Anyone who has been reading this forum in the recent past knows that Robert has some issue with me. Perhpas he is entitled to one - I am not sure what it is or why - other that I am running and he is not. You all know that I have suggested that he contact me directly. He has not done that. He has my home phone, my cell phone, and he knows where I live - yet he has chosen to use NONE of those avenues. He persists in demanding answers that relate to personnel matters, or closed session discussions of the Council. Not that I would ever provide him with information from a closed session, that would violate the entire purpose of the Brown Act. Nor would I provide him with information from the personnel department - who wants their HR file displayed on a public forum????? He persists in looking for answers to questions that have long ago gone by the boards. He was on a tirade about the location of the library that is almost complete, he was recently asking questions about a City Manager that "retired" more than 7 years ago. This is my advice to Robert, do not vote for me - vote for whomever you want, if you have a question, call or email me directly, get over the past (including all of your long time issues with the City that relate to your personal life), move on!
The sad thing is that I believe Robert really does care about the City - he has a funny way of showing it. Is this all about Robert not getting an appointment to anything in recent years??????? If you would like me to appoint you to a City position, you will need to pick up the phone, as a direct conversation, as opposed to an attack, will be required. Robert really is a nice guy - I hope he starts acting that way again soon.
Kerri Howell - City Council candidate
Started by
camay2327
, Sep 19 2006 06:26 PM
274 replies to this topic
#77
OnceAMarine
-
- New Members
-
- 38 posts
Netizen
Posted 23 October 2006 - 08:21 PM
I know neither Robert nor Kerri Howell; but, I'm surprised by Ms. Howell's response to Robert's questions. Ms. Howell's response is an ad hominem fallacy of logic, and a disappointment coming from a sitting City Councilman.
While the questions pertaining to the former City Manager and the former City Manager's assistants are clearly inappropriate for this forum, will Ms. Howell please reply to the questions about the parks? For years I've read ample signs throughout Folsom announcing the future building of parks; however, as a Folsom parent, I want to know when are these parks going to be constructed? What happened to the developers' fees that were set aside for the building of parks?
Ms. Howell wrote an article in the Sacramento Bee chiding Folsom citizens for our poor driving skills. What has Ms. Howell accomplished during her time as a City Councilman to improve the enforcement of existing traffic laws? With the growing Folsom population, has there been a corresponding increase in the number of local policemen?
Before Folsom grows to the South of Highway 50, what are the plans to increase the number of traffic lanes on Highway 50? Any Folsom commuter is painfully aware of the current traffic snarls on Highway 50 every weekday morning and evening. Before Folsom grows much larger, how will Folsom address the present traffic issues?
While the questions pertaining to the former City Manager and the former City Manager's assistants are clearly inappropriate for this forum, will Ms. Howell please reply to the questions about the parks? For years I've read ample signs throughout Folsom announcing the future building of parks; however, as a Folsom parent, I want to know when are these parks going to be constructed? What happened to the developers' fees that were set aside for the building of parks?
Ms. Howell wrote an article in the Sacramento Bee chiding Folsom citizens for our poor driving skills. What has Ms. Howell accomplished during her time as a City Councilman to improve the enforcement of existing traffic laws? With the growing Folsom population, has there been a corresponding increase in the number of local policemen?
Before Folsom grows to the South of Highway 50, what are the plans to increase the number of traffic lanes on Highway 50? Any Folsom commuter is painfully aware of the current traffic snarls on Highway 50 every weekday morning and evening. Before Folsom grows much larger, how will Folsom address the present traffic issues?
#78
EDF
-
- Premium Member
-
- 4,517 posts
Living Legend
Posted 23 October 2006 - 08:46 PM
News flash....
you must have not received the memo regarding south of 50...
there will be no new lanes added when they go to build it out... no... no... no....
just a little off ramp or two... and maybe a parallel street like Iron Point... I remember Steve M talking about Iron Point as an accomplishment to the infrastructure that will help alliviate some of the twaffic on 50....
They might get that new freeway in from Elk Grove to the El Dorado county line...
but what do I know....
Personally I like Kerry... and what the heck... at least you know where you stand with her... I never voted for her in the past... but I guess there's always a first time...
you must have not received the memo regarding south of 50...
there will be no new lanes added when they go to build it out... no... no... no....
just a little off ramp or two... and maybe a parallel street like Iron Point... I remember Steve M talking about Iron Point as an accomplishment to the infrastructure that will help alliviate some of the twaffic on 50....
They might get that new freeway in from Elk Grove to the El Dorado county line...
but what do I know....
Personally I like Kerry... and what the heck... at least you know where you stand with her... I never voted for her in the past... but I guess there's always a first time...
