502 replies to this topic

[Sandra Lunceford]

Thank you, Steve, for the brief summary and the opportunity to add to it.  My conclusion was rather short, but in my opening statement I mentioned that my plan includes using some of the hotel tax and sales tax revenue that tourists and visitors leave to use for incentives.  Those incentives would be used to attract water conservation companies with their jobs, products, and processes to Folsom.  I also included energy conservation companies in my opening statement. Residents would then be given the option to incorporate water conservation ideas into their homes.  I am for smart growth south of 50 as the water filters in.  My plan addresses the needs of our budget while waiting for rain - reducing the necessity to begin construction anytime too soon.  I also questioned whether multi-million dollar businesses would locate south of 50 without knowing they have a totally reliable water source.

[cw68]

Was Steve Miklos there? 

No; he is in Southern California for his 40th high school reunion.

I don't vote for people based on who I would want to have a beer with, although in the last few presidential elections the news media has seemingly accused us all of that. I look for the direction they want to take us and their ability to do it.

Completely agree.

[Chad Vander Veen]

That was an outstanding event - I was very happy to be able to share my vision for the city with so many residents. Thanks to all who attended.

[4thgenFolsomite]

That was an outstanding event - I was very happy to be able to share my vision for the city with so many residents. Thanks to all who attended.

 

Chad,  you did an excellent job too. 

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

That was an outstanding event - I was very happy to be able to share my vision for the city with so many residents. Thanks to all who attended.

 

You did a great job articulating your position.

[SCA]

I agree. Chad spoke eloquently about his vision for Folsom and gave specifics. You also did a good job of answering the questions and staying on topic.

[maestro]

I agree. Chad spoke eloquently about his vision for Folsom and gave specifics. You also did a good job of answering the questions and staying on topic.

Chad, this is for you -- to save you the time of reading all the Engineering, and the ORIGINAL Contracts for "Historic Plaza" L&L.

 

Using the city's documents for the Oct. 14, 2014 city council Consent Calendar Resolutions:    council is spending an additional $218,000  OF OUR CITY BUDGET, for "add-ons" existing outside engineering arrangements, necessitated by adding FPA (south of 50) to our water plant.

 

Council is also spending $100,000 OF OUR MONEY as an "add-on" to the Historic Plaza L&L contract for engineering.    The ORIGINAL CONTRACT for this Sutter St. private development's benefit is ""Historic Plaza Station Lighting & Landscaping Project"   $700,000 for "inspection & testing"  , $1,181,657" for pavement repair and resurfacing.

TWO MILLION DOLLARS of OUR money to a private development's L&L.   Thanks to new laws, the city is NOT USING Mello-Roos laws --  this council is using OUR DOLLARS, saying 'the city must make Sutter St. look better.'

 

OMG, disgusting.   Res. 9441 Add-on to Vali Eng. for Hist. Plaza L&S was authorized by David Miller, not a licensed engineer.    That is thanks to the new law allowing ANYBODY to make a project and spend.

He comments:    "the original funding amount that was allocated to these contracts has been "encumbered" & the PW Dept has several projects planned that will require additional inspection ....."

 

 

Specifics in next comment.....

Council meeting Oct. 14, 2014:

Presentation by water director Yasutake on the status of  our water situation.... not advance details provided.

council Res. 9437, to spend $140,000 from our budget to assess staffing requirements for the water treatment plant at buildout of FPA --   the south of 50 land of 2 landowners.
http://www.folsom.ca...5/DO_128795.pdf
\_________________________________________________________________

Res.  9441  "Add on to contract, $100,000.   Original Contract is for  "Historic Plaza Station Lighting & Landscaping Project"   $700,000 for "inspection & testing"  , $1,181,657" for pavement repair and resurfacing.
http://www.folsom.ca...99/DO_128799.pd
_______________________________________________________

Res. 9438   to spend $78,000 to Bennett Eng. to assess BMPs and "optimization" of our water.    Necessary because of FPA demands on our water.
 http://www.folsom.ca...6/DO_128796.pdf

 

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

I was disappointed, but not surprised, in answers the incumbents gave -- several responses totally evading the questions asked.  I was shocked at Kerri's demeanor, sarcasm, and in one case very rude answer. All of the newbies displayed more professionalism than did she.

