that will adjourn the closed session and we're going to go ahead and call to

order the regular meeting. Will you please call the roll?

Yeah. Council members Aquino. Here. Kozlowski. Here. Leary. Here.

Rorbaugh. Here. And Rathel. Here. And if you all please stand with me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

City Attorney, any agenda updates this evening?

Mr. Mayor, no update for tonight.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

That brings us to business from the floor.

If you're here to address the council on any unagendized items, now is the time for you

to fill out a blue speaker card there in the back.

and you'll be given three minutes to address the council.

Do we have any speakers this evening?

We have one request to speak this evening under Business from the Floor.

It'll be from Aminat Dhaliwal and Anushka Jasti.

Come on down.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Aminat Dhaliwal, and I'm the president of Voices of Folsom,

a club at Folsom High School.

My name is Anushka Jasti and I'm the Vice President.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share the perspectives of Folsom residents

through our student-led community initiative.

Background and goals.

Our goal with Voices of Folsom is simple.

We want to create a space where residents, especially those whose voices often go unheard,

can share their experiences and concerns.

We focus on improving community well-being in areas like transportation, safety, entertainment, and city services.

Each month, we attend council meetings to bring you updated insights gathered directly from residents.

How we did this?

To understand the community's priorities, we created questionnaires and distributed them throughout Folsom.

We collected responses across different neighborhoods and age groups, and today we're sharing the major trends that we found.

What residents love about Folsom.

The overwhelming majority of respondents expressed appreciation for Folsom's strong sense of community, its safety, and its natural beauty.

People value the clean environment and the friendly family atmosphere.

Importantly, most residents did not identify major negative issues in this area.

Public transportation concerns.

Transportation feedback was more mixed.

About 59% reported no issues, but 41% of the respondents said they struggle with gaps in coverage, limited access in certain neighborhoods, or confusing systems.

Residents also mentioned the reduction in school bus routes and expressed interest in more direct or express options.

Suggestions for improving Folsom.

When asked how Folsom could improve, the most frequent responses included the need for new schools to match the city's rapid housing growth, more activities and entertainment options for families and teens, improved traffic control, and again, expanded transportation options.

Safety perceptions.

Overall, residents feel safe and fulsome, but concerns came from a minority who pointed out to increasing housing density, traffic, and also visible homelessness.

Many also credited friendly neighbors and the strong police presence for maintaining a sense of security within their communities.

A notable number of responses pointed to a heavy congestion on East Bidwell, especially the bridge over the freeway.

The corridor was consistently mentioned as one of the city's most traffic-dense areas.

Thank you for your time and your continued efforts to make Folsom a safe and thriving community.

We hope these insights help support future planning,

and we look forward to continuing to bring the voices of residents to the table.

Thank you.

Thank you both for coming out tonight.

We appreciate that.

All right.

Any other business from the floor?

You have no additional request to speak on our business from the floor.

All right.

That brings us to scheduled presentations.

Will you please call item number one?

Okay.

Your first item this evening is a presentation regarding the Leadership Folsom Project.

This is the Folsom Zoo Sanctuary Monument sign.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Rebecca Neese, Public Works Director, and I'm also a participant in the 2025-2026 Choose Folsom Leadership Folsom class.

I'm just here to introduce my amazing teammates and classmates, Lori Tinty and Eric Bagley,

to help do the presentation of this year's selected project.

With that.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor.

Council members, thanks for having us tonight.

My name is Eric Bagley, along with my co-chair, Laura Tinty.

We have the delight of getting to present our class project for Leadership Folsom this year.

So for about the next hour and 15 minutes, we'd like to go through all the details for you.

So what is Leadership Folsom?

I know that a lot of you are familiar already, have some personal experience with it maybe,

but we have 29 members in our class for 2025-2026.

The focus is to develop our own leadership skills to meet with like-minded leaders

who are interested in the benefit and prosperity and thriving of our community,

as well as traditionally each class will select a class project as well and work on that together.

We began in October of this year, and October and November we spent time considering different projects that we might select.

You can see some of the examples there.

we had some criteria that was really important to us that we identified we wanted something that

would be impactful something that would last longer than our class we wanted something that

had a clear scope so we could define success and knowing when it began and when it ended

we wanted something that would be able to get behind an area of the community that

people have been recognizing a need around and see what strength and enthusiasm that we could

bring to that project to support the city. We voted together at the end of November

and our finalist was the Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary. We will be redoing the signage in the front.

We hope as well to add a monument and potentially some interactive kiosks for the community to enjoy.

And my co-chair, Laura, before she does that, could I just have, if you're a member of a class of 2025-2026 Folsom leadership, would you stand?

Thank you.

I appreciate the support.

To go through some details, Laura is going to go through that for us.

Thanks, Eric.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council.

Happy to be here, and thank you to our classmates for also being here and the support of this project.

So for the past month or two months, we've been trying to organize our governance structure for this project.

So Eric and I are the co-chairs.

we've divided into several committees to divide up the work and the aspects of

what's needed to execute on a project like this as Eric mentioned this is the

initial sign design concept for this the zoo sanctuary the design committee

that's chaired by Andrew Eagers met with Rebecca and Jocelyn and Kelly and other

city staff to come up with this design in support so we're pleased to present

this and then ideally if we can be successful with our fundraising efforts

we'd like to as Eric mentioned add a monument sign and a kiosk an

informational kiosk as well so these are preliminary designs we hope we hope to

raise enough funds to be able to implement these we've come up with a

preliminary budget the estimate is from around ten thousand to twenty six

thousand dollars for the sign the monument and the landscaping and kiosk

etc we also hope to do a an event to unveil the sign and we would hope that you would all attend

for that exciting event probably later this summer we are working with friends of the Folsom Zoo for

our resource stewardship to collect all of our donations and help us organize our finances and

we have brainstormed some fundraising ideas we'll be looking at utilizing our networks for donations

and sponsors. We would like to host a pancake breakfast and do some art activities either

through schools or some kind of animal art auction. Those ideas have been vetted with the

zoo leadership and friends of the Folsom Zoo. So we are confident that we can be successful.

It's not a comprehensive list. We might change what we end up doing for fundraising, but that's

what we've done so far. So just to review our timeline, we just started convening our class

in October, early October, so we're not very far into our work. We spent the last couple months

deciding on our project and then organizing our structure, our governance structure,

to execute on that project. We're going to pivot here pretty sharply in the next month and work on

fundraising. We want to really dedicate some strong efforts to fundraising over the next

couple months so then we can manufacture the sign, get it built and installed, hopefully in the

spring and we'll continue our fundraising. Our leadership class will graduate in June and we hope

to be able to unveil and have everything installed and ready to go for the community and launch an

event to celebrate that in the summer or the fall. So we would invite all of you to participate in

that as well. And I think that's it for our presentation. We'll take any questions that

you might have. Thank you so much for coming out tonight and providing the update. Any questions?

All right, sounds like a great project. Thank you. We're excited. Thank you

And if you'll please call item number two your next item is item number two

This is a presentation regarding the final report for the Folsom water vision

If you could start the three-minute timer you got it

All right, thank you you'll have to hit that probably about ten times

Through this but thank you for the intro Krista mayor Raythol members of the council Marcus Yasutake

Utilities director, I think that's the first time I've said that now out loud at a council meeting

So tonight the presentation I really want to give a high level we have a final report. I've provided a

Executive summary if you would like to look through it the final report and everything is available online

If you want to read through all the details, hopefully I'll encapsulate

the hundred plus pages the six meetings the 16 months of work in a nice succinct effort tonight

So what what is the water vision?

What were we planning to do and really we were trying to shape the city's water future for the next

50 plus years so we were looking at what our current trends what our current regulations state law etc

And then what do we do moving forward knowing that there are various reports?

either by the Bureau of Reclamation or the state of California in terms of how the changing climate

will impact water supplies throughout the state, but we also had a specific report

that was local to the American River Basin that we conducted with regional partners

and the Bureau of Reclamation.

So it helped shape kind of what we were planning for within the next 50 years.

One important aspect of this was our stakeholder engagement,

And when we first brought this to council, we really wanted to let the prior council know that, hey, this was an important part of the project.

And we really wanted to invite a stakeholder group that had, you know, a background in regional water supplies, a background maybe in environmental needs,

a background in maybe water quality or what the needs were as we planned for this and ensure that we got a broad list of stakeholders.

Here is a list. I didn't identify them all by name, but you can see kind of the broad range of groups that we had represented, plus the regional partners within the Sacramento area that we work with in various authorities on a weekly, monthly basis so that we had feedback from those groups as well, because they have a good understanding of what our regional partners are doing and how what we are talking about doing here in Folsom would overlap or coexist with those partners.

And we did have six stakeholder meetings that were all open to the public.

We recorded everyone.

We put each one on the website as well.

And then we developed through our communications team a project-specific website.

So it was very easy to find where you can go find all the information on the meetings, the presentations, the videos, and the agendas of all the topics of everything we covered during those meetings.

and and like I mentioned this was a very important part for me as part of this process because it

wasn't just staff's report and you know presentation it was ultimately in my opinion a

stakeholder-led effort with our staff and our engineering team WSC Water Systems Consulting

providing the technical part of the project so as I mentioned we did hold six public workshops

started in February of 24, and we finished the last one in April of 25, and then finalized the

report for draft consumption in the August timeframe. But these are the topics of the

six different workshops. I won't read them out loud, but I will go into a little bit more detail

about what we did during each one. So as I mentioned, we did take kind of a step-by-step

process, basically starting at what are our objectives, what's the feedback that we're

getting from the community through surveys that we did,

but also feedback from the stakeholders in terms of what is important for us to look at

when we're identifying our water supply vulnerabilities, the constraints,

but also potential projects that we can do to mitigate some of those constraints.

Assessing those vulnerabilities, looking at existing water supplies,

taking these projects and kind of putting them together by theme,

and then taking those themes and evaluating those further on,

okay, what would work within that theme based on the feedback from the stakeholders and the surveys

and anybody that happened to be there from the public, and then develop kind of our defined portfolios.

And then the last item we did, obviously, was putting all this together in an executive summary

and a final report and developing kind of an implementation or a roadmap of how we might get to these different targets.

so the the first option the first part of the process was again identifying the goals values

and objectives and you can see on the left the the six items that really stood out in terms of

the feedback we got from the public the survey and the stakeholder group was a reliable water supply

a resilient water supply obviously maintaining the high level of quality water the city has

not ensuring that it's affordable but trying to make it obviously as affordable as possible

The community wanted to trust the water supply that, okay, what we are doing and what we're planning to do is something that they have trust that the city would be able to ensure.

And then efficient water use.

And we know that's coming down from the state.

So that's kind of built into a lot of what just happens now because of state law.

Desired outcomes, obviously building consensus within the group was very critical.

developing a roadmap as to how we get to some of these different implementation strategies.

It wasn't just, okay, here's a report, here's things you can do, and it's left at that.

It's really, okay, then how do you take what we're doing and move it forward?

And then the process goals, evaluating the current and future water supplies,

how do we manage our supply portfolio to minimize, obviously, impacts to our rate payers?

And then the process was, you know, to be transparent as we went through this, which I believe we fully met that part of this.

You know, item two was assessing the risks and vulnerabilities.

So what are these, you know, throughout the city?

So one, you know, we have one single raw water pipeline from Folsom Reservoir to the city's water treatment plant.

Two, if you looked at the water treatment plant and each individual process, not every single process is fully redundant.

So looking at building in fully redundant processes within the water treatment plant.

Single source of supply.

So the city receives its water, all of its water from Folsom Reservoir.

Low lake levels can be a potential challenge in the future.

So when that happens, the Bureau of Reclamation has a plan in place to set out floating pumps to deliver water to the city.

And then once water supplies get below a certain level, about 280 feet, that is effectively when those supplies become unreliable for delivery to any of the agencies that take water from Folsom Reservoir.

