116 replies to this topic

[ducky]

Please people don't be jumping to conclusions over a public relations ploy by Mr. Gold!

There is a HUGE portion about this topic that isn't being talked about in public.

Ernie Sheldon has done more for this community regarding children than the next 3 people combined! There is NO way Ernie Sheldon or any of the council members are trying to close the train. Mr Goss is also a stand up guy who would NEVER do anything to hurt the city of Folsom.

FYI, I served on the Park Commision nearly 10 years ago when this subject was discussed then and I KNOW first hand there are some issues that we as taxpayers need to have addressed regarding the train and its operations.

Don't be sucked into something you really don't understand!

Then spill the beans, Robert. What are we missing exactly? What HUGE portion of this is left out of that article? I really would like to understand.

I don't think this is being attributed to the city council because it never went before them.

[newsblaze]

The city is obviously making Mr. Gold out to be greedy (notice the spelling above of Gold's with a dollar and cent sign instead of apostrophe "S.") Mr. Gold is a businessman and is entitled to make a profit for his hard work. I have no idea how much of a rent increase has been asked for because the above memo is vague on that, but if it eats up his profits I don't blame him for wanting to call it quits.

That is funny. What you obviously don't know is that if you write a document using Word, it uses graphic characters for apostophes and other elements. If you copy that and paste it into a webform, then those characters are converted into things your browser can render or what the server software can handle.
That really was an apostrophe in the original. - it wasn't an "evil plot" by the city.

[ducky]

That is funny. What you obviously don't know is that if you write a document using Word, it uses graphic characters for apostophes and other elements. If you copy that and paste it into a webform, then those characters are converted into things your browser can render or what the server software can handle.
That really was an apostrophe in the original. - it wasn't an "evil plot" by the city.

Glad to hear it really was a computer error. I don't, however, appreciate mischaracterizing my comments as saying it was an "evil plot" by the city. I never used those words. I stand by my statement that Mr. Gold is being portrayed as greedy, which is what I take from comments like the city "sustaining his lifestyle."

As I said to Mr. Giacometti, I'm sure we'd all like to know why there is the need for such an increase. He has described this as a publicity ploy by the train guy. Maybe there's some truth to that. If it's the only way he can be fairly treated by the city, then I can't say I blame him. Bottom line is many people like the train exactly the way it is and would hate to see a change.

[Robert Giacometti]

Then spill the beans, Robert. What are we missing exactly? What HUGE portion of this is left out of that article? I really would like to understand.

I don't think this is being attributed to the city council because it never went before them.

We need to be sensitive regarding one of our local businesses/citizens, so I'm not going to say anything specific. Mr. Gold seems to do a good job of interacting with children.

As I recall, The article briefly mentions something about Mr Gold wanting to continue with a rental agreement of paying a portion of each train ticket sold, to the city, instead of having an agreed upon monthly rental rate.

The article also indicates the city wants to charge additional amounts during events that the city puts on, probably to help offset the cost of putting on the events. During these events, the city assumes all the costs of marketing.

Under the current agreement there is the possibility of discrepancies and in a sense encourages train hours of operation to occurr during maximum ridership possibilities.

The City recently completed a review of its policy with rental fees for facilities that the city rents out to non-proifts/ community groups. The next logical step would be to revisit agreements with concessionaires using city facilities as well.

[ducky]

We need to be sensitive regarding one of our local businesses/citizens, so I'm not going to say anything specific. Mr. Gold seems to do a good job of interacting with children.

This is kind of a cryptic statement. Not exactly sure what you're conveying here.

As I recall, The article briefly mentions something about Mr Gold wanting to continue with a rental agreement of paying a portion of each train ticket sold, to the city, instead of having an agreed upon monthly rental rate.

So what's wrong with that. Old agreement was working. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

The article also indicates the city wants to charge additional amounts during events that the city puts on, probably to help offset the cost of putting on the events. During these events, the city assumes all the costs of marketing.

