So vote must be unanimous.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Then we will adjourn the special meeting and call to order the regular meeting of the Folsom City Council for uh Wednesday, November 12th, 2025.

Would the clerk please call the roll?

Council members Robah.

Here, Kozlowski.

Here.

Leary.

Here, Graethel.

Here.

And Aquino.

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

I don't think you have the case of America.

And the Republic.

One mission.

Indivisible with liberty and justice.

All right.

Mr.

City Attorney, any agenda updates to report?

Yes, madam mayor.

We do have additional information on transmitted for item 14 on tonight's agenda.

A copy has been previously provided to you, and it is also available on the table in the back.

Okay, thank you.

And as you'll notice, our city manager is not here tonight.

Unfortunately, he has been under the weather all week, so I think he's watching.

So Brian, go to bed.

Get better soon, and uh, hope to see you back here.

Um 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 we cannot take action or deliberate on items that are not on the agenda.

Do we have any requests to speak from business from the floor?

There are no requests to speak from business from the floor.

Anybody in the audience want to speak on business from the floor?

See no one, we will move on to the next item, please.

Next is schedule presentations.

Item number one is a presentation from the Folsom Police Department regarding e-bikes in our city.

Current status and future direction.

Thank you, Lieutenant Rahela.

We promise not to kill the messenger.

Well, thank you, madam mayor, members of the council and city staff.

Uh Jake Rohelan, Lieutenant with the police department.

So this presentation I'm gonna give tonight is really designed to set the stage for a proposal that Commander Andrew Bates will be bringing forth uh at your meeting on the 9th in December regarding uh an adjustment or a change, modification to the Folsom municipal code specific to e-conveyances.

So this presentation really gives you more of uh an overall view of some of the issues that we've been dealing with in the police departments specific to those challenges.

Um, I would imagine, and I'm aware that most of you have heard from your constituents a variety of complaints going all the way back to when these things really hit the streets in Folsom.

So this is gonna be some of the data that gives you some some more specifics kind of drills down into just how broad this problem has become.

Uh some of the e-bike laws in California, and a lot of people are having a hard time becoming aware or familiar with them.

Fortunately, we have a really robust uh tab on the police department's uh website where parents and anyone who's looking for additional information can go and look this information up even after this evening.

So a class one uh e-bike provides uh assistance only while pedaling the bicycle, and it can travel up to 20 miles an hour.

A class two has a throttle similar to a motorcycle, also assisted riding without pedaling up to 20 miles an hour.

Class three has a motor that provides assistance only while pedaling, and it can travel up to 28 miles per hour.

Uh that slide just shows some of the age requirements and bike access as far as where they can go up to the class three, which is forbidden from bike paths.

And I'll use the term e-bikes pretty much synonymous tonight, but it includes these e-motorcycles as well.

Um, and e-motorcycle is this is a perfect example of one, and we've all probably seen them from time to time out there.

Um, it's electric powered only, it goes faster than 30 miles an hour.

In fact, some upwards of 60 or even 70 miles per hour, depending on how big the battery is.

Uh, the rider of this has to have uh California driver's license and a motorcycle endorsement, either M1 or M2, just like uh an adult would have to ride a motorcycle.

Uh it also has to be registered with a DMV and have a license plate, as well as all the accoutrements that would come with a vehicle that's street legal, like turn signals, brake lights, headlamp, and and the similar.

This just shows the popularity, which we're all obviously aware.

These things are all over the place.

But from 2020 to 25, there's been about almost a 200% increase in e-bike sales across the United States.

As far as calls for service, this slide goes back to 2023 and takes us all the way through October of 25.

Uh, as far as calls for service go with e-bikes specifically, more than 90% of those are involving juveniles.

Uh, and then you'll see on the hotspot map right here, there's two places where we have the most predominant issues, number one being Economy Park with almost a quarter of those calls for service, followed by Palladia with about 16%.

In that hotspot map slide, we have the top five categories for calls for service.

The first one being reckless behavior, which accounts for almost or better than two-thirds of the calls for service.

And then it's traffic stops, extra patrols, so on and so forth.

Again, most notable about this slide is that in 2023 we had merely 23 calls per service regarding e-bikes.

Fast forward to only the first 10 months of 2025, we've seen 350.

That was an increase of almost 300% over the year prior.

We've had a fair amount of collisions involving e-bikes in the city as well.

Going back again to 2023, we only had four.

And we've had 12 in 2025, which may look like a small number, but of course it's a uh three is three times as many as what we had merely two years ago.

In these collisions, uh almost two-thirds of the riders are juveniles.

Uh three quarters of those, the rider of the e-bike was the proximate cause of that collision.

So the juvenile was at fault for the collision.

And what we saw was that this was a 70 plus percent increase over October of last year.

These slides right here are these two images that are embedded right here, representative of uh in-car camera footage stills from some juveniles that uh we had some dealings with after calls for service.

In this particular slide here, this juvenile was reported as vandalizing vandalizing uh people's garage doors and yelling slurs at the victim.

When the officer arrived on scene, the juvenile engaged the officer by yelling at them as well.

That then led to the juvenile fleeing the scene in excess of 60 miles an hour in a 40 mile per hour zone.

We canceled that pursuit for the safety of everyone involved.

However, we had air support that evening, and so we were successfully able to capture that juvenile with assistance from the sheriff's department.

He was arrested and booked for the charges you see there on that slide.

This is another example where an officer on viewed a person on uh an e-motorcycle.

This individual ran from the officer initially, including running a red light.

Uh the officer attempted to apprehend the subject physically by tackling him, and that person on the bike then tried to speed away, dragging that officer about 25 feet.

The officer didn't know at the time that it was a juvenile based on the size of the person, the fact that they were wearing a full-face helmet, as you can somewhat see from that photograph.

We later determined that he was 16 years old after he was uh captured and arrested.

That officer actually was injured as a result of that interaction, and has been actually off duty for many, many months now.

He's getting pretty close to recovery and coming back, so they are dangerous, not just for the people riding them and the people out in the community, but for the officers that are dealing with some of them as well.

In response to some claim complaints that we had recently with the middle schools, we did a focused um kind of an educational and enforcement uh piece at Folsom Middle School and Sutter Metal, and the results are at the bottom.

So on the 7th of October, we started with Sutter Middle School.

There was five warnings and no citations issued.

They followed up a couple of days later at Folsom Middle School.

They issued 12 warnings there and two citations.

That was a collaborative uh effort with our school resource officers and the admin of those particular campuses.

They were seeing a real significant increase in issues with the e-bikes as uh school began that year.

So we worked in partnership with them to try to figure out something that had, you know, it was mostly educational to begin with to try to get people on board with what what we were trying to achieve.

And they've been doing follow-ups since uh our traffic people, our school resource officers have still been in contact with the schools to make sure that uh the results that we saw in the beginning are still continuing today, and if they're not, then we're we're handling those issues accordingly.

In addition to the specific school stuff, any time we get a call for service, we're handling those.

Our officers in the field are responding to those calls as needed.

So we as soon as these things hit the streets of Folsom and started to become a problem as far as calls for service, we've been actively involved in enforcement as much as we possibly can, especially in the summer once the kids are out of school.

And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone might have.

Sure, we have some.

We also have some requests to speak from the public.

Um, Councilmember Warbo, any questions for Lieutenant Verhalens?

I'll wait till I have to that.

Okay.

Councilmember Leary.

Um, I do have a question about uh some of the behaviors that goes along with the riders of the e-bikes, you know, that are harassment following um kids off around um homing when they're walking home from playgrounds or on the playgrounds disrupting soccer games by riding through there, and um I don't know if if there's a specific way to respond to that or do something different educationally about it, because uh I think at least the incidents that I've been hearing about are um are reported to the police, but by the time anybody can get there, the kids are gone.

Um and sometimes that's the case, and and not just with a call for a complaint about an e-bike, but it could be a call for a person who's reckless driving down a street or or anything for that matter.

If all the officers who are working at the time are tied up on higher priority calls by the time one of them is able to break free and and respond to that call, there is the likelihood that the people have now left.

Um, and then but in the educational um sessions, you know, with the kids that that you've all been doing is is um, I don't know if it would be appropriate, but it seems like addressing some of those harassing kind of behaviors might be another message to pass on that those are unacceptable or like increasing the negative um feedback everybody's getting about e-bikes.

Yeah, and I think that's a really important message too for the parents to receive as well, right?

So that so that they're having those conversations with their children, and hopefully that message is being received and hopefully they're working in partnership with us.

And do the parents come to any of those sessions where you're educating they?

Well, as far as the ones that we've done at the schools, there has been some interaction with parents who uh may have been called by their son or daughter because we were taking in for like in that one slide you saw that we did issue a couple of citations.

In that instance, I believe it was two brothers who had both shown up on those e-motorcycles, which they weren't even old enough to be operating in the first place.

So there was a variety of violations there.

If I remember correctly, the parents responded to the school, and there was some discussion between them, the traffic our traffic people and the school resource officers.

Okay, thank you.

It's a tough problem from many angles.

Thanks, Mayor Rafael.

Any questions?

I just want to comment that your heat map made me feel a little bit better.

I thought I was just getting old and crotchety because there's a lot of e-bike challenges in Briggs Ranch in my neighborhood, and um I know I've we've talked about it before.

Um, but it's it's good to see that heat map that's there so we know where to deploy those resources, and there's definitely the challenges in our neighborhood.

So I appreciate you addressing it.

Of course.

Council Member Kozlowski.

Is there um state law um limiting us from licensing the riders or the vehicles?

Could we require that if you want to ride it out on it if you're inside your subdivision, for instance?

The answer is yes.

The state law does require that certain riders be licensed.

Can we extend those to younger riders and other classes and have a you can require locally that that's what I'm asking.

But not a state license, which doesn't exist.

That's what I meant.

A fulsom driver's license yes or permit and a and a plate that we issue to the vehicle.

And some jurisdictions do we even would make it a bicycles.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's why I asked because I've seen that before.

Okay, all right, that's it.

Um so in terms of what you have the ability to like impound right there on the spot.

If somebody's using one of those e-motorcycles on the street that they're not supposed to, you can impound that on the spot.

Correct.

And what about an e-scooter?

We know that you have to be 16 years old with a driver's license right to use those.

So if you're in a middle school student you're not going to be 16 years old.

Can those be impounded on the spot?

Correct I believe I believe the e-scooters can because of the 16 year minimum age requirement for them.

So even though it's it's different because they're standing on it versus riding it like a motorcycle it has to do with the speeds and and such.

So that and and again going back to the to the motorcycle requirement it's even though we see kids on them and they and they're using them for fun it it really is no different than another electric vehicle by what you know I've I've used the I've explained to some parents like you wouldn't let your 15 year old drive a Tesla and they can understand that but when it comes to the e motorcycle there's some sort of a disconnect and at the end of the day we're talking about two vehicles that are electric powered and capable of really really incredibly high speeds.

Yeah.

Is there any way to hold parents accountable when their kids are using these um a way that's against the law so I think what you'll see with that presentation from Commander Base in December is that and I haven't seen the proposal however I've I've looked loosely at the Galt um model and I think if uh if I'm correct there's a caveat in there that basically has parents accountable for their juvenile children who may be riding these things so that they're fully aware and and if something were to happen catastrophic that they are in fact on the hook.

And and it kind of goes without saying they they should know if we have juvenile children as I do and many of us do we know that if they cross a certain line we're gonna have to answer for it as long as they live under our house and and they're juveniles so but I think it's more of a way to really memorialize it and probably draw more attention to the fact that this is a really significant issue in our city it's only really probably by the grace of God that we haven't had a catastrophic collision involving one of these that resulted in a significant injury to a juvenile or worst case scenario uh the death of someone.

And I I know um Parson Rack is working to uh make improvements to the bike park but do you get any sense in talking with these um these youth that if we gave them a place to ride if we said hey you can't be here but we have this place over here for you do you think they would do that or or no matter what we do they want to be at Taco Bell in Economy Park and Palladio and all those places.

I think some might because not every not every kid in the city who's riding an e-bike e-scooter e-motorcycle is out there causing problems for us and generating calls for service some of them are doing you know they're they're being as responsible as they can even if they might be breaking the law but a lot of these kids are riding them to school as a form of transportation and I think that's probably where the part of the parental disconnect is it's convenient and if there's no bus and school's two miles away and they got this e-motorcycle for Christmas now they can get to school and the parents don't have to worry about picking them up after practice and all these other things.

I think I think a big driving factor is the convenience of it and then for the for the ones who are out there creating the situations running from from the police um trying to engage people in negative ways because they tend to be on their cell phones and recording it or their friends are recording it and they're trying to create a a very prolific social media existence so that they get likes and and what have you.

That's part of the challenge too.

There's lots of it's that's a multifaceted problem, I think and I and I think, yeah, you could a percentage of people would probably appreciate that and and abide by it, but you'd still have the folks that the kids are just going to do what they're going to do, and the parents who um sometimes are as defiant with us as their children are once we've called them to the police department to say, hey, we have little Johnny in the backseat of this police car because he ran from us and we have his motorcycle, and we need you to come and speak with us about this situation.

Yeah.

Okay, we do have a couple requests to speak from the public.

Uh there's two requests to speak.

First up will be James Kirstein, followed by Robert Goss.

And just remember a reminder that we give members of the public three minutes.

So you could be concise.

We'd appreciate it.

Jim, come on right down here to the center microphone.

Oh, keep going.

Yep, in front of the computer.

There you go.

And if you can make sure you're speaking into that microphone so the recording picks you up.

Okay, by the way, time myself just to be, should be two minutes and 30 seconds if I don't mess up.

First, a little background on me, a longtime bicycle rider and racer.

Until I retired at the age of 68, I commuted on my bicycle to work in downtown Sacramento.

That was a 62-mile round trip to commute.

I love the city's trails.

