And with that, we will adjourn the special meeting and we'll move to the regular meeting.

If you could uh call the roll.

Council members Leary here, Rorba, here, Aquino, here, Kozlowski, here.

And Rethel.

Here.

If you'll 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, justice are all.

And do we have any agenda updates this evening?

We do, we do, Mayor.

Um, on new business item number 19.

City staff is requesting that the item be continued off calendar.

And then for item number three, or sorry, item number 23.

We have an additional information transmittal.

Um, it's my understanding that the council has all been provided copies of this information, and we have a copy on the back table for members of the public.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Uh item number nine.

23.

23 and 19 was the one.

19 continued in off-calendar.

All right.

And that brings us to business from the floor.

This is the time where the public can address the council on any unagendized item for up to three minutes.

Uh so if you would like to address the council, we've got the blue cards in the back.

Please fill out one of those and bring it up front uh for us, and we'll start with our first speaker.

Okay, we have three speakers this evening, and I'll let you know who's speaking and then who's next, so you can be ready if you hear your name coming up as next.

So our first speaker will be Kevin Goddard.

Kevin will be followed by Alexis Goddard, who will then be followed by Richard Heiler.

Testing.

Okay.

Good evening, Kevin.

Good evening, Mayor.

Uh, so good evening, Mayor, uh, council members, and city manager.

Uh, first, thank you for what you do.

Uh, I know you put in a lot of hours and can often be a thankless job.

I'm here tonight because I'm concerned.

Uh I'm concerned that the messaging that you've been sending to the people of the city is not in alignment with some of your recent actions.

Brian, I clearly remember sitting in this audience uh when you first became the city manager, and we're looking at the city's finances, and you told us that Folsom would have to do less with less.

That was a tough pill to swallow, uh, but I respected the honesty of that message.

I believed if we all tightened our belts and work through this together, we could get to the other side of this crisis.

I trusted that leadership would lead by example, and some of you have.

That's why I'm concerned now.

Uh we've seen a fire station browned out, staffing reduced, and services outsourced, yet at the same time, a few of our leaders have sought to increase compensation for their roles.

I'm not saying you shouldn't get paid, but getting a raise is not something that should be part of any conversation until the city is back on its feet and all of the services have been restored.

I want to remind you that being in public service means you serve the public, and that often comes with personal sacrifices.

And if you're not willing to make a sacrifice, then maybe this is not a job for you to uh sign up for.

I'll close with this that trust is earned in teaspoons and it is lost in buckets.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, our next speaker is Alexis Goddard.

Hi, good evening, City Council.

You can pull the microphone down.

Thank you.

Um I would just like to second what Kevin said.

I mean, the city, Brian, we've gone to many many meetings, we've heard less with less, city has no money.

You guys are browning out the fire stations.

That's a public safety issue.

The roads are everything's 30 plus years old now in this town.

It needs to be upgraded.

Um, you know, we're saying we're in the red.

I I get that, but now's not the time to be asking your yourselves for pay increases.

I think this could be tabled and addressed at a later issue once the city is back on budget.

And I would just like to end with saying you guys do not you all knocked on our doors, you asked for a vote, a vote to better our city, not a vote to better yourself.

And I want you to think about that.

Thanks.

Okay, our next speaker is Richard Heiler.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Richard Heiler, Folsom Landscape and Lighting Advisory Committee Vice Chair, representing the neighborhood of Los Cerros.

Tonight I'd like to recognize two Folsom public servants for their quick attention addressing a disaster.

On Valentine's evening, Saturday, a car knocked over the Los Cerros Monument sign at Woodsmoke and East Bidwell.

The sign was broken from its foundation, flat on the ground and in pieces.

Tuesday morning, I received an email from the municipal landscape services manager letting me know he was aware of the event and arranging repairs.

In 38 days, the sign was completely rebuilt and looked like new.

I'd like to share just a couple of photos with you.

So you can see what the sign looked like on the left and what it looked like on the right after Valentine's Day.

Completely ripped out of the ground.

And it was the rubble was hauled away before I could get a picture.

And then over the 38 days, uh completely rebuilt out of center block, coded, and the sign put back in place.

Beautiful result.

This wonder is wonderful result was achieved by our public servants who knew how to get it done and cared about our city.

To recognize our public servants, I'd like to present a certificate of appreciation.

As I call your name, please come forward.

David Krigg, municipal landscape services supervisor.

Now he couldn't be here because of a family commitment.

And Derek Perez, municipal landscape services manager.

Guys, grab a picture, yeah, turn around and so David and Derek, on behalf of the Los Ceros neighborhood, I am grateful for you quickly restoring the beauty of our neighborhood and city.

Thank you.

Thanks, Richard.

Derek, thanks to you, and and please thank Dave For us also for that quick response.

That's great.

Thank you.

Any other public comments this evening?

All right.

That will take us to our scheduled presentations.

And item number one.

Okay, your first scheduled presentation this evening is a proclamation of the mayor proclaiming April 12th to the 18th as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week in the City of Folsom.

And could we have the public safety telecommunicators come on up?

Vice Mayor Aurba is going to read the proclamation tonight.

Thank you all for being here.

Who can I?

Who am I gonna hand this to?

Oh, I would love to have some hold that up.

Um thank you for being here.

Um is this on?

Yeah.

So uh proclamation of the mayor of the city of Folsom, proclaiming National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week and the City of Folsom, whereas Folsom police detachers are the vital link in our police officers, firefighters, crisis interventionalists, and our citizens, modern tur monitoring radioactivity, traffic cameras, and other tools and aid in providing information and life-saving instructions while enhancing the safety of all.

And whereas the Folsom's public safety dispatchers serve with care, compassion.

I don't know what that says.

While aiding in the relentless pursuit of criminal behavior and fostering of positive relationships, and whereas public folsom's public safety dispatchers are the calm on the end of the line when calm is needed most.

On behalf of the mayor, Justin Raithel and the City of Council, I and Aurora proclaim, do hereby proclaim the week of April 12th to the 18th, 2026, as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week in the City of Folsom and extend our gratitude to Folsom's communications dispatchers for their dedicated service to our community, their diligence and commitment to keeping our city and our citizens safe, safe.

Proclaim this 14th day of April 2026.

Thank you.

I do just want to say a couple uh thing, a couple things.

Um, when I did a fit-along, I think now it's almost been a couple years, I wasn't completely impressed with everything that you have to deal with all in one second.

Um, I mean, there could be 10 things going on at one time, and I was, and I think I sat with you, Brent, didn't I?

Um, and I was just floored by the amount of information you have to take in and how you have to remain calm and not rattled.

So um, thank you for everything that you do.

We really appreciate it in the city.

Do you any of you want to?

Oh, nothing's not it.

Okay, I think that's all.

Okay, our next scheduled presentation, item number two.

This is a proclamation of the mayor proclaiming April 19th to the 25th as National Library Week in the city of Folsom.

Sure.

Tom, aren't you gonna come down too?

Yes, all right.

This is a proclamation of the mayor of the city of Folsom, proclaiming April 19th, the 25th, 2026 as National Library Week in the city of Folsom.

Whereas the Folsom Public Library leads the county of Sacramento with the highest circulation and program attendance of any library location in the county, and does so with per capita funding at around half that of its regional peers.

And whereas the dedicated volunteers of the Friends of the Folsom Library play an essential role in supporting the library through book sales, grant writing, and community outreach, raising more than 75,000 for the library this year.

And whereas library partner libraries partner with schools, businesses, and organizations to maximize resources, increase efficiency, and expand access to essential services, strengthening the entire community, and whereas libraries serve as vibrant community hubs, connecting people with knowledge, technology, and resources while fostering civic engagement, critical thinking, and cultural enrichment.

And whereas libraries provide free and equitable access to books, digital tools, and innovative programming, ensuring that all individuals have the support they need to learn, connect, and thrive.

And whereas communities across the country are joining together to celebrate National Library Week under the theme Find Your Joy.

Now, on behalf of Justin Rathel, mayor of the City of Folsom, we do hereby proclaim the week of April 19th to the 25th, 2026 as National Library Week in the City of Folsom, and extend our gratitude to the friends of the Folsom Library and to our dedicated volunteers and staff.

During this week, we encourage residents to visit their library, explore its resources, and celebrate all the ways that it helps our community find joy.

Proclaim this 14th day of April 2026.

On behalf of the Friends of the Folsom Library, I'm honored to accept this proclamation for National Library Week.

And I invite everybody to come find their joy at the library.

Joy is different for everyone.

For some, it's that quiet escape into a good book.

For others, it's that spark when you learn something new.

And last week we had a little girl come in and she found a book on magic tricks, and she was literally jumping.

She was so excited, she couldn't wait to get home to um do some magic tricks and learn something with the dad.

So the library is free, it's a great resource for everybody.

And as friends, we are so honored to be able to see the impact on our community every time we go.

And I'd just like to also extend a huge thank you to everyone who makes that possible.

Uh, from Tom, our library director to the library staff, the volunteers who come into the library, the library commission, the members and friends of the Folsom Library, the people who shop at our store, the people who donate books to make this whole possible.

Um it takes a whole community.

And next week is find your joy, National Library Week.

So please come in, get that book you've been meaning to read, join a book club, make a new friend, bring your child to story time.

There's lots of ways to celebrate, so thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go look over here at Andrew.

Squeeze anybody.

Okay.

Unless you want to.

Okay, as our library folks get seated, our next item number three will be a proclamation recognizing 20 consecutive years as a tree city USA and celebrating Arbor Day.

All right, so that's pretty.

This is one of my favorites to do.

I've got to do it before.

Um, this is a proclamation of the mayor of the city of Folsom recognizing 20 consecutive years as a tree city USA and celebrating Arbor Day.

Whereas the let the legacy of Arbor Day began with Jay Sterling Morton's 1872 vision for a dedicated day to trees and a tradition elevated to national prominence in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt as a vital investment in our Republic's future.

And whereas Arbor Day is now observed annually throughout the nation and the world and will be celebrated in Folsom on Saturday, April 18th, 2026.

And whereas our tree canopy serves as vital living infrastructure, stabilizing our soils, intercepting storm flows, and providing a natural cooling effect that lowers energy demands while filtering the very air we breathe.

And whereas trees are unique municipal assets that increase in value over time, enhancing property values, fostering a restorative sanctuary that recharges the human spirit and creates shaded walkable areas that strengthen our business community.

And whereas, beyond their measurable utility, trees offer a timeless source of joy, weaving nature into the daily fabric of our city, offering a quiet legacy for generations to come, and whereas for 20 consecutive years, the Arbor Day Foundation has recognized the City of Folsom as a Tree City USA, a milestone that reflects our city's unwavering commitment to fostering a robust, resilient tree canopy for all residents.

And whereas the city will celebrate Arbor Day for planting trees by planting trees at Granite Mini Park, and we'll further observe our 20-year milestone as a Tree City USA with a commemorative planting event at McFarland Park this fall.

Now, therefore, on behalf of Justin Rethal, mayor of the City of Folsom, I do hereby proclaim April 18th, 2026 as Arbor Day in the City of Folsom and urge all citizens to support our efforts in protecting our trees and woodlands and further.

Proclaim this 14th day of April 2026.

First of all, last time I got to read this one, I reminded everybody that I I grew up in Chicago originally, and just outside of Chicago is the Morton Arboretum named for this gentleman, which is a really cool tree sanctuary there, and an arboretum here would be an amazing asset someday.

Thank you, Councilmember Kozlowski.

I just want to say I'm feeling very grateful to accept this proclamation on behalf of the community and everyone who has contributed and played a role in growing our city's beautiful urban forest.

The city of Folsom is well known for its distinctive by nature identity.

And uh a big contributor to that is our beautiful urban forest.

Uh towards our urban forestry goals, and it is exactly because of that support that the Arbor Day Foundation has recognized our city for 20 years running now as a tree city USA.

A milestone uh reflecting two decades of commitment to growing our urban forest.

So this Saturday, we're going to be putting that commitment into action at Granite Mini Park, where we are going to be planting the next generation of trees, but also to commemorate 20 years as a tree city USA.

We are also planning a celebratory planting event at McFarland Community Park this fall, and we look forward to releasing those details as we get closer.

But until then, um thank you again for your support.

I am very privil privileged to grow our urban forest with you, and I look forward to seeing some familiar faces in the dirt this Saturday.

Thank you.

Okay, next will be item number four.

This is a proclamation of the mayor proclaiming April 22nd, 2026 as Earth Day, which will be celebrated on April 18th.

Good evening, everyone.

This proclamation is of the mayor for the city of Folsom, proclaiming April 22nd, 2026 as Earth Day, which will be celebrated on April 18th, 2026.

Whereas Senator Gaylord Nelson and student activist Dennis Hayes organized the first Earth Day rallies on April 22nd, 1970 across the United States, which signaled that protecting the environment is an important goal of the American people, creating the modern environmental movement and landmark pieces of environmental legislation in the United States.

And whereas Earth Day has evolved into the world's largest civic event, uniting people across 192 cities, excuse me, countries in the shared celebration and citizenship of our planet.

With this year's theme, Our Power, Our Planet, Folsom proudly joins the worldwide effort on April 18th, 2026.

And whereas the City of Folsom recognizes that an environment free of pollution increases property values, enhances economic vitality, protects native species, maintains air and water quality, and beautifies our community.

And whereas the City of Folsom acknowledges the ongoing efforts of city staff to comply with state and federal environmental regulations that protect our community and natural resources for future generations.

Whereas in 2025, the City of Folsom utilized roughly 1,054 tons of recovered organic waste through community service day, landscape projects, and the self-served compost pile, all of which were used locally.

And whereas the City of Folsom diverts 54 tons per day of organic material from the landfill, contributing to statewide waste reduction and sustainability goals.

And whereas the City of Folsom is committed to sharing information about sustainability initiatives and inspiring stewardship of our distinct natural environment.

Now, therefore, I, Barbara Leary Council member, along with our mayor, Justin Rayfell and our Mayor of the City Council, do hereby proclaim April 22nd, 2026 as Earth Day, which will be celebrated on April 18th with Earth Day Volunteer Opportunities at Lyons Park.

Proclaimed this 14th day of April 2026.

We hope to see you all there at the celebration.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, uh, Councilmember Leary and uh City Council.

We're all very excited to bring the third annual Earth Day event for City Folsom.

Um prior years before Earth Day in the city hosted uh many separate uh springtime events across multiple departments, including pre food cleanups, trails day, Arbor Day, uh volunteer activities and recycling education and outreach.

And in 2024, we combined those into uh one more cohesive and comprehensive Earth Day event, which is really very successful.

This year we'll be focusing on the volunteer cleanups and projects, and um followed by a volunteer appreciation lunch.

The event's rotated locations each year we've held it.

Uh first year was in front of City Hall, last year at the new completed Crosspector Park, and this year at Lawrence Park.

Yeah, we also wanted to highlight that the city is already participating in earthly events this year, such as Earth Day Fair at Blanch Springs Elementary School, where we taught students what compost is, what goes on their blue agreements, and how important battery recycling is.

2026 will also be the fourth annual um year of the Earth A Power Contest with all elementary school students in the City of Folsom.

Topics have ranged from recycling food scraps to water conservation.

Over the last five decades, Earth Day has become a global day of recognition, reflection, and action dedicated to protecting our planet for future generations.

And we are proud and honored that mission as the F wholesome.

And volunteers will be competing.

And then, like was mentioned, we'll have PSA back at Ryan's part.

And we're grateful to the mayor and to city council for this proclamation and for the support of okay.

Our next scheduled presentation, item number five will be a presentation regarding the fire department deployment model.

Please do it's my first time.

Thanks for coming tonight, Chief.

Absolutely.

Well, good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Council members, city staff, uh community members, uh, Jason Solak Fire Chief.

And uh tonight uh I tend to provide you a quick deployment update on um on the deployment model that the fire department is uh planning to implement next week.

Uh justification and talk a little bit about data and uh some of the challenges that we uh are encountering and um kind of just a broad overview of of how we use data uh to drive a lot of our decision making.

