502 replies to this topic

[nowtherestofthestory]

I think most other local communities are doing a better job today of meeting its Citizens expectations. 20 years ago, I would have said Folsom was the best at it. Not anymore. Some of the challenges we as a city are facing today were brought forth by citizens back in the day only to be ignored by elected officials. Most citizens who were active and involved 20 plus years ago are not happy with the way things have developed and the way the City is today. Many of them have moved rather than fight a loosing battle.

 

Many other communities voted to leave the county and form their own communities. Since none of them have asked to go back to the county it stands to reason their citizens are happier today, than what they were before.

 

If you look at the fundamentals,( as I outlined above) we in Folsom are in a downward projection where as other cities are doing a better job of addressing these issues and are improving.

 

This is nothing new. if you lived long enough we've all seen places that were once very desirable, now not the neighborhood you'd want to be in after dark and some areas that were considered the wrong side of the tracks, now the trendy desirable place to live.

 

Our elected officials made terrible strategic decision to go forward with south of 50 at all costs to satisfy the landowners desire to leap ahead of the development time table to cash in early, at the detriment of our town. Its these blunders that lead to the downfall of desirable communities.

[tony]

 

Really?

 

Lets score the results of planning together. Feel free to give your own grade.

 

#1. Only city in NORCAL to be sued by Legal Services and loose twice over their failure to follow the laws on Affordable Housing.

 

My grade on this one is an F.

 

#2. Failed to have adequate Capacity for sewer systems resulting in us dumping 700,000 gallons of raw sewage into Lake Natoma in the late 90's resulting in the largest fine ever levied in the region.

 

I'll have to give us an F on this one as well.

 

#3. Approved adding over 10,000 new homes that will receive their water from projected water savings, when the City is in the process of restricting water use so existing resident will have enough water.

 

This has got to be the worst idea ever so Im giving it an F-.

 

#4. Used existing surplus to expedite planning for south of 50 during recession. This resulted in the City's inability to construct the much needed Fire station in empire ranch, resulting in increased response times for public safety personnel.

 

I'll have to give this one an F as well.

 

#5. Is contributing the lowest amount into CalPers for any city in the region, leaving us the largest unfunded growing obligation of any city in the region.

 

Grade for this F

 

#6. Has the lowest Park Impact fee of any city in region. So how did we get all these parks built without an adequate funding source for the parks master plan? Neighborhoods& Youth sports groups had to go out and raise their own funds to build what the impact fees should have built. Also, State recreation bonds contributed and some federal grants. ( Its highly unlikely these monies will be available in the future). Lastly, some park sites were deemed surplus and sold off to pay for constructing the parks we see now. We should have more parks than what we have, according to our master plan. With simple better planning we could have had so much more!

 

I'll give this a C-

 

#7.I heard there is a study being released that ranks Folsom as one of the most dangerous Citys to drive in in CA. This is due to the miles of, curvy high speed arterials without barriers and our record setting number of increased fatal accidents. It shouldn't be any surprise to anyone that the number of fatal accidents involving impaired drivers has increased to record numbers given the increasing number of people going to Bars in Folsom.

 

I'll give this one an F as well

 

#8. Traffic flows around many sections of the community are well below what was projected amount and standards outlined prior to development approval. The areas around Blue Ravine/East Bidwell/ Montrose and Riley & Glenn are well below unacceptable. Traffic will only get worse.

 

I don't like traffic so I'll give this a D for a grade.

 

#9. The Crime rate is ever increasing. The Citys answer to this is to reclassify how crime is reported thereby lowering what's reported despite more crimes being committed. The Citys struggling financial situation limits the amount of PO on duty at night and on some weekday nights if there is an issue on Sutter Street, there isn't any officer available anywhere else in the City, leaving the entire city uncovered.

 

I'm going to give this an F.

 

#10. 20 years ago the City had one water supply and today we still have one. If there is a natural disaster or failure, we wont have any water. This should have been addressed years ago. I was told we are the only City in the Region to only have one water supply.

 

I'll grade this derelict..

 

#11. The City of Folsom doesn't have depreciation Funds to replace existing Facilities parks and capital equipment. Other Citys in the region have these. These parks that you drive around and think are so nice are going to not look the same in 10 years.

 

F

 

Lets summarize, the city of Folsom has been sued more times over Affordable housing and lost than any other City in region for its lack of planning, We've been fined more than any other City in the region for our lack of sewer capacity, We have the lowest park impact fees of any city in the region, our unfunded pension liabilities are growing faster than any other city in the region, our traffic is worsening and more dangerous, our Public safety response times are increasing, our crime rate was increasing faster than others Citys in the region, our Budget Surplus was spent on planning for unneeded annexation that only benefits the landowners, We are the only city in the region with one water supply and we dont have a depreciation fund to replace existing capital improvements.