So those are the different vulnerabilities slash risks that we were looking at through our lens and trying to develop these portfolios to hit on as many of those as we could.

This is just kind of what I talked about earlier, just in the table format, but it just gives a little bit more maybe numbers to it.

so we took all those different projects and the vulnerabilities and looked at past studies that

the city's been involved with to develop our options we created and took from those different

reports the projects associated that would potentially mitigate the different vulnerabilities

and risks identified which projects are what we felt as a team were feasible and then put the

projects together in these different portfolios to deliver to the stakeholder group and then

get feedback from the group. So with that, we developed these draft supply portfolios, which

looked at surface water projects and then groundwater projects. And I'll talk about it a

little more towards the end, but when we developed all these and presented these to the stakeholder

groups, you know, a lot of the feedback we got was, hey, it'd be good to have a portfolio that

combines both of these alternatives, right, to look at groundwater alternatives in conjunction

with surface water alternatives and develop what we call the hybrid portfolio. So we ultimately

landed with the plan that identifies options under both of these different alternatives from

either groundwater or surface water. So you can see we've got improved infrastructure,

We've got groundwater-only option.

We've got an enhanced groundwater option

which kind of expands where we would look

in terms of partnering with agencies

that have access to surface water and groundwater,

and then an enhanced surface water option.

So could we do, besides redundancy of a pipeline,

is there a potential to do a redundant intake,

so a second intake somewhere?

And that's part of that option.

And with all the feedback and with the surveys,

we asked our stakeholders, okay, in an order of importance from a one to five, what is important

to you? Is reliability important? Is it resiliency? So you couldn't put one for all of them. You had

to do one to five. And then that identified for us, you know, how we weighted each of the portfolios

on a scoring basis. And one of the appendixes in the report goes into a lot more detail on how you

do the math, but effectively when we took that feedback, here is kind of where each one landed.

So you can see in the first four, reliability was important and resiliency was important. And we saw

that in the feedback we got was having a resilient and a reliable water supply. Now, this doesn't say

that cost isn't important, but it didn't. I thought going into this, that would be a higher factor

in terms of the people that we surveyed, but it was not.

The reliability and the resiliency of delivering water to our customers,

at least in the surveys and within the stakeholder group,

were the two highest-ranking objectives for this.

Stakeholder input.

So as I mentioned, there was an interest in developing a hybrid portfolio

that combines both groundwater and surface water.

So, you know, how adaptable are either or both together?

How do we enhance the existing portfolio that the city has?

How do we use our regional partnerships to provide or develop projects that meet kind of this hybrid scenario or provide options for groundwater and surface water?

And the last one, which was really important, was adding a groundwater component to that.

since currently the city relies 100% on surface water from Folsom Reservoir,

it was how do you tap into the groundwater resources within the region

or further develop partnerships with the neighboring agencies

that have access to both groundwater and surface water.

So a summary of the recommended portfolio.

One was ensuring that we add the water supply redundancy,

so a parallel pipeline or new intake and pipeline to the treatment plant

was high on the list and important.

Developed the Folsom South Canal raw water intake

so the city has a contractual right

to be able to take water from the Folsom South Canal.

So even if the intake at Folsom Reservoir

was out for whatever reason,

Reclamation can still deliver water

through their lower inlets or lower outlets, sorry,

to the American River

and ultimately down to the Folsom South Canal

and we could pick up there.

We just, you'd have to build the infrastructure and move it back to the treatment plant in order to do so.

But that, given that we have a contractual right to do so, it does, you know, get us a little bit ahead of the game because we wouldn't have to go seek a new point of diversion from reclamation to be able to do so.

Improved treated water redundancy.

So looking at each of the processes, we've done this over the years in terms of, you know, capacity of, like, say, the filters or the pretreatment or the polymer and the chemical feed systems.

But the individual pipelines between each process is something that was of importance to the group.

Developing a diverse or diversifying the water supply.

So how do we get to the groundwater supplies within the region?

That was important.

and then enhancing the reliability from Folsom Lake.

So implementation plan background.

So some of the key elements and programs that we develop for each one of those areas.

So how do we add raw water supply redundancy?

We look specifically at raw water redundancy type programs,

and you can see the table below under diversifying the water supply.

So we have diversifying the potable supply,

but there's also a component of the non-potable supply.

And I'll get into it a little more in a couple of slides, but this is really tapping into the treated groundwater from Aerojet,

and how do we put that into purple pipe that's been installed south of Highway 50,

and then what would be proposed in the Easton and Glanborough areas in and around the Aerojet property for development there.

So looking at the risks and the system vulnerabilities from an infrastructure standpoint,

point, you know, we've got the single point of failure, and then the treatment plant and lacking

full redundancy. Then we have the supply side, which is a single source of supply, low lake levels,

and then very low lake levels on the far right. And you can see kind of what the level of risk

is that we identified as a group. You know, the vulnerability of the single point is a high risk,

so that is something, and I'll get to that in my last slide, but that is something that,

you know, we have a lot of attention towards.

So from that, we developed the scoring

of each of the vulnerabilities

based on the estimated probability.

I won't read all the details here.

It's also in the report.

But effectively, how are we ranking it

in the far right, which is the score?

And the higher the number is,

I don't say it's a better score.

It's a score that we want to avoid.

And so those ones with the higher number are the ones that have a higher risk or vulnerability of occurring and what the impact is on the city.

So you can imagine if the raw water pipeline failed between the reservoir and the treatment plant, that's the supply for the city.

So it's 100% impact, right?

So that's why it ranks, I guess, in the red.

and then you can see the one in the orange and then those that follow in the yellow.

So what did we do to develop the portfolio to address these vulnerabilities?

So we have program one, which is the raw water redundancy, program two, which is treated water redundancy,

program three, which is diversifying the pottle supply and developing a non-potable supply.

And then for four and five, it's a combination of, you know, the first program plus these regional partnerships

and programs that we can take advantage of.

So from there, as I mentioned,

we didn't want this to just be a report

that sat on the shelf.

We wanted to identify, okay, what do we need to do next

and when do we need to do this?

So we looked at the water that we would need,

so looking at our maximum day demands,

and then looking at the water that's ultimately available.

And if there's a gap, how do we fill that gap?

so you can look at that in a five-year time frame or you look at it 50 years out and that's kind of

how we developed and looked at these projects of what could not only meet a near term but what

would also help meet a long term and there are some projects that can do both right away and

then there are others that you build upon and that's part of the implementation plan is you

build upon some of these projects and you have one project then a second and then ultimately you can

get to where you need to be in 50 years in just smaller increments.

So from phasing and trigger points, you know, you'll see this kind of on one of the larger

printouts of the last page of the handout you have is looking at the current phase,

and that's just everything we're doing to date.

Phase two is, okay, how do we reach or when we reach 35 million gallons per day as a maximum

and build out, you know, what does that then do for any of the potential vulnerabilities

and what do we need to do to mitigate and so on down the list from three, four, and five.

And, you know, number five is, you know, when we meet potentially a max of 50 MGD in the

driest or driest year event with this model that shows these hot, dry projections, which

basically is the least amount of snowpack that you would have in a given year and the hottest

year. And so the probability of that was low, plus we're not projected to ever reach 50 million

gallons per day. That's just the capacity of our plant. And so we've addressed each one of those

in the implementation plan. And this goes, you could see the different phases that are listed

there. I really won't read all these because they're provided in the report, plus they're

provided in the executive summary, but it's really looking at each program. We have our

base program, then program one, two, three, and four, and each one addresses different

needs within the city, potentially, depending on what we would need to achieve and what

we're trying to do. You could see kind of the timing of where we broke these down in terms of,

okay, things we do now through 2035, things we do through 2030, 2050, and et cetera, based on

the city growing and continuing to evaluate the demands, maybe as every five-year basis

on the growth of the city, as well as how state requirements and state law impact the use of

water on a customer-by-customer basis.

And then you've got 2050 to 2070.

I don't think I'll be here to get into those, but hopefully this will lay a great foundation

for whoever might be working on it at that time.

So just a quick overview of, you know, some of the different projects, but, you know,

looking at the existing raw water pipeline and the existing intake, you know, how could

we potentially use the Folsom South Canal and bring water back to the treatment plant?

So this, you know, from a planning perspective, you know, can be anywhere from $500,000 to

a million dollars to develop the plans and everything and then go into construction,

which is a larger ticketed item.

That's probably a $25 to $30 million project to do so.

But it's really, you know, from a foundational perspective, identify the new intake location or develop the analysis for that.

Develop any emergency response plans for things that could happen at the treatment plant.

You know, develop your plan for the non-potable water system and what you might be able to do there and what then that does to reduce your potable water needs.

and then the the two others are really the partnerships with our local agencies that

have access to both groundwater and surface water and that one in my opinion is is very important

because they do have that groundwater component that the city just does not have and that plays

an important role when looking at diversifying your supply phase two is you know if we get to

a point where we feel designing a new intake and raw water pipeline is reasonable I mean then we

would come back to city council and say hey look this is an option this is how much it might cost

and then we'd figure out okay at that time are there any potential rate impacts is this something

you you know issue bonds for etc we'd have to figure all that out and then determine whether

or not that's something we would proceed with you know identifying again the supply options with our

partners around the region, designing, constructing the non-potable system for the plant, the

area south of Highway 50, not only the Folsom plant area, but the area in and around Aerojet,

so the Glenboro and Easton projects, if you're familiar with those.

And again, continuing regional partnerships to look at those relationships and projects.

you know phase three so in the 2050 to 2070 time frame is looking at you know areas even further

outside of kind of the Folsom South Canal region and looking south or in the south county for

partnerships for bringing in either treated groundwater or groundwater to a new water

treatment plant maybe somewhere in the plant area or do we try to bring that water all the way up

to the treatment plant here north of you know just down the street and again continuing to

collaborate with our regional partners as to how we might be able to move water around

and then you know phases four and five it really further out there and undeterminedness you know

at this point in terms of what costs might be.

But that then expands our partnerships maybe north of the American River

and south of the American River in terms of access to groundwater

and getting that within or into, sorry, the city's system.

So that's kind of a high level of everything that's in the report.

Some of the next steps is, you know, looking at the non-potable feasibility,

a feasibility study.

We have finished kind of a non-potable water master plan that identifies what the ultimate needs are in terms of demands.

And so now the next steps would be to work with Aerojet Rocketdyne to identify, okay, what are your current get capacities and treatment capacities that the city has access to, which is closer to Prairie City Road and White Rock Road, kind of in that corner of their property.

We do have an agreement with Aerojet that it was with Aerojet, now Aerojet Rocketdyne, that allows the city to take use of the water that's treated there.

So how do we take it and then now physically put it into a purple pipe system?

Finalizing the raw water alternative intake analysis.

So we are currently under contract with Stantec, and they're evaluating an option to have an intake in the American River downstream of Folsom Reservoir about where the prison property and the zoo property kind of meet and adjoin right by, or was it Robbins Ravine, the walking bridge there, right in that area where we'd potentially put in a new intake and pump water up and then to our treatment plant.

so we wouldn't be reliant on the pipeline coming from the dam.

So we have that in process.

That should be wrapped up probably in the late spring, early summer,

and we'll know what some of the constraints are,

what some of our permitting requirements would be,

and then an opinion of cost on that.

Developing the Golden State Water Company,

Sac County Water Agency, and Folsom South County groundwater.

So we are at least verbally committed with each of those.

once and this will be a future item in a month on on the water farm agreement but when that is

signed and adopted we are all working to develop options as to how we might use water within

sack county um the south of sack county's area so south of the american river sorry for fumbling

the words but south of the american river and bringing that into the city and then we have

partners through San Juan Water District, Fair Oaks Water District, Citrus Heights Water District

that are north of the American River, and can we develop that partnership to either exchange water

or bring treated groundwater into the city from north of the American River? That hasn't happened

yet. I have been in initial contacts with Citrus Heights Water District. Fair Oaks Water District

will, I think, shortly go under a new change

with their general manager.

