Thank you. Then we will adjourn the special meeting and call to order the regular meeting of the Folsom City Council on Tuesday, May 27th, 2025.

Would the clerk please call the roll.

Councilmembers Leary.

Here.

Rathal.

Here.

Roarvaugh.

Here.

Kozlowski.

Also here.

And Decino.

Here. If you'd all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God.

Indivisible.

With liberty and justice for all.

All right. Mr. City Attorney, any agenda updates?

Good evening, Madam Mayor. No agenda updates tonight.

Okay. Then that takes us to business from the floor.

This is the public's opportunity to address the council on items that are not on the agenda.

But please understand that we cannot deliberate or take action on items that are not on the agenda.

If you'd like to speak now or on any item that's on tonight's agenda, if you could please fill out a blue card at the back of the room on the table there.

Hand it over here to the officer and the clerk will call you up at the appropriate time.

So I think we've got a couple coming our way.

But Madam Clerk, if you'd call the first speaker, please.

Okay. Your first speaker this evening will be Bryce Burdett.

Come on down.

Are we missing some lights?

Stand by.

You're welcome.

Bryce.

Yes. Hi.

Good evening.

Hello.

Great to see you.

This is just a brief thank you.

My name is Bryce and I live in Folsom Ranch.

We're new to the area and I'm the lead pastor of Beacon Church.

We recently put on an event in Folsom Ranch and the city was a big help.

One just small thing.

Left a voicemail for someone in Parks and Rec and they called me back.

Which, you know, when you're planning events, makes a big difference.

But they even helped me troubleshoot an issue last minute.

So just wanted to say a big thank you to the city for helping us pull off a great event.

Thank you for coming out, Bryce.

That's really nice of you.

Yes.

Welcome to Folsom.

Next speaker.

Okay.

Our next speaker will be Blake Allen and Blake will be followed by Michael Harris.

Come on down, Blake.

Right here to the microphone at the podium.

I see my phone, right?

Sure.

Yeah.

This microphone right here?

Yep.

Good to see you.

Good to see you, too.

Good evening, city council members.

My name is Blake.

My name is Blake.

And I am 22 years old.

And I have been fortunate enough to call Folsom, California, my home for all these years.

I greatly appreciate the work the council does to maintain and improve the city of Folsom.

I understand that tonight that affordable housing isn't on the agenda.

I would like to respectfully encourage the council to consider continuing exploring affordable housing options for the city of Folsom.

As someone who has been someone who has been someone who has called Folsom home for all these years, I would love to see Folsom remain a place for all residents, both new and old, and more options for all the residents of Folsom.

Thank you very much, Blake.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michael.

Okay.

Our next speaker will be Kevin Miller.

Good evening.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

So I just wanted to go on record that I was a victim of the pinhole water leak back in me and 1,400 other people back in 2020 and 2021.

And of which during the summer of 2020 pinhole size leaks began to appear in the copper plumbing pipes in homes located in the city of Folsom.

About 1,150 people were affected at that time costing Folsom residents thousands of dollars.

I continue to suffer from that.

My insurance rates have gone way up.

They required me to put a device on my water line to restrict flows and to monitor it, which is very ineffective.

It actually shut off when my wife was in the shower.

The app isn't really interactive, but the insurance company insists that I have this on.

I paid over $8,000 to have the whole house re-plexed, re-piped, plexed.

And I've put in a request to the city of Folsom.

They waived the permit fees and denied my request of reimbursement.

And I've also, I'm now part of the class action suit against the city of Folsom.

And I just want to go on record for that.

The, you know, the cause of the problem, if any of the council members don't know, the cause of the problem was unclear.

They pointed at all kinds of different things.

Different parts of the city were affected, including American River Canyon.

There was no clear understanding except that it came out that the pH and the treatment had been ignored for some period of time,

reading the water report.

And so nothing was ever solved on it.

It was just left hanging.

The value of my house has been affected.

Depreciation.

People were concerned about, you know, whether there's more leaks in other homes.

Well, we've re-plexed, but the insurance company doesn't really want to recognize that because there's problems with the plastic plexed pipe, too,

like rodents chewing on the pipes and such.

So I just want to go on record for that.

That's, you know, kind of swept under the carpet.

And there's a lot of people.

We ended up with a $22,000 damage that our insurance company picked up the tab for.

And we now are paying that.

I mean, you know, in the policy.

So we've got some of the higher insurance as a result of that.

So.

Thank you very much for coming out.

Thank you.

All right.

If you call the next item, please.

We have no further request to speak under business from the floor.

Okay.

Schedule presentations.

Okay.

Your first scheduled presentation item this evening is item number one.

This is the Friends of the Folsom Zoo presentation of a donation check to the city of Folsom Zoo Sanctuary.

Okay.

Should I come down there?

Who's left?

I was wondering if there was going to be a big check.

Literally and figuratively.

Do my best.

So, Mayor Aquino, members of the council, and citizens of Folsom, I am Peggy Platt.

I am president of the Friends of the Folsom Zoo Sanctuary.

We were established as the 501c3 or non-profit in 1981.

And we have a very specific mission.

So let me see if I can make this work.

So our mission is to preserve and enhance the city treasure by assisting in the enrichment of the lives of the animals that are living at the Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary.

And we exist really, and our main purpose is to add value to what the sanctuary is able to do.

Our goal is to reduce reliance on city funding for zoo operations and to subsidize the zoo's budget.

TheProf1.

So, with that poet in the

and we have the delicious diets that our animals receive.

We also have provided specified medical equipment that helps our large carnivores like Henry the bear.

We paid to help produce the barnyard experience,

which has added enormous value to the zoo sanctuary

by not only extending the opportunity to include barnyard animals in our experience,

but to also create additional space for camps and other activities that help educate the public.

And we were able to do things like improve habitats,

and we participated in the aviary exhibition or exhibit reconstruction.

And you can see Peregrine Falcon Frank, who is enjoying his new space.

So with tonight's donation of $100,000,

to the city's general fund,

we will now have given almost $2.4 million

to the city of Folsom for the past 19 years.

And you can see how that money has been distributed.

It's not the same amount every year.

It's based on a formula.

It's based on if we have designated funds that allow us to do something special,

like in this past year, we were able to donate funds to rebuild the coyote exhibit,

which we hope to have finished very soon.

I understand the lodge polls for that came in this week.

So we're hoping to get that up and running,

and then people can more easily see the new coyote, Benny, that we have as a resident.

So as representative of the FRIEND board,

Rochelle Barcelona and I would like to present to the city of Folsom,

on behalf of the Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary,

a check for $100,000.

Thank you.

I will just say thank you.

This is absolutely amazing.

You said your goal for the FRIEND is to add value to the zoo,

and I would just say your value is priceless.

We could not do this without you,

and I know this means a lot to Jocelyn and her staff,

so thank you so much.

It's our pleasure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Fantastic.

Next item, please.

Okay.

That takes us to our consent calendar.

This evening,

and I believe item number seven is going to be pulled from the consent calendar.

Anything anybody else wants to pull?

All right.

Then I'll entertain a motion for two through six and number eight.

I move that we approve the consent calendar.

Absent number seven.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Leary.

Yes.

Rathel.

Yes.

Rorbaugh.

Yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

And Aquino.

Yes.

All right.

Item number seven is resolution number 11389.

This is a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute an agreement for design consulting

services with leathers and associates for the kids' play park renovation project.

Great.

Mayor and members of the council, we're going to receive some information from our parks and recreation

staff about this item.

Thank you.

Good evening, Brad.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members.

I'm Brad Nelson, park planning manager.

Let me pull up my presentation real quick.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

the company that did the original build almost 30 years ago.

So we feel confident moving forward with our second generation of kids play playground.

So just a quick update about our process to date.

So the original funding request was in fiscal year 2425.

That was for $1.1 million.

And we requested that it be spent over or provided over two years because of the staffing resources.

And in 2425, City Council approved $800,000 with the remaining $300,000 shortfall to be provided through a nonprofit fundraising organization,

Kids Play for Generations, Inc., which has since formed as a 501c3.

And they're outgoing gangbusters with their fundraising right now.

So we were able to, we evaluated the project timeline based on the fact that we have two new park planners in the park planning division.

We have one of those park planners with us here tonight.

Her name is Hannah Perez.

Back there.

So we're super excited to have her on board.

So here is just a quick overview of the expedited timeline.

We were actually able to shave off six months off the process, which is pretty amazing, I think.

So at the top, you can see we're here, May 27th, City Council award.

And then I'll skip through all this sort of detail stuff.

Our goal is to start construction November of this year with the park being open in April of next year.

So spring of next year.

And I would be happy to answer any questions.

And demolition start on community service day.

It probably could, yeah.

Suggestion.

Yeah.

I like that.

Vice Mayor Rathal, you have some questions or no?

Yeah.

Do we know how much fundraising Kids Play has done to date?

I do not know how much they've done to date.

I don't know where they're at.

Originally, this was a community build park?

Correct.

Back in 1996.

Is the intention to community build this second generation park?

Our current intention was not to do a community build.

But it's something that we can certainly consider.

We did talk to leathers and associates about the, you know, sort of adjusting the scope of work that was in their proposal.

And they were very agreeable to do a community build project with us.

So a couple things that would do, it would scrunch up the timeline in terms of construction.

We wouldn't have to do the project bidding.

And there wouldn't be any city council approval of construction costs.

During that time, we'd have to coordinate the volunteer group and get their, you know, organize them.

And sort of get their buy-in into the project.

So we would skip the bidding.

We would skip the issuing the project for bidding.

We would still need the materials, though.

We would still put those out for bidding.

We would.

So that would take some time, too.

But I think overall it would, and this is what leathers confirmed with us, too, that the overall time frame would be reduced.

Be reduced with a community build.

It would be reduced with a community build.

Correct.

That's interesting.

That's good.

What about the cost on a community build?

The cost would be, they're indicating it would be reduced to what extent?

I don't know, because we just looked into all of this today.

So I can't give you an accurate estimate.

But they said it likely would be reduced as well.

So we could come in quicker and at a lower budget if we do community build?

Yes.

I love that answer.

I think I, for one, have been advocating for community build.

I really appreciate that.

I'll stop my questions for there for now.

So my question, I'm trying to figure out what question to ask.

But so the other two full proposals that we got, thank you to your staff for getting that to me this morning.

It shows that we can clearly, or the other two bids, can build the park for under $100,000.

So, so that's encouraging.

Um, and I think our, um, so I think, you know, we want to start articulating that.

Um, we have $800,000 to build this park.

Um, what can we do within that means?

Um, within those means?

Um,

Um, did you see anything lacking, say, take the Zoom recreation, um, build out, um, proposal?

Did you see anything lacking in that?

That would, their proposal was for, uh, $611,000 with another $150,000 and materials and stuff at the end.

But do you see anything lacking in that, that we couldn't build a, the park for under $800,000?

They didn't have the community engagement process to the extent that, um, Leathers does.

Actually, Leathers, that's kind of their, one of the, their hallmarks of their company, how they, um, how they came to be.

That's, it was, the original project was design build.

They have indicated it's, I think they said about 50% of the, of the replacement projects they're doing now

are community build and the other 50% or so are, are, um, contractor build.

So they would design the, um, they would figure out what we would need.

If we did a community build, which I think is where Justin is going on this, of, if we use Leathers,

that would be the natural, um, company to do a community build.

Um, they would do the design on what materials we'd need to order to replace.

Um, and they would do all that cost and then go out for a bid for who could, how does that work?

How does the next portion work if we do a community build?

So I don't have all the details on that, but the city would be responsible for acquiring all of the, um, all of the materials.

And then we would provide that to the volunteers.

So who figures out what materials we want to buy if we're not Leathers?

Leathers would figure all that out.

With, I think with, with some of, you know, obviously staff's input too.

So it's my understanding that they provide a full.

Accounting.

List in the, and they suggest the suppliers and that sort of thing.

So they get exactly what they need.

So if we have a hundred thousand budget, um, for this and we do a community build, can we use part of that budget to help, um, support staff?

Maybe hire a volunteer, short-term volunteer coordinator or something like that to alleviate some of the staff time, um, for the next six months in order to get this project done?

Mm-hmm.

Uh, I, I mean, it's my understanding with this is, uh, it wouldn't need as much staff assistance with Leathers because they're the original designers of the park.

Mm-hmm.

And they would be able to figure that out, um, basically replacing the structure with the recycled plastic.

I guess, Brad, if you could kind of talk a little bit about the work that would need to be done related to, we've talked about drainage.

Would Leathers assess that or how?

Uh, so there's some additional site work, which is kind of confusing.

Um, and our plan is to utilize a landscape architect, local landscape architect that we've used before.

So, um, the, the cost for that would be within the city manager's, uh, contracting authority.

So it wouldn't, it's not that much work.

Our, our idea is that we need to replace some of the concrete, particularly around the entries where it's, uh, where it's cracked, where it's being lifted up by.

For ADA reasons.

For ADA reasons.

Um, and then there's, so there's drainage that's underneath the, um, the playground structures, both, both sections right now.

It's 30 years old.

It's been covered up for 30 years.

So typical drain inlets, you can, you know, you have the opportunity to kind of look at them and see if they're working or if they're not working.

We haven't had any issues that I'm aware of, um, out there, but it's an opportunity since we're demoing everything and it's, there's going to be a hole there.

It's the opportunity to re-look at that.

And then along with the new structure where that drain is located and sort of in the center of the players, we may have to move that slightly or move the piping that goes to it to accommodate the new footings, um, based on the new structure layout.

So there's, and those, that's really in the big scope of things.

It's fairly minor work, but it's, it's important to have a successful project because we don't want to five years down the road, all of a sudden have drainage issues.

Well, why didn't you take care of that five years ago?

So looking at the proposals, I was left kind of wondering with, uh, leathers, um, you know, and I read through the RFP as well.

So they didn't meet what the RFP asked for.

Um, but it's, you know, there's still an unknown with cost with leathers where as opposed to the zoom recreation one, which I liked the drawings and the renderings they had and it was the full package.

And it seemed like that timeline could be moved up pretty fast.

Um, we could accept it and move on and move forward and have it be built and then have the community engage in maybe other parts of the park, like the dragon, things like that to rebuild that.

Um, is there, uh, is there an issue with us?

If we want to discuss accepting the zoom, um, contract.

Proposal.

Okay.

May I interject here just for one second, just Brad, I think maybe you need to back up a little bit and explain why we got four proposals.

They are wild, wildly different in cost.

It looks like two of them did it for design only.

And two of them did it for design.

Correct.

Um, materials and implementation.

That's correct.

Right.

So, um, two, so the, the RFP request for proposal clearly identified, we're just looking for design, um, not for construction.

It was clearly stated a couple of times for design, um, both leathers and played by design understood that and addressed, um, their proposal thusly.

So, um, zoom recreation and Burke did not.

And they included, um, the construction as, as part of their proposal too.

So.

So for that, that's why they scored lower cause they weren't following, they weren't responsive to the request for proposal.

Yeah.

I want to make comments, but I don't want to make it at you.

Um, so I don't know if you want me to wait.

I don't know if I have any questions from Brad.

We do have a request from the public to speak on this.

So why don't we go ahead and call her up and then.

Okay.

I have some additional questions too.

Okay.

Let's bring up the public and then we'll do it real quick.

Okay.

Okay.

Our speaker will be Loretta Hettinger.

Come on down, Loretta.

Oh, I thought we were asking questions.

We are, but we're going to, um, let her speak real quick.

I didn't intend to come tonight until I went to the budget meeting this afternoon.

And at that budget meeting, it came very clear to me that we are, uh, suffering greatly from

a lack of future income.

Um, so my question for this project tonight, the only reason I'm coming forward is that

I read it as being at the design stage so that there are potential to make changes, not,

not something that's already been so far through the process.