Uh as a 25-year resident and a fire chief for a little over five months.

Um I believe that the community expects these things.

Umperational readiness.

I mean, that's the core theme of what we do, right?

Responding to emergencies and assisting the public.

Uh responsive and adaptive to the community needs as the needs of the community change.

We need to be uh adaptive and innovative to uh to meet those needs.

Administratively accountable.

We need to ensure that we are using fiscal prudence, that we're using uh best practices, industry standard, right, and trying to limit the uh subjectivity of our decision making on a daily basis.

Uh and I think um as important as anything, um, we need to be transparent about our process.

We need to be willing to say where we're we're not doing great or where we can improve while also highlighting those areas that we are doing well.

Standards of cover is a document uh that's a comprehensive review uh essentially that uh identifies three things community risk, the level of service that the community expects, and the resources and performance the department can actually deliver.

Uh and CPSE, which is the Centers for Public Service Excellence.

Uh, there's a subcategory there, uh, grows out of a community risk assessment identifying the department's baseline performance and sets the benchmarks for improvement.

In practice, it's a document, a foundational document that we would use on how to deploy, measure, and improve services on the hazards and needs of our community.

The objectives of a standards of cover are outlined here.

Identify and understand the risks, define the department's level of service and response performance objectives, evaluate current response capabilities, guide resource allocation decisions, measure performance and identify gaps, support strategic planning, budgeting, and policy development.

Outlined in that document and used uh throughout the fire service uh is uh a data compliance standard.

Um this is much like a control study in uh a research project, right?

That you can uh that you can provide to colleagues for peer review.

Um you have confidence and reliability in the data that you're driving because it's objective uh and it's filtered to eliminate anomalies.

As you can see in the list, there are a number of criteria filter that the compliance standards requires.

Um response time compliance is measured on our ability to effectively respond to emergent type calls, right?

And there's a there's a model that I'll I'll uh I'll illustrate later on a variety of ways on how to do that.

Um we use CAD data uh in our records management system.

Data is sent to our records management system, and then after a call, we go in there and we input and aggregate data based on a number of sets uh substandards to identify whether it was a priority call, whether the call occurred in district, um, what unit actually arrived on scene first, right?

And all of those objectively identify the compliance standard, and when you aggregate the data, the data that doesn't meet all of the response criteria is discarded, right?

Because in true compliance, you have to have an established set of criteria and a benchmark to meet.

Uh most commonly we use what's called 90%.

And so 90% is nine times out of 10, we met this performance benchmark.

So uh as an example, um, when we talk about response compliance for EMS, right, or NFPA standards, they talk about six minutes uh total response time 90% of the time, which means that the expectation or the goal is to have a fire unit arrive on scene within six minutes of the time of the call, nine times out of ten, right?

And when you're not able to achieve that, which uh a lot of agencies nationally are not, right?

The the not anecdotally, but uh there's no real research on how many departments actually meet that benchmark other than uh some investigative reports from um Boston Globe is is probably the one, but nationally um the reports indicate that somewhere between 58 and 60 percent of fire departments nationally are actually able to consistently meet the compliance data.

So it's uh it's a tough goal to achieve, right?

And uh there are a number of factors that play into that.

Um Chief, I might have missed it, uh, but I'm not familiar with the acronym because you go back.

What's what's CAD timestamp?

Oh, CAD.

So CAD is computer aided dispatch.

Um, yeah.

That is uh the dispatch center.

Um so in Folsom, we have a PSAP, PSAP is actually Folsom PD.

They receive the original call.

Uh 911 once your emergency, uh, they say, hey, there's a fire, or I have a medical emergency, they transfer the call to Sacramento Regional Fire Emergency Communication Center.

They take the information, oftentimes PD will remain on the line to obtain additional information to determine whether uh law enforcement may be needed.

Um then they dispatch the appropriate fire agency for the type of call and dispatch the appropriate units for the call type event.

So if it's a medical or a fire or whatever.

CAD catches those time stamps and then transfers them to our records management system.

So we should be using CAD data for our time stamps, but there are a number of subsets that the fire department needs to be implementing and inputting when they're writing the report so that we can aggregate the data correctly to know whether we are or aren't meeting our compliance data.

Uh 1710, which is industry standard in terms of uh professional fire service deployment models, right?

Is compliance built around those performance objectives.

Uh 90% achievement is the benchmark for call processing, turnout, and travel time, right?

Not using averages.

Um the means averages are useful for context, uh, but they should not be a number that is used to determine whether we're in compliance, right?

Averages are especially weak for judging reliability over a short time period.

The problem gets worse because the denominator is small.

For practical consequences of using averages, right?

It generates false confidence, uh, missed operational problems and poor deployment decisions because again, the data is not reliable.

It's it's used primarily as a trend indicator that typically warrants additional investigative work as to why did this occur or why are we seeing this trend.

As an example, um, this is just a slide I put together.

Um this is from our records management system, which is the software program that CAD feeds in.

Uh, we took a three-year average response time, uh, dispatch to arrival, first unit, um, and already we're not complying with the compliance standards because the compliance standards requires dispatch to the rule arrival of first due based on geographic GIS information, which we currently don't have in our records management system.

Secondly, it's for urgent or emergent calls, and of course, we are only able to categorize all calls.

So in 2023, uh we had 9,527 calls for service, we had 15,036 runs, and a run is the actual number of times that a unit responded, and there are incidents that require additional or multiple units.

So even though it's a single incident, it may have four or five or six different units responding.

And so that number is representative of the actual number of runs that all the units did collectively.

And for that year, our average response time was 756.

In 2024, you can see that the calls for service increased slightly by roughly 400.

Our total runs increased by about a thousand.

And our average response time decreased roughly 30 seconds.

So as a policymaker or a fire chief, you look at this and you go, well, why did this happen?

And in 2024, we added an engine company.

So we have an additional resource available on the system to respond to these calls.

It's logical that we would see a decrease, right?

Um interestingly enough, if you look at the 2025 data, calls for service remained pretty flat.

Total runs actually increased, but our average response times decreased.

And what's interesting about this data set point is we actually had an engine out of service for two of those 12 months.

And what this highlights is the unreliability using averages to determine response time.

So standards of cover report.

2006 council approved and uh passed a resolution for standards recovery report.

They adopted uh many performance metrics as a result of that.

You can see those there.

A couple of those uh recommended building an additional station, staffing an addition in additional engine company, and also identified station 37 as a best location for the truck company due to its accessibility, uh, its district, most of the buildings in that district are beyond the reach of a 24-foot ladder, right?

So the use of an aerial for access is important.

Um and then district specifics again.

Um that was our heavy, heavily commercialized area.

We had the college, we had highway 50, we now have Palladio.

So there's there's a local drive factor when we talk about where we should be deploying our truck from.

Okay.

So the initial actions that were taken, uh, council did adopt uh a resolution 7979 that adopted some of those performance benchmarks that I've mentioned.

We started planning for fire station 39.

We strengthened partnerships and mutual aid agreements as outlined in the report.

And we started forecasting and planning for long-range uh Folsom plan area that was uh identified as a potential annex session area for station 34.

Okay.

Since then, uh station 39 has been built.

We have hired additional firefighters to staff that station.

We replaced an existing truck with superior uh capabilities, better access, better reach, uh, it has the capacity to carry additional equipment uh for improved service deliverables.

We developed a strategic plan that was uh in concert with many of the standards of cover uh recommendations for how to best deploy the fire department.

We built 34, we hired additional firefighters and are now in the planning stages for 33.

This is where transparency is important because um we do have some areas for improvement, right?

Some of uh the identified shortfalls uh in just the short term I've been here in conversations with the command team, the department, uh many of the policymakers uh and our regional partners.

Um facility challenges at station 37.

So when we first uh purchased a ladder truck, uh it was too tall to fit at 37, even though we agreed that was the best place for it.

So we moved it to station 35.

And then we went through the process of developing a new platform, a TDA, which is the truck we have now.

It was uh not as tall, however, it was longer.

So while it went into the app bay, it didn't fit within the app bay.

So once again, we had a little bit of a challenge putting the truck where we really thought the truck should go, right?

And it was placed again and station 35, which it which is where it has resided until most recently.

Normalization of deviance.

This is uh not unique to the city of Folsom.

Um in the 25 years I worked for a prior agency, I spent the last few years as a deputy fire chief, and one of my tasks was to manage a community risk assessment that included uh a standards of cover report.

And and I don't proclaim to be uh an expert in any shape or form when it comes to data or data analysis.

Uh, there are experts that we refer to and depend on for their uh input.

Um but there definitely has been a deviance um from what I would consider to be best practice, and I recall as a fire captain being trained as to the why, right?

And I think we've lost some of the why, and again, this is not unique to the city of Folsom.

Um, a lack of institutional knowledge, right?

Not being able to explain the why, not having the ability to share the importance of the data, right?

And what the data does for us in many aspects.

Staffing challenges, a lot of agencies, both municipal and county fire departments have struggled as the economy goes up and down, our staffing levels go up and down, and we tend to prioritize our efforts in those areas that are primary mission-driven aspects, right?

Emergency response training and those things.

And oftentimes we lose the ability to maintain adherence to those policies, and it's uh it it becomes a real challenge later in time, right?

And then unreliable data on which to base deployment and operational decisions, which I've already mentioned.

And then lastly, financial challenges plays a role in any of these.

Um again, as the city has money.

Um there are competing funds for general fund dollars, and um there's capital infrastructure, water needs.

I always tell people that you know, when you turn the faucet on and you don't have water, that's that's a problem.

So moving forward, um, again, in the short time I've been here, we've identified a problem with our data collection and the framework that doesn't exist for us to be able to ensure compliance.

So we've been in uh discussions with a data uh specialist to uh design and implement that framework.

Um he is actively working on that now.

We are implementing and working on adaptive changes as our policies, right?

So our personnel are inputting the information into the system in a manner that is compliant and consistent with best practices so that we can actually aggregate and analyze the data as it's designed to be.

Right.

Utilize acceptable existing deployment models.

I'll share that in a minute.

Long-term solutions, uh adaptive and innovative to the community needs, station 37, uh renovations.

Um, as I mentioned, one truck was too tall, one truck was too long, and so uh due to a number of factors, the decision was made to leave it at station 35.

Um, and now we're confronted with uh you know some financial challenges and and service reductions.

And because we couldn't put the truck at 37, which is where we believe it belongs, it had to go to another station that would accommodate it, which was 34, and I'll talk about that here in a minute.

Um regular progress supports the community, right?

As we implement these changes and we're starting to uh uh improve our ability to aggregate data, right?

And then strengthen partnerships, regional cooperation.

Uh so for the folks at home and for many of you, uh, just real quick uh fire department unit types.

This is a medic unit.

Its primary function is advanced medical life support.

It uh is staffed with uh paramedics and it transports definitive care patients to the hospitals.

It does at times supplement staffing and fire-related incidents.

An engine company, its primary function is fire suppression.

It carries hose and water, and that is its primary goal, right?

It also has advanced life support capabilities, basic tools and equipment.

And then we have our truck company, which uh provides strategic and tactical logistical support to incidents.

Uh you can see a number of those tasks there, forcible entry, access to roofs.

I talked about the height of the buildings uh throughout our city, ventilation, which is a control measure that we take on uh on fire, search and rescue, rescue, extrication, technical rescue, uh, and and it is also staffed with advanced life support.

So the unit deployment distribution is as defined in NFPA and ISO, ISO for uh everyone is the insurance services office.

It's the rating or the report card on how we're actually doing.

Um currently the city is at a two, which is which is one short of being a class one fire department that has implications in our insurance rate.

So uh two is a is a is a good mark.

Um ISO uses a quantitative analysis for deployment model.

Uh first arriving engine company should be within a mile and a half, and a truck or specialized equipment should be within two and a half miles.

The map that you see up on the screen now is the city of Folsom outlined in white.

And then you can see the different uh station numbers.

Uh I added the future fire station 33 as we continue to develop the Folsom plant area for reference.

This next map represents the one and a half mile radi, uh, which is representative of four minute travel time.

What the slide really highlights is the redundancy uh that the fire department currently has with our primary station location in terms of concurrent and resiliency, right?

So all the areas that the circles overlap are areas that an adjacent district could respond to and have an opportunity to actually meet the compliance benchmarks, right?

Um the less overlap you have, the less ability and resilience you have for redundancy and concurrent calls.

And you can see that some of those stations are built in areas that are adequate.

And there are a number of factors on where we can actually purchase land and build fire stations and things.

So I think that over time the city has done a good job.

Being a long-term residence, I know we've actually relocated a number of stations to uh to improve this.

And this next slide is the two and a half mile radii.

This is the six to eight minute travel time, and this is uh representative of what a truck would cover.

You can see the gray circle is currently station 34 in the area of the city that the truck covers within that time frame.

35 is where the truck did reside, and as I'll share here momentarily is where we're uh recommending uh putting the truck back temporarily uh until we can make accommodations at 37.

And then the black circle is 37, and you can see it clearly covers the vast majority of the city from that location.

So our current deployment model uh as uh outlined there, we have a truck at station 34, which again is the Folsom plan area south of Highway 50.

Um for anybody that has traveled East Bidwell in recent months.

Um that's a bit of a challenge, right?

It's a challenge to get the truck, which is a specialized piece of equipment over the freeway to provide those logistical and tactical support functions to the rest of the community.

And as important, perhaps even more important, is our inability to uh effectively get a suppression unit to the south side of the freeway.

Um given that we really only have two uh routes of travel, which is East Bidwill and um Plasterville Drive, which is impacted with in and out traffic daily.

Uh station 35 currently has an engine, station 36 is an engine and a medic unit.

37 has an engine and a medic, 38 has the medic only because of the engine closure or the brownout, and then station 39 has an engine.

Okay.

So some of the challenges and considerations we've taken in concert with all the the best practices, the standards of cover, the strategic plan, right, is um given limited resources and and again making efforts to do the best we can with what we have.

Uh the truck response throughout the city of Folsom, that specialized equipment and response capability really needs to be located in the center of the city, right?

So it provides adequate uh support to the entire city.

Fire suppression in the Folsom plan area, uh impacted again by the current congestion and traffic.

As we ramp up into fire season, the calls for service historically through the months of August, September, uh November and December uh yield higher calls for service.

Um, and given the wildfire risk in that area, uh we believe it's extremely prudent that we put an engine company down there to uh to initiate fire suppression.

Concurrent calls 35, 36, and 37 is the core of the heart of the city.

That's where the bulk of our calls occur, right?

And we talked about redundancy.

And then medic unit allocation.

Uh medic units are a unique resource and we share them regionally.

Um, however, what we have determined is that Medic 36 uh generally spends about half of its time in terms of call service outside the city of Folsom.

And so we're uh recommending that we relocate that um to another station to better serve the community, however, still be available for uh regional needs.

So the deployment changes that uh we plan to implement on Tuesday, April 21st are as follows.

Um, station 34, which is again the South uh Folsom plant area will have an engine.

Station 35, which is where the truck resided for many years, uh, will host and house the truck until uh renovations can be completed at station 37, which is ultimately where we would like to place the truck.

And and I'll just take a minute to um to announce that uh I'm pleased that our finance director in concert with city manager has approved a tentative plan uh to make those renovations a reality, uh, which is very welcome news for us.

And uh I'm excited that uh we're gonna make that that long-term goal a reality um soon.

Yeah, and it will be bringing that at a future council.

Station 36 will continue to house an engine.

Station 37 will have an engine and a medic as it does now.

Um moving the truck back to uh station 35 creates a challenge having a truck at 35 and no engine at 38.

So our recommendation and uh implementation plan is to move the engine from 39 to 38 and take the medic unit from 36, move it to 35, and then move that medic unit that is currently at 38 to 39.

We believe that that provides the best overall balanced approach to emergency response moving forward over the next six to eight months until uh such time as we can consider moving the truck to 37, which is where we believe it should be.

