Folsom City Council Regular Meeting – July 25, 2023: Water Presentation, Consent Items, and Community Priorities Committee Debate
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Folsom City Council Regular Meeting – July 25, 2023: Water Presentation, Consent Items, and Community Priorities Committee Debate
The Folsom City Council met on July 25, 2023, at 6:30 PM in City Council Chambers, 50 Natoma Street, and adjourned at 9:09 PM. The agenda included a detailed presentation on the city’s water rights and supply, a consent calendar with several routine approvals, public hearings on delinquent utility charges and landscaping/lighting districts, and a major discussion on establishing a Community Priorities Advisory Committee to address projected general fund deficits. Councilmember Kozlowski was absent.
Consent Calendar
- Approved by roll call (4-0) resolutions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (meeting minutes, Highway Safety Improvements, legislative advocacy cost sharing, Transportation Development Act claim, and acceptance of the Regional Active Transportation Program grant).
- Item 6 (Folsom Zoo Perimeter Fence, Res. 11079): Councilmember Kozlowski (who pulled the item) clarified that the fence is needed to meet USDA eight-foot requirements; no animal escapes have occurred and the zoo will not close. The project uses ARPA funding. Adopted 4-0.
- Item 8 (Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Grant, Res. 11081): Councilmember Aquino expressed concern about the eight-year timeline. Staff explained scope changes and environmental studies delayed the project. Public speaker Max Hofstead (senior at Folsom High, active bike commuter, youth board member of Friends of Folsom Parkways) urged support, calling Bidwell Street dangerous and the trail critical for connectivity. Adopted 4-0.
- Item 9 (EV Charging System Design, Res. 11083): Vice Mayor Chalamcherla requested more detailed evaluation reports in future procurement documents but supported the item. Adopted 4-0.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Business from the Floor: Robert Dresser addressed a Public Records Act request for legal costs in the by-district elections lawsuit. He estimated over $1 million already spent, cited recent Superior Court rulings denying the city’s motion to dismiss, and urged the council to seek a settlement. He requested a detailed itemized response from the city.
- Item 8: Max Hofstead (as above) spoke in favor, describing dangerous biking conditions on Bidwell and the need for a safe trail connection.
- Item 12 (Community Priorities Advisory Committee): Three speakers:
- Heath Verganti (Folsom High senior, Friends of Folsom Parkways youth board member, Parks & Rec summer camp counselor) highlighted the importance of parks and trails to Folsom’s identity and expressed the group’s support for the committee.
- Bruce Klein supported the committee as a way to engage and educate citizens about the fiscal cliff and the likely need for a sales tax measure; he recommended including school representatives.
- Robert Goss (President, Friends of Folsom Parkways) argued that the committee would produce informed citizen messengers and that investment in green infrastructure is essential; he encouraged the council to approve the committee and have staff bring back cost options.
Discussion Items
1. Folsom Water Presentation (Item 1) Environmental Water Resources Director Marcus Yasu Taki presented an overview of the city’s water rights, contracts, and supply. Key points:
- The city holds 34,000 acre-feet of water rights: 22,000 and 5,000 acre-feet (pre-1914, dating to 1851) plus 7,000 acre-feet from a Central Valley Project repayment contract. The pre-1914 rights have no shortage provisions; the CVP contract follows federal allocations.
- Current annual water use is 52–55% of contractual rights. At full build-out, projected demand is ~19,900 acre-feet, well below total rights.
- The city did not impose any water restrictions beyond state mandates during the 2021–2023 drought. A stage 2 (20% reduction) was implemented due to state emergency orders.
- Orthophosphate (0.3 ppm) is added as a corrosion inhibitor; staff acknowledged it may contribute to pool algae issues and is working with pool companies.
- Opportunities include interties, regional groundwater banking (Sacramento Regional Groundwater Bank), and the upcoming Folsom Water Vision planning process.
- Councilmembers clarified that development south of Highway 50 does not affect water availability; new homes are 20–30% more water-efficient.
2. Community Priorities Advisory Committee (Item 12) City Manager Elaine Palmer proposed a 15-member committee to recommend priorities and potential service cuts or revenue sources to close projected structural deficits in the general fund. The committee would meet for 5–6 months; costs for a facilitator and smart technology could range from $50,000 to $150,000 (citing other cities). Council debate:
- Mayor Rodriguez strongly supported taxpayer engagement and made a motion to direct staff to establish the committee, adding PTA and student advisory board representatives. She suggested a budget not to exceed $75,000.