So I wondered if the goal is to replicate exactly what's out there or if we shouldn't look at

something that would be, uh, focused on how we can maintain it for the future.

That is a big problem all over the city.

And this was, uh, some funding that was robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And yet Paul is still out there needing attention.

And so my goal in speaking tonight is ask you to consider long-term maintenance of this project

and what the other needs are.

We are accustomed in Folsom to building the best that you can build.

And please don't interpret my saying that I want something that is substandard.

I absolutely approve of the high standards of quality that Folsom has always, uh, sponsored.

And so I just want a close look at future maintenance of this and whether we can afford to replicate what's there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Laura.

Any more questions at this time, um, Council Member Warbaugh?

Or you want to go to Council Member Larry?

Yeah, I had a number of questions.

No, I'm just seeing if Council Member Warbaugh has any other questions.

We only have one request to speak.

No, let Barbara go.

Okay.

I can go again.

Okay.

Okay.

Um.

Well, wait till you get back up to the podium.

Thank you.

Uh, and I appreciate the comments that, um, Mrs. Settinger made.

Um, I, I understand that there's a change in the type of material that are going to be used for another leathers project.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

It would be something similar to Trex, if you're all familiar with Trex, which is recycled plastic, um, made to look like lumber.

There's a number of different suppliers that can provide that.

And so, um, as, um, as, um, our city manager mentioned, the leathers provides recommendations on where to, um, where to procure that material.

And so, um, um, is there any evaluation of the longevity of that material?

material because this has essentially been fully built in the 90s and everybody in the community

different community organizations etc participated in putting this together then there was a portion

of it burned down and people had to go back and rebuild part of it again and I I'm kind of

wondering if the trex is actually going to be more durable I'd so the original structure the

lifespan was like 20 to 25 years so through the the awesomeness of our parks maintenance department

it's like it's lasted for 30 years which is pretty unbelievable and our service day crews with their

linseed oil we did that for many years and then we stopped and it fell apart after that

well that's yeah I understand the trex doesn't need as much maintenance as that but my one of my

other questions is is that kind of a construct actually as easily accessible as some of these

other projects that we've looked at and we got a project in it just came in this afternoon from

Burke and it looked like they hadn't originally sent in the full proposal and estimate of cost which is

also less than the 1.1 million that was projected for the reconstruction of the same kind of structure

so it I I'd haven't this is not handicapped accessible as it is credit doesn't mean these other new constructs

are you know designed around that as that's become more of a of a concern for the public in general and

we've got a larger population and I imagine with that we have more people that need that kind of access

so one of the one of our requests in the RFP was to it needs to be accessible so this as you mentioned

this is grandfathered in because it's been around for so long so it needs to be accessible and we'd like

to be like for it to be more inclusive for all abilities and I guess it's really difficult for me at this

point seeing you know two other proposals that were for for a full construct and one that just came in

today and then kind of evaluated the full construct of that and I know this has been through you know

parks and rec and and and the recommendation was to go ahead with a similar structure and I know that

some people are married to this particular structure because it's been there for so long but I think there's

there's there's others that may be more durable and accessible so that that makes it difficult for

me to I think that this the synthetic lumber the tracks is gonna last us for 25 years I don't know

why it wouldn't it's a fairly common building material and on these other proposals look like

they're you know there's like some metal and there's also some some other materials that are supposed to

be long-lasting is there a difference in the longevity of how long the I don't I don't know

off the top of my head of the lung or the longevity of those other materials I know those are hard because

you didn't just fate those yeah questions today but if I can add something to with leathers when the

the the the way that we were presenting this is that they would put together the design process but

then we can bid out the materials so then we can look at the different materials and then choose what

we felt was the best to use so we weren't stuck to one type of playground structure would be able to have a

fair bidding process and get all of the materials that were durable and that we would recommend and and

also some of the other cities city of Sacramento Davis they have used this recycled materials and

have nothing but positive things to state yeah just to comment on that in 2015 I was able to help with

a build like this and we use the recycled plastic material in now it is 10 years older and it's in

really really good shape so I feel very confident that it would be able to last and we have this

material in lots of different places as well to answer the question related to this is kind of a

unique situation because I know it's tempting to try to award a contract to these other ones because we want

to get the project done but in some ways and I look to my city attorney colleague here it's kind of

problematic because we didn't ask for that bid and so you you could have others say wait a second if

you were going to award a construction contract we would have bid for this so that's one of the

dilemmas we have of just moving forward with one of these alternatives that although they're showing hey

this is what it's going to cost they they didn't really follow our request and it puts us at risk for

a protest and it doesn't feel as clean as it needs to be so my question in the RFP did you have a was I

read through it briefly this morning did you ask for pricing or indication of that they could do a

community build be partners along I mean I know that you have physically talked to leather's company but

we did not we requested support for the our fundraising partner the kids play for generations

support in terms of their fundraising efforts but we did not specifically request or talk about

the community build portion

I don't want to it sounds to me like we have two options we either

accept the proposal from leathers and associates or play by design or we throw it out and we do a new

RFP which delays the whole process right so that's what mr. city attorney does that seem accurate

that is correct madam mayor there are two processes that we can follow but we got to choose one of the two

one is the traditional you design first and then with the design documents you go out to bed

for construction the second path is design build as you are discussing here for for zoom and also for

Burke they they both okay but you can only choose one but here they are kind of mixed together that's the problem

yeah and and the matter before you tonight is not design build it's just design so you can certainly reject all

bids have staff go out to rebuild if you want to say hey we see something already we probably may be interested in a design build package

then a new RP would be issued for firms to compete on on the same playing field to provide design and build

bids for the council or you can just go with design right now because we have two proposals who are responsive to the RFP to not non responsive to work to the RFP and go with the traditional route so either one is fine but you got to pick one of the two

in the interest of focusing our discussion can I make a motion so that we approve resolution number 11389 as presented

all right is there a second

I am normally while you guys think about that seconding I in my regular line of work constantly are trying to

convince people to do design build but in this particular instance I think because of the community involvement

the opportunity for us to use volunteer workforce and some other later stages of this and our relative

control over material selection design everything if we're working directly with the designer and they

don't have an interest in the construction this is the way to go on this particular project I think that

what's missing for me from the motion is that if we accept leathers as the company then we there's an

we aren't directing staff that we're going to do a community build we're now we're going to go out for construction

and construction materials so I think you know so that's why I'm not seconding the motion I think I think I need more discussion or a different motion is is the resolution

maybe I'm not reading far enough into it but it simply says authorizing the city manager actually

executed agreement for design consulting services with leathers right that's the end of it right but

that means we could go out so so much so if you don't go out for bid for contractors or not that's

our discretion and that's what I'm lacking is that I want to be very clear because because okay so I'm

just gonna take this moment if it's okay with you um you know I've been frustrated about this pathway

for over a year now we authorized 800 000 in the budget last and this I'm looking at you but it's not directed at you

brad so this um but you're right there um so I'm going to try not to look at you um so this has been

going on for over a year I've been you know working on this since I campaigned two and a half years ago but

um we you know we funded 800 000 last year um we have no design there's been no communication loop there's

been no workshop um you know I've heard third hand that we weren't going to go out for an rfp that we're

going to do a sole source so I was kept out of the process I mean we did have a meeting here or there

but um I know the community is very frustrated about this um here we are a year later and nothing has

happened and I think there's been a lot of conversation in case the public didn't recognize

that there's been some conversations today going back and forth with staff and um and myself and um

and I'm sure some other council members as well but um so my hesitation is that you know we're here

a year later and if we now we have a designer um and if we're not being very clear to um to the city of

what we want to accomplish in a timeline then we could be here in a year with maybe just a design and now

we're moving forward for construction materials so I'm not interested in making a motion or seconding a motion

or approving something unless we have very clear stipulations of what we want so um what I saw which

I mentioned earlier is in the zoom bid particularly that we can build this park and have it be the essence of

castle park and what it was 27 years ago when it was built um under 800 000 and I think that in the past the city I've seen

um you know we we give a budget and then we always go over the budget I'm not interested in going over

the budget at this moment um I think we can build a really great park um with essence of castle park

I've seen the renderings it's really beautiful it would be dynamic and we could do it in a quick timeline

so I think that um mayor you did articulate the two options we could go with leathers um but I would want to

I think at that point if we do choose to do leathers that we direct staff that we're going to be doing a

community build and on a quicker timeline and we engage with the um the volunteer that is in charge

of the non-profit um who has the pulse of that community right around that castle park um and then

you know you can use me since it's my district as a point for the community to speak to working with

staff and then working with leathers um but we make sure that we're very clear on a timeline I know that

talking with our city manager he's been very clear that I think that we can get this done quicker

um that this is a priority there's other parks parks you know in the in the pipeline but we've

been talking about the community's been talking about this for years um speaking to what the um

the speaker said earlier about uh thinking through maintenance that's where we're at the maintenance

now is um you know costing us way too much um and too much time and all of that and parts of it are

closed that we're at the point now where we can't just maintain it anymore we have to rebuild it um

so unfortunately we got to that position um so in speaking with staff today um or the city manager today

i would also be okay with going out for a new rfp for a full construction allowing leathers to

articulate what it would mean what what their cost estimate would be allowing the other companies to come in

and the companies that i heard that didn't bid because they weren't interested in bidding just

on the design but doing that on a tighter time frame um that would be the only way i would do that

um i don't want to get to the point where i'm we're so frustrated that we haven't done anything in a year

that we push the button and start now i'd rather you know could wait six more weeks and do it right

um or we make a motion with using leathers and making sure that maybe we this is the opportunity

for us to take a little shift and make sure that we involve the entire community around it all of our

non-profits in the area that are willing to do things like this make sure we have enough staff

that can see a community build through to the end but make sure that we have a goal of a timeline that

it's not 20 fall of 2026 that it's actually you know february 2026 um and make that a very clear

direction too so does the zoom recreation does that that doesn't assume a community build it assumes

they're building it for that amount right yes i asked for the proposals this morning and it was a

full build out okay can i ask a question of the city attorney how far can we stretch the modification to

resolution 11389 because um you know in terms of the spirit of things i would second mrs roba's

you know intention here i think it's absolutely what we should be doing um but in terms of approving

this it's it's a contract motion sure a really good question and madam mayor member of the city council

you can certainly uh give direction to staff yeah so staff can now move forward with letters

personal to your instructions to staff so that's not that's not a problem if there's going to be a

change order because of the direction to staff that will be a change order coming for uh future approval

but um you do our do our separate question do our city rules preclude leathers from doing construction of

this project because they're the designer yes okay yes all right is that a problem for them well i don't think

they had planned to construct yeah exactly okay right correct so i i that's assuming that community

build will actually save money it depends so i i would recommend that if you were to give direction

to staff allow staff the flexibility to speak to discuss with others so that they can actually determine

which method saves the most so in the interest simply of time i i'll renew my motion but with the caveat that

um we absolutely want the design process kickoff meeting to happen with the public in june so

have leathers under contract and immediately start workshopping this thing with the public so that

they're brought into the process as has been described so our council person roberbaugh can i explain so the

the design process kickoff meeting that's for the the design team and the city team and then the public portion

which we we actually condensed that process okay and that would be more of an open house i so that's

the public process that we're proposing okay um i'm imagining a um a charrette phase with the public

rather than showing up with a completed design because they probably have a completed design already

i don't think they do leathers doesn't they make playgrounds for a living so they've got lots of stuff in

their office i'm sure right um i just i i would like it i you know i'm now i'm architect mike thinking

this through um we frequently with stuff like this and because this is such a sensitive particular design

um we don't i don't think we want to show up with uh pick one of these two or three that are all real

similar to each other i think we want to have a discussion about what the design constraints are

um vis-a-vis the um accessibility requirements that exist they existed in 96 also they're much more

cemented into the ground today um you know what the budget is what that means in terms of how much

material we can actually do what does a community build mean who what what will the community be

limited to so that open discussion about those topics i think bringing the community into that

as a charrette stage um i think that can happen almost immediately and then a design presentation

after that's all been absorbed and turned into pretty pictures that people can then weigh in on you know

which of any number of options works does this give us the option to pick a design that's potentially

uh maybe a smaller footprint and uh you know a less be less costly in the long run let's let's

well this is the problem with only some of the council members getting the proposals because the

proposals of the two that were complete was very very clear we could build a park for under 800 000

it was gorgeous yeah it looked like castle park um it can be completed in a very timely manner

um and i think mike and barbara you didn't get that information i don't know if mayor did either

or not this afternoon you did get it this afternoon okay um would you like to make a motion to reject

this no i i'm not and because i have two choices in my head and i'm not sure which one is right for

this community yes oh um thanks to park staff first off you know i've been pretty engaged in this uh over

the last week and that's just not counting the last uh you know year of this uh hindsight's always 20 20.

um if we had to go back and do it all again i don't think this is what we would end up with just

because i don't think the rfp the responses we got when i got this the timeline was off late 2026

and then the rfps the spread was was very very large so they didn't get we didn't have enough

people that are willing to compete in this space or they didn't get it three out of four of the

builders use set equipment which i think makes sense if you're going to design something you want to

design it from a set of building blocks that all being said it is a leather's park uh i think community

builds are really important i think it would fit with everything i think we want another castle park so

it fits with that i think if we could get i think councilman roberman and what i'm asking is is if

we can get a strong commitment that we're going to have a park open by april 2026 from parks and rec

staff and our city manager and we also can get a commitment that we do community build

in order to try to bring the cost down and then we fit this within the budget so hey if leathers comes

back and says hey we got this great design but it's going to cost us 850 we say take out a castle

spire make it 800 take a chainsaw to it cut it off right so we don't want to do this anymore 800 grand

is what we're willing to put into it we want it to be community build and we wanted to get started and

get done asap and i think if we have those commitments that i can be be comfortable well and i think we would

we could say even short time shorter time but let's set the goal like you know i'd love to have

it's summer 2025 and then if we start construction on november 15th and it's community build we'll be

done by november 30th i'm only anxious to approve this because going back out for another rfp will

what's taking this schedule but if we if we design build we go out for another rfp it doesn't do that

because it would be very clear um so i don't have that much hesitation with it but i i do think that it

will end up with a very quality product if we use leathers and and and if we get that community

build that's something that the others are not offering us right right all right we're looking

for a motion so can i get a little i have a question to staff before i'm willing to second

well i was going to as long as i can get a commitment from staff that's what i'm saying and

what councilman roerbaugh is is in line with what you guys want to do it's just it's been back and

forth with staff for a long time so i'm sorry to put you on the spot understood so kelly i mean

is that something that parks and rec would feel comfortable with yes we spoke to leathers today

and we believe we can meet that uh commitment second all right finally we have a motion in a second

please call the roll council member leary um yes i'm sorry that i didn't get to see the other designs

that apparently everybody else was looking at during the day rayful yes roerbaugh yes kozlowski

it's better to have some mystery in your life is that yes is that yes no that's a yes that's a yes

and a keynote yes thank you very much brad kelly thank you thank you oh my gosh all right next item

please that takes you to your first public hearing of the evening this will be item number nine this is a

presentation by staff in compliance with ab2561 and government code section 3502.3 regarding city

vacancies recruitment and retention efforts good evening allison evening

this time we have no request to speak on this public hearing

good evening madam mayor members of the council allison garcia your human resources director

tonight's item is in response to ab2561 and requires a presentation to the council

on vacancies recruitment and retention this presentation is provided for informational

purposes only ab2561 this is the first time presenting this information to the folsom city council

in september 2024 ab2561 was passed with an effective date of january 1st 2025.

