Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

The Folsom City Library


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
380 replies to this topic

#31 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 03:15 PM

Probably----That wouldn't surprise me a bit. That is indeed good news since the building is scheduled to be put to good use. Thanks Terry!

#32 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 20 February 2004 - 06:38 PM

I found out the following today.

The asbestos issue at the fire station is that the rock looking stuff in the front of the building (placed there for architectural purposes) contains asbestos, as it is from serpentine rock - which exists naturally all over California.

(So it looks like it is not widespread throughout the building.

Cal
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-

#33 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 07:02 PM

Thanks Cal! This will answer a lot of questions and relieve a lot of minds.

#34 zach5

zach5

    Superstar

  • Registered Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 February 2004 - 08:21 PM

Im sorry to post here, but Candy could you please check your PM's or email me please, i tried pming you and emailing you and your email bounced.
Come Support Me This Year For Relay For Life!
http://www.acsevents.../ca/folsom/zach

#35 Anne

Anne

    Newbie

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 11:02 PM

In response to CandyApple: Maybe YOU SHOULD GET WITH IT because either you are hopelessly misinformed or you have a hidden agenda. Mr. ‘Parks and Recreation’ Sheldon is the one who is misrepresenting the ‘facts’ to suit his own agenda to get the old Firestation for his own offices.

According to the Sept 12, 2001 FOLSOM TELEGRAPH article, the only library sites being considered at that point DID NOT INCLUDE THE PARK. There were about a half dozen sites including a couple near Creekside Drive, and the Natoma Street Firestation. Several library representatives and members of the public involved in the considerations were favoring the old Natoma Firestation at that point. Then, Mr Sheldon decided that he wanted the Firestation building for the Park and Rec offices. Less than 2 months later, the park site (THAT SHELDON SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROTECTING as the representative of the parks) became the primary focus and was approved by 4 of the councilpersons over the protests of many citizens. Yes, I think that a 180 degree course change within two months that ends in a non-unanimous vote over the protests of many citizens qualifies as hard to swallow.

The park site was not on the list considered by all the commissions, meetings, and public discussions. It was not mentioned publicly until just before the council vote in Nov 2001. Mr. Sheldon did not present the park site to the Lions Club members prior to that November vote. He did make a phone call to one older member and mentioned a survey regarding uses of the city lands. Sheldon DID NOT MEET or present anything even remotely resembling the library in the park plan to the Lions Club. Ernie Sheldon is the one who is not telling the truth and he should be ashamed that he is misrepresenting the facts when his job is to preserve and protect the parks – not plow them under for yet another building in this rapidly built up town.

It is also rather interesting to note your (and presumably Mr Sheldon’s) description of the Farley Field as an ‘OLD, UNUSED SOFT BALL FIELD’ and that replacing it with a building ‘WILL ENHANCE’ the park. (your emphasis) Firstly, that field was well maintained until recently. In fact, it is still actively used for organized and casual recreation activities. Take a look the next time you want to see open space and active people using it – it’s a lot busier on Saturday afternoon than the library parking lot.

Which is why we need a newer, more spacious, and appropriately located Library with adequate access and enough parking to support the growth in this town. The Library building plan has been scaled back twice to fit it in the park. By the time it is built it will probably need to be expanded to meet the needs of our growing city. How much of that lovely old park will be paved by the time we get the library we need? BUILD THE LIBRARY – Just build it in a more centrally located space (possibly near Creekside?) or build it at the Firestation location. Either way, it will have room to grow with Folsom, room for more parking, and room to allow the citizens of Folsom to feel good about it. Ernie Sheldon doesn’t need more offices – he needs more parks – that’s what the Park and Recreation Department is supposed to support.


#36 zach5

zach5

    Superstar

  • Registered Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 February 2004 - 11:53 PM

Well you say it needs to be placed "in a more centralized location" but you are reccomending placing it at the fire station location, which doesnt seem very more centralized thant he park. But the firestation, would end up costing more to build. Would you as a taxpayer though be willing to pay more for a library, just so it can be placed a block away?
Come Support Me This Year For Relay For Life!
http://www.acsevents.../ca/folsom/zach

#37 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 21 February 2004 - 12:24 AM

First of all ---Mr. Sheldon does not work for the Parks & Recreation Dept. He just does everything he can to support their projects---like the Lembi Acauatic Park, ALL the playing fields that have been promoted by P & R and built, and all the parks. amd trails thropughout Folsom.

As for me---I support ANY central location for a library since ALL of the above HAS COME BEFORE A LIBRARY FOR OVER 10 YEARS including a 2+ million bridge for part of the trails!!

If you wanted a library on Creekside or whereever, would you have wanted a bond passed to raise your taxes to pay for that location or any other rather than on centrally owned city property!!! If so, why didn't Prop. A pass?

The fire station wasn't big enough! It would have cost more to tear it down and build a new building there.

