158 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

I was paraphrasing what Kerri wrote. Here is what I was referring to:

"Also as a point of clarification, the planning of the area, and the preparation of the environmental document and many other tasks associated with the annexation are being paid for by the landowners, including City Staff time."

Robert, thanks for the info you have gathered. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to make heads or tails out of the spreadsheet. I guess the argument could be made that the landowners shouldn't have to pay for park planning since that land would ultimately become city property. Maybe the same would be said in regards schools.

This is why I have concerns about costs that the rest of us pay that aren't being pointed out with this expansion.

I apologize, I wasn't calling BS on you or Kerri. I was simply pointing out we aren't getting reimbursed for the true costs of all the planning. I could see how Kerri could have been told we were and taking the person at their word and sharing that with everyone.

If we didn't annex S50 and develop it, we wouldn't have to cost of park planning. This cost most defintely should be paid by the land owners. If not, then those of us N50 are paying for it through the general fund or by having reduced services.

This is a Violation of Measure W and needs to be addressed by the council.

[Kerri Howell]

The Landowners in the SOI are billed quarterly for all staff time incurred in planning and for all consultants invoices related to planning. The invoices are also paid quarterly. There have been quarters where the total invoice exceeded $300,000. The values shown in a previous post are incorrect. The public records requested was only just received by the City and the time frame for responding has not yet run its course.

[Kerri Howell]

The invoice to the landowners, dated Dec. 2005, was approximately $249,000. The total of the invoices paid from 2005 through June 2010 is $4,081,129.59. Those invoices were for staff time and expenses and consultants.

[ducky]

The invoice to the landowners, dated Dec. 2005, was approximately $249,000. The total of the invoices paid from 2005 through June 2010 is $4,081,129.59. Those invoices were for staff time and expenses and consultants.

Wow, that's a lot of money. No wonder the push.

Any answer on the eminent domain question?

[Robert Giacometti]

I've gone back and double checked my math. The amount that has been paid to the city for reimbursement for all CITY STAFF time since 12/05 is $252,550. The costs for the consultants are passed on to the Landowner, although the city incurs the cost of billing and should be reimbursed.

For the last 9 quarters, the City is billing $22,260 per quarter for OUR entire staff's cost. This barely covers the cost of a planning staff and their benefits. Our staff would include the City Manager cost, The city attorneys office's cost, The departmenst managers cost, ( Planning, Parks, Fire, Police, Utilities and Public Works, Traffic and Accounting), The planners Cost, The clerical cost and the PIO position cost. Also, our staff have to manage and coordinate activities with the consultants, that time is also a cost that we as a city should be reimbursed for. The ongoing meetings regarding S50 are filled with our staff.

There is NO way the $22,600 per quarter the city bills for all of our staffs time covers all of our staff's actual costs per quarter!

Your tax dollars are being used to subsidize S50 planning and put more profits in the developers pockets at the expense of the citizens of Folsom! Its time for all of us to put a stop to this if we want to maintain our community the way that it is!

Its time for all to look in the mirror and decide to choose sides, doing what is right or the side of business as usual.

[Robert Giacometti]

The invoice to the landowners, dated Dec. 2005, was approximately $249,000. The total of the invoices paid from 2005 through June 2010 is $4,081,129.59. Those invoices were for staff time and expenses and consultants.

Out of that $4,081,129.59 the city has been reimbursed only $252,550 for ALL of its staff time costs associated with all the Planning, Meetings and Public forums for S50 since 12/05.

Do you believe this number ($252,550) accurately reflects the citys Staffs costs in all the planning for S50 since 12/05?

[supermom]

It would be nice if everyone were able to stick with Steve's original post.

There is one thing I would like to know.

Can we get an explanation of how and whom is responsible for putting out bids and accepting bids on road improvements-in folsom? How often are the bids renegotiated? What are the cities choices, and responsibilities? (Versus what or when does the county or state step in?)

Also, whom is responsible for city activities such as rodeo or veterans parade? How is it organizationally divided for areas of responsibility?

A few thoughts.

The city financial revenue....

The new red light cameras in "florin-well I think it was florin" made some grossly disgustingly obscene amount of money-this last year. It basically is used to fund safety equipment for officers.

Hmmmm- now, I'm just thinking, that a few corners off of F-A could be freed up for officer safet enhancement in other parts of the city, with a few stategically placed lights.....

