of Folsom, on behalf of the Folsom City iorn"il and ths residents of this communiiy, do hereby thank volunteer Sue Spielman for Oeing an extremely valuable volunteer to the City of Folsom for 25 years' PASSED AND APPROVED, this 28th day of May 2024'
Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

WHEREAS,

05/28/2024 Item No.1.

This page is intenti,ona.IlA left blank
to facilitate double - side d printing
snd minimize paper ttse.

CITY OF

DISTINCTIVE BY NATURE
FOLSOl\{

05/28/2024 Item No.1.
ilrd_tl,,ft#$jail
p! a:a r itrh $ c{ i *t8', t
Folsom City Council
Staff ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update from Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District representatives. No further action is requested of the Council' Submitted,
Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk
1 MEETING DATE: s12812024
AGENDA SECTION: Scheduled Presentations
SUBJECT: Presentation by the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District
FROM: City Clerk's Department

05/28/2024 Item No.2.

This page is intentiono"IlA left blank
to fo.cilitote double - sided printing
qnd minimize poper ttse.

CtTY OF
DTSTINCTIVE tsY ilATURE
FOLSOl\{

05/28/2024 Item No.2.
rf-',{-ll-#{3ju.
!i s!,.r6rx3t li i.!ti..rJ
Folsom City Council
Staff ort
The City Manager's Fiscal Year 2024-25 proposed budget will be presented. This budget will encompass the l2-month period from July I,2024 through June 30, 2025 and will also include the Capital Improvement Plan.

Submitted,
tacey Tamagni, Finance Director/CFO
I
MEETING DATE: s12812024
AGENDA SECTION: Scheduled Presentations
SUBJECT: Presentation of the City Manager's FY 2024-25 Proposed Operating and Capital Budgets for the City of Folsom, the Successor Agency, the Folsom Public Financing Authority, and the Folsom Ranch Public Financing Authority
F'ROM: Finance Department

05/28/2024 Item No.3.

This page is intentiono,IlA Ieft blsnk
to fo,cilitste double - side d printing
ond minimize poper trse.

CITY OF
DISTINCTIVE BY ilATURE
FOLSOl\{

05/28/2024 Item No.3.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
April23,2024
Gity Council Regular Meeting

MINUTES
Tuesday, April 23,2024 6:30 PM

CALL ORDER
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 6:31 pm with Mayor Mike Kozlowski presiding ROLL CALL:

Councilmembers Present Rosario Rodriguez, Councilmember Anna Rohrbough, Councilmember
Sarah Aquino, Vice Mayor
YK Chalamcherla, Councilmember
Mike Kozlowski, Mayor
Councilmembers Absent: None

PLEDGE OF LLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was recited

AGENDA UPDATE
City Attorney Steven Wang advised that there were additional informational transmittals for items 4, 9, 10 and 11.

Business From the Floor was taken next, out of order
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:

The following speakers addressed the City Council:

1. Charlen Braun

2. Sue Spielman

3. Heidi Hunter

4. Richard Hunter

5. Ruth Anderson

6. Michael Harper

7. Adena Blair
The Consent Calendar was taken next, out of order
Draft - Not Official lJntil Approved by the City Council Page 7

05/28/2024 Item No.4.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
April23,2024
CONSENT CALENDAR:

Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion.

Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion.

5. Approval of April 9,2024 Special and Regular Meeting Minutes

6. Ordinance No. 1343 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Folsom Repealing Chapter

9.64 of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Trespass (Second Reading and Adoption)

7. Resolution No. 11 187 -A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Helix Environmental Planning, lnc. for Environmental Support Services for the Water System Rehabilitation Project No. 1

8. Resolution No. 1 1 188 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Badawi & Associates to provide Audit Services for Three Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2024,2025, and2026
Motion by Councilmember Rodriguez, second by Gouncilmember Ghalamcherla, to approve the Gonsent Galendar. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Aquino, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SGH EDULED PRESENTATIONS:

1. Proclamation of the Mayor of the City of Folsom Proclaiming May 12-18,2024 as National Police Week in the City of Folsom
Mayor Kozlowski presented the proclamation.

Z. Proclamation of the Mayor of the City of Folsom Proclaiming May 19 - May 25, 2024 as National Public Works Week and May 15,2024 as City Works Day
Vice MayorAquino presented the proclamation.

3. presentation from HART of Folsom (Homeless Assistance Resource Team) regarding the Winter Shelter
Bev Siess made a presentation. Liz Ekenstedt, President of HART, spoke and responded to questions from the CitY Council.

Speaker Brynie Voiles addressed the City Council'

4. Police Department Report on Crime and Homelessness and Direction to Staff Police Chief Rick Hillman made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.

The following speakers addressed the City Council:

1. John Tripplett

2. Mike Grueneberg
Droft - Not Officiat tJntil Approved by the City Council Page 2

05/28/2024 Item No.4.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
April23,2024

3. Doug Scalzi

4. Kevin Thompson

5. Bryan Greenwalt

6. Robert Goss

7. Liz Smith

8. Jim Ortega
The City Council commented on this item. City Attorney Steven Wang and Police Chief Rick Hillman responded to further questions and provided additional information.

Motion by Gouncilmember Rohrbbugh, second by Gouncilmember Chalamcherla, for six more officers funded for 24-25 to takl place immediately. Motion failed by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Chalamcherla, Rohrbough,
Rodriguez, Aquino, Kozlowski
None
None
Mayor Kozlowski noted that the general consensus, despite the failed motion, is that the Council deiires to take action with as much haste as possible, with direction that the Gity Manager bring back a budget that, as best as possible, provides for the request from the Police Ghief for a "hot team".

Mayor Kozlowski requested to take a 10 minute break at9'21p.m. and adjourned the meeting temporarily.

The meeting was reconvened at 9:33 p.m.

PUBLT9 HEARING:

L Resolution No. 11186 - A Resolution to Adopt an Amended User Fee Schedule for Community Development Engineering and Building Services
Vice Mayor Aquino made a motion to continue item 9 to the next meeting. Community Development Director pam johns responded that she would like this to be continued to the 0511412A24 City Council meeting.

Motion by Vice Mayor Aquino, second by Councilmember Rodriguez to continue Resolution No. ii186 toine OSll4l2O24 City Council meeting. Motion passed by tfe following roll-callvote:

AYES: Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Aquino, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NEW BUSINESS:

Droft - Not Officiol IJntit Approved by the City Councit Poge 3

05/28/2024 Item No.4.

File 034-2124-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
April23,2024

10. Ordinance No. 1344 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3.50.020,

3.50.040 and 3.50.050 and repealing Section 3.50.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code (lntroduction and First Reading) and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA Vice Mayor Aquino made a motion to continue item 10 to the next meeting. Community Development Director Pam Johns responded that she would like this to be continued to the 0511412024 Cily Council meeting.

Motion by Vice Mayor Aquino, second by Councilmember Rodriguez to continue Ordinance No. 1344 to the 0511412024 City Gouncil meeting. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Aquino, Kozlowski
None
None
None

11. Workshop for Community for Health and lndependence Conceptual Annexation Proposal Community Development Director Pam Johns made a presentation.

The following project representatives addressed the City Council:

1. AKT Development representative Chad Roberts

2. UC Davis Health representatives Dr. Tom Nesbitt and Dr. Heather Young.

3. MacKay and Somps representative Donna Pasquantonio.

4. Dr. Lou Vismara

5. Angelo Tsakopoulos
The City Council commented and Chief Financial Officef Stacey Tamagni responded to questions.

The following speakers addressed the City Council:
. 1. Eileen Locasio

2. Sandra Lunceford

3. Barbara Leary

4. Muriel Brounstein

5. Julian Sarafian

6. Dr. Robert Pieretti

7. Loretta Hettinger
L Mark Wheeler

9. Meghan Rose

10. Leza Coleman

11. Kim Zehring

12. Ann Hutchinson

13. Denise Taylor

14. John Decker

15. Jim Harville
The City Council shared their thoughts and comments on the project. The City Council did not take any action on the proposal.

Droft - Not Official tJntit Approved by the City Councit Page 4

05/28/2024 Item No.4.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
April23,2024

COUNCIL REOUESTS FO FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
No comments due to the late hour

GITY MANAG ER REPORTS
No comments due to the late hour

COUNCIL COMMENTS
No comments due to the late hour

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:17 a.m.

SUBMITTED BY
Jennifer Jimenez, Deputy City Clerk
ATTEST
Mike Kozlowski, Mayor
Draft - Not Official Until Approved by the City Council Poge 5

05/28/2024 Item No.4.

This page is intentiona"Ila left blank
to fo.cilitote double - side d printing
qnd minimize poper ttse.

CITY OF

FOLSONI

05/28/2024 Item No.4.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
May 14,2024
Gity Gouncil Regular Meeting

MINUTES
Tuesday, May 14,2024 6:30 PM

CALL TO ORDER
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 6:31 pm with Mayor Mike Kozlowski presiding ROLL GALL:

Councilmembers Present: Rosario Rodriguez, Councilmember Anna Rohrbough, Councilmember
Sarah Aquino, Vice Mayor
YK Chalamcherla, Councilmember
Mike Kozlowski, Mayor
Councilmembers Absent: None

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was recited.

BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:

The following speakers addressed the City Council
. Sean Martin
. Wendy Sol
o Janelle Marion
o Susan Spielman
e Peggy Plett

AGENDA UPDATE
Assistant City Attorney Sari Dierking advised that staff is requesting that item 5 be continued off calendar and she noted a typo correction to item 15.

SCHEDULED PRESENTATIONS:

1. Proclamation of the Mayor of the City of Folsom Proclaiming May 2024 as NationalWater Safety and Drowning Prevention Month
Mayor Kozlowski presented the proclamation.

Droft-Not Officiol tJntil Approved by the City Council Page L

05/28/2024 Item No.5.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
May 14,2024

2. Folsom Plan Area Semi-Annual Report
Community Development Director Pam Johns and City Engineer Rebecca Neves made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.

3. Central Business District Master Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Report Out Community Development Director Pam Johns introduced City of Folsom planning consultant Kathy Pease and PresidenVCEO of Choose Folsom Joe Gagliardi who made a joint presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.

The following speakers addressed the City Council:
o Bruce Cline
o Dan Dreher

4. Report-Back on April 11,2024 Community Listening Session on Homelessness and Direction to Staff
Mayor Kozlowski made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.

The following speaker addressed the City Council:
o Bruce Cline
The City Council did not take action on this item.

GONSENT CALENDAR:

Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion Councilmembers may pull an item for discussion.

5. Resolution No. 11189 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with NV5 Consultants, lnc. for Owner's Representative Services for the Development of an Energy Savings Conservation Project and Performance Contract and Appropriation of Funds (ltem continued off calendar)

6. Pulled for discussion

7. Pulled for discussion

8. Resolution No. 11 192- A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Deed Transfer of a Portion of Lot 16 Located in Russell Ranch Phase 1 from the City of Folsom to the Russell Ranch Community Association

9. Pulled for discussion

10. Resolution No. 11194 - A Resolution Accepting the California Automated Permit Processing Grant and Appropriation of Funds
1 1. Pulled for discussion
Draft-Not Officiot Until Approved by the City Council Poge 2

05/28/2024 Item No.5.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
May 14,2024

12. Pulled for discussion

13. Resolution No. 11197 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with All-American Construction, lnc. for the Blue Ravine Road Pavement Rehabilitation Phase ll Fiscal Year 2Q23-24 Project 8017 and Appropriation of Funds

14. Pulled for discussion

15. Pulled for discussion

16. Resolution No. 11200 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Site One Landscape Supply for the Purchase and lnstallation of Centralized lrrigation Controllers in Lighting and Landscaping Districts and Community Facilities Districts Motion by Gouncilmember Rodriguez, second by Vice MayorAquino, to approve items 8, {0, 13 and 16. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Aquino, Chalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CONSENT CA ENDAR ITEMS PULLED FOR DISCUSSION:

12. Resolution No. 11196 -A Resolution Authorizing the City Managerto Execute a Purchase Agreement with BSN Sports for Replacement Bleachers at Lembi Softball Complex, and the Sports Fields at Mann and Rodeo Parks, and the Appropriation of Contingency Funds Mayor Kozlowski pulled this item to recuse himself due to his minor business relationship with BSN Sports.

Parks and Recreation Director Kelly Gonzalez responded to questions from the City Council.

Motion by Vice Mayor Aquino, second by Gouncilmember Chalamcherla, to approve Resolution No. 11196. Motion passed by the following roll-callvote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Aquino, Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez
Rohrbough
None
Kozlowski (recused)

6. Resolution No. 1'1190 - A Resolution Accepting a Grant from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and Appropriation of Funds for the Roundabout Policy and Feasibility Study, Project No. PW2403, Federal Project No. 5288(05a)
Councilmember Rohrbough pulled this item to propose that approval be delayed until budget discussions.

Public Works Director Mark Rackovan responded to questions from the City Council.

Droft-Not Officiol lJntil Approved by the City Council Page 3

05/28/2024 Item No.5.

File 034-2124-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
May 14,2024
Motion by Gouncilmember Rohrbough, second by Councilmember Rodriguez, to approve Resolution No. 11190. Motion passed by the following roll-callvote:

AYES: Aquino, Chalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

9. Resolution No. 1 1 193 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Appropriate Funds for the Local Early Action Planning Grant for Additional Permit Center Expenditures Councilmember Rohrbough pulled this item to inquire about the funding allocation.

Community Development Director Pam Johns and Finance Director Stacey Tamagni responded to questions from the City Council.

Motion by Gouncilmember Rohrbough, second by Councilmember Rodriguez, to approve Resolution No. 11193. Motion passed by the following roll-callvote:

AYES: Aquino, Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

7. Resolution No. 11 191 - A Resolution Adopting a List of Projects for Fiscal Year 2024-25 to be Funded by Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act Councilmember Chalamcherla pulled this item to comment regarding identification of projects.

Motion by Vice Mayor Aquino, second by Councilmember Chalamcherla, to approve Resolution No. 11191. Motion passed by the following roll-callvote:

AYES: Aquino, Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

11. Resolution No. 11195 - A Resolution Accepting the Award of American Rescue Plan Act Funds from the County of Sacramento for the HVAC Replacement and Upgrade Projects at the Folsom Community Center and the Folsom Senior and Arts Center and Appropriation of Funds Councilmember Rohrbough pulled this item to inquire how the project was identified for use of ARPA funds.

Parks and Recreation Senior Management Analyst Liz Vaage responded to questions from the City Council.

Droft-Not Officiol lJntil Approved by the City Council Poge 4

05/28/2024 Item No.5.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
MaY 14,2024
Motion by Gouncilmember Rohrbough, second by Councilmember Rodriguez, to approve Resolution No. 11195. Motion passed by the following roll-callvote:

AYES: Aquino, Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

14. Resolution No. 11198 -A Resolution Authorizing the City Managerto Execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Capra Environmental Services Corp for Managed Grazing Services within the City of Folsom
Councilmember Chalamcherla pulled this item for clarification of costs.

Parks and Recreation Municipal Landscape Supervisor Jamison Larson responded to questions from the City Council.

Motion by Gouncilmember Rodriguez, second by Vice Mayor Aquino to approve Resolution No. 11198. Motion passed by the following roll-callvote:

AYES: Aquino, Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

15. Resolution No. 1 1 199 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Purchase of a Chimney Exhaust Fan with Knorr Systems lnc for the lnstructional Pool Heater at the Steve Miklos Aquatics Center and Appropriation of Contingency Funds Motion by Gouncilmember Rohrbough, second by Gouncilmember Rodriguez to approve Resolution No. 11199. Motion passed by the following roll-callvote:

AYES: Aquino, Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
'17. Resolution No. 11186 - A Resolution to Adopt an Amended User Fee Schedule for Community Development Engineering and Building Services (Continued from 0412312024; to be Continued to 05t28t2024)
Motion by Vice Mayor Aquino, second by Mayor Kozlowski to continue the public hearing to the May 28, 2024 City Gouncil meeting. Motion passed by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

Aquino, Ghalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Kozlowski
None
Droft-Not Officiql lJntil Approved by the City Council Poge 5

05/28/2024 Item No.5.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
May 14,2024
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

None
None
NEW BUSINESS:

18. Ordinance No. 1344 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3.50.020,

3.50.040 and 3.50.050 and Repealing Section 3.50.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code (lntroduction and First Reading Continued from 0412312024) and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA
Community Development Department Associate Planner Josh Kinkade made a presentation.

Motion by Vice Mayor Aquino, second Gouncilmember Rodriguez by to introduce Ordinance No. 1344. Motion passed by the following roll-callvote:

AYES: Aquino, Chalamcherla, Rodriguez, Rohrbough, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

19. Ordinance No. 1345 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Folsom Amending Sections

3.20.020,3.20.063, and8.32.140(AX2) of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Billing for Municipal Utility Services (lntroduction and First Reading) Finance Revenue Services Supervisor Elizabeth Hanna made a presentation and responded to questions from the City Council.

Motion by Gouncilmember Rodriguez, second by Vice Mayor Aquino to introduce Ordinance No. 1345. Motion passed by the following roll-callvote:

AYES: Aquino, Ghalamcherla, Rodriguezn Rohrbough, Kozlowski NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
No requests from the City Council.

CITY MANAGER REPORTS
City Manager Elaine Andersen spoke about the Folsom Residents Public Safety and Quality of Life initiative petition, noting that it has qualified for the November 2024 ballot She also mentioned City Works Day, Aquatic Center summer season, dry vegetation and fire hazards, and requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of retired City employee Kent Gary who recently passed away.

COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Rodriguez encouraged public participation in the budget process Draft-Not Officiol Until Approved by the City Council Poge 6

05/28/2024 Item No.5.

File 034-21 24-001
Folsom City Council Minutes
May 14,2024
Councilmember Rohrbough thanked Mayor Kozlowski and Vice Mayor Aquino for the homeless issues listening session and spoke of Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Councilmember Chalamcherla congratulated CAPS volunteers and spoke of the Qualcomm ribbon cutting ceremony, the "l Love My Mom" race, traffic on E. Bidell Street and Highway 50, and the Powerhouse Ministries graduation.

Vice Mayor Aquino spoke about the CAP{o-CAP trip to Washington D.C, Sac Sewer rate increase, the motorcycle challenge event, and she thanked the City Clerk's staff Jennifer Jimenez and Christina Kelley for their great work in the absence of the City Clerk.

Mayor Kozlowski also spoke about the CAP-to-CAP trip, the Vista Del Lago boys track team, attending a Bengali New Year celebration, and the upcoming Folsom rodeo.

ADJOURNMENT
Public Works Director Mark Rackovan spoke about the passing of retired City of Folsom employee Kent Gary.

There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at9:2A pm in memory of Kent Gary.

SUBMITTED BY
Christa Freemantle, City Clerk
ATTEST:

Mike Kozlowski, Mayor
Droft-Not officiol Until Approved by the City Council Page 7

05/28/2024 Item No.5.

This page is intentiona.IlA Ieft blqnk
to fo,cilitqte double - side d printing
snd minimize paper ttse.

CITY OF

DISTINCTIVE BY NATURE
FOLSOl\{

05/28/2024 Item No.5.

Folsom City Council
Staff ort
MEETING DATE: s12812024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 1344 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3.50.020, 3.50.040 and 3.50.050 and
Repealing Section 3.50.060 of the Folsom oal Code
Pertaining to Cost Recovery of Certain City Services (Second Reading and Adoption)
FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Move to conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1344 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3.50.020,3.50.040 and 3.50.050 and repealing Section 3.50.060 of *1s Folsom Municipal Code pertainine to cost recovery of certain CitY services.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Chapter 3.50 "Fee and Service Charge Revenue/Cost Comparison System" of the Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) mandates a specific percentage of costs that are required to be recovered by fees and service charges for development, public safety, recreation, maintenance, administrative and financial services. This list was created based on a cost control system study performed in 1987. The list includes several services that either no longer exist or have been modified substantially since 1987 anddoes not include several newer services that the City has performed since that time. Chapter 3.50 also currently lists the schedule for the review of each fee.

While Council regularly reviews and approves updated fee schedules for individual departments, these fee schedules may include services that are not specifically listed in FMC Chapter 3.50. In addition to the frequency of fee reviews, the Chapter also includes the percentage of cost recovery required for each fee. However, Council may wish to modiff the percentage of cost recovery for certain fees and service charges based on considerations such as community benefit or in support of economic development. Under FMC Chapter 3.50, the Council cannot do this since the chapter lists specific percentages of cost rqcovery that have to be met' I

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

On May 14,2024, the City Council reviewed staff s proposed edits to FMC Chapter 3.50. The City Council did not have any questions for staff and voted (5-0-0-0) to introduce and conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1344 (AnOrdinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3.50.020,

3.50.040 and 3.50.050 and Repealing Section 3.50.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code).

POLICY / RULE
Under Section 2.12 of the City Charter, amendments to the Folsom Municipal Code require review and approval by the City Council.

ANALYSIS
Staff has provided proposed modifications to FMC Chapter 3.50 (provided in Attachments 1 and 2) to remove the schedule of fees and service charges table that lists specific regulations, products or services provided by the City and the percentages of costs reasonably borne by the City to be recovered by those fees. Staff recommends that instead of listing each of these specific facilities, products and services, that the chapter be amended to provide general guidance about fees and the appropriate cost recovery percentage. This provides greater discretion to the Council il for example, it chooses to set a lower cost recovery percentage for a service due to community benefit or economic development reasons. In addition, each department already maintains a Council- approved fee schedule that is publicly available, and these schedules capture each department's actual fee-based regulations, products, facilities, and services. Removing the'opercentage of costs reasonably borne to be resolved" section allows Council to review each department's fee schedule as needed to modifr the percentage of cost recovery desired for each fee (up to 100 percent cost recovery).

In general, staff recommends that Council seek 100 percent cost recovery, but Council may adjust fees to a lower rate attheir discretion. Grounds for reducing fee rates are wide-ranging and could include reasons such as economic development, community benefit, public safety, to encourage the public to obtain permits, and to avoid overburdening the general public with large fees. It would also allow departments to charge flat fees or other fee methods rather than deposit-based fees.

While deposit-based fees ensure full cost recovery for every service, they require additional administrative resources for invoicing, tracking, and collection that many departments, such as Community Development currently lack.

Staff is also recommending removing the language regarding the frequency of fee reviews by Council. The code currently prescribes either annual, quarterly or seasonal reviews. Given the costs and time involved in producing fee studies, these targets have not been achieved. Fee schedules for individual departments often get updated after the department finds that the fees no longer reflect the type or level of work that goes into specific tasks. While it is often best practice to adjust fee levels annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPD or the Construction Cost Index (CCD depending on the type of fee, service or facility provided, it is not necessary to require this as part of the ordinance as there may be times where staff and/or the Council do not wish to make an annual adjustment. Removing the timing mechanism would formally allow Council and the City Manager to decide when fee updates are necessary. 2

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

In researching other jurisdictions with similar code chapters addressing fee and service charge revenue and cost comparison system, none that staff found dictated specific cost recoveries for individual services and only one listed out each individual service provided as Folsom's code currently does. These codes by and large gave Council the discretion to determine specific fee rates to be collected (not exceeding 100% cost recovery) and did not prescribe the frequency with which fees need to be reviewed. As such, staff found that the proposed code modifications would be consistent with the current practices of several other jurisdictions.

X'INANCIAI,IMPACT
Since the changes to Chapter 3.50 of the FMC still stipulate that the City Council shall generally seek 100 percent cost recovery for City services and this ordinance does not change any specific fee amounts, there is no impact to the General Fund. The proposed modifications to Chapter 3.50 of the FMC would let Council establish new fee and service charge types for any additional services the City provides. It would also allow Council to regularly modifr the percentage of cost recovery of each fee and service charge type on a frequency of their choice based on updated economic conditions rather than relying on cost recovery and review targets from 1987.

AL REVIEW
The change to this chapter of the Folsom Municipal Code is not a project under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) - Review for Exemption of the CEQA Guidelines.

ATTACHMENTS
I Ordinance No. 1344 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3.50.020,

3.50.040 and 3.50.050 and repealing Section 3.50.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Cost Recovery of Certain City Services

2. Ordinance No. 1344 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3.50.020,

3.50.040 and 3.50.050 and repealing Section 3.50.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Cost Recovery of Certain City Services (Redlined Version)

3. Public Comments Received
Submitted,

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
aJ

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 1344 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
FOLSOM AMENDING SECTIONS 3.50.020,3.50.040 AND 3.50.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 3.50.060 OF THE FOLSOM

MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COST RECOVERY OF

CERTAIN CITY SERVICES

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

ORDINANCE NO. 1344
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SECTIONS 3.50.020,

3.50.040 AND 3.50.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 3.50.060 OF THE FOLSOM

MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COST RECOVERY OF CERTAIN CITY

SERVICES
The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Folsom Municipal Code to remove the specific list ofservices and percentage ofcosts reasonably borne to be resolved from fees for those services and instead give City Council the discretion to determine specific services and associated cost recovery goals.

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.50.020 OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 3.50.020 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

3.50.020 Direction to recover costs.

The amount of fees and charges established under this Chapter shall be sufficient to recover a percentage of the costs reasonably borne in providing the services for which the fees and charges are imposed. Costs reasonably borne shall be as are defined in Section 3.50.030. The percentage of the cost to be recovered by the fee shall be at the sole discretion of the council but shall not exceed 100 percent, as set forth by Section 3.50.040 below.

SECTION 3 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.50.040 OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 3.50.040 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

3.50.040 Schedule of fees and service charges.

The city council shall periodically review and make adjustments to all services provided by the various city departments to all users and the fees and charges associated with those services. The city council shall generally seek 100 percent cost recovery for these services but may, at its sole discretion, adjust fees and charges to a level below full cost recovery for reasons of economic development, community benefit, or for any other lawful pu{pose.

All new or increased fees and charges set pursuant to this section shall take effect ten days after adoption by the city council, except that new or increased development impact fee or charge for processing applications for development projects shall take effect sixty days after adoption.

Ordinance No. 1344
Page I of3 Page 29
05/28/2024 Item No.6.

SECTION 4 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.50.050 OF' THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 3.50.050 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

3.50.050 Statutory public meeting.

Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66016 et seq., the city clerk shall cause notice to be provided as set out in said Government Code Sections 66016 and 6062a concerning the fees and charges proposed to be increased or added. Such public meeting notice shall be provided prior to city council taking any action on any new or increased fees or charges.

SECTION 5 REPEAL OF' SECTION 3.50.060 OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE Section 3.50.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety.

SECTION 6 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 7 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the factthat any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 8 EF'F'ECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage and adoption, provided it is published in full or in summary within twenty (20) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 14, 2024 and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 28,2024.

On a motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom, State of California, this 28th day of May,2024, by the following roll-call vote AYES:

NOES:

Ordinance No. 1344
Page2 of3
Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 1344

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. 1344 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
FOLSOM AMENDING SECTIONS 3.50.020,3.50.040 AND 3.50.050 AND RBPEALING SECTION 3.50.060 OF THE FOLSOM

MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COST RECOVERY OF'

CERTAIN CITY SERVICES (REDLINED VERSION)

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

ORDINANCE NO. 1344
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SECTIONS 3.50.020,

3.50.040 AND 3.50.050 AND REPEALING SECTION 3.50.060 OF THE FOLSOM

MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO COST RECOVERY OF'CERTAIN CITY

SERVICES (REDLINED VERSION)
The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Folsom Municipal Code to remove the specific list of services and percentage of costs reasonably borne to be resolved from fees for those services and instead give City Council the discretion to determine specific services and associated cost recovery goals.