I helped Jim Kanopka when he asked, and when he retired from the city with the planning and building of the City of Folsom's trails.

I was also president of the Friends of the Folsom Parkways for many years.

As a citizen of the city of Folsom and a user of the trails for over 30 years, I've become aware of the increase in the number of e-bikes, also known as e-motorcycles, in the city.

Most of these e-bikes riders are a school age and not old enough to have a driver's license.

Therefore, they are not required to know the laws and operating a vehicle.

An e-bike is a vehicle according to DMV, that is legally authorized to use the city's trails and streets.

But the problem for those of us that frequently use the trails is that the kids on the e-bikes create a hazard.

People buy e-bikes for their kids.

They can do over 15 miles an hour.

The kids don't respect the road laws at all.

There should be zones where no bikes are allowed, and those would include trails in the open space areas.

For example, presently no bikes are allowed on Hinkle Creek trail.

Since there is a hard trail next to it, let's keep those kinds of trails open to walkers given that they are narrow and limited visibility.

I enjoy the city's parks and rec departments walk and talk activity.

It is intended to give people over the age of 65, I'm 83, an opportunity to walk safely on the trails.

Too often we are subjected to young kids in e-bikes going by us at over 15 miles an hour.

The trail speed limit by way is 15.

Often they are on the wrong side of the trails and do not call out their approaching.

This is very scary when we are trying to stay healthy.

I'm a fan of e-bikes.

It's great seeing people who are older and can't keep up with their partner to be able to do that again.

It's just too bad the young kids on e-bikes make it unsafe to do so.

The city must aggressively to the enforcement of e-bikes and to avoid seniors in harm's way.

The city should make a rule that to sell an e-bike, the buyers and users of that e-bike should have proof that they know the rules of the road for operating a vehicle in California.

Hopefully I read what I wrote.

Thank you very much, Jim.

Thank you.

That's awesome.

Yep, the next speaker is Robert Goss.

Good evening, Robert.

Mayor Aquino, Vice Mayor Rathel, Councilmembers, good to be back.

Um Robert Goss here, uh past president, Friends of Folsom Parkways, current board member.

Um, as you I think all know, the Friends of Folsom Parkways are administering the adoptive trail program, which we're you know, helping with maintenance uh just general maintenance of the trails.

Um so we're out there all the time.

We're stewards.

We see this, and I say in all caps, we see this all the time when we're just out there doing our thing.

What I'd like to add a few things, and this is there's the fundamental issue that uh the officer um uh detailed, but I'd like to add to this trail damage.

Um our trail standard is pavement plus shoulders, typically uh decomposed granite.

I was a kid once, I get it, but they're out there with the the they have class two e-bikes with a throttle.

They love to you know line up their bike, hit the throttle, and just squirt DG from the shoulder onto the bike trail.

Done in a corner that makes the corners very, very slippery, and then you know, it accidents can happen.

They're pioneering new trails in open space areas.

Again, I was a kid, I get it, but that isn't what our open space areas are for.

We're we're protecting those.

They're digging and building jumps for um their enjoyment.

Again, I get it.

They're of course riding recklessly.

Um, and the problems expanding beyond just the e-motorcycles uh that Lieutenant uh highlighted for us.

I was out um in the vicinity of Cone Park one evening, walking the dog, big group.

This is not far from uh Councilman Orbaugh's neighborhood either.

Uh, walking the dog, here comes the big group.

There's seven or eight riders, and there are two they're mostly their e-bicycles, but there's two e-motorcycles and a real dirt bike internal combustion engine, at least 70ccs, maybe 100cc.

And I had a chat with them, I was polite.

I said, guys, you know this isn't legal.

Oh no, it is legal.

My parents said so.

I got the whole pushback, and then they took off, and we had a young young male riding an internal combustion engine through Cone Park into the Lexington Hills area.

So it's it's expanded.

The problem's expanding, not contracting.

Um, and then I think we all know that trails and parkways are used as escape routes from their poor behaviors, and it's it just allows them to scatter so fast, and they think they know the trails better than we do.

So that's not really you know the parkway's fault, that's just what they're being used for.

So uh from the Friends of Folsom Parkways, a few suggestions to consider as you deliberate and you talk about the modifications to the municipal code.

As Jim said, prohibit bicycles and e-bikes in sensitive areas like the Hinkle Creek Nick Charia, because we've got a beautiful uh natural surface trail paralleling a paved trail.

They, you know, if we need e-bikes out there, e-bikes on the paved trail, but not on the walking trail.

And I think there's some other areas in the city, or possibly just the entire humbug Willow Creek parkway system.

You can't have e-bikes off the pavement because it's just going to damage uh the natural environment.

Um consider allowing use in the power line corridor.

So the oak, you know, the the kind of cross-town power line corridor.

PG and E's cut a lot of trees out there, it's not what it once was.

Um, maybe that's a place if they need to ride in the dirt that that would be allowed or or tolerated.

I say consider it's not necessarily the best idea, it's just an idea.

Robert, if you can quickly give us your last couple of recommendations.

Yes, thank you.

Um in parks, there's problem.

I hadn't heard this thing about the uh riding through a soccer game and busting that up, but maybe a five-mile-hour limit in parks.

Again, how do we patrol it?

I don't know.

I shudder maybe about a citizen's arrest type of a thing, but you know, maybe.

Um education directed to parents, it's it's more the parents' issue, of course, as you know, than the kids.

Um I think fundamentally, then the final thing is make sure that uh police department at Parks and Rec has the resources to implement you know the final recommendations.

So uh with that, thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Okay, any final comments for my colleagues?

It sounds like we're gonna have some another presentation in December.

Councilmember Warbach.

Yeah, uh, can you bring up the heat map?

This is uh very concerning.

I have gotten a ton of um pushback and complaints about e-bikes in my neighborhood, which is right in the center of parkway, as Robert Goss just articulated as well.

I mean, you can see where that heat map is.

Um, it's pretty much the northern side of the parkway.

Um, and so this is where what is considered as um uh people reference it as the duck pond, but around Menasco and Bowen.

Um concerning the last couple weeks is that they're taking those motorcycles through that area, which is a nature reserve.

Um I hate to limit things, you know.

Uh uh one of the um Jim referenced that it's already 15 miles per hour on the trails, which I didn't realize I have seen that, I just forgot about it.

So there's already a speed limit on there.

So I, you know, enforcing these things is so um troublesome.

But so I'm curious as what ordinances we could do, and then how would we enforce it?

I do like the idea of what my colleague um suggested, permitting.

Um, but I don't know how we'd go and and about enforcing that anyways with the limited resources.

Um I do like the idea of maybe putting up more signs about our speed limits, and then maybe if we do create a uh maybe a steeper fine for that, for that um for it for going over the speed limit.

Um, maybe there's a way to incorporate the community, like the Friends of Um Folsom Parkways, and doing kind of um, you know, you have the speedometers that you can give out.

I know the public works can give those out sometimes.

Um doing, you know, different enforcements, having our neighbors get involved, um, not arresting them, obviously they can't do that, but tracking speed limits.

Um, so I'm curious if we did more ordnance or reduce the speed limit to 10.

Um, is there even a way to enforce this?

And then what would be the consequences to um how would we enforce just allowing it on pavement?

Um I think it always goes back to enforcement, right?

Like how we can put all the rules out there we want.

There already are some rules in place.

They're already not supposed to be having these, but how how would how would you see us being able to enforce it, because that's really the problem.

So, specific to like speed violations on the trail.

I mean, it would be as simple as traffic officers out there on the trail, tucked away on a motorcycle with a LIDAR unit, and as somebody comes down the trail that looks to be speeding, they would just click the button and then it would give them the speed of that vehicle.

They would pull the vehicle over just like uh stopping a car for speeding on East Bidwell, for example, and then it would be up to the officer during that contact, whether they were gonna issue a verbal warning, a written warning, or a citation for that moving violation.

Uh, and that would work towards the kids that would stop.

Correct.

Right.

And then you could get their address and their parents' information, communicate and educate, and that would be tough, but that's gonna work for those kids that really want to comply.

Um but do you see that working with the kids that cause there's a groupful group out there that actually live in the parkway that don't want to comply?

And for something like that, we would, you know, maybe get more creative and and have kind of a focused uh again going back to the schools.

It was a collaborative effort, not just with the admin of the schools, but between our school resource officers and our traffic bureau to go out there and and kind of really spread out and and work to address the issues.

Again, there was a couple of citations, but it was mostly educational and warnings.

Um, you know, similar to the way we've done blitzes to combat organized retail theft.

If this continues to be an issue post municipal code specific to increased enforcement of these e-bikes, it wouldn't be outside of the ordinary for us to again have a group of our traffic people school resource officers.

Maybe even we call in assistance from another agency and have some additional motor officers come in.

We have drones for the people who don't want to stop.

We follow them with drone technology, our own AirOps unit, so to speak, since we don't have a helicopter, follow the person on that e-bike home with the drone.

Now we know where they've landed, and then it's as simple as going and knocking on that door, introducing ourselves to the parents, and then we handle it that way without you know anybody running from us longer than just taking off, and then we okay.

Well, we're we're gonna follow you like this with a video game controller and the eye in the sky.

Okay.

Um I do think that's a good suggestion that Robert Goss made about and what you kind of suggest is where can we suggest these kids go?

Um having some off-roading, you know, the power lines.

I mean, most people aren't walking through there.

Um, and that could be a creative, I'm not sure that's the police departments, but maybe that would be working with parks and rec and and identifying some of these locations.

Yeah, and and I think to the mayor's point that if you create a place for people to go and utilize in that way, that there's probably a lot of people that would take advantage of it in the in the appropriate way.

Unfortunately, there's still gonna always be those people.

No matter how much speed enforcement we do, we're still gonna have people speeding, no matter how much red light enforcement, there's always gonna be those people that that run those red lights, but it's I think it's definitely uh probably a good compromise, right, between the education enforcement and the city saying, Hey, we're asking that these parents help us.

We've set aside this property, this space, it's designed specifically for them to be able to operate these things lawfully under certain conditions, and and we just ask that you partner with us in this way.

Uh you know, I would like to support anything that the police department can do as far as an ordinance or whatever that has a little bit more teeth, and that might mean um more fine, you know, a bigger fine or something, and how can we get that into the the parents' hands?

I don't mind warning first as well.

I mean, I think this is becoming a big enough problem that most parents are now aware of it, I would hope.

I mean, do you feel the same or I think most of them are probably aware?

I think for the ones that uh haven't had, you know, for the ones who have children who haven't had an interaction with a police officer specific to them operating an e-conveyance, maybe they're unaware of it because they haven't, there hasn't been an issue.

And so nobody's called them on the phone to say, hey, I have your son stopped on this thing, and I need you to meet me here.

So I would venture to guess that it's reasonable that some people still are completely unaware, and not because of anything other than they just they just don't know until they know, right?

So I know that you know, that kind of um uh enforcement day, the October 7th and 9th came after our two Justin and I's two by two meeting um with the school district and um the police department as well.

So I do appreciate that there was a that much follow-up and that kind of blitz happened.

I would like to see more if we are able to.

Um, and I know this isn't your first priority.

Our police department's first priority, it's to the bigger crimes, but this is becoming such a public um quality of life issue.

Um, just to speak to what Jim said, um, that's a lot I get a lot of complaints from our um our older generation, and it is worrisome.

I've had um some of them go past me.

I don't know how fast they're going.

30 feels like 60 on the trail.

Um, I'm sure they're probably going 25 30.

Um, but even that's you know, disorienting, especially when I'm watching toddlers walk around and then dogs and um any other pets.

So um, um I had a question here, and I just um what can what can uh residents do?

I mean, coming here is perfect for people to kind of share speaking out to other council members is important as well, and then we're able to articulate it to you.

But what can they do?

Um, so for the residents who are experiencing issues, you know, specific to e-bikes, I would say, you know, put it on us, put it on the police department, and rather than sending an email or a phone call or a text message to a council person, call the non-emergency line for the police department when it's actually occurring.

Sometimes, as uh I explained, um, we might not have someone available to get there before they've left.

But very many times we are able to get there while they're still on scene.

Perhaps we have an officer right around the corner, just happens to be in the right place at the right time.

By those calls coming directly to the police department versus being filtered through any other sort of area, it gives us the best opportunity to be able to respond in real time and hopefully catch whoever those people are doing that.

Um, and whether it's in we take enforcement or it's an educational moment where we call the parents out, depending, you know, on that particular situation.

But yeah, give it give us uh give us that information as soon as we possibly can get it, and we'll do our best to send an officer or or officers to that location.

Now, I have received information about different addresses where some of these kids live, and do you still want that information?

What what what gets done when that is related to the police department?

So, in a situation like that where it's not necessarily an active situation, but there has been some history specific to people related to a particular house that are juveniles and operating these e-conveyances in an unlawful manner.

We can follow up by going out to that house, attempting contact with the parents there to say, hey, we've received complaints about these e-bikes.

Do you have a son or a daughter who has one of these and then kind of start the conversation that way?

Um if people have video evidence of of something occurring, that is terrific, of course.

Unfortunately, what we've seen in in most of these situations is the the bikes are all like a flat black, the kids are wearing pretty much all black clothing, a black full face helmet, and so there's really no unique identifying characteristics whatsoever.

It's just there goes an all-black e-bike with a black helmet.

Well, that they're wearing a helmet.

They're at least wearing helmets, and and and most of them on those are appear to be wearing uh DOT approved helmets rather than just a bicycle helmet, perhaps for the anonymity that it uh affords them.

Um my concern coming into the holidays is that those that are not aware that this is an issue, um, parents may be gifting their kids new e-bikes, oot scooters, motorcycles for Christmas.

So, you know, I know that we talked about this in our two by two meeting as well.

Um, but what can we do to educate parents now before they're buying these gifts or then giving these gifts out?

Um, or even what can we do to educate, um, you know, is it in the parks and wreck thing that goes out every quarter?