this bill requires a public agency to conduct at least one public hearing per fiscal year

prior to the adoption of next year's budget presenting the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention

efforts and entitles the recognized employee organizations to present at the hearing in

accordance with this regulation all bargaining units were notified of this public hearing and the

public hearing notice was published in the folsom telegraph in response commander andrew bates

president of the folsom police management association and police officer darren protube board member of

the folsom police officers association will be speaking on this item after my presentation

the bill further states that if the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit

meets or exceeds 20 of the total number of authorized full-time positions the bill requires the public

agency upon request of the bargaining unit to include specific information during the public hearing

fortunately this does not apply to our bargaining units the california legislature recognizes that

widespread job vacancies in local government are a significant issue affecting service delivery

employee well-being and labor relations ensuring transparency of efforts and adequate staffing

across public agencies is a matter of statewide concern

the bill does not specify what the look back period must be in order to provide you with a full year

of data we captured calendar year 2024 since we have all data for the complete year this data set

however spanned two fiscal years fiscal year 2324 and 2425 of which had 490.5 fte

and 503.5 fte respectively that's important to note as we saw a slight increase in vacancy rates mid calendar year which we'll see in an upcoming slide

the budgeted positions covered public services from all departments solicited on the screen

so how do we determine the vacancy rate we took the information based at the start of each month in the

look back period we took the citywide vacancies and divided it by the number of budgeted ftes

and we end up with our percentage of vacancies the average citywide vacancy rate in calendar year 24

was seven percent for comparison city of sacramento had a vacancy rate of 14

city of rancho cordova had an eight percent vacancy rate roseville had a seven percent vacancy rate

citrus heights and nine percent and elk grove a six percent vacancy rate if you look at the graph on

the right you'll see a visual of how those vacancies changed over time there's a slight upward trend from

june to july vacancies increasing from six to eight percent but it's important to note that this is this

also marks the start of a new fiscal year when the total number of budgeted positions increased by 13

so the base number we're dividing by also changed we also analyzed vacancy rates by labor group including

unrepresented positions which are primarily in hr and finance the group with the highest vacancy rate

was the fulsom middle management group fmmg at 17 percent this includes supervisors managers and advanced

journey level positions fmmg represents a significant portion of our workforce with deep institutional

knowledge and technical expertise many individuals in this group are late career professionals and as

a result are beginning to see see a wave of retirements that is contributing to a higher vacancy rate within

this group again these are not entry-level roles many require specialized skills certifications or years of

experience which make them more challenging and time-consuming to fill the retirements not only create immediate

vacancies but also increase the urgency to recruit and train successors who can step into leadership roles

and maintain continuity and service delivery this trend reflects a broader challenge across the public

sector where long tenured employees are exiting the workforce leaving behind a gap that requires

strategic succession planning and competitive recruitment efforts like many organizations we're

experiencing a smaller applicant pool and increased competition for qualified candidates on a positive

note police and fire management had no vacancies during the reporting period while there was turnover due to

retirements and fire the chief took proactive steps in anticipation of upcoming retirement and if needed

temporarily overstaffed key positions to support continuity and knowledge transfer during the vacancy period

next slide has a lot of numbers um it's just details by month for each labor group although fmmg reflected a 17

percent vacancy rate over the calendar year you can see the uptick in budget positions as we start fiscal year 24 25

increasing budgeted positions by 5 which causes the vacancy rate to now calculate at a higher denominator

over the course of the reporting period we made solid progress in filling vacancies across the organization

of the 76 vacancies in 2024 45 required new recruitments while we filled 31 using existing eligibility lists

out of all vacancies out of all vacancies filled 25 were filled through internal promotions helping us

retain institutional knowledge and reward employee growth this reflects our investment in employee

development and our commitment for to promoting from within as impressive our time to hire was 90 days on average

the city's hr team conducted a comprehensive review of our policies procedures and recruitment efforts to better

understand the challenges we face and the opportunities we can pursue in attracting and retaining top tier

talent several key obstacles emerged like many public agencies were facing increased competition from both the

private sector and neighboring jurisdictions our hiring processes while thorough can be lengthy sometimes taking

significantly longer than those in the private sector a recent neo-gov report and neo-gov is an applicant tracking system

found the average public sector time to hire is 119 days with local government averaging 130 days compared to just 36 days in the private sector

this extended timeline can limit our ability to quickly secure top candidates as a reminder your hr team has an average time to hire of 90 days

we're also seeing the impact of rigid position requirements such as specific education certifications or experience that can narrow our applicant pool

and while the demand for flexible work continues to be a discussion point public sector roles have traditionally offered limited alternative work options like remote schedules

all of these challenges are amplified by an approaching retirement wave which is expected to further strain our ability to replace seasoned professionals

high attrition not only reduces operational efficiency but also carries a steep financial burden

according to the society for human resource management the average cost to hire new employee

is four thousand seven hundred dollars not including indirect costs like leadership time spent on hiring or the elevated costs of recruiting for hard to fill positions

in response our team has identified solutions to address these obstacles

including elevating our employer brand using bold authentic messaging to highlight what makes fulsome a great place to work

and to convert job seekers into applicants also improving candidate communication setting clear

expectations and timelines to reduce uncertainty in the process lastly collaborating with departments and unions to reassess minimum qualifications

and identify where flexibility is appropriate in summary while recruitment and retention challenges permit persist the city of fulsome is actively addressing them

through internal promotion streamline hiring and stronger outreach efforts ab2561 has helped us take a closer look at our vacancy

and workforce trends and we remain committed to building a strong future ready team with that i'd like to introduce commander andrew bates

president of the fulsome police management association followed by police officer darren protu board member of the fulsome police officers association

and we have a very good evening commander bates

good evening madam mayor city council and mr white meyer i'm going to keep my comments very brief

uh just want to point out a close-up look um although we have no vacancies because it's a competitive

process to promote into our union uh we manage the police officers union those are the men women that are outside

doing all the work and who we need to do that work in order to provide vital services to the city so i'm

speaking on behalf of them and i just want to point out a couple of things if you look very closely at

just our officers we have 87 sworn we have nine vacancies right now and that runs at about a 10 percent

vacancy rate where we're currently at if you take into account the officers who are out either on

training in the academy training on the street where they're not a solo officer that's able to function or

they're out for some sort of extended leave excuse me we have 68 who are out and ready to run around

and do work that translates to just slightly over a 20 vacancy rate i can tell you that is very very

challenging for us to address we're doing the best we can to continue services and keep things running

but it's a problem that's been out there for a while there's a lot of causes i'm not here to pick it

apart i'm here to say that we want to work together with both the officers union as well as all of you

in the city and city leadership to try to resolve that and try to make it a little better

and draw more people in not looking to you to solve the problem we've been working on this for

quite a while we've experimented with some paid facebook ads very inexpensive also very ineffective

those have not translated into applicants the way we had hoped it did get our message in front of a

lot of people but not people who turned into applicants we've attended recruiting fairs and

events we've done that for years and years recently we have worked with a recruiting firm that did

keyword analytics for those people who did end up applying for us and looking at targeting them

with our ads to drive them towards our new landing page to showcase the police department and what

we do i will say the most effective one we've ever had was word of mouth we hired someone from a

nearby agency that shall go unnamed who then spoke to a bunch of her co-workers and got a chain of

people in they were attracted to things like the supportive city the beautiful location and the things that we offer here and

the general policing environment here that differs substantially from that city they came from

we're always looking for that we're always trying to convince our people to talk to their friends and

let them know what it's like out here in Folsom we try to emphasize those non-tangibles we are looking at

anything we can find we're looking at any way that we can get that recruiting and excite people at coming out

here we are looking forward to working with the city manager in the coming year and seeing what we

can put together and maybe some out of the box thinking and ways that we can draw people in we are in

this together and we are excited to work with all of you and we appreciate the support thank you

I have a question oh go ahead um is the landing page up the new one that they believe it's still in

progress we're making sure that it checks all the boxes before we go live with it okay thank you

thank you officer prochu come on up

thanks for being patient and waiting through that park discussion for absolutely no problem

so this is my first time um in front of the council like this so bear with me uh mayor keno members of

the city council city manager city administration and fellow residents of Folsom thank you for this

opportunity to address you today on behalf of the Folsom police officers association i've worked for the

city of Folsom and for the police department since 1995. i stand before you as spokesperson for the

Folsom POA today our goal is simple but vital

to make the city of Folsom the workplace of choice for dedicated talented public servants

we believe that by working hand in hand with the department and city administration

sorry i lost my uh the city council the city manager's office we can build a stronger department

more resilient community in an environment in which every member of the Folsom police department feels

valued and empowered help us to continue to provide the high level of service and professionalism

that this community has come to expect and that we pride ourselves on delivering

we must be competitive with our surrounding areas to attract a quality and quantity of public servants

that that is vital to keep Folsom in a position as which which it is known for

for years our department has operated under challenging conditions

we currently carry as you heard a 10 percent vacancy rate in positions

while this number may seem small for this department and city it is huge

we ask you to take into consideration that we currently currently have officers in the police academy

that will not be ready for solo patrol for up to a year

officers that are recovering from injuries and an additional officer that we currently have in training

so that percentage of 10 percent is actually much higher probably approaching 20 percent and it is affecting us

that means that we suffer even greater shortages on day-to-day operations

research reveals that we need more dispatchers records clerks and other non-sworn positions as well as police officers

in the face of these staffing shortfalls our members continue to serve with purpose professionalism

compassion and unwavering commitment to the city of Folsom we are resilient and efficient and efficient

so it may not seem noticeable to all citizens of Folsom

we implore you to provide support resources and ideas to achieve success

the Folsom POA also proposes forward and critical thinking ideas to address these challenges

and improve our workplace culture and these include but aren't limited to enhance mentorship

and peer support programs to nurture recruits and reduce new officer and employee attrition

wellness and initiatives that promote physical and mental health

regular and transparent dialogue sessions with department administration which have already begun

and city and city leadership to identify shortfalls and vacancies through the department and work

towards solutions together

by investing in all of our department employees through training retention appropriate financial support

open communication we reinforce public safety and build trust between the community and those of us that protect it

we ask that city council city administration and our residents join us in these efforts to provide feedback when asked

embrace innovation and champion the resources that we need to serve with purpose and distinction

together we want to strengthen strengthen the bonds within our city and department

improve morale and ensure every officer and member of our association proudly invests in Folsom

by being fully engaged in the community through work city events and if able through being residents of this community

thank you for your time your partnership and support and making Folsom an outstanding place to live

work and serve thank you very much

okay this is a public hearing so i'm going to open the public hearing do we have any requests to speak you have no request to speak on this item all right and i am going to close the public hearing there is no action

request or needed on this item does anybody have any other questions for

allison or no i had some questions during the review and i think you answered them during your presentation

and it was what are we doing to make sure at least the the Folsom and a management group that we don't exceed any

further how we reverse that trend and then i do appreciate you having uh the city manager having the um both

representatives of the police department speak about their vacancies um as they said the fpoa includes non-sworn

um so this the seven percent isn't reflective of the sworn officers um they articulated that very well so i

appreciate that as well just want to make sure that we have a continued focus that we we don't continue on this trend

um if it is a trend um that we are act and i think you are you answered it um before um making sure that we

are a place that people want to work definitely and just to clarify because i know both commander bates

and officer perchu brought up when we are looking at vacancy rates it is um based on positions where

someone resigned retired or has otherwise separated so it's a budgeted position whereas as both of them

mentioned they're taking into consideration um employees that are out on long long-term leave so

we do see the vacancy rate differently but i do understand where they're coming i appreciate that

also because you know when when it was quoted at 20 of course they were saying their ready rate but

still the sworn officers having 10.3 vacancy rate is still i think too high and then the fpo the poa

representative and i forgot your last name i'm so sorry um did mention that um you know in a city this

size you really noticed that 10 so um i do appreciate you clarifying that but thank you any other

questions or comments for allison all right call the next item please thank you allison okay next is

item number 10 this is resolution number 11387 this is a resolution rescinding resolution number 8792

and adopting a new community facility rental fee schedule with annual adjustments that are not to exceed the cpi

good evening tom

good evening madam mayor members of council tom hellman the recreation community services manager with the

parks and recreation department tonight's a public hearing on the community facility rental fee schedule

basically the staff and the parks recreation commission supports a recommendation to you all

for resolution number 11387 which would rescind resolution number 8792 and adopting a new community

rental fee schedule excuse me with an annual adjustment not to exceed the consumer price index and i'll

explain that a little bit more in tonight's presentation i have for you which encompasses your

staff report there's a little bit more information in here that was not in your staff report so i'll call that out

but hopefully you've had a chance to go through some of the background that is in there uh just a couple

things about this program and our department a broad range of indoor and outdoor facilities for the

residents of fulsome and its visitors to rent for family gatherings meetings and special events

the recommendations for the community facility rental fee schedule supports the priorities outlined in the

strategic plan including financial stability economic and community development and organizational

effectiveness and the parks and recreation commission did review this information and recommend approval

of these facility fees to you all that was presented to them back in september of 2024

so just to get a broad scope of what our community facilities program includes you have some indoor

facilities which is next door at the communities for the fulsome community center you have the rotary clubhouse and

then you have some various outdoor facilities which would include the dan russell rodeo arena the historic

fulsome turntable or plaza area the zittle family amphitheater and as well as a variety of park picnic

pavilions like the one pictured here that you see at nisenon park

so the previous resolution that we speak of was done in february of 2011 and during that resolution they only

resolve fees to the fulsome community center there was no other fees that were resolved in that resolution

for these other community facilities why is that important because our own fitness fulsome municipal

code states that those fees for rental city facilities would include but not be limited to those facilities that

you see up there and that those fees for rental of city facilities shall be established by resolution

of the city council which brings us here tonight

so as we looked at the various fees within the various community facility programs we assessed

public owned facilities in the region and that are similar in space and size

staff's analysis included the square footage cost per square foot a duration of time for the rental and

other renting space and staff reviewed our current facility rental frequency to assess the community's desire to

continue with the rent of the facilities so what's not in your packet but what is included in here after some

diligent work this afternoon is some occupancy rates that you'll see at the various facilities so our park

picnic pavilions these are the five main ones that we've had on the schedule for some time we are

asking or suggesting that we add three more to the schedule as some of you may be aware we also just

recently launched this opportunity to the public that they can now rent these park picnic pavilions online

they do not have to come in to speak to a staff member anymore they do not have to come in to

furbish insurance for that use that is all done online through the rec system so you see a large

activization and when you look at this across the calendar year of 2024 you'll see a large activation

occurring during those warmer months obviously and then decreasing as you get into those colder months

the community center has a very high occupancy rate for a ballroom 97 during our weekend usage

and over 100 during our weekday usage the rg smith room very similar 69 during the weekend and 90

during the weekday a lot of meetings and gatherings take place in the rg smith room it's a great meeting location

as well as the rotary clubhouse with 111 during the weekend and 99 during the weekday

the way we get above 100 there if you're wondering it's not like it's not always available but sometimes

staff can make it happen is you can book multiple events in a given day so there's the possibility

depending upon the size of that event that the team could secure rental in the morning time and let's say

they're done by 12 be able to turn the room over and be able to accommodate another rental that evening

it is rare it's not a regular thing it's based upon the size and scope of the um the rental that's

looking to be had and whether or not the staff can accommodate that but there are some occasions as you

clearly can see in some of our areas where we can accommodate that which pushes that rate occupancy rate over

that 100 threshold

so our community facility rental fee schedule tonight we're uh staff is recommending a list rate that brings

our facilities to what we have assessed and analyzed regarding what the market will hold when we take

that list rate we're looking at a an easy way and a thoughtful way to then provide a resident discount

for the use of these indoor facilities in which we've applied a 25 discount then additionally we looked at

those indoor facilities and we said for our non-profit rate we're going to take another 20 off that 25