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.50.020 OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 3.50.020 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows

3.50.020 Direction to eiff-ma**ger recover costs.

The eity *anager is hereby direeted te reeemmend te the eeuneil the adjnst*ent amount of fees and charges established under this Chanter shall be sufficient to recover a the percentage of!@costsreasonablybomeinprovidingthe@servicesforwhichthe fees and charges are imposed
. Costs reasonably borne shall be as are
defined in Section 3.50.030.
bv the fee shall be at the sole discretion of the council but shall not exceed 100 nercent. as set forth by Section 3.50.040 below.

SECTION 3 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.50.040 OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 3.50.040 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

3.50.040 Schedule of fees and service charges.

The city council €itt'm&nagerr and e&
eiry-man*gor, shall periodically review and make adiustments to all services provided bv the various citv denartments to all users the fees and charses associated with those services. The city council shall qenerallv seek 100 percent cost recoverv for these services but mav" at its sole discretion. adiust fees and charges to a level below full cost recovery for reasons of ent. communitv benefit, or for any other lawful nurnose. the Ordinance No. 1344
Page I of l0 Page 33
05/28/2024 Item No.6.
repe* any new er aejus
p+eg*e+versen*ee*
iee
Bevelepmen+Seneiees
+@iew
+@ine
+@ien
a@ien
+ Resale+nspe*ien
6@ien
+@ier
&@iew
I Varianee Review
f+ Si+e+esign-Re{ri€{v
4+ Uh€+levi€{nr
#L PUID+€+i€{nr
+&Wie*
14Wiew
++ Speeif,e-Pla+**ie*
+C ie*
1+@ie+
+e@ie*
#l- ierr
?e@iew
?t ie*
2;t iew
2+ ien
Re+i€t#
?4 S*reefN*me-Re*ie*
?+ Fina+A4*peheek
Ordinance No. 1344

Re{ri€{#
Sehedule
1&%
10095
+gge/t
+s096
l0Qe/D
r00s6
+gQe/E
+g0e/0
L{i)%
|U%
+e0%
+00ryo
+00e/D
+00 D
IM
+ggeh
+gge/t
+00eh
4M
+$geh
+0ge/t
+0M
1e0%
Annu*t
Annu*I
A,nn**t
Annunl
Ann*al
Annu*l
Annr**l
Annuct
Anau*l
A.*nrral
Ann*d
Annu*l
Ann*al
Annu*I
AnruaI
AnnuC
An*ual
Annual
Ann**l
,{nn**l
AnmrC
Ann*al
Ann*al
Annuel
.{nnuC
[4i)%
+g0eh

05/28/2024 Item No.6.
?CM
?+@ietv
?e Sign-DesigtRwi€{#
2'* General+lan+wie*
3G ien
3tMiew
g+@i$sioft
Re{ri€w
-
U*eUing
S+@ie*
.

PweUing
3A
Revi€+v
3+
ffi
36 iee
3+Wiew
3& iew
3+
ae@ien
a+@ien
a+ S*eet€u+{nspee+ie*
a+ ie*
aa
l*spee+ien
a+
PutUeSa+eqFseryi€es
4cffi
a+@
4&ffi
Ordinance No. 1344

, +gge/t
\M
+00e/o
+Oee/D
TM
t00e4.
+00e/i
+Ueh:

Annu*l
.Annual
Anru*l
A,nnual
,{nru*l
A,nnual
Ann*al
A,nnl*C
Ann*d
A,nnu*l
Annucl
Annual
Annual
A,nnuC
+""*.t
Annunl
A,nnual
Annrld
A.nn*al
Annu*l
,{nrual
Ann+al
Annu*I
Anrud
Annu*I
Annu*I
+$Qe/o
+Uela
+$ge/o
lO$elt
IOAe/o
gelo
l00e/t
+$ge/o
+09ryo
+00e/t
t&%
+g0e/t
l$Qe/t
+00ryo
+g0e/t
5ge/0
+eSe/o
50e/t

05/28/2024 Item No.6.
4*
5e@ien
5+ *ingo+egula+io"
5+ Blas+ing+e+i€{#
5+@ien
5A
5+
S+a+e-La*
56@ien
s+W
5&
5q

60. 6t Vehiek+*spe*ien
6+@
6+@
6+ ien
6+@ien
66Miew
6+@ieas
e6& Fire+eper+S*les
6+ FireSal+"gesenri€e
7e Ls+€le*ning
Tt iee
- Attothers
7+@
++
+a@
7*
Reereatien-Se*iees
+c
- Nsn-Residen+
Ordinance No. 1344

+0Qe/o
+$Qe/t
L4i0%
+00e/o
+e0%
1&%
+0Qe/o
A.nn*al
A,nnual
Annud
Annu*l
Annl**l
A,nn*C
Annu+l
Annu*l
Ann*al
Annr*l
Annunl
rA.nn**l
Ann**l
Annu*l
An*ual
Ann*al
Ann*al
Annud
Annu*l
Annud
Annu*I
Ann*C
A,nnu*l
An*u*l
Annu*l
Annual
Ann*al
Annual
aua*erty
au**erty
+gge/t
+00e/t
+00ryo
+00e/D
+QQq/'
lg0e/t
1e0%
+00e/o
+gge/t
25 lo
+e0%
+ggs/t
IW
+00e/D
+00e/0
+gge/,
7sq/o
+0Qe/0
25e/t
L4ic.%
+0Qe/t
seeA.
+0ee/a

05/28/2024 Item No.6.
7+
- NerResident
+g
- Non'Resident
++@
- Ne*Residen+
8+@
- Nen-Residen+
8+
- NerResiden+
8+
- Nen-Residen+
*8+@
*8a@
8+@
86 Trips-*n++eurs
- Nen-Residen+
*S+@ien
*S& ien

49. Jub-a€elebrtfios
ry+@ien
!)t Flea-A4mlre+
9+
gpern+ien
- Ne+Residen+
9+
- Nen-Residen+
9+@iens
M*in+en**ee-Sewiees
9*M
+c
Ordinance No. 1344

7svo
+$ge/o
7sYo
+$0ela
sge/t
t$M
50e/o
+M%
sge/o
+$Qe/D
ffi
+00e/o
ffi
sge/t
+00e/t
s0e/o
l4iD%
0elo
50e/o
M
M
x%
M
qselo
M
$0e/o
SAeh
au**erty
aua*erlf
aua*erly
au**erty
Seasen*lty
Seasen*lty
Seasen*lty
Semen*tty
Se*senatty
Seasen*lty
Seasenalty
Sea*enatty
A,nnU*I
Annu*l
An*ual
Seasenatty
Seasen*lty
Annu*l
A,nn*al
.{nnud
Annual
,{nnu*I
A,n**al
A.nnr*l
Annu*l
Ann**t
An*u*l
+0Qe/E Ann**l

05/28/2024 Item No.6.
- +*Sust-1;1988
- **eus+1;4989
- +ueuslfi990
- -+ueus+++99+
- +r*gu$trH992
9+ ien
- A.ugus+lr-1988
- +ueus#t_1989
- Lusus#LJg90
-,q'ugrrs+lJgA+
- +ueus#H992
9&
Dis+riet)
- +t*$s+H988
- Lueus+l,_1g8g
- Adr#s+15+990
- +rreus#L;199+
- +ueus+H992
9q S*ee+Sweepi+S
- Ma''+t+988
MsylrlgSg
lee
- A.ugus+15+988
- +*eus+tJgSg
- ,la*gus+1-r{990
A.ugus+lr+991
- A.u$s+15+99?
l+t
@
Ordinance No. 1344

0%
2%
sUV.
7sYo
+g0e/o
M
A%
W.
7sYo
+A0e/'
M
w
509,
71Vo
+Ory/o
50e/t
+A0e/o
0%
M
*%
1svo
+00%
+gAe/D
A,nnU*l
Ann**t
A.nnuel
Ann*al
A.nnual
Annrat
A,n***l
"{nn*al
Annuct
A.nn*d
An*u*l
'Annuat
Ann*al
A,nrlr*l
,{nnu*l
A*nu*l
A.nnual
An*ud
Annuat
,+nn*cl
A,nn**l
*nnu*I
Annr*t

05/28/2024 Item No.6.
+g+ ion
Pis*ie+9
103. Wrter Serviee
- PeeemUert-r+q88
- Peeemterl-r++99
- Peeember-l-r++q0
r+a
10+ Woter Tlrrn eff/en Seffi€e
r+6
107, SernerSe*iee
- +er++-,++gS
- +e+i++,+989
- Aprillr+gge
- +e++l-,+991
A.prillr+99z
10& Refuse$ewiee
- +une-f,++98
- +une4+q89
- +une-f;f++g
+0q@
*+++ Transit Serviee
eH+ffi
1+;1,
lnspeetien
11*ffiiee
r+a
iees
+++ ien
++6@
l17,Ale*Brrsirtess-LieenseR#ierv
14&ffiien
Ordinance No. 1344

+Oge/o
TgYo
8,5e/o
lM
1+ee/0
+gOe/o
+g0e/E
sge/o
M
71Vo
g0e/t
lg0e/t
750/o
ggeh
+00e/t
+AQe/E
90e/t
75e/"
+ege/o
+g0e/o
tN%
+g0e/o
100%
+gge/t
1#%
A,nnUAl
Annual
Annud
ra,nnlral
Annucl
Amrral
Annu*I
Ann*al
A*nual
Annu*I
Ann*al
A,nnual
Annunt
Annual
A*n**l
A,nnual
Annrd
Ann**l
Ann*al
A.nn*al
Annu*l
,{nnu*l
A,nn*C
Annual
Anmr*l

05/28/2024 Item No.6.
1{J). A,rena-Ren+*l
#lg iee
*121,
#l;l.Miee
#l* iee
#lA {Jnspeeif,ed€eneiee
#15; Nerv$€nriee
S0e/t
L{iD%
+00%
lg0e/o
+e094
$Aela
l00e4.
,{nnu*l
Ann*al
A,nDrr*t
Annual
Ann**t
A,nnU*l
Anns*t
* AMinimurn fee ef $10.00 shall be eharged in all instanees exeept in the eases ef numUers ggr S3r STt
The hereinabeve serviees as liste*in this seetien are-detined in thnt eertnin deeument entitled Cest Centrel System fer the €ity ef X'elsern dated Deeernber 29; 1987; as predueed by Managenrent Serviees Institute; ineerperated; and as updated by ei* steff.

The sehedule ef freqneney ef reiiew ef fee ndjustments may be varied by the eity manager te adjust revenues suffieient te meet debt seryiee eeverage requirements ef any bendi ies
The sehedule ef freqneney ef fee ndjnstments may be varied bt the eity mannger; if; in his iudgment end that o
All new or increased fees and charges set pursuant to this section shall take effect ten days after adoption bv the city council" except that new or increased development impact fee or charge for nrocessins annlications for development nroiects shall take effect sixtv davs after adoption. hes pesseC reso isiens
.

The sehedule ef freqneney ef rnte *djnstrnents may be v*ried by the eiff rnnnnger te adjnst treguen€y ef rete edjus
+e88)
SECTION 4 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.50.050 OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 3.50.050 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows Ordinance No. 1344

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

3.50.050 Statutory public meeting.

Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 54992-54994,I ffie549944 66016 et seq., the city clerk shall cause notice to be provided as set out in said Government Code Sections 5W+ 66016 and6062a
presen+e+iens concerning the fees and charges proposed to be increased or added. Such p!!!g meeting noticers+*l-*nd-r*ri i shall be provided by-the eiqFeouneil prior to city council taking any action on any new or increased fees or charges. '{tinfin @
SECTION 5 REPEAL OF SECTION 3.50.060 OF' THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE Section 3.50.060 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety.

SECTION 6 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 7 SEVERABILITY
Ifany section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 8 EF'F'ECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage and adoption, provided it is published in full or in summary within twenty (20) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 14, 2024 and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 28,2024.

On a motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom, State of California, this 28th day of May,2024, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

Ordinance No, 1344

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 1344

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

ATTACHMENT 3

PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

From: Bob Detp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14,2024 8:45 AM
To: Christa Freemantte <[email protected]>; City Cterk Dept <CityCl.erkDept@fol,som.ca.us>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chatamcherta <[email protected]>; Anna Rohrbough <[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]> Cc: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Stacey Tamagni <[email protected]>; Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Steven Wang <[email protected]> Subject: Comments to Counci[ re 5-14-24 Agenda ]tem 18 - Service Fees CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not ctick links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

For distribution to the City Counci[:

As with my correspondence to the Counci[ on April 23 (betow) and with att due respect for the Community Devetopment Director, I continue to urge the Council. to reject the Community Devetopment Department's (CDD's) proposed amendment/repeat of FMC 3.50 provisions pertaining to service fees and cost recovery. The fee structure of the existing ordinance identif ies 125 categories of fees and the percentage of cost recovery that the City is to achieve for each category. The City has neglected to implement and update fees as needed to obtain the FMC 3.50-required cost recovery; however, that is not a deficiency of FMC 3.50, it is a deficiency in the implementation of FMC 3.50. That deficiency is continuing to drain the City's Generat Fund by improperly subsidizing individuals, business, and devetopment interests util.izing CDD services. lt is time for that practice to stop and for the Cityto update its fees and implement FMC 3.50's directives. lnstead, CDD continues to postpone bringing a fee update to the Council and recommends gutting FMC 3.50 to etiminate a[[ fee categories and respective designated cost recovery percentages. CDD's recommendation does not provide an atternative fee structure and kicks that can down the road white continuing to divert GeneraI Fund dottars to devetopment services and away from other important City priorities.

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

On March 12, the Councit heard a presentation from staff and a consuttant that was hired bythe Cityto prepare a fee study. Staff and the consuttant did not discuss FMC 3.50 provisions, and it is atmost as if staff and the consuttant were simpty unaware of the existence of FMC 3.50. Now CDD suggests that FMC 3.50 be gutted to eliminate its fundamentat substance. CDD's rationale does not hotd water. Staff suggests that FMC

3.50 shoutd be gutted because its l,ist of categories inctudes some services that no longer exist and does not inctude some services that now exist. White that is good reason to update the tist of categofies, it is not a reason to etiminate atl of the categories. Staff further suggests that FMC 3.50 shoutd be gutted because the Councit maywish to modify the percentage of cost recovery for certain categories. Yet, the CounciI has the abiLity to refine and modify the categories and percentages in FMC 3.50 through a pubtic process anytime the CounciI chooses to do so. Etiminatingthe categories and percent recovery structure of FMC 3.50 woutd create a witd-west fee structure requiring this and future Counci['s to continuousl,y consider and debate over the cost recovery percentages for some 125 categories of service fees.

Keeping FMC 3.50 intact white making timited refinements to the categories and recovery percentages woutd be a sound approach, whereas, etiminating the FMC 3.50 categories and cost recovery percentages is bizarre, reckless, and fiscalty unsound. Ptease reject this proposal and direct CDD to 1) return with a more discretety amended FMC 3.50 addressing specific category and percentage amendments, 2) return with a fee adjustment proposats so the Councit can adopt updated fees and stop the drain on the General Fund, and 3) imptement the futt/actuaI cost recovery for development services as prescribed in the attached 201 1 -adopted-but-never-i mptemented resotution.

Thankyou for considering my comments.

Bob Detp
916-812-8122
[email protected]

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Desmond Parrinqton
From:

Sent:
lo:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Tuesday, April 23, 2024 11:20 AM
Mike Kozlowski; Sarah Aquino; YK Chalamcherla; Anna Rohrbough; Rosario Rodriguez; City Clerk Dept
Elaine Andersen; Pam Johns; Steven Wang; Desmond Parrington; Christa Freemantle Comments to Council re 4-23-24 Agenda ltems 9 and 10
Planning Fees CC 3-08-1 1.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

On April 19, the City distributed an email newsletter with a headline "FOLSOM FACES FISCAI CROSSROADS:

Ct1y COUNCIL DIRECTS BUDGET EDUCATION PROGRAM", followed by an article warning that, 'The city is facing a financial shortfallthat could impact public safety, public services, and the quality of life in Folsom. ... Amidst the projected structural deficit, the city faces compounding infrastructure and building maintenance needs that require a dedicated funding source. There is an estimated S20 million annual shortfall in funding for infrastructure improvements, park and facility repairs, equipment maintenance and replacements, trail maintenance and repairs, and staffing needs." Yet, in the midst of this dire financial reality, City staff is recommending the continued and expanded use of the General Fund to subsidize the cost for the City's processing of private applications for permits and other entitlements. For ltem 9 on your 4/23/2024 agenda, I urge the Council to direct staff to revise and return with a full fee schedule for Development Services funding that achieves fee recovery for all services at the percentages specified in the existing FMC section 3,50. For agenda ltem L0, I urge the Council to reject staffs' recommended amendments to FMC 3.50 and leave FMC 3.50's sound fiscal policy directives in place. Staffs' recommendations would increase use of the General Fund to subsidize private development proposals, diverting those funds from important public safety, public services, and quality of life programs that are hallmarks of the City of Folsom.

At its March 12 meeting, the Council heard a presentation from staff and its consultant regarding fee schedules for Community Development services. Although some questions were asked and concerns expressed regarding certain fees, I heard no one suggest that the City should not strive to comply with the existing FMC 3.50 provisions that direct the City Manager to recover costs at the percentages outlined in the FMC 3.50.040 Schedule of Fees and Service Charges and I heard no one suggest that the existing FMC 3.50.040 fee percentages should be eliminated. Further, documentation for and discussion during the March 12 meeting acknowledged that the City's fee structure has not been achieving the required cost recovery and that increasing the fees to be at least more in-line with FMC 3.50 requirements is necessary to minimize impacts on the City's General Fund.

Now, just a few weeks later, staff has modified the proposed fee schedule (Agenda ltem 9) recommending that the Council adopt a fee schedule revision limited to certain engineering and building permits while leaving all other fees unadjusted, including those known to be clearly insuffici6nt for funding the City's costs and complying with FMC 3.50. Moreover, staff now also recommends (Agenda ltem 10)that FMC 3.50 be revised to eliminate the existing requirement to achieve specific cost recovery percentages.

05/28/2024 Item No.6.
ls this what the Council wants; to continue insufficient recovery of costs for development application processing and building permits and to continue to shift that burden onto Folsom's citizenry by robbing the General Fund?
I hope staff has read the Council wrong on this one and that the Council will reject staff's proposals and direct staff to return with a fee schedule that fully recovers development/permit application processing and one that includes provisions to implement the full cost recovery program requested by staff and approved by the Council in 2OII (attached) that after 13 years is still sitting on the sidelines waiting to be implemented' Thank you for considering my input.

Bob Detp
916-812-8122
bdelo@[ive.com
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12,2024 9:56 AM
To: Mike Kozlowski<[email protected]>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <[email protected]>; YK Chalaincherla <[email protected]>; Anna Rohrbough <annar@folsom'ca.us>; Christa Freemantle <[email protected]'us>
Cc: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Steven Wang <[email protected]>; Sari Dierking <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Desmond Parrington <dparrington@folsom'ca'us> Subject: Comments to Council re 3-t2-24 Agenda ltem 5 - Planning Fees For distribution to City Council:

Dear Council
Regarding agenda item 5 of tonight's City Council meeting, this message is to urge the City Council to direct staff to implement a full cost recovery program for processing development applications consistent with the process described in the attached March 2,}OI.L, staff report and adopted by the Folsom City Council in 2011 through Resolution 8801 (attached). Through such a process, individual applicants would pay for the actual and full cost for processing their individual applications - neither subsidizing nor being subsidized by other applicants and without being subsidized by the City's General Fund. ln 2O1t,the Community Development Department and City Council wisely determined that through implementation of a full cost recovery system for application processing, the Cily "would protect its Generol Fund monies from subsidizing private development opplications." Staff's 2011analysis of the financial impact of the full cost recovery program found that, "Ihe cost recovery progrqm would ollow the City to more accurately cover the actuol costs for development permits from the appliconts. Although the octuol savings to the General Fund ore connot be quantified, this fee recovery program will result in o positive impact to the General Fund and provide direct costs charges to contribute to the Generol Fund to more occurately fund development processing costs." Staff's basis for its 20i-1 recommendation concisely described the situation that existed then and that still persists today, noting, "the ronge of complexity in development applications can vary widely and some proiects can remain "ective" or "in process" for years becouse proiects are substantially revised and resubmitted (sometimes with years passing in between) in an ottempt by appliconts to obtoin City approval' 2

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Staff sometimes must effectively begin processing all over with each resubmittal but is unoble to request new project fees because the project is still technically active. lt is these types of proiects that stoff seeks to target to ensure that staff costs are fully recovered." These persisting circumstances beg for a system based on actual costs, not flat fees.

Yet, the system requested by CDD and approved by the Council in 2011 still has not been implemented and CDD's current 3/12/24 staff report to the Council for agenda item 5 of tonight's meeting provides a recommendation predominated by "flat fees" which are inherently inequitable and a drain on the City's resources. The current staff report makes no mention of the 20L1 Resolution and provides no compelling rationale for abandoning the sound approach that the Council directed be implemented in 2011.

Please direct staff to fulfill the directives of Resolution 8801 and implement the full cost recovery system for development application processing that requires individual applicants to fully fund the costs of processing their applications.

Thank you for considering my input
Bob Delp
9L6-8L2-8122
[email protected]
From: Qob Delp <bdelp@live,com>
Sent: Monday, November 15,202111:12 AM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>
Cc: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Steven Wang <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Sari Dierking <[email protected]>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Sarah Aquino <saquino@folsom,ca.us>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Funding for Development Application Processing Thanks, Pam. I appreciate the response, but what you describe doesn't strike me as being consistent with the directionofthe20LLresolution. Youstatethatstaffdoesn'thavethediscretiontochargemorethanthefees set bythe counseleven if a project exceeds that cost, however, my read of the 20ll resolution isthat if a full cost recovery project was being implemented as directed by that resolution, staff would not just have the authority but would also have the obligation to charge an applicant for the actual cost, including City Attorney fees, instead of subsidizing the private project's costs.

I know you'll have your hands full with other things this week, but I (and others) would like more clarity on this. Maybe in the next few weeks you could provide an example of how you track staff time/costs for application projects - perhaps Folsom Prison Brews/Barley Barn since it's a good example of the type of project described in the 20L1 staff report requesting the full cost recovery program (l previously submitted a public records request for that project, but I don't recallthat any of the documents I received had any records of staff time or of applicant payments).

Thanks,
-Bob
3

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Bob Detp
916-812-8122
[email protected]
From: Pam Johns <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 15,202110:05 AM
To: Bob Delp <bdelp@live,com>
Cc: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>; Steven Wang <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <sjohnson @folsom.ca.us>
Subject: RE: Funding for Development Application Processing Hi Bob,
l'm just back from unexpected leave and wanted to follow up on your email.

Development processing fees are set by the City Council in an amount that cannot exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service. Accordingly, and generally speaking, staff does not have discretion to charge more than the fees set by the Council even if a particular application takes more time to process than others. Overall, planners and engineers in Community Development track their time working on development applications and also to properly account for deposit-based fees. When it appears that the fees set by the City Council no longer reflect the reasonable cost of providing the service, staff would recommend that the fees be re-evaluated and adjusted' Pam
Pam Johns
Community Development Director
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 5:01 PM
To: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Cc: Pam Johns <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <sjohnson@folsom,ca.us>; Rosario Rodriguez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sarah Aquino <saquino@folsom'ca.us>; Mike Kozlowski <[email protected]>; YK Chalamcherla <[email protected],us>; Christa Freemantle <cfreema [email protected]. us>
Subject: Fw: Funding for Development Application Processing Ms. Andersen:

City Council Resolution 8801of 20L1 is attached with the associated March 2,20tL staff report, as provided to me byScottJohnson on October 6,2021,. Mr. Joh.nson was respondingto myOct l request (in string below) for information regarding funding for development applications. Neither Mr. Johnson nor Ms. Johns have yet been able to tell me if or how the Community Development Department has implemented the full cost recovery program for staff time as directed by the Council in Reso 8801. lf such a program is not in place, then taxpaying members of this community have been subsidizing what I expect would amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars of staff time and expenses associated with processing private development applications over the past 10 years when, instead, as directed by the City Council in 20!L, those costs should have been directly paid for by applicants' 4

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

I am asking that you investigate, provide an explanation to the community, and address this matter as a top priority and that you direct staff to immediately suspend any further processing of current and future applications until a reimbursement agreement for full cost recover is in place.

Thank you,
-Bob Delp
Bob Delp
916-8r2-8t22
[email protected]
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October L7, 2021 7 :34 PM
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Pam Johns <pjgll-N@lg]ry5> Cc: Elaine Andersen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Funding for Development Application Processing Hi, Pam and Scott (Elaine now cc'd). l'm concerned that you haven't yet been able to confirm that the full cost recovery system is in place and being implemented, This is likely a matter of tens of thousands of dollars each year for staff costs that - based on city council 2011 direction - should be covered by applicant reimbursements. Please confirm ASAP that the system is in place.
-Bob
916-812-8122
[email protected]
On Oct 6,202L, at 8:59 PM, Bob Delp <[email protected]) wrote:

Thanks, Scott. The key thing I see from the 2011 staff report and resolution is the council's direction for staff to implement a full cost recovery fee system. The staff report describes precisely the type of situation I was asking about and seems to provide a clear remedy - full cost recovery, Was that full cost recovery system implemented and where would I find a description of how it's implemented? -Bob
916-812-8122
[email protected]
On Oct 6,202!, at 9:36 PM, Scott Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Delp,
Attached is the staff report and resolution adopted by the City Council on 3-08-11 relative to Planning Fees. Approval of this resolution changed our fee structure for planning services to be deposit based for the majority of entitlements.

Scott A. lohnson, AICP
Planning Manager
From: Pam Johns <BigLpE@f@>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5,2021' 1:17 PM
To: Bob Delp <bdelp@live,com>
5

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Cc: Scott Johnson <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Funding for Development Application Processing Hi Bob
l've copied Scott Johnson here so he can respond or call you about our planning entitlement fee structure. Thank you.

Pam
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5,2021 11:50 AM
To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Funding for Development Application Processing Thanks, Pam. That's good to know and answers part of my question. But I'm also interested in knowing if staff time/costs are tracked and reimbursed by applicants. ln particular, projects like 603 Sutter Street and 608 1/2 Sutter Street (Catchy-Name-Here Brews) have been submitted with substantialstaff time invested in reviews, preparing staff reports, preparing for hearings, etc., but then the applicants have decided to pull back the projects and make substantial revisions. I'm sure that even a once-through application requires substantial staff time, and layering in multiple rounds obviously then takes that much more time. So I'm interested in knowing if applicants are funding staff costs for their projects or if I and other taxpayers are paying for staff time to review private projects.

