23 replies to this topic

[kcrides99]

Looks like the Developers will get their way yet again... http://www.folsom.ca...42/Document.htm

 

The City Council was slated to adopt higher development fees to support the buildout of parks.... they have since met with developers and are proposing to the reduce the price increase accordingly.

 

The net result is that development will not produce enough funding to support the future buildout of parks, funding must come from other sources (grants, general fund,) or not built.

 

Once again developers gain (decreased costs = increased profit) and citizens lose (less parks = lower quality of life).

 

 

 

 

[Robert Giacometti]

KC,

 

In my post in another thread I asked you if you had ulterior motives. I was wrong about that and wanted to apologize, so please accept my apology!

 

In the previous city council election, I thought I saw where 5 employees from the developer who is developing the Broder Ranch property in Folsom gave $150 each to Miklos and Howell. I guess that small investment is worth many 10's of thousands dollars now!

 

We have a Underfunded Park Master Plan and this council is allowing development to happen without them paying for their impacts!

[ducky]

I think if they were forced to pay those fees it would be hard to compete pricewise with housing developments in Rancho Cordova, but it does seem like another promise in Measure W that's set aside if there won't be enough funding for parks.

[tony]

I think if they were forced to pay those fees it would be hard to compete pricewise with housing developments in Rancho Cordova, but it does seem like another promise in Measure W that's set aside if there won't be enough funding for parks.

They do not have to compete on price with RC. Home values in Folsom justify the additional fees, because it is the parks (and bike trails) and schools that really set Folsom apart. Ever notice how development advertising always shows people biking on the trails in town?

[ducky]

They do not have to compete on price with RC. Home values in Folsom justify the additional fees, because it is the parks (and bike trails) and schools that really set Folsom apart. Ever notice how development advertising always shows people biking on the trails in town?

 

I was thinking of new build.  Elliott had lots in Folsom still available and had lots that went to lottery in Rancho.  I can only surmise it was the price difference, which was substantial.  I suppose it depends on price point.  People who are willing to pay $800,000 for a home with a view probably wouldn't hesitate to pay extra.  New families looking for a place to start need to look for what they can afford.  Same school district, new businesses going in nearby, some trails, Folsom water, and shorter commute to 50

[Robert Giacometti]

Ducky,

 

I thought RC had higher Park Impact fees for new Development than Folsom does? A few years ago, I was doing some poking around and found that Folsom had some of the lowest Park Impact fees of most agencies in the region.

[ducky]

Ducky,

 

I thought RC had higher Park Impact fees for new Development than Folsom does? A few years ago, I was doing some poking around and found that Folsom had some of the lowest Park Impact fees of most agencies in the region.

 

I know Rancho has a lot of things on their property tax bill for lighting & landscaping, police, fire, etc.  That's in addition to the home price, but when you are looking at $369,000 versus, say, over $500,000 it still seems more affordable.  

I would assume if the developers were made to pay the increased park fee, if it had passed, they would just add it to the price of the home, unlike the new community facilities district that was just formed where the new home buyers will find out when they get their first property tax bill.  I have heard of too many people who buy homes only to find out, oops, the taxes were miscalculated and you now owe another $100, $200, or even $300 a month, but I digress. 

[Robert Giacometti]

The impact fees that are paid by the developer are a cost of doing business and are subtracted from their profit. The developers try to sell the homes they build for the most they can ( just like you and I would do) and don't have add on charges like impact fees.

 

In Folsom, its a wonderful city to build new homes in, some impact fees are lower than other communities, yet the developers can sell their homes for far more than other communities. Its far more profitable to build in scenarios like we have going on here in Folsom.

 

IMO, its a crime that our Council allows development to occur without making the developers pay 100 % of their impacts of growth, when the developers are profiting so much more here, than other communities, to protect our quality of life! 

[kcrides99]

Robert-Thanks for the apology... I should note that I am not anti-development; I am anti-stupid (sprawl) development. I expect I would still be in the minority when I continue to suggest the Folsom has an untapped asset aka light rail. As I mentioned previously, Folsom is required to demonstrate that they have land available for development (by State HCD).

 

I would much rather see that development focused along our existing corridors and light rail, not sprawling out in the hills. We have a huge supply of underutilized land in the CBD and along Folsom Boulevard... that should be where we focus growth.

 

It saddens me that a group of developers can just whine and get their way for something like parks which are one of the big assets in Folsom.... now they City will either not fully buildout parks OR have to fund them in other ways.

