502 replies to this topic

[Sandra Lunceford]

In response to Supermom's 3 questions, I'll try to be more clear.

 

1)  My plan does not include construction of new hotels, especially if the existing hotels are not used to capacity. 

 

2)  The three largest revenue sources that our city uses to pay for operational costs are:  property tax, sales tax, and service charge fees.  I have not done a comparison study to how these taxes compare with Sacramento's taxes.  I don't know how our taxes compare with theirs.  

 

What I do know is that property tax is the largest generator of revenue for Folsom.  The way to increase that income is to sell more homes.  The biggest source of new homes is to develop south of highway 50.  I would like to decrease the pressure to develop south of 50 by creating other revenue sources that could replace property taxes in our budget. It is not that our taxes are low, it is just that our budget needs revenue.

 

If we utilize our world class historical assets, couple that with our amazing recreational and arts opportunities to market Folsom as a first class tourist destination we create 1)  more sales tax and 2) more hotel stays which generate a revenue for our city through a hotel tax called transient occupancy tax.   I would make a concerted effort to attract historically compatible businesses, and that would include river friendly sport shops, folk art shops, railroad compliments, etc.

 

3)  Some of that additional revenue should be used to attract water conservation companies, their jobs, products and processes.  I think residents should be given monetary motivation to conserve water, or put in xeriscape, or use other  water conservation devices. It helps the business and it helps the residents of Folsom, who choose to buy in.  It creates a sustainable  water supply and creates job diversity here in Folsom.                                                                                                                                                 

[Sandra Lunceford]

Please forgive the delayed response, All Star.  If you look at Folsom's budget, we can always use more revenue to cover operational costs and to build up a rainy day fund.  Property tax is the biggest generator of revenue, and I believe we should diversify our revenue sources through my plan.  That way we can reduce the pressure to develop south of 50 by depending so much on property sales and subsequent taxes.

 

My plan (that is explained in the following post) is to develop more sales and transient occupancy tax (TOT).  These two sources of revenue should be used to attract companies who develop water conservation products and processes. Companies that create water conservation products are different from companies that deliver water.  Attracting this new business to Folsom would create job diversity, which improves our job prospects here in the city. 

[Sandra Lunceford]

One more thought, All Star, one goal of my plan is to create a water conservation mindset so that others using water from our lake will be more water conscientious, too.  

[ducky]

One more thought, All Star, one goal of my plan is to create a water conservation mindset so that others using water from our lake will be more water conscientious, too.  

 

That is an important consideration.  No matter how much the residents of Folsom conserve, it won't keep that lake full.  If we don't use our allotment, I'm pretty certain there are others that will be more than happy to continue sprawl.

 

Thanks for coming on here and answering questions for us.

Also, FYI, When you are addressing "All Star," I believe you mean Howdy.  The "All Star," "Hopeless Addict," etc., labels are given by number of posts unless you change that yourself. 

[Sandra Lunceford]

Only snow and rain can fill that lake.  Since we are so dependent upon the water, the lack thereof has made me more conscientious about its use.  By walking neighborhoods, I have noticed that there are a lot of others who have become more careful about their use, too.  I have to applaud that and desire to increase the awareness of water use by offering support for those who are willing to do so.

[Sandra Lunceford]

To put it in a nutshell, a vote for Sandra Lunceford is a vote for:

* A family-friendly historic district
* Job diversity
* Water sustainable efforts in dry and wet years
* Increased economic development
* Open door to community involvement in decision-making processes
* Diversity in revenue streams to decrease dependence on property taxes and development
* No new taxes
* No health benefits 
* Ballot vote for city mayor
* A very close and experienced eye on all development south of Highway 50 to safeguard our water north of Highway 50.

 

[Sandra Lunceford]

Roger, how do you plan on ensuring Folsom's fiscal stability?  Do you plan to cut services?  If so, which ones?  What are your plans to bring in new revenue?  You have noticed that our reserve has gone from $16 million in fiscal year 2006 to $4 million in fiscal year 2014, but I have not heard you mention specifically how you plan on changing that.  

 

The budget plan states quite plainly that our expenses are rising faster than our revenues.  

 

We need to do something, and we need to do something now.  The beaten path is to develop new homes for increased property and sales tax.  Where do you propose we get the money to cover costs?

That same question could be directed to Jennifer and Chad, too?  What are your plans to address increases costs and dependence on property tax?

[Sandra Lunceford]

Speaking of same old beaten path....let's quit with the campaign rhetoric and get down to HOW you really want to change this city. What specifically are you going to do for us?  What alternatives do you have to change the same old way of operating?  It is easy to stop things, but what are you going to do to change things?

[4thgenFolsomite]

Sandra, how do you feel about the current lawsuit by the city over the Mather expansion plans?

[SCA]

Sandra, no health benefits for whom?

[Sandra Lunceford]

I would receive no health benefits, if I am elected in.  I am on my husband's policy.

 

I am an Air Force brat and don't hear the planes; however, I have been in environmental community relations for 20 years.  I am in the business of inviting community input into the decision making processes.  I know this battle has been going on for a long time and, if elected, would represent our community to the best of my ability.

[Rich_T]

Too bad you guys aren't going to run as a slate, and will end up distributing the challenger vote.  < sigh >

[ducky]

I would receive no health benefits, if I am elected in.  I am on my husband's policy.

 

I am an Air Force brat and don't hear the planes; however, I have been in environmental community relations for 20 years.  I am in the business of inviting community input into the decision making processes.  I know this battle has been going on for a long time and, if elected, would represent our community to the best of my ability.

 

Specifically you were the Community Relations Specialist who managed the community relations program at the former Mather Air Force Base, weren't you?  I'd think you'd have a little more insight into the issue.

[Sandra Lunceford]

That was quite a long time ago and I did field air cargo noise complaints to the airport.  I have not worked on Mather noise issues since about 1995.  I initially founded their environmental Restoration Advisory Board to elicit public input into the clean up process.  Once I went to work elsewhere, I conflicted myself out of working on environmental issues with the base.  

Let me clarify, I initially put together a newsletter to tell the neighbors about contamination emanating from the base.  I was one of the founding members of the Restoration Advisory Board.

[maestro]

All persons running for re-election or a new seat need to address the new topic  just begun with the release of the Sept 23 council agenda.   

City is making us owners of an EPA Superfund Site.

 

This is almost as horrible as the water thefts.   At least the stolen water does not exist.     Next Tuesday 9-23 the council will force us to become owners of a superfund site, which is in the Williamson Act.   It has high-tension lines, easements, ponds, rocks, poisons galore, and a future of costs to control the harmful chemicals.   NEW city corporation yard is supposed to go here, but this land has too many restrictions on it for that to happen.      Nice place for housing too, eh?

 

Can you imagine the horror of sticking our children with the burden of fixing a Superfund Site?

 

This is NOT the location the city council said they were considering buying.  

This is something cooked up ENTIRELY in secret council sessions.

 

OMG  Will this never end?