[maestro]

Well, its pretty hard to judge what their ability is - to take us in the direction we want to go when A) we dont know what direction we want to go, B) outside influences are pushing the members to decide to turn us in a direction we had no idea existed (like destroying a natural bird habitat for a hotel- Who knew that's what we- Folsom wanted?). 

 

Truth is, The best thing we could do at this point is completely wipe all members out of the council and start with a group that is tried and true from a different city, with a set of electoral alt trainees that the city can then vote in as permanent after a year or 2 of observation. 

 

Im sick of the arffing lies in elections and the blatant disregard for the wishes of the constituents - that I have seen in recent years. And Im not just talking about city politics. California is filled with liars. Its freaking embarrassing.

 

Supermom,   you say it so very well.    Right on all counts.    The state has huge problems, and city does not need four people who've sat over 100 years.

[Deanna H]

I was gobsmacked by Kerri Howell's disrespectful attitude tonight. She rolled her eyes, talked behind the candidates, inferred that topics were too complicated for voters to understand, argued with a Folsomite in the audience and told him that he if he didn't like the traffic on his street he should move to a gated community, and refused to join the other candidates and those in the audience in a selfie at the end. All of her comments were based in the past. She also said "I" more tonight than all the other candidates together. Very bothersome.

 

On a more positive note, Chad's visions for Folsom of the future were inspiring, Roger's energy is exciting. Sandra was knowledgable and Jennifer passionate. I hope that we get at least one of them on the council with this election.

 

 

I was disappointed, but not surprised, in answers the incumbents gave -- several responses totally evading the questions asked.  I was shocked at Kerri's demeanor, sarcasm, and in one case very rude answer. All of the newbies displayed more professionalism than did she.

 

Wow, not even pretending to be respectful and courteous? Too bad the majority of the voters of Folsom didn't see it and, likely, won't hear about it.

[cw68]

Wow, not even pretending to be respectful and courteous? Too bad the majority of the voters of Folsom didn't see it and, likely, won't hear about it.

She was most definitely not respectful or courteous. Chad brought a great concept to the meeting last night. He mentioned that the incumbents clearly have the edge over the challengers on where they can place signs but that there is something we can do to pass the word - the Oikos theory where we each tell eight people about the night and our takeaways.

I challenge everyone to do so!

[tony]

Chad, this is for you -- to save you the time of reading all the Engineering, and the ORIGINAL Contracts for "Historic Plaza" L&L.

 

Using the city's documents for the Oct. 14, 2014 city council Consent Calendar Resolutions:    council is spending an additional $218,000  OF OUR CITY BUDGET, for "add-ons" existing outside engineering arrangements, necessitated by adding FPA (south of 50) to our water plant.

 

Council is also spending $100,000 OF OUR MONEY as an "add-on" to the Historic Plaza L&L contract for engineering.    The ORIGINAL CONTRACT for this Sutter St. private development's benefit is ""Historic Plaza Station Lighting & Landscaping Project"   $700,000 for "inspection & testing"  , $1,181,657" for pavement repair and resurfacing.

TWO MILLION DOLLARS of OUR money to a private development's L&L.   Thanks to new laws, the city is NOT USING Mello-Roos laws --  this council is using OUR DOLLARS, saying 'the city must make Sutter St. look better.'

 

OMG, disgusting.   Res. 9441 Add-on to Vali Eng. for Hist. Plaza L&S was authorized by David Miller, not a licensed engineer.    That is thanks to the new law allowing ANYBODY to make a project and spend.

He comments:    "the original funding amount that was allocated to these contracts has been "encumbered" & the PW Dept has several projects planned that will require additional inspection ....."

 

 

Specifics in next comment.....