 

 Where is it we are doing so much better in planning than the other Citys in the region? Candidly were not and that's what has many citizens upset over the decline over our quality of life.

 

 

 

You forgot the ADA lawsuit for failure to have a federally-required transition plan, but this was only the second largest ADA suit in the region, behind the City of Sacramento, which actually had a plan, just not an adequate one.

 

And, speaking of parks, the mini-parks that make so many of our neighborhoods so nice for parents of young children, have been axed from all future development (as of the mid 2000s) to save money on maintenance.

[4thgenFolsomite]

they axed mini-parks from future developments?  that's really unfortunate!  that creates a little open communal space in neighborhoods.  good for neighborhoods.  good for the city as a whole.  you could walk to one, instead of having to get in a car and drive there.  that may not be such a good cost saving, in the long run.  thanks for keeping an eye on this stuff, Tony.

[Chad Vander Veen]

I'm starting signature gathering for my candidacy this week. If you'd like to sign please let me know and I'll come by. I also hope to have a campaign website up within the week - just trying to pick a site building & hosting service. 

[cw68]

I'm starting signature gathering for my candidacy this week. If you'd like to sign please let me know and I'll come by. I also hope to have a campaign website up within the week - just trying to pick a site building & hosting service. 

I'll sign. And help your campaign, too.

[Chad Vander Veen]

I'll sign. And help your campaign, too.

Thank you Cindy. I'll need all the help I can get. 

[Steve Heard]

Hey Chad, I'll sign to get you on there.

[SacKen]

Hey Chad, I'll sign to get you on there.

Of course, I'll sign and help where I can with my limited free time.

[EDF]

Mister Chad and Mister Gaylord...

 

I suggest you guys get together and run as a "Team"...

 

there was the big change back in 96... Miklos, Dow and Howell...!!!

 

I'll help you both... I have an office with a couple of desks that if you wanted to get some folks out to make calls that will help.

 

You'll have to get the list of voters so you can call them...

 

You'll need to get out and meet these people too...

 

Drop me a note and I'll do what I can...

 

It's time for a change...

 

Start with the "water issue"... that's a big one... 

[caligirlz]

I think any candidate that runs should support a Community Review Board to review allegations of misconduct for city employees and elected council members.

 

It could be made up of a panel of maybe 5 to 7 members from both the public and private sector. Members from maybe the District Attorney's Office, State Prison, Intel, Religious Organizations. Any internal or external complaints would go to them for review and monitored by them throughout the investigation phase and if deemed a credible violation, help make sure the appropriate level of punishment is issued and followed through with.

 

It would be an unbiased set of eyes that could hold our city's employees and representatives accountable.

 

I think other cities, counties and state agencies have similar boards and processes, and am surprised Folsom does not do anything like this. I would think something like this should probably even be supported by our current council. That is, if you have nothing to hide.

It sounds like you are referring to a grand jury. I would agree that the Sacramento county grand jury is spread too thin. We need our own.

 

Mister Chad and Mister Gaylord...

 

I suggest you guys get together and run as a "Team"...

 

there was the big change back in 96... Miklos, Dow and Howell...!!!

 

I'll help you both... I have an office with a couple of desks that if you wanted to get some folks out to make calls that will help.

 

You'll have to get the list of voters so you can call them...

 

You'll need to get out and meet these people too...

 

Drop me a note and I'll do what I can...

 

It's time for a change...

 

Start with the "water issue"... that's a big one... 

Excellent idea!

[Redone]

RE  #1 - being sued by Legal Services.              Are you in the majority with that one ?   or minority ?

[Roger Gaylord]

I've been involved with a few campaigns when we got Tom Aceituno and Sara Myers elected.. in 92 & 94
 
This arose out of some anger at the city for allowing the Lexington Hills development build up so fast with no facilities like we see now... 
 
When we moved there in Oct of 89, Oak Chan didn't have a Multi-purpose room or an admin office... that was out of a construction trailer...
 
there were no parks... no trails...
 
You know that nice "castle park" on Prewett...?   that was the result of activism on the part of a lot of neighbors... The neighbors in this town built that... all the city did was bring in the trees and grass and the sidewalk..... we formed the "Lexington Hills Community Organization" and were at a lot of Planning Commission and City Council meetings...
 
It's no accident we have all these trails you see now... the city council got the memo... and to some extent the developers...
 
