Can you post the information here?
Comments addressed to council, attorney, clerk, city engineer, and sent to State Water Board Investigators.
PUBLIC Records request to Folsom City Clerk. Resolution 9431 city purchase/credit deal for APNs in EPA Superfund Site (Aerojet)
RESOLUTION 9431 COMMENTS: As you blithely pass another piece of South of 50 legislation I have several comments about what Public Records I expect you to produce immediately.
1. Chapter two of the Folsom Municipal Code has a totally new organizational structure. The office of City Engineer as an enforcer of Development and Public Infrastructure is no where to found -- even though no Legal Notices were published regarding this abolition and hence zero public hearings were conducted. Silently you altered the ONLINE version of the Municipal Code. Without the City Engineer's Enforcement, you think you can make this horrific purchase with just signed/ NOT SEALED report by Dave Nugen with no mention of City Engineer Krahn. I know this is in your new "alternative purchasing law." I reject its legality, and challenge your alteration of the FMC without due process.
2. Hence there is ZERO Engineering approval for this and the rest of the south of 50 FPA legislation, and this is shown in the incomplete format of Resolution 9431. Exhibits are missing or absolutely unreadable. I assume that was your point: NO ENGINEERING LICENSES are at stake because NO ENGINEER approved/sealed these plans and documents. (Comment: city passed the "alternate purchasing law" recently, enabling ANY CITYstaffer to make any purchase.)
3. There are no Licensed attorney at law certifications. It appears the city and the city agreed to a transfer of contaminated lands away from the owners/developers, for the sole benefit of the beneficiaries -- owners who will never pay for the mandated infrastructure. Martha Clark Lofgren is back in the paperwork after her absence from running the city. Presumably no lawyer for either Aerojet nor the city made a Staff Legal Recommendation because of the nature and contents of this Resolution. It's about contamination which I do not wish to pay for, yet that is the city's process.
4. Aerojet is loaning the city money based upon the full faith and credit of the city. No bonds are involved because the bond rating agencies would notice the TOTAL absence of ENGINEERING and approvals. Who would finance a municipality purchasing Williamson Act EPA-Superfund lands in the hinterlands? I do NOT wish to finance this purchase.
5. The Nugen report states the city will now set about rezoning and repurposing the existing Corp Yard on the river. But that is obviously a lie because the Aerojet land is part of the tax-deferring Williamson Act restricting the land uses. The city will not leave the American River because it is a convenience to the city's undersized infrastructure.
6. Land uses: Exhibit C itemizes the "neighboring properties" but never discusses the impact on them, nor their usages and land-limitations of relevance. Did you ever inform the State of CA you were making huge changes to abutting lands?
7. Exhibit B is TOTALLY MISSING. Perhaps you never did any environmental studies and you do not wish PG&E, SMUD, and other Easement Holders to know what you are cooking up in dark corners.
8. Speaking of dark corners, why was there ZERO public outreach regarding the city residents becoming owners of encumbered land of the worst nature -- EPA SUPERFUND land at Aerojet? Is the city's hidden process more polluted than this Superfund land?
9. What do PG&E, SMUD and other Easment users State of CA remark about this land transfer and change of usage? Were they informed there is a silent change which will impact its Williamson Act status? Are they concerned about their own staffs and owners? What will they say about the silent elimination of all City Engineer(s) Seals Certifications and Signatures? Will they search for the lawyer certification and Staff Report of Ms. Lofgren or Mr. Bruce Cline? Will they feel their owners interests are put at risk by this unengineered city action?
10. This land HAS A NEGATIVE VALUE, not almost a million of our dollars.
What is the value of Superfund land which cannot be touched because of its STATUS under Williamson Act? What is the cost to residents to abate a Superfund site in the future? Why are you obligating residents to pay for all this? What about the FOREGONE ALTERNATIVE USES OF CITY CREDIT AND MONIES for missing INFRASTRUCTURE?
11. Report states no "city general fund" monies will go toward this messy purchase. It is easily proved the money will come from the existing city residents through the OMISSION OF CRITICAL PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE OMITTED. It is easily shown the city LACKS ADEQUATE SANITARY SEWER CONVEYANCES. There is evidence the city utilizes public waters for excess over the amount which can be contained in the 27" Folsom Blvd. Mainline (sole connection to Regional Sanitation).
12. Where is proof you submitted this entire mess to any outside engineers? Did the CA water boards see it? They have the city under active Investigation, so maybe you should have told them you are planning to add all of the south of 50 raw sewage to the north of 50 existing 27" mainline. What did Reclamation report about the availability of water studies provided by the city for this land? They know Measure W required a totally new/different supply than the American River. Do you think they don't know you extended the city's over-used "water rights" to this 5,000 to 6,000 acres?
13. Where is evidence the US Representatives and Senators know about this messy deal? Did you contact any federal agency? Are you working with the knowledge and consent of any US elected official? Why not? Who propelled this messy deal forward during a historic drought? Do you really believe those opinions of the Folsom City Attorney: being a "charter city" means Folsom can write its own laws?
14. Aren't you concerned someone might have noticed your over-riding the usual CA state financing laws for new development, its public infrastructure, and the subdivision laws? Do you think rushing bulldozers out to vacant land to fill public waters such as ponds and rivers is going to grant you immunity? Do you think omitting the legal and engineering constraints would have NO IMPACT on any CA Professional Licenses you hold? Did you think you could subjugate Mello-Roos laws to the law of Folsom CA and actually get away with the messy deals in this Resolution 9431?
PRA Request ACTION: this Resolution 9431 was just announced as an Agenda Item for city council September 23, 2014 meeting.
Go ahead and make my day by producing all legal, engineering and FINANCIAL documents PRIOR to council legislating this purchase of NEGATIVE-VALUE SUPERFUND site land.
Or make the rest of the city's collective lives by PROCEEDING WITHOUT PRODUCING THE PROOF!