I believe he is getting ready to retire,

so we are waiting until a new general manager comes in place

so we're not having to do our discussions twice with that.

And then this is fairly new,

but the last bullet is the raw water parallel pipeline discussion.

I believe we'll have a meeting with CDCR here in a couple of weeks.

with Chief Green and Brian, the city manager, and I was invited because I do have some questions

about how we would partner for a parallel pipeline through prison property from the,

we wouldn't necessarily go all the way up to Full Slim Dam and Reservoir, but right outside

of their gates on Lake Natoma Crossing. The pipeline actually goes through prison property

now the raw water pipeline to our treatment plant so we want to initiate discussions as to

how we might partner with them to install a parallel pipeline through their property as well

so with that i will take any questions but i guess i really want to thank our our stakeholder

group because it was six meetings they were an hour and a half most of them two hours long

on a Tuesday evening, plus any homework that we had in between meetings.

The public that came out that wasn't part of the stakeholder group had a lot of positive feedback,

a lot of good input, which was nice.

You know, our communications team getting the word out, getting the survey out,

doing all the things we needed to get that message as best as we could.

And then our consultant team was very helpful with all this.

And we did have a former council member as part of the stakeholder group

and also a current council member as part of the stakeholder group.

So if there's anything specific that Council Member Leary would want to address,

I'm sure she can fill you in.

But thank you.

Thanks so much, Marcus, and thanks to all the staff and stakeholders.

Questions, Council Member Kozlowski?

Yeah, what is the long-term responsibility of our water department

for providing water to the developments on the Aerojet property?

You mentioned them briefly.

Yep.

So if you look at when the...

Easton and Glenboro.

Yeah, the Easton and Glenboro.

So they are physically situated in the city's water supply area or water service area.

So that's a different boundary than the city limit boundary.

And so because they're in that boundary, we are obligated to serve them as a customer base for water supplies.

Because you mentioned them when you were talking about having alternate intakes from the American River with potentially one down closer to Hazel than where you just described by the prison.

Was that always part of the discussion with those developments?

Or was the supposition that they were going to get served from our existing plant and water supply?

They were always part of our existing treatment plant supply.

And so when we look at the overall capacity of the plant, the demands to serve those areas are included in kind of our maximum day demands, average day demands.

We include those in our calculations.

Gotcha.

And then what is being done with the treated water from the Arjet property right now from their processing?

So currently, they just spray it overland, put it overland, or they put it in ponds.

and then from the ponds, they'll put it in.

They have a non-potable fire system on site,

and so they can use that water for their non-potable fire suppression system.

They used to use it for cooling purposes when they were high in production

for their testing facilities.

That obviously is no longer there,

so the demand on that is a lot lower than it used to be,

but they typically have it just overland,

and it just percolates and naturally recharges what was treated.

It gets treated again eventually.

Yep.

It's just what they're putting back on meets the requirements of their permit.

But they're not currently exporting any of that water?

Not from the GET AB facility, which is where our agreement is.

They have other, GET is short for Groundwater Extraction and Treatment,

so they have other facilities.

There's an I, a J, a K, et cetera,

And they do have arrangements with other purveyors in the region where they will discharge that into the American River.

And then somebody will pick it up as part of their portfolio and treat it.

But it's all blended by the time it gets there.

It's not directly piped.

Okay.

If that's usable as landscaping water through Purple Pipe, that seems like the easiest of all the stuff that you just described.

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

And that's what we want to do next.

Now that we know what the demands are in the plant area and in the eastern Glenboro area, can we meet the peak demands with the existing infrastructure that Aerojet has on property?

We don't believe they can because they're not built to meet like a peak irrigation demand.

But that would be the next step is determining just what that would need to be in terms of an infrastructure.

And then how do we modify their discharge permit to include?

non potable irrigation

Gotcha. Thank you for all this work and thanks for the reminder of why I loved being on the utility Commission way back when

Council member or by any questions

accounts member Larry

Thank you Marcus. It was actually a

Lot of fun exercises there but a lot of work and I was really impressed with the number of people from the

community that just showed up to learn what was going on and asked a lot of questions and

had a lot of experts there that helped us come to all the final conclusions that you've put together.

One thing I think that we discussed and probably not in great deal was the cost for all of these

necessary improvements to provide, you know, provide a redundant system for, you know, water

transport out of the American River using the purple pipe perhaps for the

aerojet water and and for you know improving a system for treating all of

the water and in that that would be something if you have to come back and

ask for repairs and or the addition of a redundant system that you would bring

back so do you I don't even know if you can come up with any ballpark figures to share with the

council and what the sources of that money might be so I think well first of all thank you council

member Leary for serving on the stakeholder group in terms of costs you know the the planning and

some of the initial you know feasibility you're probably in the one to two million maybe two and

half million dollar range to go through that in terms of maybe implementing these projects

there's probably a range of 50 million on the low end to kind of 175 200 million on the high end

when you're looking at a project if you were to let's say install wells in an area south of the

american river within sacramento county install the infrastructure and then pump that all the

way back into our system and distribute. So those are probably the bookends in terms of

project costs. Now, I haven't calculated what that might mean on a per ratepayer basis, but

in terms of project costs, you're probably $50 million on one end, $175. By the time you get

there, probably $200, $225 million if you're 40 years out. And what were the priorities

for improvements?

The priorities, I think there was two that, in my opinion, really stood out.

One was getting the redundancy built in to the pipeline from the reservoir to the treatment

plant and then the redundancy within the treatment plant itself.

The second, as Council Member Kozlowski pointed out, kind of the low-hanging one was the non-potable

supply.

Although that doesn't reduce all your demands, it could take off, you know, four to six percent ultimately build out.

So those were kind of the two big ones.

And then the third, and it wasn't in any particular order, but it was the diversification of the water supplies.

So those potential agreements and projects with our neighboring agencies that do have access to surface water and groundwater.

and it was probably more focused on the south of the American River than north of the American River because

those contractual relationships would be with each of those agencies if we did go north of the American River with Fair Oaks or Citrus Heights

We'd have to also then bring in San Juan water district

they wouldn't necessarily have a project to offer but

Ultimately the contracts that Fair Oaks and sisters Heights have are with San Juan water district

So it just adds another layer another wrinkle

but I'd say those are probably kind of the the order of of the feedback so resources for costs

other than adding that to the rate payers monthly bills would be grant funding state federal

yeah both all the above one of the things that I do know that's offered under reclamation's

water smart I believe it's their water smart program they do have what's called title 16 and

it's for kind of reuse recycling non potable water options so that would be a potential place

to look the army corps has a section 219 that the region has used and two agencies are currently

using those that right now i think pcwa and the city of roseville for 5.3 million or so

to do a raw water supply project for their communities.

And so that's an option that we could look at,

probably not fiscal year 27, but maybe 28,

and maybe apply those two for the non-potable project,

whether it's the planning or the design or construction.

And just one more question.

What do you see on the horizon for when we might be asked to

or want to implement moving down the ladder of these improvements?

I could see either later this year, the first part of next calendar year,

the non-potable project with Aerojet being one that would come forward

because, like I said, the arrangement's already there

in terms of the agreement that we have to use the water.

It's really looking at can we use their existing facilities or not?

If we can, how do we plummet into south of Highway 50?

projects if we cannot what do we need to do to upgrade those and then plumb into the existing

infrastructure and then like i mentioned from a permitting perspective what do we need to do to

modify their permit to allow us to use that in purple pipe so that's probably the the first and

then maybe soon or right after or in conjunction would be a parallel pipeline and that might even

come sooner I think a lot of it might depend on the discussion we have I

believe it's next month to just to see how fast we might be able to move with

with the state to start looking at the feasibility of a parallel pipeline and

what that also means for their supply investigating all of those plumbing

questions is important right now because the improvements to Prairie City Road

are coming sooner rather than later at this point

okay thank you councilmember Keno I just had a question about the prison

actually so they have their own water rights in their own treatment plant

correct correct okay so if for something if our water treatment plant were to be

compromised in some way could we rely on them for the short term or they just

don't have the capacity they don't have the capacity and we're not connected to

their system okay thank you just one one or two for me your demand

projections you know you showed the water supply and water use we really use

less water today than we did before a lot of the growth that we've experienced

and then you said well the demand projections might go up right but so far

our trend has been declining or flat so I just kind of understand and maybe

councilmember Kozlowski brought some of this up is it Easton and Glenboro I

I would imagine those would be developed as a very super efficient households also.

So where are we seeing this massive increase in supply that's needed?

So I think the two big areas are all south of Highway 50.

So I believe ultimately, I mean, right now we're probably right around 18,500 to 19,000 acre feet per year.

At build out, we're anticipated to be right around 25,000 acre feet per year.

So that's ultimately all of south of Highway 50 in the Folsom Plant area, plus all of what's in the Glenboro Easton area.

I mean, we have some minor infill projects, you know, north of Highway 50, but it's minimal in terms of water use compared to any areas south of Highway 50 in terms of potential growth and vacant land.

I anticipate, though, based on kind of the state requirements and state law and the drive and the, you know, the continued driving down of water use on a per property basis based on their water use efficiency mandates, our ultimate target set by the state is going to be closer to 23,000 acre feet, ultimately, at build out.

So between now and I think it's 2045, that's a 4,000 acre foot increase over the next 20, 19, 20 years.

So it's not that much in terms of the grand scheme of ultimate build out.

Okay.

And just for context, the city's contractual water rights and water repayment contracts with the Central Valley Project is 34,000 acre feet.

So that would leave you with roughly 10,000 to 11,000 acre feet of contractual water that's not used.

Okay.

And then I guess my second question is really we have a contingency plan, right?

With this, we've been relying on the single raw water outlet.

for the history of the city, right? And so we have a contingency plan in place for that failure,

right? Yeah. So there's a couple of things we could do. We can minimize, obviously, the direct

impacts by turning to two connections we have, one with Golden State Water Company that's right

by Naturewood, one with San Juan Water District that's right by Rainbow Bridge. But that is one

of our biggest concerns is a full-scale failure of that pipeline from the the dam basically to the

treatment plant and so that's why that one is the kind of a high priority item is to get that

parallel pipeline in so we for the most part mitigate that as as a potential option and then

And we do have, with the Bureau of Reclamation, they do have floating pumps that they can set out.

And they've done this before that we can set out.

Yeah, I guess my question is, like, I could keep a second car in my driveway, right, just because my first car might fail at any time.

But the idea that I'm going to pay for a second car and keep it operational at any given time and that it's going to be running when I go out and my first car doesn't start, doesn't make a whole lot of sense, right?

and said I'd maybe have some contingency plans.

If my car needs to get fixed or replaced, I have, say, a week to do that, right?

So I'd have to have some other plan for a week.

We have a plan in place, right?

If this were to fail, it would take us a week to get it back up and running,

a month to get it back up and running.

We would truck water in.

We have a contingency plan that's there.

so we did have a failure in 2009 and it took about 14 to 16 hours to get a parallel pipeline

in place that i don't want to say a good thing about it but because it is raw water you don't

it's not treated you don't have to worry about getting the the potable drinking water pipe in

place to get that raw water from there so so yeah we have options if that were to happen we've got

contractors that can do the work it's just we would if it's a small section versus a large section

the timing could be different if it was just one stick of pipe it could be a lot faster than

this was a couple hundred feet back in 2009 so i guess that's really where my question is is like

what makes more sense right is this planning for the temporary failure or putting in a whole

another set of things and we can we can talk about this later on down the road but i think

But that's where my questions really are is the temporary fix versus the fully redundant system.

Yeah, and I completely understand that.

And I think one of the things that part of the discussion is how do we balance being able then, if we did have a parallel pipeline, I'll just use that as a scenario,

we can take the main pipe out of service and do a full inspection and do repairs kind of on a scheduled routine basis.

because at some point we know you have to get back in there and do some type of repair.