Council meeting Oct. 14, 2014:

Presentation by water director Yasutake on the status of  our water situation.... not advance details provided.

council Res. 9437, to spend $140,000 from our budget to assess staffing requirements for the water treatment plant at buildout of FPA --   the south of 50 land of 2 landowners.
http://www.folsom.ca...5/DO_128795.pdf
\_________________________________________________________________

Res.  9441  "Add on to contract, $100,000.   Original Contract is for  "Historic Plaza Station Lighting & Landscaping Project"   $700,000 for "inspection & testing"  , $1,181,657" for pavement repair and resurfacing.
http://www.folsom.ca...99/DO_128799.pd
_______________________________________________________

Res. 9438   to spend $78,000 to Bennett Eng. to assess BMPs and "optimization" of our water.    Necessary because of FPA demands on our water.
 http://www.folsom.ca...6/DO_128796.pdf

 

Chad:

 

I suggest you read the documents. Yes, indeed, Res. 9441 adds $100,000 to the existing on-call contracts with three consultants for inspection and testing services (and I would note that the resolution is not clear as to whether each one gets a $100,000 increase, or the total is $100,000). But, maestro's suggestion that this is adding to $700,000 already spent on inspection and testing for the HD Lighting and Landscaping  project is a complete misreading of the resolution; the $700,000 was the total construction cost for that project, not the cost for inspection and testing. An unspecified amount of the original $110,000 on-call contract was spent on inspection and testing for that project. The remainder of that $110,000 was spent on inspection and testing for the city's annual pavement repair and resurfacing project (which had a construction cost of $1,181,657) and backfiling a stormwater inspection position for several months.So, even if you consider the HD plaza lighting and landscaping project as a giveaway to a developer (which I do not because it is a public plaza), only a fraction of $110,000 from the original on-cal inspection and testing contract went towards that project. The pavement repair and resurfacing project is pure public works, which includes resurfacing of E. Bidwell south of Blue Ravine, and several other public roads in the city. This is an annual maintenance project and has nothing to do with private development.   Finally, the additional $100,000 is for inspection and testing on future projects, not the HD L&L or the pavement repair project (a task order for each one needs to be written before any of that money is spent).

 

So, this has very little, if anything, to do with lining the pockets of private developers.  And even if you consider the entire HD lighting and landscaping project as a gift to developers (a major stretch), then the total amount is $700,000 plus maybe a third of $110,000, not $2 MILLION as maestro suggests.

[tessieca]

I was taken aback to hear Roger's response to the question about historic district event support.  All he said was that the money did not benefit the city because it was just going to political campaigns.  It showed a real lack of understanding of the benefit of some of our city's events (Night of 1000 pumpkins, craft fairs, Saturday farmer's market, rodeo, Folsom Live, Thursday summer concert series, the new Tap Beer night, etc.) that brings tourists and money into the community and gives residents the opportunity to attend civic events nearby.  At least Jennifer says she wants to work with the merchants and city to make these less taxing on the neighbors.  The couple of those events put on by the Chamber of Commerce do not fund political campaigns.  BizPAC, which I'm sure he was referring to, is funded by chamber members, fundraisers and donations.  Sounds like sour grapes and nimbyism.

[SCA]

BizPAC only receives money from chamber members if they choose to make a donation when paying their regular chamber membership fee. There is a box to check to make an optional contribution, just like your City of Folsom water/trash bill gives you the option to make a contribution to the arts. Otherwise, BizPAC does its own fundraising.

[Rich_T]

I was taken aback to hear Roger's response to the question about historic district event support.  All he said was that the money did not benefit the city because it was just going to political campaigns.  It showed a real lack of understanding of the benefit of some of our city's events (Night of 1000 pumpkins, craft fairs, Saturday farmer's market, rodeo, Folsom Live, Thursday summer concert series, the new Tap Beer night, etc.) that brings tourists and money into the community and gives residents the opportunity to attend civic events nearby.  At least Jennifer says she wants to work with the merchants and city to make these less taxing on the neighbors.  The couple of those events put on by the Chamber of Commerce do not fund political campaigns.  BizPAC, which I'm sure he was referring to, is funded by chamber members, fundraisers and donations.  Sounds like sour grapes and nimbyism.

 

I wasn't there.  Were you also taken aback by the things mentioned by others about KH, or did you shrug it off?

 

I mention this because it seems to me that the "important" people have long been collectively been shrugging off a certain arrogance at these meetings by SM/JS/KH (the triumvirate).