I will say that Parker Development... that did the Parkway,  did a bang up job putting in the start of the trails back in 95... I remember them hiring folks that invited the nature club of Oak Chan out over there near where the Parkway entry is now showing the kids how they were going to remove a lot of trees...and some of the animals might die but that it would come back... they had a telescope pointed to one of the big Oaks there that had an "owl's nest" there with the chicks inside...
 
The trails on both sides of Willow Creek that cuts through Lexington Hills, was nothing more than a beaten path...
 
The city also put in those parks that are sprinkled around Lexington Hills... pressure was put on the developers to include some parks...
 
But like former Mayor Bob Holderness once said at a community meeting when he was showing us the plans for the new bridge... Lake Natoma Crossing...
 
He said..and of course I'm paraphrasing.. "The reason why we have people who don't know what is going on is that they just got here and don't know the history of how it got to this point"....
 
 
I have one question for Mr. Roger...
 
I sent Miss Kerri a nice note through her facebook account and never got an answer to this question...
 
We had Measure W... which had a big history coming up to that point when it was placed on the ballot...
 
The city put that on the ballot because of pressure from a competing "citizen petition" that was much more strict.    They put this one on after getting our petition thrown out in court... the big thing was water...
 
They said they wouldn't supply water to south of 50 from existing customers already here...
 
NOW...?
 
I'm reading the Folsom Telegraph that they aren't going to build that big "pipeline system" from the Sacramento River and instead because of the "savings" we've had recently of 25%... that's enough to supply south of 50...!!!
 
Anyone who's been here a while remember that...
 
That would be a big issue about how government lies to people... not just the Feds... but state and local as well..
 
By the way another issue might be the excessive pay we have for some of the senior staff on the City...
 
Just my thoughts...

Sorry for the delay in response EDF- Just returned from vacation. Both Tom and Sara were campaign supporters of mine last election; great folks!

I think we're all in the dark on this. Being on the utility commission we've had numerous discussions regarding water which always end in me asking what the city's plan of action is addressing the water needs/ costs to support the infrastructure for the SO50 (Spear of Influence) project. I've never actually recieved a definitive answer, only unofficial "options" they are weighing out with the council. (Appairently Folsom's water crisis is a council issue not a utility commission issue, go figure?)

They do always reiterate that the developers will be the ones covering the costs (which a. I highly doubt and b. that's if theres any water to spare.) MANY questions surround this project along with other projects such as the new corp. yard being planned in association with the S050 development. The current council members seem to dream big and grow for growths sake not for Folsoms sake. I brought these issues up last election. SO50 is the pet project of the long term council members to seemingly please landowners at the citys burden. Along with a few key individuals who cant seem to keep out of Folsom business pushing for this unneeded growth.

Excessive pay is certainly one of many issues Folsoms dealing with. (partnered with spending in general.) While "regular" city employees are facing cuts and some laid off, you have a city manager making nearly a quarter million a year managing a small staff of 400. (I remind you he doesnt even live in Folsom!) Lets also not forget he has managers directly under him who manage his managers?!? Below are a few of the top city positions and there compensation packages. Keep in mind roughly just over 100 employees out of around 400 make over $100,000 a year. Not to mention all the retired pension obligations the city's facing.

This isn't class warfare; in a city where the general fund has been depleted from $16,000,000 in 2007 to a proposed $2,000,000 in 2014 we need get our fiscal house in order before it's too late.


City Manager
$218,540
$9,600
($6,000 auto, $1,200
technology, $2,400 other)

Deputy City Manager
$149,091
$4,800
($3,600 auto, $1,200 technology)

City Attorney
$209,948
$7,200
($6,000 auto, $1,200 technology)

Police Chief
$190,635
$2,050
(vehicle provided, $1,200
technology, $850 uniforms)

Fire Chief
$178,920
$750
(vehicle provided, $750 uniforms)

Chief Financial Officer/Director
$169,974
$6,000
($4,800 auto, $1,200 technology)

Human Resources Director
$163,933
$4,800
($3,600 auto, $1,200 technology)
Environmental &

Water Resources Director
$148,992
$1,200
(vehicle provided, $1,200 technology)

Public Works &
Community Development Director
$169,466
$7,200
($6,000 auto, $1,200 technology)

Parks & Recreation Director
$148,599
$4,800
($3,600 auto, $1,200 technology)

City Clerk
$108,169
$4,800
($3,600 auto, $1,200 technology)

-pardon the brevity and grammar. Typed via iphone.

[EDF]

Sorry for the delay in response EDF- Just returned from vacation. Both Tom and Sara were campaign supporters of mine last election; great folks!