discount for a total of 45 off the list rate for our non-profit organizations to use our indoor facilities

all these proposed changes to community c schedule be reviewed annually and then we're looking to adjust

only the indoor spaces by the consumer price index annually and then bring that back to you um generally in

june or j uh sorry june or july for the inflationary adjustment to those cities fees

so here's a couple um analysis that we looked at so this is the uh the full ballroom at the community

center and you see some various other ones within the area uh citrus ice community center la sierra

community center and then recently i also looked at the laguna town hall what i did to try to to look at

these in this slide in the various slides to preceding this is i took the average of all of this to try to

bring it into a line of where are they in comparison to what we currently have and so you see that what

is that the fifth line down you see the average comes all the way across of the square footage the

list rate the cost per square foot so forth and so forth and then you see what we are currently at

from there we were looking at okay well what's what's an adjustable for that um right now we're proposing

it's a 20 percent increase um in the in the list rates um to get us to where we are at 312 from 260

but as you also see we're also right in comparison to what our average is for the cost per square foot

knowing that we can't find exact matches for our facilities as far as size but we try to come close

to it with what is out there in the public domain so then we do the same methodology with the half

ballroom we have the east and the west side there's no difference in cost if you want to rent one side

versus the other just one size has a stage one size has a bar in the back both have equal access to the

kitchen if they choose to and these were some of the community or sorry the other public agencies that we

looked at to kind of build out our methodology of what our averages are for the area and then where

we currently are to then where we sit keep in mind while we might either be beneath the average

these indoor facilities would be adjusted annually by that cpi and again we're starting with a 20 percent

increase to the list rate and so while we might be beneath these averages right now as the cpi goes up

each year then we would adjust that as well there would be no adjustment to it this year if we move

forward but it would come in 2026 and then for the rg smith room the same methodology applies to various

different facilities there was a few more we could pull in from this one to get us to what we looked

at as from an average and then that cost per square foot this one we found that for what we have is a

really good meeting space location but definitely needed some adjustments as far as being underneath the

average there in a lot of categories and then finally the robert h miller the third rotary clubhouse

building a very popular building as you saw within our occupancy rates again three facilities that we we

added here to get to our average to get to our cost per square foot to then determine what our list

our resident and our non-profit rates would be

that we looked at our park picnic pavilion rentals we looked at four agencies the cosumna csd eldorado

hills csd cordova recreation and park district and the city of roseville the most two neighboring ones we

just looked at most recently of all of them combined they have a range between 11.13 per hour up to 37.50 an

hour for eight hours of use however our closest neighbors eldorado hills and cordova recreation park

district alley rate ranges between 1565 up to 25 dollars for similar size picnic pavilions of us so

that's anywhere from 60 to 200 people that we have our current rate at fulson park pavilions at the current

rate we have right now which was not a resolve fee keeping mine is 31.25 an hour for basically

uh 250 dollars for the day so what we're proposing is actually a decrease in that hourly rent

also knowing that we've made it much easier for people to rent these park pavilions through the

online system they no longer have to come in they no longer have to furnish insurance with us the online

portal takes care of that for them at a 20 per hour park pavilion for those pavilions with 100 person

capacities or less and 25 per hour for those park pavilions with 100 person capacities or more

which is identified in attachment two of your fee schedule proposed there's also an additional

recommendation of a multi-day or a special event use fee for these park pavilions that we do get asked

about when people are submitting for special event applications and so we don't have that captured and so

we came up with a recommendation of 750 for the day for either a special event use fee or if you're

looking to use it for multiple days

finally it brings me just to for the Folsom city council to support resolution number 11387

but if you have any questions i'm happy to address those madam mayor thank you uh questions i'll start

down at your end council member leary okay thanks tom um i'm wondering if i you could kind of go over this

sure double rentals in some days because like the community center and i think um uh also the um

i guess i guess it's the rotary clubhouse both have eight hour minimums

on the week on the peak so that would be those friday saturday sundays right right so we're those

how we those those generally would not be double booked okay that's so yeah that's so that could be

included yeah so well i take that back it could because um you could have um uh sorry on sundays

it could because sundays is a day where we actually only have four hour minimum so you could do a sunday

morning and a sunday evening okay yes and the latest that people can run them on a weekend would be

have to be they have to be at 10 o'clock or uh no they can go upwards to midnight okay um and then

one of my other questions was about using the pavilions and that is um you know i would hope that

everybody would clean up after themselves but i'm thinking you must need to use some staff time to go by

and check to make sure that they were cleaned up sufficiently so our our park picnic pavilions

yeah they're treated with regular park maintenance on a regular basis so either that's uh prior to park

opening that day or they're coming in the evening before to get ready for the following day um with

the park pavilion rental program it's not really we're not providing a direct service as far as having

staff there to either help them or provide a service right after they're done we're providing

them an opportunity to rent this space and have this space so but our park maintenance staff does

come in either at the end of the day or the beginning of a day to make sure that the space is cleared up

along with the rest of the park but there could be two rentals a day there cannot be two rentals a day

we only book one per day at a park picnic right so you're not checking in between and the reason i'm

asking correct because some people don't clean up well and yes now becomes a source we can't book two

rentals but that doesn't preclude somebody to show up and be there from 8 to 11 and then they vacate

and then someone comes in that evening from four to nine on a first come first serve basis right and

is there a part of the contract where people is there a penalty for not cleaning up after them there is

not no okay thank you council member roerba any questions thanks mayor rathal i had some questions

on the occupancy numbers thank you for putting those together i do appreciate it uh the occupancy when

you say it's 131 percent uh he'd show 276 events in 210 days uh but those are four hour events right

correct so we have well they could be they could be they're at least four hours they could be maybe

a little bit more but they're at least four hours on those days got it but we have like 16 hours

available in rental time a day roughly um

roughly i guess you could say that yes but we don't book out you can't like go on a calendar and

go i'd like to pick the eight to one or the three to nine time frame it's based upon working with

staff on what your request is and then being able to figure out those time frames yeah so because

they're all individually booked so some of them are not going to allow things on either side yes correct

because in numbers you sent over it's like we would have to have an event every single day

in the rotary clubhouse and an event more than one event every day in the ballroom like in the community

center and i guess that doesn't match necessarily is that what you're saying we're having an event

every single day in the community center there is a large activation of the community center okay

yes

okay um i did not pull day-to-day operations we looked at it at the at the as far as the month yeah for the

for the kind of event so you're assuming one event a day whether it's a four hour eight hour is

correct is the max we can do in the facility but with four hours that does leave another

you know 12 hours that we could book up i know we can't do back-to-back events but

well and and during the week you will see a possibility of back-to-back and or back-to-back-to-back

yeah because we could have morning to an afternoon meeting to an evening type situation so that's why

that rental the ballroom occupancy rate is so high because we are able to accommodate multiple bookings

in a given day during that week time okay and then um just with the rotary clubhouse uh i see most of

those are non-profit rentals uh for the weekday is that is that correct

on the weekday you said yeah yes that's like primarily what the rotary clubhouse is being used

for during the week is correct folsom based non-profits using that facility yes um and

you're proposing we're going to increase their rates from 30 an hour to 78 an hour

so like two and a half times

correct their non-profit rate would be 78 per hour that would so remember you can book an indoor facility

one year in advance these aren't wouldn't be proposed until hitting until september 1st

most of them all book out 12 months in advance so it wouldn't be until september of 2026 that their

new rental rates would apply so if they're booking it for a whole year are they still charge that 78

dollars an hour because they have to come back to council for a discount on things right

i'm just kind of curious how that would work like are we telling have we told them that we're

going to increase their rates two and a half times there has been conversation that there is that this

is coming forward if they wish a fee waiver they have to come before you if they uh they can book 12

months in advance so somebody can book right now under the current rates which would be that 30

rates for 12 months book and pay uh book and and pay yeah well yeah pay as you either pay as you go or

set up a plan but basically pay it as you're using it yes and then it would be anything new so then if

you come in if these are approved as september 1st if you walk in on september 10th you would then have

those new rates applied for any new booking going forward but anybody on the books right now for the

next foreseeable 12 months are paying the current rates that we have established got it we can give

them a year of figure it out but we we still haven't told them we're going to increase their rates by two and

a half times i have not spoken to them directly no okay and it's based on the number you sent me

it's 82 well it's hard to tell because it's 82 of 130 and that's four hours so i'm not quite sure what

it is but it looks like we have about 173 uh weekday events there do we know how many non-profits

which where are you looking at sorry like the rotary clubhouse i'm just that seems to be the most the

highest uh percentage increase then you're looking i think yeah i think your question was what again

i'm sorry uh how many non-profits are using it is that 170 is that 10 non-profits is that oh how many

done profits i i don't know that okay oh have we do we have like a regular list of event users um

that ran out the community center do we do have like 10 companies that are always coming to us and

using the the facility or is it mostly like residents reaching out like hey i want to have grandpa's

birthday celebration there this week sure it's it's a combination of both of those there are some

regular things that i think some of us will be known to have like the quilt show and some other

organizations that have a regular thing here there's some regularity with the school district that they

use the community center for and there's also then the residents that utilize this for various

events and gatherings that come up throughout the year obviously not usually routine on the family side but

routine from the thematic of them whether they're weddings or gatherings or birthdays and have we

notified any of the previous users or renters of the facility of this potential rate increase we have

not no okay um right now we are sitting at i think 77 of cost recovery is that right yes i believe that

was what was in your report yes and the recovery range that's right now approved by council is 50 to 75

the target range as approved in our policy from 2007 is 50 to 75 percent okay so you're asking us to

revise that uh cost recovery tonight also because we're going we're going above and beyond what the

guidance has been by the before i was here but the guidance was hey let's shoot for 50 to 75 percent cost

recovery you guys did the study you got 77 but now you're coming back and saying well what we really want

is 89 is that we're as part of this we're not looking to revise the cost recovery policies that

that's a much bigger um document and policy to get into where i believe where director gonzalez and

staff have talked about is creating a financial stability policy or sustainability policy to really

look at those cost recovery matrices and are they where they need to be or where they need to go

i can tell you that the renting of an individual building is more individually based so traditionally you're

going to see a very much a little higher cost recovery on that versus a more community-based

program which would have a lower cost recovery but we haven't done any like cost recovery studies we

haven't said hey this is what our expenses are because we're talking about a building that was paid for

say the community center building that was paid for 70 years ago we pay zero property tax on it

right um really our only costs associated with renting that facility i would imagine are the maintenance

of that structure and some staff to make sure you know i i appreciate the staff that's there during

events that i've interacted with they're great um but we have some staff and we have the maintenance of

the building that's really what we're trying to and probably some administrative overhead uh by maintenance you

mean like all the operations in the last couple years yeah yeah so building maintenance right yeah

and equipment maintenance various utilities that keep that running if that's what you're including

maintenance yes okay do we have any idea what those costs we budgeted several hundred thousand dollars for

replacing tables and chairs and replacing the roof in the last four years yeah more than several hundred thousand

dollars in fact i think it was like 400 last year yeah okay yeah i'm just trying to understand what that

what the costs are you know it's building maintenance right and some staffing that's associated with it

right but if we don't rent out the facility the roof still eventually has to be replaced right

or we do something else with it where are you going i'm just trying to figure out what our costs are

uh where are we going above the cost recovery gotcha so so one of the things i'd like to suggest is uh as you

pointed out with your assessment of the vacancy rate that 133 could be higher i would contend that

if we use the same logic his numbers are lower than the council policy okay

okay we'd still remain below the policy so we'd still if you use the hours as you were suggesting

that the the vacancy rate would be lower than what we're saying oh yeah i think the vacancy rate is

is much much lower if we use the hours i think our vacancy rate is so i'm just saying that i i mean

we're splitting hairs a little bit looking at the 77 going to 80 percent because i mean i could argue it

that hey we're actually well below the right actually 10 off on our calculation right okay i understand and

if i could just add one more thing i know we have deferred maintenance at a lot of our facilities

for a very long time so our goal is really to develop those maintenance and replacement funds so

that we don't have to wait 10 years or five years when things are due uh to be replaced yeah i mean that's

a fundamental we're gonna overall budgetarily have to reassess everything has to do with our assets

uh because um we don't have renewal and replacement funds for each of those assets much like uh we've

talked about related to vehicles yay we have a new vehicle today but we know we're gonna have to replace

it even the the new roof of that center will have to be replaced so if you just amortize that 400 000

dollars that was i mean over a 20-year period i mean so i mean we're behind in many different areas and

so this is our attempt and i appreciate all our staff's effort to try to catch up

yeah i think that answers my uh cost recovery questions uh i'm good with questions okay council

member cause ask you any questions no thanks i have one question um tom the slide that shows the usage

you don't i don't think you have the rodeo arena on there no um pretty low usage at the rodeo arena

um but yet we are proposing um an increase to the rate what if we were to slash that rate and maybe

increase the usage um increase it in what way maybe somebody else would want to rent it out if the rate

was lower we've had two interests that i know of in the last year uh one of them was getting really close

to signing and then they pulled out uh for unknown reasons um if it's if it's not really designed for

the use of it as a rodeo plus the very limited um abilities that the arena has due to its age and

infrastructure it's getting really tough to get somebody other than what we have there right now as a

as a rodeo to to use it um we could go that way i just don't i don't believe there's going to be a

huge activation from just dropping that cost plus then as um brian was alluding to we have a lot of

facility demands at that at that rodeo arena specifically that we really need to address before we really

start to look at what level of activation there could be and then we've also looked at if we increase

it too much over a given time period what does that look for the residents that are adjacent down in the

um underside of the uh of the park there okay well increasing it by 300 but only renting it out a

few couple weeks a year i mean we're not going to generate a lot of revenue that could be then put

back into that facility right correct okay all right uh this is a public hearing so i'm going to go ahead and

open that up we have a couple requests to speak or at least one i guess you have a request from sally buchanan

sally's coming up i do think that your train of thought is a good one as far as how do we engage

or activate the rodeo grounds i think it's a great conversation that we should have

moving forward we really activate it once a year um and what could we do um to there's a lot of revenue

potential there so it could be a future item thank you i just want to add sorry but the renaissance

fair has been using that when they're here and i'm not sure how often they've been coming after

covid i think they're pulled out all together i don't know okay sally go ahead welcome good evening

everybody thanks um for allowing me to speak tonight i know you have a really tough job sitting through the

conversation on castle park um balancing budgets and getting things done things done aren't easy

i just want to make sure you keep in mind for our events that come to town um the fees that they are

charged most of our event promoters are small businesses or even non-profits themselves most of our

events um even activities that come and use these facilities are non-profits and they bring economic

impact to our city in regards to specifically to um special events um i want to mention one of our

promoters the rio del lago 100 mile race um we have a fee of a three dollars per runner to run on the johnny

cash trail um may make sense may not make sense are they running on the entire trail part of the trail

for that run the 100 miles 2.95 miles is on the johnny cash trail it's kind of an in and out they

require no services from the city at all um just they process their permit and pay their um they pay their

excuse me there's 1100 for 390 runners the help 1140 dollars the rest of them run 97 miles is through

state parks from fulsome all the way to auburn um they have to open restrooms open gates do all sorts of

other activities to help facilitate that run on that 97 miles on state parks and they only have to pay

under 850 dollars so just kind of keeping in mind those types of things when you're considering all these

fees um we want to encourage events to come um do business in fulsome the more we have the more um tax

money we have to close all these budget gaps so um we hope i would encourage you all to try i know we

have to make money that that 1500 that they pay is not going to build the johnny cash art trail but it

could potentially um make them rethink wanting to come have that great event in town which by the way