[bThose city events are also made more successful by the train being open. If the train guy stays open outside normal hours of operation to make sure there aren't disappointed and p'd off parents because it's not open during a special event why should he have to pay for the marketing?[/b]

Under the current agreement there is the possibility of discrepancies and in a sense encourages train hours of operation to occurr during maximum ridership possibilities.

Again, huh?

The City recently completed a review of its policy with rental fees for facilities that the city rents out to non-proifts/ community groups. The next logical step would be to revisit agreements with concessionaires using city facilities as well.

Go ahead and revisit, but please be fair.

[Darthvader]

...The article also indicates the city wants to charge additional amounts during events that the city puts on, probably to help offset the cost of putting on the events. During these events, the city assumes all the costs of marketing.


From what I see the Concerts in the Park are probably the biggest draw for the train during the Summer other than 4th of July right? So correct me if I'm wrong but they announce all the sponsors for tha event every time, such as Aerojet, Kaiser, etc. Is this city "Marketing cost" the sign on the Folsom billboard and an ad in the Telegraph?

The city is too cheap to even provide porto-potties there so you have to walk 1/4 mile to the zoo entrance to use the bathroom.

[Terry]

...The article also indicates the city wants to charge additional amounts during events that the city puts on, probably to help offset the cost of putting on the events. During these events, the city assumes all the costs of marketing.
From what I see the Concerts in the Park are probably the biggest draw for the train during the Summer other than 4th of July right? So correct me if I'm wrong but they announce all the sponsors for tha event every time, such as Aerojet, Kaiser, etc. Is this city "Marketing cost" the sign on the Folsom billboard and an ad in the Telegraph?

The city is too cheap to even provide porto-potties there so you have to walk 1/4 mile to the zoo entrance to use the bathroom.

Oh my goodness, you can't even walk 1/4 mile????? Geez, no wonder we're a nation of fat people.............

[Andrea V]

Oh my goodness, you can't even walk 1/4 mile????? Geez, no wonder we're a nation of fat people.............

I'm pregnant.... 1/4 mile is a LONG way to the closest bathroom!

[granto]

some questions for the masses:
1. It is an all cash business with no auditable records (I have ridden many times and never seen a cash register --machine or otherwise). How does the city measure results?

2. As many people have pointed out here, most of the riders come from a zoo visit or the special events. The train is packed on Friday concert nights. Does the operator of the train benefit from the city pulling people into the park?

3. Isn't it in the best interest of the owners of the park (the residents) to make sure that they are getting the best value for the dollar? Where does everyone stand on the operator getting a $1/yr rent?

4. If the city is truly subsidizing the business, then should it not be city or non-profit run?

5. Since the rent money goes back into the Zoo fund, don't we hurt the zoo (which pulls the bulk of the riders and the concession business in) by not making sure we collect proper revenue?

I just don't think this is as simple as the Big Bad City beats up on the poor little train operator.

[mylo]

I'm sure it's in the city's best financial interest to put the operation up for bid, charge reasonable rents, make sure we're getting the right bang for the buck, etc.

However, this guy's done this for what, 19 years? Who cares if he's making a profit, or that the city could be making more money? I've never heard anyone complain about the train rides, pricing, or anything about this operation!

It's a great addition to the city and not worth any sort of fuss or interference. I'm sure Mr. Gold will retire eventually (especially if he's raking it in in this all-cash business!), and the city can rethink the deal then...

For now, leave a good thing be, IMO.

[mrdavex]

I'm sure it's in the city's best financial interest to put the operation up for bid, charge reasonable rents, make sure we're getting the right bang for the buck, etc.

However, this guy's done this for what, 19 years? Who cares if he's making a profit, or that the city could be making more money? I've never heard anyone complain about the train rides, pricing, or anything about this operation!

It's a great addition to the city and not worth any sort of fuss or interference. I'm sure Mr. Gold will retire eventually (especially if he's raking it in in this all-cash business!), and the city can rethink the deal then...

For now, leave a good thing be, IMO.