Um, you know, just making sure that we're continuing to educate.

I'm not sure that's just on you, but um, but definitely your, you know, the police department is a part of it.

Um, so I would like to see more education go out at this time of year.

Um, and I think that's why we're talking about it today and gonna be talking about in December as well.

One of the things that I would like to consider with public works and um parks and rec too is a more signage.

Maybe once we get a new ordinance, if we end up enacting a new more ordinance, what would that find be for speeding?

Um, and maybe having something on the sign about that this is also directed at e-bikes, and maybe a few more placements.

There's not really that many, um, there's a few signs that they're not they're not allowed, but they're not, I'm I'm on the trails almost every day, and there's not um a ton of it, so maybe a little bit more placement of it as we maybe are doing some more enforcement, and that might help educate because obviously some parents are walking too, um, but also maybe off the trail.

Um, so I I think we just got to kind of keep continuing to think outside the box, and I appreciate all the support the police department has done.

As I tell the residents who call me or talk to me or stop me on the trail, it's like we're doing what we can, we're we're increasing our enforcement, and you know, maybe there's a few more things that we can do strategically like you did in October 7th and 9th as we go into the holidays, that could help.

So, if we can put some resources to it, I think this would be the time.

And and we are, I don't know, uh, Vice Mayor Rafel, was it this week or last week we did the two by two?

Last week.

Last week with the school, and we taught and and I talked with Christine about messaging.

I looked at a kind of a draft email that she was the the city plans to send parents as a warning, so to speak, as we're approaching the holidays and Black Fridays right around the corner that before they go and buy one of these e-conveyances for their son or daughter, that they are aware of the laws and and some of the creative ways that kids have tried to figure out or they think they've figured out to kind of circumvent the system and the laws by, for example, attaching fake pedals to an e-motorcycle, so it looks like it meets the requirements when it clearly does not.

But there is a piece, whether it's been shared by the city yet or not, I'm unaware.

Um, but that is a direction that the city's moving in to try to get that message out before Christmas.

And you know, I did appreciate the permit.

I mean, having a permit to have it anybody.

You are you've been working on it right now, yeah.

Um I think that's an interesting, so thank you for your presentation.

Of course.

Did you have something else?

I just have a few things.

Okay.

Remember that this is coming back to us on December 9th.

It actually takes some action.

I just wanted to uh kind of underline what I think may be helpful.

Um, and um, first of all, I like their use of drones.

I think putting a motorcycle on the trails and chasing kids down the trail who are um speeding or whatever is probably dangerous, not only for the kid and the cyclist and anybody else using it.

We wouldn't be chasing them, but our our traffic officers are specifically assigned to motorcycles because it allows them to get their vehicle onto the bike trail and then tuck away and be kind of hidden so that they can hopefully catch these people who are who are breaking that law.

And I'm just wondering if you couldn't have uh some increase of um in the use of drones, um, as a just an intermittent monitoring um method, especially on high use tri uh times on the trails, or that's after school doing holidays or probably high times for these things to happen.

Um, because you can, like you said, follow the kids home and get an address.

Um I like the idea of the power lines.

Uh we do have Prairie City OH V Park, they don't allow you know the e-bikes, but they allow the um the motorcycles, um, any and giving that kind of information out to the kids that have those bigger um kinds of things and maybe doing an educational piece on that because uh they do have outdoor trails already um constructed.

Um, and then on the permitting, it seems like it would be helpful to identify who these are if there was a permitting process and a requirement for an identifiable like license plate because you can't identify bla uh kids in black clothing on black bikes uh as they go speeding by, so that might be another method, and then just the use of trailers uh, you know, with the um alternating signage, maybe by the entrance to some of these trails and just saying um, you know, electric uh bikes and uh motorcycles not allowed on the trail intermittently.

I appreciate all your efforts.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

Thank you, Lieutenant.

We'll look forward to the presentation of summer.

Do you have something to add?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

We've got them for so with regard to that.

With regard to my suggestion of permit program, um, it should be a shared permit between one of the kids' parents and the kid, so that you can tie the permit to their driver's license.

That's straightforward.

The vehicle should have uh registration decal attached to it after they go through one of a semi-monthly series of training classes to teach them laws and give them a chance to not get their vehicle impounded because they A don't have a permit or B have violated the rules in some way.

So that's that's my actual suggestion is that you have the parent and the their charge um have a shared permit.

The vehicle has to have a tag on it.

Um, and then if they if they get if they interact with the police without those things, their assignment is to come to the next training and get it permitted.

And if they have been to one of the permitting events, then the vehicle gets impounded and then there's escalating fines depending on whatever the rules are that we impose.

That's the full story.

Thank you.

All right.

Did you have anything you want to add?

I'll reserve most of my comments for next meeting uh and questions when we have something to act on.

Um, but what is jammer technology look like?

Uh, I love drones, but is there an option now?

We're going into the next entry.

Maybe EMP that can kill a bike.

I'm just throwing it out there.

Think on that it's like a several days.

If we don't even utilize it, uh, you know, yeah, it's it's something.

Giant magnets.

I'll hear about it on the ninth.

There you go.

All right, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

All right, that takes us to our consent calendar.

Is there any item that anybody wants to pull?

We don't have any requests to speak on anything.

No requests from the public to speak under consent.

I'll move the consent calendar.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the rule.

Council members Roarbah.

Yes.

Kozlovski.

Yes.

Leary, yes, Rathel.

Yes.

And a keynote.

Yes.

Next item, please.

Next is public hearing item number 11.

Resolution number 11505.

A resolution adopting the November 2025 adjustment for the Folsom plan area specific plan infrastructure fees and setting the updated amount of the SPIF fees.

Good evening, Stacy.

Good evening.

Trying to get this mouse to work.

There we go.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and Vice Mayor and Council members.

I'm Stacey Tamani, Chief Financial Officer.

The item before you tonight is resolution number one five oh five, adopting the November 2025 adjustment for the SPIF.

The SPIF program is the funding mechanism that equalizes the cost of the public infrastructure, the public land, and the community park land in the Folsom plan area among all of the developers.

This includes improvements such as roadways, sewer facilities, potable water facilities, recycled water, storm drainage, habitat mitigation, and other costs.

I have a little bit of background here on the program.

Back in 2015, the city council established the Folsom Plan Area specific plant infrastructure fee.

That's known as the SPIF.

And there have been several updates that you can see here on the slide over the past 10 years.

Most recently in August and November of 2023, when the City Council approved the SPIF fee adjustment to update the construction cost estimates that were used to calculate the fees.

In addition to these adjustments, there have been periodic construction cost index, CCI updates, and the most recent update was July 1st of 2025.

This 2025 SPIF fee adjustment was done at the request of the SPIF administrator, the city, and the landowners to update the construction cost estimates used to calculate the fees.

This adjustment alters the fee amounts based on the city's August 2024 specific plan amendment.

It includes updated construction costs and the amount of development remaining in the Folsom plan area.

The adjustment includes the land use changes that were included in that 2024 specific plan amendment.

And so that resulted in more fee pain dwelling units.

And this adjustment also includes the addition of a few improvements.

So even though the cost of this infrastructure program in total increases as a result of this update, the fees per unit for each land use have decreased for the most part, and you'll see that on the next slide, because the increased cost of the program overall is now being spread across more fee pain dwelling units.

The adjusted fees, if approved will become effective January 15th of 2026.

So here we have a chart of the updated fees for residential units.

This does exclude the area of Folsom Heights.

They have their own fee schedule that is included in your report.

But for everyone else with this adjustment, the SPIF fee will decrease between approximately 431 dollars up to 4,116 per unit for the residential uses, with one use experience in an increase of 1930.

And this slide here shows the fees for non-residential uses decreasing between $13.19 cents and 42 cents per building square foot with one land use experience in an increase of $3.79 per building square foot.

And we do have Jamie Gomes from EPS here with us tonight to assist with any questions that you might have related to this update.

But with that, staff recommends that the city council conduct the public hearing and then adopt resolution number 11505.

Thank you.

Great, thank you very much.

Any questions for Stacy on the side?

No, any questions over here for Stacy?

All right, then this is a public hearing.

So I'm going to open the public hearing.

Do we have any requests to speak?

No requests to speak for this item.

Anybody in the audience who did not submit a blue card who wants to speak on this item?

Seeing and hearing no one, I will close the public hearing and I will entertain a motion to adopt resolution number 11505.

So moved.

Second.

A motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Robaugh.

Yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

Leary.

Yes.

Rathel.

Yes.

And Aquino.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Next item, please.

Next item is new business item number 12, Folsom Kids Play Park Clay Structure Replacement Project.

This item has three related resolutions.

Resolution number one one four nine seven, one one four nine eight, and one one four nine nine.

Good evening, Brad.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council members.

I'm Brad Nelson, Park Planning Manager.

The item before you tonight is the Folsom Kids Play Castle Park Play Structure Replacement Project.

As part of this item, there are three separate resolutions in brief.

Resolution 11497 approves the name of Castle Park.

11498 authorizes a sole source procurement from Leathers and Associates.

11499 authorizes a sole source procurement from Playground Plastics.

Each of these items supports a timely, safe, and of course, a community-supported delivery of the project.

The resolution number 11497 is the renaming of Castle Park.

The park's official name is Folsom Kids Play Park, and that was given that name back 30 years ago, and it was from the original community-led group, which was Folsom Kids Play.

So they were the folks that were responsible for doing the fundraising for the original build of the park 30 years ago.

However, everybody basically knows the park as Castle Park.

So during the design phase of the park renovation project, we had two community meetings, one in June and one in July.

And at those meetings, participants were asked to weigh in on changing the changing the name to Folsom Castle Park.

And feedback feedback at those meetings was overwhelmingly supportive of the change.

So on October 7th, the staff brought this recommendation to rename the park Folsom Castle Park to the Park and Recreation Commission.

And at that meeting, a community member requested the name be changed to simply Castle Park.

The Park and Recreation Commission forwarded the recommendation to change the name to Castle Park under the city council for your consideration and approval this evening.

Moving on to the other two resolutions, those are both sole source procurements.

One is for with leathers and associates, and the other one is with playground plastics.

Whether following Folsom Municipal Code for Soul Source Procurement, it's used when only one source is available for a required product or service.

A contract may be awarded without competitive bidding, and the department must verify in document that no other sources exist, and a waiver of bid is prepared and filed with the city clerk.

So a quick background on the play structured design, how we got there.

So we did have a design review committee, and those members included Council Member Roarbaugh, Parks and Recreation Commissioners Brian Wallace and Sandy Economy, Joanne Brosh, who represents Kids Play for Generations, who's the fundraising effort.

Bonnie Bernstein, who's with Little Folks University, and staff, including Parks and Rec Director Gonzalez, myself, and Project Manager Hannah Perez.

We did meet twice in September on the 4th and the 16th to review the design.

The final design was approved on October 7th of this year, and that design is a custom design by Leathers and Associates, and some of the main features of that are inclusive play components, custom slides, and climbing elements, ADA accessible play zones, and the community build model.

This is the final design rendering.

I'm going to do just a brief quick, very high-level overview of that.

So just to orient yourself, Pruitt Drive is down on the bottom of the screen.

We kept the original fence locations for both the large and the and the small top play areas.

This is the existing shade structure, which we kept.

This is the two to five player area.

And if you see the sort of blue coloring, that's the port in place rubberized surfacing.

So we tried to make these new structures more accessible for folks in wheelchairs and with other disabilities.

We are maintaining the sand play area in the middle.

We're also maintaining the sundial that's there.

This is the larger five to twelve play area, and again, we have the whole front of the structure is accessible via this rubberized play surfacing.

The rest of the the tan coloring that you see around here is the engineered wood fire bar, which you see in most of our play areas.

A little bit on the project budget.

The total cost of the park is estimated a little over $1 million.

And the cost of this project is funded by three sources.

So the parks and recreation equipment capital fund, which is fund 609, we have 778,000 in that fund.

And measure A fund, which is fund 276, we anticipate 135, 135,000 coming from that.

And in-kind, very generous in-kind services and donations, which are totaling over 153,000 dollars.

So that's where we come up with a million dollars.

The portion of the project being charged to measure A includes ADA and bike and pedestrian trailway system improvements.

There will be a future resolution that will accompany the site work contract that's going to be using those measure A funds specifically, and that will be coming to you hopefully in December.

The items we're discussing tonight, however, are all being charged to the park and recreation equipment capital fund, which is fund 609.

And the Folsom Kids Play Park Play Structure Replacement Project is included in the fiscal year 2526 capital improvement plan with a project budget of $800,000.

So a little bit about the sole source from leathers and associates.

The materials that are included in that are custom slides, inclusive swing components, activity panels, and climbing structures.

Why we're sole sourcing those.

The specified equipment is designed to meet the precise specifications that were established in the approved drawings.

So that's in terms of height and dimensions and width and everything.

These pieces fit in, will fit in perfectly with the design.

It also everything complies with National Playground Safety and Accessibility Standards, ASTM Consumer Product Safety Commission, which oversees Playground Safety Guidelines, CPSC, and of course the Americans with Disability Acts.

This also allows us to maintain warranty eligibility.

The leathers and associates quote for those materials is 100,790.

Staff is requesting an additional 10% contingency to count for any increases in freight for a total not to exceed cost of 110,870.

Now a little bit on the sole source with playground plastics.

So those are proprietary structural plastic lumber, which is from Polyforce and Tandeck.

And those include color core fence pickets and color core structural pieces.

So the color core means that there's a different color that's in the core of the plastic lumber, and that allows us to do if you're familiar with the structure, there's routering and a lot of detailed work that goes along with that structure.

So when they get down into that core, you'll be seeing a different color to add some relief and some depth to the structure itself.

There are many different types of plastics, plastic lumber out there, but few are really considered to have structural integrity.