If you have a better plan then present it to the citizens and the city Tuesday 2/24. This was all made public late Spring or Summer.

The park, firehouse, and other locations were all researched and the park plan seems to be the most cost effective plan without the taxpayers having to come up with more tax money.

If you have done research and have a better plan then present it. I am sure the city would appreciate it or any offer to donate money to buy whatever central location is still available for sale.

Your are not losing a park just an old solfball field. Would you rather have that than a decent library? If so then do something about it!!!!




#38 zach5

zach5

    Superstar

  • Registered Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 February 2004 - 12:29 AM

And on top of that, I believe we are only loosing 1 softball field, not both of them, if I am coorect?
Come Support Me This Year For Relay For Life!
http://www.acsevents.../ca/folsom/zach

#39 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 21 February 2004 - 12:33 AM

That is correct. Sorry about the e-mail address----I have up-dated it so now messages should come through.

#40 zach5

zach5

    Superstar

  • Registered Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 848 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 February 2004 - 12:37 AM

And in addition to this, in another forum I was also reading about more softball fields being built at Livermore Park, brand new softball fields. I dont see why whoever uses the field at city park wouldnt be able to move there, with all of these additional parks/park additions that the city puts in.
Come Support Me This Year For Relay For Life!
http://www.acsevents.../ca/folsom/zach

#41 Anne

Anne

    Newbie

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 12:51 AM

Actually, we ARE doing something about it - several things. And the several 'things' started as soon as the park site became known to the citizens who are outside of the 'inner circle' at city hall. Incidently, the last time I looked, this is still part of a democracy - so having an opinion and taking action is the correct thing for all the folks in this community who do not support the site selection. It is not just one small group - the folks who are taking action against the Library in the Park site come from several constituencies.

I agree with you on one item, the Firestation probably wasn't and isn't the ideal location. A more centralized site would be a better choice. But if not having to purchase a site and maintaining the 'sphere' of community services near city hall are the primary drivers here, then use what is next door and 'surplus' rather than ruining a piece of this community's vanishing heritage. I cannot support paving over a park. They are too difficult to come by once the land is filled.

And yes, I do realize that demolition of the Firestation prior to construction would increase the cost. I wonder, just how much it will cost to add on to that reduced size library when it is inadequate for the needs of this community? Also, just how much is it going to cost over the next 25 years to build and maintain two sites because we had to add the second HS site due to the size restrictions at the park site?? Seems financially imprudent to build in long term costs for a duplicate location with duplicate materials, duplicate furniture, duplicate staff, and duplicate maintainence, when a single location that has room to support the community and room to grow when needed would be a better choice now.

We won't be building anything resembling a jewel. It will be more like a compromise - one we really shouldn't make without more input from the citizens of the community who will have to live with and pay for it over the next several decades. Think about the long term costs, please.

#42 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 08:59 AM

The state set the standards of size of libraries according to population.

For a city of Folsom's size of 60,000 to 70,000 population at buildout, it was determined BY THE STATE to be 38,000 to 40,000 square feet. That is the approx. square footage to be achieved in the old softball field location and the proposed HS location COMBINED.

NO PARK IS GOING TO BE PAVED OVER! NO HERITAGE LOST!

You obviously are not familiar with our pathetic existing library, and have not seen the preliminary new library plan, or you could not say the new library building is NOT going to be a jewel in Folsom.

At some point in the distant future, if there is a need for additional library footage, it would most likely be gained in other branch library locations.

Folsom does NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE LIBRARY NOW. Folsom does have MANY NEW, UP TO DATE, BALL FIELDS!

The CC meeting tonight will give anyone the opportunity to voice their support or objections and the library design will be selected officially at this meeting.

If anyone knows of a more central library location that won't cost Folsom taxpayers more money, they can OFFER TO BUY IT FOR THE CITY TONITE!!!

Anything else is not being helpful.

#43 KForster

KForster

    Newbie

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 01:56 PM

The park is absolutely being paved over. Farley Field is a part of the park. We are building a library that is too small with nowhere to expand but out into the park. We are also building on a site where library patrons and park patrons will be competing for parking spaces. How long before the Kuntz Little League field becomes a parking lot? If the idea is to build it too small for buildout and build another building somewhere else that is shortsighted and will end up costing more in the long run.

No resident needs to buy a piece of property for a different site. We already had a better city-owned site at the fire station. Maybe it is not centrally located, but neither is the joint-use proposal at Empire Ranch. In fact, that will be located closer to more El Dorado Hills residents than Folsom residents.

The city council should have given the residents the choice between saving some money and saving a memorial ballfield. Candyapple said I should be ashamed. I am ashamed in a town with so much wealth that we are not willing to preserve a park and a memorial and be able to build a library too.