It could be a small little pinhole leak or something, you know,

but we would have to get in there and do some sort of fix to it.

A parallel pipe offers you a lot of flexibility to keep.

So in your week scenario, you could keep it off longer

if you find other things that require more than the one week.

It's fair.

But two things we all have to balance and talk about

because it all comes, not that it all comes down to cost,

but that's part of what we'd have to balance and discuss.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate your presentation this evening.

All right, thank you all.

That takes you to the consent calendar.

All right, items to pull from the consent calendar this evening.

We have item eight to pull.

Any other items?

I'll go ahead and move adoption of items 3 through 7 and 9 through 13 second please call the roll

Council members Aquino yes Kozlowski yes Leary yes Rorbaugh yes and Rathel yes

okay item number eight is resolution number one one five three zero this is a resolution

authorizing the city manager to execute a contract with the permanente medical group

to provide the fire department with the medical director great thank you mayor members of the

Council, this item, as we've considered our different options,

our original proposal was to continue with a three-year agreement with Dr. Sloan

to provide medical director services for the fire department.

However, with a lot of the development of medical facilities,

we're modifying the recommendation to a one-year agreement

so that we can have discussions with others if that is feasible for the city.

And we may end up continuing just where we're at,

But we just want to modify the recommendation to extend an agreement as listed in the staff report, but for one year

Any with that I'll be happy to move resolution one one five three zero with the modification to a one-year contract

I'd like to have some more discussion on this sure

I wonder if chief so a lot can come up and kind of explain to us what this officer does what their responsibilities are and

and if he's got any information about the availability of people who are equally as qualified to perform this job in this region.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council, Staff, Jason Solak, Interim Fire Chief.

And I can speak, Council Member Larry, to a couple of your points.

the one that I'll just admit up front that I don't have any history or the ability to speak on is

how many folks might be qualified to serve in this role but the medical director is a critical role

for any fire department that provides emergency medicine services that role includes not only

medical oversight for paramedics and EMTs it also includes development and interpretation of

clinical protocols, quality assurance, training, real-time consultation as needed during complex

and high-risk events.

There is an increasing complexity for that role of medical director.

In fact, EMS has been recognized as a subcategory of emergency medicine, and there actually

is a board certification that qualifies those folks to be considered an expert in their field.

The role of medical director as it relates to Dr. Sloan, I would say that our experience,

it would be understanding to say that we've been very pleased with the service.

He has made himself available after hours in the evening. He has expanded his role

with the department.

In terms of assisting us in grant fund writing,

he was successful in actually,

Council Member Aquino sent the ground announcement,

but he was successful in helping us write a $30,000 grant

for cardiac dilute devices that we use for CPR.

He sits on several advisory groups.

He is a liaison for us to the EMS section

and really has just made himself available and responsive to our needs.

And again, to speak to who might be qualified, I don't know.

We've not engaged in conversation outside of those we've had with Dr. Sloan.

When Dr. Sloan was selected to serve as our medical director, there were, as I understand,

three individuals who submitted applications, and there was an interview process,

And he was the individual that was chosen based on his credentials and demeanor.

So how long has he actually been contracted with the city?

Is this the end of his first three-year term?

That's correct.

That's been longer?

Yeah, that's correct.

We signed a contract with Dr. Sloan as a representative through the Permanente Medical Group in December of 22, I believe.

So, yeah, his contract actually expires this month.

And as we were writing the resolution and the recommendations, again, the feedback that I had received from the entire agency

and many of our regional partners was that he was an individual that was really a standout in his field.

Thank you.

I'm just wondering what the impetus would be for this to make this change at this point

since the fire department seems to be happy with him.

He's doing a good job.

I think the cost is likely reasonable given surveys done in other areas.

so you know unless somebody is looking for cost savings or something else I

don't see any need to to make this a one-year contract and do further

investigation I'll speak to the impetus of this I met with one of our health

agencies that's active in Folsom and they have community benefit dollars

that's required to they're required to put back into the community a number of other agencies

around the country their emergency their medical director for the fire agency is paid for with

community benefit dollars from the local health agency and so when I saw this on the agenda and

had a meeting with one of our local health agencies and they said we might be interested in

footing that bill or partnering to put that bill or providing this service in kind

I reached out to Chief Solak and said, you know, have you thought about this?

And so he also said the contract's expiring very soon.

And so we kind of had talked about it and said maybe a one-year gives us the chance to investigate that.

Maybe Chief Sloan stays on, but instead it's through a different agreement

with the four or five health agencies we have here in Folsom that are growing rapidly.

Yeah, and if I'll just elaborate, Mr. Mayor, the contract expires and we're required under Title 22 to have a medical director.

From a legal perspective, the DEA controlled substance, we have to have a medical director with a licensed physician that orders and is responsible for the narcotics.

again not having an opportunity to to meet with any other individual from another health care

again it's very possible that there are some other really qualified individuals and

again at the direction of council I'm happy to to meet with them and staff and and go through that

process to thoughtfully evaluate long-term solutions for our medical director needs

and I have a question about the length of availability of the community service dollars

Is that something that's indefinite?

And was that, if you had that, you know, community service dollars,

is that something that they're allocated annually from the source?

Or is this something that is an ongoing benefit for that particular provider?

It's community benefit funds that they are put back into the community.

From their institution.

They're required to put, since they're a nonprofit health system,

they're required to put in community benefit dollars back into the community every year.

So all I can tell you is that other agencies are funding the medical director

through this very same type of agreement.

So I don't know all the details.

This was literally a, I saw it on the agenda last week,

kind of started the discussions, and this is where we're at right now.

So I don't have all the answers of how it would work,

which is why we're saying, hey, let's renew the contract,

But just do it for a year so we're not locked in I agree with the price is reasonable

But you know forty thousand dollars a year is forty thousand dollars a year

If we can have somebody else put that bill for us then we can put forty thousand more dollars into other things for our community

And what is the benefit for that institution to provide the community service dollars is there any quid pro quo or?

You know some either kind of agreement

in place for that?

I wouldn't think so, but I do think that us,

just like us using the Permanente group right now,

I think a good portion of the part of this

is that we have that relationship

with our health systems that are there.

So I don't think it would be any,

I don't foresee anything different to that

other than potentially a funding source.

It may even be literally the exact same individual

with the exact same group,

just a change in funding source.

Sure.

But we don't have the time to chase that now.

Right.

So there wasn't an opportunity to discuss with them all of the requirements for the person that fulfills that position.

It's not just to be able to use the license to prescribe narcotics for the EMTs.

If that question is directed to me, no, I've not had any opportunity to speak to any other health care providers about our needs and whether they have the ability.

But like I said, it could be very possible that Sutter or Dignity or one of the other health care providers has someone who is as qualified, maybe more.

I don't know.

Okay.

Well, I mean, I just want to make sure that we're getting the best care possible and the best training for our personnel possible with somebody that has that experience.

Yeah.

And I'll just add on that point.

I appreciate that.

is I would absolutely recommend that that medical director be an individual

who is trained and skilled in acute medical services, an ER physician, right,

that is in alignment with the care that we provide.

Being an ER physician is an extraordinary life-saving experience,

and I love my personal physician,

but I wouldn't necessarily go to my personal physician for an acute cardiac or respiratory ailment as wonderful as she is.

Right. No, I totally agree.

And having worked in a trauma center for 31 years,

I'm very sensitive to what we're training our EMTs to do and what kind of support system they have in place.

Yeah, and that really ties into their ability to interface with the Calendly LEMSA protocol, CQI training,

because they are entrained in everything acute medical services on a daily basis.

So absolutely.

Right.

So I think that answers all of my questions.

I just was curious about what the incentive for this was going to be

and the long-term availability of community benefit dollars, you know,

since the health care system is generally in trouble for reimbursements these days.

So thank you.

Council Member Arquino.

So question for you, Chief Solak.

So currently we share the expense for Dr. Sloan with other agencies in the region, correct?

That's not correct.

That was the model that we had until three years ago.

Oh, okay.

We were in a joint venture, again, with Permanente Medical Group for, and I believe it was Dr. Mackey, was our medical director.

And he provided that service to the entire region.

and there was as you can imagine there was a high demand especially for some of the larger agencies

in particular Sac City and Sac Metro who felt like they needed more kind of one-on-one with

the medical director given the size of the agency and and the role that that individual plays so the

chiefs agreed to kind of dissolve that partnership and now each agency is independently I didn't

understand the timing so for the past three years we have only had doctors left correct okay yeah and

And to be fair, he does provide those services for El Dorado Hills.

He is on the Cal Jack committee for their paramedic program because, again, they need a medical director for oversight.

And also, I believe it's Amador County Protection because they have an ambulance service in the county, in Amador County.

Is he aware that we're having this discussion tonight about possibly just doing a one-year term?

He is.

Okay.

And it wouldn't jeopardize his desire?

After the discussions, we certainly reached out and was very transparent with Dr. Sloan and the group and just said, would there be any detriment to us amending the agreement from a three-year to a one-year?

And he was supportive.

In fact, being involved in the region as he is, he is aware that there is an interest among other health care providers to really kind of entrain in communities and stuff.

So he was not actually surprised.

Okay.

But I don't think there's any harm in just doing a one-year agreement for now and exploring options.

So I will go ahead and second the motion.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor, you had some comments, questions?

Yeah.

So it sounds like this is to you or to our fire department, like this is the right guy.

You feel good with the training.

You feel good with the, I mean, I've never heard anything negative, only positive.

I can only speak.

I've met Dr. Sloan once and spoke to him briefly.

the feedback from those folks particularly in in our fire department and throughout the region

he is a sought-after individual he was recruited by several of the agencies to be their medical

director and at the time he was a local Folsom resident and felt like he really wanted to

participate in his local community and so and I can't speak to more than than those desires on

his behalf. But everything that I know about Dr. Sloan, what he provides, I've had many folks say

that we've called him at two o'clock in the morning with a bit of a crisis. He has continued

to make himself available and responsive. He has, I think within the first week here, we had a bit

of an infection control issue, communicable disease, and he was at the ready and was very

responsive to our inquiries and best practices as we pushed out information to our members. So

So to say that he's done a great job, I think, is very fair.

Okay.

Then my next question would be for – I'm not sure.

I think it might be for Brian.

The community benefit dollars that the mayor is speaking of –

I mean, to sign this contract for three years, we just figure out how to pay for it.

We can get those dollars from elsewhere, from other funds,

without having to do a one-year contract.

Would that be correct?

Well, sure.

I guess in many ways, we don't know the answers definitively for those.

And so what we've tried to demonstrate to the community going forward is that we will

look at any and all options to try to provide the best service at the lowest possible cost.

And so this is just one of those things.

And I appreciate Chief Solak reaching out to Dr. Sloan to see if that would be okay,

because our top priority is to make sure our community is safe.

And so in his hands, we will be safe.

and if we enter into this 12-month agreement, then we will be able to answer the questions,

the really good questions that have been brought up from the dais today,

to see if it is community benefit dollars, how long, who is it, are there other alternatives,

or maybe, you know, in six months we come back and say, we don't have any other options,

let's extend the agreement with Dr. Sloan for the original time period.

i guess my question is um could we use still use community benefit dollars

to pay for this contract because they're community benefit dollars yeah so it depends

on the arrangements i can't speak for the uh agency or the uh institution that's provide

the community benefit dollars maybe they will provide the community benefit dollars in the

form of in-kind services. Okay, got it. Right, you know, so I don't know if it'll just be a

monetary donation or they'll make their licensed professional that meets all the criteria available

to us. That's just what I don't know. Okay, thank you. And then my other concern would be

these community benefit dollars that you're speaking of, you know, what are we going to

be taking it from, right? Is going into Folsom in some way or another, and if we're going to use it

for this, what are we going to take it from?