[Kerri Howell]

Wow, that's a lot of money. No wonder the push.

Any answer on the eminent domain question?

Hi Ducky,

I would not consider this a "push". It is just the continuation of the annexation process, which has been ongoing.

On the subject of eminent domain - since we have not really gotten started on what the revitalization of the East Bidwell area might entail, any suggestion of eminent domain would be extremely premature. In fact, I would think it unlikely on many levels. Though the City purchased property for the building of Lake Natoma Crossing, Emma's and the Baker property, I would not envision that we would be using eminent domain proceedings in that area. What is it that you are concerned about?

[Bill Z]

Hi Ducky,

I would not consider this a "push". It is just the continuation of the annexation process, which has been ongoing.

On the subject of eminent domain - since we have not really gotten started on what the revitalization of the East Bidwell area might entail, any suggestion of eminent domain would be extremely premature. In fact, I would think it unlikely on many levels. Though the City purchased property for the building of Lake Natoma Crossing, Emma's and the Baker property, I would not envision that we would be using eminent domain proceedings in that area. What is it that you are concerned about?

Hi Kerri,

I don't know what Ducky's concerns are, but I do know mine. What is your personal political position on Eminent Domain?

[Kerri Howell]

There is one thing I would like to know.

Can we get an explanation of how and whom is responsible for putting out bids and accepting bids on road improvements-in folsom? How often are the bids renegotiated? What are the cities choices, and responsibilities? (Versus what or when does the county or state step in?)

Also, whom is responsible for city activities such as rodeo or veterans parade? How is it organizationally divided for areas of responsibility?

A few thoughts.

The city financial revenue....

The new red light cameras in "florin-well I think it was florin" made some grossly disgustingly obscene amount of money-this last year. It basically is used to fund safety equipment for officers.

Hmmmm- now, I'm just thinking, that a few corners off of F-A could be freed up for officer safet enhancement in other parts of the city, with a few stategically placed lights.....

Work on Roadway and pavement is the responsibility of the Public Works Department. The bidding process can vary. For a single project, the plans and specifications are advertised, then put out to bid, with the project awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. We also sometimes do annual or seasonal contracts for things like chip sealing of pavement. The same process applies, we advertise, then accept bids and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. These types of projects are not typically renegotiated. The City runs these projects and pays for them (in some cases with Measure A money that comes from sales tax in the region, and is distributed throughout the region by the Sacamento Transportation Authority). Caltrans and the County do not step in on projects within the City.

The "City Activities" depends upon the specific event. As an example, the Rodeo is run by the Chamber of Commerce, not the City (though there is significant cooperation, as the Rodeo is held on City property). The Veterans Day Parade is run by the Parks and Rec Department, with significant coordination with the Veterans Organizations and FAA.

The City has investigated the use of red light cameras in the past. In most instances, outside firms are brought in to install and operate the cameras. From what we have been told, in most cases, the jurisdiction really does not make any money on the cameras, the majority of the money goes back to the firm that owns and operates the cameras. When this subject has been raised in the past, there has been significant opposition from the Public.

On your last comment, are you talking about Folsom Auburn? Are you suggesting the installation of signal lights? We install signal lights when traffic conditions warrant installing them, not for purposes of increasing enforcement opportunities. Traffic signals cost about $250,000 per location (Just FYI).

I hope this info helps.

[Kerri Howell]

Hi Kerri,

I don't know what Ducky's concerns are, but I do know mine. What is your personal political position on Eminent Domain?

I would be opposed to it. Private property is private property.

[Bill Z]

I would be opposed to it. Private property is private property.

Glad to hear it.

[ducky]

Hi Ducky,

I would not consider this a "push". It is just the continuation of the annexation process, which has been ongoing.

On the subject of eminent domain - since we have not really gotten started on what the revitalization of the East Bidwell area might entail, any suggestion of eminent domain would be extremely premature. In fact, I would think it unlikely on many levels. Though the City purchased property for the building of Lake Natoma Crossing, Emma's and the Baker property, I would not envision that we would be using eminent domain proceedings in that area. What is it that you are concerned about?

I made my "push" remark because, while the annexation part is on the city to accomplish and has been in the works, - as Tessica has pointed out - the development part is on the landowners, and I can put two and two together and know that you don't put that much money out and not hope for a friendly city council to whatever development plans you may have. My vote/votes are going to go to whichever candidate I feel is going to remember he or she represents Folsom residents whose votes put him or her on the council.