I think we're all in the dark on this. Being on the utility commission we've had numerous discussions regarding water which always end in me asking what the city's plan of action is addressing the water needs/ costs to support the infrastructure for the SO50 (Spear of Influence) project. I've never actually recieved a definitive answer, only unofficial "options" they are weighing out with the council. (Appairently Folsom's water crisis is a council issue not a utility commission issue, go figure?)

They do always reiterate that the developers will be the ones covering the costs (which a. I highly doubt and b. that's if theres any water to spare.) MANY questions surround this project along with other projects such as the new corp. yard being planned in association with the S050 development. The current council members seem to dream big and grow for growths sake not for Folsoms sake. I brought these issues up last election. SO50 is the pet project of the long term council members to seemingly please landowners at the citys burden. Along with a few key individuals who cant seem to keep out of Folsom business pushing for this unneeded growth.

Excessive pay is certainly one of many issues Folsoms dealing with. (partnered with spending in general.) While "regular" city employees are facing cuts and some laid off, you have a city manager making nearly a quarter million a year managing a small staff of 400. (I remind you he doesnt even live in Folsom!) Lets also not forget he has managers directly under him who manage his managers?!? Below are a few of the top city positions and there compensation packages. Keep in mind roughly just over 100 employees out of around 400 make over $100,000 a year. Not to mention all the retired pension obligations the city's facing.

This isn't class warfare; in a city where the general fund has been depleted from $16,000,000 in 2007 to a proposed $2,000,000 in 2014 we need get our fiscal house in order before it's too late.


City Manager
$218,540
$9,600
($6,000 auto, $1,200
technology, $2,400 other)

Deputy City Manager
$149,091
$4,800
($3,600 auto, $1,200 technology)

City Attorney
$209,948
$7,200
($6,000 auto, $1,200 technology)

Police Chief
$190,635
$2,050
(vehicle provided, $1,200
technology, $850 uniforms)

Fire Chief
$178,920
$750
(vehicle provided, $750 uniforms)

Chief Financial Officer/Director
$169,974
$6,000
($4,800 auto, $1,200 technology)

Human Resources Director
$163,933
$4,800
($3,600 auto, $1,200 technology)
Environmental &

Water Resources Director
$148,992
$1,200
(vehicle provided, $1,200 technology)

Public Works &
Community Development Director
$169,466
$7,200
($6,000 auto, $1,200 technology)

Parks & Recreation Director
$148,599
$4,800
($3,600 auto, $1,200 technology)

City Clerk
$108,169
$4,800
($3,600 auto, $1,200 technology)

-pardon the brevity and grammar. Typed via iphone.

 

 

 

Well you guys need to start campaigning now... and get the word out..

 

when is the filing deadline...?

[Roger Gaylord]

 
 
 
Well you guys need to start campaigning now... and get the word out..
 
when is the filing deadline...?

Already started! Filling next week. Website/ Facebook/ Twitter all up and will be finalized in a few weeks. A lot to do!

[nowtherestofthestory]

Once most residents understand the issue, they recognize the waste over getting sued twice over the affordable housing issue. We were sued because we weren't making developers build affordable housing as they are building new homes. The affordable Housing advocates discovered memos from our Senior staff warning Administration that they felt we weren't in compliance regarding this issue. This smoking gun forced the city to settle. It was rather embarrassing to find out we as a city knew all along we weren't in compliance.

 

We agreed to settle the first lawsuit by adopting the Inclusionary Clause in our housing element and agreeing to rezone certain parcels of land to be eligible for Affordable housing. This cost the city millions in staff time and legal fees and conveniently granted some, rezones to developers without them having to pay for them.

 

You may recall as the city was preparing to grant entitlements for south of 50, the city council removed the Inclusionary component of the Housing element, attempting to again allow the developers off the hook for contributing their share of affordable housing in their development. I believe we were the only Agencyin the region to not have this inclusionary component and NOT building enough units.

 

You may also recall Starsky's bold threat to the affordable housing people that we will sue them in court and take their money. Maybe he should have simply flashed his badge at them? Well, they sued us again and we lost again and they took our money again. Then we spent millions more in updating out housing element to try and persuade the Judge, that we didn't need the Inclusionary component, only to realize that this wasn't going work.

 

Then we cried uncle to the affordable housing advocates begging them to settle. So Again, we agreed to do what other agencies are doing after squandering nearly 8 million of your tax dollars on multiple lawsuits and staff time, to settle for what staff warned us about and what we should have been doing all along.

 

Most residents think its stupid to try and circumvent the law and be sued wasting tax dollars on an issue that we knew we weren't in compliance with only to beg to settle on to what we should have been doing all along.

 

You are entitled to your own opinion though.