What is it not going to go to?

I mean, we have a lot of things that we need in the community that we can use this money

for, right?

So those are all unknowns.

My concern is this sounds like the guy right now.

We can trust him.

We have a lot of things that the fire department is facing.

I'm not sure this is where I want your attention or our attention financially and medically

and with training to go this next year.

um obviously wouldn't take a lot of attention but um yeah i'm concerned i'm kind of like you

know i'd rather have this guy for three years i think we're solving a problem that we don't have

um i understand the thought process behind it and i think that you know three years would tie this

guy in essentially um and give us even more time to kind of figure out how we can make changes going

forward so i'm really kind of it doesn't matter i'm really kind of 50 50 on this i don't want

to lose this guy. That's kind of where I feel. Sure. Could I add to that? So I definitely

appreciate, you know, we don't want to lose him for sure. And the community benefit dollar

situation is actually a new situation for us. And part of that is the investment of essentially

four large medical providers coming into town. And we've just started these conversations where

they've been meeting you know with our parks and rec department like hey what what can we do to

make an impact here in the community and so part of it is like we have literally no idea what areas

they're interested in and what works for them and so we just wanted to provide some flexibility

so that we can adjust because this is a new endeavor with uc davis dignity sutter and kaiser

Permanente, you know, making significant investments, they really, you know, in my

experience interacting with them, they want to make a difference. They want to help. And so

we don't know where that's all going to go. And so we didn't want to lose an opportunity to have

that flexibility. And just to your comment about these, we're pulling them from somewhere else in

Folsom, nothing is saying that these community benefit dollars from that health system are going

to Folsom. So the assumption that we're pulling it from something else in Folsom,

But they're understanding what you said that there was this community benefits they have to give back to the community

But the community is a regional community. Yes. Well, not even their regional community. It could be their national community

Right like these these are very large health systems, right? And so they're they're a nonprofit

Authorized by the federal government right to operate, but they have this that's part of their tax structure is my understanding

Yeah, I was asking you have comments if I can ask

Just to add on to some of the vice mayor's comments, and that was, and I had asked this earlier,

but community benefit for them doesn't necessarily mean that it has to go into a medical program or support.

It could go into the parks system.

It could go into providing supplies for the police department.

And it seems to me that community benefit for those don't have a limitation unless you're aware of some where those dollars could be used directly

They do have limitations absolutely what do you know what those might be they have to fit into whether they have defined as as community benefit

But no, I think that's what we're really asking is is some time to evaluate

Whether this is a good use of funds or not

so

Yeah, I mean, I think it's an okay use of funds.

I would like to know more about that piece.

And again, I'm very concerned about losing somebody as highly qualified as Dr. Sloan,

who's worked well with the department.

That is a huge concern for me.

Because it's hard to find people with that level of experience and availability within the medical system.

Okay.

So we have a motion and a second.

And I think, just to summarize, it sounds like Dr. Sloan doesn't have concerns with making it a one-year contract.

He does not.

That is accurate, Mr. Mayor.

Perfect.

We have a motion and a second.

Call the roll.

Council members Aquino.

Yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

Leary.

No.

Rohrbaugh.

No.

And Rathal.

Yes.

Okay, the motion passes three to two.

All right, that brings us to new business.

Thank you.

Yeah, your first scheduled discussion item this evening is new business item number 14.

This is resolution number one one five one zero establishing inclusionary housing in Luffy amounts for for sale residential development

Mayor mayor a fold members of the council on Desmond Parrington planning manager in the community development department

Oops, sorry bear with me. I'm just pulling up my presentation

So tonight before you is the item resolution dealing with establishing the inclusionary housing in lieu fees for residential development throughout the city.

So as you may recall in our prior presentation on the inclusionary housing ordinance update,

program H9 of the housing element requires us to do a study of our inclusionary housing ordinance and the fees associated with that.

So we hired economic and planning systems to do that study.

They looked at the fee levels, the funding gaps, and our overall methodology.

They recommended that we transition to a per square foot basis,

which again was discussed along with the ordinance.

And that ordinance was adopted at today's meeting.

So the fees actually must be established by a separate resolution, which is why we're here before you tonight.

So just to give you a little bit of a timeline on all of this, we started with the adoption of the housing element back in 2021.

And as I mentioned, we hired economic and planning systems.

They prepared that study.

We did a workshop with our planning commission.

We also released the public review draft, did stakeholder outreach during that period.

And then, of course, the ordinance was adopted tonight, and the ordinance will go into effect on in February, February 12th of this year.

So we looked at four different residential prototypes and looked at what the cost would be to build that, what folks could afford based on their income level, what the cost is to actually build that unit, and that determined the affordability gap or the amount that needs to be subsidized.

So based on the recommended in-lieu fee level, the single-family low density and the single-family medium density, those are profitable.

You can see a positive development funding gap, which means they're obviously making money.

Where it becomes a little more problematic is on multifamily rental apartments.

You can see they have a $40,000 gap.

This is primarily looked at at the plan area where we've got most of our development activity.

And then right on the cusp of feasibility is the multifamily attached product.

So like an attached townhome product, condominium product, so forth, which is about 1,500 square feet.

So in terms of our goals with the in-lieu fees and with the ordinance was really to reduce the administrative burden, not dramatically increase overall revenue.

The recommended fee before you is very similar to the fee that we charge, which is based on 1% of the overall sales price, looking back at historical data.

However, fees can be used as a policy tool to encourage or discourage certain types of housing.

So we've got some recommendations related to that.

um we did exempt the rental housing from the from the in lieu fee we don't currently charge it now

and we're not recommending that we start charging it because of the fact that those those projects

in the Folsom plan area where we're seeing much of our development um those those projects are not

feasible um we are recommending that the fee like the rest of the city fees be updated on an annual

basis with changes in the construction cost index. That allows the fee to maintain,

to stay current, and it also ensures that we don't fall behind in terms of when we provide

gap finance, that we have the funds to provide gap financing for the construction of affordable

housing. And then we are recommending, as the study does, to continue to evaluate our in-lieu

fee levels so that they don't affect project feasibility,

and they also achieve our policy objectives.

So before you tonight, we've got the fees

for the single family areas where we're

seeing predominantly single family, larger single family

homes that set, we're recommending $3 per square foot.

That is in keeping with what we've historically done.

And then in the multifamily areas where we see units greater than 1,500 square feet, it's $3 per square foot as well.

However, in the multifamily areas where we're seeing smaller units, we reduce the fee to try to encourage that.

So to talk a little bit about kind of why we structured it that way is what we've been seeing down in the Folsom Plan area is on the multifamily low density sites.

So those can have a wide variety of different housing types, from townhomes to condominiums to duplexes, halfplexes, to single-family homes.

What we've typically seen from the development community is large single-family homes going into those locations.

And we know that those are feasible because they're 2,000 square feet or larger.

What we're saying is based on the kind of the council feedback is how are we creating a product that is kind of geared towards your first time home buyer or geared toward somebody who's trying to move up or who's doing the reverse and trying to downsize?

You know, we're not seeing a lot of that product.

In fact, since 2019 in the plan area, we've had only 43 units that are less than 1,500 square feet.

So we would like to see and we would like to encourage,

and since they're right on the cusp of feasibility, lower that fee a little bit

so that we're encouraging that type of product in our multifamily low density

and our multifamily medium density rather than trying to fit a product

that we typically see in the single-family high-density sites into those areas.

It doesn't provide us with that range of housing types.

so that's that's why we had that reduced fee so in terms of of implementation so

depending on what you decide to do to tonight if the fees are approved tonight then they would go

into effect on February 12th when the ordinance goes into effect those in lieu fees will are

deposited into the housing fund and then at least 50 percent of the housing fund must be used for

construction of housing affordable to lower income households. And then, like I said, it would be

adjusted annually based on changes in the construction cost index. So if it goes up,

the fee goes up. If it goes down, the fee goes down. Existing projects that already have an

inclusionary housing agreement that's been approved, they have the option of continuing to pay the 1%

of the lowest priced home in the subdivision,

or they can request to switch to the new fee

with the city's approval.

So they have the option.

Anyone coming in new would be bound by the new fee.

So the recommendation before you tonight

is to approve the resolution

establishing the new in-lieu fees

for for sale residential development.

That concludes my presentation.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have

That's a member goes lucky any questions this evening. No questions. Thank you. I

Got some over Larry

Yeah, I'm

Wondering and I know we've gone over this list before but can we kind of go over what those inclusionary?

Fees could be used for aside from building, you know more for rental spaces so for

And I'm sorry, I copied this into my notes, but I'm not finding it right now.

So they can be used for people to help with loan assistance and other items for people purchasing homes that fall within that low income, the low income categories.

Yeah.

So it can be used for a wide variety of uses.

And Stephanie Henry, our housing manager, actually can speak to that.

You've done a really thorough job of presenting this before, but I just can't remember the list.

Yeah, so as you know, we can use those fees to help with the affordability of low-income apartments

to help finance the gap that they have in developing those.

We can also utilize it to purchase land that we could designate for low-income housing.

We could use it to help with projects like Habitat for Humanity, where we helped with them reducing their land costs and also provided that money back to the general fund so that we can help develop that project.

So those are the primary ways we would utilize those funds.

We also utilize those funds for staff, for our consultants that review those housing agreements,

and for other housing-related projects for lower-income folks.

But the goal of these funds is to utilize them to get affordable housing constructed and available to our citizens.

I mean my main interest is you know

And I I guess that you know is where the habitat for humanity type projects come in is that people can actually purchase a home

With the assistance of this program through

Programs like habitat. Yeah, we can find partners like habitat

I mean I think that's a little land area that we need to fill in. Thank you. We agree

I agree.

Council Member Aquino?

So, Desmond, if one of our goals, and I think it is,

is to see more of that missing middle for sale housing, right,

like you talked about, condos, townhomes, but for sale, not for rent.

I understand the reducing the in-lue fee from $3 to $2.50,

but where did that 1,500 square feet come in?

Is that just arbitrary?

I mean, why would we put a limit on it at all?

so it was it was based on the the prototypes that were presented so we had

a 2600 square foot single-family home prototype a 2000 square foot prototype

there was again a single-family home and then we had a 1500 square foot townhome

project that was attached and then a 1000 square foot rental apartment

project. And we looked at the 1,500 square foot, and that was the one that was kind of right on

the cusp. And I think there's not, you know, a magic science to that. It could be 1,400,

it could be 1,600, you know, or could be higher or lower. I think generally speaking, you know,

the smaller the home, generally the more affordable it is.

And so we used that 1,500 square feet from the study, and that's what –

and then we looked at some other jurisdictions.

We looked at some examples in Rancho Cordova where –

again, I'm not trying to necessarily replicate what was done there,

but there were some what I would consider kind of starter homes.

um and just you know that was around they ranged in size from about 1300 to about 1650

in terms of square footage and we felt like that that 1500 kind of kind of hit the mark yeah but

it could be adjusted certainly be adjusted up or down depending on the council's desire

do you have to limit the square footage at all i mean couldn't you just say

multi-family low density or whatever for sale does it have to have a square footage limitation

on it? Not necessarily, but what we're seeing in the Folsom Plan area is that really some of

these products that we generally liked, because they are larger, I mean the Sendero project is a

good example. TriPoint's done the Sendero project. There's three units associated with that. Those

units are are all above 1500 square feet and yet they're selling in a range from about you know

525 to 625 so our thought was well if you would if you you know um if you set the the the square

footage a little bit lower than that maybe the price point will come in a little bit lower because

again you're dealing with less square footage okay okay thank you so I think

I've dug into some of the data I appreciate Desmond's you know going back

and forth with me over the last last few days you can count the number of missing

middle projects on two hands in the city of Folsom so I kind of looked at the

square footage of different projects that are around the 1,500 square foot

projects nothing in Sendero would qualify. The Park Shore project, the farmhouse project

would not qualify. The projects that do qualify would be the Toll Brothers duplexes that are

coming forward. The kind of blue circle up just north of Raley's and some of those projects

that one project to the east of Raley's, new Raley's,

that's just to the east of there.