I am concerned about the obvious. Improper use of eminent domain, i.e., taking one's property away so another can make a profit. I understand why you can't give me a definite answer on this issue, but I have to say talking of re-routing Riley and East Bidwell (is that what you said?) makes me a little curious and concerned since I have no idea what that would entail.

[Kerri Howell]

I made my "push" remark because, while the annexation part is on the city to accomplish and has been in the works, - as Tessica has pointed out - the development part is on the landowners, and I can put two and two together and know that you don't put that much money out and not hope for a friendly city council to whatever development plans you may have. My vote/votes are going to go to whichever candidate I feel is going to remember he or she represents Folsom residents whose votes put him or her on the council.

I am concerned about the obvious. Improper use of eminent domain, i.e., taking one's property away so another can make a profit. I understand why you can't give me a definite answer on this issue, but I have to say talking of re-routing Riley and East Bidwell (is that what you said?) makes me a little curious and concerned since I have no idea what that would entail.

On the SOI, I am not aware of any specific "plans". The only plan that I have seen is more related to land uses, commercial versus residential,open space, school sites and housing densities. It it not any where near the detail we get for specific projects, like a shopping center or subdivision - those will come forward as individual projects, just like they always do - at some point in the what will likely be the distant future, given the ecomony. LAFCO requires a general plan before they can even hear the annexation application - this is general planning, not project planning. If the landowners were looking for easy approvals on the project side - they would be better off developing this as the County, as they are easier to get past than Folsom Planning Commission and City Council. You should cast your votes based upon what you believe and on what people have done in the past (in the circumstance where an individual has a past history).

With regard to the eminent domain question - now I understand where you are coming from. When the discussion of he possibility of re-routing roadways was being discussed, it was during a time that FCUSD was considering selling the District property, and the City was thinking about buying it. When the District started talking about what they thought he property was worth - my feeling was, the property would not be sold any time soon, to the City or anyone else. This was a while ago. There has never been a dicussion of eminent domain entering into any redevelopment of East Bidwell, at least not that I am aware of. If you are worried about your neighborhood, I would not lose any sleep over it. I can not imagine a scenario where private property would be subject to eminent domain. Remember, when the City purchased Emma's and the Baker property for Lake Natoma Crossing, Emma's was not occupied and the Baker property was vacant land. Though I did not support moving Emma's to its current location, the house was sort of preserved. The Baker property transaction included preservation of the Murer House, also a very good thing.

I hope this information provides some clarification - if not, contact me directly as this might be easier on the phone.

[ducky]

On the SOI, I am not aware of any specific "plans". The only plan that I have seen is more related to land uses, commercial versus residential,open space, school sites and housing densities. It it not any where near the detail we get for specific projects, like a shopping center or subdivision - those will come forward as individual projects, just like they always do - at some point in the what will likely be the distant future, given the ecomony. LAFCO requires a general plan before they can even hear the annexation application - this is general planning, not project planning. If the landowners were looking for easy approvals on the project side - they would be better off developing this as the County, as they are easier to get past than Folsom Planning Commission and City Council. You should cast your votes based upon what you believe and on what people have done in the past (in the circumstance where an individual has a past history).

With regard to the eminent domain question - now I understand where you are coming from. When the discussion of he possibility of re-routing roadways was being discussed, it was during a time that FCUSD was considering selling the District property, and the City was thinking about buying it. When the District started talking about what they thought he property was worth - my feeling was, the property would not be sold any time soon, to the City or anyone else. This was a while ago. There has never been a dicussion of eminent domain entering into any redevelopment of East Bidwell, at least not that I am aware of. If you are worried about your neighborhood, I would not lose any sleep over it. I can not imagine a scenario where private property would be subject to eminent domain. Remember, when the City purchased Emma's and the Baker property for Lake Natoma Crossing, Emma's was not occupied and the Baker property was vacant land. Though I did not support moving Emma's to its current location, the house was sort of preserved. The Baker property transaction included preservation of the Murer House, also a very good thing.

I hope this information provides some clarification - if not, contact me directly as this might be easier on the phone.

Thanks for those answers. I won't lose sleep over the redevelopment, but I will be keeping an eye on it and attending meetings as long as I am informed of them.

I really appreciate that you are the only council member that will stick your neck out and reply on this board for all to see even though you take heat for it.