Playground plastics is currently the only vendor with a product that meets the structural specifications required for this project, and that's specifically around the structural rating and the span.

So the span has to do with where the posts are laid, where the beams are spaced.

So typically on with composite lumber like that, all of that is a lot closer together than you would have on a typical wood structure.

Playground plastics product also has an external layer that encases the core and is comprised of high quality resins, pigments, and UV resistant additives, creating a more durable, superior external finish that requires no waterproofing, staining, or painting.

The playground plastics quote for these materials is 293,000.

And again, staff is recommending including a 10% contingency to account for any increases in freight for a total not to exceed cost of 322,000.

I wanted to before I go to the recommendation, I just wanted to provide you with some updates as to what our next steps are.

So upon the approval this evening, we'll be ordering those playground construction materials.

This week we're completing the site work construction documents.

I'm hoping to have those complete by Friday of this week.

And then we'll be onboarding the site work contractor hopefully at City Council on December 9th.

And then the site work construction is anticipated to be in January of 2026.

The community build schedule is dependent on getting all that material ordered.

So we're we've been given a 15-week lead time because all of it is custom made.

And then we're still park, we're planned for the park opening in April of 2026.

So with all of that, the staff recommendation is resolution number 11497, a resolution approving the name of Castle Park, formerly known as Folsom Kids Play Park, resolution number 11498, a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a sole source procurement from Leathers and Associates for materials for the Folsom Kids Play Park Play Structure Replacement Project, community build for not-to-exceed amount of 110,870 dollars from the parks and recreation equipment capital fund, and resolution number 11499, a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a sole source procurement from Playground Plastics for materials for the Folsom Kids Play Park, Place Structure Replacement Project, Community Build for a not to exceed amount of 322,594 from the Parks and Recreation Equipment Capital Fund.

Thank you very much, Brad.

Councilmember Kozlowski, any questions?

Nothing, thank you.

Kind of question.

Can you go back to the rendering?

For those that may see this eventually or are watching tonight that didn't see the rendering the night it was revealed.

I know that there were some questions about water fountain.

So I this is a rendering, this isn't exactly.

So can you address the water fountain?

Was a big issue, and then the current are we keeping the current coverage pavilion?

And then can you talk about any updates on a rest room?

Sure.

So the um this we have a separate set of drawings that's being prepared for the site work, which includes the replacement of the concrete walk.

And we did make some adjustments to this edge here.

So you remember the um the frogs entries are here and here.

So the um this plan doesn't show things like the drinking fountain.

So the drinking fountain is currently over in here where it gets filled up with sand.

So we're relocating the drinking fountain right here.

And I'm I'm sorry, Councilmember Borough, about the site area, didn't I?

The gaze or the outdoor shade structure.

Yeah, I mean, you're showing it there, but it's staying as it is.

This is staying exactly as it is.

We were able to, we saw cut the concrete there and there.

So the picnic tables are staying in there.

We are using some, we're installing new picnic tables and new benches.

Some of that is surplus that our parks maintenance staff has, and in fact, the drinking fountain is also parks surplus, new material that we're reusing.

And then the third question was about the the and these are the three most questions I got that night, so that's why I wanted you to address them.

Okay, is about a future restroom.

So we um we were looked, we in consult consultation with our utilities department, we looked at potential sewer locations.

Um there is existing potable water on the site, which is will be here, and then there's existing electrical service on the site, which we can also, you know, basically route anywhere.

Our biggest concern was the sewer, and so there because there is no sewer line in Pruitt Drive directly in front of this, but 35 or so years ago when this was developed, somebody had the foresight to bring in a sewer line from the um from I'm not sure what the name of the street is on the other side of those houses that are in the back of the park.

And so there is a sewer line that runs between two parcels and it's on the sort of left side of the site.

So that's been a big um as a very big plus for us.

So once we kind of get all of this, you know, ordered, everything ordered.

We're still working with our community groups.

We're gonna be putting together, you know, a package and getting more um serious, you know, um drawings and details and everything for the restroom building.

Some of the site work that we'll we'll be doing will also stub out some of those you the water and the electrical to this location here.

So those watching, um, while we can't put in the restroom at this point in time, and probably not by April unless we can.

Um, we are currently looking at different funding opportunities areas that we can put a restroom that will serve that entire trail system.

Um so it is on the radar of we can do the infrastructure work now, and then hopefully we can find funding for it and and move forward and maybe in I don't want to give any time frames, um, but and have a future restroom there.

So it is it is still definitely a priority, but we didn't want to push it forward.

Um we don't want to delay this project because we don't have funding for the restroom yet.

So um just for those watching that this is still a part that is still a priority.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Leary, any questions?

Um yeah, I do have some questions here, and um part of this is about the funding.

I know we um approved a budget of um eight hundred thousand dollars for all of this, and they you know, a lot of the costs have have come up and been filled in with measure A funds for the accessibility.

Um, and then the um are the in-kind services and donations that uh inclusive of what's already been raised by the volunteer group?

Yes, it is.

Um, I'm understanding that there's the potential for that number to go up to cover increased costs.

Um so the estimated cost for the um portion of work for the site work, is do you have a ballpark figure for that?

We're right at around 200,000.

Okay.

So the total costs would come to around 1.200,000 uh million dollars.

No, the the um we have a more detailed um the the site work is is listed in the um on page five.

That's part of that.

Right.

Yeah, yes, so that was in the um the site work is included in the one million dollars.

So we at this point we don't anticipate going over that.

Okay, that was my question because I think we're trying to keep costs down um just to be able to service a number of other parks in the districts.

Um and uh in terms of the timeline, do you want to um can you go over that again a little bit like for final completion?

Sure.

So the um so this evening, if this is approved, we'll be ordering the the um materials, the playground plastics and the other components from leathers and associates.

The site work construction documents will be also be completed this week, then we'll be onboarding a site work contractor in December, and our goal is to have that on the December 9th City Council meeting.

The site that site work then will um be or occur in January of next year.

The community build is scheduled for March of 2026.

We anticipate doing some pre-work out there with some more skilled laborers before we bring in the general community to get sort of a running start on everything and then the park opening is planned for April.

Okay and some of this will be dependent on weather or any other issues that come up with the site don't put that on there.

I'm just saying I just want the community to not say wait it was it's not here in April so how many bills are in March is it considered one weekend build or it's one the community effort will be one week because that's what we're anticipating right now.

But a few weeks before that as I mentioned we're going to bring in our skilled um skilled volunteers who will be um right now we're looking at we have groups from contractors and various home builders who are looking at helping us with that so they'll be able to do set the footings for the posts of the structure and do things like that.

Okay.

And um I the one question about having a one week bill is that over any holiday time because you'll have more people available if kids aren't in school during the five days of that week.

Correct we're looking at uh we're looking at those dates right now and I as I mentioned it's contingent on the uh 15 week lead time for the material that we'll be ordering okay thank you you're welcome thanks for the work yeah thank you okay thank you do we have any requests to speak on this item no request to speak for this item all right then we need three separate motions council member would you like to do the ones I know I would um I'll make a motion for uh for resolution number one one four nine seven renaming castle park second we have a motion and a second please call the roll council members roarbaugh yes Kozowski yes Leary yes Rethel I just want to add I think you guys nailed the design you guys worked great with the community and listen so I appreciate that and I'm happy to vote yes thank you and a keynote yes I'll make a motion to move uh resolution one one four nine eight seconds we have motion and a second please call the roll council members rohrbach yes koslowski yes leary yes and a kino yes uh I move resolution number one one four nine nine second we have motion and a second please call the role council members rohrba yes koslowski yes leary yes Raithel yes and a keynote yes thank you very much Brad thank you next item please next item is item thirteen resolution number one one five zero six a resolution of the city of fulsome declaring its intention to modify the assessment rate of the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District fixing the time and place of a public meeting and public hearing thereon and giving notice thereof good evening again Stacy good evening just setting up the presentation here having trouble with a house.

I can't control the computer okay there we go it's starting to work now okay I can send it up there once it's open all right good evening everybody um madam mayor uh vice mayor members of the council thank you very much for having us tonight my name is Eileen Reynolds I am the chair of the Tourism and Economic Development Corporation TED Corp and we are here to recommend that uh we raise the tourism business improvement district from 4% to 8% through virtue of tonight you um adopting a resolution that would go out to the hotel owners because they're the ones that pay this assessment and ask whether they are okay with it or whether they'd prefer to protest it.

I am the opener um I am going to hand off to Sally Buchanan, who is our vice president for tourism at Choose Folsom.

I am joined today by the Vice Chair of our organization, Martha Lofgren, and also by a renowned expert in this field on TBIDS, John Lambeth with Civitas, and also one of his folks is Tess Gallagher tonight.

So with that, I'm gonna hand it over to Sally and then I will come back with the recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members and the audience.

I thought I would start tonight for those in the audience who might not have read the staff report to talk about the timeline because tonight the council is um would only be adopting the resolution of intent to modify the T-bid.

They're not approving the modification just yet.

If they approve the intent from there, tomorrow we mail all of our hoteliers hard copies of the resolution, and we've met with all the hoteliers already, and they're all behind this effort.

After all, you'll hear what we want to be doing, which would be increasing tourism and economic activity for the city.

And then there's a couple of other steps 45 days after that email, there's a public meeting, a public hearing, and then hopefully all goes well, and council approves from there.

The hotels would set up their PO system POS systems, and by hopefully around April 1st, start to collect the assessment.

I do want to note that the assessment, it's not an it's an assessment, not a tax, and it is collected by the people who stay in the hotel.

So they are paying the assessments in and the TOT.

So I wanted to make sure everybody knew what a business improvement district was, and it's a self-assessment.

It's agreed upon by the like businesses.

In this case, it's our hotel years, and the fee of the assessment that's um the hotels collect, then needs to be used for the specific purpose of driving tourism room nights, heads and beds in the city of Folsom.

How can we grow our tourism economy?

Which is really important, constructing new facilities or as important upgrading facilities that we currently have.

And with those efforts, whatever we are doing, should increase, increase demand or average daily rate.

Sorry, ADR is average daily rate.

We are also right now marketing our nearby regional amenities in our gold country in El Dorado County, El Dorado County, funded its tourism through TOT, and they needed to use that money to close a funding gap.

So they cut tourism, and we picked up Jody Franklin from who handled their tourism for 17 years.

So now we're really working on a stay here, play there campaign, use Folsom as a base camp for all the things here and right around us.

We also in 2003, ending in 2004, we did a destination asset study, which covered five different areas: an entertainment venue, indoor recreation, outdoor recreation, event attraction, conference meeting space, and I can tell you you'll see in a minute there are projects in every one of those areas that we could build and or improve in this area that would help us increase our tourism.

You know, increasing demand helps increase overall occupancy and the average daily rate.

We can also attract further private sector investment, look for public-private partnerships, and I can say that we are falling slightly behind our neighboring destinations.

Red Hawk is talking about building an arena up on Bass Lake Road.

They're talking about building two hotels, a conference center, and an entertainment venue.

Our partners in Placer Valley Roseville area.

They have the grounds, which is a huge indoor facility that can host many, many basketball volleyball tournaments in indoor and Rancho Cordova has their downtown Dova huge project that they just announced in the last month, and I hear they'll be creating their own TBID for that project.

Not sure if that's true though.

A little bit more about our destination asset studies.

Again, these were completed in March of 2024.

The market has already changed a bit.

There's new projects coming on.

There's some that have already opened, so we're gonna have to take a step and take a look at these again.

But in each of the areas, there are projects that we could work on that would put heads in beds and increase tourism traffic to our community.

People who stay on our hotels don't generally buy off Amazon, they're shopping in our stores, they're eating in our restaurants, any facilities that we would build or upgrade need to be operated.

We would get more jobs during the bill process and more jobs for people to operate.

I do want to say that the Folsom Tourism and Economic Development Corporation, we are not interested in operating any of these facilities.

But we are interested in helping get them going and making sure some one or more of these come to the market.

We do not have any specific projects right now tonight that we are asking you all to increase this assessment for.

After we, if this all goes through in January, we will be getting together a committee of stakeholders.

Of course, hotels need to be on that committee because they're the ones who ultimately agree or not agree to even take this assessment because they have to approve, or actually at this point, they have to protest whether or not we want to do this.

They are we already have an assessment of four percent, but we can have more soccer fields, upgrade some current ones, put some Bermuda grass on some ones that aren't really usable for tournaments right now.

So we've talked to Folsom Lake Surf.

There are things we could do to help us increase tournament play, which drives people to town.

We've done two studies now on conference center hotels.

We can use about 18 to 20,000 square feet, divisible so it could have breakouts projects.

Most of these projects would need some public private support, especially conference centers.

They don't pencil out themselves, indoor sports.

We studied the Folsom Ranch Sports Complex, and that space could be used for things such as volleyball, covered space outside for soccer, so it is a multi-usable space in and of itself.

Entertainment venue and Folsom is always really strong for events.

So any and all of these can help drive more economic impact.

What are the financial options for us to implement some of the assets of the destination asset study?

We could use municipal funds, private investment, public-private partnerships is key.

Um just I wanted to note a couple of examples of TBIDs who have used funding to help build projects.

Placer Valley bonded and they helped build out the grounds, and they actually operate that facility.

Again, I want to note we don't really want to get into the operation game, and Sacramento, I believe, used some of their bid money for bonding, and they built the ballroom at the convention center.

Some facts about tourism in Folsom.

We have currently 904 rooms.

When the AC Hotel in the Palladio is opens in hopefully June, that will make bring us to just over a thousand.

Rancho Cordova and Roseville have double our rooms.

When our TBID was initiated, initiated in 2002, it was with a 2% with a five year sunset term under state law.

It was renewed in 2007, same term in 2012.

We established the T-bid under a city ordinance at 4% for 20 years.

It's much easier to plan when you have a longer term.

It's hard to plan and on shorter terms.

And that current term expires in 2033.