Bob Delp
9t6-812-8122
[email protected]
From: Pam Johns <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5,202LIL:22 AM
To: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Funding for Development Application Processing Hi Bob,
Consultant costs are covered entirely by applicant. Contracts are run through the City because we manage the consultant work consistent with approved scopes of work, Just like any city-run project, any cost overages by a consultant for work that is out of scope must be approved by the city in advance of the work and additional costs are the responsibility of the developer. Does that answer your question? Pam
From: Bob Delp <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 1',202L 10:46 AM
6

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

To: Pam Johns <[email protected]>
Subiect: Funding for Development Application Processing Pam:

I'm interested in understanding the source of funding for City and any City- retained consultant costs associated with your Department's review of development projects. I know there are established fees for certain project types, but I also know that the actual time/cost can be much higher than those fees would cover. Does the City absorb that cost or do you require reimbursement agreements with applicants for them to cover the actual cost? Thanks,
-Bob
Bob Delp
916-812-8122
[email protected]
<Planning Fees CC 3-08-11.pdf>
7

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING
Agenda ltem No.: 8a
GG Mtg.: Ogl0gl2011
March 2,201'I
Mayor and City Council Members
David E. Miller, AICP, Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 8801 - A RESOLUTION MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 83OI TO CONVERT NOTED PLANNING FEES TO DEPOSITS AND

DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM FOR FULL COST

PLANNING SERVICE FEES

BACKGROUND /ISSUE
rr'@erviceFeeswerelastupdatedinoctober2008.Thefeesgenerally reflect the average cost to provide development application processing services. However, the range of compleiity in devilopment applications can vary widely and some projects can remain ..act-ive,' or .tn process" for years because projects are substantially revised and resubmitted (sometimes withyears passing in between) in an atternpt by applicants to obtain City approval.

Staff sometimes must elfectively begin processing all over with each resubmittal but is unable to request new project fees because the project is still technically active. It is these tlpes ofprojects that staff seeks to target to ensure that staff costs are fully recovered. As the Council is well aware, in our current fiscal climate the General Fund is unable to cover any unnecessary development seruice related costs.

Another major issue associated with development application fees is the continuing reduction in General Fund revenues. Over the past three years, the City's General Fund expenses have exceeded the General Fund revenue by approximately $13 million. The City's General Fund cannot subsidize development applications. Civen significant increases in productivity and expediting development permits, the expense to process development permits has dropped in *uny "urir. Nevinheleis, the General Fund continues to significantly subsidize development permit activity.

Therefore, staff is proposing to implement a program where staff would track time spent on each planning application and begin charging applicants monthly if and when the application fees i"r" "*i"ed"d. In addition, a fee would be implemented to cover planning stafftime to review building permits. In this manner, the City would protect its General Fund monies from subsidizing private development applications.

P_qLICY / RULE
FffiiffiEii coar section 3.50.020 directs the city Manager to recommend to the council thr rdJ"rt*ettt- of fees and charges to recover the percentage of costs reasonably bome in providing the regulation, products or services enumerated in Chapter 3.50.

I 000001Page 53
05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.030 provides direction on calculating "costs reasonably b"*." t" ir"l"d" the following elements: direct costs (wages, overtime, benefits, overhead, etc), inJi.""t costs (building maint-nance, computers, printing, etc.), fixed assets, general overhead, department overhead, and any debt service costs'
Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.040 requires fee adjustments be approved by the City C**i1 ft "l* rp""lfio the percentage of City service costs to be recovered through fees. The majority of planning Service Fees are directed to be 100% cost recoverable through its fee structuie. Building permit fees are also directed to be 100% cost recovered.

AI\ALYSIS
st"ff ,"***ends that the city council direct staff to implernent a fulI cost recovery program modeled after one that's been used by the City of Roseville Planning and Redevelopment Department since 2003. The following is the proposed program outline:

Base Cost
The base cost for processing a full cost application represents the minimum amount of staff time invested by City staff. This base cost is determined by an analysis of actual costs and is non-refundable. Staff recommends that Folsom's existing fee structure adopted October 1, 2008 be used as this base cost so that no new costly analysis process is required.

Proiect Initiation
Concurrent wittr the start-up of a project, the applicant enters into an agreement for full cost billing. Per this agreement, the applicant would pay the base costs associated with the individual entitlements associated with the project' Full Cost Billine
Fottowng project initiation and payment of the base cost fee, staff will record time spent working ;; th; project against the base cost. If staff time exceeds that covered under the base coit, the applicant shall be billed an hourly rate thereafter on a monthly basis.

The hourly billing rate charged to projects would be a factor of the staff salary to cover costs as en.1n"tut"d in Folsom Municipal C-gde Section 3.50.030, including: direct costs (wages, overtime, benefits, overhead, etc), indirect costs (building maintenance, "o*jp.,i"rr,
printing, etc.), fixed assets, general overhead, department overhead, and any debf service costs. The Finance Department has completed a fulI analysis of overhead charges and has submitted rates for all Community Development staff.

These charges are based on the current staff costs per adopted City labor contracts, plus a factor for direct and indirect costs. Included in the monthly billing would be any costs incurred by other departments such as the City Attomey's Office, Public Works, Utilities, Housing and Redevelopment, Parks and Recreationo etc.
2000002 Page 54
05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Consultants
ffiry drequired for project evaluation or environmental review, all consultant work .tat ur paid-for by the project applicant and would be included in the payment ugr""-rrri. The Citywould charge an.administrative cost equal to 10% of the contract airount, which is a typical markup rate industry wide'
Non-Residential Plan Check Fee
building permit for compliance with conditions of any
project lpproval (such as a Design Review or Planned Development Permit) to ensure all itr-ptunoirrg Commission and City Council conditions have been complied with. In addition, p".*itr must be reviewed for compliance with the Zoning Code and any other applicable ordinance. Staff recommends that an additional planning review fee equal to ii% of the permit fee (same as City of Roseville fee) be charged to cover planning staff review time for non-r"rid"ntial projects because currently this cost is not being covered and is a drain on the Ganeral Fund'
Residential Landscape Review Fee
Dueto,..*nt@l881)alllandscapeplansarerequiredtobereviewed for water conservatioi standards. While commercial landscape plan review is covered by the existing fee structure, residential landscaping plans are not. Staff proposes to require a residential fee for each residential landscape plan review and inspection based on the hourly rate of the CitY Arborist.

As shown in the table below, the proposed fee deposits for typical entitlements are similar to other jurisdictions in the region'
Entitlement Folsom Roseville Sacramento Elk Grove Rancho Cordova
General Plan
Amendment
$3,651-
$7,300
s4,934-
$13,074 $20,000 sl2,37l $ 15,000
Rezone 92,502-
$4,997
$5,1 54-
$13,338
$8,000-
$20,000 $10,176 $ 15,000
Specific Plan
Amendment $s 892I
s5, I 39-
$13,075 $10,000 $3,443 $5,000
Tentative Parcel
Map $4,754 $1,698 $500 per lot $4,854 $10,000
Tentative
Subdivision Map
$5,721+$30
per lot
$3,338-
$4,832 $500 per lot $7,533 $10,000-
$20,000
Planned
Development
Permit
$7,640+$38
2 per acre $4,627 s6,200 $5,281 $10,000
Conditional Use
Permit $4,954 $4,085 $4,000-
s9,000 s5,223 $10,000
Variance $ 1,405 $2,430 $3,000 s3,228 $ 10,000
3 000003Page 55
05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Staff recommends the Planning Serryice Fees convert to this deposiVcost recovery system in accordance with those services specifically identified in Section 3.50.040 to be full cost recovery. Exceptions to full cost recovery identified in this section include appeals (identified costs to be l07o recovered) and tree removal permits/special events permits (by omission from the schedule of Development Services to recover costs reasonably bome).

FINANCIAL IMPACI
The cort reco"eq, progfam would allow the City to more accurately cover the actual costs for development permits from the applicants. Although the actual savings to the General Fund are cannot be quantified, this fee .*rr.ty program will result in a positive impact to the General Fund and piovide direct costs charges to contribute to the General Fund to more accurately fund development processing costs.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
@callyexemptfromtheCalifomiaEnvironmenta1QualityActunder Public Resources Code $21080, sub. (bX8) and CEQA Guidelines 975273, establishment, modification, structuring or approval of rates, tolls fares, or other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses. The modification of permit fees has not potential environmental impact upon the environment so does not constitute a project under CEQA.

ATTACIIMENTS

1. Resolution No. 8801 - A Resolution Modifying Resolution No. 8301 to Convert Noted Planning Fees to Deposits and Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Service Fees

2. City of Roseville Planning Fee Schedule - Effective July l, 2010 (which includes procedures for Full Cost Fees)

3. City of Roseville Planning Department Sample Agreement for Full Cost Billing.

RECOMMENpATION/CrTY COUNCIL ACTTON
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 8801 - A Resolution Modiffing Resolution No. 8301 to Convert Noted Planning Fees to Deposits and Directing Staff to Implement a Program for Full Cost Planning Fees.

Submitted,
h;re 7/Zlb
David E. Miller, AICP
Community Development Director
4000004

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Attachment#L
City Council Resolution
00000sPage 57
05/28/2024 Item No.6.

RESOLUTION NO. 8801
AREsoLUTIoNMoDIF"TINGRESOLUTIONNo.S30IASSHowNINTHE

ATTACHED FEE SCHEDULE AND DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT A PROGRAMFORFULLcoSTPLANNINGSERVICEFEES
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 directs the City Manager to recommend to the cou*it ttt" ua3ostment of fees and charges to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services as enumerated in Chapter

3.50; and
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.030 provides direction on calculating costs reasonably b;*" t" i*lrd" the following elements: direct costs (wages, overtime, benefits, overhead, etc.), indirect costs (building maintenance, computers, printing, etc'), fixed urr"tr, general overhead, department overheado and any debt service costs; and WIIEREAS, Folsom.Municipal Code Section 3.50.040 requires fee adjustments be approved by the CitY Council; and
WHEREAS, Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.040 also directs that the majority of planning Service r"Lr u"a nuiloing F"r.it Fees shall be 100% cost recoverable through its fee structure; and
WIIEREAS, the range of complexity in Planning Department development applications can vary widely; and
WHEREAS, in our current fiscal climate the General Fund is unable to cover any unnecessary development service related costs; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Folsom that Resolution No. g30l be modified as shown in the attached fee schedule, effective 60 days from the date of adoption of this Resolution on May 8,2011 and directs City staffto implement a program for full cosi planning service fees as attached and described in the staff report.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March 2011, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN
ATTEST:

Council Member(s):

Council Member(s):

Council Member(s):

Council Member(s):

Andrew J. Morin, MAYOR
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 8801
Page I of 2
000006 Page 58
05/28/2024 Item No.6.
# Department Service Base Fee
(Non-Refundable Deposit)
$ 545PE-I Review
PE-z ve Parcel Review $ 4,754
PE-3 Subdivision Review $5,751 + $30/Lot
PE-4 AmendmentReview 7
PE-5 Final Amend/Cert of Correction
$ 3,404PE-6 Tentative Extension Review
PE-7 Review - Comm. $ 3,992
$7,640 + $382/acrePE-8 Planned Development review (deposit) 7,628$PE-9 Mod. Review
PE-IO Ext. Review $ 2,678
$ 5,356PE.II Plan Review
PE-12 Plan Amend. Review $ 5,892
7 PE-I3 iiitiul en"irontneotal s"dy/Assmnt (deposit)
PE-15 Review &
$ 252PE-I6
$PE.18 *
PE.2O Dist SFD Rvw
PE-2I MultFam/Comm Rvw $ 1,841
$ 54PE.22 Review - SFD
P8.23 Review - Mult-Fam/Comm. $ 1,841
$ 54PE.24 Dist Review
PE-25 Permit - Staff $ 107
$ 1,071PE.26
PE.27 Verification Review $ 258
$ 2,502PE.28 Review- < 5 acres
PE-29 5+ acres $ 4,99'1
PE-20 Line ./Parcel $ 844
$ 4,280PE.31 *
P8.32 Variance Review- SFD (deposit) s 1,405
PE-33 Variance Review- Other (dePosit) $ 1,405
PE.35 Appeal - Admin $ 2t4
PE-36 Appeal - by other (dePosit) $ 429
PE-37 Code Amendment (dePosit)* $ 1,9t2
PE-38 General Plan Amendment <5 acres (dePosit) $ 3,651 PE-39 Plan Amendment >5 acres $ 7,30C
PE.4O Use Permit Review $ 54
PE-41 Use Permit Review $ 4,954
PE-43 Street Name $ 1,071
PE-44
,* $ 4,607
PE-45 Plan Check Fee l5% of building permit fee
Hourly rate of City ArborislPE46 Residential Landscape Review Fee Resolution No. 8801
Page2 ofZ
000007Page 59
05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Attachment#2
City of Roseville Planning Fee Schedule
Effective July 1,2010
000008

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Appendix A
3 O'a.,inr rchr
Fee Estamate Work Sheet
PLANNING and REDEVELOPMENT
311 VERNON STREET'ROSEVILLE, CA 95678
ROSt ttE
{-: r1 i' I F Q it r'; i tt Pl"nning Feeschedule'EffectiveJuly 1,201a Adopted by Resolution No. 96-239 - Amended by Resolution No. 9z-287 - Amended by Resolution No. 99-507 - Amended by Resolution No. 02-02 - Amended by Resolution No.02'224 Amended by Resolution No. 04-485 - Amended by Resolution No. 05-1 76, Amended by resolulion 09-124 ENITLEMEN1 (AppLtcAloN rypE): FEE J*L?X"=1 ENnTLEMENT (APPLlcArloN rYPE): FEE JJiL?'rt 1 . Planning Directo/s Decision $454
'1 . Standard Sign Permit $1 17

2. PetDcDecision to City Council $425 2. Planned Sign Permit Program $512 ANNEXATIONS 3. Sign PermiUProgram - Public Hearing Req. $1,010

1. AnnextpzJDetach/sol/(FulL COST/Deposit)1 $11,786 4. Administrative Permit for sign Exceptionz $717

2. Arnendment of SpA (FULL CosT/Deposit)l $6,337 1. sPAAdoption, Map/Text (FULL cosr/Deposit)l $11'786

3. Associated with Affordabte Housing $1,244 2. SPA 10 Acres or LESS, Map or Text $5'139

4. AssociatedwithSingleTopicltem $2,474 3. SPA11+Acres,Map/Text(FULLCOST/Deposit)1 $'13,075

2. Exemption wlTH lnitialstudy $425 1. Grading Plan / Minor $1'201

3. Negative Declaration with NO Mitigation $630 2. Grading Plan / Major $2'489

4. Tiered Negative Dectaration WITH Mitigation $1,288 3. Lot Line Adjustment $1'201

5. EtR.Deposit (FULL COST/Deposit)1 $11,736 4. Extension to a Tentative Map $1'201

1. Enrile;;;r Fee - GpA 10 Acres of LESS, Map/Text $+,Sa+ 6. Reversion to Acreage $1'698

2. cpA11+Acres,Mapft-exr(FULLcosT/Deposit)1 $13,074 7. MinorModificationtoaTentativeMap $1'201

3. cpA-TextpoticyAmend(FULLCOST/Deposit)' -qJ"31074 8. MajorModificationtoaTentativeMap $2'796 puir-iC:.uirii*tnCgU-dlu.:Aanr{o6r.rmeiiir . , , ,,, ':_' ,;. ;. :: 9. Tentative Parcel Map with 4 or fewer Lots $1'698

1. Summary Vacation $1,259 10. Tentative Map, 5 through 99 Lots $3'338

2. General Vacation $1 172 11 . Tentative Map, 100 through 499 Lots $4,832

12. Tentative Map, 500+ Lots (FULL COST/Deposit/ $12,254 .Condominium subdivision category has been added to assist in the processing and tracking of condominium units 2 Previously processed as Sign Variance
C)oeoO\o Page 21
asZCC
July 2O1O - June 2O'l'l (rev. 7-f O)

05/28/2024 Item No.6.
eoOeell
Appendix A
ENTTTLEM ENT (APPLICATION WPE:

1. Administrative Permit

2. Conditional Use Permit

3. CUP Extension or Modification

4. Design Review Permit

5. DRP/Minor Approved at Public Counter

6. DRP/Residential Subdivision w/other Permit

7. DRP Extension or Modification

8. CUP/DRP Process with another Permit

9. Flood Encroachment Permit

10. MPP Stage 1 or Stages 1 & 2 (FULL COST/Deposit)I

11. MPP Stage 2, Mod/Exten of Stage 1 Nor 2

12. MPP Administrative Modification

13. Planned Development Permit

14. TP Admin - Approved at Public Counter

15. TP - Req. Public Hear for SFD or 10 trees/Less

16. TP - Req. Public Hearfor DRP/TM or 11+ trees
1 7. Administrative Variance

18. Variance to Develop Standards Req. Public Hearing

19. Variance to Parking Standards

20. Zoning Clearance Approved Public Counter

21.Zoning lnterpretation - Hearing Required

22.Zgnin;g lntgryreJaljon - Non Hearing ltem
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS. ' .
'-::
1 . zoning Text Amend (Zoning, Subd, Sign) (FULL COST/Deposit)r

2. Zoning Map Change (RZ) l0 Acres or LESS

3. Zoning Map Change (RZ) 1 1+ Acres (FULL cosT/Deposit)1 jcilr-r:n: ' ; ,,-, rir-r: ,, 1- - "'i'; .1-t11; i,.,' ':: :'. ii'

1. New Non-Residential Plan Check
2 2. Commercial Plan Check - Tl2

2. Planning Dept. Plot Plan Review (Bundles of 10)

3. Radius List Prep-Previously Developed Area

4. Preparation Undeveloped Area/Mailing

5. Farmer's Market Permit
Fee Estimate Work Sheet
FEE
$717
$4,085
$2,650
$4,627
$1 02
$2,870
$2,6s0
$2,225
$3,719
Full Gost
Base Cost

PROCEDURES FOR FULL COST FEES
l. Base Gost
The base costs for processing a full cost application represents the minimum amount of staff time invested by the Planning andkedevelopm€nt Department in processing a certain entitlement.-This base fee his been gendrated based on a limq.motion analysis lhat is available upon rcquest from the Planning and Redevelopment Department. This base cost is non-refundable' ll. Project lnitiation
Concunent with the start-up of a Full Cost proiect, lhe applicant shall enter into an agreement for Full cost billing. This agreement shall be provided to the applicant from the Planning and Redevelopmeit Deparfnent. Per the provisions of this agreement, the applicant shall pay the base costs associated with the individual entitlements associated with lhe proFct. lll. Full Cost Billing
Following project initiation and payment of the base cost fee, Planning and Redevelopment staff will record timi spent working on the project against the base cosl. Once staff time exceeds that covered under the base Jost, the bpplicanishall be billed on a monthly basis. These charges will be based on cunent staff costs per adopted City labor contracts, plus a factor for direct and indirect costs. The Phnning and Redevelopment Department can be contacted for atrent rates- lncluded in the monthly billing will be the cosls incuned by the following City departments: City Attomey, Housing, iommunity Development, Parks and Recreation and Planning and Redevelopment. These costs are outside of whal is reflec'led in the Base Cost' lV. Consultants
As may be required by the Planning Department for project evaluation or environmental review, all consuliant woik shall Le paid for by the project applicant and shall be included in the payment agreement. The City shall chargel O% of the contract amount for City action. The cost for consultant fees will be paid as a one time cost.

V. Plan Check Fee
This fee shall be 15% of the building Plan Check Fee for New Non-Residential construction (Commercial and Multi-family). Fee to be collected with Euilding's Plan Check Fee'

REFUND POLICY
Apptication fees are not refundable except as follows:
f. i*funOof 100%shall bemadeif adeterminationismadebythePlanningDirectorthatthe permit and associated fee are not required by the city of Roseville Municipal code or adopted City Resolution.

2. li an appiicant requests withdrawal of a permit prior to the PEM, refund of 50% of the applicable fee shall also be refunded.
s. 'No refund of application fees shall be made after a Proiect Evaluation Meeting has been held, unless a fee waiver is approved by lhe Roseville City Council.

KEYrFull Cost/Deoosit to be colteded at submitlal. Appli{:ant to pay 10o% o{ Actual Cost to process rcquested Entitlemeflt. -Se€ FULL COST Discussion
zNon{Fidentlal - :Per Buildinq Code. this includes Commercial and Multi-family developments.

Plan Chect( Fees to be asiessed as part of Builling Department Plan Check Fee' 3parkinq ln Lieu Fee is an optional fee that non-residential uses in the Downto\fln Specilic Plan Area €n ut''lize instead of providing required parking on-site. Fees for the 1d stall will be $800 (1O%),2"d stall $2,OOO e5;/4,3n statt 1sO7'1,+bstall $6'000(757o) and5ormorestalls$8'000 (100%) of the in lieu fee.
$5,154
': , . ..- \;t ,1 , nr::r:1:..,.:i--:t *':-'- +:: itlt.:
$14,846
$7,965
$13,338
?:.' :; iit,;i:.,1.:i
$2,650
$776
$4,627
$88
$1,772
$2,723
$600
$2,035
$2,430
$58
$1,s37
15% of Building Plan Check Fe
$58
$s8
$58
$146
0

s4 10 Sch€dule c*a*iva na lnl tlll'l
JuIy 2Of O - June 2oll (tou. 7'lO)

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Attachment #3
City of Roseville Planning Department
Sample Agreement for Full Cost Billing
000001 IPage 63
05/28/2024 Item No.6.
crIYoF -g-

ROSEYILLE

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3l I Vernon Streel, Roseville, CA 95678 l9l61 774-5276
CATIFORNIA Agreement for Full Cost Billing
I understand that charges for staff time spenl processing this application will be based on the current staff costs per adopted City labor contracts plus a factor ior direct and indirect costs. Please contact the Planning Division for a handout of current billing rates.

I understand that my initial fee is considered to be a base cost for processing. This initial fee will set up an account that shall be charged at the current rate for all staff processing time. I understand that should the final costs be more than the initial fee, I will be billed quarterly for the additional charges. I also understand that payments received after the due date will be assessed a late fee equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount past due.

I understand that staff processing time may include, but is not limited to: Planning and Other City Departments: City Attorney, Housing, Communig Development, and Parks & Recreation. This also includes but is not limited to; Pre-application review of plans; reviewing plans / submittal packages; routing plans to, and communicating with inter-office departments and outside agencies: researching documents relative to site history: site visits; consulting with applicant and/or other interested parties either in person by phone; preparing environmental documents; drafting of staff reports and resolutions; preparing pertinent maps, graphs and exhibits; and attending meetings / public hearings before the Design Committee/Planning Commission/City Council.

I also understand that receipt of all discretionary approvals does not constitute an entitlement to begin work. Non-discretionary approvals may be required from City development departments and outside agencies. I understand addltional fees will be assessed for these approvals. Please refer to the City's Residential or Commercial Fee Schedule for other fees to be assessed prior to the issuance of project permits. These fees may include, but are not limited to: Building Permit fees; lmprovement plan fees; Traffic lmpact fees; Drainage fees: Parkland Dedication fees; Park Construction fees; Utility fees: Filing fees; and Mapping fees.

As applicant, I assume full responsibility for ull costs leading to discretionary approvals (as listed ahove, incurred hv the Citv in nrocessins this annlicationk).

PROJEGT NAME:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(Dale Stamp)
E:\forms\FtILLCOSTBILLINCAGREEMENT.doc
For Staff Use Only
Received B-v
Receipt #:

PROJECT ADDRESS,
JOB NUMBER:

Total Deposit F"", $
-
BILLING CONTACT INFORMATION:

NAME: NAME
BILLING ADDRESS, IF DIFFERENT FROM GONTACT:

COMPANY
ADDRESS:

CITY, STATE:

PHONE #:
zlPt-
FAX #:

CELL #: EMAIL:

NoWNER DARCHITECT
tr ENGINEER tr OTHER:

COMPANY
ADDRESS:

PHONE #:

CELL #:

CIfi, STATE: zlP
FAX #:

DoWNER
fIENGINEER
EMAIL:

DnncHrtecr
florneR:

PROPERTY OWNER OR AGENT AUTHORIZATION:

NAME: _ -
COMPANY:

ADDRESS:

CITY, STATE: ztP'-
FAX #;
CHOOSE ONE:

O I am the property owner and hereby authorize the filling of this agreement.

B I am the applicant and am authorized by the owner to file this agreement.

SIGNATURE
DATE:

PHONE #:

EMAIL:

05/28/2024 Item No.6.

Folsom City Council
Staff ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Move to adopt Ordinance No. 1345 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3.20.020,3.20.063,and8.32.140(aX2) of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Billing for Municipal Utility Services (Second Reading and Adoption).

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Section 3.20.040 and 8.32.140 of the Folsom Municipal Code to remove vacancy exceptions and to clari$ start dates for municipal utility services.

Folsom Municipal Code 3.20.020 Exceptions, allows for municipal service charges to be discontinued upon written request for a period of no less than two months when a dwelling, house, or residence will be unoccupied. This vacancy exception is only applicable to Solid Waste services.

Folsom Municipal Code 8.32.140 Charges for collection and compliance administration Item 1 states that each dwelling, house or residence shall pay a fixed minimum solid waste fee, which applies and is payable without consideration of whether there is any garbage, recyclables, or organic waste to remove from the premises. However, ltem 2. references Folsom Municipal Code 3.20.020 Exceptions allowing for vacancy exceptions.

I
MEETING DATE: 512812024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT Ordinance No. 1345 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 3 .20.020, 3 .20 .063, and 8.32.1 40(a)(2) of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Billing for Municipal Utility Services (Second Reading and Adoption)
FROM: Finance Department

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

Proposition 278 mandates that utility rates must be fair and equitable amongst rate payers.

Charging certain customers more than their proportional share of the cost of service to reduce the cost for other customers is strictly prohibited. Solid Waste is still required to provide service to a route, street, or house, regardless of vacancy status. The minimum rate set forth in the Council approved rate schedules covers the minimum cost to provide the service, regardless of how much waste is removed from the premises.

Folsom Municipal Code 3.20.040 Collection methods states that the owner of real properly to which one or more municipal services are rendered shall be responsible and liable for the payment of all municipal service charges, and the city may utilize all procedures available under this code or state law to collect payment. Folsom Municipal Code 3.20.063 Municipal service charges-Establishment of rates states there is levied and assessed a monthly service charge against the municipal service customer (user), for municipal services as defined in Section 3.20.010(A). The amount of these municipal service charges shall be set by resolution of the city council and may be adjusted from time to time by resolution so as to reflect the cost of the services provided.

Existing policies and procedures establish the start date of billing the legal owner of new utility accounts as the date of the recorded deed of the property for existing accounts. New construction accounts also bill the legal owner as of the date ameter is installed atthe property, the date the parcel receives a Certificate of Occupancy or final permit, whichever occurs first.

Staff recommend codiffing our policy to provide clarity to customers.

POLICY / RULE
Amendments and revisions to the Folsom Municipal Code must be reviewed and approved by the City Council.

Proposition 218 mandates that utility rates must be fair and equitable amongst rate payers.

Charging certain customers more than their proportional share of the cost of service to reduce the cost for other customers is strictly prohibited.

Folsom Municipal Code 8.32.140 Charges for collection and compliance administration Item 1 states that each dwelling, house or residence shall pay a fixed minimum solid waste fee, which applies and is payable without consideration of whether there is any garbage, recyclables, or organic waste to remove from the premises.

3.20.063 Municipal service charges-Establishment of rates. There is levied and assessed a monthly service charge against the municipal service customer (user), for municipal services as defined in Section 3.20.010(A). The amount of these municipal service charges shall be set by resolution of the city council and may be adjusted from time to time by resolution so as to reflect the cost of the services provided.
2 ANALYSIS

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

An amendment of this ordinance would clariff that all municipal service charges are applicable and payable, whether or not a property is vacant. It would also codiff existing policies and practices for start dates of billing new municipal utility accounts.