And I'm happy to take any questions.

I I've got one to kind of kick us off.

Um station 39 obviously sits right on our our county boundary, a knee reference to 2006 kind of study that uh where the standards were approved.

Um do we do we have an understanding of why obviously at that point we expected some call volume to materialize and that call volume just maybe didn't come in.

Is there do we have any understanding?

And I guess the other thing I noticed in the presentation what for the last three years we've we've had a significantly growing population, right?

And our calls for service are flat.

Uh and so I guess I'm kind of curious like where are those, you know, where's that trend of calls for service?

Because I would have expected it to proportionally go up with our population.

Uh and then you know, my other question is is like, do we have an understanding of why we didn't like we thought we needed 39, right?

But it turns out, you know, maybe you know, and I look at it and just look, you know, look at what we're where it's at with the radius is sure.

Maybe that station wasn't originally needed or maybe does need to be relocated in the future.

Uh that's a great question.

Um not having the historical background specifically to all of the data that was used uh when that recommendation was made.

Um I I will say that uh just from a basic response model um in the standards recovery report, it was identified that that area did not receive uh adequate response in terms of minutes from 911 dispatch to uh to arrival of fire and EMS services that was further um impacted or or uh or challenged by the concurrency of calls that happened at 35, 37 and 30 uh 8, which again is the core of the city.

So there were fewer units available to actually respond to station 39, and given the distance, um, it was uh recommended that that would help uh uh with response times to that area.

Uh it would increase staffing and improve what is referred to as our effective fire response, which is the number of personnel that would be needed to safely and effectively mitigate a fire in a building based on its hazard classification 14 right now, kind of being the minimum for single family and low low density buildings.

Um fire stations are built with capacity.

Um I'm sure all of you have have read or heard that there are fire stations throughout the country that uh that are running four and five thousand calls for service in a in a any given year.

And uh our three busiest stations uh are right around 20, well, I want to say 24, 2500 calls.

So the system and the model is designed for future capacity, right?

Because it's very expensive to relocate uh apparatus and uh and stations, particularly given the challenges with acquiring land is as um as the community continues to develop.

Um we are fortunate that we have at least some ability to relocate stations.

If you look at some of the older cities like Sacramento, um San Francisco, LA, they really are uh unable to relocate stations in a meaningful way just because there's no place to build a station.

And so they have further challenges uh, for example, Sacramento City has no ability to put a lot of ambulances inside firehouses.

Um, and so those those ambulances are deployed more of a as a posting location rather than actually having an assigned firehouse, which is which is really challenging for the members of that organization.

So I hope that answered your question, Ms.

Mayor.

Yeah, I I think so.

And hopefully when we get you know more into the data analysis, what you presented tonight is is music to my ears.

I've been uh asking for more data for a while now, and so I really appreciate you coming tonight and giving us this update.

Um, I just have one other question, and that you know, light AI uh was uh started, I think it was started here in Folsom, the company that basically can turn lights green, right?

As fire stations go, right?

So instead of using the model of you know, triggering the lights as you approach, right?

Now we can actually uh turn our engine, turn our lights green and and change our response times uh while uh these resources are being deployed deployed.

So I guess my question is is like, and I look at it from like a mile and a half radius, right?

It's just one, I could have six lanes going that way, right?

Or I could be winding through a neighborhood a mile and a half, like they're two totally different things to say that each of those is a four minute, and then for cities that turn around and spend money on technology to improve that response time, how do you how do you kind of take that into account?

I think we should consider any technical uh innovation that we can use to enhance response, right?

We when we when we identify a problem, we ask ourselves, is this a technical issue, right?

That typically deals with software uh equipment, right?

Or is it an adaptive where we just need to maybe consider changing the way in which we do things?

And and to your point, there uh you know, for many years, most fire departments uh utilize what's called an opticom system, which is uh an infrared unit that flashes and and most of the time triggers the signal to turn green and in the direction of travel.

But to your point, uh there is technology out there that um takes routing information from CAD and GIS data and applies it through an interface to change lights green and in the identified route of travel and and and I think that that's something that we should definitely be considering as we look to the future.

Um I guess I would just pause to say that that has a financial component and and one that we probably haven't um the ability to uh to really consider it at uh you know in the in the short future.

So it was before my time, but I believe Light AI used some of our system to work on their original model.

They were they were founded here in Folsom.

Or if they didn't in the early days, they were here in full sum.

So I I think we can probably go back and look at some of that information.

We can reconnect with them and see where whether it makes sense for us.

Yeah, there's uh the Menlo Park Fire uh down in the um South Bay on the peninsula actually uses I'm paraphrasing.

They're they're actually using drone technology in sponsor with the routing that's actually flying above the responding units based on a GPS and giving them actual real-time traffic data and then uh eyes in the sky uh observations of the uh developing um incident.

So there is probably incredible opportunities out there to look at those technical uh innovations and and explore what opportunities we might have to implement those in the future.

Thanks, Chief.

Uh questions, Councilman Kozowski.

Yeah, I just have one.

The uh the NFPA standard that the sort of station placement equipment placement is direct designed around or their or excuse me, their standard that they've developed.

Um what if it's not an average, right?

You said plainly it's not.

Sure.

What is it based on?

Is it is it effective outcomes of response?

Like the best medical outcomes given a certain amount of time to get there that's practical.

Is that kind of a good idea?

Yes, great question.

And and actually you've you've you've hit the nail on the head, right?

So the the four minute travel time, um, which is the time it takes us to actually drive from the station to the incident, right, is heavily based on uh uh desirable outcomes with fire growth development, and as importantly, and also considered in the standard, is the uh EMS oxygen um implications for cardiac and brain death, right, after so many minutes, right?

And and I'm not a physician, but uh after four minutes, right?

That the the effects and the ability of a full recovery start to greatly diminish.

And so that was kind of the basis of that four-minute response time.

And that's where it originates from, yes, sir.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Yeah, great question.

That was it.

Vice Mayor, questions?

Yeah, I have two.

Um I'm curious.

I think I know this, but I'm curious if the public doesn't know this either.

What kind of calls does a truck respond to versus an engine?

Yeah, in in our deployment model, um our truck responds not only as a specialized equipment, but also as a primary responding unit.

So it does respond to uh EMS calls, calls for service that originate in proximity to where it's stationed.

Um most agencies deploy a model where you have an engine and a truck next to each other, which is um arguably the best model, so that the engine can respond uh to most of those EMS calls and provide um fire suppression uh in concert with a ladder truck that then is able to arrive on scene and we talk about coordinated fire attack and the benefits of of um you know accomplishing the 16 critical tasks on a on a working incident.

Um typically a truck is located in the center of a district that supports anywhere from three to five engine companies, but generally there's an engine that's housed next to the ladder truck.

So specifically to your point, in our deployment model, the truck not only responds as a primary unit to a lot of those service calls and EMS calls, it is also dispatched to uh traffic collisions because it carries the extrication equipment, all of our technical rescue calls, so anything that would involve uh rope high angle, um low angle over the over the side or over the cliff calls, um, all of our freeway calls um because of the capabilities and equipment that it has, uh, and then any type of building fire, commercial fire, uh, fire alarms because of its access, its roof access, its ability to gain access to a roof.

Um that's one of the reasons you are kind of swapping and putting it back at 35, it's more a little bit more central.

It is more central.

Yeah, if you remember the the the 2.5 mic radii, right?

Uh from station 35, it provides much better coverage throughout the city than it does at 34, um, which is um additionally challenged with the response congestion we have over the freeway.

So then the second question is you mentioned you are going to do regular progress reports when I think our public would be very much interested in this, especially as you're kind of dialing in how to get the data and make it more accurate and um relatable, probably.

Um do you foresee that coming?

And um obviously I don't think that we're discussing putting an engine back in this budget cycle, but I imagine that data will help for the future.

Uh yeah, ultimately our goal is is to uh as soon as possible, right?

Fiscally possible to put it an engine or that engine, right, back in service.

Um in terms of uh how soon.

Um, so my goal would be um for anybody, well, we all follow social media, right?

I I think it's probably uh a platform that I myself have not utilized nearly to the degree that it could be used.

But um I have seen other agencies where they're putting out like monthly progress reports, calls for service, number of alarms, this, that.

Um I think that the the public would be interested in that information.

Uh, but in terms of of more formalized uh progress reports, I I think that it's reasonable to think that I could come to or plan to attend a council.

Well, I come to all the council meetings, but make a presentation with a progress report about every six months, right?

Um I don't want to, I I don't want to come here and just keep saying the same things over and over, right?

So it would it would be indicative too of having any meaningful change um perhaps when when we actually build the framework, right?

And we've implemented policy and now we're starting to collect and input the data in a way that is uh in compliance.

Um certainly I I plan to be here and celebrate the the uh renovations at station 37 and the truck moving there, but um uh yeah, I I just we have some tremendous men and women in the fire department, and and I think we all share um the same goal, which is to provide you know great service to the community.

Um I'm um well, as you know, you know, our public very much cares about this issue and browning out the engine.

Um, by the way, several things were said earlier.

We did not brown out a station, we round out an engine.

Um you didn't say that, but some public did.

So um, but you know, they're very much aware of browning out an engine and you know, and they want to know the numbers and when can we get it back and having that number those numbers, the data to support um that you know, we didn't fall off a cliff here that it looks okay.

Um we can sustain for a little while, and then what's the progress report going forward?

I think you know, I think so six months a progress report is very palatable to our public, I think.

Um and then also us for our information on how we move forward and what revenue generated things we can do to make sure we get that engine back on as soon as we can.

Yeah, I I appreciate that very much.

Uh it is certainly uh one of the top goals uh for the command team and the and the and the fire department um not to get into you know budget stuff, but uh we are working to implement cost-cutting measures as well as identifying exploring options for revenue um generation that will move that football closer to uh a target financial component to maybe being able to put an engine company back in service sooner than later.

Thank you, Jason.

Yeah.

Council of Leary, questions?

I yeah, I just have a couple.

Um the one thing that you know we've discussed in the past was a mutual aid agreements, and those uh agreements impact the coverage data or you know, get you closer to meeting the goals because of their availability when our engines are available, uh, et cetera.

Because you know, when we're looking at the map, we're only looking at City Folsoms.

There are clearly some other stations in the vicinity that could help us meet our goals and vice versa.

Yeah, great question.

And um, you know, I'll I'll just state that uh there are very few uh fire departments uh throughout the country that can effectively respond and mitigate all their emergencies without the assistance of their regional partners, right?

And and so we do have auto and mutual aid uh agreements with our uh neighboring agencies, SAC Metro, South Placer, and El Dorado Hills.

Um of the challenges we have for an effective notification is the fact that we're dispatched out of different dispatch centers.

So uh as an example, and in Folsom, right?

The call goes to PD, then it goes to SAC, and then if we need any one of those other agencies outside of Metro who's dispatched out of the same dispatch center, but like Plaster or El Rod Hills, there's an additional transfer and request uh for that unit.

And so there's a delay, but uh to your to the bigger point of your question, um, yeah, auto aid and mutual aid definitely play a factor in this.

Um it's not it's not a metric though that is part of the compliance data because again, the model they're holding you to a standard of four minutes travel time, and and so the model was never designed to meet four minutes if you're relying on an adjacent agency to provide first end coverage, right?

So um, but the end user uh benefit is is significant, right?

And and we can just show the number of times we've either provided aid or received aid from an agency.

Um but it but it does impact uh overall the compliance data.

It's one of those uh incidents that would be kicked out uh when we talk about actual compliance data.

So see it would it would actually make it um it would expand the amount of time that it took someone to get there on average if you are including all of those because of the way the uh signals transmitted for help.

Yes, uh that would be one uh technical way to improve response times.

Um being all of us in a regional dispatch center, which it is possible, um, but now you have a lot of uh agencies and and and other uh challenges.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh, and I just had one other question, and that was you, you know, you talked about adding another um uh engine.

Um and that would require adding more personnel.

So the is there a ballpark number uh um or amount of the cost for doing that.

Uh I I would I would be spitballing and and probably not uh confident in my numbers.

Um our first goal is to put the engine that's brown out back in service, and then as we look for additional revenue streams, cost-cutting measures, uh, you know, when we talk about build out and what this model looks like years down the road, um arguably the best model is to have an engine next to the truck um so that you have redundancy with a truck company that's not committed to primary response and can provide that tactical support and logistical support to the other engine companies.

Uh most agencies utilize the truck as an advantage tool uh when it comes to those redundant or concurrent calls, in particular in the busier district.

So um having that truck centrally located with an engine affords the opportunity to send that truck now as a second responding unit to uh an adjacent district, right?

And minimize the impacts to the community.

I think I see I saw our city manager kind of sit up, but did you have a number of yeah?

I mean, typically uh an engine company costs about two two million dollars a year.

So if you add an engine company, it's two million dollars.

So in this particular case, I don't think we'd need uh an additional two million to add back or to add back the fire engine because we have those employees here, uh and we'd probably have to add more to uh minimize some of the overtime usage.

But um it kind of shows you that the um the the big jump that you would need to get to if we were to add another engine company that is running parallel with the the fire truck would mean an additional two million ongoing annually.

So those are things that we'll continue to work on.

I do want to compliment you know Chief Solak for his effort, you know, to identify maybe some of the deficiencies in our data collection and looking at ways where we can clarify that information on ongoing uh or going forward so that we can come back and realistically as we change the dial uh of our our services that we can see whether it actually had a positive or a negative impact.

And so uh I'm excited for where we're going, appreciate the leadership and the the commentary that we had so far.

Thank you.

Councilman Burkino.

Thank you.

Most of my questions have been asked and answered already, but I do have one question.

So um you said that the medic at station 36 about half the time has been utilized by Metro Fire.

That's what the data indicates is.

Okay.

So now or I'm sorry, let me clarify out of out of the city of Folsom.

Okay.

So now with the Medic only at Station 39, which, you know, as we said is is right on the edge of El Dorado County, there is that little cut through from Folsom into El Dorado County off of um Hildebrand.

There is that little cut through from Folsom into Eldorado County off of Hildebrand.

Hildebrand.

Is there a danger that that medic will be going out of the city of Folsom?

It's unlikely unless El Dorado Hills, who has a medic unit at Station 85, which is just over the side of Ridgeview, it is unavailable, or they have uh a reduction in their uh ambulance.

There is a uh uh an intercounty agreement that that they send and we do receive uh transport units from El Rado Hills on a fairly regular occurrence, um, as well as we send them because of the unique nature and the and the and the critical nature of what an ambulance does and it the fact that it's a real coveted resource.

Um I would I would say it is definitely possible um but not likely with any degree of reoccurrence.

Okay, thank you.

And I think we have some public comment this evening.

Thank you, Chief.

I appreciate it.

Yeah, you have a request to speak from Jack Coplin.

Come on, Dad.

Hi there.

Uh didn't really expect to speak, but I picked up a blue card.

And uh, yeah, first of all, um I appreciate you know, first responders, everybody uh in enforcement and you know, fire trucks and all that.

Uh I feel like that four minute thing, just because I live off uh bidwell, and I lived here a couple years, and I'd hear maybe one or two sirens, you know, a day, sometimes not that many.

Now I feel like with this four-minute thing, I'll hear like five a day.

And I want to differentiate if somebody's you know critical, life threatening, if there's a fire, totally get that.

But I feel like especially since the sirens are so loud.

I live like block and half away, and I can hear it for you know blocks ahead of time.

And I mean, it's just um I don't know, maybe for non-life threatening, especially since the you know, the streets are well timed with uh light, maybe it saves 40 seconds getting to a hospital.

But if it's a non-critical thing, uh I don't know, broken leg or something, maybe I don't know.

Maybe there can be a little bit of a difference between the four-minute thing, which is impressive, don't get me wrong, for like critical things, but then for non-critical things, I don't know, maybe add like 40 seconds just because it's very loud and funny thing, it makes the city look a little less safe because you just hear sirens all the time and you're just thinking, is it crime going up or people just almost dying way more frequently than before?