 

I would go to the Council meeting and share these thoughts if I felt my one man approach to telling them off meant anything, but alas, I am just a single person against campaign contributions.

[Robert Giacometti]

KC,

 

Its fruitless to  go to a CC council meeting and say anything to this collection of Council members. You should seriously consider getting involved in making fundamental changes to the system and process, to reduce the effect of outside money, PAC's influence and Career local politicians beholded to those keeping them in office.

 

The solutions to the above issue are simply creating term limits, creations of Districts and requiring a winning candidate to get 50% plus 1 votes to get elected.

 

Creating Districts so there are approximately 7500 homes that Candidates would have to engage and campaign too would significantly reduce the effects of the double large signs throughout town and PACs influence since a serious informed candidate, could go door to door and inform voters of the issues. Getting more residents involved and informed, will always result in electing candidates who more accurately reflect the will of the informed voters.

 

The incumbents know this and that's why they wont change the system, so they can keep their seats! 

 

That's why, I believe they need to be recalled and replaced by a collection of altruistic Citizens who are there simply to implement a better system for all of us! Once the new system is in place, THEN we can have citywide elections again with Districts.

 

Make no mistake about it, the "IN" crowd wont want to give up their power and control and will stoop to almost anything to avoid this! They will be twisting things and trying to create doubt, so they don't loose their benefits.

 

Im open minded and tolerant of others perspectives and will welcome anyone who can explain why the current system is better than what I proposed. Having more informed and engaged citizens will always be better for our community.

[SCA]

Robert,
Are you proposing that we have a primary election and a general election for city council or how do you envision a candidate getting 50%+1 of the votes? If you have seven candidates like we did in the last election, it's virtually impossible.

[giacomo]

Here are the current park fees that Folsom and surrounding cities pay per lot/house. Multi family and single family vary slightly, but this is for single family lots

Folsom $2,910

Rocklin $2,696

Davis  $5,877

Roseville $6,304

Rancho Cordova, $7.787

El Dorado Hills (CSD) $9,806

West Sacramento $14,200

Elk Grove (Laguna Ridge) $16,059

 

and any wonder that the city council has full developer support for all elections?

[Robert Giacometti]

SCA,

 

Good question!

 

My plan would create districts. You could have 7 or more candidates running for a seat in a district. If no Candidate got 50% plus 1 votes, then there would be a run off between the top 2 candidates and the winner of that election would be on the Council. This way, the elected council member would have gotten a majority of votes cast in the election.

 

Under our current system a handful ( maybe its 2 handfuls)of people are really controlling what goes on in the city!

 

In addition to creating Districts, we need to establish term limits. This will prevent some of the "same old same old" stuff going on now.

[Robert Giacometti]

Giacomo,

 

Great information for all of us!

 

Folsom has some unbuilt park sites and other City's are surpassing us in the quality of the parks and amenities they are constructing in the parks. The reason is simple they are making developers pay for their impacts and our council isn't!

[giacomo]

Wow, so the city council approved a higher parks fee for developers.....but only increased it by $681, from $2910 to $3591.   Unbelievable that they settled on such a low amount when all of the surrounding communities have such higher park fee.The original  amount the city council had proposed was $7874 which I thought was fair and along the same fees that other cities charge.  Of course the developers were angry  about such a high increase and with such short notice that the council adjusted to a new amount of $7223.  Well, this amount was still way too high and of course the developers came up with the usual excuses about the building industry still recovering from the recession  and that these fees would hurt the consumer as these costs are passed on to them. As if people would suddenly stop looking at Folsom to buy a house!  If you're buying a $400K house an extra $4-$5K is not going to stop you from buying that  house in Folsom, which said could happen.

 

 The city council sure caved in to the developers once again to  drop the fee to an embarrassing $3,591.  Still well below EDH, Roseville, Rancho, Elk Grove, West Sacramento and Davis. And for Jeff Starsky to be quoted in the Bee "The overall fee package still  makes Folsom an attractive place to build" .... No kidding Jeff? never would have thought of that, thanks for clarifying it. Even if you'd stuck to the original fee amount of $7874 builders would have still built and sold lots of homes here.  Why do they let this man be quoted in the Bee?  In any case if you ever doubted that the city council is highly influenced by developers, look no further than this decision.  This was a bad decision by all 5 councilmembers, but like most of the decisions that should get Folsom angry and up in arms, it will be soon forgotten.  Oh and the fee increase doesn't start until July 1, 2015 so until then, only $2910.