This is in accordance with Folsom Municipal Code 8.32.140 Charges for collection and compliance administration, Item 1, which identifies a minimum solid waste fee, which is applicable regardless of whether there is any garbage, recyclables, or organic waste to remove from the premises. Additionally, it is in compliance with 3.20.063 Municipal service charges- Establishment of rates. There is levied and assessed a monthly service charge against the municipal service customer (user), for municipal services as defined in Section 3.20.010(A).

The amount of these municipal service charges shall be set by resolution of the city council and may be adjusted from time to time by resolution so as to reflect the cost of the services provided.

F'INANCIAL IMPACT
This item has no impact on the City's General Fund. It has an estimated increase of Solid Waste revenues of $8,000 annually.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines $15061(c)(3)) or are otherwise not considered a project as defined by Public Resources Code 921065 and CEQA Guidelines $15060(cX3) and $15378. This Council action meets the above criteria and is not subject to CEQA. No environmental review is required.

A

1. Ordinance No. 1345 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections

3.20.020,3.20.063, and8.32.140(a)(2) of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Billing for Municipal utility Services (Second Reading and Adoption)

2. Redline version of Ordinance No. 1345
J
Finance Director

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

ATTACHMENT 1

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

ORDINANCE NO. 1.345

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING sEcTroNS 3.20.020, 3.20.063, AND 8.32. 140(AX2) OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL

CODE PERTAINING TO BILLING F'OR MUNICIPAL UTILITY SERVICES The city council of the city of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Sections 3.20.020,3.20.063, and 8.32.140 of the Folsom oal Code to remove "Exceptions", add "Billing Start Date", and affirm City Council approved rate schedules regardless of occupancy status of the property pertaining to payment for municipal utility services.

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section 3.20.020 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby replaced and amended in its entirety as follows:

3.20.020 Billing start date.

A. New construction. Billing for municipal services for a new construction on any parcel of real property shall commence on the date that usage of utility services begins, the date a meter is installed, the date the property is first occupied, or the date the property is given a certificate of occupancy or final approval by city officials in accordance with applicable provisions of this code, whichever occurs first. The director may adopt written guidelines to implement the provisions of this section and speciff criteria for determining when billing for utility services starts in other situations.

B. Transfer of ownership of existing structures. Billing for utility services for new owners of existing structures will begin on the date of the recorded ownership transfer deed for that property as identified by the Sacramento County clerk/recorder's office.

SECTION 3 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section 3.20.063 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

3.20.063 Municipal service charges - Establishment of rates.

There is levied and assessed a monthly service charge against the municipal service customer (user), for municipal services as defined in Section 3.20.010 (A). The amount of these municipal service charges shall be set by resolution of the city council and may be adjusted from time to time by resolution so as to reflect the cost of the services provided. Monthly municipal service charges are applicable and payable in accordance with the city council approved rate schedules regardless of occupancy status of the property.

Ordinance No, 1345

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

SECTION 4 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section S.32.140(A)(2) of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:
8,32.140 Charges for collection and compliance administration.

A. Residential

2. Reserved.

SECTION 5 SCOPE
Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 7 EFF'ECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage and adoption, provided it is published in full or in summary within twenty (20) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

This Ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 14,2024, and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 28,2024.

On a motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom, State of Catifornia, this 2Sthday of May, 2024by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s)
Ordinance No. 1345
Page2 of3

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s)
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Ordinance No. 1345

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

ATTACHMENT 2

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

ORDINANCE NO. 1345

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF'F'OLSOM AMENDING SECTIONS 3.20.020,3.20.063, AND 8.32.140(A)(2) OF THE

F'OLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BILLING FOR MUNICIPAL

UTILITY SERVICES
The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Sections 3.20.020,3.20.063, and

8.32.140 of the Folsom Municipal Code to remove'oExceptions", add "Billing Start Date", and affirm City Council approved rate schedules regardless of occupancy status of the property pertaining to payment for municipal utility services.

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section 3.20.020 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby replaced and amended in its entirety as follows:
+fg+a,g+xeep+iens.

Munieipet serviee e
ne tess tUm twe ment
The minimum timeef diseentinning sen'iee will be twe menths,,{ serviee eharge *er tne remev*t ane r
ef * dwelling; heuse er residenee the utilify user must eentret the eity te restart sffiiee- If the eeerrp

3.20.020 Bihins start date.

A. New construction. Billing for municipsl semices for a new construction on anv parcel of real prooertv shall commence on the date that usage of utilitv services begins, the date a meter is instslled, the date the nronertv is first occunied. or the date the propertv is given a certificate of occupsncv or final apnroval bv citv oflicials in accordance with applicable provisions of code. whichever occurs first. The director mav adopt written guidelines to implement the provisions of this section and specifv criteria for determining when billing for utilitv services stsrts in other situations.

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

B. Transfer of ownership of existing structures. Billing for utilitv services for new owners of existine will hesin on the date of the ownersh.i.n tronsfer deed for thst propertv as identified bv the Sacramento Countv clerldrecorder's office.

SF',CTION 3 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section 3.20.063 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

3.20.063 Municipal service charges - Establishment of rates.

There is levied and assessed a monthly service charge against the municipal service customer (user), for municipal services as defined in Section 3.20.010 (A). The amount of these municipal service charges shall be set by resolution of the city council and may be adjusted from time to time by resolution so as to reflect the cost of the services provided.

Monthlv municinal service charses are and navable in accordance with the citv council approved rate schedules rcgsrdless of occupancv status of the propertv.

SECTION 4 AMENDMENT TO CODE
Section 8.32.140(AX2) of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows:

8.32.140 Charges for collection and compliance administration.

1. A property owner of each and every dwelling, house, or residence shall be responsible for paying to the city a fixed minimum solid waste fee based upon current established solid waste rates which shall be set by the city council. Such fee, based upon service of one collection per week for garbage and organic waste, and one collection every other week for recyclables, applies and is payable without consideration of whether there is any garbage, recyclables, or organic waste to remove from the premises. t, Residentiel sol
fer n periee e+ ne les
#t+
+ 2. For collection of additional containers beyond those covered by the fixed minimum charges established in this chapter, the collection charge shall be set by resolution of the city council for each additional garbage, recyclable, or organic waste container.

4. 3. An additional or special pickup may be requested beyond the minimum service required by this chapter. Each such additional or special pickup shall be subject to a fixed fee. The fixed fee for additional or special pickups shall be set by resolution of the city council.

SECTION 5 SCOPE

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

Except as set forth in this Ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 6 SEVERABILITY
Ifany section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 7 EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage and adoption, provided it is published in full or in summary within twenty (20) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

This Ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 14,2024, and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 28,2024.

On a motion by Council Member seconded by Council Member the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council ofthe City of Folsom, State of Califomia, this 2Sthday of May, 2024by the following roll- call vote:

AYES
NOES
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN
Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

This page is intentionolly left blank
to facilitate double - side d printing
and minimize poper use.

CITY OF

DISTINCTIVE BY NATURE
FOLSO}T

05/28/2024 Item No.7.

Folsom City Council
Staff Re ft

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the Folsom City Council adopt Resolution No. I I20l -A Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November s,z}24,Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento Consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election, and Establishing Policies for Candidate's Statements.

BACKGROUND:

Consolidation
The date of the 2024Folsom General Municipal Election is the same date as the Statewide General Election. Whenever two elections are to be held on the same day, they may be consolidated, and Elections Code Section 10403 sets forth the requirement that jurisdictions file a resolution requesting consolidation with the local county board of supervisors.

Districts Up For Election
As set forth within the City's Charter, the Folsom City Council operates under a system of four-year staggered terms, wherein councilmembers are elected to serye overlapping terms of 1 MEETING DATE: 0512812024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: ResolutionNo. 11201 - A Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5,2}z4,Requesting the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Sacramento Consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election, and Establishing Policies for Candidate's Statements
FROM: City Clerk's Department

05/28/2024 Item No.8.
offrce. This system allows for continuity in governance while ensuring regular opportunities for the electorate to express their preferences through the democratic process. ln2022,the City transitioned from at-large Council elections to a by-district election system, with the creation of five City Council districts. In order to continue the staggered terms, a two-phase implementation was created for 2022 and2024. In2022, voters elected councilmembers to Districts 1, 3, and 5. 1n2024, voters will elect councilmembers to Districts 2 and 4.

The term of office for two City Councilmembers (YK Chalamcherla and Rosario Rodriguez, both elected at-large in2020) will expire in November 2024, while the term of office for three City Councilmembers elected in2022 (Sarah Aquino (District 3), Mike Kozlowski (District 1), and Anna Rohrbough(District 5) will continue through November 2026.

Candidate's Statements
In addition to addressing the expiration of staggered terms, the City Council must consider the provisions outlined in the California Elections Code regarding candidate's statements.

The-candidate's statements serye as critical tools for voters to make informed decisions during elections by providing candidates with an opportunity to communicate their platforms, qualifications, and intentions directly to the electorate. The candidate's statement is included in the sample ballot mailed to voters, with the Elections Code establishing legal parameters for its form and content. This process fosters transparbncy and accountability in the electoral process, ensuring that voters have access to essential information about the candidates vying for City Council soats.

Each candidate has the option to prepare a candidate's statement, which may include the name, age, andoccupation of the candidate and a brief description of not more than two hundred words of the candidate's qualifications, as expressed by the candidate. The statement shall not include any party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statements shall be filed with the City Clerk at the same time the candidate's nomination papers are filed. The statements may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 P.M. the next working day after the close of the nomination period.

If a candidate chooses to submit a candidate's statement, they must pay the corresponding printing fee. The 2024 candidate's statement fees, as set by Sacramento County, are:

District 2: $580
District 4: $520
POLICY/RULE:

Pursuant to Folsom Municipal Code Section 2.40.010,the date of the General Municipal Election shall be the same date as the Statewide General Election in even numbered years.

Elections Code Section 10400 establishes that, whenever two elections are to be held on the 2 Page 78
05/28/2024 Item No.8.
same day, they may be consolidated. In addition, Elections Code Section 10403 sets forth the requirement that jurisdictions file a resolution requesting consolidation with the local county board of supervisors.

Folsom Charter Section 2.01 establishes that City Council members shall be elected to four- year, staggered terms.

Elections Code Section 13307 provides that the governing body of any local agency may adopt regulations pertaining to the materials prepared by any candidate, including costs of the candidate's statement. The candidate's statement fee, which is paid for by the candidates, is set by the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters prior to the electiOn.

FINAN IMPACT:

The Sacramento County Registrar of Voters has estimated the election cost for Folsom at approximately $55,000. Funds have been included in the City Clerk's proposed FY 2024125 budget to cover this cost.

Resolution No. I l20l - A Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 5,2}24,Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento Consolidate the General Municipal Election with the Statewide General Election, and Establishing Policies for Candidate's Statements Submitted,
Christa Freemantle, CMC
City Clerk
aJ Page 79
05/28/2024 Item No.8.

RESOLUTION NO. II2OI

A RE,SOLUTION CALLING AIID GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5,2024,

REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE

STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION, AND

ESTABLISHING POLICIES FOR FOLSOM CANDIDATE'S STATEMENTS WHEREAS, an election will be held within the City of Folsom on November 5,2024, for the purpose of electing two City Council members; and WHEREAS, a Statewide General Election will be held within the County of Sacramento on the same day; and
WHEREAS, Elections Code Section 10403 requires jurisdictions to file with the Board of Supervisors, and a copy with the Registrar of Voters, a resolution requesting consolidation with a statewide election; and
WHEREAS' Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the governing body of any local agency to adopt regulations pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidate's statement:

NOW' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:

SECTION 1. The Folsom City Council hereby requests that the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors consolidate the November 5,2024, General Municipal Election with the Statewide Election to be held on that same date; and
SECTION 2. Thateach candidate for elective office to be voted for at the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Folsom on November 5,2024, may prepare a candidate's statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age, andoccupation of the candidate and a brief description of not more than two hundred (200) words of the candidate's qualifications, as expressed by the candidate. The statement shall not include any party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statements shall be filed in with the City Clerk at the time the candidate's nomination papers are filed. The statements may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 P.M. the next working day after the close of the nomination period. The Sacramento County Voter Registration and Elections Department will set the cost of the candidate's statement prior to the election; this fee will be paid to the City of Folsom by the candidate at the time the nomination papers and candidate's statement are filed; and
SECTION 3. That the City of,Folsom agrees to reimburse the Registrar of Voters for actual costs accrued for each election, such costs to be calculated by the proration method set forth in the County's current Schedule of Fees and Charges.

Resolution No. 11201
Page I of2 Page 80
05/28/2024 Item No.8.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 28ft day of May 2024, by the following roll-call vote:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
ResolutionNo. 11201
Page2 of2 Page 81
05/28/2024 Item No.8.

This page is intentionollA Ieft blank
to facilitat e double - side d printing
and minimize paper ttse.

CITY OF

DISTINCTIVE BY NATURE
FOLSOl\{

05/28/2024 Item No.8.

Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort
MEETING DATE: 512812024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. I1202 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Chrisp Company for the Roadside Safety Project PW2404, HSIPSL- 5288(0s 1)
FROM: Public Works Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Public Works Department recommends.that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 1 1202 - AResolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Chrisp Company for the Roadside Safety Project PW2404, HSIPSL-5288(051).

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Public Works Department is responsible for the operation, safety, and maintenance of roadways throughout Folsom. In June 202I, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) was developed, which is a data-driven report that systematically identifies and analyzes roadway safety issues and recommends improvements. The LRSP utilized accident data between 2015 and2019 to determine locations and causes of traffic accidents, allowing engineers to implement specific countermeasures to address the causes of accidents, leading to a safer roadway network for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

The LRSP identified six specific sections of roadway to upgrade with a suite of new and improved traffic control devices. A map of these locations is included as Attachment 2.

Utilizing the data and recommendations from the LRSP, the city successfully received Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to implement those improvements.

In April 2024, City engineers developed and published the project design plans, specifications, and estimate. The project components consist of installing delineators, reflectors, I

05/28/2024 Item No.9.
retroreflective object markers, and rumble strips within the specified roadway segments.

The project is expected to begin in June 2024 and be completed by August 2024.

POLICY / RULE
Section 2.36.080, Award of Contracts of the Folsom Municipal Code states, in part, thal contracts for supplies, equipment, services, and construction with an estimated value of $73,209 or greater shall be awarded by City Council.

ANALYSIS
Public Works staff prepared the bid package and publicly advertised the project on April 9, 2024. Bids were received on May 1,2024.

The two bids received are as follows:
o Chrisp Company
o McGuire-Pacific Constructors
$184,900.00
$208,770.00
The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $176,766.50. The Public Works Department has found the bids to be in order and recommends that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Chrisp Company. Staff will use the Crty's standard agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The contract with Chrisp Company would be authorized for $184,900, with a total not to exceed amount of $203,390. This includes a ten percent contingency amount of $18,490 for potential change orders.

Funds in the amount of $203,390 are budgeted and available in the Highway Safety Improvement Program Roadside Safety Project (Project PW2404), utilizing Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

ENVIRONMENTAL RBVIEW
This project has been deemed Categorically Exempt from Califomia Environmental Qualtty Act (CEQA) environmental review based on Class 1: Existing Facilities. 2 Page 84
05/28/2024 Item No.9.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11202 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with Chrisp Company for the Roadside Safety Project PW2404 HSTPSL-5288(05r)

2. Exhibit A - Project Map
Submitted,
Mark Rackovan, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
aJ Page 85
05/28/2024 Item No.9.

ATTACHMENT 1

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

RESOLUTION NO. 11202

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH CHRISP COMPANY FOR THE ROADSIDE SAFETY PROJECT PW240 4, HSIPSL-5288(05 1)
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom desires to upgrade and improve traffic control devices on various roads within City right of way; and
WHEREAS, the City was successful in receiving Highway Safety Improvement Program funds for these improvements; and
WHEREAS, the project was publicly advertised on April 9, 2024, and the bids were received on May 1,2024, with Chrisp Company being the lowest responsive and responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $203,390 are budgeted and available in the Roadside Safety Project PW2404 utilizing Highway Safety Improvement Program grant funds for Fiscal Year 2023-24; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attomey:

NOW' THEREFORE' BE IT RESOLVED thatthe City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute a Construction Agreement with Chrisp Company for the Roadside Safety Project PW2404, HSIPSL-52S8(051) in the amount of $184,900.00, with a total not-to-exceed amount of $203,390, which includes a ten percent contingency amount of $ 18,490. pASSED AND ADOPTED on this 28ft day of May 2024,by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
ResolutionNo. 11202

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

ATTACHMENT 2

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

HSIP Cycle 10 Roadside Safety
Proj ect
Prepared for The City of Folsom
cA, 95630
Updare d 4/9/2024

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

Map Legend
O Rl--6 "ln-Street Pedestrian Crossing" Yield Sign
O W1-3 "Reverse Turn" Advance Warning Sign
O Wz-2"Side Road" lntersection Warning Sign
@ R26 "No PARKING" sign
g W13-1P 'Advisory Speed XX MPH" Sign
@ G56-56 "STAA Truck service" Sign
O M6-3 "Directional Arrow" Sign
@ R4-7a "Keep Right" Sign
g "Your Speed XX MPH" Radar Feedback Sign
@ OM2-1V White Object Marker With Retroreflective Circles O OM2-2V Retroreflective Yellow Object Marker
O Type Q Object Marker For Roadway Obstructions

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

American River Canyon
Dr - From Oak Canyon
Way to Canyon Rim Dr
Item Description Quantity
lnstall "Yield to
Pedestrians"
Signs
lnstall R1-6 signs at
North and South
approach ofthe
Southern intersection
of American River
Canyon Dr and Canyon
Rim Dr as per the 2014
CAMUTCD. Signs shall
be placed between
each lane along the
outside edges of
crosswalks and include
flashing warning lights.
2

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

Folsom Blvd - From US-50
to lron Point Rd
No. 4 lane is excluded
this project as it falls
nder Caltrans
Item Description Quantity
\
t
+ t
*:d
t.r.t4 *r -i
izi!t z Ly 7iz2 lrl:ii ?1.:..q li LZ1:1: /t rr ee\ _,I:ira Restripe Existing
Longlines
Remove &
Replace Existing
Object Markers
Remove &
Replace Existing
Signage
Stripe Lane Line
Extension
Restripe Existing
Crosswalks in
Ladder Style
Restripe existing longlines
as per 2O22 Caltrans
Standard Plans &
Specifications Details 12,
26A,38,39, and 40 to
match existing.

Remove existing object
markers at median islands
& replace with Type 3
object markers as per the
201"4 CAMUTCD.

See takeoff sheet for
details.

Stripe Detail 40 lane line
extension through
intersection at NB double
left turn as per 2022
Caltrans Standard Plans &
Specifications.

Restripe existing
crosswalks at lron Point to
the Ladder-style as per
2022 Caltrans Standard
Plans and Specifications,
Section A24F.

See takeoff
sheet
See takeoff
sheet
3151F
8151F
a
oa'
4 r
Fs{i

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

Glenn Dr - From Sibley St to Folsom Blvd Item Description Quantity Remove &
Replace
Existing Object
Markers
lnstallwl-3
Curve Warning
Signs
lnstall Type 15
FBS Tapered
Steel Pole &
Foundation
lnstall Radar
Feedback Signs
Remove & replace
object markers at
median islands with
Type 3 object markers
as per the 2014
CAMUTCD.
lnstall curve warning
signs on EB and WB
side of Glenn Dr "S"
curve, as per the
CAMUTCD 2014.
lnstall Type 15 FBS
tapered steel pole &
foundation on EB side
of Glenn Dr "S" curve,
as per 2O22 Caltrans
Standard Plans &
Specifications Section
ES-7J.
lnstall "YourSpeed XX
MPH" radar feedback
signs.
7 2
1 2
Remove &
Replace
Existing
Signage
See takeoff sheet for
details.

See takeoff
sheet
gt

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

Blue Ravine Rd - From Crossing Way to
Riley St
Item Description Quantity
Remove &
Replace
Existing Object
Markers
Remove & replace
OM2-2V object
markers as per the
2014 CAMUTCD.
5 lnstall "T"
lntersection
Signs at
Crossing Way
lnstall W2-2 "T"
intersection signs at
Crossing Way
intersection on SB and
NB approaches as per
2014 CAMUTCD.
2

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

Folsom Auburn Rd - Between Berry
Creek and 900' N of Berry Creek Dr
Item Description Quantity
lnstall Rumble
Strips
lnstall "T"
lntersection
Signs
Remove &
Replace
Existing Objea
Markers
lnstallType C rumble
strips as perthe 2014
CAMUTCD.
lnstall W2-2 "T"
intersection signs on
NB & SB approach of
the intersection of
Berry Creek Dr and
Folsom-Auburn Rd as
per the 2014
CAMUTCD.

Remove & replace
OM2-2V object
markers as per the
2014 CAMUTCD along
NB right shoulder.
1000lF
2 5

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

Prairie City Rd - From 2000' N of White
Rock Rd to 42OO' N of White Rock Rd
Item Description Quantity
lnstall Reflectors
lnstall Rumble
Strips
Remove & Replace
Existing Edge Line
Markers
lnstall centerline reflectors as
per 2022 Caltrans Standard
Plans and Specifications.
lnstall Type C rumble strips as
per 2014 CAMUTCD.

Remove & replace OM2-2V
edge line markers as per the
2014 CAMUTCD along NB
and SB Prairie City Rd. Place
one marker every 100'along
each side of the road.
22001F
22001F
22

05/28/2024 Item No.9.

Folsom City Council
Staff ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Public Works Department recommends the City Council pass and adopt ResolutionNo. 11203 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Change Order with Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. for the On-Call Concrete and Asphalt Maintenance Project (Contract No. 174-21 2l-073) and Appropriation of General Fund Contingency Budget and Measure A Funds

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
In October 202l,the City Council approved Resolution No. 10736, authorizing a contract for the On-Call Concrete and Asphalt Maintenance Project. The project has been ongoing on an as-needed basis for the past three years, with FY 2023-24 being the final year of the 3-year contract. This Change Order will allow the completion of two additional scopes of work that are required:

Emergency Replacement of a Bridge Pedestrian Railing on the Humbug Willow Creek Trail: On April 30,2024, staff was notified of a pedestrian bridge railing that had failed and fallen into the creek beneath, leaving the bridge edge with an approximately 15- foot drop-off into the creek below. Staff Engineers inspected the site and found the a
1 MEETING DATE: 512812024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 1 1203 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Change Order with Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. for the On-Call Concrete and Asphalt Maintenance Project (Contract No. 174-21 2l-073) and Appropriation of General Fund Contingency Budget and
Measure A Funds
F'ROM: Public Works Department

05/28/2024 Item No.10.
metal railing had corroded at the point of penetration into the bridge concrete. The railing is 48 feet long and appears to be largely intact. The planned repair will consist of coring new holes into the bridge deck, extending the metal posts on the bottom of the existing railing, painting the railing, and re-attaching it to the bridge. In the interim, barricades and caution tape have been installed to keep the site safe. The location of this bridge is on the trail connection between Thorndike Way and Keller Circle.

Additional Concrete Repair Locations: As part of the Council District 2 Sidewalk Inspection Project, 40 locations were identified that require complete replacement of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk due to the offset height being too large to repair by temporary saw cutting methods. The repair of these locations will complete the repairs identified in the Council District 2 Sidewalk Inspection report.

POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Chapter 236.f 50 of the Folsom Municipal Code, Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the city manager shall make, or authorize others to make, emergency procurement of supplies, equipment, services, or construction items when there exists atbreatto public health, welfare, or safety; provided, that such emergency procurement shall be made with sufficient competition as is practicable under the circumstances. The requesting department shall complete a waiver of bid format and submit it to the purchasing agent for filing with the city clerk. (Ord.723 $ 3 (part), 1991)

ANALYSIS
Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt was chosen to perform these repairs due to their existing contract for On-Call Concrete work.

Because there are no contract unit prices for the bridge railing work, staff is proposing to proceed with this repair on a time and materials basis. Staff will inspect and monitor the contractor's progress to ensure that the daily extra work reports accurately represent the effort performed. It is estimated that the repair to the bridge railing may cost up to $25,000. Any unused funds for this repair will be returned to the General Fund.

The replacement of the curb, gutter, and sidewalks in Council District 2 will cost $83,392.97 per the agreed-upon contract amounts.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City Council's approval of Resolution No. 10736 authorized the execution of a Construction Contract for the On-Call Concrete and Asphalt Maintenance Project for a yearly amount of $524,06 9 , for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $l ,572,207 over three years.

Contingency was not required for this contract.
2 Page 98
05/28/2024 Item No.10.

The up to $25,000 estimated cost of the emergency repairing and reinstalling of the bridge railing will be financed from the General Fund (Fund 010) contingency budget. Sufficient funds for this emergency procurement are available in the General Fund (Fund 010) contingency budget.

The $82,392.97 costof replacing the concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk in Council District 2 will be financed from the Measure A Fund (Fund 276). Sufficient funds for this additional work are available in the Measure A Fund (Fund 276).

If approved, this Construction Change Order would increase the authorized amount by $108,393 to a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $632,462 for FY 2023-24.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15301 Existing Facilities - Class 1, which consists of the op.rutiott, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing p.tUti. or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. I 1203 - A Resolution Authorizingthe City Manager to Execute a Construction Change Order with Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. for the On-Call Concrete and Asphalt Maintenance Project (Contract No. 174-21 2l-073) and Appropriation of General Fund Contingency Budget and Measure A Funds
Submitted,
Mark Rackovan, Director
Public Works Department
) Page 99
05/28/2024 Item No.10.

RESOLUTION NO. II2O3

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER WITH CENTRAL VALLEY ENGINEERING & ASPHALT,INC. FOR THE ON.CALL CONCRETE AND ASPHALT MAINTENANCE PROJECT (CONTRACT NO. 174-2121-073) AND APPROPRIATION OF GENERAL

FTJND CONTINGENCY BUDGET AND MEASURE A F'UNDS
WIIEREAS, emergency replacement of a failed bridge pedestrian railing on the Humbug Willow Creek Trail, located between Thorndike Circle and Keller Circle, is necessary to maintain public safety; and
WHEREAS, the inspection of Council District 2 sidewalks found 40 locations that require complete removal and replacement to eliminate triphazards and maintain safe pedestrian paths of travel; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds for this emergency procurement to repair and reinstall the bridge pedestrian railing are available in the General Fund (Fund 010) contingency budget; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds for the curb, gutter, and sidewalk replacement are available in the Measure A Fund (Fund 276)budge't; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to execute a Construction Change Order for the construction agreement (Contract No. 174-21 2l-703) with Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc, in the amount of $108,393; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate $108,393 for this construction change order. The appropriation will be in the General Fund (Fund 010) contingency budget in the amount of $25,000 and in the Measure A Fund (Fund 276) inthe amount of $83,393.
pASSED AND ADOPTED this 28ft day of May 2024by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

ATTEST
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11203
Page I ofl
Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR

05/28/2024 Item No.10.
i ! ,;, i ,,':;:,: ': i,"'tr
"l r: l:li
Folsom City Council
Staff rt

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUIIEIL AETIQN
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. I 1206- A Resolution Authorizingthe City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement Between the City of Folsom and Folsom PostNo. 6604 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, a California Non-Profit Corporation for the Lease of City Property Located at 1300 Forrest Street.

