502 replies to this topic

[maestro]

FOLSOM'S   FINANCIAL SITUATION

 

Sources:   Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule  for Redevelopment SUCCESSOR AGENCY   dated June 2012.

 

• The city's outstanding DEBT was almost   $150,000,000     as a result of council's borrowing practices which caused  Bond rating agencies to downgraded city credit, mentioning the "council's actions."
• Enforceable obligation =  debt which cannot be altered or lessened, unless in total bankruptcy (might be reduced).
• $One hundred Fifty Million Dollars in borrowed debt =   $2,100 per resident, or > $15,000 per house.
  

   

 

Sources:   Successor Agency Oversight Board statement  May 20, 2012:

 

List of recipients is very long, but two are noteworthy:

1.   Parkshore Office Plaza Property Owner  for that year rec'd  $919,000

2.   Kikkoman Foods  rec'd its regular payment, $1,346,000.   (Kikkoman uses our water to make sauces with our subsidy.)

 

Perhaps at the Oct. 4 candidates forum, the three "in's"  could explain this HUGE DEBT BURDEN, and disbursements.    All this debt was incurred and caused by them.    The actual current debt burden appears to be $177,000,000, but there is no summary table to show this.   Compared to Roseville, Folsom's debt is astronomical.

 

 

[maestro]

Source:       TECHNICAL MEMO  to Folsom Todd Eising, From  Brown & Caldwell, Melanie Horton Eng.   Date:  Nov. 2, 2012

• Title   "Interim water supply" .... costs for water delivery system to   FOLSOM PLAN AREA   (two landowners granted our American River water Jan 2013)   WATER DELIVERY system DOES NOT include any costs or actual existence of our allotment of American River water.

Short story:    south of 50 owners in FPA  require 20,600 acre feet of water.     This exceeds our Pre 1914 Multi-year-drought entitlement by 3,000 acre feet.

• Cost of water delivery if city just attaches FPA onto our water treatment and delivery system =  $40,000,000,  FORTY MILLION $$$$$.
•  
• Phase A of FPA water delivery Project Phase A =  all costs =$56  MILLION.
•  
• New PIPELINE extension is already happening at our expense (see Folsom Budget).   Pipeline extension to give them our water will continue the pipe in E. Bidwell St at Highway 50.     The tunnel in discussion is 24 inches in diameter (Phase A), and the pipe is 5,600 linear feet (over a mile within the existing city.)    Maybe this is why we are currently paying the tunnel costs for FPA.  

*********************************************************************************************************

City council passed Ordinances to enable all this.  A few are:

 

1179 created a new financing/taxation law for New Developments, which council declares to be SUPERIOR to Mello-Roos, and do not require developer to fund infrastructure himself.

 

1181 "alternative methods for fulfilling public works projects":     any city employee can design, select the contractor, and award the public work project at his discretion.     Does away with all those engiineers,  Engineered Drawings & competitive bid  costs.

 

1189 CFD 2013-1   Water Tax     Draft versions of 1189, 1190, 1191   showed a co-mingling of taxation districts between existing city and FPA city.    It has an unknown relationship to Folsom MPace Power program and its $50,000,000 funding.

 

 

 

[maestro]

Source   Folsom  Urban Water Management Plan 2005:

 

A copy was sent to all candidates who supplied an email address.    

This is the FINAL plan ENGINEER APPROVED & SEALED.   125 pages/tables.

 

The city's 2010 UWMP  is 273 pages and NOT CERTIFIED accurate and complete.    It is fluff and bother.    

 

Anyone wishing a copy of the CERTIFIED plan    2005   UWMP, could ask Chad to email it to them if he has the time.   

chadforfolsom@gmail.com

 

UWMP 2005   Sections 4 = our existing city's usage of 34,000 AF and projections for city;  

Section 5 discusses our multi-year-drought-water right of 18,000 AF, and it mentions the city used more than its allotment in 2009 and subsequent years.   

2005 Plan states council needed to develop contingency plans for water.     (So they gave away our over-used water to FPA 2 landowners.)  

 

 

[maestro]

Headlines on STOCKTON bankruptcy Sac Bee  Oct. 2, 2014.     City owes a private investment firm Franklin Templeton  $36 million loan repayment, but says it will only repay $4 million because it owes Calpers a huge amount of annual payments.

  TOTAL STOCKTON population  =  300,000.     TOTAL DEBT:  $200 Million (Bee and Federal Court) or $667/person.