And if approved, this additional 4% increase will generate approximately 1.1 to 1.2 million dollars a year.

Currently, our T-bid rates and TOT rates in our surrounding regions.

I might add TOT, transient occupancy tax that goes into the general fund of the municipalities.

Most our jurisdictions around us are between 14.5% and 16.5%.

We're at 12% between the two.

So we do have some room to grow and be competitive at about the same rate as our neighboring jurisdictions.

And as Aileen said, we are asking for a 4% increase.

And with that increase, we um plan to dedicate the that additional 4% and keep it separate.

So it is just used for building new destination asset infrastructure or making improvements to current and any of the associated costs.

What are the potential impacts of raising the T-bed?

We're direct direct investment in our demand drivers.

We need facilities that a meeting facility to help fill our hotel rooms midweek.

Leveraging collaborations and making our dollars go far farther.

We do intend to again, we don't want to build any one facility.

We'd like to prioritize the projects, determine which ones are feasible, and then potentially bond and invest in several opportunities so we can make our dollars go farther and invest in public-private partnerships so that even increases the reach.

Next, I'll hand it back to a thank you, Sally.

Great job.

Great job.

So this is the recommendation.

Primarily, it would kick off the process tonight if you approve the resolution that so that we can go ahead and mail to the hotels and find out whether they're on board with this.

We think based on what Sally said from meetings that have been taken or had with the hotels that they are generally for it.

We think this is an innovative approach that will help us remain competitive in the region.

So essentially we're recommending that you raise the TBID assessment to 8% under the present 20-year term, which expires in 2033, and dedicate the new 4% assessment for tourism facilities, amenities, and associated costs, form a TEDCorps task force.

And with that, we would love to have city representatives.

We love to have representatives of parks planning, the Folsom Athletic Association, folks who put on events who can give us more information about what could be feasible here so that we could study the heck out of it and come back with some really great ideas about how to utilize the money, do some feasibility studies, and be able to move forward on some actual action with some projects in the city.

So we're excited about it.

The TED Court Board with a quorum present, unanimously recommended this, and I'd love to see you support it tonight.

So this is our recommendation, and like I mentioned, we have these experts with us from Civitas, John Lambeth, and Tess Gallagher, and also our vice chair, Martha Lochren, who, as you know, has lots of city credentials and is very familiar with the Folsom code.

So with that, may we answer any questions for you.

Thank you very much.

Let's see.

Councilmember Orba, any questions at this time?

Councilmember Leary.

Yeah, I have quite a few questions.

I actually met with Vice Mayor Rafel and Joe Gagliardi last week for the my first review of how this was all going to go.

And I've come up with a number of questions since then.

That you know, it's not uncommon for people to ask in various organizations throughout the city or residents about what kind of funding the chamber is currently getting from the city and what kind of you know resources are being provided.

And um I want to be sure that that is a part of this process that and that is going to cover you know how this process actually moves along.

Um, so you know the city has some facilities that that are used that um I don't believe the city uh the uh the city gets reimbursed for um for the use.

For example, the chamber depot um is uh rented to the um is rented to the chamber for dollar annually by the city which owns the site.

Um and there's a uh new proposal, I guess, for a retail facility to go in and what kind of money would we get back from that rental.

Um Councilmember Leary, I'm I'm not sure what that particular question has to do with this.

Well, I I think that it has to do with the fact that in order for us to or for me to feel comfortable approving this, I want to make sure that this process remains transparent and that we the city has input into kinds of projects that are being proposed and brought forward for us to support.

Is that something you know that we would want to see here and then for them to put in a whole lot of energy into?

I would love to answer the question.

The good news is, and we didn't think it was good news at the time, but there was a new state law passed that applies the open meetings law to T-bids.

So in this case, TED Corp is now fully available for public participation.

So I think a lot of that transparency concern that you would think would, you know, this is gonna go be hidden in a room somewhere, but because we do get um local government money, that means we are subject to the Brown Act, which means essentially we are noticing all of our meetings now and also allowing for public comment just like you do here.

Okay, so that I mean this money and any money that the city supporting the chamber with would be.

And I'm not qualified to go beyond as far as what the city funds are.

I just ask these questions and people ask me to ask these questions.

Okay.

I mean, I don't know that we have an answer to that.

I don't think we do at this point.

Yeah, and um, the other um thing I think that we talked to Joe about last week was having uh the uh possibility that facility facilities could be improved, and I think that one of you brought that up about improving the sports fields so that we could have more tournaments here.

Um and what can anybody answer the question about what that would look like?

You mean what which fields?

No, not which fields, but you know, fields would be identified and um and that would be something that you would work with parks and rec on.

Yes, in fact, we've listed a whole bunch of folks we think that we ought to work with.

Okay.

Yeah, so um, you know, and city it up there is pretty broad, obviously, but yeah, we need everybody who has anything to do with capital facilities in the city, I think would be we would want their participation so that we could be sure that we have a broad range of folks looking at this.

And would those be public meetings?

As far as I understand, yes, they would because we are public, you guys are public.

I mean, I guess there are certain scenarios where if we didn't have a certain number of TEDCourt members present.

I but I I don't know, it gets dicey about Brown Act stuff.

Um but I think that um I think for the most part, I we would expect that they'd be public.

And there will, as I mentioned, Sally into the microphone, please so we can get recording and take it over.

As I mentioned, um on the studies, uh we did a lot of studies and they did talk about some fields that we have or the needs for soccer versus baseball.

And we were talking with Kelly a little bit yesterday.

She was mentioned mentioning some things that need to be done.

But we have to put that all together and really determine what are the projects that are going to put the heads in beds and then work with the city and parks and recs to make sure that project we would be allowed use for tournaments because I now know right now a lot of the um the fields are for community first.

So what's what's the new plan together?

A blended making everybody happy because ultimately, Barbara, the the the hotels um approve this or can take it away, and they have to approve the project.

So if we say we want Lumby Park done, but the hotels say, well, a conference center is gonna go, but and we only have money to so much money to use, there's gonna be some negotiation give and take on everything.

It's just not but absolutely it's better to start with something that's already built than having to build everything new.

So there's well there'll be a whole process, and we'll have a stakeholder group, and there'll be city people, parks and rec, FAA promoters, someone maybe from the Folsom Lake Surf, maybe um hotel conference and meeting planners.

There could be we have to, when this is approved, we'll really think about the way that all unfolds.

It'll also have to be prioritized because as you know, one it's an extra one to 1.5 million dollars a year.

And I mean that's in the scheme of things, it's not a lot of money, but there is an opportunity for the city to bond against it in the long term, and I think that would be maybe some of the larger um leverage points that we have that could actually you know result in something, you know, a bigger deal than just patching a field.

And that was one of my questions about bonding in the city would be bonding against money or the developer.

Bond bonding, but that's my impression.

We might throw this to John, I can briefly answer that.

Yes, it would it would be the city that would bond against it, it would generally be taxable bonds.

But right now, the way that this is set up, we'd have to come back to you to to set it up differently in order to move forward with bonding.

So no matter what, it would come back here to a public process if we go that route.

Okay, and then um the you know, when we have increased use of of our roads and facilities and all of the rest of that, there, you know, there's a potential for having some costs that would be anticipated to come out of the general fund.

And is there a way to kind of assess what an increase in tourism would bring in in terms of an increase sales tax dollars for the city?

Yes, that would happen with all with the studies.

And to the microphone, please, Sally.

Sorry.

Yes, that would happen with additional studies, and we had some preliminary data in the original five studies.

Um, but it they weren't really in depth.

But yes, that would come with studies and it would all be prioritized.

But right now there's not really any, I guess there's no data available to date about the increase.

Like if you look at last year's data that you all provided in a recent um update uh on tourism and the results that were done.

I think I think the challenge is that we can't really estimate yet um how the money is gonna get spent and what type of tourism-related assets are gonna be funded, because that's gonna depend on how, and that's gonna be the crux of what causes more heads and beds.

And it's the heads and beds that's gonna deliver extra dollars for the city because that'll not only will increase the transient occupancy tax per person per room that's rent, not per person, but per room that's rented, but it'll also increase the sales tax on that expenditure and also the money that Sally um mentioned where all these people that do standard health hotels tend to go to our restaurants and do all that.

So they have a multiplier effect.

But no, I don't think we have anything beyond anecdotal um evidence that that would be the case.

But we do believe it will help enhance the city's coffers.

Okay, and um another question is um this is just specifically focused on tourism and putting heads in beds.

And is and I don't know how every arm of the chamber works but um what so this can't really enhance the ability to do more economic development in terms of bringing in more um employment centers um you know where we would have potentially more corporate travel and this money has to be approved by the hotels and anything that we do with it has to the intent needs to be put heads in beds no I understand that piece I'm just wondering I mean I don't know I don't know if I had time to look at your question and it really did drive corporate travel potentially yes but I I don't I can't really I'm not understanding the context of your question really but if it was a project that drove people here for training and they were coming from other areas and they needed to stay in our hotels for two weeks at a time that would be putting heads in beds so I think a conference center would be a good example of that if you're it's not an amenity it's something you're building for your corporate exactly your corporate entities.

Yeah you know I'm I'm actually it's like how do we and I I know this has nothing to do with this current ask is how are we or the chamber working on bringing in more um employment centers you know we lost you know we're losing a lot of the intel um employees and um filling in those other areas and I'm just asking is there something the chamber is working on in that direction.

That is our next presentation that you can ask us to come do and um Joe and Taron could come speak to that more than I could unfortunately I can't I I don't work on economic development every day.

I wish I could answer that question.

One of the things I sort of see it as a part of I mean one of the things we do know is that chamber is active working with GSEC to bring more businesses to the region and so a lot of times we are the incidental beneficiary of of folks that come and say wow Folsom's a cool place to to live and work so let's let's put ourselves here you know but I don't think that we could say right now that this money could go for that and I no I and that wasn't the ask I'm just trying to put together in my head and Sally's answer what might be a you know an economic development area that the proposal or not proposal economic development plan.

And this would fit into a piece of that but I like to can I ask John Lambeth from Civitas to come up here for a second I'm gonna maybe help guide this discussion a little bit.

Hi John.

Good evening.

So when you pass a school bond for example you have to say the bond is going to go toward constructing new schools renovation of his existing schools um security upgrades you know you have to kind of have this laundry list of things that it's going to cover and it can only cover those things.

Absolutely how does it work with this?

Do we have do we have to specifically say it's going to cover these things can it be can it be used for anything who decides that that type of thing.

Well this is really a way to think about this madam mayor good evening and good evening council members John Lambeth uh with Civitas is think about it as a two-step process this is raising the assessment rate now to generate some funds to try to advance projects identify projects and advance them you'll come back later when you're ready to build something and at that point you will be bonding and you will say very specifically what that money goes for.

Now unlike a school bond this doesn't have to go to the voters we won't have to go to the voters to do that but it will be very specific and it's going to require council approval so none of none of these facilities that they're talking about if you go to bonding or do any of that none of that's going to happen without coming back to council and we actually anticipate amending your ordinance and there's going to be quite a bit of work at that time uh to put the bond in place.

Okay.

And and so for example let's say that we decided that um being able to host soccer tournaments right is the thing that's going to put heads in beds and we want to take that money and spend it to renovate all of our fields that need work.

It could be used if I'm understanding it could be used to renovate city fields.

It could be rented used to renovate school district fields because oftentimes we have schools located next door to parks is that correct is there anything that's off limits it could be used to to help support something that is being privately funded.

All of the above it the mate the most significant requirement around any of these dollars is that that benefit the payers in this case that's the hotels and so that these are part of a family of districts called special benefit assessment districts so the lens we look through toward any thing you would invest in is does it benefit the hotels um but beyond that it's really quite broad in terms of what you can use it for and you if you look at the language in the ROI tonight it basically says to use for facilities or things related to facilities I think choose fulsom wanted to make sure you understood it wasn't for just ongoing operations that they're doing it is related to facilities and those things um related to the facilities.

Right and so I mean this is one option of course the city could choose to increase the TOT but that would have to go to the voters that's right this is a way to kind of improve some of our facilities um add some amenities some enhancements that could attract people but this only has to be basically protested by the hotels it doesn't go to the voters.

That's correct okay does this help answer your questions Councilmember Larry yeah and and what I want to be sure though is that we have some input you know as as a council elected people representing the citizens on and particularly on decisions that are made that are going to impact things where there's going to be an overlap of people outside users versus people that you currently use our um existing facilities because I could see where that could kind of get out of balance.

Well it sounds like there would be certainly collaboration the city will have a seat at the table but and you would have to have our approval in order to do any bonding.

But ultimately it's the hotel years who are taxing themselves basically and they're the ones who are going to decide they get the last word.

Yeah.

Well they get the well it takes both it takes their support and your support if either if the council doesn't support it doesn't happen.

If the hotel users don't support it it doesn't happen it's gonna take both of you and I think they've done a great job of saying let's get everybody on the team that's looking at this so that we can build a consensus and have support when we come back last tiny bit of clarification and just really parse words here if the improvement that's proposed is approved by the hoteliers and it is on a city facility we actually at the last word of course it is not on a city facility it's private and ever the hoteliers get the last word right not necessarily unless we are bonding money against I think that's paying as we go yes then they could spend it on whatever they feel is going to be fit though.

That's right thank you.

But it would be very unusual for a capital facility like that not to have nonetheless there's those three different paths that's right that's right.

Yeah I just don't want to cede you know the power of all these decisions to someone that we can't communicate with on a regular basis and that's willing to take input from what we're hearing back from our citizens.

Definitely a collaborative effort.

And just one last question so how how does anybody have a vision of how that might work like a you know public workshops or updates at the council where people have the opportunity to to address concerns now our hat hatched idea is to create a task force a joint task force of a whole bunch of folks um so I think what we would do is talk to the city um to the to the staff and see who ought to be sitting at the table for them.