Some of those, the internal units are below 1,500 square feet.

The external units are 1,600 plus.

Just kind of give you a flavor.

The little projects in Broadstone that are right there at Oak Avenue,

I'm not sure if that's technically Broadstone,

but I think of it as Broadstone.

Those are under 1,500 square foot.

So it's like when you have some of the I-Corp projects,

you do get down into that low 1500 square foot um personally when i look at it i like the sindaro

project i think that is hitting it's probably the upper of the moderately priced range to where you

could afford that at a so-called moderate you know you're probably closer to the 120 percent than you

are the 80 percent um but to me these are this is fulsome affordable fulsome attainable um and so

to me, I think we should do everything we can to put our money where our mouth is and

say these are the type of projects we want to encourage.

But I think that's a great discussion that we should have.

I personally like 1,900 square feet to look at that break point, and I would rather see

the other question I think we need to talk about as a council is how much do we want

to incentivize this?

Right now, we're going to offer a $750 discount on what's going to hit the market for $525,000.

I don't think we're going to move the needle with a $750 discount.

Do we move it with a $4,500 discount?

Maybe, more likely than a $750 discount.

But my personal preference is that we stop collecting in lieu fees on this missing middle product.

and I asked Desmond to run some numbers on what that would look like and what the impact would

be to our housing trust fund because I do think the housing trust fund has provided a very important

source of funds for us to do these projects the answer is about $250,000 a year if development

were to continue right now we bring in about five million dollars a year into our housing trust fund

And so if we were to limit this at 1900 square feet

And if we saw similar development patterns that we've seen over the last six years

That impact would be about five percent reduction and what we take in an affordable housing trust fund

Fair enough

Get there in just a second. So that's I just have kind of gone back and forth

I wanted to share what what my thoughts were on that and kind of dive into the details of that

Can I ask you a question on that? Are you done with your?

Yeah, so you said stop collecting on the missing middle

So are you saying all of the ones that we're charging two dollars and fifty cents for?

Are you so what does that include or what what maybe I ask you or him?

So this the staff's recommendation is at fifteen hundred square foot or less, right?

So that includes multifamily duplexes

Condos includes everything under fifteen hundred dollars for sale not for apartments, right?

Yeah, generally, we're recommending, if you're going to zero out the fees to encourage this type of product, our recommendation would be somewhere around $1,500.

It could be 1,600, 1,400, somewhere around there because it's that smaller product that we're trying to encourage because that fits into the starter home category, and that's the one that's barely feasible.

When you start getting into the 2000, when you get to 2000, that's, you know, the analysis by EPS shows that they're making, that's very feasible.

And so our thinking was, well, 1900 is getting pretty close to 2000.

That's a feasible product already.

You know, if we go down to that, around that 1500 square foot, that's what they're saying barely breaks even.

So that's why kind of we're leaning towards that 1,500 square.

So, Mayor, I think you articulated this, or I'm not sure which one of you articulated this,

but about $5 million goes in the housing trust fund, and this would affect what goes in the housing.

If we took away the fees altogether for under 1,500, it's going to affect the housing trust fund,

not general fund, not things like that for the general consensus of people watching.

and then it just incentivizes hopefully the developers to build closer to the 1500th.

And even if it's not enough to incentivize that particular product,

it does send the message from the city that our policy is to try to encourage this missing middle,

these smaller units.

What I do like about it, Justin, is that while I can't see it moving the needle too much,

what the developers will see is that we're trying to make concessions to actually show our priorities by our policies.

And so I do like that concept.

That's it. That's all I'll say for now.

Do we have any public comment this evening?

No, you do not.

I have a question.

Thank you.

Or a couple.

And if I do the math on this and we're looking at somebody building, let's say, 100, 1,500 square foot units.

And, you know, when you're looking at these complexes, they can be anywhere from 50 units to 100, 150 units.

But if you take 100 units and we're reducing the fees, it's only saving the developer on that site $375,000 for, you know, for 150 square foot units, which doesn't seem like a huge incentive to me.

Can you go back to your slide where you had the analysis on the gap?

Sure.

I think that really tells the story right here.

What we're talking about is this delta where the gap to making these things more feasible is $9,000 in that third category right there.

So relieving them of $3,000 or $4,000 is meaningful progress towards that.

And then it doesn't necessarily harm the city's trust fund for these kinds of developments.

It it gives a more direct subsidy to specifically encourage the thing that we're after

Yeah, and my other point has been I brought this up in the past is that there are other disincentives including the

long-standing

State law that they that people that build these types of attached units. I'm not talking about detached units

Are having to warranty those for 10 years?

and that's a huge cost and whenever I've spoken to the developers about what's

your greatest disincentive for building you know condo type townhome type units

they all have a hundred percent of the time referred to that state law so I

I understand you know the point that this may be some kind of incentive I

don't think it's huge it and I don't know how much that's going to move the

a needle until those state laws get changed.

And I understand there's a law going through the process at the state level at this point.

And I don't know what the chances of that are passing and fixing the problem.

But I'm not seeing that, you know, I hate to lose some money out of the housing fund

if we relieve them of collecting that.

but if I may yeah if there is no incentive after we take this step for

developers to build that kind of product they'll build something bigger and we

will have all the money that we can collect and then we won't have fulfilled

that need I well we'll be in the same situation we're in currently where we

need to use our trust fund to more aggressively incentivize specific

projects rather than generally opening the door to these types of projects yeah

So I don't think we'll be harmed either way.

We'll either be successful and we'll get the product that we want,

or we'll be unsuccessful, have the money,

and still have to chase after the product that we want.

And maybe the greatest success is building more projects like the Habitat for Humanity

and using money out of the trust fund to purchase the land.

So I'm going to clarify the discussion and make a motion this evening.

I'm going to move resolution number 11510,

and I'm going to split the difference between the staff.

What's that?

I was gonna split the differ you about to do the same one. Well, I said 1900. I'm gonna go a little lower

I said 1900 staff like 1500. I'm gonna go 1700

a modification of 1700 and a reduction in the fee amount to $0 for under 1700 square feet

So open for discussion. I don't yeah

Yeah, I'm going to reject that when it comes time to vote on it simply because I don't think there's any basis for making that kind of change.

I think the staff recommendation is a solid one and it will either work or not work.

And we can come back and tinker with this later rather than preemptively assuming that it won't work and it needs to be tinkered with now.

So you're opposed to the change in square footage or the change in dollar value?

I don't see a need for either.

I'll jump on that.

I'm going to let my motion stand then.

Go ahead.

I'm okay with reducing the fee.

I think that would be, again, what I said earlier,

putting our policy with priorities.

But I think the sweet spot is 1,500 square feet for me.

1,900 is a pretty big house.

So I don't want to put all the fee burden,

or I guess now it's 1,750 is what you're suggesting.

1,750 is.

I don't want to.

That's where I feel right now.

So you'd rather encourage smaller for sale.

I'm going to make a change on this agenda.

You know, this proposed item that we start putting this starting with the 1500 and under.

Sounds good.

Where are you on the size?

Councilmember Leary.

I'll agree with the 1500.

All right.

Do you want to make a substitute motion for 1500?

I can amend my motion to 1500 square feet.

I'll second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

Can you call the roll council members the keynote? Yeah, koslowski

Yes, Larry yes, Roebuck. Yes, and Rachel. Yes, okay

All right, that brings us to old business so you call item number 15

Yeah, item number 15 is castle park play structure replacement project. You have two resolutions that are part of this item

resolution number one one five three seven

authorizing city manager to execute a construction agreement with granite construction and resolution number one one five three eight

authorizing the city manager to execute a construction agreement with kya for site work for castle park

good morning mayor city council members my name is hannah prez i am park planner two with the

parks and rec department and the project manager for the castle park place structure replacement project

I am here to present to you tonight on two contracts for the Castle Park project for site work.

But before we get into the site work, I am very excited to announce that the community build dates have been scheduled,

and they are going to be April 7th through the 12th.

Sign-ups are now open, and we actually launched the sign-ups yesterday,

and we already have 77 volunteers signed up for a total of 149 shifts.

So we have plenty more.

So don't be discouraged if you wanted to get involved.

We have plenty of more shifts available for the six-day build.

No construction experience is required.

We need help from all ready hands who are available to join

in the magic of bringing this play structure to life.

So please, if you're interested, we will have our link to the portal

be on our website as well as in our various social and printed media.

Did you purposely pick the school district's spring break?

We actually did.

That is due to the fact it's proximity to Oak Chan Elementary School

and being able to utilize the parking lot for our volunteers.

So I will now talk to you about the community,

or sorry, the site work that we're going to be doing

before the community build begins in order for this project to be successful.

And we are recommending moving forward with two contractors to complete this work,

Kaya and Granite Construction, Inc.

And I will be walking through the scope of work that we will be doing for the site work,

but I wanted to orient everybody with the site plan first.

we have the project or the the play structure in the center we have Pruitt Drive at the bottom

there's the residences at the top of the plan and then also to the right and the class one bike trail

to the left of the site so first we'll be walking through the scope of work for Kaya

they're going to be starting with clearing and grading of the play areas in preparation for the

community build, as well as demolition of a portion of the existing sidewalk along Pruitt Drive.

This portion of the sidewalk currently is sloping down into the street and is not ADA accessible at

this time, so the intent with the demolition is to, for this site work, would be to bring that

portion of the sidewalk up to code. Another step after the grading would be to do some subgrade

work for the concrete pavement.

Staff is requesting appropriation of Measure A funds for this specific portion of work

to offset impacts to the general fund.

Since this portion of work directly supports park accessibility, safety, and ADA compliance,

we believe it's appropriate use of Measure A funds.

Next, Kaya would also be stubbing out utilities, specifically the electrical and potable water

for a future restroom. Since the exact location of the restroom has not yet been determined,

we would be extending utilities just to the center of the site to allow for the flexibility

in the final restroom placement. There is an existing sewer stub already present on site

that's extending from Stonington Way, and the location of that existing stub is represented

with the star that you see there on the plan. After the community build is complete,

Kaya would come back in and install the port-in-place safety surfacing.

They would also be installing the engineered wood fiber.

And staff is recommending awarding the construction agreement to Kaya through California Multiple Award Schedules or CMASS Cooperative Purchasing Program.

um kaya is a qualified cmass construction vendor and utilizing cooperative purchasing enables

public public agencies like the city to leverage collective buying power which results in cost

savings efficiency and a streamlined procurement process which we believe is crucial for a timeline

like castle park next we i wanted to walk through the scope of work that would be completed by

granite construction and so they are have agreed to do all of the concrete work for this site and

they have also agreed to donate half the amount of the concrete pavement and perform the work at

cost to the city again staff is recommending appropriation of measure a funds for this work

due to the fact that it directly supports park accessibility safety and ada compliance which we

believe is an appropriate use of measure a funds and helps to offset the impacts to the general fund

i wanted to extend a very special thank you to vice mayor rober for connecting us with granite

construction and thank granite construction themselves for this generous contribution

and partnership in helping us make this project successful

now that you know the scope of work that we're talking about with the site work I wanted to walk

through our projected costs so for the design subtotal currently as we are projecting it's

$158,835 our materials subtotal for the playground materials itself is $379,000

$4,438 and the construction subtotal is $462,169 for a project total of $1,01229.

And you can see highlighted in green are the two contracts that we are presenting on today.

So that's the Kaya and the Granite construction and then a 10% or a construction contingency

along with that.

And then of those costs, this is how we are breaking them down by funding source.

So we have a $800,000 budget of the Parks and Recreation Equipment and Capital Fund.

And so we are staying below that, coming in at $716,063.