 

FOLSOM population  =  74,000    TOTAL DEBT 2012  =  $144   (est. $177 Million currently)     Using $150 Million low estimate   DEBT per CAPITA =  $2,027

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now,  three  Research quotes from Bond rating agencies:

1. 

S&P city of Folsom municipal bond rating:

Issuer: Folsom, CA State: CA Country: USA Date: 12/3/2012 Rating AA- Rating Action: Downgrade/Lower Outlook: Stable Various Ratings On Folsom, CA Debt Lowered One Notch On Recent Deficit Spending And Declining Reserves
SAN FRANCISCO (Standard & Poor's) Nov. 30, 2012--Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term rating and underlying rating (SPUR) on Folsom, Calif.'s general obligation debt outstanding to 'AA-' from 'AA', as well as its long-term rating on the city's certificates of participation outstanding to 'A+' from 'AA-'. The outlook is stable.
"The rating actions are based on our view of the city's five years of deficit spending and declining reserves," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Bryan Moore.
More specifically, the downgrades reflect our view of the city's:
? Five years of deficit spending, leading to a decline in city reserves to a good level from a very strong level and below the reserve policy;
? Four years of assessed value decreases; and
? High overall net debt burden per capita.

_________________________________________________________________________________

2. 

MOODY's   Research, city of Folsom Bond ratings

Related Research

Rating Update: Moody's affirms the Aa3 rating on the City of Folsom, CA's GO debt   Announcement: Moody's affirms at Aa3, assigns negative outlook to the General Obligation bond rating for the City of Folsom (CA) Rating Update: Moody's affirms at Aa3, assigns negative outlook to the General Obligation bond rating for the City of Folsom (CA)   Rating Update: MOODY'S DOWNGRADES TO Aa3 FROM Aa2 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND RATING FOR CITY OF FOLSOM'S (CA) New Issue: MOODY'S ASSIGNS A1 RATING TO CITY OF FOLSOM'S (CA) 2009 GO REFUNDING BONDS

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

3.

Latest public bonds trading history  (for 2013 to present 2014):     Trade History

Trade Date Trade Time Maturity Date Coupon Price Yield Trade Amount Trade Type 2014-03-27 3:55pm 2016-Aug 4.000% 107.623 0.700 $65,000 Inter-dealer 2014-03-27 3:54pm 2016-Aug 4.000% 107.623 0.700 $65,000 Investor bought 2014-03-27 2:53pm 2016-Aug 4.000% 107.601 0.709 $65,000 Investor sold 2013-12-12 11:50am 2016-Aug 4.000% 108.378 0.766 $25,000 Investor bought 2013-12-12 11:50am 2016-Aug 4.000% 108.298 0.795 $25,000 Inter-dealer

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Questions/comments

• Comment:  the sole bond issue which benefited me or my young neighbors was $17 million for the library, a long time ago.      Where did the other approximately $150 million  go?  
• Comment on 2013 & 2014  trading of bonds:    it appears these bond issues have to do with south of 50 development.     The few trades which happened were all rather "internal" --   the public did NOT rush to buy Folsom CA municipally issued bonds.     The open market gets the picture.   

 

[maestro]

To:  new candidates & residents:    you should consider this city council project as a diversion of federal funds which ought to be used for the missing infrastructure in this city.    Here's a copy of post to the Folsom Prison Blues Trail.

 

 are you on that funding committee? is that why you have your panties bunched up over someone objecting to the funding, the blatant disrespect of residents by calling them all prisoners by building a prison tower over the bridge, and the incredible mooching of JC name over a stupid song he wrote after a 6 second ride?  

I don't give a wet l& loud toot who paid for it, What I have a problem with is the developers pockets being heavy and the City leaders panting for the goodies in the pockets and being willing to sign off--- on anything-- the developers in this city want. And dont think for one second they werent very influential in the building of that tower.

 

 

Oct 4 14  Sac Bee:   while city used fed & state funds for the trail & bridge, officials say DONATIONs are more appropriate source of money for art on trail (which is on all public land).       Organization of governments (SACOG)  decides who gets the fed TRANSPORTATION/road funding.   They WITHDREW the city's funding for anymore trail, bridge or tunnel construction.     Amount withdrawn is now going to come from donations of $3,000,000.       Why the recall monies?

 

Several reasons are:   

This "folly" structure is out in the middle of nowhere, and does not contribute to road betterment.   It's more of a problem to maintain.

 

The folly-bridge and the tunnel had NO ENGINEER- APPROVED PLANS.    The blueprints were solely for dirt-work, not a full bridge and a full tunnel.

