37 replies to this topic

[kanda]

Perhaps our family is in the minority, but we use up only about 10%-20% of that big 90 gal can every week. According to the proposed increase in April, we're going to be paying $327 a year for that (a 22% increase), including the addition of a yardwaste can that we don't need at all.

As if that wasn't bad enough (it is), the proposed rate increases another 18% in Jan 2004! Almost $400 / yr to pick up a couple of bags of garbage a week.

Why not some options for people who don't need two 90 gal cans every week? How about a smaller can, or less frequent pickup? Something, anything, that would more fairly reflect the amount of trash that we actually generate.

[jake]

not to mention the fact that the city is fortunate enough to benefit from a recycling program... In case you were not aware, Folsom Prison sorts through our trash, picking out cans, glass, etc, and the city gets the profits for these items. I'd be interested in seeing how much the city gets a year from it, and what our trash costs are in comparison to other cities!

[April]

Well, I feel they are raising the rates so high because they have to find a way to make up
for the lower fees they will be giving to the low income families, who move into our newly
built low income housing. A person can’t think the low income will be able to pay our
high utilities here in Folsom. They will no doubt, get a special break and a lower bill than
the rest of us do.
It’s just like the hospitals and emergency rooms. If you go in there and don’t have
insurance, they charge you twice as much, to make up for the low fees they get from
insured patients, to even things out. They will tell you flat out they are not a charity and
must pay their employees, so why would the rates the city charges for garbage disposal be
any different?
It’s a real old story and getting more and more common. Charge the regular person more,
to make up for the lower rates offered to the low income.
Watch and see, we’ll be hearing about it sooner or later.

[bettyemahan]

I have been trying to make Folsom residents aware of the abuse of power by some of the officials in Folsom for several years. PLEASE HELP ME!!!!

The sewer system has not been improved to handle all the development in the last 10 years. WHY NOT??? Did the developers pay for the expansion as they went along?

Now we are told that OUR rates have to go up 400 % to "eliminate storm water from entering the sewer system, reducing the systems capacity". The storm water was not a problem BEFORE ALL THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAST 10 YEARS!!!!!

There was over 2 million to pay for that rusty old bridge!!!-----
But not for water meters or expnded sewers and water treatment facilities!!!

There was money to build 3 swimming pools, trips to China and Italy, but NOT AN ADEQUATE LIBRARY!!!!!

A city of 33,250 pays for a new 38,000 sq. ft. library building, builds 3 new fire stations, buys old library property to tear down OLD LIBRRY BUILDING OF 17,000 SQ. FT., for a new senior center building to be built, widen & repave city streets,----all at the same time----but Folsom's population of 60,000/70,000 still has the 7000 sq. ft., 60 year old, leaky building for a library since 1993!!!

I guess if someone leading California's government can shift the responsibility for the problems to us all, then so can those "leading" Folsom!!!

I AM ---*&%$&^+#* M A D, and you all should be also!!!!!

[camay2327]

My wife and I moved in from Santa Clara, Down there they did give you the choice of a small or large trash can and set the cost accordingly.

They should do it here. They will probabally say that the pick up equipment will not handle the smaller cans but that is not so.

I get the large can and do not get or need a can for yard waste, so I agree I do not need all the service. We should get charged accordlingly.

I will do what I can to help but where do we go?

[jobu]

QUOTE

There was over 2 million to pay for that rusty old bridge!!!-----

While I don't disagree that trips to China and Italy on our dime was a waste of taxpayer's money, the bridge was a different thing all together. Money is set aside by the state every year for lots of projects, and a lot of cities only need to apply for it... had they never applied, they would have never gotten the money, it would have gone to another special interest project in the state.

It's crap that the state puts aside money for frivolous things, but the bridge was an opportunity we could not pass up. I for one really like the bridge!

[kanda]

QUOTE (camay2327 @ Jan 8 2003, 05:25 PM)

I will do what I can to help but where do we go?

I'm not sure, but we intend to start by attending the "Utility Open House/Information Meeting" on Wednesday, Jan 22 (7pm) at the FCC. Then again on Tuesday, Jan 28, at 6:30pm the City Council will vote on the increases. I'm sure it's already a done deal, but perhaps if enough people show up and voice an opinion, something can be done to at least give some options for trash collection. That doesn't address all the problems, but it'd be a start in the right direction.

By the way, we moved here from Clark County, WA, and we also had options. We had a 40 gal container that was picked up every other week. Cost was less than $7/mo (2 years ago), so you can understand how next year's proposed $32/mo seems so outrageous.