I don't know.

That's uh that's my rant.

It's really not even all that big an issue, but thought I'd uh say something.

Uh thanks for letting me speak.

Thanks, Jack.

Appreciate you.

Uh Chief, do you want to comment just on our our siren policy?

Because I think it's helpful for the public to know um when they're turned on the sirens and and why.

Yeah, it's it's a great question.

Uh I'll start by saying that at SAC Regional Fire Communication Center, we use what's called a priority dispatch uh protocol algorithm.

Um there's an algorithm in terms of questions asked specifically to the call type nature, if it they're saying in shortness of breath, they'll go through additional questioning to try to ascertain whether it is a true emergent call or not.

And we do routinely send both engines, uh trucks, and ambulances code two to calls that are determined to be of a non-emergent nature.

Um when there's any doubt as to the emergent nature of the call, though, uh we always err on the side of caution.

And um anybody that has known me, I I talk about um you know one of the worst calls in my career was uh a nosebleed call because of just missed information on the dispatch, the call taker, busy dispatch center, right?

And uh so we we err on the side of the caution, but we do have protocols in place to try to limit um the use of code three response, not only from a sound perspective, but from a safety perspective, because when we respond code three, we put ourselves and the community at additional risk, right?

So there's a there's a balance as to um our response.

Thanks, Chief.

And just to clarification, code three is lights and sirens, code three.

Yeah, sorry, uh my wife yells at me all the time.

Yeah, code three is lights and siren.

Um yeah thank you.

All right, uh please call the next item.

Your next item is item number six presentation from Home Serve USA Corp regarding homeowner water and sewer service line protection program and direction to staff.

Uh thank you, Mayor Rethel, members of the council, Marcus Yasutaki Utilities Director.

Tonight we have uh Bill Coffey here from Home Service USA just to uh give a brief overview of their program and uh you know what we're looking for here after he goes through his discussion is just any feedback that you all may have regarding the program and if this is an item that you would like uh brought back at a future agenda item.

So I'd bring up uh Mr.

Bill Coffey.

Thank you, Marcus.

Honorable mayor and city council members, thank you so much for the opportunity to visit with you and uh let you know about the company, Home Serve, and the products that we offer.

I'm Bill Coffee, uh regional director based in San Diego, so um cover the state of California.

And uh I'm just gonna spend some time going over the products that we offer, and then I'll open it up to questions.

So, first of all, Home Serve.

Uh utility service partner is our company.

Home serve is the parent company.

And we started over 20 years ago.

We're in the business of providing exterior water line, exterior sewer line, and in-home plumbing coverage.

So optional coverages for residents when they have the laterals on their property fail.

This is a program to take care of fixing them in a quick and affordable way.

We're better business bureau A plus rated, and cover 4.6 million customers and about 9.8 million policies throughout the U.S.

Total of 1,300 partners and 41 of them here in the state of California.

The last slide will detail the partners that we have so that you can see those.

And the biggest thing that we offer is to help address the public policy issue of aging infrastructure.

Infrastructure is getting older.

On your side, there's uh group to look after it.

On the resident side, there's not.

So when they have an emergency, they have to take care of it.

It's not your responsibility, nor would it ever be.

And that's where our program comes into play.

The average age of a house is around 40 years old, and that's about how long the life uh span is of the water and sewer lateral lines.

So that's without having things like corrosion, tree root intrusion, things that shorten those lives.

Natural elements such as ground shifting, tree root intrusion, corrosion.

We cover those on those lines when those fail.

The typical cost to replace a water line typically runs around three to four thousand dollars.

Sewer lines can be up to four, six thousand dollars and greater because they sometimes have to dig up the street and sidewalk.

A very big job, many days of uh work as well as several permits to pull.

With the current state of the economy, homeowners can't afford a 52 um sorry, a thousand dollar expense.

It would wipe out their savings.

So our program is in place to look after repairing those lines, because again, the city is not responsible for those lines, even though many times a homeowner might think that when they have a water leak and they have to get it repaired.

And oftentimes it's not covered by homeowner policy either.

So with our program, there's no cost to participate.

And it's optional for residents to enroll, and it's off bill, so the city doesn't need to look after billing or doing anything with the program.

And there's many benefits.

We'll look after taking care of enrolling customers, taking care of claims, marketing, billing, and vetting local contractors to take care of the work so we keep the work inside the local economy.

It can also provide an incremental revenue stream.

So as I mentioned, there's no cost.

And oftentimes homeowners don't know that these lines are their responsibility.

Just because they're out of sight, out of mind doesn't mean that they're not responsible for them.

So the program helps to educate residents on their waterline responsibilities and again provide an alternate low-cost option for them if they want to enroll.

And no cost to the city.

Second thing that it offers is peace of mind.

It provides your homeowners something that they don't have currently.

This is a unique program that we offer throughout the U.S.

As I mentioned, 1,300 partners, municipalities, and cities.

I mean, utilities.

Um customers who enroll know that if they have a problem, they simply call Home Serve 24-7, and we have a local licensed contractor come out and take care of the job.

And we have a local licensed contractor come out and take care of the job.

So they don't have to track down several bids.

When there's an issue, they just simply call us.

Fewer calls to the city, fewer calls to you, Mr.

Mayor, and council members, City Manager Bryan about saying who, you know, why isn't this getting fixed by the city?

I don't have the money for it, et cetera.

The coverage, uh, waterline coverage, as I mentioned, these are all affordable, $6.99 per month, cancel at any time.

Same thing for extra solar line.

That one is $11.99 per month.

In home plumbing, $16.99 per month.

The first two provide 12,000 of coverage, unlimited claims.

So you could have one emergency today, um, and then another one five months from now.

Each time the contractor rolls up, there's $12,000 in place, direct bill to our company, no out of pocket for your resident.

The in-home plumbing provides $3,000 of coverage, unlimited claims as well, $16.99 per month.

And even covers a cog toilet.

So if a resident had an issue, they call us, the contractor comes out, takes care of it, goes on to the next job.

There's never any forms or paperwork, no deductible, just simply the monthly payment.

And they have the coverage in place.

We uh with the in-home plumbing, it also covers any lines under the slabber basement.

So the lines inside the home as well as under the slab.

As I mentioned, there's also a revenue stream for the city.

It can provide uh in this case a little over $14,000 per year.

Optional if you'd like to have that.

If not, you can forego the revenue stream.

Some do, some don't, and uh pass the savings on to your residents.

The way we market, we only market with direct mail, so we're not gonna be knocking on doors, we're not gonna be sending any emails, pestering your residents, just simply up to three letters a year.

The city would review and approve each one before they go out.

And then when residents receive the letter, they can either mail it back to us to enroll, or they can call us, or they can go online.

Uh once customers enrolled, our big priority is to check how jobs are handled.

So we send out a survey afterward, see how the contractor did, how our call center did, because they're serving nearly five million customers.

And with that, we receive an average of 4.8 out of five in the last few years.

So very high.

We do get ones about the contractors that don't cut it.

And when that happens, we evaluate do we need to vet some other ones and drop those?

So we look at that constantly to make sure that we're serving your community well.

In addition, as I mentioned, up to three mailings per year.

The marketing makes it clear that the programs offered by home serve and not the city.

We sign the letter so that uh it simply by approving the program, council will allow us to offer the program to your residents, giving them something they don't currently have in this optional program.

The use of the city logo is required for us to market the program to the city.

Again, it's offered at no charge, but we do need the logo for the envelope so that when your residents receive it, they know that you're participating in the program and that you're fully vetted our company.

And that's why we come to the city first with the program, give you a chance to know about our company, what we offer the products so that we can custom tailor them to your residents, which we've uh worked with Marcus to do so far.

And the agreement as well, it's a three-year agreement.

And because we're handling all the building, the city is fully indemnified from any legal action.

So I'll open up to questions.

It is uh it does require a city uh signature on it, and it's a five-page agreement that we've provided to both Marcus and Brian to review.

And tonight's presentation was to present, answer any questions, and then see if it's something that you'd like to move forward with.

So we uh look forward to the opportunity to possibly partner with the city, and I'm gonna open it up to questions.

Thanks, Mr.

Coffey.

Uh, Councilmember Aquino.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um, my question is more for city staff.

It sounds like a service that many residents may be interested in, but there must be other companies that provide this service.

So why would we be entering an agreement with this company rather than ABC Company or XYZ company?

Why would we be giving preference to somebody over the other?

I don't recall any sort of presentation like this ever coming in my time on the council.

Yeah, so so I asked that that that same question, you know.

And uh frankly, I haven't necessarily met other companies that do this type of work.

Maybe they are out there.

Uh I had the opportunity to meet with uh Mr.

Coffee at the city managers conference for the League of Cities, and um I was intrigued by the uh the opportunity, and uh you know, especially becoming more familiar with the city, and we have older areas uh in the historic district or even some of our subdivisions that are getting older with more mature trees, there's a great greater chance of having more root intrusion and that sort of thing, and so uh we thought it was something that we would uh thought the council maybe uh see some value in considering.

Thank you.

So but Mr.

Coffee, theoretically, you could just do direct mail to every resident in fulsome, every household in fulsome, right?

It you're asking for this to be have the city logo on it, which implies that the city endorses the program, correct?

Correct.

Okay, all right, thank you.

I guess more succinctly to um that the city's participating in the program.

Because it is optional.

Councilmember Leary, any questions?

Uh Councilmember Aquino asked the question I was going to ask, but I um are you aware of other companies that do this?

And um is this something I I guess this is something that the council needs to consider.

Do we want to look into uh putting out an RFP or it's not really a contract with the city, I guess.

But yeah, that I guess I would first we we have this just as a presentation, there's no action intended tonight.

We want to get feedback to see if this is something that the council would like us to come back with more information and a formal um you know agreement to consider or something different, you know.

So yeah, to answer your question, we don't have any competitors.

We're in over 40 states.

Sometimes we have regional competitors, somebody that might be in the county, for example, that offers a program like this, but it's it's rare.

Uh to date, over the 22 years, we've saved customers over 2.5 billion dollars in repair cost savings.

We handle a few thousand dollars um a few thousand jobs per day.

Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor Orba, questions?

Councilmember Kazowski?

I don't have any questions.

I the uh program scenes seems of value, and I wouldn't be a like opposed to it so long as we're not precluded from adding other programs as they may appear before us.

I think my only question, the 14,000, is that based on sort of sign-ups, or is that it like how how do you guys structure that as an annual number?

Uh it's an annual number and it's paid up front.

So let's say that the council approved the program tonight, which we're not voting on.

About two months later, we launched the program.

Uh we use that time in between to put together social media information, website information, et cetera.

So once we launch, then it's available to all the residents.

So you guys take the risk on how many people sign up or don't sign up.

Yes.

And you get that funds regardless of enrollments.

So after the first letter launches, the first um annual fee goes out to you, and then each year after that, with the first letter of that year, the same thing.

Okay.

All right.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Coffey.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

And we don't have any public comment on this item, so yeah, I I guess um is there any objections to us bringing this out back at a later meeting for council action.

Again, I I it sounds like a valuable service, and one that I as a homeowner may be interested in purchasing.

I just don't see why this needs city involvement.

Um, it implies our endorsement of it.

Um, and I I just don't think I'm comfortable with that.

I mean, if a majority of the council wants you to bring it back, I have no issue with that.

Doesn't it just means I may not support it.

Sure.

I agree.

I think if it comes back, you know, like the kind of the pros and cons of us being involved or not being involved, I think would be helpful.

I mean, I think uh what I've heard some of the concerns would be is are there other competitors out there that would be interested in this?

And with us having allowing a logo that would give them an unfair advantage over it.

So those are some of the things uh that I've contemplated.

Um in my experience, I haven't seen other companies do this type of work.

Um there may be some out there, but I just haven't seen it.

So uh not that they have uh the not that they're the only company out there, but I think from the standpoint of I mean, we don't have to do it.

And to your point, they could do the direct mail.

With us kind of uh somewhat vetting the the process and putting the city's logo on it, I think it gives some level of confidence that it is a company that has a good reputation.

And from what we've been able to see, it appears that it does.

Um then again if the the council is uncomfortable with that, I I would prefer just in some way say, uh maybe later in the future and not now.

Um could I add one more thing?

I I I would also be concerned about what type of precedent does this set.

What about the next you know, company from a different industry that says, hey, we want to, you know, I mean it just seems like it's maybe opening the door to something like that.

I don't know.

Uh we the hypothetical I mean, we could go down that road on a lot of things.

I guess I'll take that opposite of argument of that though, is is like maybe we shouldn't, you know, put signs up uh on our sports facilities with corporate sponsors, right?

Uh, like we put company names of a lot of different things that we're not vetting uh up there.

We have parks and rec programs that are run by third parties, like a pretty large booklet of those people that we are then taking a revenue share uh on that uh and we are partnering with those vendors in order to provide a service to our residents.

So I guess from my standpoint, I would like to understand, you know, that we've done our homework and that we vetted them and we've checked out their references and make sure that they have a good reputation in the communities that they're serving.

Most definitely thinking.

And then just one item I would like to include.

I don't think it was mentioned, but uh they also have been vetted by the National League of Cities and are um endorsed, if if that's the fair word, Mr.

Coffey, by the National League of Cities.

So you know, not that that's the city of Folsom, but just uh another added kind of vetting process that they've gone through at maybe a different scale.

So we can definitely look into uh references, um experiences with some of the neighboring agencies, right, that are within the region, just reaching out to them, finding out how the program's gone since it's been initiated, um, you know, any concerns that they may have had, still have, don't have.

I mean, we can do that vetting and provide that as part of a next round, so to say, or another item that we bring forward, which would include information on the agreement, the the naming, using the city's logo, et cetera, and the the monetary value of the the three years.

So that's something that I mean I definitely can work on with our team in terms of bringing that um uh work back and just some of that research so we can get an idea of uh just what other agencies are are doing, especially here in California, and maybe even I wouldn't say locally, but you know, those that are near uh the city geographically.

I have another question then.

Can residents participate in this program without the city's um logo attached to the material yes, the only way that we offer the program is if the city approves the agreement and wants to participate, then we offer the program to residents.

If we didn't do that, it would be massive confusion.

We'd mail.

You folks wouldn't know anything about the company.

You wouldn't know if they're good or bad, if the products are good or bad.

Again, that's why we come to the city first.

I see, but they could still engage in your program if the city decided.

The only way to participate and for us to mail is to have the program approved, which is why we go to the cities first.

We could give you plenty of references, Stockton Fresno, Uba City, Antioch Daily City, many um cities up here.

Okay.

And I will clarify one thing.

We were a National League of Cities partner for over 12 years.

This year we joined the ICMA.

We felt that after many years with the um National League of Cities, the ICMA was a better fit.

What's the ICMA?

International City Managers Association.

So it's the association of city managers throughout US and other countries.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

I I do see this as a little different from um sponsors for sports fields, et cetera, because it's you know, they're just saying they're you know helping the team by providing some uh funding for the parks or whatever, but uh whether people want to engage in those businesses a little bit different.

Um so yeah, I guess my my other analogy was we send out a sport uh parks and rec uh activity guide, right?

With a city of Folsom logo on it, and a good portion of those businesses that are in there are not the city of Folsom.

We are putting our logo on a mailer that goes direct to people's boxes by the parks and rec department, right?

And it's third parties that are providing those services.

I think that's the closest analogy to me of what we are doing.

Yeah, thank you.

I wouldn't mind seeing this come back to us after you do some additional reference checking just to make sure that we know how the residents of those communities have reacted to the program.

Yeah, because I think what you just said about um or what he just said about you can't access it unless it is you know stamped by the city.

Um, I do think some residents would find value in this, um, especially in light of you know our past with our pipes and everything.

So yeah, I guess I'm with you as well.

Sufficient direction.

That is very much thank you for the feedback, and we will do so.

We do have one public comment.

Um, yeah, one request to speak from Rob is it Arvin?

I'm sorry, I can't read it.

Alan.