- Councilmembers Kozlowski and Aquino opposed, arguing that existing budget workshops and a community survey already provide sufficient public input, and the cost and staff time are unnecessary. Aquino proposed instead that council members present to community groups.
- Councilmembers Rohrbough and Chalamcherla expressed openness but wanted more cost data from other cities.
- The motion failed for lack of a second (only the mayor voted in favor). No further action was taken.
Key Outcomes
- Approved: Consent Calendar items 2–5, 7; Resolutions 11079 (Zoo fence), 11081 (Rail Trail grant), 11083 (EV charging design); Public Hearing resolutions 11078 (delinquent utilities) and 11082 (L&L districts).
- Item 12: Motion to establish a Community Priorities Advisory Committee failed. No committee will be formed.
- Council Requests for Future Agenda Items:
- Close-out report on ARPA fund allocations (staff already working on it).
- Update on the SeeClickFix system (communications staff to present in early fall).
- Presentation from the Community Development Department on permit processing efficiency (delayed a few months to allow new processes to stabilize).
- Presentation from Choose Folsom on the Austin economic development study mission (to be scheduled).
- City Manager Reports: Folsom Boulevard construction (July 30–Nov.), library fine elimination, National Night Out (Aug. 1), Community Service Day (Sept. 16).
- Meeting adjourned at 9:09 PM. The council will recess until August 22, 2023.
Meeting Transcript
We will now call to order the city council regular meeting for Tuesday, July 25th. Will the clerk please call the roll? Council members Rohrbach. Aquino here. Chalem Chairla. Here. Rodriguez here. And Kozlowski is absent. All right. Let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. To the Republicans under the indivisible liberty and justice problem. Okay. Are there any agenda updates? Yes, good evening, Madam Mayor. There is a revised staff report for item 10 in the additional information transmitted for item 12. The copy has been previously provided to you. And they are also available on the table in the back. Okay, thank you. Will the clerk please call the next item? Your next item is business from the floor. Okay. Business from the floor is the public's opportunity to address the city council concerning any item within the city council's jurisdiction that is not on the agenda. Please keep in mind that the city council is generally prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item that is not on the agenda. Public comments are limited to no more than three minutes. There's a speaker timer on the podium in front of you that will display the time you have remaining on your three minutes. The color will change to yellow when you have 30 seconds and turn to red and blink when your three minutes are up. We ask that everyone respect the three minute three minute limit to ensure that all speakers have an equal opportunity to address the city council. Are there any requests to speak? Yes, madam mayor. You have one request to speak this evening from Robert Dresser. Good evening, Robert. Good evening. Uh it's good to see everyone. Uh and thank you, Mayor, for your courtesy whenever I've called you. I really appreciate your courtesy. Um, however, I had made a public record act request uh some months ago asking for the amount of money that was spent so far and how much anticipated to be spent in defending the lawsuit about the uh by district elections. And though I did receive a response, uh it really didn't have uh the money amounts. And um I really would appreciate if the city would respond in detail as to how much has been spent and how much they anticipate spending. Uh so uh it seems to me, this is my guess, I could be wrong, over a million dollars of city money has already been spent on the two appeals with no end in sight. And that's not even spending any money on the plaintiff's attorney, which he's received zero. Uh as you remember, uh the we the plaintiffs, not myself, I'm not a plaintiff, had asked the city to go to by district collections. City didn't do it, lawsuit was filed, then the city did it, which is fine. Uh today's rulings in Superior Court denying the motion to dismiss the 2022 lawsuit, and uh denying the demur, at least putting it aside uh as is moot at this point, uh, I think is significantly enhances the plaintiff's chances of prevailing. And that uh ruling, the one of the rulings, the court said even if plaintiff's appeal is unsuccessful, they may still be able to establish viable claims for violation of the California Voting Rights Act and the Fair Maps Act as alleged in the 2022 complaint. So having said that, I would respectfully request, especially in light of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granting hearing in October on the plaintiff's appeal, uh, which might mean they're going to overturn the federal district court judge, which dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit, the first lawsuit filed in 2020. Uh the bottom line is that given the rulings today, which I think are permanent now. I could be wrong, maybe they're going to be appealed tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon in court. Uh, I would respectfully request that the city council show prudence and common sense in trying to come to a settlement because I think over a million dollars of city money, which I understand is scarce, has been spent pursuing the two appeals, not just one but two, um, after the city removed the case to federal court. And it looks to me, and I could be wrong again, that there's a big chance the city may lose ultimately the two lawsuits.
openpublica.com