[April]

We hardly ever fill up our trash can either. Sometimes there’s not enough in it to even put
out on the curb, so my husband don’t! But then we are the type that when we clean our
garage up, we haul the garage to the dump. Anybody done that lately? Well, get ready
for a shock.....the dump is VERY EXPENSIVE!!!!
Now I think we’ll be putting more stuff into the trash can, and not go to the dump when
we clean up the garage. I think we’ll put all the trash into another trash can and add a
little at a time to the one that is collected on the street, to make it full every week.
With the increased rates, why not?

[Terry]

Who should pay for our sewer, water, and garbage service? Anyone have a better suggestion as to how we should handle our need for these services? This seems to be democratic - everyone pays the same amount for the same services. Yes, I do have occasion to go to the county landfill, and it is expensive, but what's the alternative?

[April]

I think it was stated pretty clearly on this board, that one solution should be to give those
with less garbage, only one can, instead of the two. But we have always just gotten one
can and it is so big, we hardly ever fill it up. I think it’s unfair to demand of us to pay for
two, when we only use one.

Actually, I think we will be asked to take up the slack a lot in the future, as I don’t think
our state budget will get back to anything near normal in just one year. Our state is
adding more and more population that can not feed, shelter or provide for it self, and
every time that happens, there are more taxes and higher fees to those of us who can pay.

Those who make large incomes don’t feel the pinch of helping to support their neighbors,
but those who are in the middle income levels certainly will. It hurts the economy because
those people might not be able to buy a house, a car or maybe that boat they had wanted.
Their incomes won’t go up to match the increasing utility bills, grocery bills and taxes.
They will suffer the bulk of the impact and are likely to look elsewhere to live, thinking
California just too expensive to live in.
Friends of ours thought this and make about $250,000. annually on their business in the
Bay Area. They moved to Reno Nevada and are very happy there. They said they were
tired of paying so much to live here.

If California does not stop attracting the low income families that move here, and shorten
the allowed time families can receive Welfare, it will get worse. How can it not???
A state just can not have such a high population of families on Welfare, and have enough
funds to do other public projects too. When they try, it usually results in higher taxes than
one would have to pay if they lived elsewhere.
If they raise the sales tax, as proposed, it will be 8.75%. If you save all your sales receipts
and add the sales tax up at the end of the year then add that to your federal and state
income tax, you will see about how much you actually pay in taxes. And you’d better
have a stiff drink handy when you do!
It would be interesting to know how much of the state budget pie goes to those on
Welfare, compared to other states. Also how much goes to help those with a low income.
And we are actually paying more to get our low wage service workers than we think!
It always seems they will get it one way or the other......higher wages or higher taxes for
us. Take your choice!

But the utility bills are the tip of the iceberg. California is in very deep trouble and the end
result will be very expensive to the working class. Or those who still have a job.
It looks like thousands will be laid off, and it will be across the board to make it fair,
according to what Davis has said.
However, the last thing we need is fewer police officers, firemen and teachers, in my
opinion. That is like placing the noose around our necks!
The sky will not fall, but I don’t think any of us will be happy campers. We are talking
VERY BIG CUTS AND LAY OFFS! I think we will ALL be effected at some level.
If you happened to watch the news when they showed how much a $35 billion dollar deficit was, you may understand better just what this state is facing! Our deficit could run a lot of other states!!!!!
I really don't think it's anything to laugh about.

[kanda]

QUOTE (Terry @ Jan 9 2003, 06:55 PM)

Who should pay for our sewer, water, and garbage service?  Anyone have a better suggestion as to how we should handle our need for these services?  This seems to be democratic - everyone pays the same amount for the same services.

Terry, as April said, I believe it would be more fair if those who use less, paid less. Just as I am not forced to pay for electricity or gas that I don't use, it doesn't seem fair that I have to pay for two 90-gal trash pickups every week, when we could easily get by with one 40-gal every other week.

And though I hate to push this hot button, it also doesn't seem fair that we have to pay a level amount for water & sewer, when clearly we use far less than a "normal" household.

Of course, we knew these things before we moved here, and we accepted them. What we did not anticipate were the proposed consecutive yearly increases of 18% & 13% (on our total Folsom utilities bill). By next year, we would be paying $1100 for these services. Which is more than our gas and electric bill, combined. We never expected water, sewer, & trash to be more expensive than gas+electricity. (Of course, by next year, who knows what the latter two will be! But that's another story.)