And if these resolutions move forward, we would be appropriating $135,201 from Measure A funds.

and then of the rest of the total which is $149,965 that would be coming in from our the

efforts from Folsom Kids Play for Generations which are which is our non-profit partner as

well as other generous donations and so with that I have the two resolutions that are a mouthful

that I'm going to present to you today is for the Castle Park Play Structure Placement Project as

resolution number 1157 which authorizes the city manager to execute a construction agreement with

granite construction inc for concrete pavement work the castle park play structure replacement

project for a not to exceed amount of 72 356 dollars in appropriation of measure a funds

in the amount of 79 529 which that includes the 10 contingency and the second resolution

is 11538 for the city manager to execute a construction agreement with Kaya for site work

for the Castle Park Replacement Project for a not-to-exceed amount of $308,309 from the Parks

and Recreation Equipment Capital Fund in the amount of $257,755, and appropriation of Measure A funds

in the amount of $55,609 for a total budgeted amount of $313,364,

which that includes the 10% contingency on the Measure A portion.

So thank you.

Questions?

Vice Mayor, any questions?

I don't have any questions, but I do want to make a comment.

Thank you for including the stub out or the prep work for a future restroom.

I know that this was one of the big things that people care about.

It's so close to the trail right there.

It would benefit the entire community.

And so, you know, I just I really appreciate you being thoughtful of that and finding a way to make it work as far as the budget goes

Also, thank you for getting creative working with the other departments

On funding sources to make sure this park

Which will serve others

Is going to be done under budget?

But also complete with a da apply compliance in mind and all that good stuff. So thank you Hannah for all your work

Thank you

Council member guys ask any questions questions. Thank you. I got some Larry. Oh good question

So on the 12th, so we're looking about 90 days before this is the full construction

Should have been taking place, right?

Is will it be open and complete on that day or is there still some other work because I'm thinking about you'll need to be planning a grand opening

Correct. Yeah, so that's right. They'll still be some work after

the 12th so

after the after the 12th which is the play structure the the work that will

need to be done is still the port and play safety surfacing so that needs to

be installed after the play structure is built and then the engineer would fiber

so all the safety surf which is also a safety surfacing so that it gets

installed after the play structure will be built and then any touch-up

landscaping that needs to be done after you know all those volunteers are out

there some of the sod might be damaged and stuff so there there will be a

little bit of work that needs to be done afterwards but we're still targeting

having it open by the end of April of 2026 great thank you of course that's

member you know all right any public comment this evening you have no request

to speak on this item all right I'll entertain a motion I'll move resolution

one one five three seven second all right we have a motion and a second for the

first resolution council members the keynote yes Kozlowski yes Leary yes

Yes, yes

I'll move one one five three eight second have a motion a second. Please call the roll council members Aquino

Yeah, Kozlowski. Yeah, Larry. Yes. Yes. Yes, and Rachel. Yes

Thank you. All right. I'm number 16. Okay item 16 is resolution number one one five two eight

This is a resolution amending prior res though one one five two five and appointing members to the 2026 ad hoc charter review committee

great thank you mayor members of the council just as a quick reminder at the last council meeting

the council decided to move forward with the formation of a charter review committee

as we were preparing this item we recognized that we assigned membership of the committee to include

two council members and then the mayor and city manager as non-voting members and so to avoid

having brown act um meetings uh or violating the brown act uh we wanted to modify it so that we

have the mayor uh as one seat a council member as another seat and then five members uh would be

appointed by each council district and so that's the minor modification so the mayor would no longer

be a non-voting member and the city manager would be the only uh non-voting member so um just to

announce the proposed committee members we have tom acetuna designated by mayor rathel bill

romanelli by vice mayor roba ken payne by councilmember kino justin hurst by councilmember

leary glenn fate by councilmember kozlowski and then at the pleasure of the council

who you'd like to select as the council member in that regard.

So before we get to that point, just to reiterate what we're looking at today,

we're hoping we can form this committee and approve this resolution,

and then we have some work to do.

We're going to have to get together quickly in order to take advantage of this review.

If the committee does decide to recommend some charter amendments,

we need to you know have meetings in february march maybe uh in april but hopefully by then

uh the committee can then present their findings to the council uh so that we can um give the

council the opportunity if they so choose to put something on the ballot within the time frames

so uh excited about this effort it's been uh quite a while since uh things have been modified

but with that I'll

Close my comments happy to answer any questions and leave it up to you to figure out who the members are

Questions for the city manager this evening

So I'd like to put my name in as the second council member or first council member

Second the nomination. I did not nominate myself

Do we have any public comment on this item?

No, you do not.

All right.

No public comment.

That's out of the way.

So it sounds like.

He nominated.

Would you like to make a motion?

I'd like to nominate Anna Rohrbaugh to serve our vice mayor as a member of the sad hawk committee in addition to the mayor.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion, a second for the resolution, including Vice Mayor Rohrbaugh.

Please call the roll.

Okay.

Council members Aquino.

Yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

Larry.

Yes, yes, and Rachel yes

All right that it moves us to item number 17

Do you need an actual motion or is that sufficient? So I was going to ask

Was that for

Palestine resolution one one five two eight as well. That's what I took it as but we can make it clear

we can clarify as a clarification I meant to

suggest that we approve

resolution one one five two eight and a point

Council vice mayor robot to the ad hoc committee good enough. Thank you. Thank you

Say anyone want to change their vote now

All right

Nope

Okay, item number 17 is the public meeting related to the proposal to modify the Folsom tourism business improvement district

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

This item is to continue the process of considering a modification to the Folsom Tourism Business Improvement District.

At the November 12, 2025 meeting, the Folsom City Council approved a resolution of intention to modify the Folsom Tourism Benefit Improvement District assessment.

The proposed assessment would change and increase the assessment from 4% to 8%.

And then at this meeting, we're holding this public meeting to allow public testimony on the modification of this change.

And there's no city council action required tonight.

January 27th is the planned public hearing to move this forward.

And then if the council were to approve this, this could go into effect on April 1st, 2026 for those modifications.

One of the points, as we've kind of contemplated this, the intent of this 4%, as has been described by the TED Corp organization, would be to look at physical assets and try to make improvements to the physical assets that would help improve or increase the number of hotel stays here at our hotel operations.

And so some of those to kind of ensure that those goals are being met, we've put together some draft kind of conditions of approval that we will present in a more formal way at the public hearing on the 27th of this month.

And so the purpose and use of the additional funds as it's listed here would be essentially for economic development inducing programs, projects and improvements that directly increase overnight visitation, visitor spending and local economic impact within the city of Folsom.

uh the prior priority shall be given to physical capital improvements and destination enhancing

projects that are demonstrably intended to induce overnight stays at local lodging establishments

priority projects include but are not limited to sports field rehabilitation upgrades and

resurfacing tournament quality athletic facilities and amenities infrastructure or facility improvements

that support regional or multi-day sporting events other physical improvements that directly support

event attraction hosting or expansion and result in increased hotel occupancy in addition to

physical improvements eligible expenditures may include complementary destination marketing and

event recruitment efforts that directly support and promote the priority project described

above 1.4 administrative costs are expressly prohibited from being funded with additional

funds including but not limited to salaries office rent legal accounting audit and administrative

consulting services, general overhead, or internal operational expenses.

Segregation of funds, I should say TED Corp, I apologize, shall maintain separate accounting

records that clearly identify revenues and expenditures attributable solely to the additional

funds generated by the 4% increase.

Such funds shall be tracked independently from the baseline TBID revenue to ensure transparency

and compliance with spending limitations.

and annual spending plan and project or project justification prior to the expenditure of

additional funds the Folsom TED Corp shall prepare an annual spending plan that prioritizes

physical improvements improvement projects and includes a description of each proposed project

or improvement the project's relationship to increased overnight visitation estimated cost

and implementation timeline anticipated hotel room nights and visitor spending impacts for

For physical improvement projects, the annual spending plan shall identify the facility or location to be improved,

the type and scope of rehabilitation or enhancement, the anticipated events, tournaments, or uses enabled by the improvement.

The annual spending plan shall be presented at a publicly noticed meeting submitted to the City of Folsom for review

and posted on the TED Corp website.

Quick question.

Yes.

publicly um a public meeting is that meaning a council meeting so that's up for discussion

you know so it could be a council meeting or it could be a ted corp meeting which is a brown act

meeting as well okay public reporting and transparency the fulsome

ted corp shall prepare an annual report detailing the use of the funds total revenues generated

itemized expenditure uh by project status of physical improvement projects measurable outcomes

related to overnight stays and hotel occupancy,

and the annual report shall be made publicly available

and presented at a public meeting.

This slide kind of shows the current regional TBID rates.

We're looking at Rancho Cordova, Placer Valley,

City of Sacramento, Elk Grove, and Folsom,

and the TBID assessment,

if it was increased from the current 4% to 8%,

when you combine that with the 8% TOT rate,

would put us or the city of Folsom in line with most of our regional partners.

And so that essentially concludes our report.

We just wanted to highlight some of the provisions or conditions of approval

and give the council and the community the opportunity to provide additional feedback and discussion.

Any questions for the city manager this evening?

Commissioner Leary?

Oh, I just wanted to

Thank you for putting together all of that information because I'd answered a lot of the questions that I asked at the January meeting

You know about the reporting and the kinds of

evaluative things that we want in place

Should this pass and I'll second

Vice chair

Roar boss question that is whether this will be presented at a council meeting

I think it's beneficial if things are presented a council meeting because

they're recorded and if anybody wants to go back and take a look at that you know they it'll be

available online versus having the meeting the materials just presented at a meeting of the

ted core i i don't know what their capacity is for recording and reproducing or posting recordings

but i think that's a good step in eliminating any concerns about transparency on this great and if

I could add we do have representatives from Ted Corp here to respond to these questions as well

thank you other questions just to expand on my question earlier I think if I don't I don't mind

if it's presented by Ted Corp at a Ted Corp meeting but I think the council should at a meeting we

should publicly address that it will be held at this time when there is a discussion on where

the funds are being invested. And then, you know, some reports out yearly, I think would be great,

but that allows for people to publicly go to if they have, you know, a project or something,

or they want to kind of know how, you know, everything's kind of getting made, they can go

to that TEDCorp meeting, and that increases public ability to do so. So I don't think many people

know that that's a public meeting um i don't think many people will come joe um but i think

you know i think the more vocal we can be about when the meeting is being held when this discussion

is happening the better off the more transparency and trust that we can build and if it's okay for

me to comment uh i mean that's kind of the reason for this meeting is for to get this type of

feedback and what we would intend to is take this feedback and at the 27th meeting have a revised

Version that would add a little more detail to that

All right, do I have any public comment this evening? Yeah, you have one request to speak under this item from Eileen Reynolds

Good evening, I'm Eileen Reynolds. I'm the immediate past chair of Ted Corp

I didn't expect to be the only speaker, but I just want to reiterate that we we spoke with you the last time that this was presented

I appreciate you hearing us at that point.

We think this is an awesome way to bring in some pretty cool projects to give Folsom some more leverage to get some neat infrastructure-type project-type things here where we can bring more tourists, more heads in beds for the hotels.

So I guess the only question I have about the conditions of approval that I saw very briefly, I've not seen these before, would it preclude us at all from doing the consultant studies that we believe need to be done in order to, because it looked like there were certain things that consultants couldn't be funded.

But I just want to make sure that we'd be able to, because we do believe that the next phase of this is to go through some consultant studies about what feasibly could be funded.

Sure. I mean, that's a great point. So we would definitely go through this and we gladly work with TED Corp to make sure that we have those abilities.

So as we've had discussions about this, and one of the reasons why, from a city perspective, a city staff perspective, we think this is a pretty good idea,

is the ability to invest in those studies that will set up the foundation for future improvements to public facilities throughout the community.

And so the intent of putting these together was not to preclude us from that.

Okay, very good.