Alan.

I'm on down, Rob Allen.

I wasn't planning on speaking on this, but when I had had him talk, I just figured to just kind of give some input.

My entire career has been sales and marketing, negotiating contracts up to not I mean 10, 20 million dollars, just some stuff on the backside.

Um 14,000, and I no offense.

I mean 14,000 if the city decided to partake in that is like chump change into what they're gonna make, obviously.

Just something to consider, and I know you guys are gonna do further vetting.

Um, there are other home warranting companies.

I don't have a home warranty at my home, but there's all kinds of hope home warranty home warranting companies that participate in this type of work.

I do see a upside to this though, because I've also seen some crazy stuff out there as we've always always obviously probably all heard, even just on social media as far as what people experience with HVAC companies, plumbing companies, electrician out there from people just feeling like I mean huge ranges.

I had a friend who got a quote, and her electrician friend said, No, buy this part, send me a picture, buy this part, put it on chat DBT, $12 part and of the $40 part.

He came over, did it in 40 minutes, and the quote that she got from an electrician was like $3,500.

And so some good potential things coming from this too.

Just something to think about.

And I know it's just in the early early stages with him just presenting today.

Also, the references obviously checking something to also look into their paid on the backside, so their company paid from the vendors for getting work, which is a possibility, and not that there's anything potentially wrong with it, but also their company benefiting from getting paid on the backside from the vendors additionally.

So just food for thought.

Thanks, Rob.

Thanks.

All right, that will move us to our consent calendar uh this evening.

Does anyone want to pull any items off of consent?

If there are none.

Oh, go ahead.

If there are none, I'll move the consent calendar as presented.

I'll second for approval.

Please call the roll.

Council members Leary.

Yes.

Yes.

Aquino.

Yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

And Rathel.

Yes.

Thank you for those that hung out and waited for the consent calendar.

Uh please call the next item.

Okay.

Your first public hearing item this evening is item number 16.

This is resolution number 11591.

This is a resolution approving the final engineers report, confirming the diagrams and assessments, and ordering the continued levying of assessments for maintenance and servicing of improvements within the city of Folsom landscaping and lighting districts for 26-27 year.

And I'm not going to read all the titles.

And you don't have to either.

Okay, I won't.

Welcome back.

It's good to be back.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

I'm Derek President of the Landscape Service as a manager of the parks and recreation department.

I'll be presenting information regarding the L District's final engineers report for fiscal year 26-27.

This report incorporates all 30 ML districts into a single report.

As you can see here, an L and L Session District is a funding mechanism which is intended to pay for landscaping, lighting, and other specified services within a district.

When a new development project is in the planning phases, the project is conditioned with creating a funding mechanism to pay for the maintenance of the common areas.

Common funding mechanisms include community facility districts, CFDs, as seen in much of the Folsom Plan area, homeowners association, HOAs, or a landscape and lighting district.

Beyond the legal definitions seen here, an L district maintains those quality of life features that make each district unique and inviting.

For instance, the waterfall in American River Canyon North or the Art and Natoma Station, the monument signers in Willow Creek Estate South, and the open spaces throughout the district.

These are all assets maintained by the district and provide a benefit to the residents within the district.

The graph here shows the location of all 30 L's here in Folsom.

All L's were created persuading to the L Act of 1972 in the California Constitution.

The districts within the city vary in size from 10 to 2,370 units.

The majority of the districts in Folsom were formed prior to Prop 218 and 1996 and therefore do not have an escalator built in to account for the increases in costs over time.

So far to date, the city has completed two steps out of the three-step process for the annual engineers report.

Step three is approving the final engineers report and holding a public hearing tonight.

One additional step staff took was presenting the preliminary budgets to the landscaping lighting district advisory committee members last month during their meeting on March 19th.

Here we have a list of all 30 L districts within the city of Folsom.

Each district is unique in a number of types of amenities that are maintained.

The picture here is of the American River Canyon North Waterfall, which is an asset and then maintained by their L district.

Common assets include landscaping, street lighting, sound walls, open space, mini parks, and monument signage.

Here we have a graph of the consumer price index and the California construction costs index for the period of 1990 to 2025.

As you can see, it takes $2.76 in 2025 to have the same buying power of $1 in 1990.

The 2026 statistics haven't been updated yet.

Due to the cost increases over time, districts without an inflationary adjustment have struggled to keep up with the rising cost of services on their static assessments.

Here's a high level overview of all 30 LL districts.

This is the baseline budget for all districts, and there are no improvement projects planned for the next fiscal year.

The current level of service has been stepped down with each of the past two landscape maintenance contracts that we put out for RFP due to the rising cost of services.

Last year, council requested a table be added to this year's engineers report showing all the revenue and expenses on the one chart, which also includes a debt balance for each district of any.

The first column shows anticipated assessment revenues to be collected for fiscal year 2627.

This can include landscape maintenance, utility billing, irrigation, etc.

The third column, oops, sorry.

The second column shows the anticipated total expenses for fiscal year 26-27.

This can include landscape maintenance, utility billing, irrigation, etc.

The third column shows revenue less expenses projected for fiscal year 2627.

The fourth column shows what the actual district's fund balance is as of December 31st, 2025.

If you recall all the previous years, fund balance were pulled on April 30th of each year to incorporate into the engineers report.

Staff rely for the engineers report to be prepared in parallel the preparation of the city's fiscal budget for 26-27.

We had to move the date up to reflect the fund balance report earlier and decide on December 31st of each year moving forward.

The districts listed here currently have a negative account balance and their annual cost to provide the basic levels of maintenance exceed their annual assessment.

We look at each district in more detail in the slides that follow.

Staff's current prioritization plan has Briggs Ranch, Hanford Cross, and Broadstone 12 and 4 going out for the Prop 218 balloting process in fiscal year 2627.

Cobble Ridge 2, Reflections 2 would undergo the Prop 218 process for fiscal year 2728 with others on the horizon.

In simple terms, the Prop 218 process is the legal process in which the new district is presented to the property owners to vote on how they want their district to be maintained.

It is the three-step process that starts with the resolution initiating proceedings and ordering an engineers report next to the preliminary engineers report is presented to the council and the ballot proceedings ordering and setting a public hearing to tabulate the ballots.

The final step is the tabulation of the ballots, public hearing, and a resolution declaring results.

There's legally required 45-day period between steps two and three.

Here is a high level view of those four districts which are highlighted in yellow here.

The following slides will have a similar table showing some important district information, including the actuals for fiscal year 22 through 25, the adoptive budget for fiscal year 2526, and the projected budget for fiscal year 26-27.

Additionally, there's information in the gray box which shows the actual account balance on December 31st, 2025, the year the deficit began, and the number of total single family equivalent units in the L.

Each of these slides will also have a breakdown to show what an average payback amount would look like over a 15-year period.

This is for reference only.

The district has approximately 659 single family equivalent units.

The $276,809 equates to approximately $420 per unit.

If the deficit was paid back over 15-year period, the cost per single family equivalent would be approximately $20 annually per single family equivalent or $2.33 per month on average.

Two weeks ago, letters were mailed out to all parcel owners in the district notifying them of their L district's current financial state and divided them to this city council meeting to hear this presentation tonight.

The district is prioritized for Prop 218 outreach in this current fiscal year starting in May of 2026.

Hannaford Cross has a negative account balance of 66,477 as of December 31st, 2025.

They are projected to have an operational deficit of $54,482 in fiscal year 26-27, which they are scheduled for the Prop 218 process this upcoming fiscal year in the fall.

The district has approximately 103 single family equivalent units.

The $66,477 equates to approximately $645.41 per unit.

If the deficit was paid back over 15-year period, the cost per single family equivalent would be approximately $43.03 annually per single family equivalent or $3.85 per month.

Excuse me.

I just want to be clear on this.

So that their current payment isn't shown on here, their annual payment.

Is this the cost per single family residence just to pay back the deficit that $4302 a year?

This is just to pay back the deficit in the future.

So the debt currently is uh the $66,477.

And some slides in the future, a few more slides, it will show what the district is actually paying annually.

And then the their payment going forward if this passes.

No, we haven't gone out for Prop 218 yet for this district.

Okay.

So we would initiate the process and then start with our consultant and work with them, and then we would have to look at a budget projected of what the maintenance is to increase the standards of maintenance and then all the asset replacements and everything in the future too as well.

Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to be clear what what stage we're looking at in this process.

Yeah, so this kind of shows what the current debt is right now for this district.

Yeah.

That which would be added to the cost when those calculations are making it.

And this is at that time on December 31st, 2025 as well.

And if I could just add to that, I appreciate the background talking about the deficit, but there would actually actually be three components to this.

One is the current rate.

The second would be the amount needed to pay back the deficit that's been incurred.

And then the third would be the additional assessment needed so that we can actually maintain uh the assets within that district to a level that would be aesthetically pleasing.

So those are things that will all take place similar to what we've done in the Detoma Station effort.

Right.

I just wanted to be clear so if the audience is watching this, you're not just thinking, oh, it's gonna go up that $43 or whatever year.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh browser one and two is the original district.

So Broston 4 was approved in 2015 with a higher level of assessment for five years to provide for needed repairs and enhancements.

It then dropped down to a lower level.

This lower level is not sufficient to provide the base levels of service in that district.

On the next slide, we'll look at both districts in a combined form.

Both districts were paid by the same property owners for the same assets.

We look at both districts together.

They have a negative account balance of $802,156 as of December 31st, 2025.

They're projected to have an operational deficit of 228,310 in fiscal year 26-27.

This includes $70,000 in planned spinning to complete the Prop 218 process.

The district has approximately $2,531 single family equivalent units.

The $802,156 equates to approximately $306.99 per unit.

If the deficit was paid back over a 15-year period, the cost per single family equipment would be approximately $21.13 annually for single family equipment or $1.76 per month.

This district is prioritized for Prop 218 outreach in the next fiscal year.

Cobble Ridge to your reflections to has a negative account balance of 111,408 dollars as of December 31st, 2025.

They're projected to have an operational deficit of 22,953 in fiscal year 2627.

To provide the base level service.

The district has approximately 389 single family equivalent units, the 111,480 equates to the proxy 286 dollars per unit.

If the deficit is paid back over a 15-year period, the cost per single family equivalent would be approximately $19.09 annually per single family equivalent or $1.59 per month.

The district is prioritized for Prop 218 hour reach in fiscal year 27-28.

A council directions last year moving forward in the final final engineers report an amortization table shall be included for transparency for all underfunded districts.

Staff work with our consultant to formally create a sample amortization table for each underfunded district to communicate the current state of debt incurred from the pooled cash account.

Here we've provided samples of the amortization scheduled for Briggs Ranch in Hannafer Cross.

I also want to note that as districts continue to be underfunded, the fund balance will grow, and they will incur more debt in their fund balance each year.

The fund balance grows each year, the amortization balance grows, and the repayment amount will increase over the 50-year period.

Here's the comparison of the average cost per single family equivalent in each of the 30 districts.

Cobble Ridge and Natoma Valley are not being assessed at the maximum authorized rate as they adequate if they have adequate funding at the set rate to complete the necessary maintenance and set aside funding in their maintenance and approvement plans to address long-term projects.

The districts listed here are forecasted to go into a deficit over the next five years of their current rate of spending.

The current service levels have previously been reduced to slow the growth of the deficit, and the annual assessment revenue is in these districts, cannot support the annual maintenance costs or provide for long-term replacement of the set assets at the end of useful life.

These districts are planned for outreach in Prop 218 ballot proceedings over the next three to five years.

I've highlighted the districts from the previous slide here to show that the annual expenses exceed the annual revenue.

And while they have a positive account balance, that does not account for the funds needing to be set aside for long-term replacement costs at end of useful life for their assets.

The landscaping and lightning district advisory committee meets once a month.

We're in recess July and August, and we meet the third Thursday of the month in the RG Smith room at the Fulson Community Center.

Want to let everyone know we continue to have vacancies in the L districts.

You see here.

If you know anyone interested, please send them my way or to the city clerk department for an application.

We're committed to providing timely information to district residents.

With the help from our communications team, we have been revamping and updating the L district website to provide relevant documents and fact sheets for districts.

The example here is for the Natoma Station L and L District.

We will continue to build these pages out based on priority of outreach efforts with the end goal of updating pages for all 30 districts.

We continue to post all of our presentations on the landscape and lighting website for reference and transparency.

With that, staff recommends the city council adopt resolution 11591.

The resolution approving the final years report for the reference landscape and lighting district for fiscal year 26-27.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Derek.

I also wanted to say thanks for my letter.

I live in Briggs Ranch now, and the letter was well done.

I haven't gotten yelled at by my neighbors yet.

Uh, but I also haven't posted it online for those that didn't open it in their mailbox.

But I I will be doing so.

And I thought the letter was well done.

It's great to get out ahead of it and just start letting people know and letting that information seep in.

So thanks for inviting my neighborhood here tonight.

Uh questions?

Councilmember Kosowski.

Sir, thank you.

Councilmember Larry.

All right.

Any public comment.

No, we're gonna go ahead and open the public hearing.

You have no request to speak on this item.

We're gonna go ahead and close the public hearing.

I will move adoption of resolution number one one five nine one.

Second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Leary.

Yes.

Roarbah, yes.

Aquino?

Yes.

Kozlowski?

Yes.

And Rachel.

Yes.

Please call the next item.

Okay.

Item 17 is Community Park West alternative site development agreement amendments and determination that these requests are exempt from CEQA before you'll be three ordinances tonight.

Ordinance 1363 addressing property previously owned by Hillsboro North.

Ordinance number 1364 addressing property previously owned by Prairie City Commercial Properties, and ordinance number 1365 addressing property previously owned by West Hillboro investors.

Okay, uh good evening, uh Mayor Rethel and Council members, Jessica Brant with the community development, and I'm presenting this request to consider amendments to three development agreements covering property within the Folsom plan area specific plan to identify new alternative sites for community park west.

So brief background, uh the Folsom Plan Area specific plan identifies two locations for community parks as part of its land use plan.

One of these sites is known as Community Park West, which is approximately 48 acres at the western boundary of the specific plan.

The uh community park west site and service area are shown on this slide over here on the western um edge.

Um to ensure that the community or to ensure that the specific plan would maintain two community park sites, the city and specific plan landowner groups included language in development agreements in 2014 that identified an alternative site to the east of the primary site.

Should the identified uh primary site be unavailable when it is needed due to ongoing remediation work.

The development agreement language restricts development of this alternative site.

And on the slide, you can see the community park west site.

Um lovely drawing that I did right there, and then uh the alternative park site over here uh to the east.

Uh subsequent to this, Toll Brothers submitted their Toll Brothers at Alder Creek tentative subdivision map request in April of 2025, which includes subdivision of the alternative site into residential lots to allow the Alder Creek project to move forward.

City staff worked with the primary landowner for the western area of the specific plan, Alder Creek Improvement Company, to identify one or more replacement areas to serve as new alternative sites.

After an extensive review, two sites were proposed that are shown on the slide.

These are 21 and a half acres of a 31 and a half acre site on the northwest uh corner of the specific plan and 26 and a half acres comprising two sites that are zoned for residential in the south uh west corner.

And the northwest corner site is zoned for industrial.

So staff of the community development department and parks department reviewed the proposed new sites against plan area policies and parks master plan criteria for community parks.

Staff determined that the two new sites were roughly equivalent in developable acreage.

Park uses would be permitted, measure W open space would remain protected, and the sites could accommodate programming expected for a community park.

Staff supports identifying these sites as the alternative park site.

Staff does want to make it very clear that the request before you tonight does not change the existing community park west site designated in the land use plan for the specific plan or any specific plan land use designations or allowed uses.

This is only uh allowing amendments to the development agreements uh language to replace the identified alternative park site should the existing site remain unavailable at the time it is needed.

The request uh was taken to the planning commission for consideration at their March 18th, 2026 meeting, and they did vote to recommend approval.

And with that, uh staff is requesting that the city council conduct the public hearing for this item, introduce the related ordinances, and conduct the first reading.