 

The tunnel would endanger all the wildlife on the Folsom Prison property which is open space.   

This WAS NEVER SUBMITTED for REVIEW by federal, state, local, water, Fish & Game, Fish & Wildlife, conservation groups, residents.     There is NO PUBLIC NOTICE nor discussion  of this undesirable tunnel on prison land.    No one even discussed the encroachment onto federal land near a dam (a security issue for our water).

 

This city council has no use for a City Engineer to enforce all the public safety & welfare laws;  no use for a proper full public discussion.    Who really benefits from the big bucks spent on this "folly" bridge?     Did the grant application base its needs upon paying for REAL engineering for a bridge and a tunnel?    Bridges require a lot of very expensive expertise to engineer properly.  

[Phoenix2014]

Sandra, Roger and Chad -  PLEASE Save ouR City

 

Seriously, I feel like I am dragging the proverbial horse dying of thirst to water, but can't make it drink!

 

Not one of you stands a chance of winning alone. I have spoken to over 10 friends and neighbors over the past week and not even one can recall any of your names, but most can come up with at least two of the incumbent names. Why? Signs. Every major intersection, including Hwy 50 off ramps, in the City. The mailers will be flooding in soon, and I suspect the BEE will endorse them as well (who better to manage the growth south of 50 than the incumbents! they will say- the BEE editorial board is no different than the Folsom Chamber)

 

Facebook and other social media: this is where math is your friend - each of you reach out to 10 friends, that's 30, they reach out to 10, that's 300, then 3,000, then 30,000. Of course there will be a lot of overlap, but in mere days, thousands of voters will:

• Know your names.
• Know about the incumbents ignoring Measure W and stealing our Water, putting us in a permanent state of drought (see my next post under the "Stealing our Water" thread for additional info) 
• Know of the short list (K.I.S.S. method) of your agreed upon primary objectives.
• Attract media attention - they like grass roots underdogs (if you act quickly, you might even be able to get the BEE editorial Board to have second thoughts).

Why water should be your leading message.

• As a whole, Folsom voters are as apathetic and uninformed a crowd as you can find. In the City of Sacramento, there are well over a dozen very active groups who would have sued their City Council by now, had the same thing happened there)
• The voters you want to reach need a "shiny object" that gets their attention, that they care about, one that will very obviously impact the quality of life of their own families.

Please, get together TODAY and Save ouR City!

 

If I can help in any way to accomplish this, please send me a PM or respond loud and clear to me and your many other fans in this Forum.

 

 

maestro, you know that I, more than anyone, appreciate the info you have provided. HOWEVER, please back off a bit. Give our Council Candidates and others a chance to use this thread to move their campaigns forward. Please use the "Stealing our Water" thread instead or start a new one. Your information and research are very important, so thanks for your contributions.

[maestro]

maestro, you know that I, more than anyone, appreciate the info you have provided. HOWEVER, please back off a bit. Give our Council Candidates and others a chance to use this thread to move their campaigns forward. Please use the "Stealing our Water" thread instead or start a new one. Your information and research are very important, so thanks for your contributions.

 

A candidate forum seems to me the best place to raise the issues which the new candidates MUST know about.

The city debt  burden and Credit rating is NOT a water issue.    

SACOG revoking the federal grant is NOT a water issue.  

Woodside Homes project being shut down is NOT a water issue.   

Closing down the Commons of Folsom is NOT a water issue.

The immediate closing of the "sewer improvement projects" is NOT a water supply issue.  (It is pollution.)    OK, I know precisely why all these residential developments and "improvements" were halted.     Research causes such things.

 

Don't forget, 16 innocent humans killed on "55mph city streets" is NOT a water issue.

When people are offered concrete proof --  public records --  it's as political as it gets.    This is exactly what the voters and candidates require --   PRIOR to the candidates forum at the Landmark Baptist Church.     This public record information BELONGS in a CANDIDATE topic.   Do you know how deeply the sitting candidates wish my contribution to be censored?    You should not be advising me to sanitize a political candidates' forum because the candidates deserve to know what is going on.   Ditto the residents who deserve a safe and sane place to live.       

This council gave the final two developers (FPA)  what they wanted during 2013 and 2014.     You see only a few places where their slate is advertised, because they have no friends since the money dried up and the enforcers moved in on the city.   