BACKGRO / ISSUE
The City of Folsom and Folsom VFW Post No. 6604have been under a lease agreement for the use of the city-owned property at 1300 Forrest Street since 1996. The most recent lease agreement was executed on May 1, 2009, and the subsequent amendment to the lease was executed on January | , 2014. Throughout this period, Folsom Post No. 6604 has consistently paid their monthly lease rate and done their part to care for and maintain the property.

On January 19,2024,the City of Folsom and representatives from Folsom VFW PostNo. 6604 metto discuss the lease agreement. Folsom Post No. 6604 indicated their desire to renew the lease agreement and continue operations and service to military service men and women in the community.

I
MEETING DATE: 512812024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. I 1206 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement Between the City of Folsom and Folsom Post No. 6604 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, a California Nonprofit Corporation for the Lease of City Property Located at 1300 Forrest Street
FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

POLICY / RULE

05/28/2024 Item No.11.

A city may lease property owned, held, or controlled by it for a period not to exceed 55 years. Government Code Section 37380.

ANALYSIS
On March lg,2024,the city received a letter from Folsom VFW PostNo. 6604 with a formal request to continue the lease of the city-owned property, with requested terms.

On April g,2024,staff presented to the Folsom City Council during closed session and was giveldirection on acceptable terms and rates for a lease agreement between the City of Folsom and Folsom VFW Post No. 6604.

On April 23,2024,staff met with representatives from Folsom Post No. 6604 to discuss the terms of the lease agreement and Folsom VFW Post No. 6604 verbally agreed to the agreement included.

Below are the major terms of the proposed lease:
. S-year lease with option to renew the lease for three additional terms of 5 years each, for a potenlial total term of20 years
o Lease term would begin June 1, 2024, and end April 30, 2029 (initial 5 years) o Lessee shall pay $500.00 in rent each month

FINAN IMPACT
Each year the Folsom VFW Post No. 6604 will provide the City of Folsom with monthly payments of $500.00 for an annual lease rent of $6,000.00. This will continue annually for the terms of the agreement and with each renewal of the lease agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed lease of an existing public facility is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. I 1206 -A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease Agreement Between the City of Folsom and Folsom Post No. 6604Yeterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, a California Nonprofit Corporation for the Lease of City Properly Located at 1300 Forrest Street.
2Page 102
05/28/2024 Item No.11.

Submitted,
Kelly Gor:v:a\ez, Director of Parks and Recreation
J Page 103
05/28/2024 Item No.11.

RESOLUTION NO. 11206

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF'F'OLSOM AND FOLSOM POST NO. 6604

VETERANS OF X'OREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES, A CALIF'ORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION FOR LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13OO

F'ORREST STREET
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to lease the City-owned building at 1300 Forrest Street; and
WHEREAS, Folsom VFW Post No. 6604 has been under a lease agreement with the City of Folsom which expired on April 30,2024; and
WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to negotiate terms of a lease agreement with Folsom VFW Post No. 6604; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a lease agreement with Folsom Post No. 6604 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, a California nonprofit corporation for the lease of the city-owned building at 1300 Forrest Street; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Folsom that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, between the City of Folsom and Folsom Post No. 6604 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, a California nonprofit corporation for the lease of City- owned building at 1300 Forrest Street.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 28ft day of May 2024,by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11206
Page I of I Page 104
05/28/2024 Item No.11.

Folsom City Council
Staff ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The Public Works Department recommends that the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 11208 - A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit a Grant Application to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District for the 2024 Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation Program Funding Round for the Purchase of Five Light Duty Battery Electric Vehicles.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the greater Sacramento region, which is a six-county region including Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, Yuba, Placer, and El Dorado counties. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) is the regional air quality management district for the County of Sacramento. The Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation (SECAT) Program is a partnership between SACOG and SMAQMD, with the goal of promoting zero emission on-road vehicles based in the SACOG region.

As the agency responsible for monitoring air pollution and for developing and administering programs to reduce air pollution levels below the health-based standards established by the state and federal governments for all of Sacramento and Yolo Counties, as well as portions of Solano, Sutter, El Dorado and Placer Counties, SMAQMD is charged with administering various clean air incentive programs, including the SECAT program.

I
MEETING DATE: 512812024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: ResolutionNo. 11208 - A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit a Grant Application to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District for the 2024 Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation Program Funding Round for the Purchase of Five Light Duty Battery Electric Vehicles
F'ROM: Public Works Department

05/28/2024 Item No.12.

As part of the SECAT program, $4,200,000 will be made available to fleets within Sacramento County. The available funding per vehicle is based on the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) as follows:

Vehicle Weieht Class
o Light Duty (under 8,501 pounds GVWR)
o Medium Duty (between 8,501 & 14,000 pounds GVWR)
o Heavy Duty (14,001 pounds & higher GVWR)
X'unding per Vehicle
$20,000
$35,000
$100,000
There is a minimum City purchase commitment of at least five vehicles under 14,001 pounds or at least one vehicle over 14,000 pounds required to be eligible for this funding, with no specified upper limit.

This funding can be combined with other available grants and other state rebates. Funding may be reduced if the sum of all grants exceeds the vehicle cost. Some of the other available grant programs require a cost share from the applicant, and SMAQMD staff will work with each appiicant to ensure compliance with this requirement. Funding is available to add vehicles to a fleet or convert existing vehicles to zero emission operation.

Additionally, the SECAT Program will only fund zero emission vehicles that can be quickly delivered or converted to zero emission. Vehicles must be ordered within 45 days of contract execution and vehicle delivery must occur within 180 days of contract execution. Projects taking longer than these timelines are subject to termination. Applicants will need to demonstrati their projects are meeting the timeliness requirement by submitting proposed VINs or other documentation showing the proposed vehicles can be delivered quickly.

No funding is available to help replace diesel vehicles to comply with the Air Resource Board (ARB) Truck and Bus Regulation. SECAT funded vehicles cannot be used to comply with ARB Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) requirements. The ARB passed ACF with the expectation that fleets would pay 100zo of the compliance cost without any assistance.

The Public Works department is recommending the purchase of five battery electric vehicles for the pgrpose of increasing the size of the motor pool fleet located at City Hall, with the ultimate goal of increasing the motor pool fleet accessibility to all City departments and decreasing the size of the outdated and under-utilized department assigned vehicle fleet.

POLICY / RULE
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 10405 Amending Financial Policies of the City of Folsom regarding grant administration on April 14, 2020. Section D - Intergovernmental Revenues, Paragraph A - Grant Applications states, "Grant application shall be the responsibility of the department seeking the grant. Grant applications which require an expenditure of funds by the City of less than or equal to the City Manager contract authority amount may be approved by the City Manager prior to submittal to the grantor. All other grant 2

05/28/2024 Item No.12.
applications, including any requiring an ongoing commitment of resources or staff, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to submittal. In circumstances where it is not possible for the City Council to approve the grant application prior to submittal, the City Manager may approve the application subject to the City Council ratification as soon as practicable to do so.

Requests to the City Council or the City Manager for approval of a grant application shall identiff anticipated long-term maintenance andlor renovation eosts, required City matching funds, and additional personnel that may be needed if the grant is awarded for a capital project.

With respect to grants for staffing, the source of funds for long-term staffing after the expiration of the grant shall also be identified in the request for approval of the grant application.

All grant applications on behalf of the City shall be reviewed by the Finance Director before submittal to the City Council or the grantor."

ANALYSIS
The SECAT grant application opened on May 9, 2024. Staff have reviewed the program guidelines and determined the best use of SECAT funding is light duty vehicles. ACF requires that fifty percent of medium and heavy-duty vehicles purchased be zero emission. Using SECAT funding for these vehicles would eliminate them from counting toward city compliance. The city needs as many ACF credits as possible to offset purchases of traditional combustion engine vehicles. Non-compliance with ACF could result in fines and ineligibility for grant funding. In addition, most medium and heavy-duty vehicles operated by the city are custom vehicles that could not be deployed in the timeframe required by SECAT. Transitioning to zero emission light duty vehicles before it is mandated provides the opportunity to use grant funding without impacting compliance. SACOG staff intend to review and approve applications as soon as possible upon receipt. Applicants approved for more than $1,000,000 in SECAT funding will require approval by the SACOG Board of Directors which will delay the process, but most may get awards within 30 days.

F'INANCIAL IMPACT
There is no direct financial impact associated with this action at this point. Should the City be awarded grant funding for the purchase of the recommended five vehicles, the City would be required to provide the full purchase cost of the five vehicles up frorit, with $100,000 to be reimbursed by SECAT once the proper reports are filed. The up front purchase cost of the five battery electric vehicles is expected not to exceed $230,000, with a final cost to the City expected not to exceed $130,000 after receiving the $100,000 grant reimbursement. Future savings of maintenance and fuel costs could amount to as much as $1,500 per year.

The required funding for the purchase cost of the five battery electric vehicles was not included in the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Brfiget" nor is it included in the Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget. Should the City be awarded grant fundinga staff will return to Council to accept the grant and request an appropriation not to exceed $230,000 for the purchase ofthe vehicles from aJ

05/28/2024 Item No.12.
the General Fund (Fund 010). The grant funding received would be credited to the General Fund (Fund 010).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 11208 - A Resolution Authorizing Staff to Submit a Grant Appiication to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District for lhe 2024 Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation Program Funding Round for the Purchase of Five Light Duty Battery Electric Vehicles
Submitted,
Mark Rackovan, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
4

05/28/2024 Item No.12.

RESOLUTION NO. 11208

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO

THE SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE 2024 SACRAMENTO EMERGENCY CLEAN AIR TRANSPORTATION

PROGRAM F'UNDING ROUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIVE LIGHT DUTY

BATTERY ELECTRIC VEHICLES
WHEREAS' the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) is the metropolitan planning organization responsible for allocating clean air incentive program funds for the County of Sacramento; and
WHEREAS, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has issued a call for applications for the 2024 Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation (SECAT) Program funding round; and
WHEREAS' the City of Folsom has identified a project that is a candidate for SECAT funds; and
WHEREAS, the project identified, if approved for grant funding, will require the expedient purchase of five battery electric vehicles at a purchase price not to exceed $230,000; and
WHEREAS' should the grant be awarded, staff will return to Council to accept the grant and request an appropriation not to exceed $230,000 for the purchase cjf the five vehicles from the General Fund (Fund 010); and
WHEREAS, grant funding received would be credited to the General Furrd (Fund 010).

WHEREAS, after reimbursement, the net impact to the General Fund (Fund 010) would not exceed $130,000.

NOW' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes staff to submit a grant application to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments for the 2024 Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation Program funding round for the purchase of five light duty battery electric vehicles.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28ft day of May 2024,by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Resolution No. 11208
Page I of2 Page 109
05/28/2024 Item No.12.

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11208
Page2 of2 Page 110
05/28/2024 Item No.12.
t,', i
Folsom City Council
Staff ort

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve Resolution No. 1 1209 - A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Non-Professional Services Agreement with Belfor Restoration Services (Belfor) for Stucco Repairs at the Folsom Public Library and Appropriation of Contingency Funds.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Over the past 6-8 months staff have been tracking issues at the Folsom Public Library regarding water leakage into the interior spaces of the building. Staff has determined that most of the issues are due to exterior stucco panels that are cracking andlor delaminating from the main structure as well as issues with windows in the affected area. Staff recommends that Belfor conduct a thorough investigation of the building envelope where leaks have occurred, develop a scope of work, and perform repairs to the existing stucco, flashing, and windows as needed. Part of this work will be pre and post project environmental testing to confirm that any mold issues that may have been present, have been rectified.

POLICY / RULE
In accordance with Chapter 2.36.150 of the Folsom Municipal Code, Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the city manager shall make, or authorize others to make, emergency procurement of supplies, equipment, services, or construction items when there exists a threat to public health, welfare, or safety; provided, that such emergency procurement shall be made with sufficient competition as is practicable under the circumstances. The ,1
MEETING DATE: 512812024
AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 1 1209 - A Resolution Authorizingthe City Manager to Execute a Non-Professional Services Agreement with Belfor Restoration Services for Stucco Repairs at the Folsom Public Library and Appropriation of Contingency Funds FROM: Parks and Recreation Department

05/28/2024 Item No.13.
requesting department shall complete a waiver of bid format and submit it to the purchasing agent for filing with the city clerk. (Ord.723 $ 3 (part), 1991)

ANALYSIS
Staff recommends Belfor for this project because they are the vendor of choice for the City's insurance provider, and because they have the resources to test, investigate, and remediate the stucco issue at the Folsom Public Library. After the repairs are complete, Belfor will conduct testing to ensure that all leaks have been addressed, and that environmental testing has confirmed that no mold issues are present. Belfor did remediation work at the Folsom Garage, Rotary Clubhouse, and Fire Station 36.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost of the Building Assessment and the replacement of damaged stucco is proposed to be financed from the General Fund's (Fund 010) contingency budget. Sufficient funds for this emergency procurement are available in the General Fund's (Fund 010) contingency budget. The request is for Not to Exceed (NTE) Funding of $ 150,000, along wtth a l5Yo contingency for unknown conditions. The contingency percentage exceeds the lUYo construction contingency authorized in the Folsom Municipal Code but is highly recofilmended due to conditions that are not known at this time. The total NTE project request with contingency would be in the amount of $172,500.

Project Costs:

Total Not to Exceed Request
Construction Contingency
$150,000
$ 22,500
Total project Cost $172,500

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per Article 19, 15300.1 - Relation to Ministerial Projects.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 1 1209 - A Resolution Authorizingthe City Manager to Execute a Non-Professional Services Agreement with Belfor Restoration Services for Stucco Repairs at the Folsom Public Library and Appropriation of Contingency Funds Submitted,
2 Kelly Gorzalez, Parks & Recreation Director

05/28/2024 Item No.13.

RESOLUTION NO. II2O9

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
NON.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BELFOR

RESTORATION SERVICES FOR STUCCO REPAIRS AT THE FOLSOM

PUBLIC LIBRARY AND APPROPRIATION OF CONTINGENCY F'UNDS
WHEREAS, The Parks & Recreation Department has identified the need to perform emergency repairs and replace damaged exterior stucco wall panels at the Folsom Library to prevent further damage to infrastructure; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending the use of emergency or contingency funding; and
WHEREAS, staff is recommending Not to Exceed funding for a building assessment, environmental testing, and complete stucco repairs; and WHEREAS' sufficient funds for this emergency procurement are available in the General Fund's (Fund 010) contingency budget; and
WHEREAS, the agreement will be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom authorizes the City Manager to enter into a non-professional services agreement with Belfor Restoration Services to provide Not to Exceed funding in the amount of $150,000, along with a contingency of 15% ($22,500) for total funding of $172,500 and the Finance Director is authorized to appropriate an amount not to exceed $172,000 from the General Fund contingency budget .

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May 2024, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST:

Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. I1209
Page I of I Page 113
05/28/2024 Item No.13.

This page is intentiona.IlA left blqnk
to focilitqte double - sided printing
qnd minimize poper ttse.

CITY OF
DISTINCTIVE EY I{ATURE
FOLSOl\{

05/28/2024 Item No.13.
,,:.::a ), ',,,r':

Folsom City Council
Staff Re ort
MEETING DATE: 512812024
AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 11186 - A Resolution to Adopt an Amended User Fee Schedule for Community Development Engineering and
Building Services (Continued from 05/1412024)
FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt ResolutionNo. 11186 to adopt an amended user fee schedule for Community Development Engineering and Building services.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
Since the user and processing fees for the Community Development Department's services, including Building, Engineering and Planning, have not been comprehensively evaluated since at least 2006, the Department hired Clearsource Financial Consulting to analyze existing user fees, hourly rates, and staff time needed to perform fee-based tasks for Building, Engineering, and Planning services as well as for Special Event Permits. The study found that existing fees did not adequately cover the amount of staff time and resources associated with those processes and services. The study proposed a new fee schedule, with some modifications to the structure itself, to better capture the costs associated with fee-based services as well as an updated General Plan and Zoning Code Update fee to cover the increase associated with keeping these documents up to date with the frequent changes to State laws governing housing and land use. Based on Council and public feedback, as described below, staff is only recommending at this time changes to the user fees for Building and Engineering services.

In order to provide an opportunity for the Council and the public to provide input on the draft fee study, Community Development staff conducted a workshop on March 12,2024 with the City Council. Staff provided the results of the fee study and discussed the proposed user fee updates for the services provided by the department. At the workshop, the City Council took in comments from the public regarding the proposed updated fee schedule. Public comments primarily focused 1

05/28/2024 Item No.14.
on concerns about new fees and current processes associated with special events from groups that put on events in the city and business owners that benefit from events being held. Members of the public also requested lower fees for appeals to ensure that the public is not priced out of appealing a project white still recognizingthat staff s level of effort is not currently captured in the existing fee. Finally, the North State Building Industry Association requested a tiered roll-out of fees of 50 percent ofthe proposed increase initially and then implement the remainder of the fee increase six months later to reduce the immediate impact of fee increases on applicants.

The City Council discussed the proposed fee schedule update and provided comments to staff for consideration. While Council did not suggest modifications to any specific fees for Building or Engineering services, questions were raised about the necessity of the proposed technology fee and why it needed to be called out as a separate line item rather than included in the overall permit cost. That clarification has been made in the Analysis section of this report to address the comment received.

With regards to proposed fees for Planning services (which include appeal fees), Councilmembers stated that better explanations are needed for the various Planning processes and how often they are utilized to determine if all listed fees are still necessary. Councilmembers also stated that the proposed appeal fees were too high even though they captured staffls level of effort. With regards to special events, Councilmembers also noted that proposed Special Event Permit fees were too high and that more research was needed to determine what types of events and organizations, such as non-profits, should be charged less for events with community or economic development benefit. Additionally, the special event process, which is currently handled by Planning staff was also called into question with some suggestions that the Parks & Recreation or other City departments handle this process. Ultimately, Council concluded that updating fees for Planning pro".rses and Special Event Permits should be handled separately from the Building and Engineering fee changes.

Ultimately, staff determined that it would be more effective to discuss Planning fees in tandem with the upcoming ZoningCode update. This update may come with modifications to, or even the elimination of, existing Planning processes that could in tum have effects on staff time and Planning fees. Staff believes that discussing proposed changes to processes in the Zoning Code update Jhould go hand in hand with discussions of the fees associated with those processes to improve efficiency. Furthermore, additional work is needed to make changes to the Special Event Permit process and how fees should be charged for events. As such, staff is only proposing updates to fees for Building and Engineering services at this time. Updated Special Event Permit fees are anticipated to go in front of Council in summer/falI2024 with a target effective date of January 1, 2025. To coincide with the Zoning Code update, planning process fees are anticipated to go in front of Council in first quarter 2025, with a target effective date of July 1,2025.

POLICY / RULE
ftre ogecti*s of the fee study, the methodology used to complete the study, and the formulation of outcomes and recommended fee updates were significantly influenced by Article XIII C of the California Constitution, Propositions 218 (1996) and 26 (2010), and Section 66014 of the California Government Code.
2

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

Article XIII C states that, "the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner inwhich those costs are allocated to a payor bear afair or reasonable relationship to the payer's burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. " Additionally, Article XIII C identifies the following development processing fees as items that are not defined as taxes:
o A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege [Art. XIII, C, 1(e)(1)1.
. A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product [Art. XIII, C, l(e)(2)].

A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local govemment for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudicationthereof lArt. XIII, C, 1(e)(3)1.
a
Section 66014(a) of the California Government Code includes the following, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; ...the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act...; or planning services...; thosefees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of thefee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue".

The outcomes and recommendations of the fee study were intended to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws including providing confirmation that the proposed fees ("charges") recommended as a result of the fee study are not taxes as defined in Article XIII C of the California Constitution and that the proposed fees are no more than necessary to the cover the reasonable costs of the City's activities and services addressed inthe fees. Additionally, the fee study shows that the manner in which the costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payor's burdens on, or benefits received from the activities and services provided by the City.

ANALYSIS
The Building Division's modified fee schedule includes restructuring and new tiers and fee types so that the proposed fees more accurately reflect the level of effort that is expected as projects grow in scale and detail. The restructuring and modifications included:
aJ

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

The Engineering Division also made several specific modifications to the fee schedule to reflect costs associated with the permit reviews and plan checks that they perform. Major proposed modifications include the following:

Encroachment permits were restructured with the intent of encouraging applicants to obtain permits for their intended use. Subcategories of encroachment permits were added based on length of time, needs, and various types of encroachment (e.g., utilities encroachment vs. temporary storage container encroachment).

Annual permits for the purposes of general maintenance are to be billed on a time and materials basis. Since general maintenance.can vary greatly in scope and effort, an initial deposit will be determined by the City Engineer for the purposes of estimating the necessary level of staff effort to support review and inspections of the proposed work. a
a
o
a
Introducing flat rate fees for common residential permit types to be simpler for the public to understand and pay as well as easier for staff to administer. Staff found this to be consistent with other jurisdictions in the area.

Restructuring the fees related to subdivision development to align with the amount of staff time utilized for each permit type. Production permits for homes in a subdivision are reviewed by all divisions in Community Development, though the current fee covers less than one hour of staff time.

Revising the current fee table for valuation-based projects to account for the same percentage cost recovery atallvaluations. The current fee table utilizes a sliding scale for cost recovery, which does not reflect the estimated hours utilized. The proposed fee table is instead based on the same percentage cost recovery for any project. The current table uses a different percentage cost recovery based on project valuation (i.e.75% recovery for a $25,000 project versus 90o/o recovery for a $10 million project).

Adding the Business License Fee, Certified Access Specialist (CASp) Training Fund Fee and State Disability Access Fee to the fee schedule. These fees (the latter two of which are required by State law) have previously been collected along with the building permit fee but were not called out in the fee schedule.

Fees that are primarily for work performed by the contract City Surveyor were modified to reflect the actual billable rate of the Surveyor plus the City's overhead cost for contract administration.
4

05/28/2024 Item No.14.
a
a
a
Landscape review for production homes was changed from being based on the valuation of the project to a fixed fee, as the existing valuation method did not reflect the detailed tasks and level of effort that goes into reviewing the plans' Currently, aflat rate of $38 is used for all tree work/removal permits, regardless of the number of trees being removed. The tree removal permit fee structure was completely revamped to ensure that when tree work or minor removal (up to two trees or any "in- decline" tree) on occupied properties is proposed, the fees are kept relatively low, as this does not take a significant amount of staff time to review and code compliance is encouraged. However, for the removal of three or more trees, and any tree removal for new construction, the fees have gone up significantly to reflect the level of staff time it takes to process and review these tasks. For tree work/removal that requires a permit that staff discovers has been done without a permit will be charged two times the permit amount.

Based on public feedback (see comment letter from Morton & Pitalo in Attachment 3), staff revisited the proposed Final Map Amendment/Certificate of Correction fee. Because these two tasks are very different and require a different amount of time to process, staff has now proposed to split the fees. The new proposal is to charge the base Final Map fee for Final Map Amendments and a smaller Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance deposit-based fee for these tasks. Staff believes that these modifications better reflect the time it takes to do these tasks and allow flexibility to charge more if needed for more challenging Certificates of Correction or Compliance' Technology Fee
Based on feedback from the City Council, CDD has changed the way it is proposing to cover the cost of the technology required for online electronic plan and permit submittal, processing and review. The software systems that the department currently uses are moving to a cloud-based, fee- for-service model with an ongoing annual cost similar to how Microsoft's Office 365 system works. While the department currently uses soflware packages that it purchased and was installed on City seryers, CDD plans to eventually move from its current systems that involve large one- time costs, upgrade costs, and maintenance cost to a new annual subscription service. Rather than a separate technology fee, staff is proposing to treat the technology costs as part ofthe department's overhead cost for building permits. As a result, staff hourly rates for building permits have been adjusted to reflect the updated overhead costs, and all building permit fees are therefore slightly higher than originally presented in the draft fee study on March 12. By treating the technology costs as part of the overhead cost for the department, this will allow the annual costs to be covered fully and will not result in costs to the General Fund. However, in the future, if the department was to add additional software or technology services, a new fee study would be required to update the department's new overhead rate.
5

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

General PlanlZoning Code Fee
While CDD already charges a three percent (3%) General Plan fee on most building permits, the department is also proposing an updated General Plan and Zoning Code fee. California Government Code Section66014 states that fees collected by an agency "...may include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and determinations." Every county and city in California is required by State law to have aGeneral Plan, and the plan is required to be up to date.

The General Plan discusses the City's goals, policies, and implementation actions regarding all future development. The ZoningOrdinance establishes the development regulations to implement the General Plan and must be consistent with the Plan.

Cities and counties throughout California often attempt to recover portions of the costs of updating and maintaining these plans through fees collected on various development projects.

As the list below indicates, a similar fee is currently collected by several cities in the region. The list is not intended to be comprehensive. Cities in the region that collect a General Plan/Zoning Code Update Fee or Similar Fee include:
o Elk Grove
o Lincoln
o Rancho Cordova
o Roseville
o Sacramento
CDD is proposing a two percent increase in the fee. The new General Plan and Zoning Code Update fee would be five percent (5%) and would be applied to building permits for new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels. Projects that require these types of permits rely on the General Plan and Zoning Code to establish the land use, density and development standards necessary for the projects to happen.

Based on the Crty's anticipated costs of updating/maintaining the General Plan and its various elements and the Crty's Zoning Code, only partial cost recovery (approximately 55 percent) is targeted from this fee to keep it in line with fees collected by other agencies within the region.

While the entire community benefits from having a General Plan and ZoningCode, residential and commercial projects, in particular, benefit from these documents because these documents allow for development and contain the development locations and standards necessary for development to occur. The new proposed fee would help fund major periodic General Plan, Housing Element andZoning Code updates as well as in-house maintenance of these documents. The revised fee increases the amount from 3 percent to 5 percent as the cost of preparing these documents has grown. However, because the current General Plan fee is collected for both the building permit fee and the plan check fee and the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Update fee would only be collected for the building permit fee, this would result in approximately the same amount of funds that are currently being collected.
6

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

Conclusions
ClearSource performed a reasonableness test on the proposed fees using historical permit volume to forecast anticipated revenue from the fees. This test confirmed that the forecasted revenue from the fees did not exceed the actual staff costs associated with this work and should therefore be in line with State law. The study recommends monitoring permit and application volume and applicant feedback to determine if any of the fee modifications are resulting in any unanticipated "huttg".
in project frequency and to provide greater detail for future revenue forecasting. The study also recommends that fees should continue to be updated on an annual basis using the Consumer Price Index (CPD. This is typical for other jurisdictions in the region and also similar to how other City fees are administered in Folsom. The study also recommends that a comprehensive fee study should be conducted periodically to ensure fee levels remain at or below legal limits and are consistent with evolving practices and local conditions.

Regarding the North State Building Industry Association's request for a tiered roll-out of fees, staff is proposing a phasing of the fee changes. New Engineering and Building fees would go into effect on August t, ZOZ+. Planning fees are not proposed to be updated until the Zoning Code update is complete with new Planning fees proposed to go into effect on July 1,2025 after adoption oi the new code. As such, projects that are subject to Planning fees along with their Engineering andlor Building fees will not see an increase in Planning fees until several months after the Building and Engineering fees have gone into effect. Staff believes that this accomplishes the goals of a tieied roll-out by reducing the immediate impact of fee increases on applicants for larger projects. As such, no other formal tiered roll-out for Building and Engineering is proposed.