We would probably appoint a few members of our TED Court board um we would reach out to some community members and hold a series of meetings um you know, whether the city hosted them here or we did them at the granite school or or what have you, I that's to be determined.

But I think the bottom line is we want as much input as we can get so we fund or have the idea to fund some of the best projects that are out there that people actually want.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, basically, Ray.

Technical question.

Oh, please please stay up here.

My question is for you.

Um, I was consulting with my own uh T-bid consultant earlier.

It we call them Chat GPT.

And I'm I'm guessing you are much more knowledgeable than Mr.

Chad GPT about these things.

Uh, but from what I can tell, it looks like Rancho Cordova and Sacramento uh do include Airbnbs and VRBOs, although they don't force those sites to collect, they try to collect independently, which I imagine has a relatively low success rate, and Elk Grove does not actually have that.

So why are we not including those?

And and my main concern is like I I like level playing fields.

I say, hey, um, if we're gonna charge the hotel years, why don't we charge that?

And then my other my other concern is we're leaving some money on the table that could be used to go for these these facilities.

Obviously, these things are also going to be bringing people into our Airbnbs and VRBOs.

So if you can help me uh understand why we're not modifying that portion also while we're going to modify the rate, that would be much appreciated.

It's uh it's a great point, and there is definitely a trend across a country to include short-term rentals in districts like this for exactly the reason you said that uh most people like a level playing field, and the hotels certainly in most places uh like a level playing field.

Some destinations have said and the hotels have said we don't want short-term rentals in because they play by different rules, and we might have a uh different views about what uh kind of tourism activities we want to do, but that's unusual.

Um, most want to include them, and some of them have included them.

Um, it's a little bit of a mixed bag in terms of how much you raise versus how much support you have amongst those short-term rentals, and it does take a lot of work to educate them, get them on board, make sure they understand uh the the benefits of what you're doing.

And a great example of that was Sacramento.

Uh Sacramento included them when they did the bonding effort that was talked about before.

Uh, and there was significant opposition uh from the short-term rentals at that time.

Uh, they've worked a lot with the short-term rental community since then, and mind you, short-term rentals generally aren't very organized.

Uh, in some communities in San Francisco, they have an association and they're organized, but in most communities they're not, and it's hard to communicate and hard to educate them.

But Sacramento worked very hard at it, and in their most recent iteration of renewing their ongoing district, they uh actually got uh quite a bit of support from the short-term rentals.

So I think it really is mostly a matter of time, is my guess.

Is uh we talked about that possibility here and it can be done, but because this is a two-step process, uh, I think the thought was maybe we would come back at the second step at that time after working with them a bit more and include them at that point.

And when you say it's a two-step process, you mean this is like December.

We we bring them forward, or in like 2033, we bring them back to the table.

Hopefully, neither of those.

Uh hopefully later than it wouldn't be part of this process of raising the assessment right now.

I think the thought was let's see, let's get that going on the table so we can start this process of looking at facilities and identifying what can be done and and sort of energizing that that effort.

Um, and then when we come back with a facility for council approval and most likely bonding uh to um have that come back and include them at that point.

At least that's on the table.

I don't know that any of that's for certain at this point, but uh that was some of the discussions.

Got it.

So two, three years down the road, we'd send out a different modification.

So the rate would be the same.

We would just say, hey, we're gonna modify this one term that says you have to have 20 robes or not, we're gonna go down to one room.

And it actually would be a more significant change because we need to go in and modify your enabling ordinance, not just adjust the rate.

That's all we're doing as part of this process.

We'd have to modify that enabling ordinance because that only allows for a 20-year term, and for bonding, we'd want to go longer.

Okay, thank you for that background.

Yeah, and as a follow-up to that, so if you include the VRBOs and the short-term rentals, they get a vote, right?

That's right.

But the votes are weighted, so it's not like the short-term rentals are going to outvote probably what the hotel years want if they if they were in agreement.

That's right.

Probably not, but it's we want to have their support too.

Okay, it's definitely a consensus effort.

Got it, okay.

Anything else?

Councilmember Kozlowski.

Okay.

I have another question for you, John.

So there was a slide up there that kind of showed how we stack up compared to our neighboring cities, you know, and we're a little bit behind in terms of when you have the TOT and the bid.

But but when I'm going to look, you know, but I'm going to book at a hotel.

I'm not looking at that.

I'm just looking at the rate.

So when you add 4%, you know, we increase his bid.

How does that make us compare just in terms of total rate to the hotels around us?

Well, how does your average daily rate compare to those other cities?

So that's kind of put us out of whack.

Are we under them right now because our bid is lower or I don't, I don't know what I don't know those numbers.

Can you speak to average daily rates?

Yeah, I can't.

Sorry.

Thank you for the reminder.

So Rancho Cordovers generally lower than us.

Elk Grove is generally lower.

Placer Valley is generally higher.

You know, depending upon the day of the week and whatnot, but they're not a ton higher for $4 to $10.

But sometimes we're hard higher.

And like you said, when I go stay in the hotel, I'm picking the hotel.

I'm not looking at the rate.

And most people just understand the fees are the fees.

I mean, I would say I'm not looking at the different fees, but I am looking at the total rate, right?

Right.

Okay.

And then does this typically have any sort of impact on occupancy rates when you do something like this when you increase it?

Does it does it negatively impact impact your occupants?

We haven't seen it, especially when folks are careful in terms of comparing themselves to others.

And where you were at right now at 12, you are we do a national study every year looking at rates across the country.

And this year, out of the hundred destinations we looked at, that average came in at 15 and a half percent.

And the larger destinations tend to be much higher, 16, 17% and up.

So you are really quite modest where you are today.

This brings you, I think, into a very competitive spot, not only with folks in the media vicinity, but looking at those numbers across the country.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Don't go too far, John.

But I think we do have some requests to speak, maybe.

Yes, we have two requests to speak on this item.

First is uh Bob Holderness, followed by Martha Lofgren.

If anybody else wants to speak on this item, if you just uh fill out a blue card and hand it to the officer, Officer McCullough, thank you.

Mayor members Robert G.

Holderness appearing this evening on my own behalf.

I'm not representing the views of any other person, business entity, nonprofit, political organization, or what have you.

Um I've been following the city's efforts in the last several months to regain its mojo on the financial budget side of life.

And it reminded me of the good old days when I first came to town in 1980, and I wanted to share it with you, not because it's irrelevant that I'm just an old codger, but but because it's actually relevant to this project in the big policy way.

So back in the early 1980s, Stan Geisler was our mayor, and he couldn't make payroll every two weeks.

And get out of his rosary beads and so forth, and he was happened to be Mormon, so that didn't work too well.

But he launched an effort, he was a chemist from Aerojet.

He was an educated man, he was a smart man.

He launched an effort and started at home.

He started at City Hall to figure out how to get the water department, the sewer department, the refuge department to pay their fair share of the utilities at City Hall to pay for the upkeep of City Hall and so forth.

Um his first effort was to raise the water rates.

The pro it wasn't a big raise.

The problem was he lived on the other side of the river that had San Juan water.

So he wasn't raising his own rates, he was raising somebody else's rates, and he got a chance to pay for that a few months later when he ran for re-election.

And even though he was sitting mayor, he lost.

But he did some really important things that got the ball rolling.

He and the chamber president at the time, Ron Kreckelberg, and Rod Carmody was also on the council.

They spearheaded the effort to bring Intel town.

They worked with SACTO, which was the predecessor of the current economic development team in Sacramento to bring Intel town to bring Gekakon Saki to town.

And that was an effort that paid dividends long after Stan left the council.

It paid dividends actually largely when I was on the council because that's when Intel really expanded.

They added two, three, four different buildings and got up to around seven or eight thousand employees.

But there were other things that he did that, not only he but his colleagues that made a difference.

They looked at trying to expand their retail operations.

They weren't that successful, they didn't have that much lead time.

They looked at the possibility of doing a new general plan to have greater density for residential.

At that time, Russell Ranch was one house per five acres.

And they looked at changing all that.

Well, they got a lot of that underway.

Then came Jack Kip in 86.

He came in and he was a retailer.

So he didn't give a darn about Intel because they didn't pay retail.

You know, he didn't care about Aerojet.

He didn't he cared about shopping centers and so the outlets.

That was his big mama and Walmart.

Those were the his two big achievements.

And that, of course, did something that Stan's efforts didn't do directly.

That is, it brought revenue to City Hall.

On the other hand, Stan's efforts did something that Jack's efforts didn't do, and that is it built our economy.

It gave us an economic basis where people could actually buy big houses, not just small 1,200 square foot starter homes.

And so my point of that is this is a relay race, and you guys are now in the middle of that race.

And this is one of the tools that you have available to you.

And I hope that you will use it, use it effectively.

I think it'll be great.

You've got our hotels are near the freeway.

That's a good location to put some facilities.

We have a hotel in the historic district.

That's another good place to put facilities.

I'd be glad to tell you the whole story because I think if you hear the whole story, you won't want to chew on the Chamber of Commerce about that.

They did a wonderful thing for our city at the time in question.

So that's all I got.

I took up too much time.

Thank you, Mayor.

Next is Martha Lofgren, followed by Pat Finnegan.

Thank you, Mayor Aquino, Vice Mayor Raithel, and council members.

I wanted to briefly address one point, and that's why we don't have a proposal in front of you to do the short-term rentals.

Um, it really is a matter of timing.

You heard the estimate that this would generate about 1.2 million dollars a year.

So every month that we delay this is a hundred thousand dollars.

That's potentially not collected.

Um we met, Joe Galliardi and I met with councilmember Kozlowski and City Manager White Meyer, I think it was a month ago today, and and Councilmember Kozlowski asked how how soon could a business improvement district opportunity to raise the rate be brought forward to the city council, and Joe said, Oh, I think you know, sometime first quarter of next year, and and to his great credit, Mike said that's just way too long.

We got to get it on the agenda before that.

And to his great credit, um, City Manager White Meyer made it happen.

So our gratitude to both of those gentlemen for moving this forward.

If we wanted to wait another six months, we could probably reach out to all of these short-term rentals.

But I think the better path is to get started.

We have a consensus with the hotel owners right now.

We have great leadership among all the council members to move this forward.

So, on behalf of the TED Court board, um, would again like to reinforce what the chair of the board asked for, and that's the council approved this resolution to start the process tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next up is Pat Finnegan, followed by Shannon Robb.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good to be here.

It's been a while.

I was a huge proponent of Measure G and incredibly disappointed when that uh did not happen.

Um what was on that ballot, though, was the economic development corporation and 15% of that funds that the 29 million were going to go to that agency.

I was all supportive of that.

That was a year ago.

So that was actually on the ballot, and the community at 62% said no, we don't want that.

I think there would be substantial distrust if a year later, 1.4 million dollars is going to this um organization.

Um they did have the that um item up on the board that uh Miss Aquino uh identified, and it indicated that there was an 8% Folsom TOT, a four percent current rate, another four percent is going to get that to 16 percent.

And the reality is people do look at their bills.

I certainly do when I travel, and I understand the total cost and and so forth.

Of course, I'm a CPA, so I'm looking to see what the taxes are.

Uh, with that being said, though, 16% is about the the ceiling that we want to go for our community.

So if we do allow this four percent, that means the community as a whole cannot go to increase our TOT.

I don't think we should be scared about increasing that and going to the community to ask for support for that payment.

That is what a democracy is, and we might not like the results.

I certainly did not like the results of Measure G, but I respect the fact that the community said no.

I hope we do it again, uh, but it is what it is.

So right now, this the agency, and I know I I hate to be the aunt in the at the picnic, but the agency currently gets 1.3 million dollars in revenue.

Um, I think that's enough.

Um, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh Shannon Rob is the last speaker.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members.

Um, I'm up here today for two reasons.

One that I am a resident here at in Folsom, and I also work for Choose Folsom, and I represent the business community.

And so I know council member Leary, you had brought up um a few points, and I wanted to say a few comments that I have seen and witnessed.

One um good example is one of our larger employers here, inductive automation.

They had a user conference that they were bringing to that they really wanted to keep in Folsom.

Their corporate offers is in fulsom, they wanted to keep it here.

We had they had people coming from around the world for this user conference.

They were supporting our small businesses every year.

Um, they would fill out many of our small restaurants, our businesses on Sutter Street, and they loved having their conference here.

Unfortunately, they we had no more space for them.

They were doing it at the Harris Center.

They're renting tents just to keep it in Folsom.

And they had to leave, they move the entire conference to Sacramento.

They don't want to be there, they want to be where their home is in Folsom, but we don't have the space for them.

And time and time again, I I hear that from businesses.

I hear we where do we have where's meeting space?

Where our hotels don't right currently don't have conference space.

Where do they meet?

And our businesses do want to stay in Folsom, but unfortunately, they're having to go elsewhere.

And so I'm seeing that.

Um, I'm also seeing the benefit of when we do have events here.

Our small businesses really, really see the benefit to it.

They're seeing the influx of people coming to their restaurants, they're seeing people shopping, they're going in retail, they're spending money.

And every time we have an event, we're communicate, or we know an event is coming to town, we communicate that with our businesses.

And they, you know, we we let them know and they stay report back that it was very helpful for them.

The California National Marathon is a great example coming up.

Our fills our hotel rooms.

These people come to Folsom.

People that come to Folsom, they fall in love with Folsom.

They potential future residents.

As a resident here, why I I have a son that's in travel basketball.

I travel all over the place for basketball.

Often I'm going to Plaster County.

I'm not staying in a hotel room, but I'm going to their facility.

And I'm I'm eating lunch.

I'm taking the team out to lunch.

My they're his grandparents are going out to lunch.

And so I feel like we are falling behind.

And as somebody that really is passionate about this community and what we do, I feel like we need to do something now, or we're gonna be really left behind.

So thank you.

Thank you.

John, can I ask you to come back up one more time, please?

Um, so can you just kind of explain um what exactly is the role of the city in this?