390 runners this past year many of them have teams of four to five to six people they come days before

and stay after it's you know um great for this city and just wanted to make sure um i put a little plug in

for the promoters thank you sally thank you all all right i'm going to close the public hearing that does

bring up a question and make maybe she answered in her comments but there's only a charge for people

using the johnny cash trail and not any other bike trail is that because of the planned art or what

is the reason for that so that started in 2017 is my understanding once the trail was completed

as a funding mechanism to build out the art experience it was modeled after what i believe was

found at state parks had a trail user fee as well as sack county and so they determined the three

dollars for that and that goes into a specific fund to help generate that while that race also has

contributed uh fulsome turkey trot um is a big contributor to that fund um of 10 to 12 000 annually they pay

wow okay thank you all right um i'll entertain a motion to focus this discussion please i'll move

you'll move you'll move adoption of item number sorry i i've lost my track of where i was reading here

i have too many scribbles on my page at this point so i will let's see this is item 10 10. um resolution

number 11387 resolution rescinding resolution number 8792 and adopting a new community facility rental fee

schedule with annual adjustments not to exceed the consumer price index we have a motion do we have

a second second any other discussion i have some discussion okay yeah i i'm uncomfortable with the indoor

venue fees pretty much across the board um i don't think we're just competing with public facilities uh here

uh i think we're competing with the private sector so i think looking at that analysis um would be helpful

uh i also think we provide um a service uh to non-profits by giving them some space uh in order to

meet regularly uh or host events and i have concerns that we haven't talked to them uh i have concerns that

we haven't notified them that their fees may be increasing and that they're going to learn about this next week

uh when they read about it in the folsom telegraph uh so i think for those reasons i'm hesitant um

i've been a long-term advocate of lowering our park pavilion fees uh i rented calethea park years ago for

my own event because it was way too expensive to rent something in folsom um and at that point i started

arguing to lower our fees i'm glad we are finally lowering those i'm very supportive of adding the couple

of pavilions that are there i think the range is appropriate um there are cheaper options around

like black miners bar at state parks it's 125 for a pavilion i can still i can rent calethea and other

auto hills for 130 so there are some other venues around that we're not in there i would love to have

seen one or two that were a little lower but hey 125 and 160 it's it's close enough i i appreciate that

we're lowering it from 250 um and i like the staff's consideration of hey let's just do it once a day

i appreciate uh the outdoor venues being you know being added there i didn't really see any data on those

but we're lowering the fees i think i'm supportive of that really where my challenge is is the indoor

venue stuff and just making sure we we tell people and get their input

it um and i and i understand we have deferred maintenance on all these things oh but i think

that we could figure out other ways of doing it right um peak season are there a way we can turn

things over um early in the day i just think it's uh i would be in favor of smaller adjustments too that

would be another way that i could get on board but they're pretty significant you know um going for

you know some of these are two and a half times um and other ones are or a smaller percentage so i

think if we were doing all smaller percentage i'd get on board but um some of them are just really big

hikes overnight and i just don't think we should do that uh so i have a question for you um so

the indoor venues you're talking about the community service center and rotary clubhouse right and

so i'm seeing that it's 20 except for the rotary is a 30 increase no those that's the percent

chain that's not the actual change that's from the list rate

so from current list rate to new list rate is that percent change okay yeah so for the ballroom

their percentage is 187

minus 125 divided by 125 so they're getting a 50 percent overnight increase oh you're talking about

the non-profits the community center ballroom yep

i had two things to this discussion for you one not related to the resolution of community facility

fees but is in our policy for user fees and charges is there is a stipulation that fulsom based

non-profits receive one free fee waiver usage that is of our community facility during the weekday

throughout the one given year so they can use one time that uh throughout the year that's why to your

point uh councilman raythel you saw a high use of non-profits at the community center because we see

activation of their use during that midweek time so we do have that as well also point out uh councilman

roebar in that attachment that talks about the current rates to proposed rates one of the things

i struggled with was i could find no methodology as to how they came from a list rate to a resident to

a non-profit in the current rate schedule it was at one 43 percent different another one was 30 percent

different there was no methodology to figure out how they came to that whereas what we're trying to do

here is get it onto a system of methodology to understand well what's the discount applied to

a resident here in fulsom well that's 25 what's a discount applied to a non-profit well that's 45

off the list rate which becomes systematic across the board versus what we currently have which

unfortunately nobody myself or anybody in staff really knows how we came about that okay but but for

them do you realize you know 100 that non-profit rate at the rotary clubhouse is 160 increase right

right without notice right if i'm a if i'm a long-term renter and i get a 160 increase

overnight without being told that i'm doing it do you understand how i would probably go find someplace

else to rent like it's a right like hey by the way thanks for renting for the last 20 years or 30 years

or oh i don't even know how long they've been there i think before i would jump to that as the staff

member to work with them again i'm not in a position to change these fees without a council resolution

sure so if i go talk to them a week ago to a month ago i'd be talking them preventively without even

knowing what that's really going to be because i don't have a fee change in front of me from you all

so i'll move to amend the resolution uh with a maximum increase of indoor facility venues by 10

okay you have to make a substitute motion because i won't accept that yeah i won't accept that motion

you have a better suggestion of how we cap the increase procedurally you need to make i'll make a

substitute motion to pass resolution number 11387 with a maximum increase of 10 percent i really don't

like calculating these by percentages um i mean for example we just went through the whole matoma station

thing and people's um were calculating by percentage what they would be paying so i'm just saying the

increase would be that's what i'm saying the increase do we have a second for the substitute

motion i i'm just i just want to put that out there if you know you say you're going to increase it from

10 to 20 oh it's increased 100 what was your motion again 10 percent a maximum cap of 10 percent of

yeah and i'm open to another number i'm just coming up with a different strategy

to where we don't blindside people well the only thing i can see that because you keep saying 100

over 100 percent so that's the rotary clubhouse is the only one that i can see that's going over 100

percent am i am i missing something no that i just want to make sure i'm on the right that's correct

there's uh the community center ballroom would be going up 50 percent

oh so it just depends on which rate category you look at right that's

i can keep doing some calculator i'm seeing okay so if we that that was my confusion that's

because the list right i mean the current rate for non-profits is 125 an hour if you take the ballroom

and you're they're proposing a 20 increase of 187. oh so that's 20 that's what's confusing about

so it's 187 so that's like a 50 increase that's not 50 50. 125 dollars an hour to 187 dollars

right okay but it's below 50 okay sorry i'm going to interject here for a second just sorry

we don't we have a motion for a substitute motion we do not have a second so that substitute motion

dies for lack of a second right i am going to make a substitute motion that we table this to the next

meeting to allow some outreach to regular users of some of these facilities people who are like when i

talk about regular users i'm talking about somebody who uses it weekly right and then allow staff to

bring this back at the next i think i support that second all right we have a motion and a substitute

motion and a second can we call the roll please council member leary yes rathal yes rober yes kozlowski

no aquino yes all right next item please thank you tom

okay item number 11 i'm afraid also deals with fees resolution number 11390 resolution rescinding

resolution number 10697 and adopting a new fee schedule for the folsom city zoo sanctuary

good evening jocelyn good evening madam mayor and members of the council

jocelyn smeltzer zoo manager here to discuss a proposed entry fee increase to the folsom city

zoo sanctuary as you know the folsom zoo opened in 1963 we're a beloved regional treasure enjoyed by

folsom residents and visitors from all over we're home to over 40 species of animals and over 80

individuals some of them listed here like herbie the black bear reggie the raccoon and echo the mountain

lion all of our animals as you know are rescues that couldn't survive in the wild

so we're here to talk about our folsom municipal code that says the fees for the entrance to the

folsom city zoo shall be established by resolution of the city council and also that all fees shall be

collected at the gate used to offset the cost of administering maintaining and improving the zoo and

speaking of improvements there's a photo of one of our volunteer groups we get corporate work parties as

you know they've been helping us a lot lately we really appreciate it we try to be very aggressive

with our entrance fee benchmarking we review market demand user trends competitors and the cost of

service before we come to you with a recommendation we also make sure our proposed fees are consistent

with other regional facilities both public and private and recreational opportunities that are sort of

similar to the zoo or last about the same amount of time as a zoo visit you also see some of our camp

kids and another volunteer corporate work party i think that one might be intel so we benchmarked i can't

remember it was about 13 or 15 different facilities these are just some of them listed here

we wanted to look at places say that a family might go to recreate and looked at their fees

um we always evaluate regional areas that people might ghost and it could be something like a museum

or going to the movies with your family when you see norcal aquarium and wildlife that's the place

formerly known as sequest and that's their new name

so the entrance fee increase of course over the years since we've been here we started out free and we've had

many increases over the years the most recent one was back in october of 2021 where all the fees

increased to seven dollars for all of our guests that are over age two so it's definitely time for

another increase we did go to our parks and recreation commissioners and they in september unanimously

recommended that the folsom city council approve our proposed fee increase and also establish a proposed fee range

these are some photos of our visitors lining up to get in on some nice weather days

so what we are proposing is that changes to entrance fees for the zoo sanctuary will be reviewed annually

and brought to the city council in july as part of the annual city fee schedule the specific proposal

tonight it would be effective july 1st 2025 so we could have time to get the word out to the public and that

we would increase the entry fee to ten dollars and then establish a range of ten to fifteen dollars for entry fees

going forward and that gives staff time to review and analyze annually any needed adjustments that we

have our proposed fee increase would bring in additional 250 000 of new revenue that would not be

seen in the budget document you were provided today we want to be proactive with setting this fee range so

that we can increase the entry fee as needed we want to return to you if we were to go over the fifteen

dollars but we'll review them annually look at the consumer price index and all those things that i

previously mentioned that we do with our aggressive benchmarking

so our recommendation tonight is that you amend resolution number 10697 and with an adoption of a new

resolution to update our entry fee and implement our new fees this coming july 1st

uh those photos show some zoo camp kids which our camps are filling up quickly for summer and also a

photo of one of our wonderful docents many of them are in the audience tonight so i'm available for

any questions you might have thank you jocelyn any questions for jocelyn council member warbaugh oh do you

have any no council member leary oh yeah i'm at the zoo often with my two and a half year old grandson

um and it it seems to me that there are a large number of people there every single weekend both

days um do you have uh an average number of attendance yeah on our busy days when the weather

is good you know our busy days are a thousand people um usually the average is probably lower than that

you know 600 700 we also have our big upcoming events you know our black bear weekend that's coming

up it's going to be packed we have honey honey bee weekend coming up in a couple months it'll be even

more packed for those uh we're glad that they sort of spread it out over the year uh thursdays and

fridays are super busy in the spring because we have a lot of our school groups and then we've raised

um increased our times to be in the morning well we're opening earlier for summer so that helps to

get people in early because as you know when it gets really hot nobody wants to go anywhere and there

are there fees that the school groups pay they are yes they pay um tour fees and then the docents lead

those tours so we'll be looking into what those changes would be to your point with the fees and

giving them lots of notice for that once we see what you guys approve tonight right and then i

understand there you're also going to be looking at the annual pass fees correct the friends of the

zoo will look at their membership fees as well and um everything will go up a little bit accordingly

i i mean this is one of the most affordable places to take a two and a half year old it cost me 50

to take him to the sacramento zoo between the two of us so i'm all in favor of this so thank you for

your presentation thank you thanks for coming i do have a quick okay it's i don't know if you'll know

it but what do you think your average stay is when someone comes and visits are they there an hour or

like three hours right so that depends um you know i'm a member of the friends of the zoo so my kids you

know once they got to know the two they could power walk through it and you know 30 minutes or whatever but

usually people it's about an hour we'll have people who are just really into animals or taking photos

and they might be there two hours or they bring a snack and and let their kids eat while they play

so it could be longer but i'd say about an hour i love the palladio movie comparison uh thank you for

putting in some some other uh you know options for entertainment that's here uh one of the things that

kind of just got me thinking about was you know you have your your tuesday night cheaper movie night

uh at palladio right so i know that encourages if you go to the theater on a tuesday it's

packed right but if you go on a monday or a wednesday it's very low attendance so have you

guys thought about any sort of approach like that where you do have a little lower day where you want

to pack it in we used to do that we used to have half price tuesdays um and then they were getting

sort of overwhelming um with attendance and years ago some of you might remember we even would have

like an annual free day but that got pretty out of control it was kind of getting unsafe we had to

really limit limit that so but we can certainly look into some discounts like that or maybe you

know sort of a buy one get one are things we can do to make it more affordable and you don't need

any authority from us to correct right those special marketing things we can totally do awesome i'm

just thinking about getting new people in the door right that then come back and pay the the regular

fee so long term it's an investment and getting a new person that wouldn't normally go so absolutely

great suggestion thank you council member koslowski is there a season pass option there is through the

friends of the zoo absolutely yes glad to hear that all right this is a public hearing i'm going to

open the public hearing do we have any requests to speak nope then i'm going to close the public hearing

and we'll entertain a motion i will move approval of resolution one one three nine zero second all

right we have a motion in a second please call the roll council member leary yes rachel yes rober yes

kozlowski yes aquino yes zach thank you for your patience

still the greatest bargain in town

okay this takes you to your new business calendar you have four items tonight under new business

the first is item number 12 this is resolution number 11377 this is a resolution adopting a list

of projects for fiscal year 2526 to be funded by sb1 the road repair and accountability act

you don't want to stay for the road repair

it's really good

okay next time

good evening council madam mayor zach bosch senior civil engineer in your public works department

uh tonight i'll be presenting the project list for our sb1 for fiscal year uh 2526

the road repair and recover accountability act was passed in 2017 it's better known as sb1 it's

essentially your gas tax and monies from those go to fund our critical maintenance of our infrastructure

our payment rehab as well as some other items

our payment rehab as well as some other items that are available to the city of the city of the city

or california transportation commission uh by july 1st in order to be eligible to receive and spend

those funds so this presentation will uh list those proposed projects uh that we will be submitting to ctc

uh first off is our citywide ada compliance project so these are repair locations of sidewalks within

district 4. uh these have been assessed with a consultant um these each of these pinpoints is a lifted sidewalk

or a crack or in a project that we is eligible for repair with sb1 funds uh as well as inspection of

district one so we repair one district and then we inspect another one and then next year we do the

repairs in the district that we inspected and then we kind of leapfrog every year so we're continuously

rotating through the city to find and repair and replace some of these cracked and damaged sidewalks

uh also is uh the pavement rehabilitation portion of the project uh so we regularly evaluate and

prioritize street segments uh using a combination of payment scores roadway usage and available funding

so for this fiscal year or next fiscal year 25 26 several streets within briggs ranch have been

identified through our citywide pavement assessment uh strong candidates for surface treatment such as

cape seals or double slurry seals these pavement treatments within these neighborhoods are

are chosen to prolong the pavement life in a cost effective and efficient manner so they're not a full

overlay they're much more cost effective than that you get a lot of surface treatments with the money that

we're able to spend so this this project uh within briggs ranch is just one of the treatments and

strategies that we use to preserve our pavement elsewhere in the community we are implementing crack fill

crack ceiling pavement digouts and full asphalt overlays so all this all this selection is done with our data

driven process so we go out and analyze our pavement surfaces every five years i believe we're due up for a new one next next fiscal year

so once that will be completed we'll have a new assessment of our pavement condition index or pci

and we'll use that data to prioritize new locations in the future

so that concludes my presentation on this i tried to make it as short as possible knowing that it's

procedural and and this is just something that we have to submit annually but i'm happy to answer any

questions you have thank you very much any questions for zach this way any questions for zach

any requests to speak all right don't want to take a motion sorry sorry i was just i was searching

i'm sorry just keep going i'm i was searching for i know i have some questions in here but one of the

one of the ones was um you submitted um four projects no that's this is a different item oh that's why i was

confused i'm going to be speaking in a couple yeah a couple more why am i so yeah all right i'll move

