Folsom City Council Special Meeting on Voting Districts – February 15, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Folsom City Council Special Meeting on Voting Districts – February 15, 2022
This special meeting of the Folsom City Council was a continued public hearing (No. 4) under the California Voting Rights Act to transition the city from at-large to by-district elections. The council discussed modifications to a draft preferred map, heard public testimony, and ultimately voted to continue the hearing to February 22, 2022, with two maps for final consideration.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Teresa Garcia (resident): Opposed splitting South of 50, arguing neighborhoods are communities of interest and should not be divided.
- Bruce Klein (resident): Criticized the “Cimarron/Willow Creek triangle” attached to District 2, saying it is not contiguous with historic district or north of the river; urged following major streets as boundaries and requested additional public comment on sequencing.
- Scott Rafferty (resident): Argued the process lacked transparency and public input; said the council’s language about residents (“trading,” “swapping”) was inappropriate; noted the safe harbor deadline had passed; urged collaboration.
- Cheryl Davis (Empire Ranch resident): Stated the map appeared designed to protect incumbents rather than communities of interest, splitting several neighborhoods; noted that communities of interest shouldn’t include political parties or incumbents as per city staff reports.
- Barbara Leary (resident): Urged keeping communities of interest intact, mentioned Natoma Station, Lexington Hills, and Briggs Ranch as long-standing communities; expressed concern about splitting historic district.
- Bob Holderness (resident): Defended the council, saying the purpose is not to eliminate incumbents; said the people of Folsom elected them and they should be given a chance to continue serving.
- Robert Goss (resident): Supported removing the “triangle” from District 2 and using major streets like Silverhorn as boundaries; suggested modest population adjustments to balance growth.
- Peggy Blair (resident): Noted that Esplanade (part of the Parkway) had been moved out of District 5 and asked to keep it with that district.
- Sharon Kindle (resident): Asked that the public have more opportunity to comment on all three viable maps, not just two, and noted the difficulty of attending daytime meetings.
Discussion Items
- City Manager’s Statement: The city manager clarified that during the February 8 meeting she read aloud texts from residents, and she now identified the sources: Bruce Klein (population/demographics/party split), Robert Goss (Knowles area), and Lorraine Pajoni (Coventry/MacAdoo/Willow Springs). She asked the city attorney to confirm no Brown Act violation; the attorney confirmed no violation because the meeting was a duly noticed public hearing.
- Demographer’s Presentation: Doug Yokom showed the draft map and proposed two cosmetic changes: (1) move Folsom Lake from District 2 to District 5 (zero population change), and (2) move 11 people from District 2 to District 1. Council approved both changes.
- Boundary Adjustments: Council debated several amendments:
- Reversed a previous carve-out between Districts 3 and 4, restoring a straight line along the UP alignment (supported by Mayor Howell and Councilmember Chalamcherla).
- Discussed whether to split the area south of Highway 50 into two districts. Councilmembers Aquino and Kozlowski favored splitting to allow multiple representation as the area grows; Councilmember Chalamcherla supported splitting due to rapid growth. Councilmember Rodriguez expressed concern about dividing neighborhoods like Lexington Hills and Prairie Oaks.
- Councilmember Kozlowski proposed a three-way trade (moving Creekside area from 5 to 1, then adjusting between 3 and 5, and 1 and 4) to clean up boundaries, but the resulting population deviations were too large (one district ~13% under, another ~15% over). The council abandoned that attempt.
- Later, after further public comment, the council attempted additional tweaks using Glen Drive, Silverhorn, and other boundaries, but these also created illegal population deviations. The demographer noted the challenge of balancing population while respecting neighborhood boundaries.
- Final Approach: The council agreed to move forward with two maps: (1) the draft map with the two cosmetic changes and the reversal of the 3-4 carve-out, and (2) a version with additional adjustments. Councilmember Kozlowski proposed to swap District 1 and 2 numbers on the first map so that odd-numbered districts (1, 3, 5) would be elected in 2022, and even-numbered (2, 4) in 2024. The city attorney confirmed the sequencing could be finalized at the next meeting.