$1100 / yr is almost $300 / yr more than last year's bill ... and we couldn't get a vote passed for $50 / yr for a new library.

[Bob]

QUOTE Terry @ Jan 9 2003, 06:55 PM
[Who should pay for our sewer, water, and garbage service? Anyone have a better suggestion as to how we should handle our need for these services?]


Simple question, simple answer. The developers who have, and will continue to, add thousands of new sewer connections to the same old main lines WITHOUT paying for increasing the capacity of our system.

A better question is, are Folsom residents going to continue to be saps by allowing City Hall to force us into subsidizing developers, or will we stand up and force the Council to be accountable to US not THEM.

This proposed increase is outrageous! 400% over 6 years will amount to about $40 million! Can anyone think of a better use for this money? Pay off school bonds, new library, parks, etc.

Do not be deceived by City Hall. Such high rate increases are not required to "repair aging systems" (most of Folsom is relatively new in terms of such infrastructure), nor is it due to "new regulations" (we do not treat the sewage, just pipe it to our City boarder where Sacramento Regional has to transport it to the south corner of our County, treat it, and dispose of it). The only "regulations" affecting us are those that this City WILLFULLY ignored by allowing spills to occur over the past few years because they had WILLFULLY ignored the problem of insufficient capacity. This is not my own ranting. It is from City documents and current and former City employees.

Also, recall that we have two sewer charges on our monthly bill. The second is for Sac Regional and is about $13.40/month. Does it make sense that we will be paying about two-thirds more just to pipe our sewage to our City boarder than we pay to Sac Regional who must take it the remaining 40 miles, treat it, and dispose of it?

Our sewer system is in desperate need of increased capacity to prevent future spills into our streets and creeks, and into the American River from which many draw their drinking water down stream. There is no question that this must be resolved and that it will require tens of millions.

The question is, who rightfully (legally?) must pay? Such large, non-inflation, increases should be accompanied by a nexus study (detailed analysis of who benefits from, and therefore should pay for, the planed sewer work). I would imagine that such a study would expose that most of this money will benefit developers, but it is unlikely the City has done one. It is far easier to milk residents than have developers pay their way.

Last year, City Hall forced residents to pay for 50% of the water (drinking) treatment plant expansion. This expansion and associated work benefited primarily new development that will be served by the increased capacity, yet current residents were forced to pay half of the $38 million project. I asked for a nexus report for that project and after three public requests, received only a report documenting the scope of the work to be done, not the required study of who will benefit.

Citizens were quite on that issue, so it looks like they feel they can get away with it again.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Families First

[bettyemahan]

Folsom residents/taxpayers need to WAKE UP!!!

Bob has tried to tell all of us---ABOUT MANY THINGS---and I have been screaming for years about the constant abuse of power of those controling Folsom government actions since 1993!!!

WE have a RIGHT to have the MAJOR say about what the city council can do or not do TO us!!

The "PUBLIC" complaints at city council meetings ARE TOTALLY IGNORED to the point that ALL OF US had better DEMAND CHANGES in how things are/and have been done for the last 10 years!!!

ALL FOLSOM RESIDENTS NEED TO REQUEST A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF THE LAST 10 YEARS!!!!

The City Council goes behind the closed doors and do just what THEY want and rob our pockets every day!

The ABUSE of power, TO THE DEVELOPERS GAIN, HAS GOT TO BE STOPPED!!! The city charter needs to have some laws written into it to protect the people from the abuses that have been taking place for too long. We are all being screwed royally!

The majority of the Folsom taxpayers DO NOT BENIFIT from the PERKS the developers hand out. WHO DOES????? Those who say "yes" to anything the developers want!

[April]

Let's do it!!!!!!!!
Tell me where to go and where to sign, I"LL BE THERE AND SO WILL MY HUSBAND!!!!!

I agree with you, THIS MUST STOP!!!

These city council meetings are a joke and a waste of time!

[bettyemahan]

April---and anyone else who is enraged by the abuse of power------

I think if you type in on the address line------Sacramento County Grand Jury---you will be taken to a site which will give you a way to bring up the Grand Jury Complaint Forms-------You could make copies of it and give to anyone you know. I did this recently and have filed a complaint. The more who do it, the more impact it will have. Bob Fish could give you more info and if you have trouble getting the form let me know and I will try again to get the EXACT DIRECTIONS. THANKS, THANKS, THANKS!!!