resolution number 1137 so second we have motion and second please call the roll council member leary

yes rathal yes roerbaugh yes koslowski yes aquino yes thank you thank you all right item number 13

resolution number 11385 this is a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute an

interagency agreement for cost sharing of the water forum successor effort and habitat management

element budget of the water forum marcus good evening

good evening mayor aquino members of the council marcus yasutake environmental and water resources

director interim public works director i do want to thank zach for being here tonight to cover item 12

that you just saw on and soon to be item 14 i'm getting up to speed but glad he is here to help

answer any of these questions uh so this item tonight just want to give you a quick overview of the the

water forms history the agreement goals the original water form elements the work that we're doing to update

the current water form agreement which is now known as water form 2050 the program areas that are in

water form 2050 the new funding formula and then just a quick schedule so the history back in the

early 90s when there's a lot of development activity and work for water supply going in and around the

american river a lot of the agencies in the region were fighting amongst themselves not necessarily

water agencies against water agencies but more environmental groups and water agencies trying to

figure out how all this development was going to be supported from a water supply standpoint

as well as how to not harm or do damage to the environmental ecosystem within the region so a lot of the

members from all both the environmental caucus the water caucus which consisted of all the water agencies

the public caucus and then effectively and importantly as well was a public caucus all came together

and hashed out kind of a long-term agreement at the time which was originally brought together through

the city of sacramento and the county of sacramento as kind of the the the jpa agency so to say not effectively a jpa

but those two agencies holding uh responsibilities for hiring and implementing projects uh in the mid 90s the

negotiations began and then in 2000 the water form agreement was signed there were about 40 signatories uh

including the city of folsom and then as i mentioned you had a water caucus an environmental caucus a business caucus and a public caucus and a public caucus and a

effectively this was to achieve two co-equal objectives one was to provide a reliable

reliable water supply for the region through the year 2030 and then preserve the fishery wildlife

recreational and aesthetic values of the lower american river the the original seven elements in the water form

agreement are shown here i'll highlight number three number four and number seven because i think these have been very

very helpful for the city of folsom in terms of the overall agreement in the 25 years that it's been in

place uh we haven't had a need to increase our surface water supplies given the the strong foundation that our pre-1914

water rights are built upon and the central valley project that the city has so the city of folsom wasn't in

this to try to get more water from somewhere so that effectively applied to other agencies actions during dry years

pretty much everybody that's a water agency within the water form agreement does this so there's no particular

benefit or detriment to the city it just effectively identifies okay when certain year types exist from a

hydrologic standpoint what are various agencies going to do and what how can we convene to talk about

the effects of limited water or a lack of cold water per se for environmental purposes number three was very

critical and this this happened several years ago but it was effectively developing a flow management

standard for the amount of water at a certain time of the year that is available to the bureau of

reclamation to operate so effectively in september and december we are trying to target a certain

storage volume in folsom reservoir which typically correlates to amount of cold water that's in the

reservoir for fishery purposes and so this flow standard identifies based on the year type and

the hydrologic conditions snowpack snow melt how reclamation will operate folsom reservoir for the

purposes of meeting the water supplies within the region but also the ecosystem benefits along the lower

american river and prior to this there what reclamation did not have an mou or an agreement with

our agencies to effectively try to strive for a certain end of the month storage in september or

december and that was really critical for us because it effectively helps our region get through two

consecutive dry years without significant impacts from a perspective of us delivering our water supplies

the next one is habitat management that was the other co-equal objective or one of the co-equal objectives

for the the water forum and we have been able to get about close to 38 million dollars of habitat

improvements within the lower american river whether that was adding gravel redistributing gravel for the

purposes of rearing and spawning for the different fish habitat or connecting what they call side channels that

would go dry if you're able to then re-channel those areas you can connect those which provide different

benefits for different fish species and we're able to collaborate with the bureau of reclamation

through what they call the central valley project improvement act and that was critical in

reclamation's operations to also develop habitat so we've been able to collaborate real well with

reclamation to bring a lot of these projects together and monetize reclamation funding to get to that 38

million dollars now water conservation this was a driver at the time and it was something

that everybody was doing and then over the years the state stepped in and said you're going to do

more groundwater management not critical for Folsom in the sense that we're pumping groundwater

but important to the region for those that do pump groundwater and again this is another area where

the state has come in and said you must do more across the board so not a significant impact from

Folsom's perspective and then the water forum successor effort that's really the the group and the staff at the

water forum that implement the projects that work with the consultants of the data analysis that work

with the bureau of reclamation to implement the mou that the water form agreement or the water form has

with um reclamation so this is effectively the team that's leading the charge for all of us as signatories

so the the updated water form agreement or water form 2050 we started this work in 2020 did take some pauses

here and there due to the pandemic which i i think affected many in terms of working on agreements like

this but we've continued to move forward maybe slow more slowly than some of us would like but i think at a

correct pace to to make sure that we're doing everything in the right direction and doing it all correctly

some of the main drivers is just in 2025 you know the the regulatory environment is different than it was in the

the mid-90s in terms of what the state's requiring for uh water agencies whether it's water use efficiency

anything that's occurring within the delta so the bay delta water quality control plan and then groundwater

management those are kind of the big the big three areas that are significantly different than existed in the

mid-90s uh changing precipitation and snow patterns so that has a an effect on Folsom storage updated science and

monitoring it's different today than than what it was in terms of how to analyze the different projects

that are implemented how to record temperatures how to do the modeling effectively uh and then operational

challenges at Folsom reservoir so just more statewide drivers in terms of where water needs to go for

different purposes ultimately affects how reclamation will operate Folsom reservoir so the program areas

there aren't seven elements anymore there's effectively five but they have a lot of the same function that the

original seven do it's just they're updated to reflect the current regulatory environment that we are all operating in

so one is american river flows and operations that's effectively the flow management standard that i mentioned earlier

american river corridor health that's the habitat management part so the habitat work that goes in the the lower american river

regional water supply sustainability that kind of touches on the drier actions and

the groundwater side of the equation in one of the seven elements or two of the seven elements sorry

science monitoring and decision support so we didn't have an effective

track record in terms of the science and the data and the monitoring to implement new things as they came along so

this does reflect okay here's what we are going to do collectively to ensure that

any decisions that are made have some scientific backing to it and then governing funding and administration

so that's the the last element

this is what on the right is the proposed funding formula the left is the current funding formula so

effectively how the city pays and other water agencies pay is just how many active water services

service connections you have they take the total divided how many you have and that's your percentage

the city of sacramento and the county of sacramento since the water form agreement was signed they are the

only two agencies that have been paying into the habitat management element since its inception so the city

fulsome and some others have been able to not pay into this fund and effectively the city and the county

have been paying basically the region's share since the inception and then habitat costs are adjusted annually per

the enr index that's listed and so the proposed funding formula effectively

makes the the distribution of payments more equitable across the region and the conclusion came to

connection counts being 40 of that formula so it's weighted groundwater production is 20 and then american river

diversions are 40 so we get connection counts and the american river diversions

0.20 of zero is zero for us in terms of the waiting for the groundwater just because we don't pump any

groundwater and then each year looking back five years that will be the average of each of those three

items to basically identify what your next fiscal year budget is going to be

so in terms of schedule may and june of 2025 this draft agreement that's before you is going to be going to

the draft agreement sorry in and of itself is being distributed to all of the parties within the working groups

the interagency cost share agreement which is what's before you tonight are going to the respective boards and councils for

uh their approval in the summer of 25 the public draft of water form 2050 will be available for review

with anticipation that fall 2025 we get approval by all the signatories and then summer of 2030 would be the

first five-year review looking back that is all the information i have and we are fortunate that councilmember leary

has been a part of the water farm agreement as well wearing a different hat than mine so if she has

anything to add i would welcome her feedback all right thank you i'm gonna start with questions over

here are are all of the water agencies or water purveyors in the county now going to be chipping in here

that is correct yes that's it thanks

i did want to add quite a bit but marcus you did a great job on that and it's taken me what six years on

the water forum to get a hang of what all the acronyms mean and thank you for not using them

tonight because i think people would be staring into space but one thing i wanted to point out and and

uh and you did cover this and that was i think there's been really collaborative work done between

the business the public the water purveyors and uh the environmental groups during this process and you

know there's a lot of things that i think people don't um kind of don't understand was what we're

working towards and we discussed this a lot during the meetings that marcus held last year for the public to

go over that the fulsome um plan for water and and and a big piece of what i think is will be helpful and he

mentioned that we don't actually pump any groundwater here is that there is a huge collaborative process taking place where

by water storage is being done conjunctively with other water purveyors in the region and that's

underground storage and during that process you lose uh you don't lose as much water as you do by evaporation

in um open water storage facilities that are created by dams and uh we should have the capability down the

line to be storing some water um in conjunction with uh carmichael and uh san juan districts at least

and then in dry years have that availability and uh the one thing i also want to point out is that

you know we talk about saving the environment and making sure that we have a healthy river downstream

the the river in the american river in this county draws eight million visitors per year and so it's

actually an economic driver in terms of people you know coming here to fish uh you know for tourism rafting

you know swimming and and other activities that don't play take place if you're running a dry river all

summer long so uh i think there's a benefit uh from that perspective as well so i'm um i don't know if

anybody has any other questions but it's been a really positive experience and again i think that

the groups are working together collaboratively to make sure we all have enough water and water to

um recreate in as well thank you uh do we have any requests to speak on this item nope we have no requests so

we'll entertain a motion i'll move resolution number 11385 we have a motion and second please call the

roll council member leary yes rathal yes roerbaugh yes kozlowski yes and akino yes thank you thank you

thank you item number 14 is resolution number 11386 this is a resolution authorizing the city manager to

submit an application for funding through the safe streets for all grant program administered by the

u.s department of transportation thank you krista yeah uh zach bosch city of folsom public works

department senior civil engineer uh here to talk about safe streets for all grant application that

we're considering applying for uh i will go over an overview of what the safe streets for all program

is because i think it adds context of what projects we chose and why we chose them uh so i think there's a

a little bit of background of of the program and why we selected the projects we did so safe streets

for all program is a federal initiative supporting the efforts to eliminate roadway fatalities and serious

injuries there's two tracks uh within the program there's a planning and demonstration portion of the

grant and there's an implementation portion of the grant um the planning and demonstration portion

is creation of an action plan that you use for the implementation grants so it's your basis for the

implementation portion of the program uh we have developed an action plan it was our local road

safety plan that we adopted last year uh so we are using that as our foundation for the implementation

the projects have to be identified within that that action plan to be eligible for this grant

project um agencies are only able to select one track and they're only able to submit one project for

this notice of funding opportunity this nofo so we have to be very selective in the projects that we

go after and we have to have a lot of basis uh and data to support that that grant application so this

further goes into what the action planning track is versus the implementation track

um the planning is more of a the action planning is more of a planning document while the implementation is your

physical capital improvement uh projects can i just stop you right there yeah please do yeah before i get confused

so there's four projects i'm on the right one this time uh and you're going to ask us to

pick one because you said agencies select one track one project yes so you're going to ask us to pick one

pick one i'm going to ask you to pick one of the four yeah okay so we're going to submit like a menu and

you can pick that helps thank you of course um i think that's all the information i wanted to convey on

this slide uh back to uh the app the grant itself uh applications we do have a quick turnaround time for

this they're due uh june 26th uh we have we do have a consultant under contract to perform staff support for

application of this grant uh they're kind of waiting for the results of this discussion tonight to move

forward on the project uh but we we were able to reallocate funds from our local road safety plan

project uh for this effort um so it's about a billion dollars of grant grant funds available and you can

see the breakdown uh on the screen there the implementation portion of the grants is the majority of the funding

available uh and it's really geared towards your big big scale projects your your two and a half million

to 25 million dollar projects that are eligible for this uh while the planning and demonstration grants

are your quick builds um you're you're easy to achieve results uh which is why the expected number of awards is

is so high there they really do emphasize the creation of action plans but since we already have one

uh we really don't have to go after that the priorities of the grant again are to promote safety

and prevent fatal and serious injuries um while installing low-cost high-impact strategies uh innovation

is another big component of it as well as community and stakeholder engagement so those are the priorities

and these are the selection criteria within the grant uh the first one and the biggest one is the safety

of the project that you need uh the problem has to be identified it has to be habitual uh it has to be

shown in a high injury network of your roadway um so again these are all important factors when we talk

about project selection uh criteria two is your safety impact the proposed project has to reduce the severity or the

seriousness of the injuries so you look for uh elements that would reduce those those collisions and the severity

uh criteria three is your engagement and collaboration so going out and meeting with the public

or any other stakeholders and engaging with them to devise a project that that they

that they're in favor of uh so these are some other elements in the notice of funding authorization

opportunity um just really emphasizing what the projects are geared towards micromobility those are your

your scooters your e-bikes uh they may not be favorably viewed but emphasizing roadway safety for all

users will be viewed favorably favorably access to school or safety of children will be viewed favorably

and then uh surprising enough areas of persistent poverty that have a high birth rate and marriage late

rate will be favorably reviewed so this is just from the text of the funding opportunity

uh funding and match and budget guidance uh this is an 80 20 split from federal funds to local fund match

there is an in-kind contribution so staff time is eligible for that 20 percent uh if we were awarded we

we would um obviously catalog our time and and use that for eligible funding match um

uh deadline from the deadline of application to available funding we're seeing about a six to nine

month turnaround time just in general uh that's from previous years and previous applications so

uh if we were notified of award it would be towards the end of this calendar year and then you would enter

an agreement with um the federal government and to get reimbursed and that could be done as early as

february of march of next year can you repeat what you said about keeping track of your time and that

is calculated towards uh in-kind contribution can be calculated towards the 20 percent yes i just want

to make sure i heard that right so into the project selection so we use three or four documents to

develop and cross-reference to develop these these proposed projects that is your active transportation plan

uh which was adopted in spring of 2022 uh your local road safety plan which was recently adopted in 2024

we also use vision plans so our central business district vision plan our river district master

plan or vision plan uh our general plan these are all elements that we we cross cross-referenced uh to

develop this project list uh the projects that we selected city staff selected were natoma street from prison road

to folsom boulevard and i'll go into each one in depth so you can understand the the scope of each project

uh the second project was east bidwell from coloma

to orchard third was riley street from east bidwell to wales

and the fourth was prairie city road from highway 50 to alder creek parkway

so the first one in-depth look is natoma street

uh so this is right in and out in front of city hall here as well as continuing down to folsom boulevard

there are opportunities to to make that connection from the johnny cash trail all the way down to the

american river parkway on the tomah street we have multiple uh uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks along the

corridor as well as a a road that can fit additional features such as a bike lane or pedestrian enhancements

um bulb out specifically that would narrow the crossing uh it would help to reconnect

some of the historic district from the southern side of natoma street back into the northern side

as well as enhance the the bicycle and pedestrian facilities along there would that reduce any parking

uh no parking would still be available along the street yeah we still have enough space to fit

up both parking lane and a bike lane so referencing the data to support that this is from our local road

safety plan we had a few complaints of pain at some of these crossings mostly motor vehicle accidents

so a fair number but not nothing staggering so moving on to east bidwell east bidwell is from coloma

to orchard this was done in conjunction with the central business district vision plan down there so this

was a reallocation of existing roadway space you can see the proposed cross section on the bottom of the

screen there so it reallocates some of the travel lane width into additional bike lanes right now we

currently we don't have bike lanes on east bidwell uh but this project would would re-stripe that to

include that feature we have also discussed through our roundabout feasibility project

both at coloma and at glenn potentially including roundabouts there at that for stop for intersection control

and then filling in a gap a missing gap of sidewalk from coloma to market street

as well as removing and replacing some of the the older sidewalk on the southern edge of this of the