Key Outcomes
- Motion Approved (3-2): Councilmember Kozlowski moved, seconded by Councilmember Rodriguez, to continue Public Hearing No. 4 to February 22, 2022, and to present two maps: (1) the draft map with the cosmetic changes, reversal of the 3-4 carve-out, and with District 1 and 2 swapped, and (2) a version with additional adjustments. The motion also included that the sequencing recommendation (odd-numbered districts in 2022) be posted for public review. Vote: Councilmembers Rodriguez, Kozlowski, and Howell in favor; Councilmembers Aquino and Chalamcherla opposed (Chalamcherla stated he wanted to allow a full week of public review after the final map is chosen).
- Next Steps: The council will meet in person on February 22, 2022, at the regular evening meeting to select one final map and adopt an ordinance. The two maps will be posted for seven days prior to the meeting. The city clerk will provide large-format maps to council members in advance.
- No Additional Meetings: The city attorney clarified that if the council were to make changes to either map at the February 22 meeting, a further hearing would be required, which would push the timeline past the legal deadline. The council acknowledged this constraint.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, we will call to order the special meeting of the Folsom City Council for Tuesday, February 15th, 2022. If the clerk will call the roll, please. Council members Aquino here. Chalem Chairla. Here. Rodriguez here. Koslowski. Here. And how. Here. And now if you guys will all join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag. And then I'll say that. One nation on the visible disposal with liberty and just as far. Okay. And that moves us on to agenda update. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is Stephen One City attorney. There are updates to the only item on this afternoon's agenda. A copy of the update has been distributed and uploaded onto the city's website through the city clerk's office. And that's the only item on tonight's agenda. What is actually agenda? So it's not actually an agenda update, it's additional information, commentary provided by the public that has been loaded. So that if there's folks that want to read that, and unfortunately, some of that information came as late as um a minute ago. Yes, ma'am. So that makes it a little bit difficult for us and anybody else who's watching this meeting to absorb that information when it comes in at the time we're actually meeting. Having said that, I understand that the before we get to our first item that the city manager has some comments she'd like to make. Yes, um, if I could, Mayor, before uh we get started. I wanted to respond to some public comments that were received by the council that is your city manager at different times as you were working on the draft map during your February city council meeting. I read aloud and or summarized a loud comments that were received as texts on my phone during the meeting, and that there were not names attached to those comments at the time. Uh, first of all, thank you to um those who inquired for asking questions. Thank you for expressing your concerns and opinions and point of views, and including this particular one, it's all part of the process. And as a resident and your city manager, I appreciate that very much. So, in response, and for the record, I I read andor summarized comments and questions the city council that evening that were texted to me as you were engaged in the mapping process in an effort to simply pass along those public comments. I didn't intentionally not share names. I was just focused on getting the information across. All that said, because I always strive to be as transparent as possible and as a courtesy to the individuals expressing this concern or for anyone else who might share that concern. I will share the source of those texts at this time for the record. The comments I read and were summarized, asking if the consultant could show population numbers, demographics, and how Republicans and Democrats were split in all the districts were made by city resident Bruce Klein, who was also participating in the public meeting via the Zoom platform. The comment I read andor summarized as to whether all of the Knowles area had been captured by the consultant was from City Resident Robert Goss, who was also participating in the public meeting via the Zoom platform. The comments I read andor summarized about Coventry and MacAdoo slash Milow Springs as possible areas to include if one were seeking to keep Natoma Station and Prairie Oaks neighborhoods whole were from City Resident Lorraine Pajoni, who was also participating in the public meeting via the Zoom platform. Ms. Pajoni is also the city's parks and recreation director and is very familiar with the boundaries of those neighborhoods and was also trying to be as helpful as possible to the council. Finally, again, in the interest of full disclosure and being as transparent as possible, I would now like to ask the city attorney to confirm whether any of my actions that evening violated the Brown Act and or any other law. Thank you, madam city manager. This item on last Tuesday night's council meeting was duty noticed as a public hearing item, and all members of the public were able to participate in the meeting, and therefore there are no violations to the thank you. That's all I have, Mayor. I appreciate your time. Okay, so then we will um move to our um public hearing, item one. If the clerk would um read into the record what that item is.
openpublica.com