#79
Redone
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,865 posts
Hall Of Famer
Posted 23 October 2006 - 09:02 PM
QUOTE(EDF @ Oct 24 2006, 01:46 AM) 
... at least you know where you stand with her...
Where is that? After watching the 10/10 council meeting where she was against the artificial turf at Livermore Park, she then voted for it without saying that she changed her mind or why. Either she's trying now to get the sports vote or she just backed off when confronted with details. Neither are good.
#80
SacKen
-
- Premium Member
-
- 2,286 posts
Lifer
- Gender:Male
- Location:Cell Block D
Posted 23 October 2006 - 10:57 PM
QUOTE(Redone @ Oct 23 2006, 10:02 PM)
Where is that? After watching the 10/10 council meeting where she was against the artificial turf at Livermore Park, she then voted for it without saying that she changed her mind or why. Either she's trying now to get the sports vote or she just backed off when confronted with details. Neither are good.
How is that not good? A leader has an opinion but then changes that opinion when provided more information? To me that might show, oh, I don't know... a thought process!
I know I was against it when I first heard about it. Then I heard how much is saved in annual maintenance and now I am all for it! I played football on the turf fields behind the sports complex and they are awesome! If they can be installed and save some money in the long run, then go for it!
If only everyone was open minded to logic and reasoning in the world...
"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" -- George Carlin
#81
Redone
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,865 posts
Hall Of Famer
Posted 24 October 2006 - 07:29 AM
QUOTE(SacKen @ Oct 24 2006, 03:57 AM)
I know I was against it when I first heard about it. Then I heard how much is saved in annual maintenance and now I am all for it!
That would be great if those were her words, but nothing was even said. Again, just watch the video now that these things are available online.
#82
tgianco
-
- Moderator
-
- 4,152 posts
Living Legend
- Gender:Male
- Location:Willow Springs
- Interests:Baseball, soccer, football, poker, wine, good food, reading
Posted 24 October 2006 - 07:45 AM
QUOTE(OnceAMarine @ Oct 23 2006, 09:21 PM)
Ms. Howell wrote an article in the Sacramento Bee chiding Folsom citizens for our poor driving skills. What has Ms. Howell accomplished during her time as a City Councilman to improve the enforcement of existing traffic laws? With the growing Folsom population, has there been a corresponding increase in the number of local policemen?
I would agree w/ both you and her in this regard. Last night, the stench of burning rubber throughout our neighborhood b/c some losers decided to do burnouts for five minutes straight at Livermore Park.
That was really a treat. No one even bothers calling anymore since the police dispatcher responds like the neighbors are the nuisance.
Sorry for the off-topic rant.
In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.
#83
hunterman
-
- Registered Members
-
- 26 posts
Netizen
Posted 24 October 2006 - 07:57 AM
can anyone confirm the cost of the new field? was there any discussion of plans to complete livemore park? and why the money for the new field wouldn't be better spent to that end?
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
#84
Redone
-
- Premium Member
-
- 1,865 posts
Hall Of Famer
Posted 24 October 2006 - 08:06 AM
QUOTE(hunterman @ Oct 24 2006, 12:57 PM)
can anyone confirm the cost of the new field? was there any discussion of plans to complete livemore park? and why the money for the new field wouldn't be better spent to that end?
http://folsom.granic...r.php?view_id=2
fast forward to budget amendment
#85
Kerri Howell
-
- Premium Member
-
- 259 posts
All Star
Posted 24 October 2006 - 08:54 AM
To answer the question relative to the synthetic turf - I am not looking at the staff report, so please excuse that I am rounding the numbers from what I can recall from the staff report and the discussion at the Council meeting from 2 weeks ago.
The Council has the chance to amend the budget during the year, if there is additional money, or insufficient money for what has been put in the budget, sometimes revenue or expenditures increase, sometime they decrease. Prior to the recent meeting, a Parks Commissioner put together a request to the Finance Department to replace the field at Livermore. The argument was made, by that Commissioner, to the Finance Director, that replacing the turf with synthetic material would allow more use, and different uses than just football. That all sounds good. At the time the argument was put to the finance director, that Commissioner had already spoken to a few of the Council members - I was not one of those Council members that were contacted by the Commissioner. Increased use of the field is a good thing, right? Probably, but at what cost?
The cost to replace the field with grass is $100,000. To me, grass is grass, you maintain it, you water it, you mow it, and you do repairs when required. Not that your front lawn is exactly the same thing, as there are probably no football games being played on your front lawn, but you get the idea. The staff report says the field was damaged by overuse, and too much rain last winter - and needs to be replaced. I would not even argue that it needs replacement.