And I do want to note that representatives from the property ownership group are in attendance, as well as Keith Wilson with Wilson Design Studios, who consulted with the city and the owners group on site feasibility.

Should you have any questions for them?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions for staff this evening?

Councilwoman Burkino.

I do have a question, probably either for Brad or Keith.

I mean, I think we do have to consider worst case scenario that the original park site does not pan out, right?

And we have to go to this.

I'm just I'm wondering what that means in terms of a park.

So now you've got your community park split into two, which means you need twice the amount of bathrooms, you need two parking lots.

It just seems cost-wise, it will cost more having these these this park separated.

Is that correct, Keith?

Maybe you want to come up with it.

Yeah, we do have Keith.

Can we bring him up?

Or Brad Brad's in the back too.

Either one.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Brad Nelson, Park Planning Manager.

You're correct, Councilmember Aquino, that would uh that would require those separated sites would require the additional infrastructure or doubling up on the infrastructure of both the sites.

Okay.

Give me an example of a community park here right now.

Is it Lemby Park?

I'm just trying to think of size-wise.

I think Lemby is about 26 acres or so.

Um the if I can scroll.

Oh wait.

So the um the other way.

Okay.

So okay.

This is the uh community park west site.

So that is 48 acres for comparison.

Community park east site is 26 acres.

So um this is a very large um community park.

So there's um there is a community center located on that site as well.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Councilmember Leary, any questions for staff?

Uh yeah, just I want to follow up on uh uh council member Aquino's uh comment, and I'm not sure that that would actually create a doubling in that if you have one larger site, you may have to have more bathrooms on that one site, the one larger site and more parking spaces where if you have two smaller parks, you could have a little bit less of each on each site.

That's yes, you'd still have to have the infrastructure.

We would still have the that would be an additional cost.

Right.

Um, I do want to know what the options are for doing something like a public-private partnership on one or or the other of those sites.

Um you know, with you know maybe an organization that wants to come in and do some kind of a sports center that we don't have.

Um, and I'm not sure uh how we might be able to look at something like that in the future.

Sure.

Um, should this become uh necessary?

I certainly think it's prudent to do this at this time.

I agree, yes.

So do you or does one of the people from the developer staff have any ideas about public-private partnerships on that?

Councilmember Leary, I can address that.

There are um uh options for um some public-private partnerships on public park sites, and um that would be brought before the city council for consideration.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Mayor Roba questions, Councilmember Kazowski?

No, sir.

All right, thanks, Brad.

Okay, and we'll go ahead and open the public hearing.

Okay, one request to speak on this item.

Martin Nabinsky, come on down.

Martin, we would have let you speak as the applicant.

Okay, yeah, you didn't have to speak at public hearing.

I would uh Mayor Rethel, Council members, thank you.

My name is Martin Novinski.

I represent Toll Brothers.

We're a property owner in the south of 50 uh plan area, specifically in this area where the current alternative park site is located.

And as um Jessica mentioned, uh, we did seminar application for tentative map about a year ago.

And uh we believe that uh we support staff's recommendation and the planning commission's recommendation to adopt these three ordinances to amend the development agreements to allow the alternative park site to be moved.

Um off of off of this location.

We also uh like to offer up our our thanks to uh the Westland Capital Parkers so they can they have encumbered different property and they were willing to do that to solve a problem, and so I think some thanks goes out to them too.

And I know it wasn't mentioned in the staff report, so I just want to do that.

Um that's it.

Thank you.

Thanks, Martin.

No other comments?

You have no other request to speak on this item.

All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

I can move the introduction and first reading of ordinance number one three six three.

Second, please call the roll.

Council members Leary, yes, Rora, yes, Aquino, yes, Kozlowski, yes, and Rethel.

Yes.

And I'll move the introduction and first reading of ordinance number one three six four.

Second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Larry?

Yes.

Rora, yes, Aquino.

Yes.

Koslowski?

Yes.

And Rathel?

Yes.

And I'll move introduction and first reading of ordinance number one three six five.

Second.

Given that one to Barbara.

Please call the role.

Council members Larry.

Yes.

Rora, yes.

Aquino.

Yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

And Rathel.

Yes.

Yeah.

All right, that takes us to new business.

Please call the next item.

Okay, new business item number 18.

This is ordinance number 1367.

This is amending several chapters of full same municipal code concerning the sanitary sewer collection system and municipal sewer system regulations.

This is introduction and first reading of the ordinance and determination that the project is exempt from CQL.

Thank you, Krista.

Uh Mayor Rethal, members of the council, Marcus, Yasutaki, Utilities Director.

Two more ordinances for you.

This will be the first one from utilities.

And really it follows up on what Pam and the team did uh probably a couple meetings ago on some code cleanup.

And the first one is related to uh the chapter related to uh sanitary sewer collection system and municipal sewer system regulations.

And just as background, and it was mentioned before, you know, changes to and to the ordinance must be adopted uh by city council through two readings.

Uh the state adopted new waste discharge requirements in 2022, which outlined certain things the city had to do in order to comply with the new waste discharge requirements, specifically on how the city wrote and identified different activities and requirements within the uh sewer system management plan.

This is what we presented back in July of 2025 through resolution 11416, which was uh adopted by city council, and now we're following up with the cleanup of the ordinance and our municipal code to follow uh what was outlined in the SSMP.

And so that's why we're here this evening.

Uh these are the different chapters, and just what we were doing uh within each one is on the next slide, but uh these are the different sorry sections of chapter 13.

And I won't read them all, but this is where we had some minor changes uh throughout.

And really, these are kind of the highlights of of the chapter and the sections in there, and you know, primarily focused on revising and expanding the definitions to match what is current and what was in the waste discharge requirement.

So making those changes within the municipal code, uh reassigning certain responsibilities from environmental water resources director, which is uh no longer our name to utilities and then to the city manager and or his or her designee uh for whoever might be in that position.

And so it's really effectively the administration of the chapters, and then who has the authority to disconnect or discontinue service.

And I think previously was within the director's uh purview, but we wanted to make that one at the the city manager's level.

Uh we updated various references to other city departments with the correct uh department names as well, including our own, uh updating names of other agencies, you know, regional SAN is now SAC sewer, so just making sure that the names all match.

Uh incorporating new requirements for uh what the state was calling the pipe block control program.

It used to be fog just as fog, but they added debris and rags as another source of pipe blockage, so we're including that uh because that's part of our our new SSMP, and then modifying requirements of connecting to the public sanitary sewer system.

Uh those are all highlighted in the staff report in a track changes mode.

So hopefully it was clear kind of where we were making uh some of the recommendations and changes.

Uh and with that, we're recommending the the first reading and determining that the project is exempt from CEQA.

Questions from Marcus this evening.

All right, and we don't have any public comment on this item.

So I'll entertain a motion.

I'll move the introduction and first reading of ordinance number one three six seven.

Second.

Please call the roll.

Are we also determining that the project is exempt from?

Yes, thank you.

So we'll take that as an amended motion.

Council members Leary.

Yes.

Rorba.

Yes.

Aquino.

Yes.

Koslowski.

Yes.

And Rethel.

Yes.

Okay, as mentioned before, item 19 is being continued off calendar.

So we move to item number 20, ordinance number 1369.

This is an ordinance amending chapter 13.22 of the municipal code concerning water system cross connection control.

Again, this will be introduction and first reading and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA.

Thank you again, Krista.

This one is a little bit shorter, so good news for everybody in the audience.

Uh so again, the background, I won't get into the the first detail since it's been outlined several times.

Uh, but the the environmental federal EPA environmental protection agency identified uh a new cross connection control manual handbook policy that was then provided direction and oversight to individual states for the city.

It's the state water resources control board, division of drinking water, who has oversight within the state of California on water quality concerns being uh within the cross connection program.

So the state developed a handbook for California that said, okay, here are things you as an agency need to do to prevent uh cross contamination of a public water system from some private connection.

Uh so that was adopted by the we issued and submitted our new update to that handbook in 2025.

Uh the state water resources control board division of drink and water, acknowledged that we met all the requirements, and so now, again, because of uh some of those minor changes, we are updating uh our municipal code for the cross connection control plan, and we're just recommending the changes to match what was in the cross connection control plan.

Really, again, this one is even more minor than than the previous item, just updating definitions, a hazard, and the backflow device testing.

Um we are revising definitions just to match current staff titles and again the department title, uh revise the title of the cross connection control administrator.

We don't have one of those to a cross-connection control specialist, which is what we do have uh in uh in the city.

Uh revise the testing and notification requirements in the municipal code to match what we have in the the handbook.

And then there was a request, and this is in in red below.

But if it was to clarify uh section 13.22090 C, and this would be inserted if approved by council or recommended by council in the second to last sentence.

And it reads if the customer does not test their backflow device in accordance with the requirements described within this section, the city or a contractor hired by the city will complete the backflow testing of the device, and then the subsequent section says that the owner would then pay the city for those services.

And so we just wanted to add that it was partly struck in our majority of it struck it out in the the red line version, and we just wanted to make that clear that the city can still step in and do that and charge the customer for doing that.

And with that, I will take any questions, but uh the recommendation and hopefully if it sounded well, including that uh last sentence or second to last sentence as part of the recommendation.

Thanks, Marcus.

I appreciate the little update there.

Um, you know, when I read it without the red line history, it was not as clear.

So I appreciate you adding that back in.

Uh, questions for Marcus.

Thanks for pointing that out.

All right, and we have no public comment on this item.

So I'll entertain a motion.

I'll move ordinance number one three six nine with the additional amendment that you um brought forward tonight and determined that the project is uh exempt from CEQA.

Second.

I'll please call the roll.

Council member Leary.

Yes.

Aquino, yes, Kozlowski.

Yes.

And Ray though.

I know.

Well, yes, we're eventually gonna have electronic voting.

Thank you.

I'm so used to it at county and regional stuff.

All right, uh please call the next item.

All right, next up is new business item number 21.

This is the city of Folsom.

Um, I'm sorry, CFD District Number 24, Alder Creek West.

Before you tonight is resolution number 11581, approving proposed boundary map and declaring intention to form the CFD.

Um that is, and then also accompanied with resolution number one one five eight two.

This is resolution declaring the necessity for incurring bonded indebtedness for the CFD and for each improvement area designated therein.

Thank you, and good evening, Mayor, Council members.

Cece Tamani, Chief Financial Officer.

Tonight I'm presenting the formation of a new community facilities district, number 24, Alder Creek West.

The formation of this CFD has been requested by landowners within the Folsom Plan area and is being formed in accordance with the Melaruse Act and in accordance with city policies.

The proposed CFD 24 includes four improvement areas.

They'll be known as improvement area one, two A, two B, and three.

And having multiple improvement areas allows the infrastructure and the services to be funded in a phase and proportional manner as the development occurs.

The CFD will generate special tax revenue to fund backbone infrastructure and ongoing services.

These include transportation, water, recycled water, wastewater and drainage improvements, parks, parkway, and open space, and also the payment of specific plant infrastructure fee program obligations.

In addition, the CFD funds will fund ongoing maintenance and public services, such as landscape corridors and open space, street lighting, medience, and entry features, stormwater management, long-term repair and replacement, and a portion of police fire and emergency services.

The police fire and emergency services component of the special tax is new with this CFD.

As part of this formation effort, the city engaged a consultant, NBS to prepare a fiscal impact analysis of future development in the plan area.

That analysis identified a negative fiscal impact related to public safety services.

And so to address this, this services special tax was structured to include police fire and emergency services.

And this ensures that the new development contributes its proportional share towards those services and helps to avoid additional impacts to the general fund.

The next slide here is on the structure of the special tax.

There are two primary components.

We have the facility special tax levied through fiscal year 2020 86.

It will increase annually by 2%.

And the special tax ranges from approximately 2,500 to 5,700 per residential unit.

The second component is the services special tax.

This is levied and collected until the transition event occurs.

And I'll go over what a transition event means on the next slide.

This will adjust annually based on a CPI with a range of a minimum of 2%, not to exceed 4%.

And the services special tax ranges from approximately $400 to 977 per residential unit.

So as mentioned on the previous slide, this CFD will have a transition event.

Once all of the bonds are repaid and administrative costs are satisfied, both the facility special tax and the services special tax levies that we just reviewed on the previous slide will cease.

And what will be called a transition services special tax will replace that prior funding.

The new transition services special tax will be in an amount equal to 50% of the facility special tax the services special tax.

And the reason for this approach of implementing a transition event is to provide some funding in the future while providing some relief to the residents at that time.

Um in addition to the pay as you go funds that we we will have on hand, we'll now have this these facilities funds for replacement and rehabilitation of the infrastructure that will then be 30 plus years old.

The combined tax will then increase by the CPI a minimum of 2% each year with a max of 4%.

The city council is being asked to approve the uh boundary map and the proposed development plan for each improvement area within CFD number 24 includes the following.

We have improvement area one at 276 units, 2A at 329, 2B at 428, and improvement area three at 391 units.

And here we have a snapshot of the boundary map.

And so you can see the four improvement areas there, and this is located on the west side of the Folsom Plan area, a bordering prairie city road there on the left.

So with that, staff recommends that the city council adopt resolution 11581.

You're approving the boundary map there and declaring the intention to form CFD number 24, and then resolution number 11582, declaring the necessity to incur bonnet indebtedness and calling for a public hearing, which will occur on May 26th.

Thank you.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Questions for staff this evening.

No, but it's a bit sobering when you see the year 2086 on the screen.

That it is.

Questions from the side?

It'll be my 100-year high school anniversary graduation reunion that year.

We will celebrate with you though.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No, no questions.

All right.

No request to speak.

No request to speak.

All right.

We can go ahead and entertain a motion.

I can move adoption of resolution number 11581.

Second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Leary.

Yes.

Aquino.

Yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

And Rayle?

Yes.

I'll move resolution number one one five eight two for approval.

Second.

Please call the roll.

Council members Leary?

Yes.

Borba?

Yes.

Aquino?

Yes.

Koslowski?

Yes.

And Rayethel.

Yes.

Okay.

Next up is old business item number 22.

This is consideration of a partnership with change.org for a community survey and civic dialogue.

Great.

Uh, thank you.

Uh, mayor members, the council.

The item before you uh is uh another opportunity to kind of discuss some of the information that we've found um uh the last council meeting to now we had the opportunity to do a little more research on the change.org efforts.

Uh I know uh councilmember Kino had the opportunity to talk with some.

Uh I had the opportunity to talk with a representative from Bozeman, Montana, and Kansas City, Missouri.

And in general, their experiences have been, you know, very positive.

Uh they were uh kind of different approaches in Kansas City, they kind of focused more on a topic.

Uh violence was their uh kind of focus, and um the representative had very positive things to say as far as change.org was uh really good to work with.

They communicated really well.

Um Bozeman and we included one of their reports uh in the packet.

Um you know, they said they they found it useful.

Uh it was a positive experience, it helped bring ideas to the forefront uh to have some conversation, uh, some of which uh they realized like their ideas that we don't know what to do with, right?

I mean, as far as how do we uh put something in action uh and in for a municipality, there are some of those topics that they may not be able to touch.

Uh, but I found it interesting as I just kind of flip through um the the different topics in the Bozeman report, where uh this is kind of intriguing, you know, in in this day and age when we have a variety of ideas on topics, how do we find topics that we can agree on, you know, and focus on.

And so as you kind of look through the Bozeman report, there are a couple of things uh like the the topic was um uh workers can afford to live here.

Uh a successful Bozeman is one where people who work here, such as teachers, nurses, and service workers can afford to live within the city limits.

And then it kind of breaks down the makeup of those who were surveyed, uh, you know, Democrat, independent, Republican, renters, owners.

And it's kind of fascinating where in this uh particular topic, there was uh average of 93% support, you know.

So uh finding topics, and and that's one of the things that I really like about municipal government that it's not necessarily a party-driven environment.

You know, when we talk about oh, what amenities we should uh have at our park or should we uh maintain our streets better?