Out of curiousity, who owns the tracks? And I don't mean the land they occupy, but the ties and rails. If Mr. Gold were to lose his bid to a competitor, would that new operator get to use the tracks? But if Mr. Gold did own those tracks, does that mean he would have to remove them or make some dough by selling them to the new operator? If the city does own and maintain the tracks, well, it's not exactly peanuts to maintain a railroad.

[ChipShot]

If the Folsom City Council can't figure this out, then we're in big trouble when it comes to actual important stuff that'll shape the future of Folsom. I shake my head in amazement that they can make such simple stuff so difficult. Gov't at work. Ain't it great ??

[granto]

Out of curiousity, who owns the tracks? And I don't mean the land they occupy, but the ties and rails. If Mr. Gold were to lose his bid to a competitor, would that new operator get to use the tracks? But if Mr. Gold did own those tracks, does that mean he would have to remove them or make some dough by selling them to the new operator? If the city does own and maintain the tracks, well, it's not exactly peanuts to maintain a railroad.

from the P&R director letter:
Mr. Terry Gold has had an agreement with the City for use of the park site, tracks, concession stand, etc. and he has been operating successfully there for more than 17 years.

[ducky]

I'm sure it's in the city's best financial interest to put the operation up for bid, charge reasonable rents, make sure we're getting the right bang for the buck, etc.

However, this guy's done this for what, 19 years? Who cares if he's making a profit, or that the city could be making more money? I've never heard anyone complain about the train rides, pricing, or anything about this operation!

It's a great addition to the city and not worth any sort of fuss or interference. I'm sure Mr. Gold will retire eventually (especially if he's raking it in in this all-cash business!), and the city can rethink the deal then...

For now, leave a good thing be, IMO.

Well said, mylo.

[Rich_T]

Then spill the beans, Robert. What are we missing exactly? What HUGE portion of this is left out of that article? I really would like to understand.

I would like to understand, too.

I first became aware of this story (if we can call it that) in today's Telegraph. My first reaction was "evil city", closely followed by "I probably don't have all the facts" and "you can't trust what you read in a newspaper".

Even so, I can't help but start with the impression that Mr. Terry Gold is getting squeezed for a few bucks, when he should be allowed to continue his long-standing operation unmolested. As someone else pointed out, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I, too, was taken aback by the unfortunate quote "the city can't keep sustaining his lifestyle without getting anything in return". Did I misread the article? It looks like the city has been getting $834 in rent each month, now $855 since October, plus a percentage of the take. Why isn't that good enough?

I'm confused about what is going on here financially. Is the October agreement (contract?) being unilaterally amended to add another $8,000-$10,000 rent per year (close to a 100% increase), as was suggested by Gold as quoted in the article? Or does this actually refer to the additional $100-$200 per event which was also mentioned (in which case the math is all wrong, since this would imply 40-100 large events per year, which is ridiculous)? Something seems wrong, either in how the facts are being presented in the article, or in my reading and interpretation skills.

In any case, the existing arrangement has been considered good enough for a long time, and the "tough economic times" reference make this sound like squeezing money out of every possible income source, pure and simple. I disagree that this necessarily equates to "good business". I find such behavior unbecoming to the image of a friendly city, which in the end is bad for business. Sure, there is a place for subcommittees, competitive bidding, and "standard procedures". But there are also times - and I think this is one of them - when a person, by virtue of his or her passion and commitment, gain the status of "city treasure". I don't know if Mr. Gold has attained such a status, but I do think that, after 18 years, he's close enough. At any rate he is a fixture that cannot be readily replaced by some "winning bidder" train operator. So give him a break, and let him continue to do something that makes many people happy. Even though my daughter, now almost age 13, has not ridden the train in years, my family will always fondly remember Terry and his train.

Again: I am not armed with all the facts. But from my vantage point, I suggest that city officials back off and let something good continue to be good, without tarnishing it. The magnanimous gesture would be to acknowledge having made a mistake this time, and letting there be no hard feelings on either side.