 

Finally, it is more painful for me and mine to look at my postings than it is for people who have not directly suffered deaths or injury, or loss of 9 families from a small community.     I never dreamed such horrible things could go unchecked since 1992, and go so wrong before this election.     This is really painful stuff.     However, I believe  drought has changed the life & outlook of every Californian, and the public will do everything in their power to protect their childrens' and their lives.  

I also have much more faith in criminal prosecutors than you apparently do.     Trust the research.

[maestro]

city voters,      news is frightening lately, but as election approaches, you deserve to know the sewer truth.
 

The main reasons city is under investigation by State Water board impacts all of us:   health, economics, and water.    Four city councilpersons have kept city's raw sewage conveyance system from keeping pace with the residential growth.     The same 27" diameter mainline which connects to Regional Sanitation sewage treatment plant, is the very same mainline which was built in the early 1990s to serve a city of 8,000 residents.    The city has over 133 inches of sewage pipes connected to the 27 inch diameter pipe along the river.   12 feet of sewage just won't go into 2+ feet of pipe.   

27" mainline does not even extend north to the 18" line and the 20" prison line & 25" of HD lines next to the river.   Evidence was presented to water board RWQCB,  Jan. 2014, and recently to Chad who has government experience.     Election is an opportunity to tell them what we think of this.       

[supermom]

So, Maestro.... basically what your saying is that the city council is supporting South of 50 development for property taxation in order to cover their A due to a grossly mishandled finance plan? 

[maestro]

So, Maestro.... basically what your saying is that the city council is supporting South of 50 development for property taxation in order to cover their A due to a grossly mishandled finance plan? 

 

Not really.    The huge majority of post 1982 city residential development is due to one land speculator-owner.    He has employed and been friends with a past mayor for lots of decades.    This led to lots and lots of development -- before DROUGHT.    

 

This council has actually erased the City Engineer Enforcement position and changed the Development Laws (like Ord. 1179 and 1181) so that the 2  FPA landowners of south of 50     do not have to spend one cent for providing infrastructure and dedicating it prior to constructing and selling houses.   They actually said the "charter city" is superior to federal and state laws like Mello Roos.     The council passed Resolutions using OUR money to start building water tunnels to take water under Highway 50.    The passed 1179 & 1181 so 2 landowners can borrow against our credit as well.    That borrowing is the mPacepower Ordinance 1190 to borrow $50 million  -- which, BTW applies to the entire city.   

 

This council was driven to rezone and rewrite all the laws PRIOR to the election.    The 2 landowners refused to give the city anything:   no sewers, drainage, land for utilities.      Council  already GAVE AWAY the FARM and incurred massive debt on us.  

Now they are doing things like the small business tax CW just posted as a new topic.   The FPD and FFD are having fund raisers to provide essential public services.    Businesses have fled like rats leaving a sinking ship.    Intel is deadly silent.

 

What will sitting four council derive from staying in office?     worse indigestion and fear.

What real benefit will city derive from FPA?     Absolutely none.

Council borrowed $177 million via bonds, causing bond ratings agencies to downgrade city because there is nothing to show -- except a lot of hand-placed rocks in the streets and sides of tunnels under Folsom Blvd.

Since they even did all the very dense FPA  housing zoning by passing a passel of ordinances recently, all that is left is to wait for the hammer to fall.

 

Frankly, I never believed the council thought the water for FPA would materialize.    They probably annexed, changed the laws, rezoned the FPA for dense housing   in order to INCREASE the land value for the 2 land owners.     They have no municipal financial plan -- especially not with the CA state water board shutting down all their housing and sewage projects (putting excess sewage into waterways).    All along the council four have believed the 2 landowners would support and protect them.    Fat chance after you gave away everything already.      But, on the bright side, one way or the other, the borrowing, not requiring infrastructure up front, the construction happening WITHOUT public vetting, NEVER using Approved Engineering Documents  --      their little ways are becoming public knowledge.     They are being stopped.   That is great news.....   more to come.

[Chad Vander Veen]

FYI I'll be giving a presentation at the Rotary Club's Thursday morning meeting this week. While it won't be about my campaign it will be about smart cities of the future.

[supermom]

gah-reply to topic and quote topic are not working right. phoof- I was going to ask Maestro something.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Just pushing this back up to the top - I don't know if the incumbents will show tonight but if they do it will be a good chance to ask them about these issues in a non-council setting. 6pm at Landmark Baptist Church

[4thgenFolsomite]

I believe all the running incumbents but Steve Miklos will be at the meeting tonight at Landmark.  Are all the candidates going to be there?

[Steve Heard]

I'm going to try to get out there.