FISCAL ACT
The fee study concluded that the proposed new
estimated additional $1,100,000 annually for the
Building and Engineering fees could result in an
General Fund, based on historical permit volume
and development activity. Fee revenue could be higher or lower if actual experience differs from the assumptions used in the fee study.

ATT

1. Resolution No. 1 I 186 - A Resolution to Adopt an Amended User Fee Schedule for Community Development Engineering and Building Services Z. Development Processing Fee Study- Building and Engineering Fees, dated }lay 2024

3. Public Comments Received
Submitted,

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director
7

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 11186 _ A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN

AMENDED USER FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING AND BUILDING SERVICES

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

RESOLUTION NO. 11186

A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN AMENDED USER F'EE SCHEDULE FOR

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING AND BUILDING SERVICES WHEREAS, City of Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 states "The city manager is hereby directed to recommend to the council the adjustment of fees and charges to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services enumerated in this chapter and on the schedule of rate review as hereinafter established in this chapter"; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 28,2024,he1d a public hearing on the proposed fee updates for the Community Development Department and considered public comment; and WHEREAS Resolution No. 11110 adopted by Crty Council on October 10,2023, set the most recent User Fee schedule for the City including the Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the City had a consultant that performed a reasonableness test on the proposed fees and this test confirmed that fees do not exceed the actual staff costs associated with this work and are consistent with State law; and
WHEREAS notice has been given at the time and in the manner required by State Law and City Code; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby Amends Resolution No. 111 10 and adopts the amended user fee schedule for Community Development Engineering and Building services, as shown in Exhibit "A". pASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of May 2024, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Councilmember(s):

Michael D. Kozlowski, MAYOR
ATTEST
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11186
Page I ofll

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

Exhibit A
Updated Community Development Department Fee Schedule for Building and Engineering Services
ResolutionNo. 11186
Page2ofll

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
t Assessment DistricVCFD Payment Processing
G
$4,800 Fixed Fee
# Description Fc0 Structr.rrc
2 Encroachment Permit
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
l. 0-6 calendar days
ii. 7-14 catendar days
iii. 14+days
b) Utitity WorUConnections (lndividuaI Permits)
i. Wet Utitities/Service Connections
ii. DryUtitities (persite/tocation)
iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement
iv. lnspections and Testing
c) Driveways/Minor Frontage lmprovements
i. Residentiat (per driveway)
ii. Commerciat (per driveway)
d) Poots and Spas (in ground)
e) Trafi ic Controt/Equipment Staging
i. lsotated Site
ii. Muttipte Ctosures/Staging
f) Permit Extensions
i, ActiveWorkzone
ii. lnactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity)
g)Annuat Permits
i. WetUtitities
ii. DryUtitities
iii. Generat Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry Utitities) iv. Vegetation Management (Utitities)
v. LongTerm/Revocable Encroachments (paid annuatty)
h) LongTerm/Revocabte Encroachments (new permits onty)
$so
$1oo
$20o
$6oo
$200
$5.00
$4oo
$2oo
$1,ooo
$6,ooo
$2o,8oo
T&M
$2o,8oo
$zoo
$2,400
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
$aoo
$aoo
$4oo
$so
$20o
lal
lbl
Resolution No. 11186
Page3of11

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
Engineering and Landscape Ptan Check and lnspection
a) Proiect Vatue Up to $10,000
b) Project vatue $1o,oo1 - $1oo,oo0
i. Base Fee for First $10,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $100,000
c) $100,001 - $199,999
i. Base Fee for First $100,000
ii. Fee for Each Add't $1 Up to $200,000
d) $200,001 - $2ee,999
i. Base Fee for First $200,000
ii. Fee for Each Add't $1 Up to $300,000
e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000
ii. Fee for Each Add't $1
f) Landscape Ptan Review
i. Non-Development
ii. custom Home
iii. Production Home/Subdivision
iv. Model Home Complex
v. Commerciat, Streetscape, Other Devetopment Proiects
vi. Devetopment and Civit lmprovements - Landscaping Review

8.00%
$8oo

8.00%
$8,ooo

6.400/0
$14,400

4.8oo/o
$19,200

3.6070
$2oo
$1,100
$2,300
$1,400
$1,600
$2,100
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
# Dcscription Fee Slructr.r c
4 Finat Map and Parcel Map
a) Parcet Map Check
b) Finat Map Check
i. Base Fee/Finat MaP Amendment
ii. Ptus, Per Lot Fee
c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Comptiance
$8,050
$11,s00
$2,ooo
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
T&Mwith
lnitiatDeposit
$144
5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements
a) Review of ROWEasement Documents
b) ROW/Easement Abandonment
$3,4s0
$s,zso
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
6 SubdivisionAgreementProcessing $s,750 Fixed Fee
7 Transportation Permit
a) Permit
b)Annual Permit
$16
$go
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Resolution No. 11186
Page4of11

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
Tree RemovaWvork Permit
a) Permitted RemovaUWork
i. Existing Occupied Structure
a. 0-2Trees
b. 3+ Trees: See New Construction Rate Betow
c. "ln Dectine" Tree
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home, Subdivision, Parcet a. 0-4Trees
b. 5+Trees
iii. Misc.
b)Mo Permit (Does not inctude mitigation)
Doubte the Permit Rate
$1,200
91,200
$1,400 + 100/0 per tree
$20o
2x permit amount
$1oo
$1oo
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
Fixed Fee
It Description Fec Structure
Other Fees for Service
I Research of Engineering Records
10 lvlisceltaneousEngineeringServices
7f Excess Ptan Review Fee (4th and subsequent)
72 Revisions
13 After Hours lnspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum)
74 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each)
15 Missed lnspection Fee
16 Expedited Seruices Fee
f7 Residentiat LandscaPe Review
18 Technicat Assistance/Third Party Review or lnspection $20o
$2oo
$2oo
$20o
$240
$1oo
$100

1.5x Regular Fee
Hourty Rate ofArborist
Actuat Cost
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Each
Each
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
T&M
[a] Use time and materiats with initlat deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticlpated scope ofwork' [b] Encroachment agreement reqiiired in addition to insurance (e.g', parktets).

Resolution No. 11186
Page5of11

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
A.FeesforCommontyRequestedBuitdingPermitTypes. Feesshowninthissection(SectionA.)inctudeallapptlcableinspectlon'andplan revtew fees. Additionat permit processlng fees apply. Additional fees may appty for servlces provided by other City Departments (e.g' Planning Review), and Fees Collected on Behatf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of Catilornia)' ldE
1 HVAC Change-Out - Residential $230 per permit
Fee Dr:scription CharBe B.sis
$184 per permit2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residentiat
$368 per permit3 Residentiat Re-Roof
$322 per permit4 Siding Reptacement
5 Service Panel Upgrade - Residentiat $276 per permit
$368 per permit6 Battery Backup Stdrage
$eeg per permit7 Etectric vehicte charger
8 Generator $368 per permit
9 Residentiat Sotar Photovottaic System 'Sotar Permit
a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee for 15kW or Less
ii) Fee for Each Additionat kW above 15kW
b) Permit
$20o
$15
$250
tal,tbl
tal,tbl
tal,tbl
per permit
per permit
per permit
N
N
N
t0 Commerciat Sotar Photovottaic System - Sotar Permit
a) Ptan Review
i) Base Fee 50kW or Less
ii) Fee for Each Add't kw above 50kw up to 250kw
ii) Fee for Each Add't kW above 250kW
b) Permit
$z
$5
$444
$s56
per permit
per permit
per permit
per permit
Ial,tbl
tal,tbl
Ial,tbl
tal,tbl
N
N
N
N
11 Poot Sotar $rsa per permit
12 Swimming Poot Reptaster / Equipment Change-Out $460 per permit 13 Swimming Poot Remodet (e.g., Changing Poot Shape'
Adding Cabo Shetf, etc.)
$920 per permit
14 Retainlngwatt
a) one Type of Retaining Watt Type/conf iguration
b) Each Additionat Watt Type/Configuration
$552
$276
per permit
per permit
15 Window / Stiding Gtass Door - Retrofit / Repair
a)upto5
b) PerWindow over 5 Windows
$1e4
$sz
per permit
per permit
$368 per permit16 Fences Requiring a Buitding Permit
17 Etectricat and lrrigation Pedestats per pedestal $276 per permit $4,600 per permit18 DetachedandAttachedADUS
19 JuniorADUs $2,208 per permit
lal Totat fees shatt n0t exceed amounts outlined in catifornia Government code 66015(ax1). tbiTheCitywittnotcottectadditionatpermitprocessingfees. Amountsshownaretotatamountdueforpermitprocessing,planreview,andpermit.

Resolution No. 11186
Page6of11

05/28/2024 Item No.14.
. Project valuations shall be based on the total value of all construction work, including all finish work, roofing, electrical. plumbing, heating, air conditioning,elevators,fire-extinguishingsystemsandanyotherpermanentequipment. lf,intheopinionoftheBuildingOfficial,thevaluationis underestimated on the application, the permit shall be denied, unless the applicant can show detailed estimates to meet the approval of the Buildingofficial. Final buildingpermitvaluationshall besetbytheBuildingofficial. Fordeterminingprojectvaluationsfornewconstruction,the Building Official may use data published by the lnternational Code Council (lCC) (building valuation data table, typically updated in February and August of each year). The final building permit valuation shall be set at an amount that allows the City to recover its costs of applicant plan check, permit and inspection activities.

City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
Determination ot Valuation tor Fee-Setting Purposes
Note: For construction projects with permit fees calculated using section B, additlonatfees appty lor permit issuance. Additional fees may appty for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Ptanning Review), and Fees Cotlected on Behatl of Other Agencies (e.9. State ot Callfornia)' Additionatlees applyfor ptan review, when appticabte'
Pemits
$1 to $2,000
$2,001 to $25,000
$138.00
$138.00 for the first $2,000 p(us $10.00
$25,001 to $50,000 $368.00 forthefirst$25,000 ptus $11.04 $5o,oo1 $100,000 $6214.00 forthefirst$50,000 ptus $9.20 $100,001 $5oo,ooo $1,104.00 forthefirst$100,000 ptus $7.36 $500,001 $1,000,000 $4,048.00 forthefirst$500,000 ptus $6.62 $1,000,001 $5,000,000 $7,360.00 forthefirst$1,000,000 ptus $5.52 $29,440.00 forthefirst$5,000,000 ptus $4.11
Resolution No. 11186
PageT of 11
for each add't $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and inctuding $25,000
for each add't $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and lnctuding $50,000
for each add't $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and inctuding $100,000
for each add't $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and inctuding $5oo,ooo
for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and inctuding $1,000,000
for each add't $1,000 or fraction thereof, to
and inctuding $5,000,000
for each additionat $1,000 or fraction
thereof over $5,000,000
N
N
N
N
N
to
to
to
to N
N$5,ooo,oo1 and up
Permit FeeTotal Valuation

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

Activity Description
City of Folsom

BUITDING FEES
D. Buitding Plan Review Fees
1 Building Ptan Check Fees - Building
a) Ptan Review Fee, if appticabte
b) Expedited Ptan Check - At Application Submiua[ (when appticabte)
c) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) d) Production Permit for Mutti-famity permit
e) Production Permitfor Fire permits and other misc. permits f) Atternate Materiats and Methods Review (per hour)
g) Excess Ptan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour) h) Revisions to an Approved Permit (per hour)
i) Defened Submittat (per hou0
800/o

1.5x standard ptan check fee
200lo of standard ptan check fee
$t'472
$460
$184
$184
$184
$184
tal N
Ibl
N
N
When applicable, plan check fees shall be paid at the time of application for a building permit.

The plan checking fee is in addition to the building permit fee lal lnctudes up to three ptan checks. The City witt bitt hourty for additional ptan review required. lbl For identicat buitdings buitt by the same buitder on the same tot or in the same tract and for which buitding permits are issued at the same time.

Resolution No. 11186
Page8of11

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

Activity Description
City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
E. Other Fees
1 Permit Processing Fee
2 Strong Motion lnstrumentation (SMl) Fee Catcutation
a) Residentiat
b) Commerciat
3 Buitding Standards (SB 1473) Fee Catcutation (Vatuation) a) $1 - $2s,ooo
b) $25,001 - $50,000
c) $50,001 - $75,000
d) g7s,oo1 - $1oo,ooo
e) Each Add't $25,000 or fraction thereof
4 Business License Fee
5 CASP Training Fund Fee
6 State DisabitityAccess Fee
7 Generat Ptan/Zoning Code U pdate Fee (percent of buitding permit fee) 8 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (Phasing Ptan) Fee 9 Permlt Extension
10 Permit Reactivation Fee
a) Reactivation Fee ifAtt lnspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not lnctuding Finat lnspection
b) Reactivation Fee - Att Other Scenari0s
i) Permit Expired Up to One Year
ii) Permit Expired More than One Year
11 Permit Reissuance Fee
72 Damaged Bultding Survey (Fire, Flood, Vehicle Damage, Etc.) (per hou0 Other Fees
13 Phased lnspection Fee (per inspection)
14 After Hours lnspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum)
15 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each)
16 Missed lnspection Fee
17 Dupticate Copy of Permit
Resolution No. 11186
Page9of11
EE
$77
$0.50 or vatuation x .00013
$0.50 or vatuation x .00028
$3.60
$0.40
$s2o
50% of Originat Base Buitding Permit Fee
100% of Originat Base Buitding Permlt Fee
$184
$184
$ra+
$221,
$184
$184
$77
Ial
lal
tal
tal
lal
tal
lal
tal
tal$r
N
N
$r
$z
$s
$4
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Add
$zs
5o/o
N
$o
$184
tbl
N
N
lcl

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

Activity Description
City of Folsom

BUITDING FEES
E, Other Fees
18 Dupticate Copy of Certiflcate of Occupancy
19 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedute (per 1/2 houo Violatlon Fees
20 lnvestigation Fee ForWork Done Without Permits
(ln addition to appticabte permitfees)
EE
$tt
$gz
NequaI to
permit fee
[a]Amountsestabtishedbystateofcatifornia. lnthecaseofdiscrepancybetweenthisscheduleandamountsestabtishedbythestate,stateamountsshatl supersede these amounts.

Ib] Fee appties to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residentiaI remodets requiring buitding permits. [c] Reinspection fee appties after the first re-inspection.

Resolution No. 11186

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

BUITDING FEES
Buitding Vatuation Data Tabte
324.58
296.08
261.93
260.93
300.57
254,76
295.08
25r.L3
263.96
152.78
75r.78
742.04
742.04
257.73
252.95
424.59
292.45
286.31
252.95
193.36
255.47
2r2.06
203.74
252.95
147.04
t40.04
707.37
316.94
288.44
254.48
252.48
292.93
246.72
286.44
247.8e
255.62
743.34
743.34
133.60
133.60
247.86
244.37
475.32
283.18
277.03
244.37
784.97
246.71
203.42
198.94
2M.37
131.6C
JJI.bL

99.8€
304.93
276.42
245.85
244.85
280.91
235.10
275.42
231.65
245.04
138.64
137.64
727.90
727.90
231.65
235.67
405.72
272.97
266.83
235.67
177.28
238.13
794.78
795.72
235.61
126.90
125.90

95.60 286.87
258.37
230.56
228.56
263.30
276.33
256.37
210.99
228.69
723.55
723.55
!74,72
774.!2
210.99
275.42
383.35
253.83
247.95
275.42
767.72
2r8.35
175.96
188.41
275.42
772.72
7L2.r2

85.13 278,00
249,50
223.99
222.99
254.43
208.46
248.5A
202.73
277.00
7r7.41
116.41
106.97
106.97
202.73
209.47

0.00 0.00
238.69
209.47
156.15
272.40
770.O7
181.45
209.47
105.97
104.97

79.54 295.62
267,12
237.02
236.02
27t.60
225.80
266.72
222.56
236.61
732,48
73t.48
72t,74
721.74
222.56
235.7r
396.02
263.88
257.74
235.77
168.45
238.17
I94.82
791.77
235.77
720.74
779.74

90.99 266.02
237.57
209.57
207.57
242.45
r95.47
23s.51
L86.27
200.36
r02.M
102.M

93.00 93.00
786.27
193.82
358.57
229.0s
223.77
193.82
140.73
196.75
154.36
175.86
793.82

91.00 91.00

67.39 257.55
229.05
202.79
207.79
233.98
188.01
228.05
777.87
193.94
oE o?

94.93 0.00

85.50 177.87
787.73

0.00 0.00
272.77
r87.73
134.95
190.67
r48.28
165.67
r87.73

84.5C

83.5C

64.19 A-1 Assembty, theaters, with stage
A-1 Assembty, theaters, without stage
A-2 Assembty, nightctubs
A-2Assembty, restaurants, bars, banquet hatts
A-3 Assembty, churches
A-3 Assembty, general, community hatts, tibraries,
A-4Assemb[y, arenas
B Business
E EducationaI
F-1 Factory and industriat, moderate hazard
F-2 Factory and industriat, low hazard
H-1 High Hazard, exptosives
H234 High Hazard
H-5 HPM
l-1 lnstitutionat, supervised environment
l-2 lnstitutionat, hospitals
l-2 lnstltutional, nursing homes
l-3 lnstitutionat, restrained
l-4 lnstitutionat, day care facilities
M Mercantile
R-1 Residentiat, hotets
R-2 Residentiat, muttipte famity
R-3 Residentiat, one- and two{amity
R-4 Residentiat, care/assisted living facitities
S-1 Storage, moderate hazard
S-2 Storage, low hazard
U Utitity, miscettaneous
335.89
307.39
269.94
268.94
311.88
zea.ol
306.39
260.69
273.46
160.20
159.20
I49.46

1.49.46 260.69
262.22
434.t5
302.01
295.86
262.22
20t.37
264.67
22r.32
209.61
262.22
148.46
!47.46
114.09
Resolution No. 11186
Page1lof11

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

ATTACHMBNT 2

DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEE STUDY- BUILDING AND
ENGINEERING FBBSO DATED MAY 2024

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

CITY OF FOLSOM
cleorD

SOU TCE
! .tArl rAl l,.t.t tlr(r
MAY 2024

DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEE STUDY

BUILDING AND ENGINEERING FEES

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

CONTENTS

REPORTING
Section
1 APPENDICES
Appendix
Description

TRANSMITTAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I Overall Findings
PROJECT ORIENTATION I Scope and Guidance
IMPLEMENTATION I Considerations for lmplementation
Description

REGIONAT FEE COMPARISON

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

PROPOSED FEES
Page #
2 3
4 1
2 5
9 A
B
c
CTEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF FOLSOM Page 136
05/28/2024 Item No.14.
cleo rEs OUTCC

FINANCIAT CONSUTTING
May 2024

CITY OF FOLSOM
Attn: Pam Johns, Community Development Director
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING FEE STUDY
Dear Ms. Johns:

ClearSource Financial Consulting submits the following report describing the findings of our preparation of a User and Regulatory Fee Study for the City of Folsom.

Please refer to the Executive Summary for the key findings of the analysis and estimated impacts to City funds. The balance of the report and its appendices provide the necessary documentation to support those outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City on this topic. We are happy to continue discussion on this study as the need arises or consult with you on additional topics.

Sincerely,
-l
-,n^t
--u.-(

TERRY MADSEN, PRESIDENT I CLEARSOURCE FINANCIAL CONSULTING PHONE: 831.288.O608
EMAIL: [email protected]
796O B Soquel Drive, Suite 363, Aptos, California 95OO3 831.288.O608

CLEARSOURCEFINANCIAL'COM

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STUDY OVERVIEW
The City of Folsom provides many services to ensure safe, orderly and aesthetically pleasing development and construction within the City. The broad categories of these services include, but are not limited to, project entitlement review, improvement plan check, map check, permits (building, grading, encroachment and driveway), and land action review (i.e. dedications, parcel mergers and lot line adjustments). User fees and regulatory fees are the mechanism by which the City may recoup a portion of or all of the costs associated with these services'
The City of Folsom has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study. California cities regularly conduct these studies to justify fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall portfolio of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services,
lndustry practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that same individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency's general revenues as much as possible for use toward services of broader community benefit.

USER AND REGULATORY FEES
Cities derive annual revenue from a number of sources. These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, license fees, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs lncurred by the City for provldlng fee-related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California law provides guidance regarding the amounts the City may charge for fee-related services and activities. Specifically, in order to avoid being considered taxes, the fees charged shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services, activities, or materials for which fees are charged'

COST RECOVERY POLICY AND PRACTICE
Recovering the costs of providing fee-related services directly influences the City's fiscal health and increases the City's ability to meet the service level expectations of fee payers.

The services for which the City imposes a user or regulatory fee typically derive from an individual person or entity's action, request, or behavior. Therefore, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public benefit generated by the City's involvement in the individual action, a fee for service ensures that the individual bears most, if not all, of the cost incurred by the City to provide that service. When a fee targets "LOO% or full cost recovery," the individual bears the entirety of the cost, When a fee targets less than full cost recovery, anothei City revenue source - in most cases, the General Fund - subsidizes the individualized activitY.
2CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM Page 138
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FINDINGS AND PROPOSED ACTION
During the course of study, information and analysis was generated and is discussed substantively throughout this report and its technical appendices. However, summarized in the following findings statements by broad fee category, are outcomes and proposals of particular interest to City policymakers.

Building Fees
o Current fees recover less than the City's full cost of providing fee-related services. o The Division collects approximately 52,845,000 annually in fee revenues. Fee-related expenditures are anticipated to be approximately 53,468,000. This results in an aggregate cost recovery level of 82% and a General Fund subsidy of approximately 5622,000. o Full cost recovery is targeted for building fees.

Land Development Eneineering Fees and Encroachment Permit Fees o Current fees recover less than the City's full cost of providing fee-related services. Many of the City's current fees are fixed at amounts that reflect less than the City's cost of providing services (examples include, but are not limited to, tree permitting and landscape plan review). o The Division collects approximately 52,400,000 annually in fee revenues. Fee-related expenditures are approximately 52,880,000. This results in an aggregate cost recovery level of 83% and a General Fund subsidy of approximately 5480,000. o Recalibrate fees to encourage cost recovery of City staff and outside service provider costs, o Full cost recovery is targeted from engineering and encroachment permit fees.

Deposit-Based Ensineerins Fees (i.e.. Time & Materials Billinss) o Fees for some of the City's more complex land development review projects are proposed to be administered using a "time and materials" billing approach. The City will collect an initial deposit and bill against that deposit for the costs of outside consultant review and support, and in-house labor efforts. lf the deposit is drawn down before project completion, staff contacts the applicant to request replenishment of funds, lf deposit amounts remain at the completion of the project, the applicant is refunded the unused deposit amount. Comprehensive tracking and billing for deposit-based projects should billing for project time such as:
o lntake and lnitial Processing and Review
o lnitial Meetings
o ProjectCorrespondence
3CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM Page 139
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
o Multiple Rounds of Review
o Report PreParation
o Decision Making, Meeting Preparation
o Project Close-Out and Documentation Actions
Reeional Fee Comparison
o Similar fees are collected by communities throughout the region and the State. The proposed fee amounts do not exceed the City's cost of service and are in-range of amounts charged by other jurisdictions. Regional fee comparison information is included in Appendix A of this report.

Additional Cost Recoverv from Proposed Adiustments to Fees o The enhanced cost recovery anticipated frrom the proposed changes included in the fee schedule update is S1,1oo,ooo.

Fairly allocating costs to the services provided and recovering some, or all, of these costs from service recipients creates value and predictability for City customers and reimburses the City for services provided to a single party, as compared to the public at large. Collecting fees for services:

C lncreases the availability of General Fund revenues to be used for services and activities available to all residents and businesses, such as public safety and public works services' C Helps meet fee-payer service level expectations by collecting fees to fund the existing level of services provided.
please continue to the following technical report and appendices for further discussion of this User and Regulatory Fee Study.
4CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM Page 140
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

PROJECT ORIENTATION

SCOPE OF STUDY
The City of Folsom has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study, which represents an external review of prevailing practices and development of an updated Schedule of User Fees and Charges. ClearSource Financial Consulting has prepared this analysis during Fiscal Year 2023/24 and will be available to answer questions as the City proceeds in implementing findings as it chooses Key tasks expected by the City from this study included the following:

C Review eligible fee-related services citywide to establish the reasonable relationship between current fees for service and the underlying costs of service,
3 Calculate the full cost of service, including estimated citywide overhead costs. 3 Recommend fees to be charged for each service.
t Recommend cost recovery strategies and best practices in setting fees, while considering the complexities and demands of responsible programs or departments.

C ldentify underlying billable rates for cost recovery opportunities and as the basis for user fees. 3 Maintain a thoroughly documented analysis to ensure compliance with Proposition 25, and other statutes, as applicable.

DIRECT SERVICES UNDER REVIEW
Fee Categories
City fees under review in this project focused on direct services eligible for user fee methodology, as listed in the City's published fee schedules. Additionally, the project was tasked with identifying any relevant additions for services performed without a fee or for under-quantified or ineffectively structured fees.

Current services shown in the City's various prevailing fee schedules and addressed in this study are summarized as follows:
3 Engineering - Services include encroachment permitting, development plan review and inspection' 3 Building - Building plan review, permitting, and inspection for construction and sub-trades. 5CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM Page 141
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

PROJECT OR!ENTATION

REASON FOR STUDY
Cities derive annual revenue from a number of sources, These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs incurred by a city for providing fee-related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California cities regularly conduct fee studies to justify fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall body of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services. Widespread industry practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency's general revenues for services of broader community benefit.

PREVAILING GUIDANCE
The objectives of this study, the methodology used to complete the study, and the formulation of outcomes and reconimendations for future consideration were significantly influenced by Article 13C of the California Constitution and Section 56014 of the California Government Code.

Article 13C states that the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payer's burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. Additionally, Article 13C identifies the following as items that are not defined as taxes:
3 A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege. 3 A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product,
C A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. 3 A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
3 A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law.

C A charge imposed as a condition of property development. 5CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM Page 142
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

PROJECT ORIENTATION
C Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article Xlll D.

Section 6601a(a) of the California Government Code includes the following, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; ...the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act...; or planning services...; those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.

The outcomes and recommendations of the study are intended to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws including providing confirmation that the proposed fees ("charges") recommended as a result of this study are not taxes as defined in Article 13C of the California Constitution and that the proposed fees are no more than necessary to the coverthe reasonable costs of the City's activities and services addressed in the fees. Additionally, this report is intended to show that the manner in which the costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer's burdens on, or benefits received from the activities and services provided by the City.

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
This study calculated the estimated reasonable cost of providing various fee-related services across the City organization. Generally, the estimated reasonable cost of providing the fee-related services and activities examined in this study can be calculated as the product of the composite fully-burdened hourly labor rate of the division responsible for providing services and the estimated labor time required to process a typical request for service'
The composite fully-burdened hourly rates calculated in this study are based on the estimated annual hours spent providing fee related services, and estimated labor, services and supplies, and citywide overhead expenditures, sourced as follows:
3 Labor expenditures for in-house personnelwere based on budgeted salary and benefits expenditures. 3 Contract service personnel and other services and supplies related costs were based on Fiscal Year 2023/24 adopted budgets and anticipated costs.

C Citywide overhead cost allocations were based on the City's current overhead cost allocation plan. 3 Estimated labor time spent providing fee related services were developed based on interviews with City staff and are in-line with typical direct service ratios experienced by the consultant via studies of similar municipalities throughout California. Commonly used industry data also aided in the development of time estimates and proposed fee structures.