We do have the expert on TBIDS here if you need him, John Lambeth,

and also Joe Gagliardi is here who staffs at TEDCOR as well as other entities under Choose Folsom.

But thank you for your consideration and appreciate that you're considering this at all to move forward.

And we look forward to seeing you again on the 27th.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Before we move to a motion, I do want to say thank you to Brian for addressing.

Because of the presentation last year, a lot of questions came up from some of our public.

And I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to address them.

There were really good questions, really good concerns brought up.

And you addressed all of mine and kind of got me over the hurdle.

And so did all of you that put it together.

so. Joe, the floor is yours. I didn't turn in a blue card, but can I speak? We know who you are.

Okay. Members of the Council, Joe Galliardi here with Ted Corp this evening. I just wanted to kind

of talk a little bit about how we see the process unfolding if it's approved on the 27th. First of

all, not only do you need to approve these expenditures, but our hotel partners need to.

That's part of the process of a business improvement district is that the hoteliers

have a say in what gets funded, as do you.

So that's really critical, you know, that we do that.

We have in the audience today some members of the Folsom Athletic Association

who we've reached out to about them bringing together

their various sports teams as to what the needs are.

And, you know, as Brian alluded to, our goal here is really as an economic driver

to drive heads and beds that increases the TOT that you receive

and the spends to our local businesses.

So as we see the process unfolding, this is kind of how we see it happening.

If it's approved, we then have to enter in and figure out some priorities

and figure out what those are and what would be the most effective use of money

to drive tourism and become more of a destination.

Once those priorities are set, we have to do some feasibility studies

on ratifying what those are and what the economic impacts of those would be.

Once we do that, if we figure that there's going to be some kind of a capital cost associated with it,

there's a pretty stringent process you have to go through to get construction costs,

design, preliminary design construction costs.

And then if we decide collectively, all of us,

that we want to bond in order to have the capital to do that that's a whole nother process so

this is not going to be done in a vacuum this is just the first step and i want to make sure we

all understand that the hotels are a critical part of this because that's that's who really

is our stakeholders in addition to you if you have any questions about process and the assurances

that you have and and so forth john lambeth who wrote the legislation that created this in the

very beginning is here to answer any questions or if you there's people in the audience that have

came to help support this because somebody like snooks can tell jim snook can tell you when

there's something going on in one of our hotels the businesses benefit and that's that's the

multiplier effect of tourism is not only is it that someone's staying in the hotel and paying

a bed tax but they're also supporting our local businesses so be happy to answer any questions

we're excited and anxious to see this move forward so that we can do more for

the community the other thing I want to assure you to make sure call out is

Brian articulated this this 4% is strictly for this there is no

administration costs out there's nothing else other than to do those studies that

we talked about earlier to to justify our ability to do this thank you thank

you we've got a couple of late entries to the public comment Jim Snook

Come on up and Dean Williams, you'll follow him.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members.

First of all, I just want to say I was not asked to be here,

but I found out about this.

And just because of my experience with our historic Folsom P bid,

which the property owners, similar to the hotels,

we voted to have our business improvement district.

And it's been about 18 years ago,

but I'm sure all of you have seen the results of that.

So it's been incredible.

I'm a huge fan of it.

I mean, I can't imagine not having it.

So I saw this and I thought,

I'm looking at that slide thinking Folsom's a little behind

and, you know, the Measure G didn't pass.

We need other ways to attract people down here

and if we can get people from out of town to stay, it's a good thing.

It helps all of us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jim.

Dean, come on down.

I'm expecting some really tough questions from Mr. Lambeth here since he's been waiting.

Nah.

First of all, I don't know why all the people in the bright yellow here, but I didn't do it.

So I just want you to know that.

so I'm here tonight representing the FAA as well as a resident I'm on the Parks and Rec Commission

but I'm here as really as a resident but also for youth sports we've been having some great

conversations in regards to this project starting and I think everybody's pretty much aware that

youth sports brings in a lot of money to this community and it's if you build it they will

come if we get more fields for soccer they will come if we get more basketball courts we'll get

tournaments for that and for volleyball and it makes this community that much better we are known

for having tournaments here and people love coming here we just don't can't handle enough of it

so um i look at that as as an opportunity for fulsome to step up and get back into the game

we're kind of getting run around in circles by a few of our neighbors which is a little frustrating

and I think we need to step this is an opportunity to build that and get back up where we I think we

should be in addition to that some of the stuff we've been talking about is reusing or making

some changes to existing buildings around our town and part of it is at the older end of Folsom

down by where Limby Park is and down there.

And if we could work some ways to maybe restructure some of the buildings down there,

we can build a sports center area down there that will help with the redevelopment down there.

So there's a lot of areas to look at and to talk about.

And so I'm real excited about the opportunity and having the community involved

and oversight on this and keeping track

that makes sure it goes to projects

that will benefit the whole community.

So that's it, and I'm sure, look at that, not bad.

Thanks, Dean.

You'd no further request to speak on this item.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

I don't think we have any action this evening on this item.

I just have one question.

Sure.

Sorry, meant to ask earlier.

I talked to our finance director you know with some questions about how much money can be bonded

you know against the income from this increase do you want to address that or I don't know if Joe or

Mr. Lambeth want to address that as Joe mentioned with this process the way it's going now we can't

do any bonding on it so we'd have to start another process it would depend on what percentage of the

4% was determined to be used for bonding. We could have as much as $10 million, $15 million,

depending on what the revenue is for it. So there's questions on how much it would be

based on the percent that could be used for it.

Would that be $10 or $15 million annually or over time total until the end of this?

Yeah. So you bring up a really good point. So what's being proposed is to increase the

assessment by 4% through the existing term, which ends in 2032. And so if you're issuing bonds,

you probably would have, let's just say a 30-year time period. So there's more that would need to

be done, right? To actually get a bond issuance done, we'd have to get agreement from the hotel

owners to basically extend it to 2050 or whatever it is, because then you could actually bond

against it.

Because how the bond works is basically you take out a mortgage and then you pay it from

the revenues that are generated on an annual basis.

And the hope is that with that investment, we're able to get more hotel stays, more activity,

more people in our businesses, shopping at our stores and all that sort of thing.

So this, in many ways, as Mr. Gagliardi mentioned, is kind of the first phase.

So we have revenue with the intent to focus on physical infrastructure.

But at the beginning, a lot of it's going to go into the feasibility studies and those types of things to make sure that it's financially feasible.

So just to be clear.

So this probably would be phase one.

We have this approved to 2032.

but in the next 12 to 24 months depending on the findings and if the hotel owners are open to it

they say hey we really like what these studies say and so we want to extend the t-bid at this

current structure for an additional year period which would then make it eligible for the bond

financing okay so because a lot of the projects that are you know that have been talked about are

pretty expensive projects and so i wanted to know how much money might be available to move those

along. Thank you.

All right, that brings us to the city manager's

report.

Okay,

mayor and members of the council, just a couple

updates. It was reported

earlier

this month that

Intel has officially listed its Folsom

campus for sale

and the campus totals approximately

1.6 million square feet.

Intel has committed to leasing back

1 million square feet for the next 12 years

ensuring a long-term operational presence in Folsom, which is really great news.

For a while, we weren't sure exactly what was going to come out of this, so that is great.

This leaves roughly 650,000 square feet available for future leasing, new tenants, or potential redevelopment.

We're grateful for the partnership and the investment that Intel has put forward into the community for many years,

and we're glad that they have a long-term plan that they continue to follow.

just as a reminder the city seeks public safety volunteers volunteers are needed to help support

public safety in Folsom Folsom citizens assisting public safety caps caps volunteers support

Folsom's police and fire departments assisting with various public safety functions applications

for the 2026 program will be available on January 15th and completed applications are due February

2nd. For more information, visit the city's website. Also, I see some friends here like to

recognize the Folsom Community Emergency Response Team, CERT volunteers enhance community safety,

assisting the Folsom Fire Department with first aid, light search and rescue and firefighter

rehabilitation during large-scale incidents. To register or learn more, visit academy.folsomcert.org.

uh also if uh you're interested and want to help shape the future of the natoma

stations landscaping and lighting district we invite um residents natoma station residents

to attend one of two upcoming community outreach meetings to learn about the proposed formation

of maintenance assessment uh district number 2025-02 and how it could impact future neighborhood

maintenance or uh in natoma station those meeting dates actually i can't remember those meeting

I didn't can I get a reminder?

Okay

I have this on my calendar for both of them

so it's actually

the 20th Thursday the 22nd and

The other date is the 29th. I think it's following Thursday 29

22nd 29th here at

6 p.m. Okay in this meeting, so thank you council member Leary that concludes my report

Council comments council over Kostoski. Um nothing tonight except everybody please drive safely

I just I had the same feeling Dean Williams did when you guys all walked in like who who's getting in trouble

But I know that this is for a much bigger reason

So my heart goes out to my prayers and thoughts to the family

but also to all of those that got to work with him.

And then also to the city, too.

I mean, thank you so much to Tom for all his service to our city,

and that can't be understated.

So thank you for all being here.

Council Member Leary.

I want to thank the Friends of Folsom Parkway

who have been doing a lot of community service

in the Natoma Station area.

they've conducted three work days in the neighborhood so far and that is to clear

all of the latter fuels from our open spaces which are now waiting to be

chipped looking forward to finding some volunteers to help us all with that

along with our park staff who've been doing a great job of backing them up

I also want to thank our communications director Christine for working on

creating hopefully a mechanism for each council member to communicate with residents in our

district because right now the only things available are things like Facebook or Nextdoor

and not everybody logs on to those and I know it's been it's kind of a big project and there's

still a ways to go but I think that will help us immensely in letting our district members know

what kinds of things we're working on that are impacting them.

So I really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Council Member Aquino?

On New Year's Day, my husband and I welcome an exchange student.

He is with us for the spring semester.

He is a senior at Vista del Lago High School.

He is from Piava del Grappa, Italy.

He is an absolute delight.

And the kids at Vista have been very welcoming,

and he is enjoying everything Folsom has to offer.

So the Aquino family is doing everything we can

to strengthen our relationship with our sister city.

And also my love and hugs go to Monica and her family as well.

I don't have any other comments other than I just wanted to talk a little bit about why you all are here tonight.

So just before Christmas, Folsom lost a great man.

And tonight we're going to adjourn the meeting in memory of Tom Pactel.

I want to thank his wife, Monica, his family, and his CERT friends for being here

and also offer our deepest condolences during this time.

Thomas Colin Pacto was born in Oahu, Hawaii on April 28, 1962.

After graduating from Mililani High School, Tom joined the United States Air Force.

He graduated from the Defense Language Institute and spent four of his eight years of service in South Korea as an interpreter.

He spent 33 years with the Federal Aviation Administration in several positions, including air traffic controller and air traffic manager.

Tom's friends often referred to him as the most interesting man in the world.

He had degrees and certifications in intelligence gathering, emergency medical technician, ham radio, and viticulture.

He was even an ordained minister.

Tom had many hobbies, including but not limited to running, cars, finance, mentoring, online shopping, and also preparing for the zombie apocalypse.

He was not satisfied until all his hobbies were fully accessorized.

Tom found purpose, joy, and friendship as a member of the Folsom Community Emergency Response Team.

Tom is survived by his wife Monica, his son Benjamin Mason, daughter-in-law Haley Mason, and his beautiful granddaughter Charlotte, as well as a loving Flores LaRue family.

family. To honor Tom, two Folsom Lake College scholarships have been established in his

name, one in fermentation science and one for the emergency medical technician. Away

on the website today, they're really easy to find. You can go and donate there and they're

with his name there, so please consider donating on his behalf. I'm going to close tonight

with a few remarks that were sent in by Ed Meyers, Tom's friend at CERT. He said, give

Give your time, give your talent, and give your treasure.

That's how Tom lived.

Be like Tom.

So in memory of Tom Pactel, we are adjourned.