Folsom City Council Special and Regular Meeting - February 8, 2022

The Folsom City Council held a special meeting at 6:15 PM, immediately followed by a regular meeting at 6:30 PM on February 8, 2022. Both meetings were conducted virtually via Zoom due to the Sacramento County Health Order. The special meeting consisted of a closed session regarding existing litigation (Kalei Silva v. City of Folsom), with no action reported. The regular meeting included a financial report, consent calendar actions, a public hearing on district map selection under the California Voting Rights Act, and public comments. The council discuss and adjusted a district map before continuing the public hearing to a special meeting on February 15, 2022.

Consent Calendar

• Approved January 11, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes
• Approved January 25, 2022 Special and Regular Meeting Minutes
• Ordinance No. 1323 – Second reading and adoption of an uncodified ordinance approving Amendment No. 3 to the Tier 1 Development Agreement with Lennar Homes of California LLC for the Russell Ranch Phase 2 Lots 24-32 Project.
• Resolution No. 10792 – Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Program Supplement Agreement for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Cycle 10 Traffic Safety Project.
• Resolution No. 10793 – Authorizing a design and consulting services contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Cycle 10 Traffic Safety Project and appropriation of funds.
• Resolution No. 10794 – Authorizing a design and consulting services contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Blue Ravine Road Pavement Condition Investigation and Rehabilitation Analysis.
• Resolution No. 10795 – Revising the boundary of the Pilot Residential Permit Parking Program in the Historic District (pulled for discussion; see below).
• Resolution No. 10796 – Authorizing a construction contract with Doug VeerKamp General Engineering Inc. for 405 Natoma Station Drive Exterior ADA Upgrades and appropriation of funds.
• Resolution No. 10797 – Resolution making findings to continue teleconferencing options for public meetings under AB 361.
• Resolution No. 10798 – Authorizing an additional appropriation in the Police Department operating budget for the purchase of police equipment.
• Item 7 (Highway Safety Improvement Program design contract) was moved to the February 22 agenda.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mike Reynolds (Hefra) requested that item 8 (Resolution 10795 on parking permits) be pulled from the consent calendar, noting an earlier offline resolution had been satisfied. He also asked for clarification on recusal rules for the Historic District Commission, referencing FPPC conflict-of-interest subsections and stating that a proximity recusal is not an option under those rules, requesting documentation to support what he termed “far stretched” recusals.
• Joe Galliardi clarified that his request for parking permits was for guest passes only for nine residences with Sutter Street addresses but vehicular access via alleys, not for resident permits or new restricted parking. He stated he was not “going to the mat” on the issue.
• Mike Reynolds (second comment during consent discussion) noted that the parking work group felt issuing guest permits to those nine residents would not corrupt the pilot data but would require dealing with optics of potential similar requests.
• Scott Rafferty argued that the area south of Highway 50 is a community of interest, criticized the council for not respecting neighborhoods, and claimed the process disadvantaged the Asian community. He referenced a post by Bruce Klein and stated the city is past the safe harbor date, suggesting court action is likely.
• Cheryl Davis (Empire Ranch resident) supported starting with the Klein map but expressed a desire to keep the historic district separate from American River Canyon and unite South of 50 as a community of interest. She also asked later whether adjustments made to protect an incumbent council member constituted gerrymandering.
• George (Modella) supported the Ferrari map because it splits South of 50 and believes it is the most intelligent layout.
• Robert Goss emphasized that South of 50 must be a community of distinction with its own representation due to unique development issues.
• Muriel Brownstein Dooley supported the Dooley map, citing contiguity, communities of interest, easily definable boundaries, and compactness under the Fair Maps Act; she opposed splitting Natoma Station and South of 50.
• Bruce Klein objected to linking Briggs Ranch/Willow Creek with north of the river, asked for more time to review the map, and suggested a special meeting if significant tweaks are made; he also noted the final map should be public before a vote.
• Dolly Soon supported keeping South of 50 together as a community of interest.
• John Wright supported the Dooley map, citing community interest for South of 50 and noting that Briggs Ranch has more in common with north of the river due to similar lot sizes.
• Cheryl Davis (second comment) asked whether the last-minute adjustment to district three to protect Councilmember Chalamcherla was gerrymandering; the City Attorney replied it was not, as the council must also consider citizen input and the desire to elect all five members.
• Scott Rafferty (second comment) accused the council of disregarding legal standards, neighborhoods, and the Fair Maps Act, stated the map would be challenged in court, and called the process “an attack on California democracy.”
• Bruce Klein (second comment) expressed frustration at the late hour, said the map appeared to preserve incumbents, and again urged a special meeting to allow public review.