Once cost of service levels are identified, the City may use this information to inform targeted cost recovery front fees. Fees set at the cost-of:seNice target full cost recovery. Fees set at any amount less than the cost-of-service target less than full cost recovery. 7CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM Page 143
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

PROJECT ORIENTATION
An illustration of the methods used in this analysis is shown in Exhibit 2.

EXHIBIT 2 | STEPS lN ANAIYZING COSTS OF SERVICE AND USER FEES 7 L IDENTIFY ANNUAL HOURS SPENT PROVIDING FEE SERVICES FOR EACH

PARTICIPATING DIVISION

INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING A COMBINATION OF INTERVIEWS,

QUESTIONNAIRES, HISTORICAL PROJECT INFORMATION, AND HISTORICAL REVENUE

INFORMATION

ANNUAL LABOR TIME

IDENTIFY ANNUAL COST OF PROVIDING FEE SERVICES FOR EACH DrvtsroN

INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING A COMBINATION OF

INFORMATION FOUND IN THE CITY,S ADOPTED BUDGET, EXPENDITURE HISTORY, AND THE OVERHEAD COST PLAN.

PARTICIPATING2 ANNUAL EXPENDITURES

CALCULATE THE ESTIMATED FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATE USING INFORMATION FROM STEPS 1 AND 2
3 FULLY BURDENED

HOURLY RATES

IRED TO PROCESS INDIVIDUAL REQUEST FOR SERVICE
INFORMATION 15 DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING A COMBINATION OF INTERVIEWS,

QUESTIONNAIRES, COMMONLY USED MEASURES, AND INFORMATION DEVELOPED IN STEP 1
ESTIMATE LABOR TIME4 SERVICE/ACTIVITY LABOR
TIME
CALCULATE THE ESTIMATED COST OF SERVICE USING INFO RMATION FROM STEPS 3 AND 4
5 UNIT COST OF SERVICE
3 CALCULATE CURRENT COST RECOVERY LEVEL FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE6 CURRENT COST RECOVERY UsE LAWS, INDUSTRY STANDARDS, GOALS AND POLICIES, AND HISTORICAL TRENDS

TO DETERMINE TARGETED COST RECOVERY

TARGETED COST

RECOVERY

TESTTO CONFIRM FORECAST REVENUE FROM FEES WILL NOT EXCEED PROG COSTS

USE HISTORICAL PERMIT VOLUME AND PROPOSED FEES TO FORECAST ANTICIPATED

REVENUE FROM FEES

FORECASTED REVENUES SHOULD NOT EXCEED PROGRAM COSTS
RAM8 TEST FOR

REASONABLENESS

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS - PROCESS AND METHODS
8CTEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM Page 144
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

IMPLEMENTATION

CONSIDERATIONS FOR IM PLEMENTATION
lf the City decides to adopt or otherwise utilize outcomes generated through this study, it should 3 Update Systems for Fee Outcomes - Ensure that City staff begin using updated fees and associated outcomes once the updated schedule of fees becomes effective, Values should be included in all official fee schedules used throughout the City (e.g., departmental pamphlets, counter schedules, and online information). Additionally, ensure collections processes are updated, which may include coding in billing systems and training for personnel who handle fees directly with the public' 3 Actively Monitor the Use of Fees - ln order to recover accurate and eligible amounts expected, the City should be diligent about tracking time to projects for time and materials billings and ensuring fees are applied in the correct amount and using the correct and intended basis for fixed fee billings' 3 Monitor Feedback and Permit Statistics - Monitor permit and application volume and applicant feedback to determine if fee modifications are resulting in any unanticipated changes in project frequency and to increase the level of detail available for revenue forecasting. 3 Annually Review and Adjust Fee Values - ln order to generally maintain pace with regional cost inflation and/or the City's salary cost inflation, the City should adjust its fees on an annual basis. A commonly used, reasonable inflation index is the annual change in the all-urban Consumer Price lndex (CPl) representative of the region.
g periodicaly perform Comprehensive Analysis - A comprehensive fee study should be conducted periodically (e.g., every three to five years) to ensure fee levels remain at or below legal limits and are consistent with evolving service practices and local conditions' 9CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOTSOM Page 145
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

APPENDIX A

REGIONAL FEE COMPARISON
ln order to provide the City Council with additional information as it considers potential adjustments to fees, current and proposed fees were compared to amounts collected by other agencies within the region.

City policymakers often consider fees established by other regional agencies for similar services when evaluating proposed fees.

The City of Folsom, consistent with other cities throughout the State, has an existing fee schedule that contemplates hundreds of potential unique requests for service. This can result in thousands of fee scenarios when comparing among multiple agencies. Consequently, an exhaustive comparison of the hundreds, and potentially thousands of scenarios is unrealistic. lnstead, comparison information for several fee categories commonly seen from agency to agency are provided in order to provide City Council with a reasonable sense of changes expected, For Folsom, outcomes will show that new fees may range from low, mid, to upper end of regional fee spectrum depending on the service provided. This is common among municipalities due to differing levels of service and review included among various fee categories.

Engineering Fee Comparison
Building Fee Comparison
* Fee omoun5 shown are tor lllusttdtive putpofs. Actuql lees collected wlll wr depending on seMl@s rviewd (e.g., new @nstrdion, plumbing, me.hdnicdl, electticol, strctufL generul pldn upddte, tethnotogy lees, eE.). Amoun!6 arc intended to illustuote poatens ond otder of mdgnitude, 7% 2t%MldjRang€ Mld-Range 6% - 1vo s% to.s%-ta%Engineerlng Plan Check and lnspectlon
lmprovement Value Up to
slooK

4.3% - 10v" s% t7% s%Mld.Range Mld-Range 5% 6.40%Engineerlng Plan Check and lnspection
lmprovement value S100K
s200K
6vo - 8,5% 2%.4% 6%-A% 5%Mid-Range Mld-Rang€ 2% - {ya 3.6%-4.A%Engineering Plan check and lnspection
lmprov€ment value S200K
s1M
5368 s37s 94s6 $1s892s,00{t Mld-Rang€ Mld-Range S33o
57s7Mld-Rang€ $s30 s644 S6oo S7s1Sso,ooo Mld-Range
s1,104 s1,0s0 91,158 s1,1625100,0fl) Mld.Ran8a MId-Range S88o varies
{resv. non-res}
S3,597 vades
(res v, non-res)
Mld-Range Mld-Range s3,280 s4048SSoo,ooo
Mld-Rande s6,030 sz360 SZs1l s5,4L7 56,180s1,000,000 MH-Rhnge CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 10Page 146
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

APPENDIX B

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOTSOM LLPage 147
05/28/2024 Item No.14.
,.f
Y r'(}LS(}nf,
CITY {IF
NIETIHCTIVE BY I{ATgRE
User and Reaulotoru Fees
Fee-Related Cost ol Seruice Anolysis
Appendix B: p. 1

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
Cost of Service AnalYsis
Cost of Service Allocation - Community Development Administration Cost of Service Calculations
Engineering and Encroachment Permits
Building
General Plan / Zoning Code UPdate
Cost Allocation - Citywide Overhead
3 5
14 24
26 Description Page
Appendix B: p. 2

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

User ond Reoulatorv Fees
Cost ol Service Calculations
Community Development - Administrotion
Appendix B: p. 3

05/28/2024 Item No.14.
t00%460/oof ln-House Labor
Ccce
Enforce me "t 3:::B! ild ing il ciesE-g nee.ing P annrrg City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Community Development - Administration Allocation of ln-House Labor
Recurring Expenditures
[a] Based on feedback received from Community Development Department. Amounts intended to serue as reasbnable estimates. Allocated based on divisional FTE. [bl Source: FY 23/24 adopted budget.
[c] Adiustment to exclude non-fee related expenses.
s 813.803
s
s
5 s
5 s
s
s
I
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5 5
$
s
s
s
s
$
s
360,290
5,L97
29,650
739,520
16,095
6000
55,O22
4,O0O
5,500
7,500
55,500
L7,500
358
2,500
10,000
5,500
2,000
17,000
5,000
22,6t4
5,000
11,000
7,533
1,4,824
500
200
4000
s f1s.mo)
s
s
)
s
s
)
s
s
s
s
s
5 s
)
$
s
$
s
s
s
5 s
s
s
s
s
5 s
(10,000)
(s,000)
$ 82&803
s
s
s
s
5 5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
s
I
5 s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
360,290
5,t97
29,650
139,520
16 095
6,000
55,O22
4,000
5,500
7,500
55,500
17,500
358
2,500
r0,000
5,500
2,000
s,000
500
4000
200
10,000
t7,ooo
5,000
22,674
5,000
11,000
7,533
78,824
subtofal
Salaries - Permanent
Annual Leave Account
FICA
PERS
Deferred comp - city Paid
Automobile Allowance
combined Benefits
Printing
Dues & Publications
Advertising
Rents
Training & Education
Postage
Telephone
Cellular
lnternet
Travel and Meetings
Contracts
Contracts - Pre Employment
Vehicle Maintenance
Equipment Maintenance
Advisory
Computer - Hardware
Computer - Software
Computer- License & Mtnc
office Supplies
Departmental Supplies
Petroleum Supplies
lnsurance / Liability
tbl
lbl
Ibl
tbl
tbl
tbt
Ibl
tb1
tb1
tb1
tbl
tbl
tbl
tbl
tbl
tbl
tbl
lbl;lcl
tbl
tbl
tbI
lbl;tcl
tbt
tbl
Ib1
tbl
tb1
tbl
tb1
s.813,803
tw.
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
(
s
s
s
360,290
5,L97
29,650
!39,520
16,095
6,000
55,O22
4,000
5,s00
7,500
55,500
17,500
358
2,500
10,000
5,500
2,000
17,000
5,000
22,6L4
5,000
11,000
7,s33
L8,a24
500
200
4000
S 159,s42
2L%
s
)
s
$
s
s
5 s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5 s
5 s
s
7s,060
L,083
6,L77
29,067
3,353
7,250
LL,463
833
I,L46
1,563
L]-,563
3,646
75 521
2,083
t,L46
417
LO4
833
42 3,542
1,o42
4,7Lr
t,042
2,292
1,569
3,922
s 203,4s1
E%
s
)
s
s
5 s
s
s
s
5 s
s
s
5 5
5 s
5 s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5 5
90,o73
L,299
7,4t3
34,880
4,O24
L,500
L3,756
1,000
1,375
L,875
L3,475
4,375
90 62s
2,500
L,375
500
50 LZs
1,000
4,250
1,250
5,654
t,250
2,750
1,883
4,706
I 67,817
gt
s
s
s
s
s
I
s
s
s
s
s
I
s
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5 s
s
s
s
30,024
433
2,47L
n,627
L,34L
500
4s8s
333
458
625
4,625
L45a
30 204
833
454
167
42 333
t7
1,4!7
477
1,88s
417
9r7
628
1,569
s ga,ggg
46y
s
s
s
s
s
s
5 s
s
s
5 s
s
s
s
s
s
s
I
s
s
s
5 s
s
165,133
2,382
L3,590
63,947
7,377
2,750
25,2L8
1,833
2,52t
3,438
25,434
8,OzL
L64
L,L46
4,583
2,521
917
92 229
1,833
7,792
2,292
L0,355
2,292
5,O42
3,45?
4,628
Notes-ctalEngineering t a.1 .'3-': "g
CcCe
..fa "aene It
Appendix B: p. 4

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

User and Reaulatorv Fees
Cost of Service Calculotions
Engineering and Encroachment Permits
Appendix B: p. 5

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Engineering
Authorized Staffing
Contract Services
Divisional Total
lal Staffing based on FY 23/24 adopted budget
[b]Allocationofhoursintendedtoserueasreasonableestimate. Amountmayvaryfromyear-to-yearandpositiontoposition. [c] Source: Annual average FY 18/19 thtough FY 2L/22.
[d] Amounts intended to serue as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers. [el Average hourly rate for contract services received. lal;Ib]
lal;Ib]
lal;Ib]
lal;Ib]
lal;Ibl
L,864
L,864
t,864
La64
3,728
Lt,t84
Lovt
7,7?6
6996
L,491,
652
L,49t
1,305
2,796
373
373
559
932
t,212
3,444
3L%
too%
IOO%
100%
IOO%
r00%
aoo/a
35%
80%
70%
750t
20%
65%
20o/o
30%
25%
tL,tu
1,864
L,864
L,864
L,864
3,724
L,864
L,464
r,864
!,464
1,864
2t6
276
2L6
2L6
276
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,080

6.00 1.00

1.00 1..00

1.00 2.00
Urban Forestor
City Engineer
Senior Construction lnspector
Engineering Tech l/ll
Senior Civil Engineer
Total
Total
Total Hours Less: Ho'id:!
Per FTE & Leave
Hcurs Per
F-!
P.od Liative
Fi o ":s
I ndirect
Hours
Total Direct
HcursTota I:TE T.i3l Flou.. Noteslndirect Direct
s r,75L,255Annual Contract Seruices
N otesTctai::::'i: r-
tdl
tdl
lel
125
20s
s
s
165
50%
soo/.
t00%
lnspection
Plan Review
Total
Snare Est. HrlV Cost Notes
ro,5t4r0,674
t7,L84
LO,614
21,798
L0a%
7,736
9,552
L7,288
79%
4,5L0
2l%
3,444
L,O6L
Authorized Staffing
Contract Services
Total
Total
Di rect'c':ci NotesTotal
Appendix B: p. 6Page 153
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Engineering
Recurring Divisional Expenditures [a]
Allocation of Department and citywide Overhead
Total
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
[a] Source: FY 23124 adopted budget.
[b] Adjustment to align to FY 22/23 actual coritract service expenditures. [c] See separate worksheets in this model. Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates. tbl
5 3,o29,s32
5 740,794
S 10,730
s 67s
5 s8,782
S 29s,014
s 16,200
s 1L8,434
$ r,7sr,2ss
5 37,648
S 1,061,2s5
s
5 s
s
)
s
s
s
5 1,061,255
5 r,968,277
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
740,794
10,730
675
5a,7a2
295,0r4
16,200
lta,434
690,000
37,648
Subtotal
Salaries - Permanent
Annual Leave Account
Uniform Allowance
FICA
PERS
combined Benefits
Contracts
lnsurance / Liability
Deferred Comp - City Paid
lcl
lcl
s
s
203,45I
220,949
s 424,400
s
s
5 s
s
203,45t
220,949
$ 424,400
Department Overhead
Citvwide Overhead
Subtotal
NotesTotal Adjustments rct2
5 3,4st,9?2
$ 3,O29,s32
s 203,4s1
5 220,949
Subtotal
Recurring Divisional Expenditures
Department Overhead
Ciwwide Overhead
N otesTotalDes:r p:'a ^
lcl
s 3,4s3,932
L7,284
2Ms
Costs
Direct Hours
Fullv-Burdened Hourly Rate
TotalDescri ption
Appendix B: p. 7

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
Cost of Service Calculation

24.OO

12.00 0.25

1..00

2.00 2.00

2.00 1.00

5.00 0.25

0.50 1.00

3.00 1.90

0.03 2.00

30.00 L04.00

30.00 104.O0

1.00 !!:.,:1.3r
-:!rrS
s200
s200
5200
s2o0
52oo
S2oo
S2oo
520o
s2oo
s2oo
s2o0
52oo
5200
S20o
52oo
S20o
s2oo
Szoo
s2oo
s2oo
llour ! Rat3
s6,ooo
s2o,8oo
56,ooo
s20,800
S2oo
9so
s40o
s4oo
5200
S4oo
s4,8oo
S2,4oo
S2oo
s1,000
s600
s2oo
5s,oo
$4oo
9so
51oo
S2oo
:_i: :::: f i
s4%
6%
34%
34%
340/0
680/0
74%
23%
68yo
39o/o
27V/o
680/o
27004
L35%
6a%
44%
t3%
44%
t3%
68%
$13s
Srss
s13s
513s
513s
sL3s
S13s
513s
9rrs
S13s
513s
$13s
S135
S1.96
s2,6s1
s2,5s1
S2,6s1
52,65r
s13s
CuIrent F!e
C,--e-: C3::
: .r -
52,222
($as1
(Sls1
5es
s46s
S6s

53.04 5g,s+g
518,L49
91&14e
s6s
52,26s
S6s
S86s
(Sas1
Ses
s26s
525s
s26s
Fee Change
lal
tbt
Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing
Encroachment Permit
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days
ii.7-l4calendardays
iii. 14+days
b) Utility work/connections (lndividual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Seruice Connections
ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location)
iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROWCity Easement
iv. lnspections and Testing
c) Driveways/Minor Frontage lmprovements
i. Residential (per drivewaY)
ii. commercial (per driveway)
d) Pools and spas (in ground)
e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. lsolated site
ii. Multiple closuresAtaging
f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone
ii. lnactive Work zone (4+ months inactivity)
g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities
ii. Dry Utilities
iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry
utilities)
iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities)
v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid
annually)
h) LongTerm/Revocable Encroachments (new
permits only)
t
2 X
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
ro0%
roo%
r00%
to0o/o
to0%
fio%
r00%
ro0%
70o.%
70e/o
roo%
ro0%
700%
r00%
too%
too%
roo%
100%
10,0%
700%
$so
$200
s200
52,400
s20,8oo
54oo
54oo
s40o
S2oo
S1,ooo
$o,ooo
s20,8oo
T&M
9so
5100
S2oo
55oo
520o
Ss.oo
S4oo
t:c.'::ed Fee
P.opaa,z.i
Co!t
Recc":',
X
x
x
Appendix B: p. 8

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
LJser and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
Cost of seruice c,lculation
x
Engineering and Landscape Plan check and lnspection
(Fee lncludes Up to 3 cycle Reviews - Hourly Billing
Applies for Reviews Required Beyond 3rd cycle)
a) Project Value Up to $10,000
b) Proiea Value 519001 - S10o,0o0
i. Base Fee for First 510,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l 51 up to 5100,000
cl 9100,001 - S199,eee
i. Base Fee for First S100,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $200,000
d) s200,001 - s2es,eee
i. Base Fee for First 5200,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l S1 up to 5300,000
e) 5300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First 5300,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1
fl Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development
ii. Custom Home
iii. Production Home/subdivision
iv. Model Home Complex
v. Commercial, streetscape, Other Development
Prcjects
vi. Development and civil lmprovements -
Landscaping Review
Final Map and Parcel Map
a) Parcel Map Check
b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment
ii. Plut Per Lot Fee
c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance
Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements
a) Review of ROWEasement Documents
b) ROWEasement Abandonment
Subdivision Agreement Processing
4 5
6 3
Fee Descript cr

4.00 4.00

72.00 96.O0

28.00 40.00

40.00 0.50

8.50 L2.00

20.00 20.00

1.00 5.50

11.50 7.OO

8.00 L0.50
Esi..:ci
l! J'-i
52oo
s20o
s200
S2oo
52oo
s288
s288
s288
S288
s288
9288
s288
s2oo
S20o
52oo
S2oo
9zoo
s20o
s14,400
s19,2oo
s11,soo
st44
52,444
s8oo

6.40%

4.80%

3.60%
58,o5o
s&ooo
S2,1oo
s8oo
a.o@/o
s3,4so
ss,7so
ss,7so
s2oo
s1,1oo
52,30O
s1,4oo
s1,600
E5t Cost cf
Svc
vanes
77%
390/0
43%
L9%
83%
560/6
t9%
38%
varies
varies
2%
2%
93%
o%
-varies
75%
aa%
86%
78Yo
83o/o
83%

7.Oe/o
5o
s600

5.O0%

6.OO%
5s,742
S2,89e
S6,9oo
57O,71l9
S38
$4L4
Valuation
Valuation
S38
s38
s11,9oo

4.0Oo/o
Sls,soo

2.O@/o
S1,334
$2,4st
51,083
Curre-t F3e
aJ'-eni acst
??ic'!e. /
S20o
s2,308
s1,10o
S2,soo
s3,3oo
s781
St44
(58ee)
s162
s685
Varies
Varies
S1,562
52,062
52,L16
53,299
54,667
F"eC.a"??
x
x
x
x
x
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
T&Mwith
lnitial Deposit
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
too%
vanes
to@/o
LOO%
too%
too%
too%
IA0o/o
100%
100%
l0Wo
IO0o/o
r$e/"
r00%
100%
100f/o
LOO%
700%
100%
too%
t00%
!oo%
ssoo

8.00%
a.M%

6.4096
98,oso
S8,ooo
s11,soo
s144
s2,ooo
s19,2oo

3.60%
S14,4oo

4.ao%
s3,4so
Ss,7so
Ss,7so
s200
s1,100
52,300
sr.4oo
51,600
S2,1oo
Fee Strrrature
.' c ! c::.r
C.: i
Racc,ei,.

Appendix B: p. 9Page 156
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
cost of Seruice Calculation
[a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. lbl Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.9., parklets). x
X

1.00 n/a
n/a

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

1.20 0.50

0.50 5.00

7.OO

1.00 12.00

0.s0

5.00 0.50
:1c!rrs
s2oo
$2oo
S200
s2oo
$24O
Si.oo
sloo
s2oo
sloo
91,200
Sloo
$2oo
s2,4o0
$1,200
sr.4oo
Est. Coai Ji
S!i
52oo
$2oo
520o
5209
52oo
s2oo
s20o
s2oo
s2oo
Szoo
52oo
S2oo
s2oo
52oo
s2oo
Hcrrly Rate
$t,rc2
varies
5162
Ssz
9gt
(s3)
s4
$87
9oz
5].,162
S62
F?t Ci.rnge
Tree Removal^Vork Permit
a) Permitted Removal/Work
i. Existing Occupied Structure
a.0-2Trees
b. 3+Trees: See New Construction Rate Below
c. "ln Decline" Tree
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home,
Subdivision, Parcel Map, Multi-family, Commercial,
etc.):
a. 0-4Trees
b.s+Trees
iii. Misc.
b) w/o Permit (Does not include mitigation)
Double the Permit Rate
Other Fees for Seruice
Research of Engineering Records
Miscellaneous Engineering seruices
Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent)
Revisions
After Hours lnspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum)
Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each)
Missed lnspection Fee
Expedited Seruices Fee
Residential Landscape Review
Assistancefhird Party Review or lnspection
Iransportation Permit
a) Permit
b) Annual Permit
9 10
LI
T2
13 L4
15 16
L7
18 7
8 38%
304
38%
3o/o
3%
19%
t8%
52%
52o/o
43%
s1o3
s1o3
nla
.
nla
5103
n/a
n/a

1.5x Regular Fee
Hourly Rate of
Arborist
Actual Cost
s38
S38
$aa
S38
s38
S38
5438
sle
S86
Curreir Ccr:

Reccve:,
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Each
Each
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
T&M
l0Oo/o
too%
roo%
700%
100%
IOO%
100%
100%
too%
L00%
to0%
100%
varies
51,200
SL,4oo + 70% per
tree above 5 trees.
s2oo
2x permit amount
s2oo
s2oo
s2oo
S2oo
5240
Sroo
Sloo

1.5x Regular Fee
Hourly Rate of
Arborist
Actual Cost
s16
se0
Sloo
s1"2oo
Sloo
Fee St,:,ctur:

Prcoosed
Co st
Recoverv
Appendix B: p. 10

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
lllustration of current Fees, Maximum Fees, and Proposed Fees Fixed Fee 52,578 54,8oo
EMM
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
S13s
s13s
s13s
S13s
s1.s6
913s
s13s
s13s
s2,6s1
52,6s1
$z,esr
s2,6s1
s13s
s13s
ss0
sloo
9zoo
S600
s200
9s.oo
$400
s4oo
s4oo
S2oo
S1,ooo
S2oo
s6,oo0
s2o,8o0
9o,ooo
s2o,800
s2oo
$2,4oo
54,8oo
s400
54oo
$4oo
s1,ooo
s6,000
s2o,8oo
T&M
S20,8oo
S2oo
52,4o0
s4% too%
700%
r00%
roo%
tooo/a
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing
2 Encroachment Permit
a) Encroachment contract for Parking/staging
i. 0-6 calendar days
ii.7-l4calendardays
iii. 14+days
b) Utility Work/connections (lndividual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities^ervice connections
ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location)
iii- Misc. per LF of Trench in ROWCity Easement
iv. lnspections and Testing
. c) Driveways/Minor Frontage lmprovements
i. Residential (per driveway)
ii. commercial (per driveway)
d) Pools and spas (in ground)
e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. lsolated Site
ii. Multiple closures^taging
f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone
ii. lnactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity)
glAnnual Permits
i. Wet Utilities
ii. Dry Utilities
iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry Utilities) iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities)
v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid annually)
h) LongTerm/Revocable Encroachments (new permits only)
ss0
sloo
$zoo
S600
s200
$s.oo
Saoo
S13s
270%
735%
68%
100%
!M%
roo%
23%
68Yo
39%
s4oo
34%
34%
34%
LOO%
r00%
to$/o
ss0
92oo
ss0
$r:s
9rgs
s13s
s13s
$2oo 68%
L4%
270%
680h
44%
t3o/o
44%
L3/o
6A%
6%
too%
!oo%
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
LOOyo
IOO%
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
LOO%
100%
700%
roo%
!0006
lal
tbl
Fee
Current
Proposed Feef Description
Appendix B: p. 11

05/28/2024 Item No.14.
3 City of Folsom
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
lllustration of current Fees, Maximum Fees, and Proposed Fees Fixed Fee 6.OO% ssoo
Frxed hee
mm
Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and lnspection
a) Project Value Up to 5L0,000
b) Project value 510,001 - 5100,000
i. Base-Fee for First 510,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l 51 Up to 5100,000
c) s100,001 - s199,999
i. Base Fee for First 5100,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l S1 Up to 5200,000
d) s200,001 - s299,999
i. Base Fee for First 5200,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l 51 Up to 5300,000
e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First 5300,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l 51
f) Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development
ii. Custom Home
iii. Production Home^ubdivision
iv. Model Home complex
v. Commercial, Streetscape, Other Development Projects
vi. Development and civil lmprovements - Landscaping Review Final Map and Parcel Map
a) Parcel Map check
b) Final Map check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment
ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee
c) Certificate of Correction/certificate of compliance
Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements
a) Review of ROWEasement Documents
b) ROWEasement Abandonment
Fixed Fee
s600

7.0V"
s5,900

5.00%
s11,900

4.OOo/o
$rs,9oo

2.OW"
Srs
54t4
Valuation
Valuation
$:e
s38
5s,742
510,719
so
Sz,ssg
51,334
$2,4st
ssoo

8.0Oo/o
s8,ooo
6-4004
s14400

4.aVo
519,200

3.60%
S2oo
S1,i-oo
s2,3oo
s1,4o0
S1,600
s2,1oo
58,oso
s11,soo
SLM
92,444
s3,4so
ss,7s0
58oo

8.OO%

8.00%
$a,ooo

6.40%
s14,4oo

4.ao%
s19,2oo

3.60P4
S2oo
51,100
s2,3oo
s1,4oo
s1,600
S2,1oo
s8,oso
s11,soo
5L44
s2,ooo
S3,4so
ss,7so
vanes vanes
75%
88%
rov
t00o/o
too%
!oo%
700%
1000/.
430/0
56%
700yo
100%
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
L9%
38%
varies
varies
2%
2%
7t%
93%
vanes
t$v/.
ro0%
too%
too%
too%
LOO%
86%
7A%
83%
a3%
4 Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
T&Mwith
lnitial Deposit
70,0%
Oo/o
too%
100%
too%
5 39%
43%
t00o/o
70004
Cu rrent
Fee {Max. Fee)
cost of Service
Proposed Fee# Description
10,0%6 SubdivisionAgreementProcessing Fixed Fee 91,083 $s,zso L9% Appendix B: p- 12

05/28/2024 Item No.14.
# Desffiption
City of Folsom
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
lllustration of Curent Fees, Maximum Fees, and Proposed Fees M Mm
7 8
Transportation Permit
a) Permit
b) Annual Permit
Tree Removal/Work Permit
a) Permitted Removal/Work
i. Existing Occupied Structure
a.0-2Trees
b. 3+ Trees: See New Construction Rate Below
c. "ln Decline" Tree
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee Seo
Sls
5ao
S16
sloo
s1,2oo
sloo
s1,20o
51,400 + 10% per tree
s200
2x permit amount
s2oo
s2oo
s2oo
5200
5240
$loo
Sloo

1.5x Regular Fee
Hourly Rate of Arborist
Actual Cost
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home, Subdivision, Parcel Map, Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Each
Each
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
T&M
3A%
3%
38%
3%
3%
t9%
18%
S38
S38
538
s38
s38
s38
S438
sloo
sL,20o
sL00
51,200
S1,40o
s2oo
s2,40o
s200
S2oo
s2oo
s2oo
5z+o
Sloo
Sloo
s2oo
roo%
L00%
100%
t00%a.0-4Trees
b.5+Trees
iii- Misc. LOO%
variesb) w/o Permit (Does not include mitigation)
Double the Permit Rate
Other Fees for service
9 Research of Engineering Records
10 MiscellaneousEngineeringSeruices
LL Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent)
1? Revisions
13 After Hours lnspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum)
14 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each)
15 Missed lnspection Fee
16 Expedited Seruices Fee
L7 Residential Landscape Review
18 Technical Assistance/third Party Review or lnspection s1o3
sL03
n/a
n/a
S1o3
n/a
n/a

1.5x Regular Fee
Hourly Rate ofArborist
Actual Cost
s2%
s2%
43%
LOO%
100%
IOoo/o
too%
700%
100%
100%
[a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope ofwork' [b] Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.9., parklets].