The cost to replace with synthetic is $1,000,000, and the estimated life is 10 years (the staff report and newspaper article say it is warranted for 8 years and will last 10 to 12 years). Since they only provide a warranty for 8, let's go with the 10 year estimated life. So, that means that the cost per year for the synthetic is $100,000. And at the end of the 10 years, you replace it again, right? The Commissioner requested $700,000 from the City budget and pledged that the Athletic Groups would raise $300,000. The proposal was that the turf would be installed on a "lease" basis. I did not want to even ask how you "lease" astroturf. In my mind, at $100,000/year, we could resod every year! Have any of you had to replace your yards annually? Staff indicated that they would save $18,000 per year on mowing, and 2 acre feet of water. For the record, 2 acre feet of water is sufficient for a famly of 4, for a year. That would save water for 2 households. At present, we have 24,000 households in Folsom, so that number is not quite as impressive as it would otherwise be.
Let's assume that grass, if properly maintained, would also last 10 years (I can not recall how long that field has been in place - is it 6 years?). That would mean the annual cost would be $100,000/10 or $10,000, plus $18,000 for mowing, plus the equivalent of the water bill for 2 homes for a year (at $30/month times 2 times 12 months, that is $720/year. That comes to a total of $28,720 per year. If you want to add another $10,000 for other maintenance, it would be $38,720 per year. Compare that to the $100,000 per year for the synthetic and what do you get? A difference of $61,280 per year (which would fund 2/3 of a police office on an annual basis).
During the council meeting I pointed out that we could replace the field every year, at these costs, and that mowing and water were not as significant as the staff report would lead you to believe. Having said all that, why did I vote for it? Good question! The action to be taken by the Council included 2 things, funding for the astroturf, and funding for a police officer. In my opinion, they should not have been included in the same action, and I have told Staff that they should have been separated. So, I had 2 options, vote yes or no. Had I voted no, the discussion would have been that "Kerri voted no to fund an additional police officer" - which I strongly support. The difficulty here is that we could have spent $100,000 for new grass, $100,000 for arts and cultural programs, and funded a few police and fire positions, or we could have gone a long way to finishing the rest of Livermore Park!
There are a number of factors that have contributed to parks sitting unfinished. One is that the Park Master Plan has been far more expensive, from day one, than the anticipated revenue from the park fees could actually build, and we (not that I voted to approve all of these things) have made choices to do things like purchase the indoor soccer facility for $6.5 Million dollars (money that was not budgeted for), which the Council knew would further delay completion of the unfinished parks. I am not picking on the Rec/Soccer facility, but it is the most recent example. These recommendations typically come from the Parks Commission. I try to be the voice of reason. I am the only one who questioned this expenditure (which I do not agree was appropriate) yet I could not vote no on funding a police officer. So, I guess no matter what you do, it is wong? I would really like to know what you folks think about this. Please contact me at corrprincess@ardennet.com.
Thanks for your attention to this long post - I hope it makes my opinion on this a bit more clear.
Kerri
The Council has the chance to amend the budget during the year, if there is additional money, or insufficient money for what has been put in the budget, sometimes revenue or expenditures increase, sometime they decrease. Prior to the recent meeting, a Parks Commissioner put together a request to the Finance Department to replace the field at Livermore. The argument was made, by that Commissioner, to the Finance Director, that replacing the turf with synthetic material would allow more use, and different uses than just football. That all sounds good. At the time the argument was put to the finance director, that Commissioner had already spoken to a few of the Council members - I was not one of those Council members that were contacted by the Commissioner. Increased use of the field is a good thing, right? Probably, but at what cost?
The cost to replace the field with grass is $100,000. To me, grass is grass, you maintain it, you water it, you mow it, and you do repairs when required. Not that your front lawn is exactly the same thing, as there are probably no football games being played on your front lawn, but you get the idea. The staff report says the field was damaged by overuse, and too much rain last winter - and needs to be replaced. I would not even argue that it needs replacement.
The cost to replace with synthetic is $1,000,000, and the estimated life is 10 years (the staff report and newspaper article say it is warranted for 8 years and will last 10 to 12 years). Since they only provide a warranty for 8, let's go with the 10 year estimated life. So, that means that the cost per year for the synthetic is $100,000. And at the end of the 10 years, you replace it again, right? The Commissioner requested $700,000 from the City budget and pledged that the Athletic Groups would raise $300,000. The proposal was that the turf would be installed on a "lease" basis. I did not want to even ask how you "lease" astroturf. In my mind, at $100,000/year, we could resod every year! Have any of you had to replace your yards annually? Staff indicated that they would save $18,000 per year on mowing, and 2 acre feet of water. For the record, 2 acre feet of water is sufficient for a famly of 4, for a year. That would save water for 2 households. At present, we have 24,000 households in Folsom, so that number is not quite as impressive as it would otherwise be.