Discussion Items

• City Manager’s Financial Report (Item 1) – CFO Stacy Tomani presented the audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for FY 2021, which received an unmodified opinion with no findings. She also presented the second quarter projections for FY 2021-22. Key points: General fund revenues were projected at $98 million, expenditures at $96.5 million, resulting in a $1.5 million increase to the unassigned fund balance (to ~$21 million, or 21.4% of expenditures). Property tax projections were $500,000 over budget; sales tax was $2 million over budget due to faster recovery. The city received $1 million in CARES Act reimbursement in FY 2021 and appropriated $2.2 million in ARPA funds for FY 2022. Salary and benefits were $1.4 million over budget primarily due to fire department overtime (partially reimbursed by Cal OES). Community development contract costs offset by increased revenue. Capital expenses in the water and wastewater funds were delayed to future years due to project timing. The risk management fund was drawn down to $4.8 million to stabilize insurance costs, but will need replenishment. Councilmembers asked about expenditure increases from FY 2021 to FY 2022 ($89M to $98M) and were told it reflected planned salary/benefit increases and unfreezing of positions. Questions were also raised about delayed capital projects; Environmental & Water Resources Director Marcus Yasutaki explained projects are shifting to the next fiscal year due to environmental requirements and design schedules.
• Item 8 – Pilot Residential Permit Parking Program (Resolution 10795) – Councilmember Kozlowski pulled the item. Discussion centered on whether to issue guest parking permits to nine residences (lofts on Sutter Street with alley access) without changing the pilot district boundary. Councilmembers Kozlowski, Rodriguez, Aquino, and Howell supported issuing guest permits; Councilmember Chalamcherla voted no, preferring to complete the pilot as-is. The motion passed 4-1. Staff was instructed to allow those nine residents to request guest passes. The boundary remained unchanged.
• Public Hearing No. 4 – Voting District Map Selection (Item 12) – This was the fourth of five required public hearings under the California Voting Rights Act. City Attorney Stephen Wong and demographer Doug Yochum (National Demographics Corporation) presented eight focus maps and two new draft maps (NDC 201 and 202) based on council direction. The maps were evaluated for population deviation (must be under 10%), contiguity, communities of interest, and compactness. The council narrowed discussion to maps that either split or kept together the area south of Highway 50. Councilmembers expressed different views: Rodriguez preferred splitting south of 50 (maps with two districts); Aquino preferred keeping it together; Kozlowski and Howell initially favored keeping it together but later indicated flexibility; Chalamcherla supported splitting. After public comment, the council began live tweaking a version of the Klein map with the goal of splitting south of 50 via East Bidwell. Extensive adjustments were made using mapping software, with real-time public feedback (including text messages to city staff). The final draft map (named for continued discussion) had a total population deviation of approximately 8.36%, districts one, three, and five to be contested in 2022, and two and four in 2024. The council voted 5-0 to continue the public hearing to a special meeting on February 15, 2022 at 1:00 PM (to allow further public review and potential adjustments) rather than adopting a final map that night.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar approved as amended (item 8 pulled; item 7 moved to Feb 22).
• Resolution 10795 approved with modification (4-1, Chalamcherla opposed): The nine residents identified as having Sutter Street addresses and alley access may request guest parking passes during the pilot; the district boundary remains unchanged.
• Public Hearing No. 4 continued to a special meeting on Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:00 PM via Zoom. The council selected a preferred draft map (modified from the Klein map) and tentatively approved sequencing: districts 1, 3, and 5 up for election in 2022; districts 2 and 4 in 2024. Final adoption will follow on February 22, 2022 (first reading of ordinance).
• The council will return to in-person meetings on February 22, 2022, pending Sacramento County health order changes.
• Special meeting on March 8, 2022 at 1:00 PM set to discuss a strategy to close the city’s funding gap.