Because really the hotels are agreeing to tax themselves, but but that requires our approval.

Same thing with I think maybe it was last year or the year before, we had um the historic district wanted to increase their assessment for their business improvement district, and that has to come to the city for approval, even though it's the merchants agreeing to tax themselves to market their area.

So can you just explain, you know, why is the city involved in this?

How is the city involved in this that everybody is on the same page?

Yeah, that's a great question, madam mayor.

Uh, this really is a quintessential public-private partnership.

Um, it doesn't happen without the city's approval.

At the end of the day, you are levying an assessment on the hotels.

It doesn't happen if this if the hotels don't also agree to it, right?

Either through sometimes there's a petition process required, this particular ordinance only requires that you survive a majority protest.

But it really is it was envisioned in statute and is executed that it is both parties coming together.

If both parties support it, you can do it.

Um, the city has uh an appropriate oversight role here.

There is, as was mentioned earlier, there's a great deal of transparency.

Brown Act, Public Records Act, there's annual reporting back to the council.

You have uh complete transparency of what these organizations are doing and how they're spending their money, and and we would expect the council and the code does empower the council if anything goes wrong, if there's any sense of the money's not being spent appropriately or any violations, anything like that, the council has an appropriate role to sort of stop things or change things to put it on the right course.

So uh it is private in nature and in many respects.

Private sector usually leads these efforts and brings them forward, and they usually are managing the day-to-day, but there's a very important city role here, too, in terms of making it a level playing field so we know everybody's involved and an oversight role in the operations.

Okay, thank you very much.

And just so my colleagues know, um, the city manager and I did receive the annual report from TED Corps about how the current um bid is spent, and we've asked them to come back for a presentation so that everybody can be aware of that.

Um, one follow-up question.

Thank you, John.

Thank you.

Um one follow-up question for Stacey.

So um the city every so many years, we put out an RFP for somebody to basically administer the bid for us, right?

And that's how we have this relationship with TEDCorps.

We had a five-year agreement with them when it first started, and then it's been renewed.

So I don't know that there's been an RFP process done with that.

But yes, we have somebody in contract, the city's in contract with them to administer.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we don't have any more questions.

Anybody have any follow-up questions they have or any of our folks in the audience?

Um, no question, just a comment.

The you know, the uh I wish Mr.

Finnegan had hung around a little bit longer for some of the rest of the commentary here, but um, this uh the reason why I was eager to have this come before us is because as he pointed out, you know, as has been pointed out, excuse me, this is a partnership between the hotel owners and the city to improve facilities private and public here in our city, right?

And um, it is going to be paid exclusively by visitors or maybe our relatives that come to see us, but visitors nonetheless, and it's a relatively small amount of money on any given hotel stay, and it only puts us to par with our neighbors, right?

So it at that point saying, yeah, it's gonna take us six months to get there.

I said there's 11 hotel owners, go talk to them and bring this back as soon as possible.

So this one seemed like a no-brainer to me because, as residents of the city, we get all of the benefit and pay almost nothing for those benefits, and it virtuously, as has also been pointed out, stimulates the economy on a macro level for all of our small businesses, all of our larger businesses.

And when we talked about measure G, I said plainly then that we always have to be working on all three legs of the stool, increasing the size of the pie.

This is part of that, increasing the revenue that we get from all sources, this is part of that, and making sure that we're attractive to businesses so that they come locate here, and that ultimately the combination of amenities and businesses is what draws residents and has brought all of us here in the first place.

So this one is uh as virtuous as it comes, and I'll be making a motion to approve.

Is that a motion right now?

That is okay.

Second, that motion and second, any further discussion?

Um, yeah, I just wanted to bring up that issue of transparency and why I was asking us.

Those have been questions that have come floating around here for the 30 years I've lived here.

I just want to be sure that um the residents trust, you know, what we're doing here and what you know how we're collaborating with the chamber and can and can be apprised of the results.

Um, and I've been a strong proponent, um, Shannon, for a long time for a conference center here, and it was one of the big issues that kept coming up during all of the river district um discussions, uh, you know, where people were whittling down the size of the hotel uh proposal for the corp yard to a small boutique hotel.

So I totally understand that need, um, and uh and I and I hope that we can get there.

Um, but yeah, I really am looking forward to like a more complete, I guess, um, uh economic development plan about bringing businesses here and and improving the tourism.

So looking forward to some upcoming uh answers to some of the questions I asked about how we're gonna get that feedback from y'all, and maybe that can happen at the December or I guess the January meetings.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

We got a motion and a second, please call the roll.

Council members Roarbaugh, yes, Kozlowski, yes, Leary, yes, Rafael and Aquino.

Yes, thank you all very much for coming.

Thank you.

All right, next item, please.

Next is old business item number 14 objective development and design standards for multi-unit and mixed use residential development for general plan, mixed use and residential overlay areas.

This is continued from October 28, 2025, and includes resolution number 11464 and ordinance number one three five seven.

Good evening, Desmond.

Mayor Aquino, members of the city council, I'm Desmond Perrington, planning manager in the community development department.

I'm back before you tonight um to talk with you regarding the objective design and development standards.

Um, just a little bit of history.

Um, this came before you at your last meeting on October 28th, but there were some concerns about the standards related to granting parking reductions in in the regulated areas, uh including the East Bidwell Corridor, um the areas around the Iron Point and Glen Light Rail Stations and the Folsom uh town center.

In addition to that, there was also concerns about the appropriate level of of review and changes proposed to the design review ordinance uh in chapter 1706 of the Folsom Municipal Code.

So just a little bit of background.

Um as I mentioned before, um, we've done a number of studies looking at kind of the appropriate size and scale of of development and the right design standards to be put in place.

And we hired Opticos Design and Architectural Firm to develop those standards because as a reminder, as a result of state law, the city can only use objective development and design standards when we are evaluating and reviewing multi-unit development projects.

In other words, projects with two or more units.

We then had a workshop with our planning commission, and then a hearing with the planning commission where it's unanimously recommended to approve the odds and the ordinance changes, and then had a the hearing with you at the last meeting.

Again, we're trying to balance the desire to ensure quality design site design and architectural design along with the requirements of state law.

And again, here's a snapshot of kind of a part of what's in the guidelines.

The odds or the objective development and design standards, they regulate the physical form and design of residential and residential mixed use development.

And they in order to streamline the review process, they must comply with the odds.

But the odds themselves, you're not approving any development projects or anything like that tonight.

So they apply, as I mentioned, to the areas here along the East Bidwell Corridor, around the uh Glen Station and the Iron Point station, and then down in the Folsom Town Center area.

So looking back at the text, and based on the feedback we got as part of the briefings, staff has made an additional uh additional change to the parking reduction standards or the standards that would allow for parking reductions.

That's in the supplemental information that was shared with you this evening.

Specifically as it relates to bike parking, this increase to from 1.5 to two times the amount of bicycle parking spaces and the facilities required, plus secured bike parking storage facilities for the bikes, including cages, shelters, or lockers.

And that was to really increase the amount of parking that would be required.

Typically, that's that's one bike parking space for every five units that this would uh double that amount, and then also provide for secure locations for them to uh to keep those bikes so that they are there on site and they're and people feel comfortable locking them and using them at the facilities.

So this would allow for a reduction from 1.5 spaces per unit down to one space per unit.

In addition, as we've talked about before, um there are uh amendments proposed to Title 17, which is the zoning code, specifically to the design review section that would bring uh projects down to a staff level or ministerial level review uh instead of a discretionary review if they complied with the objective design and development standards.

In addition, it would also rescind the existing multifamily design guidelines for a couple reasons.

One, the the design guidelines can no longer be used when evaluating multifamily development, and second of all, they conflict with provisions that already exist in the zoning code and are quite uh outdated.

So, as I mentioned to you before, part of the reason why we are recommending ministerial approval is simply because so many of the state laws, particularly those that are involving affordable housing projects and those how and those projects prevailing paying prevailing wage require uh now require ministerial approval.

Um there are some that that do not, although they do work in uh in tandem with some of the other laws and and can uh lead to a requirement for from ministerial review, but um the ones uh such as SB 330 that uh we see used a lot here um do not at this point require ministerial review.

So we've offered up a couple of different options for your consideration.

So the the ordinance that you have before you tonight uh is the same one that was before you at the last meeting, and that recommends that uh the projects that comply with the objective development and design standards go through a ministerial um review process.

So that would involve a director level review, no appeals, no public notice, uh no meeting.

It would be consistent uh with state law for those projects that are that are affordable and have and pay prevailing wage.

It also encourages folks to actually use and comply with the objective design and development standards because they know if they comply with that, they go through a more streamlined process.

So that this would only apply in those regulated areas that I talked about.

It would not be citywide.

The other alternative, which is included in attachment four in your packet, would um would allow for a discretionary review.

So there would be public notice, there would be a public meeting, there is the opportunity for appeal.

Once again, under state law for multi-unit projects, we cannot, uh the council cannot um uh under the law deny a project unless it makes a major health or safety uh finding.

This um this is a longer process, but the state has put a cap on that that length.

In other words, you cannot have more than five public hearings on a specific project.

It uh while we would encourage projects to comply with the odds, they would always because they go through a discretionary process, there would be less incentive for them to uh to comply.

So um so those are and then that would require the commission uh andor uh council meeting, depending on the the location.

So uh assuming regardless of which direction that you go on this, uh this if it's if it's approved, then it would go um to a second reading on December 9th, second reading and adoption.

It would go into effect on January 8th.

Um we would be doing between the 9th and the 8th, we'd be doing the outreach again to the architectural community to developers, and we would be working on the the forms, and then long term we'd be looking at the effectiveness of how these objective design standards work, how the process is working, and whether they're resulting the kinds of projects that we want to see in the areas where we've increased the height and the and the density.

So with that, um this is the recommended action.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that that you may have and welcome uh any public comment.

All right, thank you.

Any questions?

Thanks, Mary Rafael.

Thanks for cleaning up the language around the parking variants.

Um I think it definitely looks much better, it's much more black and white, which is objective.

Oh, that's great.

Um I think it takes away some of the really you know cheap incentives and instead get some substantial incentives that are there.

Um can you just walk me through the bicycle parking?

I know it's a little little higher up, but we just you know, back at the envelope math here, 200 unit complex.

I'm gonna say, well, you get out of building 100 parking spaces, but instead you only need to build 40 bicycle parking spaces.

So the math can't be like I'm getting you out of a car and I'm putting you in a bike.

I'm getting you out of a car and I'm getting you to walk 60% of the time, and I'm giving you a bike 40%.

Like, how does that how did you guys come up with that number?

Yeah, I mean that that's a good question.

I mean, it it we were trying to figure out some strike some kind of balance because we're putting folks already in areas that are generally more walkable or have easier access to to transit.

So the idea is they're closer to services, they're closer to transit, they're closer to jobs.

You know, to be honest, I there wasn't, I don't have a scientific metric that can tell me like in a in a large complex how many people will ride their bikes because it's dependent on so many different factors.

Um but we felt that it was appropriate that if you're doubling the requirement and you're saying you have to have places on site like bike lockers or cages where people can securely store on their bikes and not having to jam them in their apartment or lock them to something that's you know that's a pole or something that's suspect that could be easily tampered with the likelihood that they're gonna have a bike and use that bike for for short uh for short trips around town it is uh you know is is more likely.

Okay, so but yeah, it I I don't have a uh there's not a specific formula out there that I could find that says if you provide X amount of you know bike parking spaces, you're gonna get X amount in in terms of reduction in in vehicle trips.

So um, just gonna let me repeat it back to you.

So I'm understanding a little better now.

Is not only are we giving extra spaces, but we're also making the spaces that they give much more likely to be used.

So that's how we get the math there.

Correct.

I'm comfortable with that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kazanski, any questions?

Councilmember Warbah?

Council Member Leary.

No.

All right.

Do we have any requests to speak on this item?

No request to speak on this item.

I'll move resolution number one one four six four.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Roarbaugh.

Yes.

Kozlovski?

Yes.

Leary.

Yes.

Rafel?

Yes.

And a keynote.

Yes.

And then I'll move ordinance number 1357 with the alternate um alternate ordinance requiring discretionary review.

Okay.

Second.

Got it.

Is that the same the same number ordinance?

Yes, madam, you know, DC attachment four of this.

Okay.

So not the not the ministerial review that the staff was um recommending, but discretionary review.

Okay.

Do you have a second?

Yeah, I don't know if I would call it discretionary review, but that's in the weeds.

Oh, really?

It's a with alternate um the alternate ordinance, correct?

Okay.

I can't remember.

Did we have a second?

Barbara.

Yeah, I said.

Okay.

We have a motion and second, please call the rule.

Council members Rabaugh.

Yes.

Kazowski?

Yes.

Leary.

Yes.

Rafael.

Yes.

And Aquino.

Yes.

All right.

Last but not least.

Next item, please.

Next is item 15, resolution number 1150, a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute amendment number four in the amount of 64,168 dollars to the contract with Kimley Horn and Associates for Mangeny Ranch Trails Project Design and Engineering.

Thank you, Ryan and Brett, for sticking around.

And Kelly and Brad too.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of City Council and Ryan Neves, Capital Projects Manager for the Parks and Recreation Department.

Happy to give you a brief project update on the Managing Ranch Trails project and specifically the item or here for consideration tonight.

And uh like you mentioned, uh senior trails planner Brett Bollinger, who's the project manager is also here and can certainly answer any questions if I'm not able to.

So the specific item resolution number one one five zero zero is a resolution to execute contract amendment number four with Kimley Horn for trail design adjacent to community park east site, as well as design of improvements along Westwood Drive and Mangeny Parkway.

So a little bit of background and kind of timeline of council action items associated with the project.

Uh the original design contract was approved by city council in September 2021.