uh the roadway there kind of near fulsom like i'm a little bit confused about the order you're

saying east bid will up here but the second item on this is riley street roundabout project in your packet

in the packet so i'm

oh i'll get to riley street on you're not presenting these in your recommended order right not yet okay this is

just okay but this one is speaking to the the third east bid will complete streets project yes that one

okay correct so i want to make sure yeah and please interject if you have any questions about the scope

of the work um but yeah we see this as a critical gap closure measure for our sidewalk uh network uh as well

as a better use of of pavement uh to include cyclists on the road riley street again we talked at length

about this during our roundabout feasibility uh portion but this is this is that same project the

four roundabouts one east at east bidwell one of the coals uh entry uh one at glenn and uh another one at wales

uh this is the data to support that this is the the crash data from 2020 to 2023 uh so you can see the

density of collisions uh vehicle collisions on east bidwell as well as riley street uh on your screen

there so uh both streets have a significant number of of collisions um along there with east bidwell just

having a little bit more dense uh collisions at wales and at glenn

and this one is the the same segments but uh for your vulnerable road users so your bike and pedestrian

crashes so east bidwell had a couple severes and a couple um other visible injuries and as well as riley

street had some complaints of pain and some other visible injuries and finally uh the prairie city road

project uh so this is the uh general plan uh cross section below on your screen um this is this is

something that we're not in in the order of projects this will probably not be at the top of our list

because we were working in conjunction with the development community to to bring these enhancements

through that that partnership there so uh seeking active grant funds may not be uh the best avenue

but we certainly had an overlap between our established general plan the local road safety plan

our active transportation plan it showed up on that that matrix uh so this is a crash history on

prairie city road uh before you tonight is our uh estimated cost for the projects so natoma street is

between two and three million uh it also shows your our estimated local match as well as the funding source

for that local match so these are general high level estimates but it gives you an idea of what

what uh the project would cost as well as what we would be obligated to match with with funds or in-kind contributions

um and finally uh this is a matrix i put together kind of

the different plans we looked at uh as well as the criteria of the safe streets for all grant program

uh so if you look at this uh the the first two really are our best opportunity and our our most

competitive projects um to submit on behalf of this project and due to the the density of collisions on

east bidwell the severity of those collisions um as well as the cost effective nature of that project it

would be our our selection our recommendation to the city council to to submit on behalf uh of that project

uh but i'm happy to answer any questions uh but i will leave you with these two uh should we apply for

the state streets for all grant and if so which project should we prioritize off the list can you go

back two slides just yeah okay

so zach i'm going to kick this off uh the project that i was surprised that isn't up there and maybe

it's not eligible and if so i'd like to know why is the santa juanita that's something that you know

comes up every few years and obviously there's a history of accidents there is that not eligible for

this grant uh it certainly would be eligible um competitive is a different answer i think because

really we we had a couple uh roadside deviations people who have driven off the road um but the

severity of those crashes really hasn't been serious injury or or fatal so if you're looking at reduction of

those serious and fatal collisions through this grant project process um it may not be as competitive

as other roadways where we have established history or or accident data showing severe and fatal collisions

got it and then my second question is so when you apply let's just say we say yes we want to apply we

tell you which one you're applying for full funding and is that correct yeah correct and is it either all or

or nothing or will they maybe come back and say well we'll give you a east bidwell street but we're

only going to give you this much money uh in this program it's usually full funding okay or nothing

yeah from previous uh grants that have been awarded it seems to be full funding for those okay

thanks may we have any questions just uh just a question really on the east bidwell project you had that as

number one on your list why would is it number one and riley number two was it just those number of

accidents really that you feel is going to make it more eligible um i think the the number of accidents

that have occurred the severity of those actions we've recently had an unfortunate string of fatalities

on east bidwell um as well as the the competitive nature of the cost of the project i think if you look

at both those elements it makes it just a tiny bit more competitive uh than riley street and then

are you comfortable i know we had kind of talked about where the roundabouts make sense to go first

it would you be comfortable moving the east bidwell street roundabouts forward i know when we talked

before as a group it was like well the riley street ones kind of stuck out as the most likely but it's

really just the availability of this funding that may change that calculation i think so yeah i think

we're just we're just casting a line out there and we're seeing what what hooks and um you know these

are big competitive capital projects uh the the opportunities to develop a project or program that

large it's very far and few between and i think this safe streets for all program is one of those

opportunities where we can ask potentially ask for 10 million dollars and get 10 million dollars in grant

funding so i think if you look at it that way it's probably um a good chance for us and then last

question you say the funding source for the match is measure a but these aren't necessarily

new or different measure a funds than we would normally be able to use for

and then we would be able to use the funding source for the project and then we would be able to use

to offset general fund expenses so it's still money that we could use for repairs that we would be using

on capital improvements yes and i think there is overlap on east bidwell specifically because that

roadway is in pretty bad disrepair in that segment of road so there would be a pavement preservation or

pavement rehab element to the project and that's encapsulated in the cost estimate and that's

where you get the ability to to restripe the roadway to include bike lanes okay that makes

it probably a little more attractive then yes you're getting some maintenance done too okay thank you

councilmember koslowski any questions i don't have any questions all right councilmember rober

can you go back to the slide around east bidwell with the data yeah that one this is the

called the vehicle collisions and then the bike and patents okay so this one wouldn't reduce the lanes

correct it wouldn't limit it's not going to reduce the traffic lanes at all the number of traffic

lanes no just the width of the traffic okay and it's including striping i lost it yeah it's okay

on the bottom of the screen it somewhat shows what the proposed oh there you go a cross section would be

but we're not asking for a roundabout because that's a whole nother that's what confused me about this

slide um in this grant application we're not saying are we saying are you going to be saying that we

want to put a roundabout in there's there it is identified in the local road safety plan as a

proposal for under 10 for six to ten million uh yes yes but that then that would reduce the lanes

uh based on the roundabout feasibility within the roundabout itself you would reduce it down to one lane it

would be a one lane roundabout right when you exit the roundabout there's a potential to go back to

the two lanes you would just have to narrow it down but two i forget how many feet how many feet before

a roundabout a single lane roundabout it's like 250 250 feet yeah on each side to reduce it down to one

lane which i don't think improves our traffic situation there so that's this is the slide that

this is the project that i was going to support but that right there saying potential roundabout that's a

whole nother discussion um and i have grave concerns about that we had businesses come out and say this

is going to you know drastically uh reduce um the access to their businesses right in that area um

so i have concerns about this one because of that i mean if it was the striping and doing all of that i

mean can we can we leave out the roundabout in the grant application certainly yeah and do uh and what

else could we do then in that and i'm not saying leave it out forever but i don't think we're in a

point that if we got this grant allocation for 10 million dollars and now all of a sudden we're going

to turn it away because there's going to be a roundabout i mean but this is a big concern of mine i feel like

we're kind of um trying to get something by not you right not you're not trying to but um we had a lot

of pushback on the central district visioning plan and then on the roundabout ideas on east bidwell because

of reducing the lanes to from four lanes or five lanes however you say it to two lanes for this situation so

i think this is a slippery slope there's there was a lot of angst if i may um about potential for

roundabouts in that area without an actual road plan being fully vetted so i i would personally like to

see us keep our options open it says potential if that's the way that it's worded in the grant

application i see no harm in there i think there's a potential roundabout so that we can do the engineering

that's necessary to determine what the best traffic mitigation i wouldn't be comfortable leaving

that language in there without public input and them being aware that this is a possibility for a grant

i think i think we are not being good stewards of representing the people that this would affect

with a roundabout madame america i asked a question

uh sec uh when we submit these applications and let's say we're awarded and you go through the

design aspect um would we be able to have public outreach at that time about what i mean we're

considering the like before we get to 30 or 60 or 90 we have the ability to do uh public outreach to

say hey this is what we're looking at and before we get too far down um thank you for the question

yeah i think it's critical uh a project like this a dynamic project like this that could change

the character i think public outreach and and discussion within the stakeholders is crucial

to developing a project and a plan that fits the needs of the users out there and is that something we

can include in the grant application that that one of the cost elements would be public outreach yeah

certainly uh within the design uh consultant contract we can include that scope but my question then would

be with we we if we choose this grant this one this project and then we receive it um are we going to

turn it away i mean that would be silly if you know because if there's enough pushback i i i guess the

follow-up question is uh if we say potential roundabout it doesn't mean we have to put a roundabout

or does it um i don't think it means we have to um it is this it is a slippery slope because we are applying

for grant funds and if we show an identified location of a proposed roundabout they may have awarded

the grant based on that consideration well i guess wording matters because we don't say propose we say

potential so i guess are we proposing it or are we just proposing it as like a possibility yes you could

identify as a potential location to be evaluated further through the process and you can ask for a

dollar amount that includes that potential roundabout and if it's determined to be

infeasible or not cost effective or not an improvement that the the community wants to you would just

reshift and reallocate those resources to something else within the within the project what would it

affect our um competitiveness uh after the fact i i think once oh i mean i guess i mean i guess my my point

is yeah are we more competitive we say hey proposed roundabout versus potential roundabout i don't i don't

know i don't know the answer to that to be honest when i think to me the problem is that this was not in

the packet at all so anyone who pays attention to our council sees the four things and they see the

roundabouts on riley which is what what our direction was if we were going to look at roundabouts we look at

riley they look at east bidwell that looks like a great project but all of a sudden now we're including a

roundabout i don't i don't like that that wasn't in our public doesn't know about it we know i'm not

the only one that knows this that are there is public people that are concerned about this and i'm not

speaking about the riley roundabouts i'm speaking about the ones on east bidwell so um public is not

aware that this is a discussion at this moment that we may or may not apply for a grant that includes a

roundabout on east bidwell and i think i have a problem with that all right any questions council

member leary um yeah i had one question um about the about this plan and um i'm actually a fan of

roundabouts and i think it makes it doable that section of east bidwell tends to have less traffic

on it than the sections of east bidwell as you head out to highway 50. um so i would not like to

remove a potential roundabout for for that side uh because i think and and this is my question is

doesn't this actually augment the future development of the business district revitalization plan i think

that slowing down the traffic and having that be more of a walkable area um was what was envisioned

when the city developed the central business district um so um i i think this is a great project i think the

other the riley streets the the other uh best project and i and i understand the need to have more public

input on this but i would support this or the riley street project and both of them with roundabouts as

staff feels would be indicated if it's helpful to the discussion when we had the central business

district vision planning document and went through extensive outreach with the committee there were as

many committee members supportive and enthusiastic as there were concerned and so there was a a

a recognition from the group that we needed more analysis and details to know what that would look

like you know once it is you know engineered and so there was a a an agreement to move forward with

the word potential roundabout in this location as part of that vision plan and even so even though there

was again you know as council member robert points out there were a couple of property owners in this

immediate area that were concerned about it there were also property owners and business owners that that

were supportive of the concept so it was the the it was left in the vision plan as a potential to be

further studied and i think that's what um zach is is suggesting with this grant project thank you so it

seems like to me that this would further um moving forward with the revised central business district

plan and you had a number of meetings public meetings at that time i don't remember how many there were

and that was just completed last year correct thank you okay we do have one request to speak from the public

um loretta headinger

uh

i just want to remind everyone that natoma street

goes straight through the historic district and it's not only buildings that we need to be concerned

about whether they are historically designed it's also the infrastructure that the city might complete

uh the example of what's wrong on natoma street is all those rolled curbs those are not historic so

any future infrastructure work there i would hope we would become more historic rather than less historic

so that's my only point except that who knows whether this grant program will even survive for the next year

uh thank you mayor keno if i may just add something real quick sorry yeah um not that this necessarily

means that it's the same for this program in and of itself but in other grants that our department has

received for water related and sewer related items we have been able to modify the scope of work after we've

received the grant funding so we have found something that we initially planned for three these three

projects well two of them were feasible one wasn't so we put in a request to modify to say look because

of these things we couldn't do this project therefore we want to reallocate the funds to these other two

uh so long as it met the same criteria as what we applied for so i don't necessarily know council member

or if that necessarily eases maybe some of that concern but we we in water have had grants in the past that we

have reflected a change in scope because the circumstances changed or we found part of the total project we put together

that we're some small portion of that wasn't feasible and we're able to reallocate and that may mean okay

maybe work gets extended further up east bidwell if that is something that would still meet the uh grant

application requirements thank you mr interim public works director um okay anybody you want to make a

motion in terms of you want to go back to that list um zach go back to it can i ask a question about the prairie city road

sure uh alignment just i i do share some concerns about our first roundabouts that are actually used by

the public ignoring plaza drive i understand there's roundabouts there but our first real roundabouts being

on east bidwell and next to a busy school that the one to the west of that i think would be challenging

too when people don't understand roundabouts and now you're asking them to queue for school

um it's just just tough so i think that was kind of one of my thoughts of the riley street being

better than east bidwell is because it kind of gets the public used to them i think which roundabouts

go first do matter which is why i'm now and ask you questions about the um this down here your main

concerns with the prairie city road was is that there weren't enough accidents uh well our i think our main

concern is that there's an opportunity here uh to partner with our development community to develop

this road sure jump in theoretically there's an urgent need for this improvement theoretically yeah

yeah i just look at it and go hey the offset's paid by impact fee so can we go back to your rubric

there with your green check marks and your red boxes sorry of course so the active transportation plan

it's not in the central business district so i at red x um

and the active transportation plan there's not a bike path that's down this road um i don't i don't know

if it's identified as i mean it's an arterial roadway it probably will have a class two bike facility on

there um it may not connect too much it doesn't yeah i don't know how further how much further north

it would connect to over the however highway 50 um there may be a better alternative trail project that

that would fit in this place but um yeah off the top of my head i can't remember exactly what element of

the atp was understood prairie city road there well how would it work anyway when when only half of prairie

city road is in the city right isn't the center line the divider between city of folsom property and

sacramento county property yeah this is the big discussion we're having with with sacramento county and all of our

development community is where the future roadway alignment is going to land within the relation to

the city county jurisdiction boundary but if the feds pay 80 of it i'm sure those arguments

decrease quite a bit of whose roadway it is to improve right i just i just throw that out as

if we have angst over the other projects this one needs to get done i don't know i'm just kind of

throwing out my my thought that what may make more sense on natoma street oh so no tomo street was

significantly less because it doesn't require as much civil improvements um it would be pavement

maintenance uh restriping some bulb out some curb extensions or bulb outs and some pedestrian enhancements

such as rapid flashing beacons along the corridor there i'm also hesitant to commit any measure a

funds that do not go to empire ranch interchange i'll just throw it out there okay if you could

draw a big map around the crashes that are happening because of people that are being diverted away from

an interchange that should exist that doesn't so they're speeding to get down to the other interchanges

can we apply for empire ranch interchange running red lights as well yeah yeah can we make that case

that there's a safety need to get the interchange i also want to remind we had a priority discussion

when we're talking about roundabouts and it was riley street that we were focused on so um

i just want to put that out there um natoma street back to natoma street is this something that

historic district has been asking for no this was identified in our active transportation i mean but do you

feel like the public would be supportive of this because they're very particular on what changes and

doesn't change down there and i don't have a good gauge of it's mike's district i don't have a good gauge of

yeah i think public engagement really hasn't been up up to the level that we would need it to be

comfortable i just know that there's there's elements there of reconnecting uh the north and the south

historic district uh pedestrian enhancements we have a lot of school kids crossing at scott road we

have a lot of we have the the new sidewalk projects that's going to come down riley street so it can all

interconnect better um it's a lot of pavement for people who want to cross into the historic district

to get across uh and that traffic moves pretty fast these elements will slow down vehicles uh and close that

crossing distance to can you go to that project yeah sure

so not as detailed as the others but uh the general idea is is to make it more pedestrian friendly