Proposed Fee
Appendix B: p. 13

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

User and Reaulatoru Fees
Cost of Seruice Cslculations
Building
Appendix B: p. 14Page 161
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Building
Authorized Staffing
Contract Seruices
Divisional Total
lal staffing based on FY 23/24 adopted budget
[b] Allocation of hours intended to serue as reasonable estimate. Amount may vary from year-to-year and position to position. lcl source: Annual average FY 18/L9 thtough FY 21-122.
[dl Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract seruice providers. [el Average hourly rate for contract services received. lal;Ib]
lal;Ib]
lal;Ib]
lal;Ib]
lal;Ib]
lal;Ib]
Ia];Ib]
5,592
3,728
3,728
L,864
L,864
\464
L,864
20,s04
LO096
4,474
2,982
L,864
L,49t
1,118
932
r,49t
14353
7V/o
6,151
30f1
1,118
746
1,864
373
746
932
373
700%
too%
r00%
too%
IOO%
too%
t00%
80%
ao%
50%
80%
60%
50%
80%
20%
20%
so%
20%
40%
500/0
20%
5,592
3,724
3,728
L,864
t,864
r,864
7,864
20,50,4
1,864
'J",864
L,864
L,864
1,,864
7,864
L,864
276
216
276
2L6
216
216
216
2,OaO
2,080
2,080
2,080
2,OaO
2,080
2,080

3.00 2.00

2.OO

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00

11.00 Building lnspector l/ll
Building Plans Coordinator
Building Technician l/ll
Plan Check Engineer
Building lnspection Supervisor
Principal Civil Engineer
Senior civil Engineer
Total
Total
TJt: Hours
Pe'FTE
Less Holiday
& Leave
Hcurs P,"r
Fi!
P13duciiv3
Hcu::
lndirect
Hou rs
Total Direct
HoursTota iDl rectI n CirectFTE Tct.rl -Jours Nctes
5,592
3,728
3,728
t,864
L,864
t,864
1,,864
20,504
4,474
2,982
r,864
L,497
L,tLg
932
L,49L
14,3s36,1s1
1,118
746
L,864
373
746
932
373
Total
Building lnspector l/ll
Building Plans Coordinator
Building Technician l/ll
Plan Check Engineer
Building lnspection Supervisor
Principal civil Engineer
Senior Civil Engineer
Annual Contract Services
td1
td1
lel
33%l 5
67%1 5
110
140
130L@%l
lnspection
Plan Review
Total
ar.:.:-r i:- -:: Sha': ::: -",.!st \lotes
5,0004,5005,000
20,504
5,000
25,504
tooo/
14,353
4,500
1&8s3
74%
500
6,151
6,651
2604
Authorized staffing
Contract Services
Total
Total
Appendix B: p. 15Page 162
05/28/2024 Item No.14.
city of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Building
Recurring Divisional Expenditures [al
Allocation of Department and Citywide Overhead
Support from Other Departments
Total
Fully-Burdened Houdy Rate
tbl
s 2.533.623
5 1,032,925
s so,ooo
s 1s,12s
5 2,O2s
5 82,127
5 412,624
s 23,400
s 208,931
s 6s0,000
s 56,472
I 38s,000
s
s
)
s
s
5 )
I
s
5 38s,000
s 2.L48,62?
s 1,032,92s
s so,ooo
s 1s,12s
s 2,O2s
5 82,727
s 412,624
s 23,400
S 208,931
s 26s,000
5 s6,472
subtotal
Salaries - Temporary
Annual Leave Account
Uniform Allowance
FICA
PERS
Deferred Comp - city Paid
Combined Benefits
Contracts
tnsurance / Liability
lcl
Icl
s
s
272,993
747,300
s 520,293
s
s
s
s
s
372,993
147,300
s s20.293
Department overhead
Citvwide Overhead
subtotal
Nore3Descnpt on Toia iallsi-e.ls -aial
Icl
lcl
Icl
s
5 s
65,000
t22,SOO
226.776
s 414,276s
s
s
s
E 474-276
65,000
722,500
226,776
Plan Review and Permit Support from Other Depts
Annual ln-HouseTechnology Licensing
Annual ln-House Maintenance ofZoningCode, Plans i
Subtotal
s 2,s33,623
s 372,993
5 474,276
s 147.300
s 3,468,191
Recurring Divisional Expenditures
Department Overhead
Support from Other Departments
Citvwide Overhead
Strbtotal
lcl
1843
s 3,468,191
18,853
Costs
Direct Hou6
Fullv-Burdfl ed Hourlv Rate
Appendix B: p. 16

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Building
Cost Recovery Overuiew
Cost Recovery Analysis
lal Source: FY 23124 adopted budget.

Ibl Adjustment to align to FY 22/23 adual contrad seryice expenditures.

Ic] See separate worksheets in this model. Amounts intended to serye as reasonable estimates. 6701
330/<
o%
oo/.
toogts2.845.839
S1,910,7s8
s1,5s2
5930,637
s1,696
S1.09s

54.a77-979
93,632,158
S1,o80
sr,234,323
s7,O7o
s3.338

54.M2.372
So
so
s24o
s3,143,495
s7,298,637
s2,2s9,0s4
s1,98s
S919,s17
s459
s331
s3-181-3s6
52,o22,669
s1,330
s899,484
52,413
s4,0s1

32.929.947
s7,7s7,983
s1,580
s839,076
S32o
S4o3

52.sqg.a62
s7,27s,767
s2,405
s988,989
s1,864
s698

32.209.12a
57,760,275
s3,ooo
.5966,273
s2,300
Ssso
S2;132,338
S1,43s,293
s2,4oo
$727,668
s766
Ssls
92,t66,642
s1,391,334
s1,o8o
s866,826
$8s9
S638
s2,260,737
s1,090,143
s1,320
5s6s,642
s897
S43o
s1,6s8.432
3224000
344040!
3444100
3444300
3444400
0702320
0102320
0102320
0102320
0102320
Building Permit Fees
BuildinE Reinspection Fee
Structure Plan Check Fees
SeismicTraining Fee
State Blds Standards Fund
Total
\ctJrl
2013. i4
Aat, i
2011, i-:

Act!a
201>/16
Actua I
),416/17
Act(L.l
2Ar8l 19
Actual
)oi9/2a :u.if I i .)021 :221'-1 :Z::i: i::
;Act
l0 \c'ir. Avg Perccntag4 lltlasObject 2012i r3
s2,84s,839
s3,468,191
82%
Average Revenues
Annualized Costs
Cost Recovery
Appendix B: p. 17

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
user and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
cost of seruice calculation - At FullY-Burdened Hourly Rate x
s23o
S184
s368
5322
s276
s368
s368
s368
s184
s46o
ss20
sss2
Sz76
5184
s37
5368
S184
s184
5184
9184
s184
s184
s184
s184
S184
5184
s184
s184
s184
9184
S184
5184

1.00 0.20

2.00 3.00

1.50 1.00

2.50 5.OO
L.25

1.00 2.OO

1.75 1.50

2.00 2.00

2.00 Heater Change-Out - Residential
Residential solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee for 15kW or Less
ii) Fee for Each Additional kW above 15kw
b) Permit
Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee 50kW or Less
ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 50kw up to 25okw
ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 25okw
b) Permit
Pool Replaster / Equipment change-out
Pool Remodel (e.g., Changing Pool Shape,
Retaining Wall
a) one Type of Retaining wall Type/configuration
b) Each Additional Wall Type/Configuration
/ Sliding Glass Door - Retrofit/ Repair
a)Uptos
b) Per Window Over 5 Windows
Fences Requiring a Building Permit
Solar
Change-Out - Residential
Residential Re-Roof
Siding Replacement
Panel Upgrade - Residential
Backup storage
Electric vehicle charger
Generator
Cabo Shelf, etc.)
8 9
3 4
5 6
7 15
16 L
2 10
L1,
!2
13 L4
Fee Descr ct cr
x
vanes
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
vanes
varies
vanes
varies
varies
varies
varies
vanes
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
vanes
vanes
vaneS
varies
varies
varies
vafle5
vafles
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
Eries
vanes
Cur.e'r: !::
tal,lbl
lal,tbl
ta1,Ib]
lal,Ibl
lal,lbl
lal,Ibl
lal,[bl
s230
S184
s368
s322
5276
9368
s368
s368
5200
s1s
s2so
5444
5t
9s
5ss6
s184
s460
5920
sss2
5276
s184
s37
s368
10096
LOO%
too%
too%
100%
100%
700vo
too%
loooa
700%
roo%
roo%
L000/.
10004
700%
LOO%
i\iotc
l'r trr !e C
a:j: iri:C!,ra.y
Appendix B: p. 1B

05/28/2024 Item No.14.
city of Folsom
user and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
cost of Seruice Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate [a] Total fees shall not exceed amounti outlined in california Government code 650L5(aX1)' [b] The City will not collect additional permit processing fees. Amounts shown are total amount due for permit processing, plan review, and permit.

1.50 25.00

12.00 Electrical and lrrigation Pedestals per pedestal
Detached and Attached ADUs
Junior ADUs
17 18
L9
S184
S184
s184
s4,500
52,2O8
vanes
varies
varies
vanes
varies
varies
irr.ent Fee
Cu.re.i ist.

Co!t Reccveiy
5276
54,500
s2,2O8
LO0%
too%
700%
.-aa,,Saj !a.' Nctrl
P'oaa!:l
Co:i a::aa'ra:'t
Appendix B: p. 19

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
user and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Permit Fee for New Buildings, Additions' Tenant lmprovements, Residential Remodels, and Combined Mehani€|, Eleclriel, and/or Plumbing Permits
sL - s2,000
s2,0o1 - s2s,00o
s2s,oo - ss0,000
sso,ool - s100,000
s100,001 - ss00,000
s500,001 - s1,ooo,ooo
91,000,001 - S5,ooo,ooo
ss,000,001 - s10,000,000
s10,000,001 - s10,000,000
3 5
6 7
8 9
!
2 4

0.75 o.75

2.00 3.50

6.00 22.00

40.00 160.00
260.00
Est City
Staff !abcr
H-s
x
x
'X
x
x
x
x
x
x
s184
S184
s184
s184
s184
s184
s184
s184
s184
F: ,,
B!rar':c
F1c.." !
s138
s138
s358
5e,4
sr"104
s4048
sz360
s29,44o
547,84O
:si a:!i .'
72%
720/.
90%
a2%
8Oo/o
8L%
a2%
8a%
!o7%
sloo
sloo
5330
ss30
s88o
S3,280
$5,030
s26,030
ss1,o3o
a.: -:'''i :!.1
Curie.t:l!'
filao!e.i
roo%
too%
700%
roo%
100%
100%
rOOYo
!oo%
700%
s138
5138
s368
sa+a
51,104
54048
s7,360
s29,44O
s47,UO
l.fcasar Fec
Proposec
Co it
;l'l C ovr ry
Appendix B: p. 20Page 167
05/28/2024 Item No.14.
city of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee study
Building Fees
cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate lal I ncludes up to three plan checks. The city will bill hourly for additional pla n review required. lbl For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time' x
x
x
x
s184
s184
s184
s184
S184
s184
lu y
3u'iened
ilcu.ly
5t,472
s460
S184
s184
s184
S184
ai: ai::
c'i: . ::
varies
10%
33%
slso
sLs0
slso
i:,. '::'t:,r,1
C!.fenl
Coit
il e a:v.r.V
lal
tbl
Building Plan Check Fees - Building
a) Plan Review Fee, if applicable
b) Expedited Plan Check - At Application Submittal (when applicable)
c) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) d) Production Permit for Multi-family permit
e) Production Permit for Fire permits and other misc. permits f) Alternate Materials and Methods Review (per hour)
g) Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour) h) Revisions to an Approved Permit (per hour)
i) Deferred Submittal (per hour)
1 Fee Descriptio:

1.5x standard plan check fee
20%

8.00 2.50

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.00
aOY6
lst. CrtV St:ii !.r. H":
700%
10go
roo%
TOOYI
roo%
tWo
70M"
LOO%
100%
ao%

1.5x standard plan check fe€
20% of standard plan check fee
sL,472
s45o
s184
s184
S184
. s184
.'aa,a:::t Fa.:

Co: i
il e ccvc r\
Appendix B: p.21

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
cost of Seryice Calculation - At Fully-Birdened Hourly Rate

1.00 o.42

1.00 1.00

1.00 1.20

1.00 s.00

0.50 -i::'t --::cr
s184
s184
s184
S184
s184
s184
s184
5184
5184
Fr y'-
BLr.l..eC
lr o..: I!
9%
ss20
se2
S184
s184
s184
s77
s184
522L
s184
a5i C0:t
s2s
s3.60
s0.40
C!r.ert Fl.l
C!freiri
Reccv!i!
lcl
tbl
lal
lal
lal
lal
lal
lal
lal
lal
lal
Permit Processing Fee
Strong Motion lnstrumentation (SMl) Fee Calculation
a) Residential
b) Commercial
Building Standards (SB 1473) Fee Calculation (Valuation) a) $1 - 52s,oo0
b) s2s,001 - ss0,000
c) 5s0,001 - S7s,000
d) s7t001 - s100,000
e) Each Add'l 525,000 or frastion thereof
Business License Fee
CASP Training Fund Fee
State Disability Access Fee
General Plan/Zoning Code Update Fee (percent of building permit fee) Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (Phasing Plan) Fee
a) Reactivation Fee ifAll lnspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not lncluding Final lnspedion
b) Reactivation Fee - All other Scenarios
i) Permit Expired Up to One Year
ii) Permit Expired More than one Year
Damaged Building suruey (Fire, Flood, vehicle Damage, Etc.) (per hour) Other Fees
Phased lnspection Fee (per inspection)
After Hours lnspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum)
Permit Reissuance Fee
Fee (2nd Time or More) (each)
Permit Extension
Permit Reactivation Fee
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
2 3
rL
12 13
14 15
a: l::: ct a_
x
x
x
x 7000/.
\Oe/o
IOOYI
7$e/o
roo%
55%
]OOYI
v6
700%
TOVo
S0.50 or valuation x .00013

50.50 or valuation x .00028
50% of Original Base Building Permit Fee
1OO% of Original Base Building Permit Fee
s184
. s184
$tt
s184
s184
s227
s184
9r
52 s3
S+
Add s1
s2s
s3.60
so.40
5%
s920
so
a!"
lat:aaNc"l
x
x
x
Appendix B: p.22

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate [b] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [c] Reinspection fee applies after the first re-inspection X

1.00 o.42
o.42
o_50
E:i Cii,
Si,rfi -:cc'
His
s184
$184
st84
s184
3r'::^:J
Har_!
s184
577.
577
se2
.:i -:::

Clr'.r't F!.t ?.aaa )a')
Missed lnspection Fee
Duplicate Copy of Permit
Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Occupancy
Fees for seruices Not Listed in this Fee schedule (per 1/2 hour) violation Fees
lnvestigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(ln addition to applicable permit fees)
16 77
18 19
20 70e/.
roo%
\oo%
100%
s184
577
577
ss2
equal to
permit fee
Drcposed Fe.

4..:
ir,rcor,:',,
Appendix B: p. 23

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

User and Reaulatorv Fees
Cost of Service Colculotions
General Plon / Zoning Code Update
Appendix B: p.24

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Seruice Calculation - General Plan Update / Zoning Code Update Costs Estimated Expenditures
cost Allocation
Allocation Base
Fee at Full cost Recovery
Cost Recovery Alternative Scenarios
Notes:
[a] Source: Conseruative estimates of update costs. Amounts will likely be higher' [bt Target recovery of periodic costs, or portion of periodic costs, via General Plan Update Fee. [c] Recover annual costs, or portion of annual costs, via standard permit and plan review fees. [dlAmountcalculatedviaanalysisofplanningcostofseruice. Amountrepresents15%oftotalannualplanningcosts. [e] Assumes portion of General Plan Update costs will continue to be paid via General Fund resources. [fl Amounts represents multi-year average of building permit fee collection. lal;tbl
[a];Ib]
lal;Ibl
lal;[c];[dl
Periodic
Periodic
Periodic
Annual
5 s
s
s
100,000
62,500
100,000
226,776
5 489,276
20 8
5 1
I 3,226,776
s
s
s
s
2,000,000
500,000
500,000
226,776
Total
General Plan Update
Housing Element
Zoning Code
ln-House Maintenance
Ar jrt iation /
! sdate
:ietue.CVDescriptlo n NotesAnnual Cost Cos: -vP?
lal;Ie]175,00067%5 262,500Periodic Costs
Targel
S.are tc Recover Cost RecoverV NotasDescriptlo n
tfls 1,910,7s8Estimated Building Permit Fees
\ctesDescriptlc n Ta:a
g/a
5 s
1 75,000
r,9to,758
Target Recovery
Estimated Building Permit Fees
Total
DescriPtlo^ \otes
5 s
s
9%l
1,910,75S I
175,OOO I
175,OOO I
1oo.oo%l54.59o/o0.oo%l
5%
1,91O,758
95,538
175,000
o%l
5 1,910,758 I s
s ls
5 l7s,ooo I s
Cost Recovery
% of Permit Fee
Estimated Building Permit Fees
Forecast Revenue
Annual Revenue Requirement
Appendix B: p. 25

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

User dnd Reouldtoru Fees
Cost ol Service Cqlculotions
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Appendix B: p. 26

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis
Estimated citywide overhead (for cost of Service Calculation Purposes only) Central Seruice C€nter- General Fund Allocation [al
City Stafting Position Total [al,[bl
Estimated citywide Alloc to community Development Direct seruice Units * This represents a conseryative indireqt cost Ete calculation, This estimate was developed for purposes of user and r€gulatory fee cost.of seryice analysis. As part of day-to-day operations, staff may categorize, assign, or quantiry indirect costs using different qiteria and methods. lal Source: FY 23124 adopted budget.
[b] lndired cost allocation basis is staffing levels of direct service departments. [c] Based on feedback received from Community Development Department. Amounts intended to serye as reasonable estimates. 512,09255s
5717,437
sr,256,732
s1,234,309
s681,049
s885,s11
s6,246,7s9
sL,674,868
fotal
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Human Resources
Management and Budget
Fleet Management
\at::AnfJal ExocliesDep, rt nr en t
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
)
s
s
s
736,498
2,454,994
1,335,608
3,096,O20
942,445
\s42,7o7
t,62t,660
327,333
5 72,O97,66s
o.t
.o%
o%
o%
6%
20%
o%
301
o%
tro/.
26%
80/.
1301
73%
1009{443.50

49.00 113.50

34.55 58.00

59.45 12.00

27.OO

90.00 (s.oo)
(4.00)
(4.00)
{3.00)
(6.00)
(2s.oo)
{47.00}

5.00 4.00

4.00 3.00

27.OO

90.00 6.00

12.00 25.00

49.00 113.50

34.55 58.00

59.45 490.50
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Community Development
Fire Department
Human Resouices
Library
lVanagement and Budget
Parks and Recreation
Police Department
Public Works
Water Resources
Solid Waste
lotal
.:\0.!1i.r3.i ic.

D ":.: S!. i:.is j.. .iiec :irii nli Sharc of Cwioe 0-
c.t,r :c. a,,r .: ci Ai cc A oc NotesDep;rtrent
Icl
lcl
Icl
Icl
s
)
s
s
,,iA 147,3OO
58,920
220,949
309,329
10o%l S 735,,198
Building
code Enforcement
Engineering
Planning
Total
D:ii/J ! s r_
Sl'are cf5here of
A locatiof
Appendix B: p.27Page 174
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

APPENDIX C

PROPOSED FEES
CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOI.SOM L2Page 175
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing s4,800 Fixed Fee Fee Structure# Description
2 Encroachment Permit
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days
ii. 7-14 calendar days
iii. 14+days
b) Utility Work/Connections (lndividual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Service Connections
ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location)
iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROWCity Easement
iv. lnspections and Testing
c) Driveways/Minor Frontage lmprovements
i. Residential (per driveway)
ii. Commercial (perdrivewaY)
d) Pools and Spas {in ground)
e) Traffic ControUEquipment Staging
i. lsolated Site
ii. Multiple Closures/Staging
f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone
ii. lnactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity)
g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities
ii, Dry Utilities
iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry Utilities) iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities)
v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid annually)
h) Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (new permits only) Sso
sloo
Szoo
s6oo
s2oo
ss.0o
s4oo
s4oo
s4oo
s400
s1,ooo
S2oo
S5,ooo
s2o,8o0
T&M
s2o,80o
s2oo
$2,400
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
s20o
Sso
lal
tbl
Appendix C: p. 1

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and lnspection
a) Project Value Up to 510,000
b) Project Value $10,001 - S1o0,ooo
i. Base Fee for First $10,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $t up to 5100,000
c) $100,001 - St9e,s99
i. Base Fee for First 5100,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l 51 Up to 5200,000
d) s2oo,oor. - s2e9,99e
i. Base Fee for First 5200,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l st up to s300,000
e) 5300,000 or more
, i. Base Fee for First 5300,000
ii. Fee for Each Add'l S1
f) Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development
ii. Custom Home
iii. Production Home/Subdivision
iv. Model Home ComPlex
v. Commercial, Streetscape, Other Development Projects
vi. Development and Civil lmprovements - Landscaping
Review
G
3 8.OO%
$800

8.00%
s8,0oo

6.40%
s14,400

4.80%
s1s,200

3.60%
S2oo
s1,100
52,300
s1,4oo
s1,600
s2,100
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fee Fe€r Structur€:# Description
4 Final Map and Parcel MaP
a) Parcel Map Check
b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final MaP Amendment
ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee
c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance
s8,oso
s11,soo
sL44
s2,ooo
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
T&Mwith
lnitial Deposit
5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements
a) Review of ROWEasement Documents
b) ROW/Easement Abandonment
s3,450
ss,7s0
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
5 SubdivisionAgreementProcessing Ss,7so Fixed Fee
Transportation Permit
a) Permit
b) Annual Permit
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
7 Sre
Sso
Appendix C: p. 2

05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
Tree Removal/Work Permit
a) Permitted Removal/Work
i. Existing Occupied Structure
a. 0-2 Trees
b. 3+ Trees: See New Construction Rate Below
c. "ln Decline" Tree
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home, Subdivision, Parcel a.0-4Trees
b. 5+ Trees
iii. Misc.
b) w/o Permit (Does not include mitigation)
Double the Permit Rate
8 Sloo
s1,2oo
sr.00
s1,200
51,400 + 10% per tree
s2oo
2x permit amount
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
Fixed Fee
Fee Fee Structure# Description
9 10
LL
t2
13 T4
15 L6
77 L8
Other Fees for Service
Research of Engineering Records
Miscellaneous Engineering Services
Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent)
Revisions
After Hours lnspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum)
Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each)
Missed lnspection Fee
Expedited Services Fee
Residential Landscape Review
Technical Assistance/Third Party Review or Inspection
s20o
$zoo
s2oo
s2oo
s240
s1o0
sloo

1.5x Regular Fee
Hourly Rate of Arborist
Actual Cost
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Per Hour
Each
Each
Fixed Fee
Per Hour
T&M
[a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. [b] Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.g., parklets).

Appendix C: p. 3Page 178
05/28/2024 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
A. Fees for Commonly Requested Building permit Types. Fees shown in this section (Section A.) include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees. Additional permit processing fees apply, Additional fees may apply for services provided by other city Departments (e.9. Planning Review), and Fees collected on Behalf of other Agencies (e.g. state of california). @r
L HVAC Change-Out - Residential s23o per permit Y
Fce Dcscription Fcc Clrarge Basis
2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residential s184 per permit 3 Residential Re-Roof s358 per permit
4 Siding Replacement 5322 per permit Y
5 Service Panel Upgrade - Residential s276 per permit
6 Battery Backup Storage s368 per permit Y
7 Electric Vehicle Charger s368 per permit Y
8 Generator s368 per permit
9 Residential Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee for 15kW or Less
ii) Fee for Each Additional kW above l.SkW
b) Permit
s2oo
Srs
s2s0
tal,tbl
tal,Ib]
tal, tbl
per permit
per permit
per permit
N
N
N
10 Commercial Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee 50kW or Less
ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 50kW up to 250kW
ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 250kW
b) Permit
s444 per permit
per permit
per permit
per permit
tal,Ib]
tal,tbl
tal,lbl
tal,tbl
N
N
N
N
$t
Ss
sss6
Mool Solar s184 per permit
12 Swimming Pool Replaster / Equipment Change-Out s460 per permit 13 Swimming Pool Remodel (e.g., Changing Pool Shape,
Addine Cabo Shelf, etc.)
s92o per permit
14 Retaining Wall
a) One Type of Retaining Wall Type/Configuration
b) Each Additional Wall Type/Configuration
sss2
$276
per permit
per permit
L5 Window / Sliding Glass Door - Retrofit / Repair
a) Upto5
b) Per Window Over 5 Windows
$184
Ssz
per permit
per permit
L5 Fences Requiring a Building Permit $368 per permit Y L7 Electrical and lrrigation Pedestals per pedestal 5276 per permit 18 Detached and Attached ADUs s4,6oo per permit
19 Junior ADUS s2,208 per permit
lal Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1). [b] The City will not collect additional permit processing fees. Amounts shown are total amount due for permit processing, plan review, and permit.

Y
Appendix C: p.4