Let's assume that grass, if properly maintained, would also last 10 years (I can not recall how long that field has been in place - is it 6 years?). That would mean the annual cost would be $100,000/10 or $10,000, plus $18,000 for mowing, plus the equivalent of the water bill for 2 homes for a year (at $30/month times 2 times 12 months, that is $720/year. That comes to a total of $28,720 per year. If you want to add another $10,000 for other maintenance, it would be $38,720 per year. Compare that to the $100,000 per year for the synthetic and what do you get? A difference of $61,280 per year (which would fund 2/3 of a police office on an annual basis).
During the council meeting I pointed out that we could replace the field every year, at these costs, and that mowing and water were not as significant as the staff report would lead you to believe. Having said all that, why did I vote for it? Good question! The action to be taken by the Council included 2 things, funding for the astroturf, and funding for a police officer. In my opinion, they should not have been included in the same action, and I have told Staff that they should have been separated. So, I had 2 options, vote yes or no. Had I voted no, the discussion would have been that "Kerri voted no to fund an additional police officer" - which I strongly support. The difficulty here is that we could have spent $100,000 for new grass, $100,000 for arts and cultural programs, and funded a few police and fire positions, or we could have gone a long way to finishing the rest of Livermore Park!
There are a number of factors that have contributed to parks sitting unfinished. One is that the Park Master Plan has been far more expensive, from day one, than the anticipated revenue from the park fees could actually build, and we (not that I voted to approve all of these things) have made choices to do things like purchase the indoor soccer facility for $6.5 Million dollars (money that was not budgeted for), which the Council knew would further delay completion of the unfinished parks. I am not picking on the Rec/Soccer facility, but it is the most recent example. These recommendations typically come from the Parks Commission. I try to be the voice of reason. I am the only one who questioned this expenditure (which I do not agree was appropriate) yet I could not vote no on funding a police officer. So, I guess no matter what you do, it is wong? I would really like to know what you folks think about this. Please contact me at corrprincess@ardennet.com.
Thanks for your attention to this long post - I hope it makes my opinion on this a bit more clear.
Kerri
#86
mylo
-
- Moderator
-
- 16,763 posts
Mmm.. Tomato
- Location:Folsom
Posted 24 October 2006 - 09:45 AM
Kerri,
That sounds like stuck between a rock and a hard place? How can they possibly put $1M in grass in the same request as a Police officer? You're right, you just can't vote no on that. That seems a bit.. unfair?
That sounds like stuck between a rock and a hard place? How can they possibly put $1M in grass in the same request as a Police officer? You're right, you just can't vote no on that. That seems a bit.. unfair?
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky
#87
ducky
-
- Premium Member
-
- 9,115 posts
untitled
- Gender:Female
Posted 24 October 2006 - 09:54 AM
Kerri, thanks for the explanation and reasoning for your vote. I must admit I'm surprised how small a percentage of water savings there is in artificial turf versus sod. I actually thought that the figure for a family of 5 was 3/4 of an acre foot per year, but I could be off on that. Still not much water savings. When I first heard this subject I figured it was the city starting on a water conservation project along with replacing water-hog median landscaping with more water-saving alternatives as outlined in the recent city newsletter. I had no idea the cost was so astronomical.
Was the $1 million the best bid Folsom could get to replace the field? Seems extremely high. A plus for an artificial field is it would get more use because the artificial turf can probably be used soon after a rain and not get beat up like a regular field. A minus is the artificial turf gets so hot in the summertime it feels like it's melting your soccer cleats. I imagine artificial turf needs some amount of maintenance but not nearly what mowing a regular grass field requires, especially in warmer months.
Doesn't seem right to combine the items of a police officer and artificial turf.
Was the $1 million the best bid Folsom could get to replace the field? Seems extremely high. A plus for an artificial field is it would get more use because the artificial turf can probably be used soon after a rain and not get beat up like a regular field. A minus is the artificial turf gets so hot in the summertime it feels like it's melting your soccer cleats. I imagine artificial turf needs some amount of maintenance but not nearly what mowing a regular grass field requires, especially in warmer months.
Doesn't seem right to combine the items of a police officer and artificial turf.