Um, those are things that I think can all bring us together.

And so as we've researched this, I've been I've become more intrigued and interested in this and to uh just identify what uh are a Folsom residents thinking about, what is important and and what are those topics that kind of bring people together.

So in general, those are just my uh kind of basic research uh items.

Uh uh the the council may have some other um information to share.

Uh, but we um the original uh proposal or action items for the council was to approve the city moving forward with that partnership.

There's no cost to the city to uh move forward with this.

There would start out uh kind of a social media campaign to uh drive interest into submitting topics and having conversations, and then that would be phase one and phase two would ultimately be where uh folks of the community are randomly selected to participate in uh virtual community forums that would ultimately help uh produce a report kind of what uh was seen in the Bozeman report.

That's really all the information I have to share on this.

I'd be happy to answer any questions or have further discussion.

I'll just report back to that.

I checked in with Columbia and they said you know what they the value that they got out of it, uh was great for the amount of time that the staff had to put into it.

So the staff time that was spent was educating uh change.org and so they could inform the discussion, right?

So in phase two, uh when the community has a discussion together on the topic that is chosen or topics that are chosen, uh then they have to, you know, somebody has to kind of provide the background information, right?

Uh and so I think one of the other benefits is is that we are educating or our staff is helping change.org educate, you know, another hundred residents on a topic that uh they really care about.

Uh and so even at the end of the day, if there's not action to be taken, uh there's education about what the role of our government could be in solving that issue, or maybe it's a regional solution or a state solution or a private solution, you know, that at least but then we have a hundred people that thought that it was a city solution, uh, and they walk away from that knowing what parts of it the city can own and what parts they can't own.

Questions.

No, I would just also um say I reached out to a few uh in addition to Bozeman, um Parsippony, which I think is maybe in New Jersey if I remember correctly.

Um Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Um, as I said at the last meeting, I'm always a little bit leery when somebody offers to do something for free because it always sounds too good to be true.

But um the feedback that I got, I would say there were no red flags.

It ranged from we're we're just starting the process with change.org.

You know, it's very preliminary, they couldn't really give a lot of feedback, or um the change.org staff has been very good to work with.

Um it's been an interesting process.

Um, you know, I don't know how helpful it will be this process, but I don't know that it would be harmful.

And so I feel like you know, the mayor and the city manager brought this forward.

I you know, because they're I don't I haven't received any red flags, I don't have any issue with going forward at this point.

Excellent.

And then Mike to answer your question uh for you saw it in the staff report that sorry, Councilmember Kozlowski.

Uh it was uh they're fine with with not using our name in future marketing efforts until we are happy with the results and we have we have said you can use our name if we are not happy with the results, then we can say please don't use the city of Folsom in further communications.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Council over there, any questions?

Um yeah, well, I I took a look at all of this data uh and got some, you know, I appreciate the feedback that you all brought back on this.

I read through the Bozeman report, and um I can understand how this might be helpful as an educational tool in reaching out to the residents.

There were not a significant number of residents involved in this.

Um, and so when I look at their data, it doesn't really reach statistical significance for their results uh in terms of directing us towards taking one direction or another.

But um, I mean it's free, so I suppose you know maybe helpful.

Uh I don't know.

I I sort of felt like they'd identified problems that we've already identified in Folsom, but uh as you pointed out as an educational tool and letting residents have uh have a bit more say um that are randomly chosen is not a bad thing.

So thank you.

Can I just add one other thing that I in my conversation with the communications director at Bozeman?

She she thought it was really important that um we not try to force an issue that we want them to research, but to let the public come up with those topics organically, right?

Let's see what bubbles to the surface.

Yeah, and I think I can comment on that approach.

So um Christine is gonna be our staff uh person that's gonna be dedicated uh to liaising with change.org, but I think Brian and I have both offered our own time and then we're committed to that process of making sure that it's a change.org uh process and we're there to help provide information and background, uh, but we're not trying to drive it to any sort of outcome or or even any question, right?

Like let those come from the community.

Uh, because sometimes we don't know, right?

And maybe social media is not the best gauge of uh what we should be focusing on.

All right.

Uh so do we need a motion on this item?

I think we've it's it's no cost, so I don't think we have any formal action to take other than we're all on aboard to move forward.

Yep.

Sounds good.

All right, please call the next item.

Okay, your next item this evening is old business item number 23, dealing with city council salaries.

Before you you'll have an ordinance number 1366 for second reading and adoption and resolution number one one five eight four.

Great, thank you, Mayor members of the council.

Uh, this is the second reading of uh an ordinance related to the uh compensation for or the city council salaries.

Uh this item includes an ordinance, which would be the second reading.

Uh it's the an ordinance of the city of Folsom amending section 2.06.010 of the Folsom Municipal Code regarding city council salaries, second reading and adoption.

And if that moves forward, uh the council would have the opportunity to uh adopt if they choose resolution uh 11584, a resolution of the city council of the city of Folsom settings city council salary at the rate authorized by ordinance 1366.

Uh in the staff report we provided information uh related to uh the ordinance and the the resolution.

Uh I don't really don't have anything more to add.

So any questions for staff before we move to public comment.

All right, we'll go ahead and move to public comment.

Okay.

Um first we'll have an we have an online speaker.

Um Margie, if you want to go ahead and unmute yourself.

And then let me know when you're ready.

Thank you.

I am ready.

Let me turn your volume up, Margie.

One moment, please.

Sure.

Sure.

Okay, we can hear you.

Go ahead, I'll start the three-minute timer for you.

Thank you.

Mayor Rapel and Council members, good evening.

I'm Margie Donovan.

I'm a homeowner here in the city of Folsom.

And um quick concern.

Um, after the last council member meeting.

Um about the raise.

It was the amount of the raise concern.

Um I do believe that way more than $100 a month.

However, I'm not convinced we should more than triple that.

Especially at a time which we all know the city is in a financial challenge.

I would really urge you guys to consider this and the impact and the social media chat about how this is being perceived.

And what's most important here is how this can further divide the residents of the city of Wolfham and the city council.

I think we're in a really fragile time.

For both reasons, I would urge you to vote no on this and come back with a new proposal of maybe doubling with increment.

I think the thing that's missing here, too, is that there's no increment after this.

So then we'll run another 20 years and go, oh, we're behind again.

And I don't think this has been thoroughly thought out in terms of that.

So in closing again, I would ask to vote no on this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Margie.

Okay, our next speaker will be Shelley Hudson, and Shelly will be followed by Christine Kawalowski.

Sorry, I can't read the pen very well.

Come on down, Shelly.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Shelley Hudson, and I'm a 28-year fulsome resident.

I'm here to speak about the proposed salary increase for council members allowed under SB 329.

While I understand that the law allows for adjustments to compensation, I'm concerned more about the optics and the message this sends to the public.

I want to acknowledge that increasing council salaries can have real benefits and it can make public service more accessible, reduce financial barriers to running for office, and potentially lead to more diverse representation and local government.

Those are important goals and they deserve consideration.

However, a 200% increase, especially all at once, risks undermining those benefits in the eyes of the public at a time when many residents are dealing with rising costs, housing pressures, and economic uncertainty, such a large increase can appear disconnected from the community's reality.

Even if this action is legally allowed, perception matters.

Decisions like this can erode public trust and raise concerns about priorities.

One that balances fair compensation with the current challenges facing your constituents.

Seeking broader public input or phasing increases over time could help maintain confidence in your leadership.

Show restraint, because without that, this risks looking self-serving, whether that's the intent or not.

This isn't just about what you can do, it's about what you should do.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Okay, our next speaker is Christine Christine Kulowski, who will be followed by Gwen Willison.

Hi.

Thank you, Mayor and Council members and city staff for hearing the public on this matter.

Um there's been a lot of chatter on it, and like a lot of people have said, none of us question the extreme value you all bring to the city, and there's no way we could compensate you for all the hours that you've spent.

That being said, as others have have talked about, this is a matter of optics, and and that matters, and it matters for trust.

Um how things are presented, uh, the data that is included when those things are presented matters as well.

Mayor Ray Tiel, on your January 28th state of the city speech, you said living within our means will not be easy, but it is the right way to run a household, and it is also the right way to run our city.

So then less than two months later, those of us who don't attend every city council meeting and maybe aren't uh privy to all the individual discussions and things that go on within the city.

We find out that um the city manager who no doubt is very worthy of a raise, was given a raise, and you're also proposing a raise for the city council salaries starting with the next uh election.

It just seems that was January 28th so long before March 24th, I think it was that you know, are are we now living well within our meetings and we can go ahead and start giving praises to everybody?

Uh if we are, then please help us understand that.

Please share the data with us to show that yes, the the work that you all and the new city manager have done have kind of turned things around financially and all those things that we've heard for the last I don't know how many years.

Oh, we're in such a financial crisis, you know, we have all this deferred maintenance, we we can't afford to do anything.

If that's all changed, then please let us know that.

And that will do a lot to help us understand why this is being proposed right now.

I I just ask you to pause and maybe take a 360 and look at how this looks to average Joes and Jills.

Um, that you know, for years we've heard we're in financial constraints.

Uh city employees were laid off or unfilled positions were eliminated.

And you know, in January, we're told we need to live within our meetings, but then in March, raises have started to be given out.

So again, I please think about that, how it looks to your constituents, and I ask you to pause, maybe come back, approach it a little differently, give us all the data.

Um, council member Rothbroke talked about why this is important for future council members.

That's a great argument.

Um, let's hear a little more about that.

Um I think everyone would appreciate a little bit.

A little pause and a little more data before you vote on this item.

Thank you.

Okay, our next speaker will be Gwynne Willison, who will be followed by Catherine O'Morta.

Good evening.

City Council, Mayor, City.

I was kind of appalled when I saw the and really this is such an awkward, awkward topic to speak with you all about because this is your income.

This is what you feel like you should have.

And it's really hard to stand back here and say, whoa, maybe you don't really have to have that much.

Maybe it's not all of it do you have to have right now.

I would have preferred to see, as others have mentioned, maybe an incremental increase.

Or as most of us have to get along with a uh say a two or three percent cost of living increase every year, but to double or triple your your income on this, and it's not meant to be a career job.

It just seems excessive.

I mean, we've just listened to a presentation from our fire department about the difficulties that they're having providing services to the city.

And I just think that this increase is unwarranted, and I would ask you to vote no on it, or at least amend it significantly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, our next speaker will be Catherine O'Morda, who'll be followed by Waji Equal.

Well done with my last name.

It can trip almost everyone up, so thank you.

My name is Catherine Omorda.

I'm a 25-year resident here in Folsom.

It is an amazing place to live.

And I just want to say thank you to all of you.

I've seen you out and about in the community over the years at Community Service Day and so many other events.

I've had the pleasure of interacting with each and every one of you at different points, except maybe the city manager who I've only seen but not had a chance to interact with.

Everyone has addressed this so eloquently and so specifically.

I think you have some really good information to consider, and I would really urge you to vote no and come back to this.

I really value your time so much.

I know you put in countless hours that we can't even imagine.

And this drop in the bucket can't even begin to compensate you for what you do.

But I do think the timing is really bad given the economy and how services are being cut.

I think it's the timing almost couldn't be worse.

And I also think that maybe if it is going to be done, as others have said, it could be done in a phased way.

And I'd also like to hear how it's going to affect the budget for next year.

I know it's going to go in effect in December.

So with everything else that's going on, what's going to be cut in the budget for next year to compensate?

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, our next speaker is Waji Equbal, who will then be followed by our last speaker, Justin Hearst.

Just love how you pronounce my name.

Thank you.

It was perfect.

Oh, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, and members of the council.

My name is Wajiqbal.

I'm here to read a statement of my mentor, Jag Nagendra.

He's out of state right now, an important work now assignment.

Uh here's Jack's statement.

I'm here today to speak about priorities, fiscal responsibility, and most importantly, trust.

At the March 24th meeting, a decision was made that raises a simple but important question.

Are we focused on the right priorities?

And now in April 14th, Council is once again discussing the proposed salary increase and considering adopting the resolution.

That makes this moment even more important.

Falston is facing real financial challenges.

The city's own budget shows a structural deficit.

We are relying on reserves and eliminating positions just to maintain financial stability.

In fact, recent shortfalls were addressed by eliminating public safety and IT positions.

That may provide a one-time fix, but it's not a sustainable solution.

You cannot continue to cut essential services and expect to maintain the quality of life our residents depend on.

This is not a short-term issue.

It requires long-term thinking and disciplined leadership.

And it requires trust.

Residents are watching closely.

They're not just observers, they are part of a solution.

Whether it's supporting future revenue measures or accepting difficult trade-off, none of it works without confidence and leadership.

That is why the decision to move forward with salary increases for council members is so concerning.

It's not about the dollar amount, it's about the timing and leadership.

At a time when residents are being asked to prepare for difficult financial realities.

This was an opportunity to show restraint and lead by example.

Instead, the message being sent is contradictory.

What is equally concerning is the lack of clear explanation.

There was no study presented, no urgency explained, and no clear connection to a broader financial strategy.

This was not even part of the mid-year budget review.

There's also an argument that increasing compensation would encourage more people to run for office.

Civic participation is important, but compensation alone is not what drives it.

When multi-term incumbents continue to run for a re-election, and when campaign contribution limits are low, the system already favors incumbents.

Raising salaries will not change that dynamic.

If the goal is broader participation, then focus should be on strengthening the trust and making the system more accessible.

Folsom has seen consequences of lost trust.

In 2024, Measure G failed.

Lack of trust was widely cited as a key reason.

The lesson was clear then and it remains clear now.

Before asking residents for more, the city must demonstrate discipline and sound judgment.

In access funds are available, those resources should be directed toward essential public services such as police, fire, and critical infrastructure.

This is another opportunity to rebuild trust.

I urge the council to reconsider and demonstrate the restraint and leadership that this moment calls for.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Okay, our final speaker on this item will be Justin Hurst.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor Rethel and Council members.

I'll try to be brief.

I know that I'm last speaker and it's late.

Um I would echo many of the comments from the community, including those that rightly recognize the important work that this body does.

I want to focus my comments on the concept of public trust.

Social media outcry may not equate to good policymaking, but the level of attention that this issue has brought to our city and the passion and persistence of the conversation speaks to a public that remains unconvinced.

You've heard tonight from some of those members of the community, members who I may add are staying here late on a Tuesday night, um, that are passionate enough to come and speak up on largely the same concerns.

I urge the city council to vote no tonight and consider an alternative engagement process if there was a desire to further explore this issue.

I would advocate for structural reform to the city's budgeting process in order to develop a process that centers community input early on.

Such a process would be more effective in justifying the proposal before you tonight.

I want to thank council members Leary and Aquino in particular for their leadership on this issue and the members of the public who are here tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we are done with public comment.

And uh happily entertain a motion to focus the discussion.

I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance 1366 and resolution 11584.

Second, do we need sec separate or can we do those together?

Separate, please.

Separate.

So the adopt ordinance one three six six.

Second.

All right.

Uh open up for comment before vote.

Anyone want to further comments?

I think it'd be worthwhile to just have the city manager explain or the city attorney explain the difference between ordinance 1366 and 11584.

Just for clarity.

Sure.

So the the ordinance is um what allows the council to take the action to raise the salary to the amount listed.

Uh the resolution is where the city council actually raises it to the amount that they have the authority for if the ordinance passes first.

Got it.

Any further discussion on the ordinance.

Uh I'll comment.

Um as I said at the last meeting, I don't um support an increase to the council salary.

Um as as the public has indicated tonight, I think it is remarkably tone-deaf of this council.

Um, and I also really resent uh the amount of negative attention this has brought to our city in the last few weeks.

Um I'm I'm pretty disappointed.

Councilmember Leary.

Uh yeah, and I'm gonna address some you know a couple of the questions that people asked.

We did have um a report on the budget in March, uh, which indicated that um you know we had um not had to dip into the three million dollars that was anticipated previously um in our rainy day fund uh and had made some adjustments so that we were at this time anyway, around 700,000 in the black.