#44 Linda Holderness

Linda Holderness

    Netizen

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 02:52 PM

My goodness, Anne, you’re misinformed. But before I address your comments, and others’, I want to talk to Karen Forster.

You say you do not want to lose a softball field, yet that field has already been replaced by two new fields in Kemp Park. Now the city and school district are looking to build a third replacement field a block from the park at Theodore Judah, which should be convenient for your family.

You also say the library could be built at the fire station for the “price of a couple of lattes.” Voters had an opportunity to help pay for the library at the fire station site with a bond measure two years ago and they turned it down.

Building the library at the park site will not increase building costs – quite the contrary – and the size of the reading rooms has never been reduced. The interior layout is still being worked on, but two years ago or so the city commissioned a study to determine the space we need for each activity. That study is being followed. The Library Commission doesn’t want inadequate services, either.

To everyone: The City Council made a fiscally responsible decision in agreeing to this library package. Previously we were going to have a single library – 33,000 square feet on a too-small, oddly shaped, hard-to-get-to lot – and nothing more – for $14 million. (That 33,000 square feet, by the way, is the size studies show we need at buildout.)

Now, thanks to this library project, we will have 37,300 square feet of library space, an arts center and senior center, a veterans memorial, a third new softball field near the park and – this hasn’t been mentioned here – an improved Little League field (next to the library). The cost of all this? Around $11 million. Plus we preserved a $1 million building.

So, the council saved $4 million and provided us with more library space and an incredible package of amenities. And residents are not being assesed to pay for any of it.

Now back to Anne. In late 2001 or early 2002, the council and Library Commission chose the fire station site as the best then available. The operative words are “then available.” The park site was not “then available.”

Kerri Howell voted against the fire station site – partly because it lacked adequate parking.

Your comments that the park site is too small are backwards: In fact, the fire station site was too small and narrow – which is why it lacked parking. The better size and shape were a major reason we moved the library to the park.

By the way, there would not have been a vehicle entrance from Natoma Street to the fire station library, either – it was through the City Hall entrance.

In any case, in May 2002, voters turned down the fire station site, by refusing to increase their property taxes to pay for it.

“Two months later”? The library building project was on hold until spring 2003 (way past your date of September 2001), when two milestones occurred, in this order: The school district proposed the city join them in building a joint-use branch at the new high school; and the old, small softball field at City Park was replaced by two new, full-size fields at Kemp Park. This is when the park site became available.

The council was thus able to move the library to a location that is far more appropriate (based on professional industry criteria) and save the fire station for an arts and senior center – fulfilling another huge need in Folsom.

That vote, by the way, was June 10, 2003, not November 2001.

Non-unanimous vote? Only Kerri dissented – and she voted against the fire station site, too.

The park site was discussed publicly in at least a dozen noticed meetings and workshops before it was voted on by the council last June.

“Mr. Sheldon did not present the park site to the Lions Club”??? Wow. Regardless of the history of that site (which is unclear) and its name, the Lions Club has no authority – not a shred – over what happens in that park. I can tell you nobody gets Ernie’s permission to work on Sheldon park. Nor did anyone ask John Kemp’s permission to build ball fields at Kemp park. No one asks Artie Davies to work on Davies park – and the same goes for Mann, Mitchell, Cummings, Collins, Lembi, McFarland, Prewitt, the Nisenan Indians, and all the many other park honorees. Wouldn’t it be a mess if they did! These are the city’s parks.

As a point of fact, it wasn’t yet Lions Park when we proposed building the library there.

As another point of fact, Ernie – who is a proud veteran – did not ask for, discuss or suggest any use for the fire station building, and he has not campaigned for Parks and Recreation offices.

Your smear of Ernie is unconscionable. Would that the rest of us would contribute one-tenth of what Ernie has to this community.

You say the new site was approved over the protest of many citizens. That isn’t true. A handful have publicly protested – out of 60,000 residents. (Lions Roy LeNaeve and Ken Bonham are not Folsom residents.)

There are no building size restrictions at the park, and the library was never scaled back even once to fit there – let alone twice. The main library building was “scaled back” from 33,000 square feet because we were able to make it smaller after we agreed to the joint-use branch. That’s the only way we could afford enough square footage.

Studies say Folsom needs 33,000 square feet of library space – at buildout. We couldn’t afford a building that large after residents turned down the bond. With the joint-use branch, at 13,300 square feet (half-price to the city), we were then able to build the main library as small as 20,000 square feet to meet our needs. We’re building it at 24,000. That gives us some “growth” room. If we expand, I personally think it ought to be to a branch across the river.

In no way, Anne, is this library package a “compromise.”

The library commissioners did a lot of homework before recommending this site. It is vastly superior to the fire station site. The architects examined it very carefully, and they agree it is a better spot for a library.


#45 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 24 February 2004 - 03:33 PM

Thank you Linda. Now maybe some of these misinformed and MISLED people will find a real bone to pick!!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users