#88
Robert Giacometti
-
- Premium Member
-
- 4,850 posts
There are no Dumb questions
Posted 24 October 2006 - 09:58 AM
QUOTE(Kerri Howell @ Oct 21 2006, 01:10 AM)
Anyone who has been reading this forum in the recent past knows that Robert has some issue with me. Perhpas he is entitled to one - I am not sure what it is or why - other that I am running and he is not. You all know that I have suggested that he contact me directly. He has not done that. He has my home phone, my cell phone, and he knows where I live - yet he has chosen to use NONE of those avenues. He persists in demanding answers that relate to personnel matters, or closed session discussions of the Council. Not that I would ever provide him with information from a closed session, that would violate the entire purpose of the Brown Act. Nor would I provide him with information from the personnel department - who wants their HR file displayed on a public forum????? He persists in looking for answers to questions that have long ago gone by the boards. He was on a tirade about the location of the library that is almost complete, he was recently asking questions about a City Manager that "retired" more than 7 years ago. This is my advice to Robert, do not vote for me - vote for whomever you want, if you have a question, call or email me directly, get over the past (including all of your long time issues with the City that relate to your personal life), move on!
The sad thing is that I believe Robert really does care about the City - he has a funny way of showing it. Is this all about Robert not getting an appointment to anything in recent years??????? If you would like me to appoint you to a City position, you will need to pick up the phone, as a direct conversation, as opposed to an attack, will be required. Robert really is a nice guy - I hope he starts acting that way again soon.
How in the world did I miss this post?
If I felt there was any possibility of getting anything of value out calling you I would. Sadly, I grew tired of smiling and nodding my head, while you were patting yourself on the back while bashing all your colleagues. Don't worry Kerri, everything you said in private I'll keep confidential, I don't play those games.
We do agree about one thing....I care very much for my community. I care so much for my community, that I gave up my best chance to ever win a seat on the City Council this election despite, being the leading contender from the last election, to keep the field as small as possible so that the one person on the council who has been misleading everyone could be replaced. I don't know if this is something you understand.....it was never about me...it was always doing what I felt was right for the community.
When I was asking questions about Martha's $140,000 no bid contract for something she has never done before, you were the one who said I was doing it for politcal gain, implied my motives were evil and that I should get my own web site for my city council campaign. Not only were you completely wrong...but you didn't follow your own advice. Sometimes when a person is this wrong about somebody in public they may do the the honorable thing and acknowledge their misjudgement, but I see you moved onto another innuendo of trying somehow to imply my motives for asking questions about the truth is related to me not getting some appointment to a commisison. If you had a better relationship with your colleagues you might know that I turned down an offer....to let someone else serve.
Then again if you had a better relationship with any ONE of your colleagues, maybe ONE of them would be endorsing you. What's up with that?
I also see where you try to bring my personal life into this. I'll confess I had been thinking of some way to try and show the people of Folsom exactly what type of person you are, without being personal.
Thanks for doing the job for me!
#89
camay2327
-
- Moderator
-
- 11,481 posts
GO NAVY
- Gender:Male
- Location:Folsom
Posted 24 October 2006 - 11:52 AM
Robert, you are sounding more like sour grapes everyday.
You just want another YES man on the city council ?????
You just want another YES man on the city council ?????
A VETERAN
Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life".
That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
-Author unknown-
#90
tessieca
-
- Premium Member
-
- 5,292 posts
Hopeless Addict
Posted 24 October 2006 - 11:52 AM
Robert, I think you're being unfair with Kerri. She acknowledged that despite your disagreements with her you are interested in the city and what happens here. You fuss because you care.
She has stated that she did not ask for endorsements from the boys club, so that is likely a good reason they have not endorsed her. OTOH, none of them has requested hers either. And, if you think she is not communicating with her colleagues, maybe you ought to publicly ask them if that is true. I don't think any of them would state in public that they fail to communicate with one another.
Kerri is a good representative for the City of Folsom (party affiliations aside, and of course, meaningless in a non-partisan race). I like her style and directness. I'd keep trying with the communication thing. Call her about issues. It'll get you further than back-door bashing does. You might not want to burn bridges that would be helpful to you if she is successful in her candidacy.
She has stated that she did not ask for endorsements from the boys club, so that is likely a good reason they have not endorsed her. OTOH, none of them has requested hers either. And, if you think she is not communicating with her colleagues, maybe you ought to publicly ask them if that is true. I don't think any of them would state in public that they fail to communicate with one another.
Kerri is a good representative for the City of Folsom (party affiliations aside, and of course, meaningless in a non-partisan race). I like her style and directness. I'd keep trying with the communication thing. Call her about issues. It'll get you further than back-door bashing does. You might not want to burn bridges that would be helpful to you if she is successful in her candidacy.
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