Uh albeit that that sounds like a not a lot of money, it sounds like a lot of money, it is not.

Um additionally, uh we had a discussion that the money would be moved into unassigned fund balances from fiscal year 25 to capital improvement fund accounts, which are like savings accounts.

The money was moved into three accounts, an IT fund, facility rehab fund, and a parks and trails fund.

Uh at this time I would anticipate that the deficits in those funds and for the repairs um and uh upgrades ongoing maintenance that are needed are significantly greater than $700,000.

Um I um also heard the fire chief repeat again tonight that you know he's looking at additional reductions.

They have an increased need for tech, you know, to help them accomplish their job in a more efficient manner.

And I uh stand on uh opposing making this move at this time.

I appreciate the suggestions that came up about doing something more um in a more transitional manner uh in the future when we've had a chance to look at the final uh year end balance uh and take I don't object to looking at this again in the future, but I don't I agree that this is not the time to be giving ourselves a raise.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll make a comment off of that a little bit.

I think that was an important message that you just shared um uh council member Leary, that in our mid-year budget review, it was very clear that we exceeded our financial policy of being over 20 percent.

Our financial policy is 17 to 20 percent um general fund reserves.

Anything over that would go in capital replacement funds, which is what you just mentioned, and I appreciate that.

Um, and then also at the or one of the timing mid-year budget review, we were over a couple hundred thousand um in anticipated revenue for the previous year.

Um, so we are looking pretty good.

We are not in a structural deficit.

We did that work late in the summer to make sure that we were in a structural deficit and um didn't dip into our general fund reserves.

So um, all in all, we're looking pretty positive.

That doesn't mean we can go out and build new buildings and um attack everything that we need to attack.

Um this would be a $70,000 hit to the general fund.

Actually, it would be it's not gonna affect this um budget cycle as previously stated.

It wouldn't take effect until December.

Um, and so it's really even half of that for the even the next budget.

So I think there's lots of time and planning to where are we gonna find $78,000 and a $268 million budget?

I think that that's not gonna be a problem.

Um I think that's enough.

Yeah, I just want to say that I appreciate all the reaches reach outs uh that I've had from members of the public, uh both positive and negative to discuss this and to discuss the budget.

I think it's really important uh that we are discussing our budget, discussing where we're going.

Uh the city of Folsom has been in a deficit since uh I got involved with the city of Wholsom.

Uh, and there is never a right time uh to do this.

I know we talked about it last council meeting, but uh the timing is is never going to be right.

But the question is is what do we want to do in the future, and who do we want to serve on city council?

That's the question to me.

Um, and for me, I want people to be able to run.

Oh I want everybody to be able to run, and I don't want them to only be independently wealthy or retired.

Uh, and I think that we want a diverse group of folks that are up here on the dais um and those folks that are looking at taking time away.

We should we're not going to compensate them what they would make in the private market.

That's not the intent, right?

The intention is to is to really defer some of those costs that they're out there doing with the amount of time that they're putting in and hopefully getting a few more hours out of them a week because I think these are some of the best advocates that the city has, uh, both at the state level, then federal level, the regional level.

And I want to give them the freedom to have a few more hours a week in order to be fighting for this great city that we all love.

Please call the role.

On the motion to approve the ordinance, council member Leary, no.

Roarbaugh, yes, Aquino, no, Kozlowski, yes.

And Raithel.

Yes.

The motion passes.

So I'll move uh resolution 11584.

Second.

Any further discussion on this resolution?

Uh I I will just add that if I am on the council when this goes into effect, I won't um accept the additional salary.

Um, I will I will continue to stay at $600 per month as long as I'm on this council, and it won't in any way affect um the amount of time or effort that I devote to this position.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um yeah, I agree.

I'm not uh willing to accept the money, and I would put that into our programs or things that are actually helpful to our residents.

So you know, we've very short on uh temporary housing or low-income housing and and a multitude of other projects.

And I again I see this as council member described as very tone-deaf.

I haven't gone to anywhere that I usually go without being approached by someone in the last few weeks about what is wrong with the council, what is wrong with you all?

Because the all of the headlines read council adopts, you know, um, a raise for themselves.

And the assumption was that that was uh uh a universal, you know, five out of five vote.

And I I think that the residents want to see us standing up for what we believe we need to be doing for the residents, not what we believe to be doing uh for ourselves.

And uh we all got into this job knowing what the pay was.

Uh whether we had you know it raised uh or lowered our income uh is really up to the individual.

Some people continue to work full-time, some people work part-time.

Um, and I don't see this as an incentive for uh people to run, especially at you know the proposed increase of $22,000 a year.

It's a little bit insulting to say that yeah, we'll get more and better candidates if if we raise the rate to 22,000 a year.

So I'll just say I've had two people reach out to me that said this increase uh in funds would actually make them consider running for office.

Two people that have told me in the past that the reason they couldn't is is because they couldn't afford it.

That same with me.

Yeah.

So any further comments?

All right, please call the roll.

Council members Leary, no, Rorbah, yes, Aquino now, Kozlowski.

Yes.

And Rethel.

Yes.

The motion passes.

All right.

Uh we will now convene the joint meeting of the city council and the Folsom Ranch Financing Authority.

Uh, please call the roll and re-establish quorum.

Council members Leary.

Here.

Rorbah.

Here, Aquino here, Kozlowski.

Here.

And Rethel.

Here.

Uh please call the only item.

Okay.

The only item on this joint meeting agenda is item number 24.

This is Folsom Ranch Financing Authority, City of Folsom CFD number 23 for Folsom Ranch.

This addresses improvement area number seven, special tax revenue bonds series 2026.

Before you tonight is a resolution of the council, resolution number 11590, authoring the authorizing the issuance of the bonds.

And the Folsom Ranch Financing Authority resolution number 015 also authorizing ish issuance sale and delivery of the bonds.

Thank you.

Good evening again.

Stacey Tamani, Chief Financial Officer.

Tonight I'm presenting the community facilities district number 23, improvement area 7, special tax revenue bonds series 2026.

For some background information, the city council approved CFD 23 improvement area 7 in December of 2021.

This improvement area provides for the construction and acquisition of certain public improvements to serve property within that CFD.

These improvements include the backbone infrastructure such as transportation, water system, recycled water, drainage, wastewater, park, parkways, and open space, and also provides for the subdivision improvements such as underground utilities, subdivision roadways, street lighting, sound walls, and landscaping.

Here you have an aerial view of the improvement area, and it's just that little section outlined in red.

Staff is proposing to issue series 2026 special tax revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed 12 million dollars.

Proceeds will be used to finance the acquisition and construction of certain public facilities, fund a debt service reserve account, and pay certain costs of issuance.

The aggregate assessed and appraised value of the property within CFD 23 improvement area 7 is about 145 million dollars.

So in compliance with the city's CFD policy, the value to lien ratio is 10.4 to one.

And our policy is that it be at least three pro three to one.

Also in compliance with the city's policy, the projected tax burden per parcel is approximately 1.69% for developed residential property.

By taking action tonight, you're approving the form of various required documents that are listed here on this slide and included in the packet, and you're also authorizing the officers of the city and the Folsom Ranch Financing Authority to execute any and all documents and to take appropriate actions to prepare to issue the bonds.

And so with that, staff recommends the approval of City Council Resolution Number 11590 and Folsom Ranch Financing Authority resolution number 015 FRFA.

Any questions for the staff tonight?

All right, we have no public comment, so I'll entertain a motion.

I'll move resolution number one one five nine zero.

Second.

Please call the role.

Council members Leary.

Rorba, yes, Aquino, yes, Koslowski.

Yes.

And Ray though.

Yes.

And I'll also move resolution number 015-Folsom Ranch FA.

Second.

Please call the roll.

Okay, that'll be board members Leary.

Yes.

Rora, yes.

Aquino, yes.

Kozlowski.

Yes.

And Rethel.

Yes.

And we will now adjourn the joint meeting and reconvene the regular city council meeting.

And I will turn it over to our city manager for his report.

Excuse me, Mayor Rayfall.

If I could just go back to the previous item, I was just reminded that it's late and we neglected to open the public hearing.

So if we could just go back and redo that, please.

I will get that eventually by you know December or January.

So we're gonna go back.

We will open the public come public hearing.

You have no request to speak under this item.

We will close the public hearing.

Adjourn, reconvene, report.

Great.

Thank you, Mayor members of the council.

Just a couple of items to go through.

Just want to thank uh the phenomenal community of Folsom for its efforts for the Castle Park build.

Uh despite rain, lightning, thunder, wind, uh people were out there uh just doing a phenomenal job.

Uh also an update related to kind of the sinkhole uh that's near Castle Park in the Lexington Hills.

Uh that area uh on Pruitt Drive is uh is secure.

We're working diligently to get that uh street back open.

Appreciate everyone's patience with as we work forward to to get that done.

So that concludes my report.

Thanks.

Thank you.

All right, we'll do council comments.

Um councilwoman Pasowski.

Randomly, I was parked on the sinkhole on Saturday all day.

Apparently, my truck was doing something to the road that I didn't anticipate.

Um I have no other report.

Thank you.

I was gonna comment on the the work out at Castle Park.

It's extraordinary the amount of effort that everybody put into it.

And uh special thanks to our our buddy John Lane, who's been um part of everything in the community and um really went over and above um working on some pretty um extremely safe false work that I built for him so that he could build the top of one of the towers.

Well, we're glad you're still with us since we were parked on the sinkhole.

We made it, yeah.

Uh Vice Mayor.

Um I we had uh SAC RT board meeting yesterday, and I wanted to um just to the public.

They're implementing a SAC RT Scout Transit Patch Program.

Um there's five activities.

It's teaching kids how to uh navigate, um, writing writing the buses and the and the rail system, and um, you can just go to SACRT.com, transit dash patch dot program.

It's a really fantastic program.

So I hope some of people on Folsom engage in it.

And then I just also want to say thank you, especially to our volunteers.

And thanks to the mayor for having me on his minute with the mayor yesterday.

But I do want to say a special thanks to our Parks and Rec department, all the departments that came and help, but especially our Parks and Rec department.

I don't see any of them in here right now.

But they're sleeping.

They're exhausted.

They're exhausted.

And I hopefully the our community can give them a little grace.

Not only were they night and day out there, but also, you know, then we had the storms come through.

And so, you know, as soon as Monday morning came came along, they had to go and clean up all, and they still probably are cleaning up a bunch of stuff.

So just thank you for going above and beyond.

And I really appreciate our city staff for helping.

Thank you.

Councilmember Larry.

Thank you.

I um unfortunately had to miss the uh dedication for the Heart Tiny Home sites, the five that they're building for uh community college students uh at Oak Hills Church out on the corner of Blue Ravine and Oak Avenue.

But I was able to have a private uh tour of the site and explanation of what they're building there.

It's some wonderful work uh that will help a lot of students make it through college uh and move on to uh a career where they're able to afford uh their own homes.

Uh I want to uh let you all know they are having a fundraiser on May 6th at 5 30.

Uh may you take a look at their websites that's um uh online and uh you buy a table for 250 dollars.

I'll be sponsoring one.

Um if anybody'd like to add their name to my table, that would be lovely.

Um I also attended a couple ribbon cuttings over the weekend.

One of them was for Umbrella Ice Cream, which is out in the Safeway uh shopping center on um Blue Ravine and well, no, Iron Point and Prairie City Road.

Uh and then also a Pilates 12 opening, also in the same shopping center, which is a lovely site run by two young women, and it's their first uh adventure into business.

And also on Saturday Fire and Ice, which is a new gaming store out in the Palladio.

So there's a lot of new things to do in town.

I uh hope that we'll see you uh participating and supporting these businesses, and I hope to see you on May 6th at the Heart Fundraiser.

Thank you.

Thanks, Barbara.

Councilmember Kino.

I just wanted to echo uh the comments.

Also wanna about Castle Park, want to thank all the volunteers, um, city staff, particularly Parks and Rec, the restaurants who kept everybody well fed.

But I do want to give a particular shout out to Chris O'Keefe.

I think some of us, multiple of us heard this from Justin from Leathers, who was kind of the big boss out there.

But he said of the 25 plus years that he's been doing these community builds, the 300 plus parks that he's built, um, he said Chris O'Keefe was in the top two or three percent of any staff member he'd ever worked with.

So thank you so much to Chris for coordinating all that effort.

It's awesome.

Here, here, yeah.

Uh I've got a few announcements tonight.

Well, we'll first off uh just an update on Sacramento Transportation Authority.

Uh, they are uh continuing work and discussion on a VMT mitigation bank.

Uh, SACOG is also working on a VMT uh vehicle miles traveled uh mitigation bank.

Uh and so council member Kozlowski as our representative for SACOG and I will be um talking about the potential overlapping of those efforts and and how they impact uh potential projects and fulswomen in our region.

Uh Saturday night, uh I had the honor of attending the Blue Star Moms uh gala, where we were able to announce uh that Vargas Andrews Way is going to be named in Folsom after uh Sergeant Tyler uh Vargas Andrews.

Uh he was a Marine that was injured in the uh evacuation of Kabul uh years ago.

Um some of you might have been at the rodeo uh welcome in home uh a couple years ago.

Uh he now lives in Tennessee, but he went to Folsom High here.

He enlisted at 19.

Uh he was a hometown hero, and so Blue Star Moms had approached me about naming a street uh after him.

And uh I asked Hole Brothers, so I know they were here earlier, um, but we also I also want to express my appreciation to them uh because when I brought the idea up to him, they went, absolutely, we would we would love to to honor one of our veterans.

Uh we have the gold star streets for our fallen veterans uh in my district and atomas heights, uh Dean Way, uh McKernan, a number of those that have the gold star on them uh for our fallen veterans.

Uh we have World War One, World World War II and Vietnam veterans that are honored in that way.

Um so this will be our first Silver Star, uh, but it'll be a similar street uh design uh for that.

So we shared some of the photo mock-ups of that street sign.

Uh, but the idea is is to bring recognition uh to our Silver Star veterans and their families and what they've gone through.

Uh the other cool thing I think about this is that this street uh that was selected is uh right on one of the city parks uh and a school site.

Uh and so one of the things I love about the Gold Star Streets is it encourages you to look up that person's story, right?

And read that and understand what that person sacrificed uh for our city uh and for our freedom.

And I hope this does the same as those kids are going to school there as people are going to play at the park.

Um, they look up 50 years from now, 100 years from now, and read the story of Tyler uh and what he did for uh uh for our folks uh over in Kabul and what him and his family went through and the sacrifices that they all made.

So uh thank you most off uh to Sergeant Tyler Vargas Andrews uh for his service and for allowing us to tell his story.

Uh Thursday, uh I am going to be presenting a proclamation to the Vex Robotics uh crew.

They're headed to St.

Louis uh for the world championship.

Uh and so we're excited that they're going to represent they're the only Sacramento County team uh that qualified uh for this world championship.

Uh so I wish them luck uh in St.

Louis and hope they bring us back a big gold trophy uh from there.

Uh I also want to say thank you to those that are going to Cap to Cap.

I'm headed to Z DC on Friday.

Uh Vice Mayor and I are on the transportation team trying to bring back funding to our region for transportation projects.

Uh and then we also have our city manager and our police chief uh attending uh for that legislative advocacy at the federal level, which is really important.

And finally, dragon boat races.

If you have not been to the dragon boat races, uh supporting powerhouse ministries, uh it is a super fun day.

Um, there are still room on some teams if you want to sign up and support Powerhouse Ministries.

Uh, you can also just show up uh out at uh Black Miners Bar on Saturday and watch the teams at 17 people getting a boat up to speed in a very short amount of time.

When they tell you how quick the races are, it's like one minute.

You're like, oh, that seems really easy.

You are completely gassed after one minute of heavy rowing on and getting these boats up to speed.

So it's a really fun day to watch and go out and support one of our great local nonprofits.

Thank you all for being here tonight.

And with that, we are adjourned.