as well as reconnect the johnny cash trail to the american river parkway along forest street from

folsel boulevard across the forest so all those blue dots are uncontrolled mid-block crossings

that pedestrians have to find a gap in traffic uh you know both directions it's it can get pretty

dicey there at some points so we're so in a line with what you were saying um justin about

the amount of money this would be the least effect on measure a funds but allow us to

have a project that's deliverable and actually improve it's true going you know down to if you have

to park up the street or during the rodeo times or whatever your or parades and all the things that

we go to as council members too but you know you're walking in the middle i walk usually walk in the

middle of the street to go down there yeah zach have we successfully applied for and received one of

these grants no there's only been it's only been in existence for for four other fiscal years so it

started in fiscal year 22 under the infrastructure bill that was passed under the previous administration so

this is the fourth year that it's been in existence and this is the first time we're applying yes we

did not have a eligible vision plan i'm sorry not a vision plan an eligible action plan until last year

okay with the lrsp so we were precluded from applying i'd like to make a motion and a suggestion um

i'd like to suggest that we approve resolution 11386 right um and prioritize the east bidwell improvements

and i say that not because i am desirous of having a roundabout at the earliest possible moment but

because that particular stretch of roge is is one of the least safe places in the city

it is in really poor condition it doubles down on the grant funding that we got from the green means go

program to develop master plan in that area it gets us towards our goal of improving the central business

district aesthetically um and whether we end up with a roundabout or not um the improvements to the

sidewalks will once and finally give us a safe way to get to sutter middle school by pedestrians so

i would suggest that we prioritize the east bidwell project in this grant application second

can i ask a clarifying question before we vote um just on this if we were to remove these two

roundabouts and just apply for the because i agree i don't want to preclude us from having a roundabout

i don't want to commit us to having a roundabout but i won't take an exclusive amendment to my motion

i'm just asking a clarification because it'll guide how i vote um if we were to take those two out

then it would be a still a two and a half do we have an estimate of what the cost of the project would

be uh yeah based on the roundabout feasibility as well as the local road safety plan i think they had a

engineer estimate of around two and a half million dollars per location for each of those roundabouts so

it's about a five million dollar swing uh if those were removed from the project so again it takes it

from a very heavy civil project to a roadway maintenance and a striping project as well as some

some sidewalk enhancements and remove and replace sidewalk as well as installation of new new gap closure

sidewalk so it becomes a lot more cost effective i'm not a civil engineer or roadway designer but i feel

like there is real significant reconstruction that's necessary in that area in order to achieve

the goals that we're after and whether you do a roundabout or not that's going to be a really

expensive stretch from glenn to coloma because introducing sidewalks is going to change the path

of the road and introduce all kinds of issues with utilities and everything else so people signs

parking spaces everything so there's going to be a that's going to be it feels like that will be

a very complex problem and i wish you great luck but i wouldn't say that we're going to save five

million dollars by not doing roundabouts all right we have a motion and a second please call the roll

no i want to i want to say a few things um i think that we're making a mistake if we're going to support

roundabouts as we already said was our priority was on riley street so now we're going against our priority

then i think we should do riley street i think that we're causing more division within our city um and

the visioning plans that we've created than we are um cohesiveness this should be a positive thing

um so we're already going against what the council already prioritized um and i appreciate what pam john

says there's there's many as many enthusiastic which is true but as as concerned and that's what i'm

talking about the division this this um diagram on the bottom shows two lanes and my concern is that

whole area would be one lane and it's absolutely the area that people were concerned about because they

don't have interconnected driveways and so if you can't get in you have to now go all the way to one

intersection and turn around come to the other and people just will not go well some lake bull for

example is putting in a couple million dollars a million or two more more dollars in investment in their

thing right now i think they've already turned in an application or they're getting ready to

and this will directly impact them if we got the grant we're not going to take you know so this is all

you know only relevant if we were allocated the grant um we're causing more division in our city when we have

three other options that are viable um we have no public input on this um

um i i just don't think we're being good stewards no public input is not the case at all we had an

entire process they don't know that this is on the council agenda right now we absolutely do not have

public input right now they do not know that this was on the agenda it was not stated in the agenda packet

that is the main problem i have with it um so you know we had already had public input on where our

parties were and we chose riley street as the priority for a roundabout i have nothing against

a roundabout i do have a problem with reducing east bidwell to one lane so on each side so um i just

i wanted to state that um but so that's my issue is the program here to reduce the five and bike lanes

that are literally shown on the screen to one lane each way uh if we're consistent with the vision plan we

would keep it in two lanes in each direction with a sender turn lane in the middle now near the roundabouts we

would reduce you don't want to go left turn lane at the roundabouts so the the you would reduce the

lane you would go from i i you know i don't we've already talked about roundabouts this would be a

single lane roundabout so you would have to filter two lanes going one direction two lanes down to one

lane 250 feet or more before the roundabout and those driveways would be closed so you have to go in

and so you're reducing east bidwell from two lanes to one lane 250 feet before that roundabout before

the other roundabout so that entire thing would be probably one lane um one lane in one direction

um so that is the concern these business owners have they also again they have no connectivity

unlike riley street which you can go for you can turn into outside of the post office you can turn in

you know like raley's down there and then go to the next block um without getting back on the street so

there's connectivity this is older and does not have the connect you can see right there there's no

connected driveways so these are the concerns that were brought up my concern is that this was not in the

agenda packet that there was potential roundabouts and i don't think that we are just like we postponed the

previous thing to get input with businesses um i think that we if we're going to include riley's we're

going to include east bidwell on this that we need to get their input we got lots of input before on riley

and that's what on choosing riley as the option for us as a priority to put in roundabouts and now we're

going against that i also have a problem with that too so i don't need to get an argument i've shared my

opinion okay i'm sorry but even though we've discussed riley as a priority we still had roundabouts on east

bidwell here roundabouts actually keep the traffic moving that's something that people aren't used to

but they are things that work and i think it's best if we leave that option open because if we don't

construct this section as it was envisioned for the improvement plan for the central business district

we're going to be going back and spending more money to revise this again yet in the future

so we have to take a step forward we've got a motion and a second please call the roll council

member leary yes rathal no rorbaugh no kozlowski yes aquino yes the motion passes thank you all right

final item please final item to this evening is item number 15 resolution number 11392

this is a resolution authorizing the city manager to hire an arborist to support citywide tree protection and

planting services and authorizing the appropriation of funds from the tree planting and replacement fund

which is fund 226

thank you mayor aquino members of the council your pam johns your community development director

and i know it's a late late hour and so um i won't belabor the point we're in front of you to ask for a

second arborist position to be funded out of the tree mitigation fund not the general fund but the

robust and replenishing tree mitigation fund and the reason we're asking for that is because trees

continue to be a priority in this community a defining character of the community and 30 years ago

your predecessors on the city council adopted a tree preservation ordinance and established a tree planting

and replacement fund and the the activity associated with that preservation and planting has just grown

year over year and and we have been before this council asking for refinements to both of those to

make them usable and and friendly and workable as we navigate through the implementation we recently adopted

updates to our both our fees for arborist related services and um and those have resulted in a more

full cost recovery situation for arborist services but we are at a point where with one arborist we can no

longer keep up with um all of the all of the services associated with our our tree planting and replacement so i want

to spend just a couple of minutes making sure you all understand the breadth of what those services

include so it's um it's plan review permitting and inspections for all projects that involve trees for

community development parks and rec environmental water resources and public works departments this

includes development activity capital improvements and special projects the arborist also does landscape plan

and review and irrigation review to make sure we're in complete for qualifying projects to make sure we're in

compliance with state water efficient landscape ordinance that includes a reporting component

she is involved amy nunez in all code enforcement cases and public safety concerns that involve protected

trees in the city she manages the sac tree foundation contract that you all authorized about five years ago to have

them take on the proactive arm of planting projects because that's their expertise and the breadth of their

services she oversees our landmark tree program which includes not just bringing new landmark tree

projects to the city council but working on the maintenance of those those landscape or those landmark trees

projects in perpetuity she's also oversees the city's veg management program for all utilities so the famous oak parkway trail corridor tree removal that is something that that amy is responsible for oversight and coordination of so like many of community development services we have a baseline staffing and we utilize on-call contracts we have certainly done that for arborist services

the entire tenure that i've been here almost eight years we have utilized some form of on-call contracts it simply hasn't been enough so we're fortunate to have temporary part-time staff joe benicini initially and then jim schubert who are retired annuitants that have helped us half time over the last almost five year period and they are now phasing out and retiring and moving on and we just simply cannot

keep up with the services so i've said to keep up with the services so i've said to many of you when our uh electronic permitting system turns red our dashboards are red it means

we cannot meet our target review times and that is been the case for our our wonderful arborist for many years now where it's very hard to to keep your head above water and stay above water when we have the volume of work that we have and so i want to show you just the workload this is all in your

workload this is all in your staff report but the volume of work even in 2024 for our arborist is just unsustainable so in in finding amy the support she needs we've been talking about getting a second full-time arborist this is the third time through the budget process that we have requested it in the past there have been concerns about utilizing the tree fund as something that may not be replenishing and ongoing and so we have to

we've brought the data to show that in fact that is a robust funding source it is replenishing funding source and if needed we can cut back on some of the the planting work and things like that to ensure that this is a sustainable ongoing fund for a second arborist we have two sources of revenue one is pay for services which is the the plan check permits and inspections for all development related activity or you know utility corridor

so that's a lot of work things like that and then the tree mitigation fund is where for tree work or removal of protected trees the fee goes the the impact fee or in lieu fee for that impact gets paid into the tree mitigation fund so i just want to show you what those two service fees look like so for pay for service this includes things that are exclusive to the arborist and also where there's

the tree mitigation fund that are exclusive to the arborist and that is part of an engineering entitlement or building entitlement where a percentage of the fees goes to the arborist so this source of this data comes from our comdever e track it permitting system you can see it's a couple hundred thousand dollars every year just for arborist related services the tree mitigation fund is also robust in terms of the revenue that we're seeing over the last five year period

that artificial school farmsúp Walk from in use that we worked on to we run the first couple about one year period

mark that i'm interested in about one year periodal craft right now

and at six hundred and forty thousand ghosts and this would involve some ARBOwe we even develop support programs including parts of our imaging and police and police, recognizes the association one is a

sonst hopefully in inisconsinώ tu ag ese cond Administration dov一, as can as a hell i should present you please

thank youran have a 40 of us in the family façon uh perdition of those Dakota aspects of our Aixòаюсь that increases the木村 Vaugh and Stan will do you?

qualifying expenditure of the tree planting and replacement fund and so we

are respectfully requesting that the City Council approve this this the city

manager to hire a second arborist using the the tree funds that we have and I'm

happy to answer any questions and Amy Nunez is also here in case you are

interested in any details about the work she does on any given day we should have

a like a seat like at a university that has somebody's name for this particular

job like the Johnny Appleseed chair the Sactree Foundation contract is still

working as expected it is we we are struggling actually just to find

appropriate locations for them to do the significant planting so they've been

doing a couple other programs like proactive Neighbor Woods program where

they go out to under sir or under treed neighborhoods and get community

planting activities or what you've seen on community service day where there's a you

know they're helping organize the planting project or educating people about pruning

and things like that to help preserve the existing urban canopy thank you

questions no I just want to move that resolution 1139 to resolution authorizing

city manager to hire an arborist to support citywide tree protection and

planning services and authorizing the appropriation of funds from the tree

planning and replacement fund thank you second public comment we don't have any

comments on the board please call the roll that's member Leary yes Rachel yes

or ball yeah I love ski yes I Kino yes thank you thank you very much all right this

takes us to our brief city manager reports and brief the council comments mr. city

manager I just want to thank the council for the budget workshop I apologize for that and

this so but appreciate the number of folks who were from the public who came and participated in

that I look forward to speaking about the budget more on June 10th and just wanted to recognize our

police chief Rick Hillman who announced his retirement coming up he's been in law

enforcement for I believe 40 years with the city of Folsom for 30 we'll have an

opportunity to formally recognize him at a future date but just wanted to

congratulate him on that announcement speaking of trees the city of Folsom was

named as Tree City USA recipient for the 19th straight year so that's pretty

exciting and then I had the privilege to go with Mary Kino to recognize three of

our public work staff who earned regional APWA awards as a Bosch Ryan needs and Ryan

chance it was it was really neat to be there with them and that's all I have

thank you councilmember Kozlowski just one thing and you reminded me of it while we

were talking about the trees and needing places to plant them and some of the other

discussions we had earlier I would really like it I know that this is probably not a

super high priority if we could take a look at our Western boundary north to

south of the city and maybe just do an analysis of a strategic expansion along

Prairie City and north of the river on our Western edge to clean up some

engineering responsibilities for Prairie City Road for instance to potentially

capture some of the what is not planned for residential on the Aerojet property so

south of the like the bottom half of the Aerojet property along Prairie City as a

potential place for Folsom to have a a light industrial area for development which we

don't have right now and if we're gonna make the improvements to Prairie City it will

be a really vital it'll be really useful to be able to get to and from everywhere on

highway 50 and then on the north side we have some boundary issues with the county

that have always been weird things that seem like they could be cleaned up along

Santa Anita where we only control part of the road there's a little strip that's the

county and then there's Placer County immediately north of there the intersection

on Oak Avenue the double intersection at Santa Juanita which is insane with the two

stop signs that are like a hundred feet apart and then some of the some of the

area along Main Street just immediately west of the city when you get down by

Greenback and Madison which is more Folsom than some other parts of Folsom okay it's a

little free-thinking exercise I hope that we can do sometime okay potentially this year

I'm sorry Rachel thanks for sticking it out tonight Amy for that very last item I

appreciate it thanks for all you do for the city and and thanks to you Brian and

all the city staff that contributed to the budget workshop this afternoon I thought it

was a great kickoff and I look forward to discussions over the next month as we as we

figure these things out thank you thank you councilmember warbaugh yeah just on the item earlier with the Folsom Lake

Folsom Lake Folsom Lake kids play park I already stated this and you already said we can make it happen

and make sure that any proposals are also included in the agenda packet and in light

of the previous discussion make sure that if it's that there's more information in

the agenda about an item or grant application than less I think that we just did a disservice to our public

regardless of that passed or not or would have been unanimous we did not have all the information in there and I do want to say thank you for the

budget workshop I think the public I already got heard from two different people that they are were impressed with your knowledge of the budget and the changes that you're making especially with the troops and things like that so you know thank you for doing that and and I was happy to see I was surprised a little bit to see so many people there but there was a lot of staff there too

I'm so it did look really full because of that too but I know that those people there were probably coming with a critical eye and I think some of them were very impressed so thank you for that and all the work that staff had to do

Councilmember Leary yeah and I appreciate the budget workshop as well I thought they turn out was great people had some good questions and suggestions and I appreciate the work you did to put together two different nights where people in the Thomas station can come and see you know the

people in the Thomas station can come and learn about the plans for lighting and landscaping district I just just a reminder if you all live in the Thomas station and you're watching there's one more meeting tomorrow night at six o'clock here in City Hall we had a great turnout about probably 70 at least people last week and I appreciate Mr. White myers I work on on getting these things together

I think it's really important thank you very much thank you and I just have one quick thing I would appreciate if the city manager and parks and rec director if you could touch base with

Superintendent Eric Swanson at Folsom Cordova prior to your planning parks and rec commission meeting on the sequencing of parks south of 50 because they have gone out for RFP on the third elementary school for many years it was thought it was going to be the Russell up and Russell ranch now they're talking about

the Oak Avenue Parkway area so I think that will be germane to our conversation in terms of sequencing our parks so it's 950 we are adjourned thank you everyone