And then as design progressed, and staff began reviewing uh design documents, plans, and specifications in comparison to what was existing uh in the field, we realized that there's still significant uh construction going on in some of the areas of work that was um impacting the existing site conditions and our design documents didn't match existing conditions.

And so in working with the city engineer, we agreed to pause.

Additionally, we didn't have all the right-of-way at the it hadn't been dedicated to the city yet.

So we put a pause on the project for a little while, and then as those projects wrapped up and rough grading was completed, we conducted additional topographic survey and move forward with the project.

Then in July 2024, we came to city council for amendment number one, which included adding two additional segments that weren't in the original scope of the project.

Then January 2025, we came to City Council with amendment number two for consideration of East Bidwell grade separation, feasibility study, overcrossing, undercrossing, and I'll touch on that in a little bit more detail in another slide.

Then in July 2025, City Council authorized executing the construction contract with consolidated engineering as well as amendment number three with Kimley Horn, which was for them to provide construction engineering support.

And now we're here tonight for proposed construction amendment number four.

So amendment number two was to uh consider a feasibility study for a grade separation at East Bidwell.

The purpose being that the specific plan in the original project included a at grade pedestrian activated mid-block signal on East Bidwell between Angini Parkway and Savannah Parkway.

And as design moved forward, as well as the construction of East Bidwell, and staff reviewed kind of the vehicular data and felt that an at grade crossing was not safe for trail users and the residents.

So we wanted to consider an at-grade or a grade-separated option.

So that's what amendment number four or number amendment number two purpose was.

The feasibility study went into detail and laid out basically two schematic layouts, one for an overcrossing and one for an undercrossing.

The both options have impacts, and I've just briefly summarized the some of the key impacts on the side here.

And so right-of-way for both the overcrossing and undercrossing, the least impact is right-of-way because the footprint of both could be contained within right-of-way that the city currently has control over.

There are utility impacts of this overcrossing, mainly tied to the structure foundations that would be impacting underground utilities.

But there are significant potential visual impacts with a overcrossing, especially adjacent to some of the residences.

And then the constructibility aspect, the overcrossing definitely is a less difficult constructible package than the undercrossing, and the cost range in 2029 dollars, including engineering soft costs was between 9 and 11 million dollars for the overcrossing.

So the undercrossing is shown here.

Obviously, the undercrossing is going under East Bidwell and would impact numerous underground utilities.

It also would impact the adjacent hydro modification basin and has some concerns with the high groundwater table and the impacts to the hydro modification basin of being a drainage maintenance concern.

The visual impacts would be minimal because it's below ground, but it does have additional environmental impacts and additional permitting in coordination with CDFW that would be anticipated.

The constructability, again, it's just a more complicated process with the undercrossing with the underground utilities, traffic control related to impacting East Bidwell, and the cost is higher than the overcrossing estimated between 12 and 14 million dollars.

So upon review of the feasibility study, staff and both public works and parks and recreation felt that it was not something that we could support at this time, either an overcrossing or under crossing.

So we moved forward with the project, and the uh contract construction contract was authorized in July, and we've been moving forward with our contractor getting it executed, and as we were looking at some of the access and and constructible constructibility concerns, there was this segment that is west of East Bidwell that we've we call the N6 segment, and the N6 segment ties directly to the adjacent regency at Folsom Range Trail Project that's also under construction right now.

And so you could see the um the existing undercrossing that um is identified there at uh Manjini, that's where our N6 line ties into.

And so again, there was some access issues and just um concerns with how uh we would tie to the other project, and so staff um both both projects were publicly bid, and the scope and character of work of the NSIC segment is consistent between both projects, and so um staff uh coordinated with the um toll brothers, the regency contractor to get a bid for the N6 segment, adding it into their project, and so can you go back one second, Ryan?

Sorry, I'm gonna I'm directionally challenged, so I'm gonna this is what you're talking about right here.

So, that uh pink line is um already in the regency project.

That's their phase two, and so the undercrossing that um says pedestrian tunnel.

So the N6 line picks up right there and continues north and would um would tie into pick up there and go up to East Bidwell.

Okay, so kind of so we're tasking toll brothers with that instead of the city doing it.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes, both uh, you know, this the city will be reimbursing toll brothers through our agreement.

They're gonna build it as part of the project that they're doing right now, okay.

Yeah.

So our uh bid from consolidated as part of the man genie for this in six work specifically was five hundred and eighty thousand dollars.

The bid from um Doug Veercamp is part of the regency project was $380,000.

So it is a savings realized to the city of about $200,000.

And so once we've identified that there was some savings to our project, we wanted to see if we could put some of that to use to add additional improvements to our project, and so that's where this proposed contract amendment number four for additional design services comes into play.

And so the um the areas in black shown on the map are what is in within our current contract.

The area in red is the segment N6 that we are working with, consolidated to finalize the deductive change order, and then the areas in blue are the two kind of pieces that we're considering for adding to our our contract.

So the first piece is um adding uh class one trail around the community park east site where we will be tying in on both sides, and the future park site does intend to construct a sidewalk.

But um, given the unknown time frame for that, you know, this seems like a need that we've had um community members uh reach out about, and so this is a good gap closure piece of the project that we would like to pursue, and given that our our contractor will be mobilized and working at both ends of that, seems like a good option.

Can we get all the e-bike kids to pre-grade that for us?

Yeah, right.

Um, and then the other piece is um considering class four separated bikeway on uh Westwood Drive and Mangeny, and um the purpose for that again is just by eliminating the at grade crossing at East Bidwell and not moving forward with the overcrossing and undercrossing.

Pedestrians will be able to walk, you know, when they get to the East Bidwell Walk on the sidewalk to the crosswalk at Mangini, which is about 800 feet or up to Savannah Parkway.

Um cyclists can do the same, but it does seem like there could be some uh benefits that we could consider to make the mobility for cyclists a little bit better.

And so what that piece of the contract amendment for design would be to consider that what the impacts would be to adding class four bikeway separated bike path.

Um and so Kimley Horn will put together a in kind of a conceptual exhibit and make sure that we understand what all the impacts are.

And then once we've finalized the design for both of those pieces, we would be um getting an updated price from consolidated to add it as a construction change order to our project.

Um if it's not something that we're interested in moving forward with at that time, it could be a standalone bid package that we could put out to bid separately, but um, but that is basically the two pieces of what design contract amendment number four would be would be.

So with that, our recommendation.

Whoa, that is definitely misspelled, my apologies, is to um recommend approval of resolution number one one five zero zero.

Happy to answer any questions.

I can you go back to that one slide, go back, yeah.

Is this what we're thinking it's going to look like with these ballard things?

So, I mean, it could be just a visually separated, you know, sometimes there's green striping, it could be a raised curb, it could be the the knockdown ballards.

Um, I I mean I just don't love the look of this.

They have this all through like midtown and downtown Sacramento.

It just looks so cluttered to me.

What I think looks good is what we have on Letisdorf, you know, where we have the sidewalk and then we have that raised kind of bike, and then we have the street a little bit lower.

That's just my two cents.

So questions.

Will there be a median strip?

Uh you know, in the in between the lane setting in each direction.

Because that slows down the traffic next to these bike lanes.

Yeah, I mean something to be considered.

Uh um, obviously, right now on Westwood, there's not a raised median on Mangini Parkway.

There is, so um, you know, that's obviously part of the feasibility, and part of the design work would be what the impacts are to the existing median on Man Gini, and then consideration of, you know, if if it's appropriate and adding a median on Westwood.

Yeah, because I'm concerned, you know, about the bike lanes when when there isn't one, it even though it doesn't really change the width of the street, it gives people a perception that they should probably be more careful driving through there and and then speeds drop down.

I mean, that's yeah, thank you.

Council Member Robo, any questions?

Um, well, yeah, you brought up a good point.

Is that what we have on Blue Ravine?

Yes, that's right by.

Oh, that is that is blue.

Okay, that's why it looks so familiar.

Okay, I just looked at that long ago.

Like, that looks like the first one there a couple of times.

Um I kind of agree with you.

I don't see that as an eyesore on Blue Ravine though, but I haven't now I'm gonna notice it every time.

Um I do like the idea of adding at least like a green.

I like the green the idea of putting paint in that kind of the barrier.

I don't know if I love the lip.

Um, I don't know what the data is, uh, if that's even more dangerous for bikers or less.

Um, but so I'd be, I mean, if you did something like that, it's gonna cost more because of concrete, right?

Um, but I'd be I'd kind of be interested in the data on that um on the if we if we if you entertain that idea of you know, are there more bike wrecks or what I don't know what the consequences would be, but I think one solution would be just the green paint would be a little bit more visually appealing.

Ryan, the green paint is used for the lane, not for the no man's land protective area, right?

In Sacramento, isn't that's right?

I think it could be either, yeah, it gets confusing a little bit.

I've seen both okay all right um I did have one question um oh hopefully we can um take it upon ourselves to look for under crossing locations of Prairie City Road so that we don't end up after the fact trying to cross over that gigantic what will be a gigantic thoroughfare yeah um unless let's preemptively have a plan for that because putting you know concrete vaults in before the road is built is way easier agreed yeah that's my only comment thank you for all this work.

Thanks, Mary Rethel.

Thank you for looking at the feasibility of the overcrossing and undercrossing on East Bidwell.

I'm not giving up on it quite yet I I but I do appreciate you guys have have worked it um very hard and that number is is still very large um so thank you for that uh one of the challenges now is we're gonna have these at least from the east from the west side uh we're now gonna kind of dead end this path which is gonna kind of feel to me like I should just keep going right especially if I'm 12 years old on an e-bike well the traffic is you know pretty far away it's only going 45 miles an hour I can probably just kind of skip right across East Bidwell not a good idea um so are we gonna have uh any sort of barrier that's there or how are we gonna keep people from then I mean I know on Blue Ravine it's it's tempting when we have those paths that come right out it's like oh supposed to go to the intersection now but I I may have been guilty of it once or twice and I've definitely seen kids kids go across.

I mean so there obviously is a raised median there.

So I mean it it there's not a currently a barricade uh at the um you know edge of where yeah the trail will will end um I think you know we do want to allow cyclists to get into the bike lane if that's where they you know need to go rather than continuing on the sidewalk so that's the I guess the concern with placing a ball uh a barricade at the edge of the you know end of the the the class one trail there um but I mean certainly we could consider adding other you know visual impedements to um crossing east bidwell even curving the trails right or having you know it wouldn't take much there right you know maybe it's a it's a hedge right or something but if we just do our you know kind of low shrub uh or or low plantings it is um it's definitely not a detriment um and I know we've unfortunately had a fatality on Blue ravine um due to that you know somebody making that crossing so I'm just something that to think about while we're doing yeah and if I could just chime in for a second you know the uh Ryan mentioned the raised median on east bidwell it's also uh pretty heavily landscaped as a deterrent too so it's not you know clear uh parting of the seas crossing for for anybody who wants to bravely take that crossing at East Bidwell but we can certainly look at doing some uh radial flare outs with either paving or concrete in those areas and the east side won't connect anymore like it doesn't get close to east bidwell it looks like it kind of dead ended there because that'll be a deterrent too if if the two sides are like looking at each other that it's not super clear be uh if you're standing on one side versus looking over across at the other it's not super clear like oh I'm supposed to be over there.

There is some landscape as a visual buffer.

And then the current trail uh abuts right up to the back of walk that's adjacent to East Bidwell.

Yeah there is there's like our proposed um or our current construction project ties into an existing trail that wraps around the existing hydro modification basin so it does ultimately terminate at East Bidwell.

It does ultimately terminate okay so that is a consideration.

Yeah, I guess if we if we look at I don't know what the other ones that are coming up, it's staggering those two.

You know, if we don't end up connecting them that grade.

I think there's another one.

Is there another one further to the south?

Um that was an at grade crossing.

Either way, if we could um just kind of keep that in mind when we move forward with design, I'd appreciate it.

Sounds good.

Any other questions?

Okay, do we have any requests to speak on this item?

No request to speak on this item.

All right.

Then we will entertain a motion, please.

I'll move adoption of resolution number one one five zero zero.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Roarbah.

Yes.

Kozlowski?

Yes.

Leary.

Yes.

Rathel.

Yes.

And Aquino.

Yes.

All right.

We're gonna skip over city manager reports and go to Council Commons.

Councilmember Leary, anything tonight?

Um I just wanted to report that I um did a little tour of the facility, uh City Hall, with a Boy Scout troop of nine to ten year old Boy Scouts a couple of weeks ago who were um they were fascinated by this room and the very long table in the um city manager's office.

It was nice and shiny, and they just thought that was amazing.

And that was during the time when they weren't trying to crawl under the table.

But um I think they uh enjoyed the tour, but they uh I'd also asked them about what kinds of things they'd like to see in town.

Um, you know, some of the parents were there, and um uh just on their on the list was another pool.

This one is too crowded.

Uh fabric store was one of the moms, of course.

Uh an indoor mall, that was moms and kids, wacky tacky, which I guess is a site they visit in Rancho Cordova, and uh Sky Zone with a pool and a place to um drive go-karts.

So I'm passing those recommendations on to the chamber uh when they're out looking for people to come in and fill some of our spaces here.

Um, and uh it was a lot of fun being in the um uh Sacramento uh the um Vets Day parade.

And um I think that's it.

Okay, thank you very much.

Councilmember Warba.

Um yes, it was a pleasure walking yesterday and the spray, especially since it rained the previous year, um, was a great event.

And just I think happy Thanksgiving since we won't be here.

Okay.

Vice Mayor Raisel.

No comments, thank you.

Okay, Councilmember Kozlowski.

Um the I had the pleasure of uh being at the FHDA um board meeting this morning, and they've got lots of big events coming up uh for us for the holiday season.

Um there's a craft fair on the Saturday right after they like the Christmas tree.

So those are coming up the first weekend in December.

All right, our next meeting is December 9th.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone, and we will adjourn at 9 15.

Thank you.